Shores of Megalopolis coastal occupance and human adjustment to flood hazard

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

0
7@1
3

7
Coastal Zone
Information
Center

C. W. THORNTHWAITE ASSOCIATES

LABORATORY OF CLIMATOLOGY
CENTER

JUL 15 1977

PUBLICATIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY
Volume XVIII Number 3

The Shores of Megalopolis: Coastal Occupance
and Human Adjustment to Flood Hazard

Ian Burton, Robert W. Kates, John R. Mather,

and Rodman E. Snead
@2

ELMER, NEW JERSEY

1965

PUBLICATIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY

VOLUME VII 1954
No. 1 The Measurement of Potential Evapotranspiration, edited by John R. Mather
No. 2 MicrometeoxoLogy of the Surface Layer of the Atmosphere; The Flux of
Momentum, Heat, and Water Vapor, Final Report
No. 3 Estimating Soil Tractionability from Climatic Data,. Final Report
No. 4 Climates of Africa and India According to Thornthwaite's 1948 Classification,
Final Report, by Douglas B. Carter

VOLUME VIII -- 1955
No. 1 The Water Balance, by C. W. Thornthwaite and -J. R. Mather
No. 2 Summary of Climatic Observations 1954
No. 3 The Water Balance of the Lake Maracaibo Basin During 1946-53,
by Douglas B. Carter

VOLUME IX 1956
No. I Microclimatic Investigations at Point Barrow, Alaska, 1956, by J. R. Mather
and C. W. Thornthwaite
No. 2 The Water Balance of the Earth, by T. E. A. van HyLckama
No. 3 The Water Balance of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, by Douglas B. Carter
No. 4 Summary of Climatic Observations 1955

VOLUME X 1957
No. I Study of Time-Height Variations of MicrometeoroLogicaL Factors During
Radiation Fog, Final Report
No. 2 Summary of Climatic Observations 1956
No. 3 Instructions and Tables for Computing Potential Evapotranspiration and the
Water Balance, by C. W. Thornthwaite and J. R. Mather

VOLUME XI 1958
No. I Three Water Balance Maps of Southwest Asia, by C. W. Thornthwaite,
J. R. Mather, and D. B. Carter
No. 2 Microclimatic Investigations at Point Barrow, Alaska, 1957-1958,
by John R. Mather and C. W. Thornthwaite
No. 3 The Average Water Balance of the Delaware Basin, by D. B. Carter;
Modification of the Water Balance Approach for Basins Within the Delaware
Valley, by T. E. A. van HyLckama

VOLUME XII 1959
No. I Investigation of the Heat and Water Balance at Centerton,. New Jersey, May-
July, 1959, by J. R. Mather and H. Hacia
No. 2 Investigation of the Climatic and Hydrologic Factors Affecting the Redistribution
of Strontium-90 in the Soil, by C. W. Thornthwaite and J. R. Mather
No. 3 Measurement of Vertical Winds in Typical Terrain, by C. W. Thornthwaite,
W. J. Superior, F. K. Hare, and K. R. Ono

(continued on back cover)

10341

C. W. THORNTHWAITE ASSOCIATES

LABORATORY OF CLIMATOLOGY

PUBLICATIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY

VOLUME XVIII NUMBER 3
COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

THE SHORES OF MEGALOPOLIS: COASTAL OCCUPANCE AND
HUMAN ADJUSTMENT TO FLOOD HAZARD

Ian Burton, Robert W. Kates, John R. Mather
and Rodman E. Snead

Property of CSC Library

Final Report
Office of Naval Research
Contract Nonr 4043(00)
NR 388-073

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Elmer, New Jersey
1965

FINAL REPORT, CONTRACT NONR 4043(00)
NR 388-073, OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH

The research reported in this document has
been sponsored in part by the Department of
Navy, Office of Naval Research, and in part by
the U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, under
Contract No. Nonr 4043(00), NR 388-073. Re-
production of material in this report either in
whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of
the United States Government.

PUBLICATIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY is issued as a medium
for both regular and miscellaneous reports and papers of
the Laboratory of Climatology, Centerton, New Jersey.

. Editor
John R. Mather

Contributing Editors
Douglas B. Carter
F. Kenneth Hare

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . v

Chapter I. A Geographic Approach to Coastal Occupance
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435

Chapter II. Patterns of Coastal Occupance: A Typology 450

Chapter III. Climatology of Damaging Storms . . . . . . . . . . . 525

Chapter IV. Human Adjustment to Coastal Flooding . . . . . . . . 550

Chapter V. Choice of Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 568

Chapter VI. The Human Use of the Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study NAas inspired by the interest of C. Warren Thornthwaite in the shore
of New Jersey where he made his home. Although he passed away shortly after this study
commenced, it was because of his desire to apply to the probLems of coastal occupance
the skilLs.of the physical and social scientists that the authors were first brought together.
Made possible by financial support of the Office of Naval Research and the Corps of
Engineers, this report is offered as further testimony to the breadth of C. Warren
Thornthwaite's scientific vision.

The research on which this report is based was completed in two parts. The
studies of coastal occupance in the face of storm hazards are a joint effort of Ian Burton,
Robert W. Kates, and Rodman E. Snead and a team of research assistants assembled, in'
the main, from the Graduate School of Geography,. Clark University. The studies of the
climatology of damaging storms is the work of John R. Mather and his colleagues at
C. W, Thornthwaite Associates, Laboratory of Climatology.

Robert W. Kates has written Chapters I,, V, 'and VI, and shared in the preparation
of Chapter IV with Rodman E. Snead. John R. Mather-has written Chapter III with the help
of his associates, Richard T. Field,, Henry A. Adams, III, and Gary Yoshioka. The long:
Chapter II is a joint effort, written by Ian Burton with the assistance of Rodman E. Snead
in the assessment of the natural environments of the study sites.

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of our field party: Robert Arnold,
Robert Gardula, Richard Hecock, and Roger Kasperson. They provided not only the bulk
of the field data, but many insights, now securely incorporated within our own thinking.
Robert Adams, George Downey, . Nathan Meleen, Roger Roberge, and Carolyn Ryan all
aided in processing our data at Clark University, Worcester,. Massachusetts. Denise
Baumann and Carol Ames helped with many secretarial chores, as did Lydia Burton, who
as administrative assistant, took care of the administrative details in the C.lark University
office during the first year of the study.

We would also like to acknowledge the help of Richard T. Field, Henry A. Adams,
Gary Yoshioka,, Bernard Sasaki, Douglas Gosbin, and Kanoko Sakata who contributed to
the data analysis and report preparation at the Laboratory of Climatology in Centerton.
Special appreciation is due Katsuma Nishimoto who prepared all the maps and graphs for
reproduction,. Shizuko H. Bano who carefuLly typed the final draft of the report and June
A. Yoshioka who smoothly handled all of the many administrative details that arose as
a result of the divided nature of the research study.

We have been materially assisted by all the Federal agencies with shore-oriented
missions and by many other groups and individuals concerned with the future of the coast.
Among our colleagues, Professor Lewis Alexander of the University of Rhode Island has
been particularly helpful with his intimate knowledge of the Rhode Island shore. Mr. N. A.
Pore of the U. S. Weather Bureau has also been extremely helpful in contributing his time

and knowledge to aid in the analysis of coastal storm damage. Both the U. S. Weather
Bureau in Washington and the U.S. Coast and Geodetic SurvEy in Rockville, Maryland,
have been most helpful in making available their records of tide heights and storm damage.
We have tried to acknowledge the many individuals who assisted the field party in the body
of the text.

, Finally, we would gratefully acknowledge the support and encouragement of the
sponsoring agencies, the Office of Naval Research and the U. S. Corps of Engineers. They
have provided us with the opportunity that the poet, Whittier, had at Hampton Beach for a
"thoughtfuL hour of musing by the sea, " and we hope our efforts have proved fruitful.

So then, beach, bluff and wave, farewell!
I Bear with me
No Token stone or glittering shell.
But long and oft shall Memory tell
Of this brief thoughtful hour of musing by
the Sea.

Ian Burton
Robert W. Kates
John R. Mather
Rodman E. Snead

June, 1965

CHAPTER I

A GEOGRAPHIC, APPROACH TO COASTAL OCCUPANCE PROBLEMS

On March 4, 1962, a small storm was born between Florida and Bermuda as a
wave on a cold front while a thousand miles away in the Mississippi Valley another
storm was dying. 1 The prevailing upper air patterns suggested that the F[ori,da.storm
would move safely out to sea and the one in the Mississippi Valley would proceed north-
ward. Neither storm behaved as indicated. Instead, the Florida storm moved north-
ward and the Mississippi Valley storm moved eastward meeting over the Cape Hatteras
area and spawning the great Atlantic storm of March 6-7, 1962.

With the elongation of a nearly circular wind system, and with winds of 50 miles
per hour blowing over a fetch upwards of 1, 200 miles, a storm surge developed that
battered the coast of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North
Carolina through three successive high tides. The battering and erosive action over
such a prolonged period caused damage of about $190, 600,'000 and an estimated loss
of 34 Lives. Before the storm was over it sent swells southward to the Florida coast
causing heavy damage to shore installations there.

Convergence of Factors

Storm damage and crisis. The storm of March 6-7, 1962 focused the
attention of the nation for a brief moment on the outer'shore that borders the area of
most intensive settlement in the United States. The span of such attention though is
small, and the remote public quickly turns to other concerns. Local attention persists
longer: for public agencies unti[ commitments generated in the crisis of the storm are
fulfilled, for communities until the process of rebuilding and reconstruction is completed,
and for the few individuals who suffered deep and often uncompensable hurt, a very long
time.

For the authors of this report, the storm also generated interest in problems
of coastal occupance. But this study would probably have not been undertaken except for
a convergence of other factors. These indicated that there was a special utility in
seeking a geographic approach to coastal occupance problems.

Flood plain studies. Beginning with the publication in 1945 of White's classic
treatise on Human Adjustment to Floods, there has emanated from the University of

1U. S. House of Representatives, Improvement of Storm Forecasting Procedures,
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, 87th Congress-, 2nd Session, April 4, 1962; and John Q.. Steward, "The
Great Atlantic Coast Tides of 5-8 March 1962, Weatherwise, Vol. 15, No. 3, June 1962,
pp. 117-120..

435

436

Chicago a set of studies dealing with flood plain occupance in the United States.1 These
studies2have grown in detail and sophistication; they have stimulated valuable work else-
where, but their basic theme remains, much as White suggested in his original work.
Flood plain occupance represents an interaction between the requirements of a human sys-
tem with its economic, social, and geQgraphical relationships, and a hydrologic system
marked by strong elements of uncertaintyi In such a complex system, the optimal pattern
of occupance is not easily generalized or even identified. But the choice of a pattern is much
improved by considering the whole range of possible adjustments. These include such things
as modification of the river's regime as well as the guiding and changing of human activities.

Two of the authors have been deeply involved in these flood plain studies and,
at the time of the storm, had begun to think about the relationship between flood hazard
adjustment and other types of natural hazard problems.

The natural hazard syndromq. Why do men seek to locate in areas of current
high natural hazard? What do they know and do about the hazard? How does this compare
with what they might know or do if they shared in the most advanced current scientific
and technological knowledge? These are the kinds of questions that had been posed in the
flood plain studies and seemed appropriate to ask more widely in areas of other natural
hazards. In a classification of natural hazards, the notion was set forth that hazards of
geophysical origin seem to have unique propertieO The magnitude of energy involved
in geophysical hazards seem.. to place them beyond man's total control and thus there is a
special need for a pattern of adjustment that seeks more than control of nature. An
investigation of tidal or saltwater flooding appeared to be a very togical step in extending
the flood plain studies to a new dMension while still retaining links in common with the
previous studies and methodology. Thus when the storm occurred, the authors already
possessed some previous experience in hazard investigation, a small body of -theory, a

I University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Papers: No. 29,
Gilbert F. White, Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographical Approach to the Flood
Problem in the United States, 1942; No. 56, Francis C. Murphy, Regulating FLood-Plain
Development, 1958; No. 57, Gilbert F. White, et at., Changes in Urban Occupance of
-Flood Plains in the United States, 1958; No. 65, John k. Sheaffer, Flood Proofing: An
Element in a Flood Damage Reduction Program, 1960; No. 70, Gilbert F. White, et at. ,
Papers on Flood Problems, 1961; No. 75, Ian Burton, Types of Agricultural Occupance
of Flood Plains in the United States, 1962; No. 78, Robert W. Kates, Hazard and Choice
Preception in Flood Plain Management, 1962; No. 93, Gilbert F. White, Choice of
-@djustrnent to Floods, 1964; and No. 98, Robert W. Kates, Industrial Flood Losses:
Damage Estimation in the Lehigh Valley, 1965.
2
See the comprehensive bibliography published by the Tennessee Valley
Authority, Flood Damage Prevention, An Indexed Bibliography (Knoxville: Tennessee
.Valley Authority, Technical Library, 1964).
3
Ian Burton and Robert W ' Kates, "The Perception of Natural Hazards in
Resource Management, " Natural Resources journal, Vol. 3 (Jan. 1964), pp. 414-417.

437

larger set of empirical relationships, and a desire to extend existing insights to new areas.
But, the regional relationships on the Eastern Seaboard pose a special challenge to
geographers as well.

The growth of Megalopolis. From southern New Hampshire to northern
Virginia live over 40 million people in a region of coalescing urban communities made
famous by jean Gottman's study of Megalopolis. 1 Here in less than 2 percent of the
continental United States is found 21 percent of its people and an even higher proportion
of its wealth. In the 1950-60 decade population increased by 18 percent, about the
national average. But even faster than the increase in population is the growth of demand
for outdoor recreation opportunities, many of which are. found on the.outer shore.

Pressures for shore development, the demand for recreation. It is estimated
that the demand for outdoor recreation has increased in the post-war period at five times
the rate of increase of population and income.2 The major pressure for outdoor
recreation in Megalopolis takes place on the shore. An investigation of recreation prefer-
ences of residents of the Delaware River Basin indicated marked preference for ocean
1 3
beaches as the major outdoor recreation area.

This pressure could be exp ected to have a marked effect on the expansion of
development in shore areas and subsequent increase in damageable property. However,
at the time of the March 6-7, 1962 storm, little was known about the rates of growth and
development along the shore or about the other major problems of coasta I occupance and
human adjustment.

Major Problems

The growth and development of coastal occupance. Who locates close to the
sea and why? What is the rate of growth of coastal settlement and what seems to be the
major factors influencing this growth? Answers to these questions are basic to an
understanding of the distribution and kinds of coastal occupance, and such understanding
seems preliminary to any concern about the range of human adjustment to tidal flooding.
Thus the first goal of any research strategy seemed to lie in this direction -- to measure
the extent, rate, process, and possible consequences of the growth and development of
coastal occupance.

1 jean Gottman, Megalopolis, (Cambridge, M. I. T. Press, 1961).
2 Marion Clawson, Land and Water for Recreation,. (Chicago: Rand McNally,
1963), p. 36.
3 U. S. Army, Corps.@pf Engineers, U. S. Dept. of Interior, National Park
'Service, Report on the Comprehensive Survey of the Water Resources of Delaware River
Basin, App. W. Recreation Needs and Appraisal, Philadelphia, 1960, p. W7.

438

Adjustment to hazard. In seeking to define improved patterns of coastal
occupance, a prerequisite is the careful exploration of the range of possible adjustments
to coastal storm hazard. Various agencies share responsibility for reducing damage
from tidal flooding; some may warn, help evacuate, or build protective works. But the
direction of a comprehensive program of damage reduction ties beyond the specific
mission of any single agency and it is not surprising therefore that the potential for
adjustment to hazard has never been systematically explored. Nor has the prevalence
of damage reducing actions ever been estimated or even investigated.

Choice of alternative policies of development. Studies of occupance and
adjustment are informative of the extent of major problems -- solutions, though, lie in
the formulation of, and the choice between, alternative development policies. A basic
consideration of the authors is to explore such alternative policies and the adequacy of
the mechanisms for their implementation.

These then are the major problems considered in the geographical approach;
the details of research strategy used to pursue them follow.

Research Strategy

The study shore. The convergence of factors that brought this study into being
defined in part the areaL extent of shore to be studied. As a study concerned primarily
with tidal flooding, a focus on the outer shore seemed indicated. As a study concerned
with the intensification of development under the pressures of urbanization, a focus on
shore areas within the one-day recreational travel range of MegaLopolis appeared
desirable.

Various definitions of shore were investigated: generalized coastline, generalized
tidal shoreline, and detaiLed tidal shoreline. None were avaiLabLe already deLimited on
maps-, thus a special study shore was defined as a Line along the outer fringe of the coast.
First p Lotted on a 1: 1, 000, 000 base map, it was subsequently transferred to standard
1:250,000 sheets from which all measurements used in the study (unless otherwise noted)
were derived. Large water bodies Were omitted as well as many large bays including
Boston and -New York harbors, Chesapeake Bay, the Delaware Estuary, etc. However,
Long Island Sound was included. (See figure 1- 1) The study shore, so derived, extends
from the Maine-New Hampshire border to Cape Hatteras and covers about 1, 302 miles
in all.

Special studies were designed to provide a series of broad estimates for the
entire reach of coast: 1) the real extent of hazard zones, 2) the climatology of damaging
storms, 3) the amount and nature of coastal occupance and its change through time, and
4) the extent of damage and huWn adjustment to reduce damage. At the same time, and
in some cases actually preceding these extensive studies, a series of intensive site
investigations were undertaken to provide needed depth to the investigation.

Me.

V N.H.

Mass.
N.Y. T
Conn. R. 1.

Pa. N. J.

Md.

Del.

Va.

EXTENT OF STUDY SHORE AND
LOCATION OF AIR PHOTO SAMPLE AREAS

Legend

0 Air Photo Sample Areas
N.C. Study Shore

Figure

439

Extensive studies, the air photo sample. The basic tool for providing the
initial estimates of the magnitude of the problem and measures of its intensification
through time was a sample of air photos of the shore. The delimited study shore was,
stratified by states, and sample points were randomly. chosen within each state according
to the proportion. of study shore tying within the state.

With the use of standard 9 x 9 air photos, it was hoped to have a minimum of
two miles of coast on each sampled photo. To provide a desired 10 percent coverage of
the study shore and to alLow for losses and errors in obtaining photos, 68 points were
chosen at random from the stratified sample. This expectation of loss was fulfilled, and
in the final sample, 65 points were used ' covering over-all 11 percent of the study shore,
with a median length of exactly 2. 0 miles each. (See table 1- 1 and figure 1- 1.

Table 1-1

Characteristics of Air Photo Sample

Length of Study Shore . . . . . . . . . 130 miles
Length Sampled . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 mites

Distribution of Sample Areas

State Number of Percent of State
Sample Areas Study Shore Sampled

New Hampshire-Mass. 19 13
Rhode Island 3 14
Connecticut 6 11
New York 16 10
New Jersey 8 11
Delaware 1 8
Maryland 1 5
Virginia 5 8
North Carolina 6 13

Total 65 11

Sample Area Size

Median Length (miles) 2.0
Range 1.1 - 10.7

Median Area (acres) 730
Range 102 - 3138

440

The air photos were to be used no't only for measuring the amount of development
but to provide rates of growth as well. Therefore, for each point, three sets of photos
were sought: one taken in the pre-war period when extensive coverage began, one post-
war with 1950 as the desired target year, and the most recent available photo. This
turned out to be a most difficult and time-consuming task. Flight tines have been flown
at different time intervals along even short stretches of coast and ownership and storage
of photos is dispersed. The final sets of photos required assemblage from the holdings
of the Departments of Agriculture and Defense, the U. S Coast and Geodetic Survey, the
Geological Survey, and the National Archives.

Three-period coverage was obtained, finally for 54 sample areas and for the
remaining eleven areas two photos were combined with large scale topographic maps
giving equivalent information. For many sample areas topographic sheets provided an
additional observation in time as well.

Analysis of the air photos. The analysis of the air photos began with delimiting
and measuring on the photos the following zones:

Zone A: Tidal, below the mean high water mark;
Zone B: Between mean high water and the 10-foot contour;
Zone C: Between the 10- and 20-foot contours;
Zone D: Above the 20-foot contour.

These zones were designed to approximate, in crude fashion, areas of varying hazard
and were dictated by the avai table topographic coverage. However, they have some
validity as an expression of actual hazard. The area below mean high water is, of course,
a zone of almost daily inundation. The 10-foot contour approximates the maximum
recorded tidal flood height in many areas; and the 20-foot contour contains the maximum
area of water damage including splash and spray. Thus in a highly generalized sense,
zone A is an area of intense hazard, B is the zone of the major hazard, and C is a zone of
extremely rare hazard.

Within each zone, structures easily visible to the naked eye were counted as an
indicator of occupance. The basic measurement of development of the shore was expressed
in terms of, the density of structures per,acre, for each zone. A second measure of
development, the proportion of shore frontage developed, was a [so obtained. This
frontage was difficult to estimate because of the numerous indentations, tidal marshes,
and streams. It was defined as land facing directly onto the open ocean or indentations
which had direct access to open water. Each length of shore containing a structure within
average lot size of the shore was considered developed. These basic measurements of
area, structures, and developed shore frontage were repeated for each available time
period. The results were plotted graphically and linear interpolations from these graphs
gave a comparable set'of measurements for three time periods -- 1940, 1950, and 1960,

Extensive studies: the climatology of damaging storms. A special study under-
taken by one of the authors and his colleagues at the Laboratory of Climatology involved
the assemblage of a distinctive climatology of damaging storms: occurrence, frequency,

441

damage characteristics, and synoptic patterns. The results of this study are presented
in Chapter 111.

Extensive studies, other surveys. A collection of government studies of the
shore were obtained and surveyed to provide estimates of tidal f Lood damage and the
extent of protective works. A brief mail survey of the warning networks along the study
shore was also made. . A more elaborate extensive study requiring nine months and
involving contact with 150 communities, to ascertain the extent of zoning and land use
controls for reducing tidal flood damage was completed.

Intensive studies. The extensive studies provided first estimates of many of
the components of the problems of coastal storm hazard. But in themselves they provided
little understanding of the processes involved. . For this purpose, more intensive
investigations were designed. These case studies of various occupance situations involved
upwards of five man-weeks of investigation each. For e 'ach of these study sites, data
were obtained on the following: physical characteristics including hazard, an account
of growth and development including settlement history, past and present land use,
effects of protection measures, adjustments to hazard, and a prognosis of future
development.

The fifteen study.sites were not randomly chosen, but were selected from a much
larger List of shore areas distinguished by the existence of published surveys and
materials; estimates of hazard, maps, photos, tidal gage records, and the Like. The
strategy involved was to. make fullest use of existing documentation and to use study
personnel for investigations uniquely related to the problems of. the study. From the list
of some 71 possible sites, the fifteen chosen were to provide variation in region, hazard,
physical type, and existing settlement. Three sites were almost adjacent to each other
but different in other ways -- to provide comparisons within a common regional setting.
(S ee figure 1- 2 and tab Les 1- 2, 1- 3, 1- 4.

A variety of techniques were used to obtain the Irequired data at each study site
and these included mapping of landforms, hazard zones, , and land use; structured inter
views with beach users, seasonal and permanent residents, and commercial interests; and
unstructured interviews with public officia Ls, rea I estate men, construction firms, and
sub-dividers. In all, over 1000 interviews were obtained.

The land use data that were collected involved the reconstruction of patterns
of settlement in thepast using aerial photographs and maps. The land use classification
differed from conventional classifications since it was designed to study coastal
occupance that is strongly characterized by a recreational and residential use. In this
classification, transportation is associated with the land use that it serves; commercial,
industrial, recreational,etc. The-public classification includes quasi-public institutions

The hazard zones used in the intensive study are the same as used in the air
photo analysis (p. 440) with the addition of Zone F: the zone of maximum tidal flooding.

442

Table 1-2

Physical Characteristics of Study Sites

Characteristics
Length of Beach of Average
Size in Coastline Physical Width Morphological
No. -Study Site Acres in Miles Type in Feet Changes

1. Pt. Judith, R. 1. 1750 8.3 Glacial plain 100-300 Cliffs stable
beach retreating

2. Wellfleet, Mass. 2328 5.8 Morainic 50-300 Cliffs and
upland with beach retreating
c liffs

3. ViLlas,.N.J. 222 1.3 Sand plain 100-200 Fairly stable

4. Chincoteague, Va. 3604 17.0 Barrier island 0-50 Fairly stable

5. Lynn-Nahant, Mass. 596 7.2 Glacial plain 0-300 Fairly stable

6. Fairfield,, Conn. 1678 4.0 Glacial plain 0-150 Fairly stable

7. Hampton Beach, N. H. 2820 4.3 Barrier islaud 100-300 Cliffs stable
beach retreating

8. Montauk, N.Y. 3238 8A Moranic 50-200 Beach stable
upland with cliffs retreating
cliffs

9. Sandy Hook, N.J. 1065 6.8 Barrier bar 0-400 Beach r6treating

10. Cape May,. N. J. 690 1.6 Sand plain 0-200 Beach retreating

11. Wildwood Crest, N.J. 995 Barrier island 300-500 Beach stable

12. Dennis, Mass. 2178 4.4 Glacier plain 100-350 Beach stable
0

13. Nags Head, N.C. 3505 9.3 Barrier island 150-400 Beach retreating
14. Bethany Beach,. Del. 3474 7.5 Sand plain & 100-200 Beach retreating
barrier bar

15. Assateague, Va. 3400 7.1 Barrier bar 200-300 Beach retr eating

Me.

Vt. N. H.
Hampton
Beach (7)

Lynn-Nahant
Mass. (5)

W eet(2)

N. Y.
Conn. R. L,
Dennis(12)
-21
Pt JuditK-( 'I)
'Fairf ie@O (6)

Montauk (8)

Pa. N. J.
Sandy Hook (9)

Md iTra 5 3) Wildwood Crest (11)
Del.
Cape May (10)
Bethany Beach (14)

,fk
co ue (41.,

'Assateague(15)
Va.

LOCATION OF STUDY SITES

Legend

Nags Head (13) (4) Study Site and Number
I
Study Shore
@co

N. C.

Figure 1-2

443

Table 1-3

Settlement Characteristics of Study Sites

Zonal Distribution of
No. Study Site Study Sites in Percent No. of Over-all Occupance
Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Structures Density Type
(Tidal (Tide to (10 to (Above Structures
Zone) 10 feet) 20 feet) 20 feet) per Acre

1. Pt. Judith 14 11 18 57 2018 1. 15 Vi L [age
shore
2. WeLlfleet 16 7 17 60 402 0. 17 Village
shore
3. Villas 25 73 2 316 1.42 Village
shore
4. Chincoteague 47 53 1509 0.42 Vi I [age
shore
5. Lynn-Nahant 3 15 67 15 1142 1.92 Urban
shore
6. Fairfield 16 47 20 17 1874 1.12 Urban
shore
7. Hampton Beach 72 8 16 4 2360 0.84 Summer
shore
8. Montauk 2 13 13 72 616 0.19 Summer
shore
9. Sandy Hook 10 76 10 4 699 0.66 Summer
shore
10. Cape May 1 78 21 949 1.38 Summer
shore

1L Wildwood Crest 40 57 1057 1.06 Summer
shore

12. Dennis 25 52 41 5 3942 1.81 Summer
shore
13. Nags Head 22 52 20 6 871 0.25 Summer
shore
14. Bethany Beach 10 85 5 1216 0.35 Summer
shor
15. Assateague 26 34 3 37 6 0.91 Empty
shore

444

Table 1-4

Hazard Characteristics of Study Sites

Approx. Percent
No. Study Site Number of Severe Stormsa Tota I Hurricane Height of Study
1935-44 11945-54 1955-64 1935-64 Frequency b Flood Area
Recordc Flooded

1. Pt. Judith 1 3 5 9 0 9-13 25

2. Welffleet .2 3 8 15 2 10-15 11

3. Villas 1 1 2 4 1 7- 9 39
4. Chincoteague 0 0 1 1 1 8-10. 100
5. Lynn-Nahant 2 3 7 12 2 9-14 6
6. Fairfield 3 4 5 12 3 9-11 74
7. Hampton Beach 2 2- 6 10 0 7-13 83
8. Montauk 3 4 5 12 3 8-10 9
9. Sandy Hook 3 1 2 6 1 8-10 64
10. Cape May 1 1 2 4 1 7- 9 69
11. Wildwood Crest 1 1 2 4 1 7- 9 68

12. Dennis 1 2 7 10 0 8- 9 48
13. Nags Head 1 1 4 6 9 10-15 86
14. Bethany Beach 0 0 1 1 1 7-11 95
15. Assateague 0 0 1 1 1 8-10 55

a See Chapter III for details. Frequency cited is for a 25 mile sector in which the
study site was located.
.,b
Frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms 1901-1955 that actually cross the
coast in an 85 nautical mile sector within which the study site is found. Source was National
Hurricane Research Project, Report No. 5 -- "Survey of Meteorological Factors Pertinent
to Reduction of Loss of Life and Property in Hurricane Situations", U. S. -Department of
Commerce, Weather Bureau, Washington, March 1957.
c In feet, above mean sea level..

445

such as churches and excludes atL public recrea.tion. Recreational use distinguished
between public and private ownership and for private ownership by the availability of
public accesses. Residential use was further divided to provide information on the
character of dwelling units. For clarity, some uses have been grouped on the maps
included in this volume and this is shown as well in table 1-5.

Table 1-5

Land Use Classification Employed at Study Sites

Type Class Shown on
Number Land Use Land Use Maps

1. Industrial Industrial
2. Commercia L Commercial
3. Public and Quasi-PubLic Public
4. Public Recreational Recreational
5. Private Recreational Recreational
a. With public access
b. Without public access
6. Residential Residential
a. Single family
b. Multiple family
c. Apartment block
7. Agricultural Agricultural
8. Undeveloped Land Undeveloped

.The results of the intensive studies are presented as a series of case studies in
Chapter 11 and provide much of the data for Chapters IV and V. But before examining in
detail the variety of patterns of occupance found on the study shore, it would be well to
present the magnitude of that occupance derived from air photo samples.

Extent of Development Along the Study Shore

Structures as a measure of human occupance. The lowest common denominator
of occupance used in the extensive survey is the density of structures visible on the 9 x 9
air photos. These structures may range from large chicken coops to factory buildings
but they seem to provide a reliable index to human occupance of the shore and thus to
damage potentia I.

The accuracy of sample estimates. The two measures that were used to make
sample estimates of development are presented in tables 1-6 and 1-7. They are derived
by the simple extrapolation of the total observations from the 65 sample areas. The basic
assumption in presenting these estimates based on sample data is that the sample provides
an unbiased estimate of the parameters of the study shore, density, and ocean frontage
developed. The sampling method, because of constraints of data and funds, employs

446

Table 1-6

Sample Estimates of Area and Structures
Subject to Coastal Storm Hazard

Hazard Zones
A B C
Tidal Tide- 10 feet 10-20 feet

Area (acres) 59,370 196,490 83,690
1940
Structures 4,700 68,800 45,200
Structures/acre .08 .35 .54

1950
Structures 7,100 86,500 56,900
Structures /acre .12 .44 68

1960
Structures .9,500 114,000 70,300
Structures/acre .16 .38 .84

Table 1-7

Sample Estimates of Percent of Ocean
Frontage Developed with Structures

Length of Study Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 1, 302 miles

Percent Developed Frontage
1940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3
1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0
ig6o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4

447

elements of simpLe random, stratified, and cluster sampling. Because of its underlying
random selection process, the estimates appear unbiased. However, more important
than the question of bias is the need to have an estimate of the variance. By what order of
magnitude might the sample estimates differ from the true parameters? Such variance
may be stated as an interval estimate at some fixed level of probability.

A statistical exploration of alL the issues involved in estimating this interval is
beyond the interest of this volume and possibly beyond the competence of the authors or
even existing sampLe theory. A rigorous estimate of the variance would consider the
1
65 sample areas as point estimates of a finite universe of two-mile sectors . If this was
done the true proportion of ocean frontage developed in 1960, estimated from the sample
as .214, might actually faLl between, . 120 and .308 in 95 percent of the samples drawn
in the same way.

. The other extreme wouLd be to assume that the independent observations were
the approximately 100-foot units used in the estimate of frontage developed. In such a
sample the true value of the proportion estimated by the sampLe proportion 2of . 214 would
fa I I between . 205 and . 222 in 95 percent of sample drawn in the same way.

If sampling variability was the only source of error, the variance interval
probably falLs between these two extreme assumptions. But there are clerical and
observational errors also and on the whole, these errors are probably biased towards
underestimation. Structures were missed when obscured by foliage or poor photo quality
and tend to coalesce in urban areas.

In sum these caveats suggest the following interpretation. The sample estimates
are valued because they provide useful information available for the first time. They are
probably accurate within an order of 25 percent. The greatest confidence may be pLaced
in the variation in time and space that they provide, for here relative measurements -_
growth over time -- densities in zones -- arestable and derived from the same consistent
measurement process.

Sample estimates of area and structures. The critical hazard zones (A and B)
below the ten-foot contour cover about 400 square miles or 255,860 acres, aLong the study
shore. An additional 130 square miles (83, 690 acres ) lie between elevation. 10 and 20
feet ms[, an area of potential but rare hazard. Within this total area.. 1-1/2 times the size
of New York City, an estimated 200, 000 structures cou Ld be found in 1960 and 125, 000
were below the crititaL 10-foot contour. '(See table 1-6)

I Ignoring the variation in sam I area size.
2 Calculated by p - 1. 96 pq N n + 1.96 Fpq N-n where
_1 > P< p V_ -
n n N-1
P = true proportion, p = the sample estimate, q = 1 - p, N = the finite population, and
n = the number of independent samp Les. . In the first case n 65, in the second case
n = 7645.

448

The density of structures is low for the over-all area, never even reaching an
average of one per acre. It is highest in the zone farthest from the shore and decreases
towards the tidal zone. Hazard has some influence here in explaining this variation but
other factors are surely important as well. Only specialized coastal activities appear to
locate in the tidal zone, and much of it is undeveloped. SpeciaL problems of construction
are encountered at very low elevations, including sewage disposal, and this discourages
construction. More of the land at lower elevation is pre-empted for recreational use
which require few structures.

But if tfie density of structures favors a Lower incidence of damage in its spatial
distribution the trend through time is disturbing. For there is clear indication that the
rates of growth are highest in areas subject to greater tidal inundation damage. In
table 1-8 the average growth rates are higher in the hazard-prone zones, with an average
annual increase of 3. 6 percent in the tidal zone for the 20-year period. The "ocean
frontage developed" measurement involves frontage from all three zones but ties mainly
in zone B.

Table 1-8

Indices and Rates of Growth for Study Shore and Adjacent Areas

Indices 1940 100 verage Annual Growth Rates
1940 1 1950 1960 1940-50 1950-60 1940-60
Study Shore
Structures/acre
Zone A: Tidal 100 150 200 043 .030 .036
Zone B: Tidal- 10 feet 100 126 166 .024 .029 .026
Zone C: 10-20 feet 100 126 155 .024 .022 023
Ocean Frontage
Developed 100 128 161 .026 .024 .025
Adjacent Areas
Coastal Counties
Population 100 119 154 .018 .027 .023
Dwelling Units 100 125 170 .023 .032 .028
Megalopolis
Population 100 112 133 .012 .018 .015
Dwelling Units 100 119 150 018 .024 .021

The indices of development derived from the sample estimates are also compared
with indicators from adjacent areas in an effort to see whether the growth along the shore
has been unprecedented. Dwelling units are used as a crude approximation for comparison
with the number of structures counted in the sample estimates. These data suggest that
growth of the coastal counties exceeds the rest of Megalopolis, but growth on the outer
shore does not appear to be excessive in comparison to the surrounding coastal counties.

449

Structures provide only crude estimates of occupance, but they could not be
differentiated from the air photos. However, the land use data collected for the
intensive studies can be used to suggest the over-all variation in occupance. . These are
@presented in table 1-9 as a composite distribution. - The density of structures is more
intense in the study sites than the sample areas, as the former were chosen, with one
exception, to provide areas of use rather than empty shore. But there is no reason to
think that the relative distribution shown in table 1-9 is a-typical of coastal occupance.

Table 1-9

Composite Distribution of Land Uses by Hazard Zones,
15 Study Sites, 1963

Percentage of Total Within Each Zone
Land Uses Zone A Zone B Zone. C Zone D Zone. F
Acres Strs. Acres Strs. Acres Strs. Acres i@Strs. Acres 6trs.
(1) Industrial 1. 1 0.7 2.8 1.0 0.3 0.7
(2) Commercial 4. 1 13.0 7.0 16.3 2.2 8.2 2.6 15.2
(3) Public 4.4 18.2 3.5 1.5 1.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 3.6 1. 3
Bui I dings
(4) Public 3. 1 12.8 4.7 0.2 12.4 9.1
'Recreation
(5) PTivate 2.0 9. 1 3.8 0.3 1.8 0.1 0.6 @0. 2 3.3 0.3
Recreation
(6) Residential 0.2 72.7 25.8 83.2 36.2 81.5 21.4 90.8 14.9 80.8
(7) Agriculture 1.9 1.3 4.8 0.2 3.2 0.1 1. 3 1.7
(8) Undeveloped 90.0 47.0 41.1 65.0
1( 100. Oi
5 9, S. @ 6,631 5, 52 2,3601 7,413 7
(n 4 6 @10077L4,298
Totals (percent) 100.0 100.0 .0 100.0 99.9 100 * 0 1100.0! 100.0
umber) 6,9 4 22 1,25 1 7 1 7, 501
100

A high proportion of all Land remains undeveloped and the dominant use is
residential followed by recreational Land use. Residential structures fill most of the
developed land, with commercial structures a distant second. The variation in Land use
and development between zones does not seem significant except for the small amount of
residential land use in the tidal zone and the lower densities previously noted.

In sum then, much of the study shore is still undeveloped: the rest is primarily
used for recreation and associated residence and commerce. The distributions of struc-
tures favors Less darnage, but the differential in growth rates suggest increasing future
damage on the equivalent of a large.city that Lies exposed to the sea below the 10-foot
contour. These then are measures of extent and rates of change; an understanding of
process requires a more intensive view.

450

CHAPTER II

PATTERNS OF COASTAL OCCUPANCE: A TYPOLOGY

The fifteen selected study sites have a wide range of hazard and settlement
characteristics, and could be classified in a variety of ways. White it is not a purpose
of this study to formulate a classification of coastal hazard and settlement situations that
could be applied to at[ coastal areas, it is useful for descriptive and heuristic purposes
to group the sites together into types. This typology is based principally on settlement
characteristics and includes four types. These have been designated as the village shore,
the urban shore, the summer shore, and the empty shore.

The village shore. Typically this is an old established form of coastal settle-
ment in i@h_ich fishing and agriculture are the chief means of livelihood. Recent decades
are characterized by a decline in the importance of agriculture and commercial fishing,
and a slow growth of sport fishing, and summer residential development primarily for
recreational purposes.

The urban shore. Two of the case studies include densely developed urban
areas. In these examples a long history of coastal settlement has been associated with
tile growth of a city and includes various activities that are more or less oriented to the sea.

The summer shore. By far the largest number of case studies are examples of
summer residential settlements primarily established to utilize the recreational amenities
of coastal areas. The formerly underdeveloped sections of coastline between villages and
towns are now being rapidly developed as summer shore resorts.

The empty shore, This type refers to those rapidly diminishing stretches of
coast that have not yet been incorporated into one of the other three types.

The fifteen case study sites are listed by settlement types in table 1-3. There
are four examples of village shore, two of urban shore, eight of summer shore, and one
case of empty shore. In each study a description of physiography and hazard has been
included with a history of settlement and land use change to provide a prognosis of future
change 'intensification and insights into the human use of the shore.

The Village Shore

1. Point Judith, Rhode Islandl

Point Judith is a promontory on the western side of the mouth of Narragansett
Bay. The study site extends along 8. 3 mites of Rhode Island coastline between Moonstone

1 Field work by Robert Gardula and Roger Kasperson. We are indebted to the
following person who supplied information; Mr. Cotter.

'451

Beach on Block Island Sound and Black Point on Rhode -Island Sound. Included are the
southern part of Point Judith Neck, awide peninsula which extends south along
Narragansett Bay, and two Large drowned embayments called Point Judith Pond and Potter
-Pond. A number of small fishing villages are found in the study area, namely, Point
Judith, Galilee, Matunuk, and Snug Harbor. More recent communities include Scar-
borough Hills, and Carpenters Beach.. (See figure I in the appendix. Th.0 site@ extends
inland for two miles and its total area is 1, 750 acres.

Physiography. Point Judith can be divided into three main physiographic types.
About 83 percent of the area is characterized by a series of bedrock.necks and scattered
islands which rise slightly above the valleys and depressions which have been drowned by
the sea, A thin veneer of glacial till covers these scattered sections of the mainland.
Except in the north,the surface topography is gently rolling with hills reaching an elevation
of 80 feet above mean sea level. The western part of the site beyond Potter Pond is a nearly
flat plain with a thick soil cover. Much of this area is under. cultivation right to the coast.
The northern part of the study site forms part of the Large Kingston moraine wh ich is a
continuation of the Inner or Harbor Hill moraine of Long Island that extends eastward
under Long Island Sound and across central Rhode Island. - The topography on this moraine
is very rough with numerous small hills and depressions created by the meLtwaters of the
glacier and ice blocks left by the retreating glacier. A small section of this type of topo-
graphy is found in the northern part of the Point Judith study site. Point Judith Pond and
Potter Pond represent two large glacially scoured depressions which have been invaded by
the sea to form irregularly shaped tidal marine estuaries with one narrow inlet from the
,sea. (See.cross section. figure 2- 1.) Numerous low rocky islands, and peninsulas divide
these so-called "ponds" into many sections. If the sea had not invaded this region, these
Low areas would most probably be Large fresh water lakes.

A second physiographic type making up 13 percent of this study site consists of
small sections of widely scattered marshland behind the barrier spits near the coast and
around the islands in the tidal estuaries. A few sections of the mainland, particularly on
Point-Judith Pond, have Low swampy areas subject to inundation during severe storms.

Narrow sandy beaches from 150 to 200 feet wide constitute the remaining 4 per -
cent of the study site. The widest and most gentle beaches are along Rhode.1sland Sound.
Scarborough State Beach is three-quarters of a mile Long and can be considered a bayhead
beach because between the beaches are rocky headlands and offshore shoals. These bed-
rock outcrops are very dangerous to both ships and bathers. During severe storms both
beaches and shoals take a heavy pounding from large storm waves.

On the Black Island side of the study site a sand spit has grown across Point
Judith Sound forming a baymouth bar. The inlet or beachway which cuts through this
sandbar connecting Point Judith Pond with the sea has been lined with jetties to keep the
entrance stabilized. The projected depth through dredging is 14 feet. Large breakwaters
built seaward from the beachway form the Point Judith Harbor of Refuge.

452

Materials which. makeup the Point Judith study site include thin -ti I Is, (clay and
boulders) across the entire area with thicker morainic deposits in the north. Silts and
clays are found in the bays and ponds. The narrow beach zone is composed of medium
grained sands.

Most of the study site falls into two broad vegetation classes: mixed deciduous
and coniferous forests and cropland. Areas near the water bodies have marsh grass or
are without vegetation.

Storm hazard. The Point Judith study site has a high degree of hazard from
coastal flooding. The Corps of Enfineers report a, flood of record in the 1938 hurricane
at 12. 3 feet above mean sea level. Field interviews in 1963 indicated a flood of record
ranging from 9. 5 feet to 13 feet with most of the line'of maximum inundation at approxi-
mately 12 feet above mean sea level.

Nine of the thirty-six storms recorded over a 30-year period resulted in heavy
damage. The greatest damage is usually associated with hurricanes. The three most
2
damaging storms are recalled by residents as the hurricanes of 1938, 1944 and 1954.
During the 1938 hurricane sections of the beach were cut away 25 feet with an over-all
lowering of the beach 3 to 4 feet. Bluffs were cut back at least 20 feet with the eroded
material washed inland. Sea walls and jetties were unable to check the waves. One
hundred people lost their lives and about 1. 000 cottages and buildings were destroyed,
in the vicinity of Point Judith.

.In all three storms, frontal structural damage with the undermining of founda-
tions and destruction of grounds was a common feature along the immediate shore, Also,
extensive marina and boat damage took place at the fishing village of Galilee, and many of
the homes we[[ behind the shore had flooded cellars.

Movement during such storms is dangerous because many roads become
impassable as storm waters cross the sand barriers and flood.the inner water bodies.
The seawall which surrounds the harbor of refuge is overtopped in large storms and the
fishing piers, such as Narragansett Pier on Long Island Sound, suffer heavy damage in
major hurricanes. @ The Weather Bureau's Storm Surge Warning Maps3 recommend
evacuation.of all low coastal areas during severe storms to high ground 15 to 20 feet above
sea level.

I U. S. Army Corps *of. Engineers, South Shore, State of Rhode Island Beach
Erosion Control Study, 81st, Congress, 2nd Sess. , House Doc. 490, 1950, pp. 12-17, and
U. S. Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study, South
Kingston and Westerly, Rhode Island, U. S. Army Engineer Division,. New England Corps
of Engineers,. Boston, Mass.,. Nov'. 13, 1957, pp. 3-5.
2
U. S. Corps of Engineers, op. cit. , South Shore,. State of Rhodelsland . . . .
pp. 14- 17.
3 U. S. . Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Storm Surge Warning Maps,
Nos. 8 and.9, August, 1962.

STUDY SITE NO. 1 SNUG
HARBOR

POINT JERUSALEM
JUDITH ATLANTIC
POND OCEAN
MEAN SEA LEVEL

A 8, c A

ZONE ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE TO OVER 20 FEET BELOW MEAN HIGH ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE WITH BELOW MEAN HIGH
TIDE A FEW AREAS OVER 10 FEET TIDE

DISSECTED UPLAND COVERED WITH SMALL HILLS TIDAL MARSH AREA SAND FLATS WITH LOW DUNES SANDY BEACH WITH
GEOMORPHIc TYPE AND DEPRESSIONS. BEDROCK COVERED WITH AND SALT WATER NEAR THE COAST. SOME FILL A NARROW SHELF
GLACIAL TILL POND-SfLTS AND OFF SHORE
CLAYS

TYPE OF HAZARD SOME FLOODING In AREAS NEAR THE PONDS FLOODING DURING FLOODiNG AND SOME FLOODING, EROSION
SEVERE STORMS EROSION AND DESTRUCTION
OF STRUCTURE-8

OEGREE OF HAZARD Mi Noli MINOR SEVERE, HEAVY DAMAGE SEVERE, HEAVY
DAMAGE

STRUCTURES MST OF UPLAND HAS FEW STRUCTURES EXCEPT FEW MANY FEW
AT SNUG HARBOR

FILLING IN OF MARSH AREAS,
ADJUSTMENTS FEW FEW ESCAPE ROAD, MANY JETTIES, BREAK-
INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTMENTS WATERS 'AND GROINS

FIGURE 2-1. DIAGRAMMATIC GROSS SECTION, POINT JUDITH, R6011 ISLAND

453

Coastal, changes. Coastal changes at the Point Judith study site have, resulted
-'from storm action and human attempts to reduce their effects. Beaches,' cliffs,and dunes
are cut back during severe storms but the beach is usually restored during the summer
months when calmer conditions prevail. However, there is a gradual over-all retreat of
the coast taking place.

The Largest structure built to keep off the fury of the storms is a large 10-foot
high breakwater which surrounds the Point Judith Harbor of Refuge. The breakwater is
over 2-1/2 miles in Length and is divided into three sections allowing for two wide
entrances to the enclosed area of about one squa re mile.

Settlement history. The area was included in a purchase of land from Local
Indians in 1657. Settlements began shortly thereafter and were at first largely agri-
cultural in nature. South Kingston was set off and incorporated as a separate town in 1722.1

The fishing industry f Lourished during the 19th century and large catches of striped,
bass, white perch, smelt, and herring were taken from Point Judith Pond. . In addition
numerous fine quality oysters were marketed in Boston, Providence and Newport.

In recent decades the fishing industry has declined and has not been completely
replaced in the local economy as a source of income by tourism.

Land use changes There has been a steady,population growth in the vicinity of
Point Judith over the past 25 years. The population of Narragansett, the nearest minor
civil division has grown from 1, 560 in 1940 to 3, 444 in 1960. This growth is reflected in
an increase of single family residences in the study area from 1, 729 in 1951 to 1, 919 in
1963. . This increase is mainly in the form of summer cottages. There has been no other
growth in the area and in the case of some types of land use a decline has been recorded.
A generalized map of land use is shown in the overlay of figure 1 (appendix). Recorded
changes of land use are given in table 2- 1.

Most of the new residential development has been out of the flood hazard area and
above the 10-foot contour. Major growth has occurred in three areas. (1) North of
Carpenter's settlement and beach, older established residential areas have been more
densely developed. (2) East of Sand Hill Cove beach a subdivision has been nearly doubled
.in size., (3) Steady growth has occurred in the residential area to the west of Scarborough
Beach.

Two settlements of cottages, trailers, and their associated camping grounds have
fluctuated in size but are now approximately the same as in 1951.

Growth in the area has been stimulated by its accessibility via national routes I
and 1A and by the attractions of sport fishing. The pace of activity is highly seasonal,

1 J. R. Cole, History of Was hitigton and Kent Counties,, Rhode Island. NewYork,
W@ W. Preston & Co., 1889.

454

Table 2 -1

Point Judith, Rhode Island
MajorLand Use Changes by Hazard Zones 1
Zone Land Use2 No. Structures No. Acres

1951 1963 chanEe 1951 1963 chanEe

A 8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 232 232 0
Tidal Total 0 0 0 253 253 0

B 2 Commercial 31 31 0 12 13 +8
6a Residential 244 263 +8 75 79 +5
8 Undeveloped 19 0 na3 66 55 -17
Tidal-101 Total 303 303 0 192. 192 0

C 2 Commercial 25 25 0 5 7 +40
6a Residential 789 808 +2 77 88 +14
8 Undeveloped 67 0 na 137 124 -10
101-201 Total 887 839 -5 307 307 0

D 2 Commercial 16 16 0 2 2 0
6a Residential 696 848 +22 207 276 +33
7 Agricultural 0 0 0 184 170 -8
8 Undeveloped 152 0 na 600 545 -9
> 201 Total 876 876 0 998 998 0

F 2 Commercial 31 31 0 12 13 +8
6a Residential 330 356 +8 77 81 +5
@7 Agricultural 0 0 0 3 3 0.
8 Undeveloped 26- 0 na 294 287 -2
Flooded Total 396 396 0 44o 44o 0

All 1 Industrial. 3 3 0 2 2 0
Zones Commercial 72 72 0 19 22 +16
3 Public 11 11 0 .5 5 0
4 Recreational' 2 2 0 35 43 +23
5a Recreational 11 11 0 0 0 0
5b Recreational 0 0 0 26 24 w-8
6a Residential 1729 1919 +11 361 445 +23
7 Agricultural 0 0 0 267 253 -5
8 Undeveloped 238 0 na 1035 956 -8
Total 2o66 2018 -2 1750 1750 0

1 Minor land uses cmitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.
2 See.detailed land use classification, Table 1-5.
3 na -- Calculation not appropriate.

455

however, and. the commercial fishing industry is not large enough to support a big
winter-time population. A Local zoning ordinance may also have helped to inhibit coastal
development.

Adjustments to hazard. There is a high Level of awareness of the,storm hazard
in Point Judith and this is reflected in a high degree of adjustment in both public and private
sectors. At the public.levet storm hazard areas have been plotted and a zoning ordinance
is in force in South Kingston. This flood plain zoning ordinance is one of the very few of
its kind in coastal areas, although such regulations are more common in riverine flood
plains. The law stipulates that " . . . no floor for overnight human occupancy shaLt have
an elevation of less than 20 feet above mean sea, Level. " Some filling of marsh areas for
residential development has taken place, but the new zoning Law is Likely to slow the pace
of future development. A second public adjustment is the construction of a new road in
.1955 by which the residents of Great Island and the fishing village of Galilee may escape
-to higher ground on Point Judith Neck. . Known as the Escape Route this road is higher than
the maximum flood of record.

In addition there are a number of private adjustments. Several new houses have
been built on stilts; a small number of property owners have placed stone and concrete
rip-rap or small home-made bulkheads at the front of their houses. One man has used
snow fences and coniferous trees to help hold the sand dune in place.

These adjustments reflect a high degree of awareness and a fear of storm
damage.

No one here expressed interest in going down to the shore "to see the water
come up" as.in.Fairfie[d and Montauk. Rather,, many inhabitants viewed life in Point
Judith as distinctly risky. Since much of the development in the high hazards areas
predates the 1954 storm many people had experienced damage from hurricane Carol in
1954. The heightened awareness a1sc affects Land use decisions although it is not easy
to determine to what degree. The Local zoning ordinance with its minimum requirements
for floor elevation obviously has some effect, but many people are inclined to stay away
from the most hazardous areas anyway. The feeling of insecurity in Point Judith is high.
.Many inhabitants expressed the need for more protection and complaints were made in
Galilee and Jerusalem that escape route provisions were inadequate to prevent them
being cut off in a high storm.

Evacuation is a common adjustment when storm warnings are received. . Trailers
on a camp site close to the beach are habitually towed to higher land half a mile away.

Future Development. The potential of the Point Judith area for further
recreational development seems high. At present there are three state beaches compris-
ing approximately 50 acres. Two of these which may be described as "family beaches"
(Sand Hill Cove and East Matunuk) are seldom used to capacity and compared with many
other beaches on the eastern seaboard they could accommodate many more people. . The
third beach (Scarborough) is predominantly used by teenagers.

456

In addition to the public beaches there are about five privately operated beach
,areas which also appeared to be highly used during the duration of field work in the area.
The potential for further growth undoubtedly exists. Marinas and motels could be
developed, but so far the wave of dense coastal development has not reached Point Judith
which remains a village shore.

Much of the land that is potentially developable is in private ownership, some of
it infarmland. Areas of public ownership include the Coast Guard Station at the tip of
Point Judith and the U. S. Army Reservation off Point Judith road.

* Point Judith typifies a not uncommon pattern of coastal development. The nuclei
of historically important fishing villages provide cores around which recreational pur-
suits slowly grow as fishing and agriculture decline.

Severe damage in the past is associated with a high degree of awareness
among present inhabitants and a wide range of adjustments to hazard. Moreover the
adoption of a zoning ordinance for part of the area (South Kingston) gives some assurance
that newcomers to the area will not move into high hazard areas in ignorance of the hazard.
Further development is likely to be concentrated above the 10-foot contour, and a rapid
increase in flood damage potential seems unlikely.

2. Wellfleet,. Massachusettsi

Wellfleet is a village community on the outer Cape Cod peninsula. This second
example of the village shore type of development is seven mites north of Orleans and
ten miles south of Provincetown. The area of 2, 328 acres is shown in figure 2,* 2a in the
appendix. It includes Wellfteet Harbor on the Cape Cod Bay side of the peninsula and a
stretch of the. Cape Cod National Seashore on the Atlantic Ocean side.

Physiography. The largest part of the area (about 82 percent) consists of rolling
hi [is and depressions with a relative relief of from 50 to 100 feet above mean sea level.
A few sections of the study site reach 150 feet. This rolling upland represents a glacial
moraine with scattered kames and kettle holes making a very iriegular, poorly drained
surface. The highest areas. of the upland are on the eastern side,where large kettle holes
are fiL.led with water forming rounded ponds such as Gull Pond, Great Pond, and Long
Pond. Along the Atlantic coast a long, gently curving beach is backed by 50-to 100-foot
high cliffs. On the western side of the study site the upland areas are more broken up
with tidal marshes between the islands. Spits and bars project from the islands, and in
.some areas, nearly close off the tidal Rats. The resulting coast on the west is a series of
coves, bays, and harbors. Most of the shoreline in this region consists of narrow beaches
backed by. morainic cliffs that are slowly being cut back and smoothed by the waves and
currents. No bedrock is exposed at the surface.

1 Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
following person who supplied information; Mr. William Douns.

457

Except for the town of WeLlfleet which is situated on one of the-inner bays, the
uplands are Largely unsettled. The very coarse tills made up of boulder clays are
difficult to work and poorly drained. Most lof the structures are residences found near
the beaches or commercial structures along the major highways. Large sections of the
WeLffieet study site are included in the new Cape Cod National Seashore which will be under
development for a number of years.

The second major physiographic type is the marsh area which make up, 13 percent
of the study area. .(See cross sectionfigure 2-2. ) Through time the fine silts and clays
have been removed from the uplands and carried into the tidal Lagoons surroun di ng the
islands. Extensive tidal flats have been changed into salt marshes and then into dry [and
with the help of both man and nature. Evidence that the coves and bays are filling exists
as sailing ships, which used to be able to go in and out of WeLlfleet harbor without difficulty,
now need to follow narrow dredged channels.

'Very little filling of the marsh areas for residential development has taken-place.
However, the construction of roads and railroads across the marshes has promoted fill-
ing. An example is along Herring River, where a road-railroad bridge, acting as a partial
dam, has cut down the flow of tidal water into the inner marsh.

The third physiographic division, making up about 5 percent of the study site
consists of the beaches and sand dunes along the immediate coast. The 2. 4 miles of
beach on the Atlantic coast called La Count Hollow Beach and Cahoon Hollow Beach are
representative of the beaches found along much of the Outer Cape. Morainic cliffs, in
places 115 feet high, are almost vertical above a beach that averages 100 feet wide. Here
is found some of the most spectacular coastal topography along the eastern coast of the
United States.

In winter the beach not only retreats toward the cliffs, but very Large waves and
high tides will cross the beach and cut the cliffs back. John Zeigler and associates at the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutiion have been studying the Outer Cape. Cod beaches
for several years. They find after studying nine storms and two hurricanes that Outer
Cape Cod beaches can be cut back vertically as much as 9 feet and 6--yer 520 cubic feet of
1
material can be removed during one storm tide. Because of the strong Littoral currents
moving the eroded material north to the Cape Cod spit and because of the steep gradient
of the beach and foreshore this beach can be very dangerous to bath &s when strong winds
and large waves occur.

The beaches found in other sections of the study site are not as large or as well
developed. The beach bordering.Cape Cod Bay is narrow wherebacked by cliffs. Where
spits and bars occur the beaches are wider and less steep. Erosion is also a problem in
this region but coastal retreat is not as great as on the Atlantic side.

J. M. Zeigler, C. R. Hayes and S. D. Tuti le: "Beach Changes During Storms on
Outer Cape,Cod,.Mass. " journal of Geo[og , Vo L. 67, No. 3,1959, pp. 318-336.

458

Materials within the study site include coarse, unstratified, glacially deposited
gravels and clays on the uplands. These deposits are covered with a thin veneer of silt
and sand on the surface. Soft muds and clays are found in the bays and marshes, and
medium grained sands cover the beaches. Mayo Beach near the town of Wellfleet is an
example of a harborbeach with fine sands and clays.

Vegetation consists predominantly of pines and oaks. In places where the trees
are exposed to high winds and storms, the trees are stunted. Marsh grass is found
around the edges of the bays and in the tidal lagoons. . Dune grasses help hold the sand on
the Cape Cod Bay side of the coast but has difficulty in holding sand on the steep slopes on
the ocean side of the cape.

. Storm hazard. The Weltfleet area includes part of the exposed coastline of
outer Cape Cod and so the storm frequency is high. Only moderate amounts of damage
occur because the high morainic cliffs enable all waterfront property to be located well
beyond-the reach of storm waves. Waterfront property in the village of Welifteet itself
may be flooded but it faces onto the relatively sheltered Cape Cod Bay.

Two-and three-day "north easter s " are the most severe storms hitting the area.
Hurricanes are infrequent and cause negligible damage. The northeasters are so frequent,
however, that the number of storms recorded in the vicinity of Wellfleet is higher than at
any other study site, except Dennis, also on Cape Cod.

The area in the Wellfleet region subject to coastaL flooding is not large. However,
Crane's map of coastal flooding in Barnstable County shows the town of Wellfteet as a
major damage area and several marsh areas bordering Wellfleet harbor as subject to
probable minor damage.1 Most of the upland is well above the 20-foot conto ur.

The town of Wellfteet has been inundated when high tides and severe storms
coincide. But because of its protected location, the inundation is not accompanied by
storm waves or sudden tidal surges. Flooding of cellars is the worst damage from any
of the storms, . and in most cases, wind does much more damage than the sea. The United
States Weather Bureau's storm surge map does not depict the Wellfleet study site as a
region subject to severe storm surges. 2

The flooding of the tidal marshes around Wellfleet Harbor may cover roads
leading to rocky points but few structures receive damage. On the ocean side wind damage
to structures is more severe than cliff erosion. Cliff erosion is such a slow process that
most land owners can make adjustments well ahead of cliff removal.

Donald A. Crane: "Coastal Flooding in Barnstable County, Cape Cod,
.Massachusetts, " Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, Bulletin W. R. No. 2, 500-
4-63- 935311,. March 1963,,,Table 1, p. 8.
2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Storm Surge Warning Map.
No. 5, Aug. 1962.

CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE
STUDY SITE NO. 2 TOWN OF
CAPE GREAT WELLFLEET GREAT CAHOON E
COD ISLAND WELLFLEET DUCK POND HOLLOw ATLANTIC
COVE CH OCEAN
HARBOR
MEAN SEA IEVEL B!jA Y_

A A A

BELOW ABOVE BELOW MEAN HIGH MEAN HIGH TIDE ABOVE THE 20-FOOT PtAll:-01,60 ABOVE THE 20-FOOT CONTOUR BELOW
ZONE MEAN HIGH 20 FEET TIDE TO ABOVE 20 FEEI CONTOUR riaz To MEAN HIGH
TIDE 10 FEET TIDE

BEACH GLACIAL TIDAL MARSH LOW HILLS WITH RoLLiNG HILLSUP TO TIDAL ROLLING MORAINIC BILLS UP TO STEEP 50-
GEOMORPHIC 7`YPE AND TILL UNFILLED SMALL VALLEYS 150 FEET COVERED MARSH 150 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. FOOT CLIFFS
CLIFFS WITH GLACIAL 'FILL LARGE PONDS AND BEACH

EROSION NO HiGn WATER BACKS OW AREAS 10 FLOODING IMMEDIATE
OF BEACH FLOOD FAR UP INTO THE ZONE B SUBJECT OF LOW BEACH AND
TYPE OF HAZARD CLIFFS IN HAZARD MARSH AREAS DURING TO SOME FLOODING NO FLOOD HAZARD AREAS NO FLOOD HAZARD CLIFFS
SEVERE STOR14S SUBJECT TO
STORMS DAMAGE

MODERATE SOME HAZARD FROM
DEGREE OF HAZARD BEACH NONE FLOOD?NG ONLY F41 NOR NONE MINOR NONE SEVERE
HAZARD

STRUCTURES NONE VERY FEW FEW FEW Town OF WtLLFLEET Nou ONLY A FEW SUMMER NOMES HEAR NONE
CLIFFS

ADJUSTMENTS Few FEW FEW FEW

I I

FIGURE 2-9. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, WELLFLEET, MASSACHUSETTS

459

Because of the sparsity of settlement along much of the coast in the Wetlfleet area,
it was difficult to establish a flood of record for the whole study sitei A Corps of Engineers
reportin lists mean and spring tide maximums from 10 to 11. 6 feet above mean Low
water for the ocean side of the Cape, while the Massachusetts Water Resource Commission
Report2 lists 14. 5 feet above mean low water as the highest elevation of flooding. . This
maximum tide was observed in the 1938 hurricane. Field interviews indicated that 14. 5
feet is a close estimate.

. Settlement history.3 In 1644, an exploration party was sent fro m Plymouth Colony
to determine settlement possibilities on the Outer Cape. It was reported that it was not
productive land and could support only 20 or 25 families. Otherwise, they felt that the area
offered no possibilities for future expansion. Nevertheless, a number of settlers entered
the area and settled on the more attractive farming sites. These early settlements were
concentrated on the upland area of Chequesset Neck and at the head of Duck Creek.

By 1722, the population of this area had expanded su fficientLy for Billingsgate,
later to become Weltfleet, to be set off as a separate parish. . Despite initial settlement
for agricultural purposes, the population quickly turned to the abundance of fish in
Wellfleet Harbor for its livelihood and the derivation of the name Billingsgate for the town
stems from the famous Billingsgate fish'market in London.

Throughout the first half of the 18th century, no village center evolved in the
town of Wellfleet. Rather, settlement in the town remained in self-sufficient units on
homesteads scattered along early roadways. Whaling and the fishing industry were the
only cash-producing ventures of the period -- some 20 to 30 whaling vessels being based
here and nearly all men of the town derived some income from the industry. Yet the
economy was firm enough to support a population increase of from 928 people in 1764 to
1235 in,1775.

This population now began to locate in the chief areas of the town -- along the
waterfront in response to maritime activity and along the old King's Highway. In addition
to these major population concentrations., smaller nodes, numbering perhaps 20 to 30
families, were found in Bi I lingsgate.Is land,. Duck Creek,, Griffith's1s land and Bound Brook
Island. These population localizations were in response to the fine harbors this area then
possessed.

Throughout the first half of the 1800's, only rough roads connected settlements
and the sea remained the chief means of travel. The King's Highway was the only major
road, and early commercial establishments grew up along this route servicing travelers.

Mass. Beach Erosion. Control Study: "Shore of Cape Cod between the Cape. Cod
Cana I and-Race- Point,. Provincetown, " Corps of. Engineers, H. D. #404.
2 Crane, op. cit. , p. 3.
.3 Based on field party notes assembled from various Locally available sources.

460

The early 1800's were ye'ars.of greatly increasing industry in-Wellfteet. During
this period, the salt industry grew rapidly, largely because Welifleet had acres of tidal
marshLand on which to locate the works and a ready market in the local fishing industry
which needed the salt to cure its catches. In 1837, 39 salt works were in operation, pro-
ducing a total of 18, 000 bushels per year. After 185.0, however, the industry declined
with the development of salt springs in New York and the lifting of the duties on imported
salt.

The prosperity of this period must be attributed in large part to the fishing
industry, which grew steadily and reached its zenith in the second half of the 19th'Century.
In 1837, there were. 39 Wellf leet boats and 496 men employed in fishing, mostly for cod
and mackerel. These boats required repairs and supplies, and the men who built and ran
the wharves prospered in proportion to the fishermen.

Coincidental with the growth of commercial fishing was the depopulation of the
island settlements and the centralization of the town around the Duck Creek area. The
former harbors of these islands were fast sitting up and by about 1830 most of the fisher-
men,who used them had moved their vessels and homes to deeper water of Duck Creek.
As Duck Creek became the principal harbor, the great wharves began to appear. Central
Wharf, built in 1863 was 300 feet long and did a thriving business. Last of the great
wharves, Mercentile Wharf, was erected in. 1870, while even Blockfish Creek, harbor of
,South Wellfleet, had its own wharf where as many as 100 ships berthed. This general
maritime prosperity was reflected in a series of small secondary and tertiary establish-
ments which grew up along Commercial Street, the nucleus of the vil [age.

The Civil War indirectly, affected the Wellfleet area. Technological changes
during the conflict led to the displacement of the smalt-boat type of commercial fishing
carried on in Wellfleet. Metal-hulled ships and steam power made possible Longer
voyages and faster delivery to market. In addition, local fishing grounds were being
depleted., By 1870, the handwriting was on the wall. By 1890, the number of boats ,
rotting ashore was greater than the number in the water. This Led to a decline in popula-
tion in the area -- a trend which was not reversed until very recently.

The conversion of the Wetlfleet economy from fishing to tourism began with the
events near the turn of the century. The first occurred when a wealthy resident of
Wellfleet, Captain Baker, purchased Mercentile Wharf and spent $100, 000 converting the
,old wharf buildings into the elegant Chequesset Inn. Advertising drew clientele from as
far away as the Middle West and WeLlfLeet soon became known as a "summer resort" as
well as a fishing village. Captain Baker also organized the Wellfleet Yacht Club which
helped to promote Wellfleet as a summer resort.

A second factor in the introduction of tourism in Wellfleet was the construction
of the Fall River and Old Colony Railroad. It eventually captured virtually all the freight
business and opened up Welifteet to the outside world. In We[Ifleet, the greatest single
blow struck against maritime activity was the construction of the railroad dike across the
mouth of Duck Creek, seating off the upper reaches of the Creek to ships of deep draft.

461

Old-timers recall that;,in the first 10 or 12 years of this century, while
summer people were an accepted phenomenon, they were still so few in number as to be
a novelty. The growth of tourism is, of course, closely associated with the growth of
automobile use. Because of the decline of fishing and local industries, there were a large
number of vacant properties in town and so summer people began to buy permanent homes.
In fact, native owners thought that they were selling white elephants to these "city folk" at
ridiculously high prices. Wetlfleet natives also supplemen ted theirincome by renting rooms
and cottages and by 1920, Wellfteet was well on its way to.becoming a "summer town. " By
the year of first photo coverage, the village found its traditional hybrid settlement
pattern largely unchanged, but with functional changes in the use of the buildings, Retail
units in the vi I [age center catered to the. tourist trade while former residential homes .
-supplemented their income by serving as guest or tourist homes* The village as a whole,
however, retains its traditional settlement pattern and has not experienced rapid
commercialization or permanent population expansion.

Land use changes. There has been a substantial increase in the number of
structures in the 25-year period from 1938 to 1963@ Single family. residences (mostly
summer cottages) have increased from 143 to 307. Most of them are we[[ above the
flood hazard zone. The most significant increase in damage potential is in the growth of
commercial structures (mainly motels and guest houses) in Zone C within the reach of
extremely high storm waters. A new town wharf has also been constructed at Shirtail
Point. A map of land use is shown in the a@eriays 1D figures Z1. 2a. Recorded changes
of land use are given in table 2-2.

. Adjustmentsto hazard. The perception of storm hazard in Wellfleet is not highly
developed. Public adjIustments are limited to a breakwater at the mouth of the inner
WellfLeet.Harbor and beachgrass plantings along the cliffs on the eastern shore. There are
very few private adjustments. 'These include the construction of one bulkhead. There is
greater concern about wind damage than water damage and precautions are taken to make
structures able to withstand high winds.

The relatively low level of knowledge of storm hazard is probably due to the
relatively small damage potential resulting from the favorable topographic conditions of
the area..

Future development. Recently much of Wellfteet (75 percent of its area) has
been taken over by the Federal Government as part of the Cape Cod National Seashore.
Although the establishment of the Seashore had little effect by the summer of 1963, it
is expected that the National Seashore will eventually have a big impact upon service
industries in the area. Many more motels and restaurants and other tourist services are
likely to be built. In addition there are plans for developing the National Seashore itself
by the provision of traits, parking facilities, exhibits, and bathing facilities. This is not
Likely to create significant amounts of new damage potential, especially since most of the
developments are to be on the higher Atlantic side of the peninsula.

The future development of the Nationa I Seashore will result in increasing the
accessibility to WeLffleet since plans are now in motion to widen existing 2- and 3-lane

462

Table 2-2

Wellfleet, Massachusetts
Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones 1

Zone Land Use No. Structures No. Acres

1938 1963 change 1938 1963. change
A 5b Recreational 0 0 0 47 49 +4 2
7 Agricultural 0 0 0 76 0 na
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 236 310 +31
Tidal Total 1 2 +100 377 375 0

B 5b Recreational 0 0 0 14 18 +29
6a Residential 9 13 +44 2 8 +300
Undeveloped 0 0 0 128 122 -5
Tidal-101 Total 9 15 +67 155 155 0

C- 2 Commercial 6 36 +500 3 7 +133
5b Recreational 0 0 0 15 12 -20
6a Residential 68 87 +28 82 102 +24
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 270 250 -7
101-201 Total 74 123 +66 386 390 +1

D 2 Commercial 3 57 +18oo 19 25 +32
6a Residential 65 205 +215 62 192 +210
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 1327 1190 -10
> 20f Total 68 262 +285 141o 108 0

F .2 Commercial 0 13 na 1 3 +300
6a Residential 12 14 +17 2 4 +200
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 252 248 - -1
Flooded Total 12 27 +125 255 255 0

All 2 Commercial 9 95 +956 23 33 +44
Zones 3 Public 0 0 0 2 1 -50.
4 Recreational 0 0 0 18 18 0
5a Recreational 0 0 0 30 21 -23
5b Recreational 0 .0 0 70 79 +13
6a Residential 143 307 t115 148 304 +105
7 Agricultural 0 0 0 76 0 na
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 1261 1872 -4
Total 152 402 +163 2328 2328 0

Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.
2
na -- Calculation not appropriate.

463

roads into 6- lane super highways.'' The increase in the number of visits to the area is
likely to disrupt the cloistered character@ of WettfLeet and moveit very rapidly toward a
resemblance of the Lower Cape.

The potential for recreational development is greatest in the Cape Cod National
Seashore area. On the bay side much of the Land is in marshes and the existing town
beaches are used to capacity at the height of the season.

Nevertheless the location of the village of Wellfleet immediately adjacent to the,
National Seashore seems certain to involve it in major changes.

WelLfleet is an example of a village type of coastal development that has long had
some small tourist industry. . In the future it is likely to experience rapid conversion to
a summer shore type of development as the National Seashore is developed. . Future
developments are not likely to result in a large increase of damage potential largely due
to the favorable topographic features of the area and the fact that much low lying develop-
ment faces onto therelatively sheltered Cape.Cod Bay.

3. Villa s,. New Jersey

Villas is an expanded viLlage-type coastal development. Its Low income houses
are arranged along grid-pattern streets fronting onta Delaware Bay on the western side
of'the Cape May peninsula. This smallest of the study sites includes 1. 2 miles of
coastline and extends in a strip- 5 mile wide. The total area is 222 acres. (See
figure 3 in the appendix.)

Physiography. The entire area.of Villas is comprised of two basic Landform
types. . (See cross section ..figure 2-3.) A nearly f [at plain averaging between 10 and 20
feet above mean sea level makes up 62 percent of the site. This plain is composed of
coarse Pleistocene gravels with a thin silica sand veneer on the surface. Mixed oaks
and pines along with herbaceous plants are the predominant vegetation.

The remaining 38 percent of the study site is marshLand. Here silts and clays
are covered with high elephant grasses and herbaceous plants. The southern and
northern parts of this small area fringe on the housing development at Villas, to the south,
and Del Haven, to the north. The central part is the marshland which is crisscrossed with.
channels for control of mosquito breeding. A small creek, Fishing Creek, flows west
through the area to Delaware Bay.

The coastline at Villas is non-cliffed and regular in shape. The beach zone is
very narrow, less than 100 feet wide. It is made up of coarse gravels, silts, and sands.
Offshore the sediments become finer on the gentle slope that Leads into Delaware Bay.

1 Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
following person who supplied information; Mr.. James'Byington.

464

This coast is not a popular resort area for tourists, but Miami Beach and Sunray Beaches
are used by local residents. , Backing the beach is a narrow area of low 4 -to 5-foot high
sand dunes covered mostly with American beach grass.

Storm hazard. Villas has a relatively low frequency of damaging storms.
Large waves and tidal surges do not form in the sheltered Delaware Bay, although strong
west winds sometimes pile water up against the shore and cause beach erosion and slow
undermining of waterfront buildings. Wind damage is caused both by hurricanes and
"northeasters", but wave damage is rare.

The flood of record for this stretch of the Delaware Bay coast Line is about 9 feet
above mean sea level. Since all of the study site, except the larger dunes near the coast,
is below 9 feet, flooding is a potential danger although it would be from relatively still
water without strong wave action.

,@ ISettlement history. Though the very earliest development in Cape May occurred
not far from present day Villas, it appears that there was little activity in the Villas area
until sometime in the late 1800's. A map of Cape May County in 1872 shows a few scattered
houses which appear to be farm houses. Probably fishing, oystering and clamming were
carried on at that time also.

Modern development in the Villas area and more specifically in the study area
did not commence until the late 1920's when a man named Millman bought'a large tract of
land and began building houses suitable for'seasonal and permanent residences. Villas is
today largely the result of Millman efforts.

Land use changes: -There has been a steady growth of single family residences
in Villas over the past 8 years. Their number has increased from 221 in 1956 to 292 in
1963. The new developments are largely below the ten-foof contour and could be flooded
by exceptionally high water. The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 3
(appendix). Recorded changes of land use are given in table 2-3.

Adjustments to Hazard. The Level of concern about storm hazards in Villas is
very low. 'A few people are affected by beach erosion and have privately made adjustments
by construction of bulkheads or ri rap. Public measures include the construction of
several jetties into Delaware Bay. A few dunes along the shoreline. have been-removed
to make way for beach front cottages. In addition sluices have been built to keep salt .
water but of the marshland area.s.

Future development. The character of Villas has not changed significantly in
recent decades and will probably continue for the foreseeable future as a relatively low
income summer resort and retirement area. The fishing has changed from a commercial
venture to sport fishing for summer tourists who are able to enjoy a low cost vacation at
a rather poor quality beach.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: 'New Jersey Coast of Delaware Bay from Cape
May Canal to Maurice River, Beach Erosion Control Study, 87th Congress,. Ist Session,
House Doc. No. 196, 1961, pp. 20-28.

STUDY SITE NO. 3

DEL HAVEN EAST
DELAWARE WEST
BAY SANDY
BEACH
MEAN SEA LEV@_EL

A 8 A, 8 B

ZONE BELOW MEAN HIGH BETWEEN MEAN HIGH BELOW KEAN-HIGH TIDE BETWEEN 14EAN HIGH 'T I BE A NO 10-FOOT CONTOUR
TIDE TIDE AND 10 FEET TO 10 FEET

GEomoRPHIc TYPE BEACH SAND DUNES. BRACKISH MARSH SILTS FLAT TERRACE LAND SANDS AND GRAVELS
AHD@CLAYS

EROSION OF MINOR EROSION TO SALT WATER INUNDATION
TYPE OF HAZARD BEACH DURING THE LOW DUNES DURING SEVERE STORMS NO FLOOD HAZARD
SEVERE STORMS LITTLE FLOODING

DEGREE OF HAZARD MODERATE BEACH MINOR ONLY MINOR HAZARD FROM NONE
HAZARD FLOODING

STRUCTURES FEW VERY FEW FEW SMALL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

ADJUSTMENTS ONLY VERY MINOR FEW MINOR FEW

Foram 2-3 DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, VILLASp NEW JERSEY

465

Table 2-3

Villas, New Jersey
Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zonesl

Zone Land Use No. Structures No. Acres

1956 1963 change 1956, 1963 change

A 8 Undeveloped 0 0'. .0 @56 56 o
Tidal Total 0 0 0 56 56 0

B 2 Commercial i16 16 0 - -
6a Residential 2o6. 269 +31 75 84 +12
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 88 79 -10
Tidal-101 Total 222 285 +28 163 163 0

C 2 Commercial 7 8 +14 - -
6a Residential 15 .23 +53 .2 3 +502
8 Undeveloped. 0 0 0 11 0 na
101-201 Total 22 31 +41 3 3 0

D None in study area,

F 8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 87 87 0
Flooded Total 0 0 0 87 87 0

All 2 Commercial 23 24 +4 -
Zones 6a Residential 221, 292 +32 77 87 .+13
8 Undeveloped 0 . 0 0 145 135 -7
Total 244 316 +30 222 222 0

1 Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumera +ted.
2 na Calculation not appropriate.

466

There remains a large amount of undeveloped marshland in the area. . The
recreational amenities are not sufficiently attractive to encourage rapid development,
but a slow expansion into the marshLand seems probable, with an associated slow
increase in water damage potential.

4. Chincoteague, Virginia

.The fourth and final example of village shore development is the village of
Chincoteague on the island of the same name. The study site includes almost all of
Chincoteague1s land. (See figure 4 in the appendix.) This study site lies immediately
adjacent to Assateague, the subject of case study number 15.

Physiography. This study site is similar in physiographic characteristics to
the Assateague site. Both are tow sandy regions which are subject to changes in their
shape and size as tidal channels and offshore currents move the unconsolidated sands and
clays from place to place.

Chincoteague.1 stand consists largely of sand dune ridges, sand plains,and tidal
marshes. . (See cross sectionfigure 2-4) The ridges and swa[es are much older than
those on Assateague Island and are worn down. At least 20 of these accretion ridges
can be counted on aerial photographs. Each ridge represe nts low dunes formed behind
a prograding coast and beach, What was once a barrier bar, similar to Assateague, has
become an island by the accretion of tidal channels in the lagoon which have cut across
the northern part of the island.

No part of Chincoteague is 10 feet above mean sea level. Most of the island
(about 34 percent) consists of tidal marshland. The town and residential areas of
Chincoteague'are located along the slightly higher accretion ridges, which make up
approximately 62 percent of the island. Sand on the ridges and clay in the swales are
the only materials found on the island. Soils are poorly developed, but a few vegetable
crops are grown.

Chincoteague has few sandy beaches. Approximately 4 percent of the study site
has a sandy coastline but no wide beaches. The irregular shoreline consists mostly of
marsh and shifting tidal channels. In the south-eastern part of the island these channels
are presently eroding the land. Pines and oaks are the principal trees found on the ridges
with mixed grasses and shrubs in the low areas.

Storm hazard. - Storm frequency at Chincoteague is relatively tow, although
heavy damage has resulted from storms in the recent past.

1 Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard.Hecock. We are indebted to the
following persons who supplied information: Mr. R..N. Reed, Mr. Roy Tolbert, Mr. Roy
Twiltey, W. N. Steelman, Mr. Charles Noble, Lt. Cmdr. H. H. Istok, and Mr. Jeffries.

STUDY SITE NO. 4

CHINCOTEAGUE
CHINCOTEAGUE AsSATEAGUE
CHANNEL CHANNEL
MEAN SEA LEVEL

A A,B A

ZONE BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE LOW AREAS BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE OTHER AREAS BELOW MEAN HIGH. TIDE
LESS THAN 10-FEET

TIDAL FLATS, MARSHES AND OLD BARRIER ISLAND WITH NUMEROUS SAND RIDGES. TIDAL FLATS, MARSHES AND
GEOMORPHIC TYPE CHANNELS WITH SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS IN THE SWALES CHANNELS WITH SILTS -AND
CLAYS

TYPE OF HAZARD TIDAL INUNDATION AND CHANNEL FLOODING AND CHANNEL EROSION TIDAL INUNDATION AND
EROSION CHANNEL EROSION

DEGREE OF HAZARD MINOR EROSION BUT SEVERE SEVERE FLOODING MINOR EROSION BUT SEVERE
FLOODING FLOODING

STRUCTURES FEW MANV FEW

MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO CHECK EROSION AND FLOODING,
ADjUSTMENTS MODERATE EARTH WALLS, ELEVATION OF STRUCTURES MODERATE

FIGURE '?-4. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, CHINCOTEAGUE, VIRGINIA

467

Both severe flooding and shore erosion occur at Chincoteague. A record flood
of. 10 feet above mean sea level was estimated from field interviews. Since no part of
the island reaches this height, the area is entire.ly covered with storm water from,.time
to time. 1his has occurred both during hurricanes and during other storms such as that
of March 6-7, 1962.1 Flooding takes place mainly from the bay side because the island
is protected from the ocean waves by Assateague barrier bar.

Wind damage from hurricanes is not severe to structures on Chincoteague
because the town is on the landward side of the island and is protected by forest cover.

In the storm of March 1962 practically the whole community was inundated by
water and high waves. Only one life was lost but much Livestock including over 350, 000
chickens and about 100 horses and ponies were drowned.

About 2, 000 inhabitants were evacuated to a NASA installation (formerly the
Chincoteague Naval Air Station) near Ternperanceville for as much as four or five days.
.The Red Cross established facilities for providing food and clothing. 'Me U. S. Navy
furnished helicopters and the U. S, Coast Guard provided helicopters and DUKW's for
evacu ating people from the island. The National Guard and Coast Guard prevented tooting.
The Corps of Engineers and State Highway Department assisted in clearing and removing
debris. The Corps also returned many stranded boats from streets to the adjoining waters.

All streets were flooded with from one to five feet of water but sustained
relatively minor injury. The bridge approaches to the one highway were battered by the
storm and had to be repaired. There was major damage to docks. Fishing vessels
ranging in size from small rowboats up to 60-foot craft were washed ashore.

The water supply, power, and telephone service was disrupted. Radio was the
only means of communication available for two or three days. Approximately 60 business
establishments and 1, 226 houses were flooded by Water rising from one inch to four feet
into the buildings. Houses along the Chinocoteague Bay waterfront on the west side of the
island were demolished or received major damage from wave action in Chincoteague Bay,
whereas those on the center and east side of the island sustained stillwater damage without
wave action.

I . The adjacent clam beds and oyster grounds were covered with silt and mud by
the storm and were therefore seriously damaged. Since most of the inhabitants are
fishermen, there will be a material loss of wages over a considerable period of tin e.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, The March 1962 Storm Along the Coast of
Maryland, U. S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Maryland (November 1962),
pp. 7 - 9.

468

.The following table summarizes the loss to the community:

Damage from March 1962 Storm at Chincoteague

Estimated
Damage To Loss

Residences, stares, and personal. property @.000'000
Livestock 200,000
Piers, bulkheads, and other shore structures 100,000
Vessels 1,000,000
Oyster ground, clam beds, etc. 800,000

Total damage $ 7,100,000

Settlement history.1 Both Assateague and Chincoteague islands were inhabited
in the early 16th century by the Chincoteague @ Indians. The first white inhabitants, 30,
settlers from the Virginia Company, were brought to Chincoteague in 1671.

From the earliest settlement, the population of the island has been concerned
largely with extracting food from the sea. This has continued to the present and is now
the mainstay of the economy of Chincoteague. Subsistence farming was carried on during
colonial times. There is no record of other farming developments until after the bridge
to the mainland was opened to Chincoteague in 1922.

A portion of the island of Chincoteague was incorporated as the Town of
Chincoteague in 1908. The population had grown sufficiently so that by the time the
bridge to the mainland was opened, there were approximately 200 persons living on the
island. There were a large number of fishing families living on Assateague after 1900,
but when access. to Chincoteague and their fishing grounds was legally closed by a private
property owner, these families gradually began tomove back to Chincoteague.

Peak population hit 5, 500 at the time of the closing of the Naval Air Station and
is now down to 3, 800. A substantial agricultural venture began on Chincoteague in the
mi&20's. . Chicken raising went into full swing in the 1930's and hit its peak in 1945-46
when one-third of.island employment was in the chicken industry. There followed a slow
decline and a resultant change from individual enterprise to corporate financed business.
The business is, at present, fairly stable.

Land use changes. There has been little change in this study area from the date
of the first air photo,coverage available (1949) to the present. Results of structure and

Based on field party notes assembled from various Locally available sources.

469

acreage counts by hazard zones are given in table 2-4. A map of land use is shown in
the overlay to figure 4 (appendix.)

The prosperity of Chincoteague was adversely affected when the U. S. Naval Air
Base on the nearby mainland was closed down in 1957-58. The population of the island
community dropped sharply and about 200 houses were Left vacant. With the establishment
of a NASA administrative and technical unit at the former -Navy Base, some new jobs have
been created and a welcome boost has been given to the local economy. Many of the houses
vacated in 1958 have been converted for tourist use, and other vacant houses have been
rented.

There has been little over-all land use change since .1949. One new school has
been added, and two small housing developments constructed. - The larger of these has
18 houses.

Adjustments to hazard. There is relatively high degree of awareness of storm
hazard in Chincoteague., Many of the residents have Lived in the village all their lives and
know of the hazard from experience. Nevertheless the range of adjustments and their
frequency of adoption is smaller than at Point Judith where heavy damage has also occurred.

'Private adjustments include the construction of a wall around one house; the
raising of several houses on piles; the construction of a crate to protect pumps, and the
.raising of merchandise and furnishings onto the second fl oor. Evacuation is a precaution
taken by some residents when storm warnings are issued. In the March. 1962 storm
65 percent of the population left for the mainland. However, a number of residents,
especially the older people, remained throughout the flood.

One consequence of the March .1962 storm is that several new commerciaL
establishments have been built along Main Street to replace buildings damaged or
destroyed.

'Future development. The study area has changed little in recent years, and
prospects for growth have not been encouraged by the closing of the Naval Base or by the
@storm of March, 1962.

The seafood industry is highly dependent on market conditions, and at best is
unlikely to experience more than a slow growth. It is not yet clear what the full impact
of the 1962 storm will be on the oyster industry, but the oyster beds suffered severe'
damage and recovery may be slow.

The main hope of the area for future growth and development is the tourist
industry. There have been few signs of growing tourist interest, but increased accessi-
bility and the density of coastal developments further north suggest that the "wave" of
heavy tourist activity may soon reach Chincoteague. The construction of the bridge-
tunnel across the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay from Norfolk to Cape Charles, and the
opening of a ferry service across the Delaware Bay from Cape May,. N.J. , to Lewes,

470

Table 2-4

Chincoteague-Assateague, Virginia
Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones 1

7one Land Use No. Structures No. Acres
% % %
1942-43 1949 change 1963 change- 1942-43 1949 change 1963 change
A 8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 2 0 0 1697 1694 0 1690 0
Tidal Total 0 3 na 3 0 1697 1697 0 1697 0

B 1 Industrial 30 30 0 33 +10 .3 3 0 3 0
2 Commercial 143 149 +4 166 +7 25 25 0 25 0
6a Residential 796 1174 +48 1231 +5 464 648 +4o 696 +7
7 Agricultural 200 120 -40 121 +1 230 46 -8o 46 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 1185 1176 -1 1083 -8
Tidal-101 Total 1178 15o6 +28 1578 +5 1907 1907 0 1907 0
C None in study area

F 1 Industrial 30 30 0 33 +10 3 3 0 5 +67
2 Commercial 143 149 +4 16o +7 25 25 0 25 0
3 Public 8 22 +175 22 0 0 0 0 0 0,
4 Recre-ational 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 na 34 +278
.5a Recreational 0 11 na 11 0 0 0 0 20 +1900
5b,' Recreational 0 1 na 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
6a Residential 796 1175 +48 1232 +5 464 -648 +4o 698 +8
6b Residential. 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Agricultural 200 120 -40 121 +1 230 49 -79 49 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 2882 2870 0 2773 -3
Flooded Total 1178 1509 +28 1581 +5 3604 3604 0 3604 b

Note: Zone F includes all the stud7 area; therefore, no separate figures
are given for the total area. This table includes data on both
Chincoteague and Assateague (site number 15).

Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.
2 na -- Calculation not appropriate.

471

Del. wilt improve the accessibility of the Delmarva Peninsula. With these new deve.lop-
ments, Chincoteague wilt become much more;'accessible.

_'ft - at"W"nat ildliTe Refuge on e I,s,L-, and
e onversion of a part 0 ji& Assateagu
.to. a public beach (see case study number !@) and the construction of the Chincoteague-
Assateague bridge mark the beginning of a new era for the village of Chincoteague.
Formerly visitors had no ready access to a good b,each, but with. the facility now available
the number of tourists may be expected to increase.

'Mere is also a proposal to develop a National Seashore on Assateague Island.
When this venture materializes the northern and southern parts of Assateague will be
connected with a road thereby making Chincoteague an important access point for
visitors. 1 In any case town officials, ; citizens, and merchants for the most part are
convinced that the tourist industry has an important role in Chincoteague's future. , A
harbor of refuge has already been established. There is talk of a beach on the southeast
corner of the island. There are .several marinas on the island now. Advertisements of
Chincoteague's attractions are appearing in Philadelphia,. Baltimore, Richmond, and
New York papers.

On the other hand,. Chincoteague has littie to offer in the way of spectacular
attractions@ such as- boardwalks, ferris wheels, and night clubs. This is no doubt,an
attraction to an important segment of potential recreational visitors. Furthermore,
since Chincoteague itself has little to offer in the way of suitable beach sites,. it is
dependent on Assateague as an attractive force..

The Chincoteague-A ssateague area is an example of a village shore area poised
and ready for rapid expansion when the "wave" of coastal resort development reaches
this far. south. It has many attractive characteristics as a quiet place to which people
can escape but it is in a low lying and hazardous area. There are no safe sites suitable
for development. It might therefore be thought desirable to preserve the village atmos-
There and wildlife amenities of the area for their own sake. Development must necessarily
result in the creation of more storm damage potential in an area that is very difficult to.
protect. The pressures for development are such, however, that there is no sign of any
resistance to rapid development of cottages-and motels when the time becomes opportune.
The Chincoteague- As sateagu, e area will need outside help if its present attractive features
are to-be perserved arid if it is not to become a new site for the further creation of storm
damage potential.

Development has not yet come to Chincoteague. It i.s in such places that great
opportunity sti'll exists for the planned preservation of coastal amenities without involving
the nation in costly protection works or heavy flood losses.

As of June 11, 1965, the Senate Interior subcommittee issued a. favorable report
to the parent committee for the' establishment ofthe Assateague Island National Seashore.
that included an amendment to provide for the disputed road linking the two parts of the
island.

472

The Urban Shore

5. Lynn-Nahant, Massachusettsi

Lynn is an industrial complex within the Boston metropolitan area. Little Nahant
is a residential section built on a bedrock island. Ibis island is connected to the mainland
by a long sand bar or spit called a tombolo. The study area includes 3. 1 miles of.
Massachusetts coastline just north of Boston. The area selected extends inland for less
than half a mile from Lynn Harbor, and includes sections of Revere Beach, the harbor
'itself, and yacht clubs and pocket beaches along the shoreline of the city of Lynn. Also
included are Little Nahant and the tombolo which connects it to the mainland usually
referred to as Lynn Beach. (See figure 5 in th,e appendix. ) The total area is 596 acres.

Physiography. About one-quarter of the site (26 percent) consists of barrier
sand bars. The southern section of the study site includes the northern one-half mile of
Revere Beach. . This beach is a barrier bar, two miles in total length, which has.grown
north from the rocky headlands at Beachmont. The growth of this bar has nearly closed
off a series of tidal marshes and small rivers on the inner side.

The northern section of Revere Beach is narrow a nd has a thin veneer of sand
that at times is removed, exposing the soft muds and clays of Lynn Harbor. Although-
protected by Nahant from northeasters, the beach does suffer erosion when high winds
and storm waves come from the southeast. In the Point of'Pines section of the bar, two
sand ridges, less than 10 feet in elevation, are separated by a depression which runs down
the center of the bar. This area is subject to flooding when water crosses the sand ridges.

A second barrier bar included within the study site is the tomboto which connects
Little Nahant to the mainland. This gently curving bar is about one mile long and 100 feet
wide. The beach'on the east side is wide with a gentle gradient. . This is a popular, "safe"
beach because the gentle gradient modifies the large waves offshore before they spread
out around.Nahant Bay. However, the beach varies greatly in width because of the 9. 2
foot tidal range. On the west side of the tombolo, no beach exists and a protective wall has
been built with large stone blocks to help prevent the bar from being breached during
storms. Also, mud flats are muchmore extensive in- Lynn Harbor than in Nahant Bay.
The tombolo which connects Little Nahant to the mainland is the largest of the complex
.tombolos which connect sections of Big Nahant to Little Nahant.

About 46 percent of the study site consists of artificial fill over former marsh
area. This includes the industriai area of sout@east Lynn, a United States Military
Reservation, and the yacht clubs of Lynn Harbot. Another 8 percent is tidal marshland
which is landward of Revere Beach bordering upon the Saugus and Pines Rivers.

1 Field work by Robert Arnold And Richa id',He,cock. , We are indebted to the
following persons who supplied informittion:'Mr. Joseph Macaioni, Mr. William George,
and Mr. William Barber,

473

The remaining 20 percent of the site includes the bedrock island of Little Nahant
and a small section of bedrock mainland. near Red Rock promontory. (See cross section,
figure 2-5. Little Nahant has an elevation of more than .80 feet above mean sea Level
while the mainland sections of Lynn average 10-20 feet high. A thin veneer of glacial till
covers these two areas. The seaward facing cliffs of these two areas are under heavy
wave attack. At the base of the cliffs, large boulders, which have fallen out of the till,
remain in place forming a boulder strewn platform.

The materials that make up this study site consists of sand, with some gravel,
along the beaches and bars and in Lynn Harbor. . Silts and clays are found in the marshes.
Bedrock underlies Little Nahant and the mainland,. with a thin veneer of gravels and
boulders on top. The man-made fit[ consists of miscellaneous materials, mainly gravels.

Vegetation is generally sparse because of the high density of structures and
population in this area. Some marsh grass occurs along the Pines River. On the tomboLo
connecting Little Nahant with Lynn a few dunes have American dune grass. Mixed trees
and herbaceous plants are found in the residential parts of Little Nahant and Lynn.

Storm hazard. Although storm frequency is relatively high at Lynn-Nahant the
hazard is only of moderate dimensions. Hurricanes are rare events and the more
frequent danger is from "northeaster s ". Waier'damage is more important than wind
damage but neither: are usually severe. The;United States Weather Bureau's Storm
Surge Warning Map I states that Revere Beach boulevard and the Lynn-Nahant causeway
begin to be flooded when water reaches 8. 5 feet above mean sea level. When the cause-.
way becomes flooded Little and Big Nahant are cut off from the mainland as water covers
the beaches and the whole tomboLo during severe storms.

The. Corps of Engineers has established the flood of record at 12.5 feet above
mean sea level at Revere Beach and 13. 5 feet at Lynn Beach@ Field interviews set the
flood of record around 10 feet, with a range of from 8 to 15 feet above mean sea level.

The 13. 5 feet at Lynn Beach appears to be the most accurately recorded flood to
date, but with a tidal range of 9. 2 feet from mean low, water to meanhigh water.it is highly
possible that a tidal surge could reach 15 feet above mean sea level. Although the flood of
record for Lynn Harbor is 12. 5 feet, as against 13. 5 feet for Nahant Bay, strong east and
southeast winds will cause piling up of water in Lynn Harbor with resulting danger to piers
and yacht clubs at the head of the harbor.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Storm Su@ge Warning Map,
No. 3, August, 1962.
2
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lynn-Nahant Beach, Mass. - Beach Erosion
Control Study, 82nd Congress, Ist Session, House.Doc. No. 134, 1951, pp. 14-17, and
Revere Beach, Mass. - Beach Erosion Control Study, 82nd Congress, 1st Session,
House Doc. No. 146, 1951, pp. 14-18.

474

Most of the filled-in area of Lynn is above the 9-foot contour, and the sea walls
are now above 10 feet. Only very rarely would the lower part of the city become flooded.
However, no s.tructures in this area are able to have basements because of f loodipg.

Storms periodically flood property adjacent to the coast in Lynn and the
inhabitants of Little Nahant are sometimes isolated from the mainland when the tombolo
is over-topped.

.Settlement history. Lynn was settled in 1629 and named in honor of King's Lynn
in Norfolk county, England. At the time of settlement, tanning and shoemaking were
established on a small scale. Tiny "back yard" shops increased in number until Lynn was
supplying most of the footwear for Boston. In 1810, about one million pairs of shoes were
manufactured in the town.

The factory system evolved in the mid- eighteen hundreds. Lynn was the leading
shoemaker in the nation until the late 19th century. By 1915 it had dropped to third place.
The city however had varied industries which enabled it to survive periods of change
and economic instabi[ity.1 Shoe factories and connected trades continued to predominate
numerically. Today General Electric Company is a major employer in the city, whose
population numbered in 1960, 94,478. Lynn serves as an industrial satellite community
for the Boston Metropolitan area.

Nahant was settled in 1630, but the rocky island did not grow sufficiently to be
incorporated until 1853. Nahant and Little Nahant were purchased from an Indian chief
in 1730 by Thomas Dexter, a Lynn farmer. In 1802 a tavern called "Castle" was erected
which catered to the sportsmen set. Due to the success of the venture and the establish-
ment of steamboat service to Boston in 1817,. Nahant began to develop rapidly as a symbol
of Boston Society's idea of low-cost high living. The Saturday night dinners of the
"Nahanters", noted mainly for their exclusiveness and penny--ante basis, ended during
World War 11 when General Electric bought the Club as a recreational center for its
employees. 2

Land use changes. . The pattern of land use in the area was well established by
the date of the first photographic coverage in 1939. Changes have consisted largely of
intensification of density of development. Residential areas established by 1939 have
remained residential but the density of buildings has increased. Thus the number of
single family residences was more than twice in 1963 what it was in 1939. The major
exception- to the pattern of continued trends is to be seen in the area bounded by
Commercial St., Lynn Harbor, the Sagus River, and the rai [road tracks. In 1939 this
was largely vacant, an almost entirely undeveloped area. Since 1939 it has been developed
into a high density industrialized area, bisected by a strip of ribbon development of various
commercial activities. This area accounts for most of the industiral growth in the study
site, but it is thought to be above the flood hazard zone.

Federal Writers' Project, Massachusetts, Boston: Houghton- Miff [in Co. ,
1937, p. 267.
2
Cleveland Amory, The Proper Bostonians,. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. ,
1947, p. 198.

STUDY SITE NO. 5 LITTLE
NAHANT
LYNN
T _nF BROAD SOUND LYNN NhHKNT NAHANT
EA LEVEL LRYONliD HARBOR BEACH 3AY BAY
2FAN 3

B,G A 8 A 8'c'o A
ABOVE MEAN BELOW ABOVE MEAN BELOW
HIGH TICE, MEAN HIGH TIDE MEAN
ZONES ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE BUT BELOW HIGH TO ABOVE HIGH
10 FEET TIDE 20 FEET TIDE

ROLLING UPLAND BEDROCK
GEOMORPHIc TYPE SURFACE WITH FILL IN VERY SHALLOW BAY EXCEPT WHERE SAND BAR SHALLOW ISLAND BAY
LOW AREA NEAR T"E DREDGED (10"BOLO) BAY SOME GLA-:
HARBOR CIAL TILL

FLOODING HIGH WAVES
TYPE OF HAZARD FLOODING IN LOW AREAS TIDAL INUNDATION FILLING OF BAY AND EROSION EROSION EROSION
WITH SAND BARS EROSION

DEGREE OF HAZARD. MINOR MINOR SEVERE MODERATE MINOR MODERATE

STRUCTURES MANY FEW FEW NONE MANY NONE

SEA WALLS AND BULK- SAND AND
ADJUSTMENTS HEADS AROUND LYNN DREDGING TO KEEP CHANNELS OPEN ROCK FILL, FEW FEW FEW
HARBOR WITH SOME FILL. DUNE PRO-
TECTION

FIGURE 2-5. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, LymN-NAHANT, MASSACHUSETTS

475

The hazard zone is confined to only 35 acres out of a total of 596. On this 35
acres there has been a very small increase of single fami ly residences from 118 to, 124.
A map of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 5 (appendix). Recorded land use
changes"are given in table 2-5."

Adjustments to hazard. Knowledge of storm hazards appears to be relatively
smaller in Lynn-Nahant than in other coastal areas studied. This may be attributed in
-oart to the lack of heavy storms in the past few years and to the small extent of area
subject to flooding. It is also likely that dwellers on the urban shore are less aware of
the hazards of nature than dwellers on the village shore -or the summer shore.

Private adjustments include construction of a seawall and the use of sand bags
and dikes. Local residents have also been active in promoting the idea of an off -shore
seawall to break up the waves. The land reclaimed has been filled to levels above the
maximum flood of record. Plans are also in existence for the evacuation of the seafront
area during heavy storms.

Public adjustments include the construction of a reinforced concrete seawall
8 to 10 feet high along sections of Revere Beach. , Work was in hand in 1963 to raise
these to at least 10 feet. The causeway and rock rubble embankment along the tombolo
to@Little Nahant have been raised to 8 feet above mean sea level. Man-made fill, to about
9 feet above mean sea Level has been placed in the Lynn Harbor section for industrial and
military sites.

To protect Lynn an extensive seawall over 10 feet in height has been built along
the filled section and along the small pocket coves near Red Rock promontory .

Proposed projects include making Lynn Harbor a harbor of refuge and the filling
in of 5-1/2 acres of lowland at Revere to a height of 10 feet. New marinas and recrea-
.tionat areas are proposed as fill is being added to the marsh and mud flats bordering on
Lynn and Revere. . Wherever possible one or two feet of fit[ are being added to at[ low
areas,

Future developm ent., Land use changes in the near future are likely to be
confined to the further intensification of development and the use of the only remaining
tract of undeveloped land by the Lynn Gas and Electric, Co. There are plans for urban
renewal and redevelopment in the area but it is difficult to estimate how soon these are
likely to be implemented.

There does not appear to be much potential for further recreation development
in the area unless urban renewal schemes ate adopted.

Lynn-Nahant is a complex and diversified area where the intensity of development
is high and the awarene 'ss of storm hazard is relatively low. Little further damage
potential is likely to be,created and.the future character of the area depends largely on
the coming of urban renewal.

476

Table 2-5

Lvnn-Nahant, Massachusetts
Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zonesi

Zone Land Use No. Structures No. Acres

1939 1963 change 1939 1963 change

A 8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 19 19 0
Tidal Total 0 0 0 19 19 0

B 1 Industrial 0 4 na.2 18 34 489
2 Commercial 4 24 +500 0 0 0
4 Recreational 0 0 b 0 18 na
6a Residential 13 232 +1685 32 32 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 41 2 -95
Tidal-101 Total 19 262 +1279 91 91 0

C 1 Industrial 55 64 +16 36 112 +211
2 Commercial 58 83 +43 16 6o +275
3 Public 3 8 +167 0 12 na
4 Recreational 6 7 +17 6o 60 0
6a Residential 198 331 +67 64 65 +2
8 Undeveloped 0, 0 0 210 77 -63
101-201 Total 324 495 +53 397 397 0

D 6a Residential 248 378 +52 73 72 -1
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 13 13 0
> 201 Total 251 385 +53 89 89 0

F 2 Commercial 3 3 0 1 1 0
4 Recreational 0 0 0 6 6 0
6a Residential 118 124 +5 15 22 +47
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 13 6 -54
Flooded Total 121 127 +5 35 35 0

All 1 Industrial 55 68 +24 54 146 +170
Zones 2 Commercial 65 113 +74 16 6o +275
3 Public 4 10 +150 0 15 na
4 Recreational 6 7 +17 63 81 +29
5a Recreational 5 3 -4o 8 8 0
5b Recreational 0 0 0 3 6 +loo
6a Residential 459 941 +105 169 169 .. 0
8,Undeveloped 0 0 0 283 111 -'61
Total 594 1142 +92 596 596 0

1 Minor.land uses cmitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.
2 na, -- Calculation not appropriate.

477

6. Fairfield,. Connecticuti

Fairfield is a manufacturing center on the Connecticut coast within communiting
distance of New York City. The, study site includes four miles of coastline betw6&n'
Southport Harbor in the west and Ash Creek in the east. This second example of the urban
shore type of development has a total acreage of 1, 678. (See figure 6 in the appendix.)

Physiography. A,Iong the coast is a narrow, smooth beach averaging 50 feet in
width and with a gentle gradient. Low, scattered, sand, dunes occur along one-third of
its length. Approximately six percent of the study site is made up of these beaches and
dunes. Several of the beaches are popular as summer recreational areas.

Fairfield Beach is a small sand spit that has grown southwest for about one mile.
The tip of this spit curves toward the northwest nearly closing off the tidal channel called
Pine Creek. The growth and shape of the spit appear to be influenced by Kensie. Point,
a bedrock outcrop, which controls the movement of currents.

Most of the Fairfield study site is a low, rocky, seaboard lowland with tidal
marshes in the wide depressions and scattered glacially scoured hillsin the higher areas.
'The highest hill is called Sasco. . This round bedrock hill is aligned in a north-south
direction with a maximum elevation of 60 feet above sea Level. This hill reaches the.
coast at Kensie Point where low, less than 10 foot high, rocky cliffs have been defaced
and smoothed by waves.

Much of the mainland being Less than 20 feet above sea level, is subject, to tidal
flooding. The materials making up the hilly uplands consist of both bedrock and fill,
with a thin soil cover. The fill is largely made up of shallow glacial and marsh deposits.
The marsh areas make up 22 percent of the study site, while the higher dry sections make
up approximately 71 percent of the site. The remaining 7 perc ent is beach and dunes.
Most of the tidal and fresh water marshes are covered with grasses growing in silt and
clay fill. Large sections of these marsh areas have now become dry land through
.artificial filling.

The vegetation of the uplands consists of mixed coniferous and deciduous trees,
herbaceous plants, and grasses. (See cross section, figure 2-6.)

Storm hazard. Much of the seaboard lowland is below 20 feet above mean sea
level and is subject to coastal flooding. The Corps of Engine ersAnter im Hurricane Surveys
2
of 1962.a.nd 1964 set the flood of record for the Fairfield area at 10. 1 and 10. 8 feet above
meanIsea level. This flood record was set during the 1938 hurricane. The range for the

Field work by Robert Gardula and Roger Kasperson. We are indebted to the
following persons who supplied information:. Mr. Earl Rush,.Mr. Frank Daniels,
Mr. Tony Panico, Mr. Robert Bryan, and Mr. John J. jriLtivan.
2Corps of Engineer,. Fairfield,. Conn. Interim Hurricane Survey, 87th Congress,
2nd Session, House. Document No. 600, 1962; and.Hurricane Survey Interim Report,
Connecticut Coastal and Tidal Areas,. U. S. Army Engineer Division, New England Corps of
Engineers, Waltham, Mass., 22 May 1964, pp. 5-7.

478

who I e@ Connecticut coast during the 1938 storm was 9. 2 to 11. 7 feet above mean-sea level.
The 1954 hurricane had comparable levels. . It was found through field interviews that the
flood of record varied between 9. 5 and 10. 5 feet. No appreci able flooding appears to have
taken place since hurricane Carol in 1954 (the March 6-7 storm of 1962 was not severe
along the New England coast).

Hurricanes moving north pose the biggest threat to this study site. . The beaches
appear to protect the coast to a level of about 6 feet above mean sea Level. This protection
is satisfactory for annual flooding from "north eas ters " which seldom exceeds 4 to 5 feet,
but it is not effective for severe hurricanes.

During severe storms the undermining of structures by waves and tidal surges
is prevalent along the shore. In the last 25 years at least 25 to 35 cottages have been
washed away. . Once the waves -rise above 6 feet, the low dunes and narrow beaches do
not afford protection. As storm waves move inland to about one hundred yards from the
beach, some cellar flooding can be expected to take place. Beyond one hundred yards,
water damage becomes less but wind damage continues to affect structures. In all areas
under 10 feet, streets can be expected to become inundated with about six inches of water
during severe storms. 1

Severe damage occurred at Fairfield in the hurricanes of 1938 and 1954. For
the past ten years Fairfield has escaped major damage.
Settlement history? The settlement of the Fairfield area began in 1639 when
Roger Ludlow established the community of Uncoa (Fairfield). The settlement shortly
became a military post and was strongly fortified. Population increased rapidly and
agriculture flourished in the surrounding countryside. The settlement's growth was
accelerated by Legislation which made it a port of entry and also by the success of
maritime activities. The town received a temporary setback during the Revolutionary
War when it was burned by the British. The 1774 population of 4, 863 was reduced to
3, 735 at the end of the war.

During its early history the settlement was concentrated about the Post Road welt
away from the ocean, and with scattered farm homesteads in the northwest part of the town.
Some coastal settlement was centered around Black Rock harbor but the remainder of the
coast was undeveloped.

In the early part of the 19th century Fairfield remained a small community
(population 4'. 246 in 1830) relying mainly on the agriculture and forestry of the surrounding
1 Corps of Engineers, Fairfield,Conn. Interim Hurricane Survey, 87th Congress,
2nd Session, House Doc. No. 600, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1962, pp. 8-12;
and Beach Erosion Control Report on. Cooperative Study of Connecticut Area 1, Ash Creel-
to Saugatuck River, 7 Feb. 1949, Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Boston,. Mass. ,
pp. 3-20.
2
Based on field party notes assembled from various Locally available sources.

STUDY SITE N 0. 6 SASCO
HIL -L FAIRFIELD
BEACH LONG
SOUTHPORT ISLAND
MEAN SEA LEVEL HARBOR SOUND

8, G, D A, B B
A

BELOW MEAN BELOW MEAN ABOVE MEAN HIGH BELOW
HIGH TICE ABOVE MEAN H1014 TIDE TO OVER 20 FEET HIGH TIDE, SOME TIDE BUT BELOW MEAN HIGH
ZONE FILLED AREAS 10 FEET TIDE
ABOVE MEAN
HIGH TIDIE@

TIDAL ESTUARY TIDAL MARSH NARROW
GEOMORPHIc TYPE OF THE MILL BEDROCK HILL COVERED WITH A THIN DEPOSIT OF WITH. SILTS AND SAND SPIT SANDY
RIVER GLACIAL TILL CLAYS BEACH

TIDAL INUNDA- FLOODING, EROSION
TYPE OF HAZARD FLOODING NO FLOODING TION AND SOME EROSION.9 DAMAGE OF BEACH
EROSION TO STRUCTURES

DEGREE OF HAZARD MINOR NONE MINOR SEVERE SEVERE

STRUCTURES NONE FEW FEW MANY FEW

DEEPENING OF Low DIKES AND JETTIES,
ADJUSTMENTS THE CHANNEL, FEW FILL BULKHEADS GROINS AND
SOME PRO- SAND FILL
TECTIVE WORKS TO PROTECT
BEACH

I I

FIGURE 2-6. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT

479

area and on the fishing industry. Rail connections were established in 1849 and thereafter
Fairfield became more of a manufacturing center. It was not until the 20th century, how-
ever, that the coastal areas were developed. During the period before 1930, contempora-
neously with an increased use of private cars, the coastal areas began to be developed as
a summer resort. The high density of settlement which now prevails may be attributed
in part @to the lack of zoning ordinances which might have required Larger size lots.

Land use changes. There have been only small changes of land use in the study
area between the date of the first available air photograph coverage in 1951 and the time
of field work in 1963. By 1951 all the area was in some form of developed [and use and
the small increase in single family residences has been by a process of intensification of
existing land use. The new single family residences have been built mainly at the
southern ends of Beach Road, Reef Road and Penfield Road. Field observations indicate
that over half of the new structures are in the flood hazard zone.

Along the shore west of Shoal Point the number of structures has actually been
reduced as a result ofHurricane Carol in 1954. This storm washed out a section of the
spit carrying with it about 15 houses. These have not been replaced.

There have been some small developments along the edge of the swamp, where
Land has been reclaimed by fit[. Within the swamp itself several hundred acres of land
were purchased by the Federal Government for the construction of a Nike missile site.

Starting in 1963 work began on the expansion and modernization of the existing
marina along Ash Creek. Plans for a new marina which would utilize about a hundred
acres of the marshLand have also been drawn up. There has been a small increase in
flood damage potential at Fairfield since 1951 but there is unlikely to be much further
increase in view of the already highLy developed nature of the study area. Land use is
shown in the overlay to figure 6 (appendix), and recorded land use changes are given in
table 2-6.

Adjustments to hazard. In view of the record of past damage, the inhabitants
of the coastal area of Fairfield seem remarkably complacent about the likelihood of
future damage. This may be partly due to the absence of a major damaging storm since
1954. It may also be partly due to the construction of a system of partial protection works.
The town has constructed a. system of dikes which help to reduce flooding although they
afford little protection to the shore-front properties. In addition a number of groins
afford partial flood protection and help the development of beaches by sand deposition.

.Local confidence in the protective power of the dikes along Ash Creek and South
Pine Creek is high and many citizens believe that the flood problem has been solved. The
Town Engineer is not so confident. He believes that the dikes afford adequate protection
from 7 or 8 out every 10 major storms and hurricanes, but feels that this is not sufficient
and that extra protection should be provided.

-The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have in fact made a proposal to provide
additional protection by the construction of a seawall. Fairfield has rejected this proposal

480
Table 2-6

Fairfield., Connecticut
Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zonesi

Zone Land Use No. Structures No. Acres

1951 1963 change 1951 1963 chnEe
A 3 Public 0 4 na2 9 24 +167
5b Recreational 0 0 0 14 14 0
6a Residential 13 13 .0 1 1 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 234 219 -6
Tidal Total 13 17 +31 262 262 0

B 2 Commercial 15 1.8 @+20 15 15 0
3 Public 1 4 +300 19 36 +90
5b Recreational 1 1 0 162 162 0
6a Residential 1152 1202 +4 430 430 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 126 109 -14
Tidal-101 Total 1175 1232 +5 789 789 0

C 2 Cornercial 92 92 0 39 39 0
I Public 15 15 0 52 52 0
6a Residential 341 377 +11 209 209 0
8 Undeveloped 0 @O 0 31 31 0
101-20f- Total 457 493 +8 346 346 0
D 5b Recreational 0 0 0 28 28 0
6a Residential 125 125 0 219 233 +6
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 31 17 -45
> 201 Total 132 132 0 281 261 0

F 2 Commercial 12 15 +25 8 11 +38
3 Public 1 3 +200 18 72 +300
5b Recreational 1 1 0 279 279 0
6a Residential 728 774 +6 324 337 +4
8 'Undeveloped 0 0 0 552 48o .-13
Flooded Total 749 800 +7 1217 1217 0

All 1 Industrial 2 3 +50 8 8 0
Zones 2 Commercial 114 117 +3 57 57 0
3 Public 16 23 +44 80 112 +40
4 Recreational 1 1 0 26 26 0
5a Recreational 1 1 0 10 10 0
5b Recreational 1 1 0 212 212 0
6a Residential 1613 1717 +5 859 873 +2
6b Residential 11 11 0 4 4 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 422 376 -11
Total 1777 1874 +6 1678 1678 0

1
Minor land uses omitted and total may- exceed land uses enumerated.
2 na -- Calculation not appropriate.

Industrial a 0d Railroad I POINT JUDITH, R. 1.
C mmorclo, I
P:blic 3 GENERALIZED LAND USE
R creotional 4
R:sid:nti 01 6
A96C IN. T
Undevoloped Land 8

8
6

6 8

6
6 8
7 6

6 6 8 2 6
6 6 6

4
4

0. Mile

Figure I -Overlay

71' 134' T(-132' 71- 30'
POINT JUDITH, R.I.
Floods
Mean High Tide HAZARD ZONES
10 Foot Contour

20 Foot Contour

Maximum Flood
of Record

1- 24'

eu'@Vd.

Snug Harb
or
Pal,

a, 'tz'

SchoolhOuSe

i, on
al,

1. Car Rd.
u
u

Cold
P"" 1-dith, R.I, S;Oweed
pond, Co Pont", Motanuk Pt -ph
each
6,ow'Inq Sen't,
o"I
Block Island Sound

0.0 Milo
2'y
Sch 00"'."e-

Cor Rd

C
,,d

Point judi
71-134' 71-133. TI-13V TI-131' 71-130. 71-t2g
Figure I

WELLFLEET,
MASS.
EAST
GENERALIZED LAND USE

6 2

6
6

6 6

Conurnercial
Public 3
Recreational 4
Residential 6
Undeveloped Land a

One Mile

Figure 2-Overlay

2-57' 70- 101' 70"OU 69-159' 42-57'
A
WELLFLEET,
MASS.
Gross EAST
HAZARD ZONES
po 01
Cohoo
Hollow

Greal

Pon d

A flonfic

00 Oceon

56' t 42-@rj

01, Yo,k

New

Wellfleet
by the
Sea

Le Coun k N
Hollo,

South Wellfleet

S'5(
55

J/
Drummer

Cove

Pleas Mean High Tide -------
Pt. 10 Foot Contour
20 Foot Contour
Moxiurn Flood
of Record

TO-101' Field Point 7C 00' One Mile
Figure 2

4 8 6

2
4 4
6 4

WELLFLEET, MASS.
WEST
GENERALIZED LAND USE

Industrial and RailroadI
Commercial
Recreational 4
Residential 6
Undeveloped Land

One Mile
Figure 2a-Overlay

tO' F04 70' 03' r;0.102,
00

or -
D u c
mk, - -

G r i f f i nI S I a n d

W e,I I -fIe e t

r
M6@

M,o Beach

e Rd Well fl, V t Harbor

WELLFLEET, MASS.
WEST
HAZARD ZONES

rhe Cove

Great I s I a n d Mean High Tide -------
10 Foot Contour
20 Foot Contour P.
Maximum Flood -sPIin ftd
of Record
42'

One 7oli%' 70-102'
Figure 2a

VILLAS 6
N.J.
GENERALIZED
LAND USE 2

Commercial 2
Recreational 4
Residential 6
2 Undeveloped Land 8

One Half Mile

Figure 3 -Overlay

74-156' -140155,30"
39.3,
V I LLAS
N. J.

HAZARD ZONES

ofe
geld

Mean High Tide

10 Foot Contour

20 Foot Contour
co Maximum Flood
of Record

2 39- 2'

1
One Half Mile
74-156' 74*155'30"
Figure 3

CHINCOTEAGUE,
ASSATEAGUE,VA.

GENERALIZED LAND USE
6
a 8

2 6
8 7
6

8 6 a 3
6

4
6
4

7 7

Commercial 2
Public
Recreational 4
Residential 6
Agricultural 7
One Mile Undeveloped Land 8

F i g ures 4 and 15 - Overlay

Tb'126: T5' 25' 75-124' 75- 75-12 5d
Blake
Point
37-57' CHINCOTEAGUE,
ASSATEAGUE, VA. 4\e,
HAZARD ZONES
A.

Chin cote a g a e

8 oy

A.q IRp1

VAI-1

e 81q,
CIO, 0@

Mean High Tide
10 Foot Contour - - -
20Foot Contour
Maximum Flood
of Record
Mile
TS-126 75-125' -75-124@ T5'1
Fiqures 4 and 15

LYNN, MASS. 6
GENERALIZED LAND USE
2

industrial and RailroadI
Commercial 2
Public 3
Recreational 4
R:dsidential 6
4 U evetoped Land 8

6
8

6
6

One Mile

Figure 5-Overlay

71-158' 71-157' 71-156

Central
LYNN, MASS. Square

HAZARD ZONES

Via

/?
Lynn Nahont
.27
Harbor Boy

River

Mean High Tide -------
General Edwards
Bridge 10 Foot Contour
KZZ@ 20 Fact Contour
Maximum Flood
of Record

-ire

Lit
No

Q-26' One Mile
TI-15W 71-157' 71-156'
Figure 5

FAIRFIELD, CONN.
6
GENERALIZED LAND USE 8

Industrial and Railroad I
Commercial 2
Public 3 6
Recreational 4 8
Residential 6 2
Undeveloped Land 8
4

2 3 8
3 3
I
2 V_/ 6

6
4

4 One Mile

Figure 6 -Overlay

'rrl 73-116' 73 15' 7ar
FAIRFIELD, GONN.

HAZARD ZONES

Mean High Tide -------
10 Foot Contour
20 Foot Contour
Maximum Flood
of Record

t Rd r

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

'th -A

fin)

laeo cv,

keft - Pine C,e
abi" I* ek Beach
Long Islond
Ping Creek One Mile
.41-7' 73-11V T3-116' POW 73-115, 41-T
Figure 6

6 2
4

8 6
2 4
Af

4
6

6 Commercial 2
8 Public 3
Zereational 4
R sidential 6
Agricultural 7
4 Undeveloped Land 8

87 4
4

6
6 2

HAMPTON BEACH, N.H.

GENERALIZED LAND USE

6 4

One Mile

F icure 7 - Overlav

inn"connet Rd TO- 48:
Elmwood
Corners

Great Boars
Head

4 tlanti c

Hampton Beach

0 C e C 17

@L2-54'

Mean High Tide
10 Foot Contour
Hamploo H-W, 20 Foot Contour
I Mo,Iirn- Flo.d
Inlet of Re-d

Beclum ns
Pt.
ek r

Mills Pt.

Seabrook Beach

.L2-53.
q4 . ... ..
he HAMPTON BEACH, N.H.
HAZARD ZONES

One mile

70-144 70-14B'

MONTAUK PIT, N.Y.

GENERALIZED LAND USE

industrial and Railroad I
Commercial 2
Public 3
Recreational 4
Residential 6
Undeveloped Land 6

Cl@ Mite

6 6 6

6 6 6
8 8 6 2 6
6 6 8
6

4
8 6
a 3
E-E]

Figure 8 -Overlay

72- 01,
MONTAUK PT, N.Y.
HAZARD ZONES Nopeogue 80Y

'J
Me.. High Tide ------- I
10 Foot Contour
20 Foot Contour 'j
Maximum Flood
of Record ?,Ad c: H i t h e r H

I-INher "i

StIte PcrIL'
N i
N ') , 11 'tN

paw1% state Blvd
0 %a

we
One Mile oo"%GuV.

TI- 58 each

a9.0440
Fort Pond AtIon
uk
80Y ation

ft& Afontollk
'a

Fort Harbor

Pond A@e

montaA

41- 02' oink State
Blvd

Monlo-h Beach 4tlGntic Ocean
Figure 8

SANDY HOOK, N.J.

GENERALIZED LAND USE 8

3
6 F8 6 4 '6
2 13 2 8
2 4

Commercial 2
Public 3
Recreational 4
Residential 6
Undeveloped Land .8
4

4
6

t;
2 4
2
6
3 4
8 6 4

IV
4
3
2 2 4 6

One Mile

Figure 9-Overlay

40-121' 40-122'
SANDY HOOK, N.J. River

HAZARD ZONES

River

4flaftfic Ocean
40*121, L22'

40.12.4 40-12.5:

Mean High Tide --------
10 Foot Contour - - - -
20 Foot Contour
Maximum Flood
,ZY59'30- of Record 500 Boy pe(00 el'
,e

73-59'

(D Atlantic Ocean

Highlands Beach one mile
Nov:sink
B ach 40'12-e
Figure 9

Commercial 2 6
Public 3
Recreational 4 4
Residential 6
Undeveloped Land a 2
6

8 4

6
6

CAPE MAY, N. J.
GENERALIZED LAND USE

One Mile

Figure 10-Overlay

74-155'., 741J54:

JO Feet Contour
Maximum Flood
of Record

38*57, 3e*5T'

COpe AA7y

Horbor

0 C,
*56'/ 38*56,

CAPE MAY, N. J.
HAZARD ZONES

One Mile

74* 155' 74* 154!
Figure 10

WILDWOOD CREST, N.J.

GENERALIZED LAND USE

Commercial 2
p
":Wc 3
troctional 4
R*04antiol 6
Undovtloped Land a

Oaf Mile

Figure I I -Overlay

14- 152' 74- IS.' 74-150'
WILDWOOD CREST, N. J.

HAZARD ZONES

Mean High Tide -------
10 Fo t Contour
20 Fo:t Contour
Maximum Flood
of Record

.58,

13c" 0

One Mile

74-151' 74- 50*
Figure 11

DENNIS, MASS. 2
2
GENERALIZED LAND USE 6
2

2
6 3 2
2

6 2
2 2
6
s

6 4 4 2 4

6
e

2
6 8 2 4

2 cm.eftiof 2
ft:0.1i.pol 4
R identic, 6
Undeveiopod Lond 8

2 6
One' Mile

F i gu re 12 -Overlay

TO' 13' 7@ \1 7@\10'
DENNIS, MASS.

HAZARD ZONES

/YARWOUT

-40'

ivz

,nd
N 0 c k t

Mean High Tide
10 Fool Contour
20 Foot Contour
Mo.!- Flood
of Record

One Mile

To-\Izr 70@112'
Figure 12

NAGS HEAD, N. C.

GENERALIZED LAND USE

2 2
1 6 121 --1 6 2

Cmmorcial 2
P.blic 3
R tre fionso 4
Ro T.".. 6
Umffdsped Le"41

6 2

On* Me

Figure 13- Overlay

NAGS HEAD, N. G. Ro on oke sound
HAZARD ZONES

75' 37'
Bodie. Island
r N - - - - - - -

Atlantic Ocean
/3v5?' /35-W

/35%2' /35'54@

Mean High Tide
;
0 Foot Contour
0 Fo.t Contour
MOKimum Flood
of Record
@nOke

N
AtIoRtic Ocean
One Mile

Figure 13

6 T 8
8 C9::7 6
a 4

BETHANY BEACH,DEL.

GENERALIZED LAND USE

Commercial 2
6 Public 3
R creation.) 4
Residential 6
6 Agriculture 7
Undeveloped Land 8
8
7 4
2

6 4

9.
4
3

a 4

of%* Mile
Figure 14 - Overlay

Little Bay

5-03'30"

38-131' Atlantic OC00/2
_132

38'T3-6@-
BETHANY BEACH, DEL.
HAZARD ZONES Indian
River
say

Mean High Tide
10 Foot Contour . .....
20 Foot Contour
Maximum Flood ------
of Record

Pond,

seach Care

Old B.1111
Cove

I Atlantic Ocean
One Mile 38.1W
Figure 14

481

Largely because of the strong opposition of the shore-front property owners. The
opposition is primarily based on aesthetic grounds. The residents do not wish to have
their view of the ocean obstructed or to Lose ready access to the shore. The feeling of
confidence engendered by partial protective measures may also be a factor in the
rejection of the seawall proposal.

Other public adjustments include a recent town ordinance that the floor Level of
all new structures near the coast must be at least 12 feet above mean sea level.

Private adjustments include the construction of wooden bulkheads along the
shore-front, as well as small stone groins and deposition of rip-rap. Shore residents also
commonly move their cars to higher ground during hurricane warnings. A siren is sounded
to give the warning and it also announces that the sea-front is restricted to residents only.

Future development. Fairfield has little potential for further recreational
development. The shoreline is virtually inaccessible to the outsider. Most of it is being
developed 'for private use with no easy public access. There are three public beaches, two
of which are very heavily used, and their use is restricted. In the case of both public and
private beaches little or,no parking facilities areprovided.

A new marina is presently under development at Ash Creek, but the fishing
potential does not appear to be high and boating is mainly confined to the area's residents.
The area has little prospect of growth into a resort community and is not likely to attract
visitors from outside. Even if this were possible there is little indication that the
present residents would want to see such development.

Fairfield increasingly functions as a dormitory suburb with commuters going to
nearby Bridgeport or even as far as New York City. This study site provides an example
of a densely settled urban shore inhabited largely by permanent residents who show little
concern about flood and storm hazard. Both private and public adjustments have been
made which help to reduce damage, but the area has inadequate protection against the
really big and infrequent storm. In view of the rejection of the seawall proposal, flood
damage can be expected to occur in the future but damage should only increase in pro-
portion to the slow rise in value of sea-front property.

The Summer Shore
7. Hampton Beach, New Hampshire I

Hampton Beach is a summer resort community on the New Hampshire coast. The
study site extends along 3. 8 mites of shoreline from the E s sex- Rockingham County line

Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
following persons who supplied information: Mr. Ray Goding, Mr..Bochner, Mr. William
Elliott, and Mr. Carl Lougee.

482

at Seabrook Beach, north to Route 101E, which joins the coast at Hampton Beach,
Included within the area are Seabrook Beach, Hampton Harbor Inlet, Hampton Beach,
Great Boars Head and a large section of marshland behind the beach, drained by the
Hampton and Btackwater Rivers. The area is 2, 820 acres in size. (See figure 7 in the
appendix.)

Physiography. This study site consists of two baym outh bars, backed by
extensive tidal marshes, which connect with two rocky headlands representing outliers of
the mainland.

A percentage breakdown of landform types shows 61 percent of the area in tidal
marsh, 19 percent in baymouth bars and sandy beach, 15 percent that can be considered
mainland, - I percent in rocky headlands which are outliers of the mainland, and 4 percent
in artificial fill.

The marsh area behind Hampton and Seabrook baymouth bars consists of fine
silts and clays covered by high marsh grasses. The 7-foot mean tidal range results in
movement of large amounts of water in and out of Hampton and Blackwater Rivers through
Hampton Harbor Inlet.

The baymouth bars average one-quarter of a mile in width. A 300- to 400-foot wide,
gently sloping beach stretches along most of the seaward side. The sand bars are non-
cliffed and regular in shape with low dunes behind the back-beach. Snow fences placed in
11930 at Hampton State Park have built up the dune height to 10 feet. Dune grasses are able
to hold the sand quite well. Both baymouth bars are connected to rocky promontories.
On the north, Great Boars Head is the control point for Hampton Beach and has contributed
some of the material to build up this bar. Beckmans Point to the south is the control point
for Seabrook Beach which has grown north. Some material for the beaches is derived
from the rivers which enter the sea at Hampton Harbor Inlet, and some of the sand has as
its source the thin glacial till which covers the bedrock on the promontories. A wave-
cut marine platform, with a series of small coves, lies seaward of the rocky control
points. It appears, therefore, that the shape and material which make up the baymouth
bars are directly related to these more resistant headlands. The one hill in the study site
is a 40-foot high drumlinoid which caps the bedrock of Great Boars Head. As these
headlands are cut back by large storm waves the configuration of the bars wi It be influenced.

The mainland section of the study site consists of two small areas, one in the
southwest corner of the study site and a large section in the northwest corner. Both these
areas are gently rotting plains 20 to 30 feet above mean sea level. Bedrock close to the
surface is covered by a thin veneer of glacial till. Sections of this seaboard lowland are
under cultivation (See cross section, figure 2-7. )

Vegetation within the study site varies from grass in the low, nearly f [at, tidal
marshes to herbaceous plants, mixed broadleaf deciduous, and needle-leaf evergreen trees
on the mainland. Only a small portion of the baymouth bars has dune grasses.

STUDY SITE NO. 7

HAMPTON
BEACH ATLANTIC
HAMPTON FLATS HAMPTON OCEAN
MEAN SEA LEVEL RIVER

A A

BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE, A FEW AREAS WITH FILL ABOVE ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE,
ZONE MEAN HIGH TIDE BUT BELOW 10 FEET BELWO MEAN HIGH TIDE

GEOMORPHIC TYPE FLAT TIDAL MARSHES WITH SILTS AND CLAYS. SOME SAND BARRIER WITH A COARSE SANDY TO GRAVEL BEACH
MARSH FILLING FEW LOW DUNES WITH GENTLE GRADIENT

TYPE OF HAZARD TIDAL INUNDATION AND FLOODING DURING SEVERE STORMS FLOODING$ SOME EROSION FLOODING AND EROSION
AND DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES

DEGREE OF HAZARD MINOR MDOER ATE MUD ER ATE

STRUCTURES FEW MANY FEW

NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS BUILT ON FILL IN THE MARSH SEA WALLS, SAND FENCES, BREAKWATERS, AND JETTIES.
ADJUSTMENTS AREAS. NEW ROADS ACROSS THE MARSHES AND SOME PROTECTION PLANS TO PUMP SAND TO THE
TO STRUCTURES BEACHES
HAM PT ON@
RI VER

FIGURE 2-7. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, HAMPTON BEACH, NEW HAMPSHORE

483

Storm hazard. The Hampton Beach study site has a high frequency of storms
of all kinds but the degree of hazard is only moderate when compared with places such as
Point Judith. Field observations estimate the flood of record to be about 10 feet above
mean sea Level. A Beach Erosion Control Reporti places the record tide at 3. 9 feet above
mean high water which, when measured from mean sea level, gives an estimated flood of
record of 8. 7 feet. The following flood levels can be given from actual storm occurrences.
Tides exceed mean high water by 1 foot or more on the average 107 times a year; by 2 feet
or more 12 times a year; and by 3 feet or more, once every two years. The United States
Weather Bureau's Storm Surge Warning Map2 states that flooding of waterfront cottages
begins at 7. 5 feet above mean sea level and a section of the beach road in Salisbury,
Massachusetts floods at 8 feet above mean sea level. Local observations of an exceptional
spring tide of December 29, 1959, indicated a maximum hei�ht to be approximately 12. 6
feet above mean low water or 8. 6 feet above mean sea level. A maximum storm tide
height of between 8 and 9 feet above mean sea level appears to be accurate.

Marsh areas become flooded in winter with every strong northeast storm, but
water piles up only with a strong west wind, against the inner side of the barrier bars and
causes damage to structures. Without a beach or sand dunes to check the rise of water,
these areas are only safe when structures are placed on fill at least 10 feet above mean sea
Level.

Flooding, beach erosion, and frontal structural damage are the main types of
damage found at the Hampton Beach study site. Their occurrence is quite frequent with
winter cyclonic disturbances which include the "northeasters. " But severe structural
damage and flooding is limited to the immediate coastal zone. At Rye Beach and Hampton
Beach, 850 cottages were inundated by sea water during a northeaster in April, 1958.

By far the largest number of storms can be classified as "northeasters. " The
United States Weather Bureau at Boston, Massachusetts shows that 80 out of the 160 gales
which occurred during the 75-year period, 1870-1945, were northeast gales@ These storms
represent major disturbances, often of several days duration accompanied by rain or snow,
high tides, shore inundation,, and destructive wave and wind action.

1 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative
Study of Hampton Beach, . New Hampshire, U. S. Ar my Engineer New England Division,
Boston, Mass., August 14, 1953, pp. 9- 10.
2U. S. - Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau,, Storm Surge Warning Map,
No. 2, August 1962.
A 3 Hampton Municipal Development Authority, Marsh Reclamation Project Prelim-
inary Plan for Project Area No. 1, Hampton, New Hampshire.
4 Corps of Engineers, Shore of the State of New Hampshire, Beach Erosion Control
Study, 87th Congress, 2nd Sess. , House Doc. 416, May 21, 1952, pp. 16-17.

484

Settlement history. The town of Hampton traces its origins back to a plantation
ca tied. Winnicumett in 1635 and remains today a compact New England town with a meeting-
house green. But two miles from the town center is New Hampshire's "Happy Hampton",
a major New England summer resort for many years.

Osgood's handbook for travellers in 1883, described the Hampton Beach Settlement
of that time as follows:

"Stages run from the station to Hampton Beach Besides
the hotels, there are many small summer cottages on and near the
beach . . . From the vicinity of Boar's Head, a sandy beach extends S
to Hampton River where many vessels were made in the colonial days.
The river forms a safe harbor for coasters, though its entrance is
fringed with rocks and shoals. Its clams are famous, and water-fowl
formerly abounded, while the settlement of Hampton was due to the
abundance of Salt Hay on its marshes. "I

Today the harbor is heavily silted, but the recreational character of Hampton
settlement is stronger than ever before. . In 1952, over sixty percent of the assessed
valuation of the entire town was classified as recreation property, and the percentage
is probably larger today.

With a present town population below 3, 000, Hampton wi U play host to crowds of
more than 100, 000 visitors on a single day.

Land use changes. There have been considerable changes in land use in the
period since the first available air photograph coverage in 1952. Over five hundred new
single-famifty residences have been added, many of them as homes for summer visitors.
There has also been a substantial increase in the number of commercial structures. The
increases have been both in the form of intensified use of previously developed areas and
extensions into formerly undeveloped areas. Intensification of development has occurred
at Seabrook where the number of cottages has almost doubled, and in the commercial strips
along Ocean St. and Marsh Ave.

Extension has occurred by the reclamation of considerable marsh areas for
residential and commercial development. -It was not possible to define the extent of a
maximum. flood of record in the marsh area and the pattern of future flooding will in any
case be quite different from the past due to reclamation of marshland. It is not known to
what degree of hazard the new developments on the reclaimed marshland are subject.
Land use changes are shown in the overlay to figure 7 (appendi.@.),. and recorded changes
are given in table -2-7.

Adjustments to hazard. There is a relatively low level of concern about the storm
hazard in Hampton Beach. This may reflect the lack of heavy damage in recent years.

1 New England: A Handbook for Travellers, Boston,. James R. Osgood and Co. ,
seventh ecC-, 1883, p. 262.

485

Table 2-7

Hampton Beach, New Hampshire
Major Land Use Changes by Hazard 7onesi

Land Use
Zone T Structures No. Acres

1952 1963 char change
e 1952 1963

A 8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 2035 2035 0
Tidal Total 0 0 0 2035 2035 0

B 2 Commercia"A. 25 39 +56 20 20 0
4 Recreational 0 0 0 125 125 0
6a Residential 434 617 +42 44 59 +34
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 40 23 -42
Tidal-101 Total 459 657 +43 241 241 0-

C 2 Commercial 477 482 +1 47 50 +6
4 Recreational 5 5 0 31 31 0
5a Recreational 0 0 0 14 33 +136
6a Residential 793 1104 +39 162 167 +3
8 Undeveloned 0 0 0 171 144 -16
101-201 Total 1285 1602 +25 433 433 0

D 2 Commercial 9 9 0 0 5 +4oo
@a Residential 58 88 +52 14 28 +iOO
7 Acricultural 3 3 0 14 14 0
Z@
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 68 49 -28
> 201 Total 70 101 +44 lo6 1o6 0
F 2 Commercial n.d.2 n.d. 10 10 0
4 Recreational n.d. n.d. 158 158 0
5a Recreational n.d. n.d. 3 3 0
6a Residential n.d. n.d. 37 46 +24
7 Agricultural n.d. n.d. 0 0 0
8 Undeveloped n.d. n.d. 2120 2111 0
Flooded Total n.d. n.d, 2332 2332 0-

All 2 Commercial 511 530 +4 67 75 +12
Zones 3 Public 10 13 +30 16 18 +12
4 Recreational 5 5 0 158 158 . 0
5a Recreational 0 0 0 21 40 +90
6a Residential 11285 1809 +41 220 254 +15
7 Agricultural 3 3 0 19 19 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 2314 2251 -3
Total 2360 +30 2815 2815 0

1 Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.
2 n.d. No data.

486

There appears to be a widespread belief that small scale individual protection measures
are sufficient to eliminate the danger,

Private action to reduce storm, damage includes the construction of seawalls; the
placing of rock rubble on the ocean side of dunes, the raising of structures on piles above
the high water level; the filling of marshland to heights ranging from 1 foot to 4 feet; and
the petitioning of public officials and Legislators to provide more protection at public
expense.

Public protection measures include a breakwater at Hampton Harbor Inlet, and
a seawall along the front of Hampton Beach. Snow fences were placed along the shore at
Hwmpton State Park in 1930 and these have helped to establish dunes up to heights of 10 feet.
Other adjustments include a new road across the tidal flats behind Hampton Beach, which
can be used as an escape route during severe storms. Plans are also in hand to pump sand
for beach nourishment from Hampton Harbor Inlet to the beach north of Church Street.
Several new jetties and groins are also planned.

Hampton Beach is well protected from frontal assault by storm waves. The
safety of the recent marshland reclamation developments is more in doubt. Although
private filling of the marsh up to 4 feet precedes building, there is a danger that the fill
may not be high enough. Areas not fi I led high enough in the past have suff ered f lood
damage when west winds pile water up against the lagoon side of the bar. To be safe the
marshes need to be filled to a height of at least 10 feet above mean sea Level.

Future development. Further development seems likely to be confined to
additional marshLand reclamation, since a[[ other available Land is in publicly-owned
recreation areas or has already been developed. A controversy surrounds the future
use of the marsh[ands since some people would like to see them kept as open space.
Hampton Beach is an example of a highly seasonal resort area where expansion into Low
Lying marshland provides the only opportunity for further growth. Reclamation of marsh-
land appears likely to continue, but in the absence of knowledge about likely flood heights,
and in the absence of building codes that specify a minimum amount of fill the trend of
flood damage potential, while not clear at the present time, is probably in an upward
direction.

8. Montauk,. New York

The second example of the summer shore type of development is the resort
community of Montauk. The study site includes 8. 4 miles of the coastline of Long Island
and incorporates reaches of both the northern and the southern shores. The coastal zone
extends from a point just east of the United States Coast Guard Reservation at Ditch Plains
west of Napeague Beach. The study site includes two small sections of shoreline on the

I Field work by Robert GarduLa and Roger Kasperson. We are indebted to the
following person who supplied information: Mr. John Craft.

487

north side of Montauk Peninsula which border on Block Island Sound. Small sections of
Montauk Harbor and Napeague Harbor, a section of Hither Hills State Park, and several
large fresh water ponds are included within this study site. - The total area is approximately
3245 acres. (See figure 8 in the appendix.)

Physiography. Approximately 91 percent of the site is made up of irregular
rotting hills and depressions with disorganized drainage patterns. The upland represents
the eastern prong of one of two large terminal moraines which make up Long Island. The
glacial deposits are estimated to be from 100 to 200 feet thick. The surface form of the
glacial tit[ is made up of irregular hills and depressions called kames and kettle holes. A
number of takes and bogs are found because water collects in the depressions. The eleva-
tion of most of the upland averages between 50 and 150 feet above sea level.

Several of the largest depressions have openings to the sea. Napeague Harbor
represents one such depression. However, Fort Pond is now a brackish water pond
because sand carried by the littoraL currents has closed off the north and south outlets to
the sea. During exceptionally high tides and very severe storms, water breaks through
the sand barriers and at times raises the water level of Fort Pond as much as four feet.

Where the morainic hills come to the coast, wave-cut cliffs are found. At
Napeague Beach a 100-to 200-foot wide beach backed by low coastal dunes protects the 50-
to 60 foot high cliffs from severe erosion. But to the east the beach is narrower, and ocean
waves, in winter and during storms, are able to reach the cliffs and are slowly eating them
away.

The material which makes up the uplands is morainic material consisting of
poorly consolidated boulder clays, gravels and sands. (See cross section, figure 2-8.)
Some small sections of silt and clay surround the inland water bodies.

The second physiographic division making up about 5 percent of the study site
consists of tidal and upland marshes. These marshes are found around Fort Pond, Fresh
Pond, Montauk Harbor, and low poorly drained sections of the upland. The marshes
around the large ponds are subject to occasional salt water flooding when waves cross over
the barrier beaches. The upland marsh areas only fluctuate during heavy rains.

The third division, making up about 4 percent of the study site, consists of a
beach zone along the Atlantic Ocean and around the larger bays and ponds. The width of
most of the ocean beaches averages about 100 feet. However, in summer the beaches are
wider, averaging 150-200 feet, while in winter, the waves cut back the beach and carry
the material off the coast. Sand for the beach is derived mainly from the morainic cliffs
which are 50 to 60 feet high at Montauk Point. Although sand is the predominant material
making up the beaches, coarse gravels and occasionally boulders are moved along the
beach from the cliffs. Only very narrow beaches border the ponds and bays. Three types
of coastal configuration are found at this study site. Where cliffs occur, the beaches are
narrow, irregular, and usually the beach gradient is steep. The beach near the Coast
Guard Reservation is an example of this type. Along sections of the coast where cliffs do
not border the ocean, beaches are long, straight, and have greater width. . Napeague Beach

488

is an example of this second type. Around the bays, lagoons, and ponds the coastline is
crenate from the circular movement of currents. Beaches at these locations are very
narrow or non-existant. The coastline of Montauk Harbor consists mostly of marsh grass.

The material making up this study site is predominantly morainic consisting of
boulder clays, gravels, and sands. Silts and clays are found where salt marshes occur
and in the ponds and takes. Beaches are composed of fine sands except near the wave-cut
cliffs.

Vegetation consists of grass and herbaceous plants on the rolling hills and mixed
deciduous and. coniferous trees in the more protected areas. Because of its marine location,
this study site receives high winds and a great deal of fog and cloud cover. Many of the
trees are stunted by the high winds. There are some sections, especially in Hither Hills
State Park, where wind swept cliffs and slopes have almost no vegetation.

Storm hazard. This study site has only a moderate storm frequency and damage
is low due to the favorable topographic conditions of the area. Beach erosion and frontal
structural destruction are the two basic types of storm damage. Most of Montauk is well
above the 20-foot contour level. However, the beach areas and sea cliffs are badly eroded
during storms. Material eroded from the cliffs in winter is carried west along the coast
and deposited on the beaches during the summer months.

Strong southeast winds blowing into deep Low pressure areas moving across New
England are at times destructive. During such storms dune leveling takes place and
occasionally cottages are undermined. Away from the immediate coast, wind is the cause
of most damage.

When waves and tides are large enough to cross the sand beaches, flooding will
take place in the large ponds. During the 1938 and 1954 hurricanes, sea water broke through
the beach and flooded Fort Pond inundating the buildings along the shore. During these same
storms ankle deep flood waters covered the camping site at Hither Hills State Park.

Reports by the Corps of Engineers indicate that 1the flood of record for the Montauk
Beach area is from 8. 5 to 9. 5 feet above mean sea level. Interviews with local residents
indicate an over-all range of from 5 to 10 feet for the highest water along the shore in the
worst storms.

To the west of Montauk Beach, hazards increase rapidly as the hills decrease in
height and long.barrier bars form as a result of the westward movement of sand along the

1 Atlantic Coast of Long Island, New York: Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point,
Cooperative Beach Erosion Control and Interim Hurricane Study (Survey), U. S. Army
Engineers District,,New York, Corps of Engineers, New York 3, N.Y. July 1958.

STUDY SITE NO. 8 SOUTH
NORTH SIDE MONTAUK SIDE
FORT POND OF I OF f`lDNTAUK ATLANTIC
BAY FORT POND FORT BEACH OCEAN
POND
LEVEL
tAN
L -SEA

A A

ZONE BELOW MEAN HIGH ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE BUT BELOW ABOVE 10 FEET AND UP TO 100 FEET ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE BELOW MEAN
TIDE 10 FEET BUT BELOW 20:FEET HIGH TIDE

MORAINIC UPLANDS WITH ROLLING TOPO- SAND BARRIER WITH WIDE SANDY
GEOMORPHIc TYPE BAY AND NARROW SAND BARRIER SEPARATING GRAPHY AND SCATTERED DEPRESSIONS* A FEW DUNES OVER BEACH
BEACH FORT POND FROM THE BAY THIS UPLAND PROJECTS INTO FORT POND 10 FEET, SEPARATING
FORT POND FROM THE
OCEAN

EROSION OF THE DUNES,
FLOODING AND SOME TIDAL INUNDATION ONLY DURING FLOODING OF FoR'T POND ERosiou OF
TYPE OF HAZARD EROSION OF THE VERY SEVERE STORMS NONE DURING SEVERE STORMS THE BEACH
BEACH AND SOME STRUCTURAL
DAMAGE

DEGREE OF HAZARD MINOR MINOR NONE MAJOR ONLY DURING SEVERE
SEVERE STORMS

A FEW BEACH FRONT
STRUCTURES FEW FEW NUNEROUS NEAR THE TOWN STRUCTURES NONE

ADJUSTMENTS FEW WHARF$ CAUSE SOME FEW INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTMENTS SEVERAL
PROTECTION TO HOLD DUNES AND JETTIES EXIS7.
PROTECT STRUCTURES PLANS FOR
GROINS

FIGURE 2-8. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, MONTAUK, NEW YORN

489

shore.1 These low, sand barrier bars are much more susceptible to wave erosion and
f looding.

Two of the most destructive storms were the 1938 and 1954 hurricanes.
Hurricane Carol in 1954 caused extensive flooding of low areas. In some low areas, salt
water was up to the glass windows of cottages, and the main highway to Montauk was cut
off by tidal inundation during both storms.
Settlement history@ The first settlers of Montauk came in the early 1600's.
By 1660 shore whaling made up a Large part of Montauk's economy, with whaling stations
employing many of the local citizens. This industry fai led, however, in the tatter 1800's
when the demand for whale oil declined.

As early as the mid-1700's commercial fishing contributed substantially to the
economy of the area, but reached its modern proportions in the 1850's. It was at this time
that cottages called "fishing houses" were erected in fairly Large numbers to accommodate
the large influx of fishermen and their families. A small colony of these houses arose
along the western shore of Fort Pond Bay.

By 1882 commercial fishing was firmly entrenched as a major industry and three
major fishing stations were established. One was located on the eastern rim of Fort Pond
Bay (Captain TuthiLl's), one on the southern rim (Captain Wells'), and one west of what
was called Railroad Dock at the easternmost tip of the Long Island Railroad (Captain
Parsons'). Captain Welts' icehouse was demolished in the hurricane of 1938, as was
Captain Tuthill's. These were replaced by refrigeration, a step toward modernization in
the packing of fish. In 1942 the Navy took over Captain Parsom I property and his fishing
operations came to an end. Of the earlier fishing operations only two remain, constituting
the total of wholesale fisheries in Montauk at this time.

Coincident with the rise of commercial fishing in the 1800's was the development
of Montauk's Lobster fishery. This first began along the southern shore of Fort Pond Bay.
Today, however, the demand for lobsters cannot be satisfied by the local catch alone, so
lobsters,are imported as well, some from as far away as Nova Scotia.

Montauk's commercial fishing reached its zenith several y ears ago and no Longer
ranks among the areas top three industries. Sportfishing, however, does, (along with the
seasonal service industry and Republic Aerospace Corp.). During the height of the season,
surf-casters alone number about 500 to 600 during any given 24-hour period.

Low accessibility delayed the rise of surf and boat sportfishing at Montauk. The
modern era began during the 1920's with an increase in the number of automobiles and the

1 Final Report: . The Protection and Preservation of the Atlantic Shore Front of
the State of New York, Temporary State. Commission on Protection and Preservation of the
Atlantic Shore Front, July 1962.
2
Based on field party notes assembled from various locally available sources.

4,90

improvement of highways. Also, in the early@ 1930's the Long Island Railroad inaugurated
the "Montauk Fishermen's Special" with express trains to Montauk in the morning, re-
turning to New York in the later afternoon. There were special boats for the patrons of the
railroad as well. Through the 1940's the major sport-boat docks were located on Fort Pond
Bay and the Railroad Dock.

. In 1950, Montauk Harbor came into its own as a large number of docks and accom-
modations for fishermen sprang up. These expanded facilities attracted more charter and
party boats to the area. A recent count shows more than 125 such boats available to the
sportfishing public, Indications are that all of Northwest Cove between Star Island and the
main peninsula will become one gigantic sportfishing harbor. Hundreds of privately owned
and used boats also visit Montauk during the summer.

In the 1920's Carl G. Fisher, who initially developed Miami Beach came to
Montauk in an attempt to duplicate his previous success. He made Lake Montauk (a fresh
water body) a part of the sea as a first step toward making Montauk a competitor of New
York City for ocean-going vessels, but died before his dream could be realized. In addi-
tion he built a beach club and hotel (Montauk Manor), and a 7-story headquarters building
(the tallest building in Suffolk county) in the center of the village. This building now serves
as headquarters for the Montauk Beach Co. , successors to Fisher, and the main develop-
ing agency in the area since 1927.

1he first motel in the area was built in 1930 and was shortly followed by a number
of such establishments along the ocean-front.

Land use changes. There has been a steady growth of both residential and com-
mercial buildings in the period since 1955. There are thirty new commercial buildings,
providing mostly services for the summer visitors, and nearly one hundred new single
family residences, many of them summer homes for visitors from the New York City
area. A new subdivision has been started in the area south of Lake Montauk. Most of the
new developments are in the higher areas and well beyond the reach of flood waters.

The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 8 (appendix). Recorded
land use changes are shown in table 2-8.

Adjustments to hazard. In view of the low level of storm damage, the perception
of the hazard is remarkably high in Montauk, in the flood hazard area itself. Due to the
topographic characteristics of the study site the hazard zone is very limited in extent,and
concern about the hazard outside this zone is minimal.

In the high hazard areas, particular concern was given to the problem of erosion
and the effect that this was having on the danger of flooding. In the center, many com-
mercia[ establishments expressed concern over the erosion of the dunes which afforded
natural protection. In the strip of residences along the Bay side, a bitter issue was the
dredging of sand just offshore from the beach, which residents thought substantially
increased storm hazard. Although they banded together and opposed the dredging, it
continued to go on at the time of the field work.

491

Table 2-8

Montauk New York
Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zonesl

Zone Eand Use No. Structures No. Acres

1955 l9f)3 change 1955 1963 change

A 4 Recreational 0 0 0 8 8 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 54 54 0
Tidal Total 0 0 0 63 63 0-

B 1 Industrial 17 17 0 84 84 0
2 Commercial 14 18 +29 9 14 +56
4 Recreational 0 0 0 82 82 0
5 Recreational 0 0 0 77 77 0
6a Residential 49 6o +22 14 16 +14
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 144 137 -5
Tidal-101 Total 80 95 +19 410 410 0

C 2 Commercial 89 109 +22 67 70 +4
4 Recreational 0 0 0 78 78 0
6a Residential 45 64 +42 25 34 -+36
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 257 243 -5
101-201 Total 139 178 +28 437 437 0

D 2 Commercial 56 62 +11 63 69 +10,
4 Recreational 0 0 0 7o4 M 0
6a Residential 156 219 +40 97 128 +32
6b Residential 58 58 0 44 49 +11
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 1417 1381 -2
> 201 Total 273 343 +26 2328 2335 0

F 1 Industrial 16 16 0 42 42 0
2 Commercial 14 14 0 11 11 0
4 Recreational 0 0 0 98 98 0
5a Recreational 0 0 0 77 77 0
6a Residential 8 8 0 6 6 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 47 47 0
Flooded Total 38 38 0 281 281 0

All 1 Industrial 17 17 0 84 84 0
Zones 2 Commercial 159 189 +19 139 153 +10
3 Public 3 4 +33 3 4 +33
4 Recreational 0 0 0 872 872 0
5a Recreational 0 0 0 77 77 0
6a Residential 250 343 +37 137 179 +31
6b.Residential 63 63 0 54 61 +13
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 1872 1815 -3
Total 492 616 +25 3238 3245 0

1 Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.

492

Private adjustments to hazard include many attempts- to check erosion by dumping
boulders., bed springs and timber at the base of the cliffs. Snow fences are used to build
sand dunes. Some buildings in the hazard area are erected on piles and at the Surf Club
it is common practice to open the main doors so that storm water may run through the
building into the pool.

Public preparations for storms include provision for the evacuation of people to
higher ground, and the stationing of half of Montauk's fire equipment west of Fort Pond. In
this way the area has fire protection and equipment for rescue operations, should it be cut
off from the rest of the town.

Future development. Montauk is a scenically attractive area that is rather
remote from large centers of population. Largely for this reason its rate of growth has
been modest. The area has a high potential for further recreation development, however.
There are over thirty miles of shoreline at the eastern end of Long Island that are sparcely
used. Of the 1, 800 acres at Hither Hills State Park only 75 have been developed. Good
beaches and sportfishing provide a variety of recreational opportunities.

In Montauk the growth has been rather slow since 1952. The area clearly has
great potential for recreational development, however, and this may come soon '. Most of
the development is likely to occur outside tile major hazard zones and a substantial increase
in damage potential appears unlikely.

9. Sandy Hook, New Jerseyl

.The Sandy Hook study site includes part of the densely developed community of
Highlands and the summer shore community of Sea Bright. Sandy Hook is located at the
northern extremity of the New Jersey Atlantic shoreline.

It faces New York City across New York Bay. The study site occupies 8. 3 miles
of the coastline between the Coast Guard Station in Galilee, north of Monmouth Beach, to
the entrance of Fort Hancock Military Reservation on Sandy Hook spit. The study site also
includes two small sections of the mainland, the extreme eastern parts of Highlands and
Rumson peninsulas. The total area of this study site is approximately 1065 acres. (See
figure 9 in the appendix.)

Physiography. Beach, marsh, and bluff are the three main physiographic types
in this area. About 74 percent consists of the southern end of a tong, narrow, barrier bar
which at its northern end becomes the complex recurved spit of Sandy Hook@ The sandy

1 Field work by Robert Gardula and Roger Kasperson. We are indebted to the
following persons who supplied information: Mr. Richard L. Riker, Mr. H. W. Boud,
and Mr. Jerry Welch.
2 A. K. Lobeck, Things Maps Don't Tell Us. MacMillan and Co., New York,
1958, pp. 32-33.

493

beach on the. seaward side of this spit averages Less than 200 feet wide at mean Low water.
Only, in the northern part of the study site does the beach become 300 to 400 feet wide.

Dunes and vegetation found within the study site occur only in the new state park
which formerly was part of Fort Hancock Military Reservation. Here are preserved some
of the Largest and oldest holly trees in the United States. Dune grasses, low shrubs and
cactus help hold the sand around the Low 5- to -10-foot high dunes.

Approximately 12 percent of the study site consists of tidal marshes and flats.
The features are found mainly on the landward side of the barrier island and at the mouths
of the -Navesink and Shrew'sbu,ry Rivers Which flow t6 Sandy Hook Bay. In places, sections
of these marshes, all of which Lie less than 10 feet above sea Level, are filled in by marinas.
and housing developments.

The third physiographic division is the mainland, making up.14 percent of the
study area. The small sections of mainland included in the study site are the extreme
eastern sections of two Long necks which are separated by the drowned Navesink and
Shrewsbury Rivers. Although most of this division consists of flat land underlain by
'Cretaceous and Tertiary gravels and marLs, the seaward side of Navesink Highlands repre-
sents the inner Tertiary cuesta of the coastal plan and has 200-foot high cliffs. These cliffs
over the years have been cut back by the sea, but today they are protected by the barrier
bar. , (See cross section, figure 2-9.)

Materials within the study site include sand and some silt on the barrier bar and
spits. Soft muds and clays occur in the tidal Lagoons and around the river mouths.
Cretaceous arid Tertiary gravels, marLs, and clays are found on the mainland.

Storm hazard. Although the storm frequency in the vicinity of the study site is
moderate, damage has been heavy in the recent times. The exact height of the flood of
record is difficult to establish. The Corps of Engineers Reportsi and interviews with the
local residents estimate a flood record from 8 to 10 feet above mean water. Since nearly
.86 percent of this study site is below the 10-foot contour, this study site has been, and
will continue to be, subject to extensive flooding and damage from Large storm waves and
unusually high tides.

Sandy Hook spit has the highest degree of hazard. In severe storms such as that
of March 6-7, 1962, the unprotected sections of Sandy Hook were breached in, 11 places
separating the bar into a number of flooded islands. The sections breached were in the
northern part of the study site where a new state park is being developed.

1Shore of New Jersey from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, Beach Erosion Control
Study, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, House Doc. No. 361, Govt. Printing Qffice, Washington,
1957, pp. 17-20 and Shore of New Jersey from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, 85th Congress,
2nd.Session, House Doc. No. 332, Washington, 1958, pp. 15-16 and appendices.

494

Flooding of property on the Atlantic side of the bar is usually confined to low areas
and basements when water breaks over the seawall that protects most of the bar. On the
lagoon side of the barier bar marinas receive heavy Losses to dock facilities and boats during
severe storms. Without the protection of the seawall the barrier bar would be subject to
occasional complete separation as new inlets are cut. Both the ocean and the rivers have
cut through the sand barrier several times. The Shrewsbury River, which now turns north
and f Lows along the inner side of the barrier island to Sandy Hook Bay, broke through the
barrier beach in the winters of 1777-1778, 1830-1831, and 1895.

Headland sections of the mainland receive little damage because the 10-foot sea-
wall., the barrier beach, and the narrow Lagoon protect the mainland areas from sea attack.
Settlement History- I As recently as 400 years ago, the barrier sand bar which is
now Sea Bright and Sandy Hook was practically non-existent. The sand bar was then con-
nected to Highlands and was very small. Within the past 200 years, the peninsula has been
separated from the mainland on three separate occasions to form an island. The
Shrewsbury River broke through the peninsula in the winters of 1777-1778, 1830-1831, and
in 1895-1896 -- and in each case it took from 15 to 20 years to close the openings. Map
studies indicate that the breaks did not'occur in the same location each time. In the late
17th and early 18th centuries, the Hook was connected directly to Highlands, a fact verified
in a map of 1777. Since then, geologic changes have made Sandy Hook a part of the barrier
sand bar along the coast.

The Sandy Hook Light was erected in 1764 and apparently was a major cause of the
present "clam-Like" shape of the Hook. The tight was originally built at the water's edge,
but today is separated from the water by 300 yards of beach and is about 1- 1/4 miles .
from the tip of the -point. As one observer noted in 1958, "Sandy Hook is visible evidence
of where Long Branch's beach had fled" Since 1870, openings to the ocean have been
closed and much of the beach protected by a'seawalL.

Aside from the pre-European population, settlement in the study area began when
Governor Nichols issued a proclamation in the fall of 1665 authorizing people to form a
settlement at Portland Poynt (now Rumson and Highlands) Early settlement in the area
has traditionally rested upon two chief occupations -- maritime activities (especially fishing)
and truck farming. -Clamming also became an important source of income during this early
period. The families which migrated to Highlands and Rumson during this peri-od settled
in compact villages and not in the common rural homestead pattern of settlement.

Sea Bright differs from Rumson and Highlands in that it was a summer resort
from its very inception. Originally, it was a little fishing village called Nauvoo, but
always spoken of as "the huts, " for the first houses were little else since the men only
lived there during the summer. Even at this early point, there may have been some local
adjustment to storm hazard because the structures were built against a "high bank covered
with beach plum bushes.
1 Based on field party notes assembled from various locally available sources.

STUDY SITE NO. 9 ATLANTIC
HIGHLANDS
CLIFF NAVESINK NAVESINK
R IVER BE A CH ATLANTIC OCEAN

SEA LEVEL

D B, C A B A

MEAN HIGH
ZONE ABOVE THE 20-FOOT CONTOUR TIDE TO BELOW MEAN ABOVE MEAN HIGH rIDE, BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE
20-FOOT HIGH TIDE BUT BELOW 10 FEET
CONTOUR

UPLANDS 200 FEET ABOVE FOOT OF THE
GEOMORPHir TYPE SEA LEVEL HILLS TIDAL CHANNEL SANDY BARRIER BAR NARROW SAND BEACH, GENTLE GRADIENT

LOW AREAS
TYPE OF HAZARD NO FLOOD HAZARD SUBJECT To FLOODED AT WAVE SPRAY OVER BEACH SUBJECT TO FLOODING AND EROSION
FLOODING HIGH TIDE BULKHEAD DURING STORMS

DEGREE OF HAZARD NONE DAILY SOME HAZARD FROM SEVERE HAZARD
MINOR INUNDATION EROSION

MANY, TOWN MA NY SUMMER HOMES,
STRUCTURES FEW OF FEW MOTELS FEW
HIGHLANDS

A 10-FOOT WALL ALONG
MARI.NA TO MOST OF THE STUDY
ADJUSTMENTS FEW PROTECT FEW SITE. MANY INDIVIDUAL BEACH FILLING, GROINS AND JETTIES
BOATS ADJUSTMENTS TO
PROTECT STRUCTURES

FIGURE 2-9. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, SANov, HOOK, NEW JERSEY

495

The first permanent residential structure in Sea Bright was built in 1869. How-
ever, a bad storm in 1915 undermined the beach near the house and it was moved across
the river on barges and located in Rumson. Much of the early growth in the area is
attributable to the transshipment business of Sandy Hook. As early as 1759 Sandy Hook
was the terminal for regular coach lines running from. Camden through Mount Holly,
Shrewsbury, and Middletown. Passengers disembarked at Sandy Hook and completed the
trip to New York by boat. The New Jersey Central Railroad route north from Long Branch
used the same system. Trains ran to Sandy Hook and then a boat was taken to New York.
The line was originally constructed along a narrow coastal strip in 1865, and maintained
until 1946. The railroad has been instrumental in the past for the construction of the sea
wall in this area, as during World War 11 when protection was needed for ammunition
trains running out to Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook was purchased by the
Federal Government in 1816. Fort Hancock was constructed from 1861-1866.

Sea Bright is now typical of the summer shore type of development. The whole
bar is occupied by residences (some seasonal, some permanentl motels, and hotels.

Land use changes. The pattern of development has not changed greatly over the
past 20 years. - The most significant change has been the conversion of approximately 460
acres ,of undeveloped land into the Sandy Hook State Park. Accompanying the establishment
of the state park has been the addition of several structures serving as bathhouses, refresh-
ment stand, and restrooms. In HighAands the construction of a combination marina and
restaurant was the only change detected.

Although the number of structures in Sea Bright has remained approximately
the same, the uses to which some of the buildings are put has charged. A common develop-
ment is for the former large single-family residences to be converted to guest houses. As a
result many acres of beach which were formerly private with no public access are now open
to visitors staying in guest houses.

Elsewhere on the barrier bar there has been an increase of single-family resi-
dences, filling up the only remaining undeveloped land. Many of the approximately twenty
new residences 'are in the flood hazard area. The pattern of land use is shown in the over-
Lay to figure 9 (appendix). Recorded land use changes are shown in table 2-9.

Adjustments to hazard. There is a high degree of awareness of storm hazard in
the Sandy Hook area. This is especially true among the residents in Sea Bright and other
parts of'the barrier bar. Associated with this awareness is a high rate of adoption of
private adjustments. These include construction of small seawalls, concrete aprons and
bulkheads. Other respondents reported using sandbags to keep out sea water. Evacuation
or preparing to evacuate is a common adjustment. Many residents also remove cars and
other items of value from the hazard area. One commercial establishment reported the
construction of a warehouse in a nearby town to which merchandise could be removed.
Another respondent had an iron door to keep water out of his property. At Least three
houses in Highlands have been elevated several feet on new foundations.

496

Table 2-9

Sandy Hook, New Jersey

Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones

7one Lang Use No. Structures No. Acres

1940 1947 change 1963 change 1940 1947 change 1963 change

A 4 Recreational 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 0 21 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 89 89 0 89 0
Tidal Total 0 0 0 0 0 110 110 0 110 0
B 2 Commercial 46, -51 +11 61 +20 31 26 -162 26 0
3 Public 1 10 +900 21 +110 0 16 na 33 +lo6
4 Recreational - - - 2 436+21700 429 -2
5b Recreational - - - 53 5 -91 12 +140
6a Residential 520 548 +5 557 +2 105 100 -5 100 0
8 Undeveloped - - - 586 183 -69 166 -9
Tidal-101 Total 588 630 +7 659 +5 811 811 0 811

C 6a Residential 37 28 -24 32 +14 0 0 0 0 0
6b Residential 11 11 0 13 +18 42 42 0 42 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 52 33 -36 33 0
107-201 Total 49 42 -14 51 +21 104 104 104 0

D 6a Residential 18 22 +22 35 +59 4 4 0 4 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 8 0
> 20, Total 23 27 +17 4o +48 40 40 0 40 0

F 2 Commercial 46 51 +11 61 +20 29 26 -10 26 0
5b Recreational 0 0 0 0 0 53 12 -77 12 0
6a Residential 500 534 +7 540 +1 102 97 -5 97 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 473 174 -63 166 -5
Flooded Total 563 605 +8 624 +3 681 681 o 681 0

All 2 Commercial 47 52 +11 62 +19 31 26 m16 26 0
Zones 3 Public 1 12 +1100 26 +117 14 28 +loo 45 +61
Recreational 0 0 0 0 0 23 476 +197o 469 -2
5a Recreational 0 0 0 3 na 8 17 +112 17 0
5b Recreational 0 0 0 0 0 49 5 -90 12 +140
6a Residential 575 598 +4 624 +4 109 104 -5 104 0
6b Residential 37 37 0 35 -5 96 96 0 96 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 735 313 -57 296 -5
Total 66o 699 -+6 750 +7 1065 1065 0 1065 0

1
2 Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.
na -- Calculation not appropriate.

497

The major adjustment at Sandy Hook, however, is the ten-foot high seawall built
to protect property behind the narrow.beach. In severe storms waves can still top this
wait. - The wait extends from Sea Bright north to the southern boundary of the State-Park.-
Another major adjustment is the construction of jetties which appear to be effective in
reducing storm damage. jetties are also favored by a number of inhabitants for their beach
building qualities. The number of jetties could be increased but reluctance on the part of
the Federal Government to subsidize these works was often cited as the main obstacle to
their construction.

Future dev2Lopments. The area comprises three quite distinctive settlement
units. Highlands is an otd compact and densely settled area consisting mostly of deteriora-
ting timber frame structures on closely spaced lots. . It is suffering from a continuation of
urban blight and repeated flood damage. Though advertising itself as "the striper capital
of the world" its attraction as a recreational area is very Limited. Large scale urban
renewal seems unlikely in the near future.

Rumson is quite different. Here is a more wealthy area with Large homes on large
lots. It is primarily for permanent residents who are likely to oppose any drastic change.
It has only a narrow coastal strip and recreational potential is strictly limited.

Sea Bright and its extension up the barrier bar is the recreational center. Its
importance stems in part from its proximity to New York City. It is the first real beach
south of the city comparable with Jones Beach on Long Island. The area offers boating and
fishing and the breakers and surf are a great attraction at the State Park. The bar itself
is now fully developed.

Future development wiLl be restricted to intensification of the present land uses.
High rise building may come to replace present two story guest houses, hotels, and motels.
Some commercial interests believe themselves to be on the threshold of rapid development.
.They foresee the growth of high rise apartments, yacht clubs, and beach clubs., and rapid
conversion of residential land to commercial uses. Others are more conservative and think
that the area is already fully developed.

Sandy Hook is an example of a densely developed summer shore. Storm hazard is
high and there is a wide range of adjustments to flood. Flood damage potential is not Likely
to rise rapidly, but may increase as the value of seafront property rises and as the area
becomes more like an urban than a summer shore.

10. . Cape May, New Jerseyl

Cape May is an old, fashionable resort at the extreme southeastern tip of the New
Jersey shoreline facing Cape Hentopen across the mouth of Delaware Bay. The -study area

I.Field work by IRobert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
following persons who supplied information: Mr. James Byington,.Mr. Jack Sweitzer, and
Mr. Leland Sanford.

498

extends from Washington-Street in the city of Cape May east to the United States Coast
Guard Receiving Center on Sewell Point, and goes inland to include the dock basin at Cape
May harbor. The area comprises 698 acres. (See figure 10 in the -appendix.)

Physiography. Only about 2 percent of the study area can be classified as beach.
The beach zone is only 1. 6 miles long, and in places is not even a.. true beach. The gradient
of the coast offshore is not as gentle as at Wildwood Crest and as a result there is more
beach cutting. The few remaining beaches have been protected by man-made groins and
much of the present beach consists of fill. After the March, 1962 storm, new seawalls were
constructed of concrete, rock rubble, and steel behind the back beach. Low dunes are found
only at the eastern end of the study site.

Approximately 88 percent of the Cape May study area is part of a low coastal plain,
with an average elevation below 10 feet. One small section in the center of the site rises
above 10 feet. Although most of this plain is flat a few small water filled depressions dot
the landscape. Materials making up the mainland consist of a thin veneer of sand overlying
coarse Pleistocene gravels.

The northern part of the Cape May study site borders on Cape May harbor. This
harbor connects with the Cape May Canal which gives a protected route for small boats
traveling between the Newjersey inland coastal waterway and Delaware Bay. Several
marinas have been built on fit[ along the south side of the harbor. This fill makes up about
9 percent of the study site. Extensive tidal marshes surround much of Cape May harbor but
only 1 percent of the Cape May study site is in this category.

The unpopulated sections of the study site are covered with a forest of mixed
broadleaf deciduous trees, mainly oaks; and nettleteaf evergreen trees, mainly the Jersey
scrub pine. Shrubs and grasses grow well in the Low moist areas. (See cross section,
figure 2- 10@)

Storm hazard. In spite of a relatively low storm frequency, Cape May has
suffered heavy damage in the recent past, especially from the storm of March, 1962.
Battering waves have eroded and will continue to erode the beach areas and cut back bulk-
heads, groins, and jetties.1 During heavy storms, waves break over the seawall and flood
the lower streets.

In the March 1962 storm the boardwalk decking was lifted from its supports and
deposited along with large amounts of sand from the beach against the structures facing the
sea and in the streets. Beach front hotels and residences were badly damaged. Damage
has also occurred in the hurricane storms of 1933, 1938, 1944, 1950, 1954, and 1955.
Although no hurricane in recorded history has passed directly over the study area, Cape
May is vulnerable to large ocean waves and tidal surges. Being at the southern tip of the

I U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: Shore of New Jersey-Barnegat Inlet to Cape May
Canal, Beach Erosion Control Study, 86th Congress, ist Session, House Doc. No. 208, 1959,
pp. 42-47, and Horace G. Richards, A Book of Maps of Cape May, 1610-1878, Cape May
Geographic Society, Cape May, N.J. , 1954, pp. 24- 28.

STUDY SITE NO. 10 CAPE MAY

ATLANTIC
OCEAN 4 -f$ CAPE My
MEAN SEA LEVEL HARBOR

A c A

ZONE BELOW MEAN HIGH TICE BETWEEN MEAN HIGH TIDE BETWEEN ID-ANO 20-rOOT CONTOUR BETWEEN MEAN BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE
AND 10 FEET HIGH TICE AND
10 FEET

GEOMORPHic TYPE BEACH FLAT TERRACE LAND WITH A FEW LOW MARSH AREAS - SANDS A140 GRAVELS TIDAL LAGOON MARSH

HEAVY WAVE POUNo- AREAS BELOW THE 10-FOOT AREAS SUBJECT TIDAL AREAS -INUNDATED
TYPE OF HAZARD ING TO BEACH AND CONTOUR SUBJECT TO ONLY MINOR HAZARC@ LITTLE FLOODING TO FLOODING DURING STORMS
PROTECTIVE WORKS FLOODING

SEVERE EROSION TO
DEGREE OF HAZARD BEACH AND DAMAGE SEVERE HAZARD FROM MINOR MINOR FLOODINC -SOME MINOR FLOODING
TO STRUCTURES FLOODING

STRUCTURES NONE MANY SEVERAL MANV FEW

BEACH BUILDING AND
ADJUSTMENTS PROTECTIVE WALLS MINOR Pfio- MINOR PROTECTIVE
AND JETTIES FEW FEW TECTIVE WORKS WORKS TO MARINAS

FoeuRE 2-10. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, CAPE My, NEW JERSEY

499

peninsula,. Cape May: is particularly exposed to Large waves from the east, the south and
the southwest. The waves converging on this area have, cut away the continental shelf and
are now eroding the mainland itself.
The Weather Bureau's Storm Surge Warning Mapi indicates that most of the town
of Cape May, except for a small central area over 10 feet, is subject to flooding in severe
storms and evacuation is recommended for low lying areas and the settlements around Cape
May Lighthouse. . Cape'May Lighthouse is west of the study site at the extreme southwest
point of Cape May peninsula. Interviews with local residents placed the flood of record
over 10 feet in some places near the beach.
Settlement history@ The earliest inhabitants of Cape May County were the
Lenni-Lenapi Indians. Records show that this peninsula was visited by Henry Hudson as
early as 1609. Subsequent settlement by the Dutch West India Company was succeeded
by the English who were the first permanent white settlers in the area. The first known
vi[Lage,.Town Bank was founded in the 1630's and was devoted to fishing and whaling.

Indeed, the 17th century maybe thought of as the fishing and whaling period of the
Cape May peninsula, By the early 1700's whaling declined and the area's fishing industry
became supplemented by agricultural endeavors. In addition, pirates played a brief, but
picturesque, role in early years of the 18th century.

The city of Cape May, or Cape Island as it is often known, existed in its early
settled history as a tiny fishing village. In 1766, Robert Parsons ran an advertisement in
a Philadelphia paper extolling the virtues of Cape. May, New Jersey as a place to "resort
for health and bathing in the water". It is upon this early pronouncement of Cape Island's
attractions that_Cape May bases its claim as the oldest seashore resort in the country. In
any case, by 1801 a hotel had been built and by mid-century Cape May was famous-for its
large resort hotels.

A few recreational visitors or "resorters" appear to have visited the area in the
.1760's, but visitors remained few in number until later years. The 1800's saw Cape May
become one of the most famous and fashionable resorts in the country. At the same time
fishing and farming prospered, but economically played only a secondary role to
Peninsular Cape May's famous "watering- spots".

The early 1900's saw the recreation industry continue to prosper. However,
World War I, a severe depression, and the mobility of the roaring twenties, wrought havoc
with the resort hotel industry. -It is only since World War 11 that this depressed condition
has been reversed. The resort industry has again become the primary industry of the
county.

I U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Storm Surge Warning Map,
No. 19, May 6, 1962.
2 Based on field party notes assembled from various locally available sources.

500

In the Cape Is land's ear dest days, access was pr.imari ly by means,of . water
transportation. On the water, packet ships soon gave way to a relatively efficient steam
transport. AsJor land transporation stage coach lines were succeeded by the railroad in
the 1860.@s and better roads and the early automobile in early 1890's. Receilt roads and
bridges have increased accessibility further.

Aside from the tourist industry, the only other important activity is fishing. A
commercial Menhaden fishing fleet began in the 1850's and has continued to,prosper in
smal I degree. Today it is supplemented by the sportfishing engaged in by the -more active
of Cape May visitors.

Historically the Navy and Coast Guard have played important roles in the area.
During World War I a large navy base was established on Cape Island. Base 9-was famous
in both World Wars but in the late 1940's was handed over to the U. S. Coast Guard which
now uses the base as a recruit training center.

Land use changes. The Cape May study site was completely developed at the
time of the first available air photograph coverage in 1956. Changes in land use have there-
fore been small. The most important is an increase of 30 in the number of single family
residences --. 24 of these are in the flood hazard zone. This increase has been in the form
of increasing densities in already developed areas, so that no new acreage of iesidential.
land is recorded. (See table 2-10.)

There has also been a small increase in the number of commercial structures.
The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 10 (appendix).

Adjustments to hazard. The major adjustment to hazard at Cape May is.the
large concrete seawall which keeps out all but the most severe storms. The wall was
heavily damaged in the storm of March 1962 but has since been repaired.

Knowledge of the hazard is quite general in Cape May but there is little the
average home owner or hotel manager can do. Private adjustments by seafront property.
owners include construction of small seawalls and bulkheads. Some filling has taken place
in Cape May harbor for new marinas.

Future development. Cape May is a curious mixture of old and dignified
Victorian structures, many of them large hotels, and the brash modern motels andYnarinas.
In spite of the new developments the city retains a 19di century air and present plans for
urban renewal call for a retention of as much of this atmosphere as possible. The city
appeared Likely to obtain the necessary Federal assistance for urban renewal at the tifne
of our field survey.

Cape May is an example of a long established summer shore type of coastal
development. Severe damage has been suffered in the past and is likeLy to occur again in
the future. Adjustments to hazard are predominantly public and a reduction of damage
could be achieved by a larger seawall xNhich might destroy some of the amenities of the
resort. Future growth and development hinge! .910.p tans for urban@ t@newa 6 and f Lood damage
potential is not likely to be substantially increased.

501

Table 2-10

Cape May., New Jersey
Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones 1

Tone Land Use No. Structures No. Acres
%
1956 1963 change 1956 1963 change

A 5a Recreational 0 0 0 8 8 o
Tidal Total 0 0 0 8 8 0

B 2 Commercial 103 110 +7 77 79 +3
6a Residential 6o4 628 +4 177 177 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 273 270 -1
Tidal-101 Total 728 763 +5 536 536 0

C 2 Commercial 35 36 +3 23 23 0
6a Residential 132 138 +4 42 42 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 .81 81 0
101-201 Total 179 186 +4 146 146 0

D None in study area

F 2 Commercial 100 103 +3 72 72 0
6a Residential 552 576 +4 161 161 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 229 228 0
Flooded Total 671 702 +5 479 479 0

All 1 Industrial 3 3 0 2 2 0
Zones 2 Commercial 138 146 +6 100 102 +2
3 Public 7 8 +14 4 4 0
4 Recreational 0 0 0 0 0 0
5a Recreational 1 3 +200 11 11 0
5b Recreational 2 2 0 0 1 na2
6a Residential 736 766 +4 219 219 0
6b Residential 20 21 +5 0 0 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 354 351 -1
Total 907 949 +5 -69o 690 0

1 Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.
2 na -- Calculation not appropriate.

502

11. Wildwood Crest, New Jersey- I

Wildwood Crest is a new, rapidly growing, summer shore area five miles north-
east of Cape May. The study site occupies 3. 3 miles of Atlantic coastline and extends
south from Rio Grande Avenue in Wildwood City through Wildwood Crest to Cape May Inlet,
and inland to Pacific Avenue (Ocean Drive) Which runs down the center of the barrier island
on which these communities are built. Total acreage is 995. (See figure 11 in the appendix.)

PhysLography. Nearly half of this study site, about 45 percent, consists of a large
sandy barrier island. (See cross section, figure 2-11.) This barrier island is the southern-
most in New Jersey and, like the others to the north, is separated from the mainland by
4 to 3 miles of tidal marsh.

About 33 percent of this site consists of a wide 300- to 500-foot, gently sloping
beach on the ocean isde of the sand barrier. This beach is non-c[iffed and straight with
very fine, almost clay-Like, sand. This is one of the finest recreational beaches on the
east coast mainly because of, its width and gentle offshore gra'dient. -Ten-foot high sand
dunes have formed behind the beach atTwo Mite Beach near the south end of the study site.
Along the northern part of the beach scattered dunes occur between the new motels and
housing developments. Most of the dunes here have been leveled by man and fill has been
added to raise the structures above the flood mark. The remaining 22 percent of the area
is marshland and tidal lagoons.

Storm hazard. The wide beach at WiLdwood Crest helps to protect the area from
starrns which are relatively Low in frequency. There is no seawall however and the summer
homes and motels that line the coast are largely unprotected by engineering structures.
The shallow offshore continental shelf plus the Wide beach combine to absorb most of the
wave energy before it reaches the dunes and coastal property. Hurricanes usually offer
the greatest threat to this community. During the March 1962 storm which caused heavy
damage on other parts of the New Jersey coast, the Wi[dwood Crest area received less
wave damage than most other places. The town was affected however, the beach was
eroded and several feet of water covered the streets.

Field work established a flood of record of 8 to 9 feet above mean sea Level for
the Wildwood Crest study site. With only a few dune areas and a small section along
Atlantic Avenue over 10 feet in elevation, flood inundation remains a hazard for the future.
Settlement history.2 Prior to the 1880's there was Little development in the Wild-
wood area. Mr. Phillip P. Baker called the area uninhabitable and inaccessible in 1881, but
proceeded to turn Indian trails into a railroad line, and a small fishing village into a summer
resort.

1 Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
following persons who supplied information: Mr. Donald Little, Mr. Edwin Nesbitt, and
Mr. James Byington.
2 Based on field party notes assembled from various Locally available sources.

STUDY SITE NO. 11
SUMMER RESORT
WILOWOOD CREST
FIVE MILE
BEACH ATLANTIC
MEAN SEA LEVEL OCEAN

B B, C A

ZONE MEAN HIGH TIDE
BETWEEN MEAN HIGH TIDE AND THE 10-FOOT CONTOUR TO ABOVE 10- BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE
FOOT CONTOUR

Low 10-FOOT WIDE SANDY BEACH AND CONTINENTAL
GEOMORPHic TYPE LARGE SANDY BARRIER ISLAND HIGH $AND DUNES SHELF. GENTLE GRADIENT

UNDERCUTTING
TYPE OF HAZARD LOW AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOODING OF DUNES BY MINOR EROSION TO BEACH
WAYES

DEGREE OF HAZARD MINOR SOME HAZARD MINOR TO SEVERE EROSION DEPENDING
FROM EROSION UPON STRENGTH OF STORM AND TIDES

STRUCTURES PUNY SUMMER HOMES AND MOTELS FEW

MST FRONT
AoJUSTMENTS Fcw DUNES HAVE BEEN JETTIES 4NO GROINS HAVE BEEN BUILT
REMOVED. BULK- TO HELP BUILD BEACH
HEADS BEING
CONSTRUCTED

FIGURE 2-11. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, WILDWOOD CREsy, NEW JERSEY

503

After obtaining a small tract of land called Holly Beach, he laid out Lots and streets.
Next he negotiated for and brought to Wildwood a branch of the railroad in 1895. Shortly,
highways began to bring automobiles and Wildwood enjoyed rapid expansion as a residential
resort.

In 1907 streets were laid out for an additional development known as Wildwood
Crest. In 1910 the Borough of Wi[dwood Crest was incorporated. Development in this area
expanded rapidly, particularly in the areas bordering WiLdwood itself. This development
resembled the residential type of development in Wildwood. After hard times in the 1930's
and early 1940's, Wildwood Crest had a very rapid expansion, and commercialization of its
resort facilities in recent years.

Land use changes. Wildwood Crest is a rapidly growing summer shore community.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of single family residences, mostly
summer homes, since 1956. Most of these are above the flood hazard area.

An even more spectacular growth has occurred in the commercial strip in the row
of blocks closest to the ocean. This consists primarily of shops, restaurants, motels and
other services. A large proportion of this new commercial development is in the flood
hazard zone. It seems unfortunate that this more valuable property with higher damage
potential should be located in such a vulnerable position. The focus of the community, how-
ever, is the beach. This is where the customers are or want to be. Hence those functions
which can afford to pay the highest rents buy themselves into the best business Locations. It
so happens in Wildwood Crest that the best business sites are also largely in the area exposed
to flood hazard. The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 11 (appendix).
Recorded land use changes are shown in table 2-11.

Adjustm ents to hazard. With very few exceptions the residents and entrepreneurs
of Witdwood Crest felt that storm hazard. was slight and not a cause for major concern. This
feeling of confidence seems to stem largely from the experience of the March,. 1962 storm
when little damage resulted in spite of the severity of the storm and the heavy damage else-
where along the New Jersey coast. Accordingly there are few adjustments to hazard by pri-
vate citizens. In no case did a respondent express a desire to move or to be in a Less hazard-
ous location. Some residents located two blocks from the ocean front expressed relief that
they were not so exposed.

The feelings of public officials were not as confident and optimistic as those of pri-
vate citizens. The city engineer expressed some concern about the development and did not
want to see buildings move any closer to the beach. However, the borough has decided,
since the storm of March 1962, to sell some beach front lots for the development of motels.
To protect these motels an ordinance was under consideration to require property owners to
provide bulkheads at their own expense.

Future developments. In 1963 there were approximately 100 acres of land left un-
developed. Local officials were of the opinion that this land and other land outside the study
area would be fully developed within five years. The undeve loped. land is being devoted to
the construction of single and double family residences with the exception of the land east
of Atlantic Avenue which is zoned for motels.

504

Table 2-11

Wildwood Crest, New Jersey
Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zonesl

Zone Land Use No. Structures No-Acres

1956 19,63 charge 1956 1963 change

A 3 Public 0 0 0 285 285 0
4 Recreational 0 0 0 120 120 0
Tidal Total 0 0 0 405 4o5 0

B 2 Commercial 284 364 +28 47 77 +64
3 Public 8 9 +12 205 2o5 0
6a Residential 510 609 +19 .138 145 +5
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 141 102 -28
Tidal-101 Total 8o5 985 +22 564 564 0

2 Camercial .16 16 0. 2 5 +150
6a Residential 49 55 +12 15 15 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 6 3 -50
101-20f Total 66 72 +9 26 26 0

D None in study area

F 2 Commercial 56 118 +111 9 41 +356
3 Public 5 9 +80 45o 450 0
4 Recreational 1 1 0 151 151 0
6a Residential 59 62 +5 5 5 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0, 0 60 27 -55
'Flooded Total- 122 191 +57 677 677 0

All 2 Commercial 300 38o +27 49 82 +67
Zones 3 Public 9 10 +11 493 493 0
4 Recreational 1 1 0 151 151 0
5a Recreational 1 1 0 2 4 +100
6a Residential 559 664- +19 153 160 +5
6b Residential 1 1 0 - -
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 147 105 -29
Total 871 1057 +21 995 995 0

1 Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.

505

Wildwood Crest is an example of a rapidly expanding summer shore type of develop-
ment. . The area has escaped heavy damage in the past and the storm hazard is viewed opti-
mistically. There is a widespread lack of adjustments to hazard and protective dunes have
been removed. New flood damage potential, especially of comm erciaL property, is increas-
ing rapidly and the area could suffer very severe damage from. a future storm.

12. Dennis, Massachusettsi

The sixth example of summer shore development is at Dennis, Massachusetts. The
study site includes four miles of coastline on the south shore of Cape Cod. It extends from
South Sea Avenue in West Yarmouth., east to the South Pond River in West Dennis. The in-
land limit of the study site is about one mile from the coastline. Political divisions include
a small section of South Yarmouth, and parts of West Yarmouth, and West Dennis. The
total area is 2,178 acres. (See figure 12 in the appendix.)

Physi2grap@y_ Uplands constitute 74 percent of area, marshland 19 percent, and
beaches 7 percent. Characteristics of glacial topography are interwoven with those features
which are typical of a low, drowned, coasta I region. The study area is quite f [at with numer-
ous small tidal channels, inlets, takes, and marshes. These fill the low areas between the
beach and higher ground.

.The so-called "uplands" of this study site are a very gently sloping outwash plain
which covers an earlier glacial terminal moraine. No bedrock is exposed at the surface but
stratified coarse materials, in uneven distribution, present an irregular, undulating, surface
unsuited for agriculture. Most of the upland is between 10 and 20 feet above mean sea level.
Only a few areas of the study site are over 20 feet. To the north of this site there is higher
ground which represents a moraine left by the glacier as it retreated. This moraine makes
up the backbone of Cape Cod. The materials carried off the moraine by glacial meltwaters
flowed south and formed the outwash plain of the study site,

The second major physiographic type is marshland that has formed in the Low areas
under five feet. Marsh grass covers the silts and clays deposited by the short rivers flowing
through the area. The Largest of these rivers is the Bass River which divides the study site.
Figure 2-12 shows the amount of marsh filling that has taken place between 1886 and 1961.
In the early days of settlement even more of the study site must have been marsh or bog
topography.

Beaches, averaging from 100 to 300 feet wide with a gentle offshore gradient, are
the third physiographic type. The entire coast is non-cliffed, but has small, regular,
straight stretches of beach that have been separated by jetties near the river mouths and
groins where beach protection is needed. The two main bathing beaches are Davis Beach and
Sea Gull. Beach. Very few sand dunes remain behind the beaches because these original small
coastal features have been leveled.

1
Field work by Robert Gardula and Roger Kasperson. We are indebted to the
following person who supplied information: Mr. Donald A Crane.

506

The site is made up mainly of wave deposited or wind blown sand underlain by
glacial tills and outwash. (See cross section, figure 2-13.) Large areas of lowland have
@been filled in. The non-filled sections are either sand or silt and clay depending upon
whether the locality is a beach or tidal marsh.

Vegetation on the upland surfaces is predominantly mixed trees with scattered
groves of pines, and herbaceous plants. On the tidal flats marsh grass is found,but on the
beaches, vegetation is largely absent.

Storm hazard. Although storm frequency is relatively high, this study site does
not have as high a degree of hazard as might be expected from its very low elevation above
mean sea Level and its southward facing coast. A very shallow shelf extends about one-half
mile into the ocean. This shelf is an extension of the glacial outwash plain and although it
is narrow it is wide enough to prevent the buildup of large waves. The swells during severe
storms drag bottom, crest up, and break before reaching the beaches. Many of the waves
therefore become spilling and surging breakers rather than large plunging breakers which
do great erosive work to the beach and coastal structures. Spilling breakers lose much of
their energy as they cross this. half-mile stretch of shelf.

Damage at this site was found to be lo.calized with flooding of low areas, cellars,
and structures being the greatest danger. There is some undermining of structures by waves
along the immediate beach.

Major areas subject to flooding include the ocean edge of the beach; the tidal marshes
and banks of the river beds; and th e banks of the larger ponds where water is able to cross
the lowlands and raise their level. The marsh and pond areas found north of Route 28 and
north of the Dennis study site are also considered probable damage areas on Crane's maps
of coastal flooding 1 2 lists major flooding
g. The Weather Bureau's Storm Surge Warning Map
and evacuation problems south of Rz)ute 28, stating that beaches are subject to heavy wave
action.

The hazard mne -diagram (figure 12, appendix), drawn after interviewing local
residents of the area, puts the maximum flood line at about 8 to 9 feet above mean sea level.
From extreme low water to extreme high water there is a range from 5 to 17 feet elevation.
Minor flooding begins to take place at 4 feet above mean sea level. The cellars of summer
houses are flooded at 6. 4 feet, and whole areas go under water at 7. 7 feet. The new housing
development in the middle of the study site bordering on the Bass River and Ware Creek is
barely 10 feet above mean sea level. It was found that any sections of the site under 10 feet
were subject to inundation. Over 194, 000 dollars worth of flood damage occurred to the town
of Dennis during the 1954 hurricane.3

Donald A. Crane, Coastal Flooding in Barnstable County, Cape Cod, Mass.,
Mass. Water Resources Comm., December, 1962, p. 21.
2 U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, - Storm Surge Warning Maps,
August. 1962.
3 Donald A. Crane, pp. cit., Table VII, p. 27.

Figure 2-12
MARSH A REA CHANGE
DENNIS@ MASSACHUSET

Is86 -1961 FILLED MARS

1961 PRESENT MARSH

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

STUDY SITE NO. 12

BASS ATLAN TIC
IJAN SEA LEVEL RIVER OCEAN

A A

ABOVE MEAN
ZONE ABOVE 10 FEET, BUT BELOW 30 FEET BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE HIGH TIDE BELOW MEAN
BUT BELOW HIGH TIDE
10 FEET

ROLLING UPLAND COVERED WITH GLACIAL TILL. SCATTERED TIDAL CHANNELS AND SANDY WIDE SANDY
GEOMORPHIc TYPE ROUNDED FRESH WAYER PONDS. GRAVELS AND CLAYS LOW MARSHLAND. SILTS BARRIER BEACH AND
AND CLAYS SPIT GENTLE OFF-
SHORE GRADIENI

TIDAL INUNDATION DURING FLOODING FLOODING AND
TYPE OF HAZARD MINOR FLOODING IN THE LOW AREAS SEVERE STORMS AND DUNE BEACH EROSION
EROSION

SEVERE IN SEVERE IN
DEGREE OF HAZARD MINOR MODERATE TO SEVERE LARGE LARGE STORMS
STORMS

STRUCTURES PUNY FEW FEW FEW

CHANNELS ARE DREDGED REMOVAL OF JETTIES AND
ADJUSTMENTS FILLING IN OF LOW MARSH AREAS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND IN PLACES DUNEs@ A GROINS TO
PROTECTED FEW SEA PROTECT BEACH
8
AIS
I'
R VER

WALLS

FIGURE 2-13. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, DENNIS, MASSACHUSETTS

507

This study site receives the most severe damage from hurricanes moving north-
eastwards. The 1938, 1944, and 1954 storms were the most severe.1 Other storms in-
clude the cyclonic depressions which develop rapidly as a coastal secondary in the region
of Cape Hatteras with the main depression over the continent. Wave development can take
place very fast as the storm center moves northeastward and passes over the ocean. How-
ever these storms are usually of short duration.
Settlement history? The early settlement of South Yarmouth and West Dennis was
contemporaneous with that of the nearby towns of Sandwich and Barnstable in the late 1630's
and early 1640's. The division of these settlements into individual villages was occasioned
by the establishment of distinct parishes within the church. Dennis, for example, was
organized as a new town in 1793.

Within the study area, the chief occupations of the inhabitants centered upon the
Bass River and the fishing industry that grew upon within this sheltered waterway. By 1795,
3 wharves had been built on the east side of the Bass River, and soon after 1800, 247 men
were employed in the fishing industry in West Dennis and nearly 1100 tons of mackerel and
codfish were taken.

Despite the economic focus of the area upon the Bass River, settlement tended to
grow up along major road arteries rather than in the Land adjacent to the river. Main
Street in both South Yarmouth and West Dennis was the most heavily populated route and
much of this was Located above the 20-foot contour.

The focus of both West Dennis and South Yarmouth encouraged intercourse between
the two communities. Even though the Bass River was not crossed by a bridge until 1870 in
this area, a ferry was present to facilitate travel. Throughout the history of the study area,
.South Yarmouth has provided the central place functions for the local population. Much of
the business of West Dennis was conducted here.

In the early 1800's, population growth in the area was rapid. By 1802 there were
100 dwellings south of County Road in West Dennis. They had been erected so rapidly that
essentially all of them were only one story high. In the first half of the 19d-1 century, the
study area broadened its economic base by supplementing its fishing industry with other
economic activities. The salt industry developed rapidly (as in Wellfleet) so that by 1803
there were 24 salt works in West Dennis alone. Ship building became important and while
large-class vessels were built on the Bay side, considerable construction of vessels in the
eight-ton class took place along the'Bass River. In South Yarmouth, a boot and shoe company
was established in 1829. Within the study area, the rapid growth of maritime and associated
industries produced a rapid population growth near the Bass River and in South Yarmouth.par-
ticu[arly. This led to the development of a well-defined village nucleus prior to the Civil
War.

1 Donald A. Crane, op. cit. , pp. 9-15.
2 Based on field party notes assembled from various Locally available sources.

508

After the Civil War, fishing declined as did the population of the area. In the
early 1900's, the decline was checked by the beginnings of tourism and seasonal residence
in the area. As would be expected much of this population increase occurred in areas along
the coast. In South Yarmouth, rapid population growth took place south of South Shore
Avenue and along the Bass River, while in West Dennis major increases took place along the
Bass River and south of Lower County Road. In both cases, the conversion of the economy
of the area from fishing to resort activities substantially increasedthe population below the
10-foot contour and thereby augmented the damage potential from storms.

Land use changes. There has beer. rapid growth in the area. In 1952 the population
still showed a marked concentration along and close to the major roads, and in the old
village centers. By 1963 settlement had spread widely to include nearly all of the large but
previously undeveloped tracts above marshland Level. Marsh areas have also been filled in
and used as development sites as in the case of Surfside VilLage.

The main expansion has been in the construction of single family residences, many
of them as summer homes for seasonal residents. Of the 2.227,new single family residences
built in the period 1952 to 1963, 637 or one-quarter of them have been built in a flood
hazard area. Development has been concentrated on and near to the coast both on high and
on filled-in marshland.

The area has also been developed commercially. Prior to 1952 tourist accomodation
was restricted almost entirely to guest homes, cottages, and cabins. The growth of large
shore-front motels since 1952 has been extremely rapid. Another area of motel develop-
ment is along Route 28.

Expansion into marshland areas has met with some local opposition. Local
residents argue that marshland reclamation will adversely affect the shellfish and fish
industry; that it wilt change for the worse the pattern of coastal flooding; and that it is
undesirable because the mayshlands have aesthetic appeal and recreational value which new
subdivisions do not have. Many think that the area is becoming too commercialized and that
all further development should be stopped.

The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 12 (appendix), Recorded
land use changes are shown in table 2-12. The process of land fill has gone on for a long
.time and extensive changes have been made as shown in figure 2-12.

Adjustments to hazard. For the most part, interviews in the study area suggest
that while most of the inhabitants interviewed expected a serious storm or hurricane in the
future, they do not expect serious damage. Among those who do expect damage, it does
not appear to affect seriously the decision to locate there because this segment of the
population is in a high-income class and are often willing to run the risk of damage. In fact,
several expressed the opinion that in a future storm they would suffer damage, but were still
unwilling to locate elsewhere.

The inhabitants who have recently Located in ahigh hazard zone are very often
unaware of storm hazard. The people showing most awareness are the long-time residents

509

Table 2-12

Dennis., Ylassachusetts
M.ajor Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones 1

Zone Land Use No. Structures No. Acres

1952 1963 change 1952 1963 change

A 4 Recreational 0 0 0 53 53 0
5b Recreational 0 0 54 43 -20
8 Undeveloped 0 0 431 431 0
Tidal Total 0 @o 0 539 539 0

B 2 Conmercial 25 214 +756 7 go +1186
4 Recreational 2 2 0 66 66 0
5b Recreational 0 0 0 54 42 -22
6a Residential 497 1319 +165 215 307 +43
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 298 123 -59
Tidal-101 Total 524 1535 +193 641 641 0

C 2 Commercial 34 123 +262 16 54 +238
6a Residential 716 2092 +192 429 664 +55
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 454 181 -40
l0f-201 Total 750 2219 +196 900 900 0-

D 2 Cornnercial 4 36 +8oo 7 16 +129
6a Residential 119 148 +24 28 38 +36
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 51 26 -49
> 201 Total 125 188 +50 98 98 0

F 2 Commercial 23 192 +735 6 83 +1283
4 Recreational 2 2 0 119 119 0
5b Recreational 0 0 0 109 85 -22
6a Residential 484 1121 +132 204 290 +42
8:Undeveloped 0 1 0 0 608 445 -27
Flooded Total 509 1315 +158 1047 1047 0-

All 2 Commercial 63 373 +492 30 160 -+433
Zones 3 Public 22 8 -64 13 19 +46
4 Recreational 2 2 0 119 119 0
5a Recreational 0 0 0 2 25 +1150
5b Recreational 0 0 0 108 85 -21
6a Residential 1332 3559 +167 672 1009 +50
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 1234 761 -38
Total 1399 3942 +182 2178 2178 0

Minor land uses omitted and total may exceed land uses enumerated.

510

who themselves have experienced serious damage from past storms. Several inhabitants
who were located above the 10-foot contour cited elevation above sea Level and distance
from the beach as an important factor in location.

Commercial establishments interviewed showed an awareness of storm occurrence
in the future, but also did not anticipate serious future damage. It should be noted that most
of these interviews were wid-i very recent establishments. Most seemed to feel income
from location (usually on beach for motels) justified whatever damage occur.

There is a very Low rate of adoption of adjustments to hazard. There is no
public protection, but some private citizens have adopted their own adjustments. These
include use of seawalls and steel bulkheads especially for commercial property. Some
houses have been erected on pi[es or cement block foundations. One house has its furnace
on the second floor.

In contrast some new subdivisions are being built at the head of the beach on land
formerly occupied by dunes. Commonly the dune is used as fill for the marshland behind
the dune, and the whole site is leveled, thus increasing the danger of flooding. As noted
above a controversy surrounds marshland reclamation. Zoning, building, and sub-
division regulations are in force in Yarmouth, where five feet of fill are required for sub-
divisions adjacent to tidewater, and all low lying land must be raised to 7. 3 feet above
mean sea level before building.

Future development. Undoubtedly one important factor in the rapid development
in the last 10 years has been the important change in accessibility. In the mid-1950's, the
mid-Cape highway (route 6) was constructed. This greatly shortened the time requirement
and lightened traffic density of trips to the Cape.

This improved accessibility, plus the recreational attractions of the area,
especially its excellent beach and relatively warm water, are likely to continue to bring
development to Dennis until all available land is developed. There are forces opposing
further development, but these are unlikely to be able to achieve more than a stricter
enforcement of building codes and subdivision regulations, and perhaps some reduction
in the pace of development. It is also likely that the re-zoning of coastal areas from
residential to commercial use will become more difficult with time.

In addition to-beach users, the Bass River, with its new marinas offers boating
and fishing as a recreational pursuit and considerable potential exists for an increase in
this activity.

Dennis is an example of rapidly expanding coastal development, where sub-
stantial increases in flood damage potential are in process of creation. This development
continues in spite of some local opposition and is surrounded by a good deal of uncertainty as
to the likely effects of future flooding. In particular there is need for the establishment of
minimum levels of fill for building purpo,ses, especially in West Dennis, but there is a lack
of precise information about the degree of hazard which could be used to support the adoption
of the necessary building codes.

511

13, Nags Head, North CaroLinal

Nags Head is a summer resort community on Bodie Island, one of the outer banks
of North Carolina, It is 14 mites north of Oregon Inlet and is reached by causeway from
the mainland via Roanoke Island. The study area includes 9. 3 mites of coast line, extend-
ing from the north end of Jackey Ridge just south of the Wilbur Wright Memorial, south to
the northern part of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The total area is 3, 505 acres, and
the extent inland varies from 1 to 1. 5 miles. (See figure 13 in the appendix.)

Physiography. The entire stildy site is part of a narrow sand.barrier spit 65 miles
in length. Although the name Bodie Island applies to the whole spit, it is divided by several
inlets into a number of barrier istands@ The study site has four Landform sub types: beach
and cOasta[ sand dunes; sand flats; dune masses; and tidal marshes. Bordering on the
Atlantic Ocean is a 150- to 399-foot wide, nearly straight, sandy beach. It is backed by a
series of low scattered dunes which in places reach a height of 24 feet. These two units
make up about 10 percent of the study area. Dune grasses, particularly American beach
grass (Ammophila breviligulata), and sea oats (UnioLa paniculata) grow well on the low dunes
when undisturbed, but they are not able to survive the heavy pounding of storm waves. Thus,
the coastal dunes are not very effective in stopping storm inundation.

.In the northern part of the study area, a narrow sand flat lies behind the ocean
beach and coastal dunes. It appears to be the main source area for the large dune masses
which make up the backbone of Bodie Island. These Low sand flats constitute about, 44 per-
cent of the Nags Head study site. The largest dune comp[e.-I.. called Jackey Ridge, contains
large rounded dunes reaching a height of 138 feet. Although only five miles long and
averaging half a mile in width, this dune mass is ab!e to withstand storm-driven wind and
waves. Winds from several directions keep the dunes in rounded heaps, but some of the
sand migrates west into Roanoke Sound. All the sand masses combined total about 22 percent
of 'he area under study.

The fourth landform subdivision is the Low marsh areas behind the barrier dunes,
constituting about 24 percent of the study site. The largest marsh area is in the southern
part of the site. According to the Park Engineer for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore,
there has been natural filling by sand which has been blown and washed in from the coastal
dunes and beach. Aerial photographs taken in 1962, soon after the March storm, show
large sand fingers extending into the marsh areas from the blowouts. The natural filling
is aided by man, who has dug canals to drain the area for mosquito control and to prepare
the area for possible housing developments.

Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are indebted to the
following persons who supplied information: John Donnelly, Mr. Edward Nash, Mr. William
Foreman, Mr. Rundell, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Cahoon,
2 Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Shore Line, Beach Erosion Study, 80th Cong. ,
2nd Sess., Doc. No. 763, 1948, pp. 6-8; and Beach Erosion at Kitty Hawk, Nags Head, and
Oregon Inlet, N. C. , 74th Cong. , Ist Sess. , House Doc. No. 155, 1935, pp. 4-5.

512

Sand is the predominant material m aking up the barrier spit. A thin veneer of
clay and silt occurs in the tidal marsh areas. Less than a hundred years ago the Outer
Banks had a thick covering of vegetation which extended from the sound almost to the edge
of the ocean. Today, little vegetation exists on the coastal dunes, none of the large shifting
sand dunes, and only small protected areas have pines which grow from 40 to 60 feet high.
In the marshes, low, salt tolerant herbs and grasses are found. (See cross section, figure
2-14.)

Storm hazard. Both hurricanes and northeasters have caused considerable damage
to the Nags Head area, but the March 1962 storm was one of the most severe that has ever
struck the area. In a post-flood report prepared by the Corps of Engineers,1 an estimated
tide of from 7 to 9 feet above mean sea level occurred, and this was capped by 12-foot
breakers.

From interviews and other field information, a conservative estimate would place
flood-free land only above the 15-foot contour. Evidence indicates that all the land area
immediately behind the ocean beach is subject to flooding because of dune washouts.

Not only is there a high degree of hazard from the ocean at Nags Head, but also,
because of the size of Pamlico Sound, the western side of the barrier bar is subject to
severe flooding and wave damage.

With the exception of a few areas where 60- to 130-foot dune masses occur, as
along Jackey Ridge, no section is safe from flooding produced by high storm tides and
strong winds. Damage that has occurred at this site includes flooding, beach erosion,
frontal structural damage, wind damage, and sand deposits around buildings and across
roads.

The storm of 6-8 March 1962 (Ash Wednesday storm as it is called at Nags Head)
was much more destructive than most of the hurricanes crossing this study site. A deep
low-pressure area centered 300 miles south of Cape Hatteras on the morning of March 5,
moved very slowly north during the next three days bringing 30- to 40-foot high waves
against the coast. Although maximum wind velocities at Hatteras reached only 60 miles per
hour storm surges were 8 to 9 feet above mean tide with breakers up to 12 feet high. Over
a million and a half dollars worth of damage resulted from this one storm. Damage to
structures was particularly heavy with three fishing yiers being destroyed. Theshorewas
badly eroded resulting in very steep beach profiles.

Coastal changes. In the southern part of the study area, a few miles from Oregon
Inlet, natural filling by sand migrating over or through gaps in the coastal dunes is filling in
the tidal marshes. Park naturalists report that these low areas no longer flood regularly.

I Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Coastal Areas: :Storm of 6-8 March 1962
(Ash Wednesda y Storm): Final Post-Flood Report, U. S. Army Engineer District,
Wilmington,. North Carolina (6 September, 1962), pp. 1-11 and attachment 1.
2Corps of Engineers,, North Carolina Coastal Areas, op. cit. , pp. 1- 11.

STUDY SITE NO. 13

JACKEY
RIDGE NAGS
HEAD ATLANTIC
ROANOKE SOUND A OCEAN
JEA"EA J.9VEL

A B,CD A

ZONE BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE ABOVE MEAN TIDE TO ABOVE THE 20-FOOT CONTOUR BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE

BARRIER ISLAND WITH SAND FLATS AND LARGE SHIFTING WIDE SANDY BEACH AND
GEOMORPHIc TYPE LOW TIDAL MARSH 3ILTS AND CLAYS SAND DUNES IN PLACES OVER 100 FEET HIGH CONTINENTAL SHELF WIT14
GENTLE GRADIENT

TYPE OF HAZARD FLOODING AND WAVE DAMAGE MIGRATION OF DUNES AND SOME WATER INUNDATION FLOODING, WAVE DAMAGE,
AND EROSION

MINOR HAZARD FROM WIND BLOWN SAND AND MINOR SEVERE EROSION TO
DEGREE OF HAZARD SEVERE FLOODING IN LOW AREAS BEACH, DUNES AND
STRUCTURES

NUMEROUS SUMMER HOMES ALONG THE ATLANTIC COAST.
STR U CT URES FEW A FEW STRUCTURES ALONG PAMLICO SOUND FEW

ADJUSTMENTS FEW MANY INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTMENTS TO PROTECT DUNES AND PROTECTION OF THE
STRUCTURES BEACH WITH THE MOVE-
MENT OF SAND

FIGURE 2-14. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, NAGS HEAD, NORTH CAROLINA

513

A major change is the gradual retreat of the coast which for the Nags Head region
appears to be from 3 to 5 feet per year over the Last 25 years. However, where the beach
erodes in one area, it may build up in another. The shore processes are dynamic. Change
is constant, and off-shore undulations can shift overnight. There is tear-down and buiLd-up
of beach sand, but the over-all governing factors are such that the net Long term result is
loss of land mass. . Thus, the Outer Banks are now in most places being eroded and,moved
toward the mainland by a combination of long shore currents, wave and tide action, and by
wind movement which generally carries the sand inland..'

Settlement history. Although most of the buildings in Nags Head are on the
ocean side, this has not always been the case. In the early days cottages were built on
the Sound side beginning in the 1830's. A hotel was built in the early 1840's and there was
a bowling alley by 1850. Horseback riding and hunting were popular among the Middle
Atlantic plantation owners who frequented this popular resort.

Throughout most of the Eurlopean colonization of North America, the North
Carolina Outer Banks have been sparsely populated.2 The native "Bankers" who engaged
in fishing and farming were few. Some of them were reputed to have been involved in more
colorful activities such as smuggling, blockade running, piracy, and wrecking@ Nags Head
was an, exception to this pattern of aremote, simple, and unlawful life. It is one of the
oldest vacation resorts on the east coast.

By the time of the Civil War, Nags Head could claim a long history as a seaside
resort. It was also unusual in another way. . It had a large number of private cottages at
a time when hotels were dominant.

The area had a reputation as a healthy place, largely because of the absence of
malaria@ In addition, the beaches and the surf enjoyed increasing popularity among

Edward Nash, Beach and Sand Dune Erosion Control at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, A Five Year Review (1956-1961), U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park
Service (Manteo, North Carolina: Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 1962), p. 12.
2 The history of the Outer Banks is described in Gary S. Dunbar, Historical
Geography of the North Carolina Outer Banks, Coastal Studies Series, // 3, James P.
Morgan, ed. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1958), 234 pp.; and David
Stick, The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-1958 (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1958), 352 pp.
3 Nags Head reportedly gets.-its name from a legend which tells of Bankers who
attached lights to horses' heads. As the animals were driven along the beach, confused
ships at sea were lured to their doom in the treacherous surf of the Outer Banks. From
this activity came the name Nag's Head. The apostrophe has since been dropped.
4 The summer residents, of course, could not account adequately for the health-
fulness of the area. The characteristics and causes of malaria were not discovered until
later. The southern planters only knew that they were less Likely to get sick here at Nags
Head than they were in the heat and humidity of their homes.

514

19th century American visitors. Nags Head was easily reached by steamship or schooner
from Norfolk or Elizabeth City. An early record claims that "of 500 or 600 visitors a
greater or less number of them are on the beach or bathing at all hours of the day- III

After a brief decline during the Civil War, Nags Head recovered its former
prominence as a resort. Another hotel was constructed and summer residents began build-
ing cottages on the ocean side of the island. A long time resident of the area2 claims that
most of the large summer cottages in the northern part of the study area were built in the
first two decades of the 20th century. The Cape Hatteras National Seashore, administered
by the National Park Service, was established on January 12, 1953. This park includes
sections of the Outer Banks from Nags Head to Ocracoke Island.

The first available photographs of the study site are for 1945. At that time there
were probably less than 50 structures in all, and one fishing pier. It is not possible to
state precisely the number of structures because only part of the area is covered by the
1945 photographs. These structures were old then, many of them dating back to the 1900-
1920 period. In spite cf,the long history of recreational use, especially summer cottages,
it was not until after 1945 that rapid development took place.

By the time a new topographic survey was made by the United States Geological
Survey in 1953, the total number of structures had risen to 449. All of these were located
in the flood zone established arbitrarily at 15-foot elevation, and most of them were
below 10 feet above mean sea level. Structure counts by use and hazard zone are listed
in table 2-13. Over half the increase between 1945 and 1953 was in single-family
residential buildings, mostly summer cottages. A somewhat smaller number of new
commercial buildings were also opened during this period. Most of this new development
occurred north of Whalebone Junction, along the beach road. The normal process of
development was for buildings to be erected on the ocean side first, between the road and
the seashore, and then on the Sound side later.

The period since 1953 has been one of continued expansion and development.
There has been a change in both location and type of development, however. Since 1953
more development has occurred south of What ebone'juncti on, and a rather larger proportion
has been in the construction of motels and restaurants. Two new fishing piers have also
been opened.

The Sound side remains largely undeveloped, in spite of the fact that it was here
that the development of Nags Head first started. There are two Sound side roads with
cottages along them now, and a new State highway now parallels the beach road, also on the
Sound side. It seems likely that this road will be the focus of new development in future
years as the ocean side becomes filled. The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to
figure 13 (appendix)

1 Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey, 1849, p. 87 quoted in
Gary S. . Dunbar, op. cit. , p. 38.

2 Mr. Jones, a Manteo Insurance Agent.

515

Table 2-13

Nags Head, North Carolina
Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones 1

Zone Land Use No. Structures No.,Acres

1953 1963 change 1953 1963 change

A 8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 772 772 0
Tidal Total 0 0 0 773 773 0

2 Commercial 132 215 +63 56 79 +41
6a Residential 140 221 +57 99 129 +30
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 1646 1593 -3
Tidal-101 Total 284 457 +61 1820 1820 0

C 2 Commercial 69 179 +159 34 46 +35
6a Residential 9-1 233 +150 8o 92 +15
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 586 562 -4
101-201- Total 165 414 +151 701 701 0

D 8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 20'1 209 0
> 201 Total 0 0 0 211 211 0

.2 Commercial 201 394 +96 91 126 +38
6a Residential 233 454 +95 181 223 +23
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 2718 2641
Flooded Total 449 871 +94 3010 3010 0

All 2 Commercial 201 394 +96 91 126 +38
.Zones 3 Public 9 6 -33 20 20 0
5a Recreational 6 8 +33 0 0 0
6a Residential 233 454 +952 1.81 223 +23
6b Residential 0 9 na 0 .0 0
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 3213 3136 -2
Total 449 871. +94 3505 3505 0

1 Yinor land uses omitted and total ma@y exceed land uses enumerated.
2 na -- Calculation not appropriate.

516

Adjustments to hazard. There is a high degree of awareness of the storm
hazard at Nags Hea-d and this is accompanied by a wide range of adjustments and a high
rate of adoption of adjustments by private citizens. Adjustments include the elevation of
many houses on piles; the use of rock rubble to form a seawall; the use of snow fences to
build dunes; increasing the height of dunes with a bulldozer and stabilizing the dunes by
planting. Timber from structures are commonly strengthened by liberal use of cross ties.
One resident also reported lobbying activity in Washington in support of an insurance bill
for f Lood damage.

In spite of the high degree of awareness of hazard and high degree of experience
and familiarity with damage (almost every resident could state precisely the dates of the
Ash Wednesday storm - March 6-8, 1962), there is little or no effect on tocational
decisions. A general attitude appears to be that the amenities of the site justify the risk
provided that common sense adjustments are made.

Public adjustments are prominent at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore where
a program of bulldozing sand into dunes, use of storm fences and seeding the dunes, has
resulted in the creation of a stable, 10-foot barrier sand ridge along most of the sea front
of the area. Proposals have also been made for the provision of more protection by the
construction of groins, jetties, and seawalls, but action on these proposals did not appear
imminent in the summer of 1963.

1
The Nags Head Land development plan of July 1964 . recommends consideration of
a municipal cost-sharing program for dune protection. It is also suggested that a
hurricane building code be adopted and that provision be made for personnel to inspect
buildings during the course of construction. The Nags Head zoning ordinance, adopted in
June 1962, makes no reference to storm hazard and includes no provisions for minimum
floor elevations or for keeping development out of the most vulnerable areas.

Future developments. The amount of land available for further development
was sharply reduced in 1953 with the creation of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore part
of which is in the study area. This has resulted in an acceleration of development outside
the Seashore area and appears likely to continue to do so. The National Seashore attracts
almost one million visitors annually to the area and this is likely to promote an increased
phase Cf commercial development also.

The threat of severe and damaging storms is not likely to be a deterrent to further
growth. Even in the event of a major catastrophe, it seems highly improbable that the pace
of development would be more than temporily slackened. The pattern of the immediate
,future will depend to some degree on the choice of a few large property owners. Higher
taxes are likely to encourage them to sell out before long, thus liberating more land for
commercial and residential development. The four-fold increase in taxes over the past

I North GYro[ina,. Department of Conservation and -Development, -Division of
Community Planning. Economic Function and Population. Land Development Plan, for
Nags Head,. July 1964.

517

fifteen years is also encouraging the construction of large modern motels instead of
cottages. The quiet and peaceful summer cottage atmosphere is rapidly disappearing.
Each summer the 750 year-round population is swollen to 25, 000.

Nags Head is an area of rapidly expanding coastal development for summer
recreation. Although it is more exposed to severe storms than many coastal areas,
development pays little or no attention to areas of greatest hazard and further rapid build-
up of storm damage potential may be expected to continue, both by the extension of summer
cottages into previous Ly vacant areas, and'by interisificdtion of development'with the con-
struction of motels and other facilities for tourists and vacationers.

14. Bethany Beach,. Delaware I

The eighth and final example of the summer shore type of coastal development
is the resort community of Bethany Beach. It is Located on the long sand bar that runs from
Cape Hentopen to Chincoteague. Bethany Beach resort is about six miles north of the
Maryland Line and just over four miles south of Indian River Inlet. The study site includes
8. 2 mites of Delaware coastline and extends inland for about one mile. (See figure 14 in
the appendix.)

Physiography. The beach itself is straight and gentle, 100 to 300 feet wide, and
is backed by low coastal dunes. These dunes have been removed near the settlements of
Bethany Beach and York Beach, but in unpopulated sections they grow, with some help, to
a height of a little over 10 feet.

In the southern part of the study area, the coastal duneIs are connected to the
mainland. In the northern section of the beach, the dunes extend as a barrier bar across
Indian River Bay, Indian River Inlet is a cut through the sand barrier kept open by
protective jetties. Beach and coastal dunes makes up 22 percent of the study site.

The bays, lagoons, and salt marshes that generally lie between the dunes and the
mainland are a second distinct physiographic type (about 29 percent of the study site ),
Behind the town of Bethany Beach is the only place in the study area where this separating
marshland is not found. Large sections of these marshes, all of which lie less than 10
feet above sea level, are being fitted in for marinas and housing developments.

Third , there is the mainland (49 percent of the study site) which is a nearly flat
terrace or plain with an average elevation of between 5 and 10 feet above mean sea leveL.
In places, this plain is broken up into a series of necks which jut out into Indian River Bay
and Assawoman Bay. . Lagoons and marshes occur between the necks.

I Field work by Robert Arnold and Richard Hecock. We are iildebted to the
following persons who provided information: Mr. J. Pophan, Mr. J. Barker, Mr. S. Bennett,
and Mr. P. Short.

518

Materials within the study site include sand and some silt on the coastal beaches
and dunes; soft muds and clays in the lagoons; and older sands and gravels with some clay,
on the'mainiand. . Sandy loam soils, also on the mainland, are usually under cultivation.

Vegetation on the dunes and barrier bars consists of scattered salt-tolerant grasses
and herbaceous plants. Salt-tolerant marsh grass is found along the edges of the bays and
Lagoons. On the mainland, vegetation is denser with mixed forests of pine and oak which
surround the open farmlands. (See cross section, figure 2-15.)

Storm hazard. The frequency of storms at Bethany Beach is relatively low but the
physiography of the area makes it highly vulnerable to inundation.

Field interviews put the flood of record at about 10 feet above mean sea level. A
maximum high water n-ark d 10. 4 feet was recorded by the Coast Guard during the March
6-8 storm of 1962. Since nearly 95 percent of the study area is below 10 feet the site has
been and will continue to be subject to inundation and damage from large storm waves and
tides.

Before the March 1962 storm, several dune areas had grown to elevations higher
than 10 feet, but these were washed away by the con@dnued pounding of storm waves at that
time. In 1963, only two small dune-areas were found to be higher than the 10-foot contour.
Settlement history.' The earliest settlement in the vicinity was at Lewes in the
fee of Cape Henlopen, established by the Dutch in 1631. Subsequently English settlers also
moved in, and during colonial times, the bays and lagoons behind the coastal sand bar were
noted for oysters, clams, fish, and waterfowl.

It is unlikely that much use was made of the study site portion of this sand bar until
close to 1900, although for two centuries the Indian River Inlet served as a gateway for small
sailing vessels bringing finished products into the 150 and 200 square miles of the inner
bay region. These same ships brought grain and forest products out to the coastal ports.
Many of these vessels were built on the Indian River and this inlet was especially important
prior to the era of railroads and paved highways.

The land on which the town of Bethany Beach now stands was owned by Cornelius
Hall in the .1890's and had been in his family for approximately 150 years. He sold this
land to the Bethany Beach Improvement Company.

"In 1890 this site was picked out from others up and down the Atlantic
Coast by several members of the Christian Church Disciples of Scranton,
Pa. , who were appointed to select a spot for the summer activities of the
Christian Church Disciples of Maryland, Delaware, and the District of
Columbia. Later forming the Bethany Beach Improvement Co., this group

1 Parts of this account are based on W. L. Bevan (ed.), History of Delaware, Past,
and Present, V61s. I-IV (New York: Lewes Historical Publishing Co. , Inc. , 1929).

STUDY SITE NO. 14

BETHANY
BEACH
-f., -- ATLANTIC
SALT POND OCEAN
tLAN SEA LEVEL

B, c A A

ZONE ABovE MEAN HIGH TIDE, BUT BELOW 20-FOOT BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE, BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE
CONTOUR BUT BELOW 10-FOOT
CONTOUR

GENTLY SLOPING NEARLY FLAT TERRACE. LOW TIDAL MARSH AREAS SAND DUNES ON TOP OF WIDE SANDY BEACH AND
GEOMORPHQc TYPE OLDER SANDS AND GRAVELS SILTS AND CLAYS A NEARLY FLAT COASTAL CONTINENTAL SHELF.
TERRACE GENTLE GRADIENT

TYPE OF HAZARD MINOR FLOODING TO THE 10-FOOT CONTOUR SUBJECT TO TIDAL FLOODiNG AND DUNE FLOODING AND BEACH
INUNDATION EROSION EROSION

DFGREF OF HAZARD MI NOR M5NOp SEVERE SEVERE

STRUCTURES A FEW FARM 14OUSES FEw NumEnous SUMMER HOMES FEW

SOME INDIVIDUAL ADJUST- MAJOR THROUGH BEACH
ADJUSTMENTS FEW FEW MENTS WITH BULKHEADS FILL AND PROTECTIVE
AND DUNE PROTECTION WORKS

FIGURE 2-15. DIAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, BETHANY BEACH, DELAWARE

519

agreed to purchase land and develop it and to provide transportation
from the railroad to the isolated place, provided that the society would
purchase not less than 100 lots and give "moral support.

"On July 12, 1901 Bethany Beach was formally opened and the Tabernacle
dedicated. Transportation from the railroad at Rehoboth was provided
by the little steamboat Atlantic across Rehoboth Bay, Indian River Bay,
and up White's Creek to Ocean View, whence horse-drawn carryalls
covered the last two miles to the beach. Later a ditch was dredged a
mile long between the Assawoman Canal and the resort, so that boats
could land at the spot. Both canal and ditch have since silted up, so
that now only row-boats can approach the beach this way. "I

The permanent population of the settlement remained small for a Long time. It was
about 50 in 1910 and remained the same in 1920. By 1950 it had reached 170 and today it is
about 400. The town has continually been popular as a summer resort, and there was a good
hotel there at Least as early as 1929. Some of the religious atmosphere stemming from its
origins still remains. Services are held on the church land during the summer and there
is an annual meeting in June. By the terms of the deed for the resort, the sale of alcoholic
beverages on any piece of property forfeits the lot back to the developers. This has helped
to keep Bethany Beach as a relatively quiet resort compared with some others.

The Indian River Coast Guard Station was the most remote and inaccessible
station on the Delaware Coast until the paved road, which is now route 14, was completed
in 1934. During this period, most of the coastat barrier bar was state-owned Land that
had become dotted with squatters' cabins and huts. By 1938, the state had done noth ing
to evict these people and this may have something to do with the present controversy over
ownership of certain sections of the study site.

The history of Indian River Inlet is interesting as construction of a new bridge
is present'ly underway. This inlet was first bridged by a fixed-timber bridge in 1934 when
the road was built. When this structure proved inadequate in its resistance to storms, a
swing span drawbridge of concrete and steel was constructed in 1938- 39. The inlet was
partially stabilized at this time by two jetties on the ocean side of the bridge on either side
of the inlet. Previously, the inlet had alternatively opened and cLosed and the channel had
migrated up and down the coast under the influence of storms and tides.

This behavior was intensified by the digging of the Assawoman Canal about 1890
and the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal, both of which robbed water from the bay which would
have kept the inlet open. (Assawoman Canal was supposed to have been an important
intracoastaL waterway, but traffic never materialized and the canal was allowed to
deteriorate. It has been important as a drainage ditch, however.) In 1920, after a dry
spell, the inlet closed completely for several years, resulting in the disruption of

1 Delaware, American Guide Series (New York: Hastings House, 1955).

520

navigation, and the destruction of all marine vegetation and the seafood industry. It also
provided an excellent place for mosquito- breeding. In 1935- 36, under mosquito- contro L
auspices, mass meetings increased the pressure for opening the inlet and the District
U.S. Engineer approved the project in 1937.

The presently-used bridge, built in 1938, has been damaged several times by
storms and the south end was destroyed by a storm in 1948. That bridge was not recon-
structed until 1951. , A new.bridge was under construction in the summer of 1963 which was
to replace the one then being used.

Land use changes. The largest change in the study area since the first available
photo coveragein 1938 is the substantial increase of cottages. Of the 1041 single family
residences in the study area in 1963, 856 have been built since 1938. This is an average
rate of 34 per annum. But the average rate since 1954 is 52 per annum. We estimate that
nearly half of the single family residences have been built in the last 10 years.

Seafront lots in Bethany Beach itself are in short supp ly, and development has
spread out in a ribbon north and south along the seashore. In the south, development has
pushed as far as military and wildlife reservations and can proceed no further. There is
stiL1 room for development at the northern end where large amounts of land are controlled
by a single owner. It is not possible to predict how rapidly this land is likely to be
released for cottage development.

In the southern part of the study area at the place called South Bethany, there are
considerable areas of reclaimed land. Several hundred acres of marshland have been
designated for residential development, and marina access canals have been constructed to
enable property owners on the marsh side of the bar to have a waterfront lot.

Such developments have not yet occurred in the north, where more readily
developable land is still available. Development has also occurred on either side of Indian
River Inlet since the early 19.50's. The houses here are of a temporary nature. Many of
them are trailers, with residents holding only short-term leases to small parcels of
property and access rights. Residents are permitted to make additions to the trailers,
however, so that the development takes on a more permanent air.

The pattern of land use is shown in the overlay to figure 14 in the appendix.
Recorded changes of land use are given in table 2-14.

Adjustments to hazard. There is a moderate degree of awareness of storm hazard
at Bethany Beach and this is associated with a wide range and high rate of adoption of adjust-
ments. The area is relatively unprotected and this has led to attempts to reduce the hazard
by bulldozing sand into 10-foot high dunes and planting grass to stabilize them.

Private adjustments are very common and consist primarily of building protective
works with rock rubble, bales of hay and sand bags. One respondent had made his own
seawall from old railroad ties. Others reported efforts to make houses more secure by
tying them down with cables.

521

Table 2-14

Bethany Beach, Maryland

Major Land Use Changes by Hazard Zones

Zone Land Use No. Structures No. Acres
% 7-
1938 1954 change 1963 change 1938 1954 change 1963 change
A 8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 360 36o 0 36o 0
Tidal Total 0 0 0 0 0 360 360 0 36o 0

B 2 Commercial 32 36 +12 81 +125 6 13 +117 26 +1oo
3 Public 60 71 +182 64 -10 21 90 +329 90 0
4 Recreational 0 3 na 0 na 485 586 +21 595 +2
6a Residential 168 521 +210 957 +84 148 406 +174 607 +5o
7 Agricultural 10 10 0 10 0 215 200 -7 173 -14
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 2o6i 1638 -20 1420 -13
Tidal,-101, Total 27o 641 +137 1112 +74 2936 2936 0 2936 0

C 6a Residential 17 44 +159 84 +91 5 8 +60 20 +150
7 Agricultural 16 14 -12 16 +14 123 123 0 118 -4
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 50 47 -6 40 -15
101-201 Total 34 60 +76 104 +73 178 178 0 178 0

D
> 201 Total 0 0 0 0 0 Negligible

F 2 Commercial 32 36 +12 81 +125 6 13 +117 26 +loo
3 Public 60 74 +23 64 -11 21 90 +329 90 0
4 Recreational -0 0 0 0 0 485 586 +21 595 +2
6a Residential 168 E521 +210 957 +84 148 406 +174 607 +50
7 Agricultural 10 10 0 10 0 215 2bo -7 173 -14
8 Undeveloped 10 0 na 0 0 2421 1998 -18 1780 -11
Flooded Total 27o 641 137 1112 +73 3296 3296 0 3296 0

All I Industrial
Zones 2 Commercial 32 36 +12 82 +128 6 13 +117 26 +loo
3 Public 60 72 +20 65 -10 21 90 +329 90 0
4 Recreational 0 4 na 1 -300 485 586 +21 595 +2
5a Recreational 1 0 na 1 na. 0 3 na 25 +733
5b Recreational 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6a Residential 185 565 +205 1041 +84 153 414 +171 627 +51
6b Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6c Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Agricultural 26 24 -8 26 +8 338 323 -4 291 -10
8 Undeveloped 0 0 0 0 0 2471 2o45 -17 1820 -11
Total 304 701 130 1216 73 3474 3474 0 3474 0

1
Minor land uses omitted and total mayexceed land uses enumerated.
2 na -- Calculation not appro-priate.

522

Future development. . There is every indication that demand for recreational
opportunities will keep Bethany Beach expanding rapidly. One distinctive feature of this
study site, not found to the same degree elsewhere is the waterfront lot type of development
in which boat channels are constructed through subdivisions in such a Aay that each house
fronts on a body of water, thus permitting the resident to keep his boat close to his house.
Marshland areas are particularly suitable for this form of development and it appears likely
to increase in the area. It is a pattern of development particularly associated with the
F torida Keys and other areas further south than the shores of Megalopolis, but it is making
itself increasingly felt further north. While its amenity advantages are clear, there is
also a danger that in building boat channels new paths for storm waters are being created
that wit[ cause heavy damage in the future. This is especially the case where development
is unregulated.

Bethany Beach is an example of rapid and continuing summer shore development
in the face of a recognized storm hazard. -Storm damage potential is mounting rapidly,
although not without the adoption of private adjustments to attempt to reduce damage.
Recent developments of marinas is pressing even closer to the mean high tide level in an
uncontrolled fashion. Such developments appear likely to continue in the face of periodic
setbacks in the form of storm damage, and to proceed until all available lots have been
used.

The Empty Shore - The Vanishing Shore
15. 'Assateague, Virginia I

The final case study is included to represent those miles of empty coastline on the
shores of Megalopolis which are rapidly vanishing under the spreading highways, marinas,
motels, and summer residences. It is located immediately adjacent to Chincoteague Island,
(study site No. 4).

Assateague Island is a 32-mile long barrier bar, which has been slowly extending
southward from Ocean City, Maryland. Most of the barrier bar is in Maryland, but a part
of the southern end in Virginia was chosen for a study site, mainly due to its accessibility
from Chincoteague. For most of its length the bar is I ess than a mile wide, but in the
southern part a series of beach accretion ridges curve to the west in the shape of a hook
making the bar nearly two miles Wide. (See figure 15 in the appendix.)

Physiography. Physiographicatty, Assateague is very similar to nearby
Chincoteague Island. Both are Low sandy islands subject to change in their shape and size
as tidal channels and offshore currents move the unconsolidated sands and clays from one
place to another.

Field work by Mr. Robert Arnold and Mr. Richard Hecock. We are indebted to
the following persons who provided information: Mr. Roy Tolbert and Mr..Charles Noble.

523

Assateague is a shifting barrier bar with a long, nearly straight, gently sloping,
sandy beach, 200 to 300 feet wide. Behind the beach are a series of sand dunes, sand plains,
and tidal marshes, which represent earlier shorelines. The sand dune ridges trend
parallel:to the present shoreline and have hooks at the south which parallel the present
hook that is growing south and west very rapidly. The entire barrier bar is made up of
wind-blown sand with some sitt and clay in the marshes and lagoons. The silts and clays
are found between the sand ridges and on the lagoon side of the barrier bar. About 46 per-
cent of the study site is made up of sand ridges and swales, and 54 percent consists of
marshland.

The Largest dunes, which reach a height of 47 feet, occur c n the west side of the
bar. The dunes and ridges are the only part of Assateague which escaped flooding during
the March, 1962 storm. This higher ground was where the Assateague ponies took refuge,
Pines are found on the ridges and grasses in the low areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service
plants grass in closed off fresh water ponds for the migrating birds. (See cross section.,
figure 2-16.)

Comparison with other study sites. The tandforms found at the Chincoteague and
Assateague study sites are in many ways similar to the Nags Head study site. The barrier
bar at Nags Head is similar to the barrier bar at Assateague. Chincoteague Is Land can be
compared to Roanoke Island. The tidal marshes and lagoons are similar at the two sites,
but Chincoteague Bay is not as large as Pamlico Sound.

However, none of the study sites have such a complex of ridges and swales as on
Chincoteague- Assateague. Also, the dune ridges on Assateague are lower and more
stabilized by vegetation than the larger migrating dune masses at Nags Head.

'Me rapid growth of Assateague barrier bar at the tip can be compared with the
tip of the Sandy Hook region of northern New Jersey.

Storm hazard. Both flooding and beach erosion occur at Assateague. The 10-foot
elevation for the flood of record ascertained from field interviews at Chincoteague can be
applied to Assateague also. During the March 1962 storm most of the southern part of
Assateague Island was flooded except for the small, narrow dune ridges on the west side
of the bar which are 20 to 40 feet above mean sea level.

Coastal changes. Both Assateague and Chincoteague are subject to sudden and
severe coastal c 'hanges during Large storms. Generally 100 feet of sand is removed per
year along the 32-mile length of barrier bar. This sand is being deposited at the southern
tip of Assateague where a large hook is growing both south and west, about 100 feet per year.

Assateague is, in places, a very narrow bar. At times during storms, inlets will
be cut through the island to the bays. The opening and closing of these inlets is a normal
process for outer bars. During a storm in 1933, an inlet was cut through Assateague south
of Ocean City, Maryland, and this has been kept open with a series of permanent jetties.

524

Past storms. Both hurricanes and northeasters have caused damage at
Assateague. Of the 35 damaging storms recorded along the Virginia coast in the past
40 years, 19 have been hurricanes. The greatest amount of damage was caused by the
hurricanes of the 1930's and by the non-hurricane storm of March 6-8, 1962.

. During the 1962 storm two persons were drowned and three other injured when
an 83-foot fishing trawler was grounded on Assateague. It was also reported that about
150 of the famous wild ponies were drowned.

Settlement history and land use. There is no permanent settlement on
Assateague Island within the study area. Land use data are incorporated with those for
Chincoteague in Study No. 4.

The Assateague study site is made up almost entirely of the Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge which was estabLished in 1943 and includes 9, 000 acres of Assateague Island
in Virginia. It is located directly on the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds and hundreds
of species regularly visit the area.

Assateague is famous for its wild ponies. According to legend a Spanish ship
containing ponies was wrecked off the coast of Assateague in the 16th century. The ponies
that survived came ashore on the island. Since only Chincoteague was heavily wooded at
that time the ponies eventually made the narrow crossing between the two islands. Ponies
have been on both islands right up to the present time and have long served as a tourist
attraction.

One significant change on Assateague is the conversion of a portion of the Wildlife
Refuge into a public recreation area. This recreation area is [eased from the Fish and
Wildlife Service by the Chincoteague Bridge and Beach Authority.

Other parts of Assateague IsLand to the north are threatened with development,
but this will change if the seashore proposal is passed, In any event at the southern end,
the public ownership of land is likely to prevent intensive development and the area will
probably be preserved as public open space in perpetuity. There are few such areas left
on, the shores of Megalopolis.

STUDY SITE NO. 15

ASSATEAGUE
AsSATEAGUE ATLANTIC
CHANNEL OCEAN
MEAN SEA LEVEL

A 8, C, 0 AV B A

BELOW MEAN HIGH ABOVE MEAN BELOW MEAN
ZONE BELOW MEAN ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDC TO ABOVE 20 FEET TIDE TO LESS THAN HIGH TIDE, HIGH TIDE
HIGH TIDE 10 FEET BUT BELOW
10 FEET

TIDAL MARSH LINEAR DUNES OVER 20 FEET Hirm, LOW FLAT LANDS WITH Low SAND WIDE BEACH WITH
GEOMORPHic TYPE AND TIDAL WIDE EXTENSIVE SANDY FLATS SOME TIDAL MARSH DUNES GENTLE GRADIENT
CHANNEL

TIDAL INUNOA- DUNE BEACH EROSION
TYPE OF HAZARD TION AND SOME FLOODING FLOODING REMOVAL AND FLOODING
CHANNEL EROSION

DEGREE OF HAZARD MoOERAeE Mi NOR SEVERE FLOOBONG SEVERE FLOODING AND
EROSION

STRUCTURES NONE ONLY 2 OR 3 NONE FEW NONE

AojUSTMENTS FEW MINOR NONE Few NONE
ASSATEAGUE AOT L @A
'"A N N E L CE NT'C
AN

FIGURE 2-16. DOAGRAMMATIC CROSS SECTION, AssATEAGUF, VgHCHilk

525

CHAPTER III

CLIMATOLOGY OF DAMAGING STORMS

Introduction

In any study of human adjustment to hazards, it is necessary to have detailed
information on the actual occurrence of the hazard in order to evaluate the significance
of the human response. Inhabitants atong the coast have achieved a certain degree of
awareness of the hazards of coastal living, of the frequency of damaging storms, of the
likelihood of future damage from wind and waves. This awareness is based in part on
their own experience under storm or damage conditions and in part on other economic,
social, cultural, and educationaL factors. The relative importance of these factors and
the relevancy of any program to control or mitigate future damage can only be determined
by comparing human perception and understanding with actual occurrence. It is in the
discrepancies, those cases where reality confutes perception, that control programs will
fail or humans will initiate action that will be detrimental to themselves or to their
environment. In our present context, therefore, it is important to have a good under-
standing of the actual occurrence of coastal storms, the frequency of damage from wind
and waves, the nature of the damaging storms, and the changing pattern of damage both
in time and in space if we are to interpret the real significance of the human response.
The foLlowing chapter seeks to outline something of the climatology of damaging storms
that affect the east coast of the United States.

General Statement of Approach

The damage potential of a storm of a given intensity depends very much on a
large number of physical factors. Some coastal sites may be more vulnerable than
others by virtue of elevation, height of tide, aspect or orientation with respect to the
storm surge and waves, offshore bottom conditions, the condition of natural and man-made
coastal defenses, type and pattern of human development, and other factors. Proximate
sites may differ markedly in vulnerability due to one or a combination of these factors of
which we have only a very general understanding.

For this reason, it is extremely difficult to determine the vulnerability of parti-
cular sites along the coast. It is possible to deveLop a notion of the relative storm hazard
for different portions of the coast by examining the history of damage during the past
several years. In doing this it is necessary to remember that the damage caused by a
storm is taken as a measure of the storm's intensity. This has been done in an effort to
integrate the many independent meteorological and other factors, including astronomical
tide, that in combination determine the destructive potential of a given storm. Inherent
in this procedure is that its usefulness is limited to the broad scale of time and space;
that is, that while our approach should show the broad pattern of hazard as it differs along
the coast and has changed in time, the analysis will not be especially useful for understand-
ing the hazard at particular sites. For the latter, detailed historical and physical studies

526

of each site would be required. Such detailed studies of individual sites would, of course,
be difficult to use for purposes of generalization because of the variability in the experience
of neighboring sites,

The approach we have adopted has sought to identify the over-all pattern of storm
damage on the east coast of the United States; to classify the sorts of meteorological con-
ditions. that are responsible for coastal damage; to determine where along the coast
damage (or the likelihood of damage, in the absence of actual reported damage) is most
frequent; how this frequency of damage has changed in the past several decades; and to
determine as far as possible whether the observed changes in damage frequency during
the years are due to meteorological changes or changes in human use (or abuse) of the
coa s t.

Frequency of Coastal Storms

Records of coastal storms and related damage during the past 44 years are
contained in a number of different periodicals, newspapers, and weather summaries. As
the method of reporting such storms, the reporting group, and the public interest have at I
changed, so also have the sources of data. The prime sources for at[ storm data during
the period 1921-1964 have been U. S. Weather Bureau c[imatological publications. From
1921 until the end of 1949, brief records of severe storms were published in the Monthly
Weather Review, white more detailed articles on storms of significance were included
in the Review itself when warranted. From 1950 until the end of 1958, these storm
records were included in the publication Climatological Data,, National Summary. Since
1959 a much more expanded record of all severe storms has been pubLished. monthly in
the special report entitled Storm Data.

In order to supplement these records, several other sources have been used for
varying periods of time. Included among these are the Mariner's Weather Log, Weekly
Weather and ICrop Bulletin, Weatherwise, New York Times, and various articles in
periodicals. The record of hurricane damage over the past half century is particularly

For example: A. I. Cooperman and H. E. Rosendat, "Mean Five-Day Pressure
Pattern of the Great Atlantic Coast Storm, March 1962, " Mon. Wea. Rev. , 91, 337-344,
1963; D. L. Harris, "Coastal Flooding by the Storm of March 5-7, 1962, " U. S. Wea. Bur. ,
Manuscript, 22 pp. 1963; R. H. Simpson, "The Unique Development of the Severe Atlantic
Coastal Storm, March 1962, " paper presented at 211 Nat. Meeting, AMS, 11 pp, 1963;
D. M. Thomas and G. W. Edeten, Jr. , "Tidal Floods, Atlantic City and Vicinity, New
Jersey, " Hydrologic Invest. , Atlas HA-65, U. S Geol. Survey, 1962; U. S. Weather Bureau,
"Criteria for a Standard Project Northeaster for New England North of Cape Cod," Memo
Hur. 8-5, Hydrometeor. Sec. , Hydrol. Ser. Div. , 91 pp, 1963.

527

welt documentedl, but such storms constitute only about one-third of the totaL.that has
resulted in damage to the coastal areas.

While the portion of this study dealing with the human response to storms has
been confined to the coastal area from North Carolina to New Hampshire, the climato-
logical study has been expanded to include the whole east coast from Key West,. Florida,
to Maine since the data for the additional areas were directly available with no appreciable
increase in effort. . Storms affecting the Gulf of Mexico area, including the west coast of
Florida, have not been included. This climatological study was primarily concerned with
damage that resulted from the peculiar conditions existing at the sea coast (wave damage,
coastal flooding, and tidal inundation) so that storms which caused damage only by wind
or precipitation were not included.

Figure 3-1 gives the yearly record of all storms that have brought at [east some
water damage to part of the Atlantic coastal margin during the period 1921 to 1964. The
record shows a marked increase in the number of damage -producing storms in the past
two decades. From 1921 up-tit the late 1930's, there was fairly even distribution of
coastal storms, averaging two to three a year. Actual numbers ranged from one in 1921,
1923, and 1938, to a,maximum of seven in 1933. During the four years from 1939 through
1942, only one damage-producing coastal storm was reported in the sources studied.

During the 1940's the number of coastal storms increased from two in 1943 and
1945 to seven in 1947 and 1950. The average for this period is slightly higher than for
the pre- 1938 period, a [though the range of variation is consistent with the earlier period.
Beginning in 1950, however, a new pattern of storm. frequency has seemed to develop.
During the past 15 years, the minimum riumber of yearly storms has been five (1952-
1955), while the maximum numbers have been twelve in 1962 and thirteen in 1958. The
average number of storms per year for this period has been nearly eight compared with
two to three during the 1920's and 1930's. Because of the type of record that is available,
it is not possible to say whether i-his chaage In storm frequency is only the result of
random climatological variation. It is certainty possible that the great increase in
coastal occupancy and the resulting importance of damage -producing storms has led to
a certain bias in reporting. This question will be considered in more detail in a later
section.

1 For example: E. M. BalLenzweig, "Fluctuations in Frequency of Tropical
Storms, " Weatherwise, 10, 121-125, 1957; C. W. Brown, "Hurricanes and Shore-Line
Changes in Rhode Island, " Geogr. Rev., 29, 416-430, 1939; G. W. Cry, W. H. Haggard,
and H. S. White, "North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, " Tech. Paper 36, U. S. Wea. Bur. ,
214 pp, 1959; A. D. Howard, "Hurricane Modification of the Offshore Bar of Long Island,
.New York, " Geogr. Rev. , 29, 400-415, 1939; C. P. Mook, "Hurricanes Entering U. S.
Mainland - Eastport to Hatteras, 1635-1955, " Weatherwise, 9,@ 125, 1956; D. L. Harris,
"Characteristics of the Hurricane Storm Surge, " Tech. Paper 48, U. S. Wea. Bur. ,
139 pp, 1963; C. B. Carney and A. V. Hardy, "North Carolina Hurricanes, " U. S. Wea.
Bur. , 26 pp, 1962; and D. M. Ludlam, "Early American Hurricanes 1492-1870, " The
History of American Weather, No. 1, AMS, 198 pp, 1963.

528

Classification of Storms Affecting the Coast

Study of the daily synoptic charts for each of the 195 storms that occurred during
the 1921-1964 period shows that certain weather situations recurred many times. One
obvious meteorological situation frequently associated with coastal damage was the hurricane.
It appeared possible to classify all Listed coastal storms into one of eight different types on
the basis of their origin, structure, and pjath of movement as follows:

1. Hurricanes and severe tropical storms.

2. Wave developments forming in the Atlantic Ocean well east of the United
States mainland or in the vicinity of Cuba.

3. Wave developments along cold or stationary fronts over, the southeast
coastal states or in the Atlantic Ocean just off the southeast coast.

4. Wave developments along cold or stationary fronts in the Gulf of Mexico
forming west of 85 W longitude.

5. Depressions moving across the southern half of the United States that
intensify upon reaching the Atlantic coast; no secondary development ahead
of the storm center.

6. Depressions which develop as strong secondary cyclonic disturbances along
the coast (often in the Hatteras area) ahead of a trailing wave or occluded
center.

7. Intense cyclonic storms whose origin and entire path of movement are over
land surfaces so that the low center remains west of the coastal margin.

8. Strong cold fronts accompanied by squall lines and severe local weather.

In addition, there were six storms with such diverse characteristics that they
could not be grouped into any of the eight categories above. Since, in each case, the
damage done by these storms was very small, they need not concern us further in the
present study.

The above classes do not have sharp boundaries, and there are certain cases
where storms fall near the border of divisions. Even within the classes, behavior of
storms is variable; yet there seems to be sufficient consistency among the storms within
a class and enough difference between classes to justify the present breakdown. In the
present classification, the class 2 and 3 storms which form in the Atlantic are similar to
Miller's type A cyclonesl, while the class 6 storms correspond to his type B cyclones.

1 J. E. Miller, "Cyclogenesis in the Atlantic Coastal Region of the United States,
J. Meteor., 3, 31-44, 1946.

FREQUENCY OF DAMAGING COASTAL STORMS
EASTeRN UNITED STATES, 1921-1964

12 -

10-

1 J. L-Al
2i 23 25 Z7. '29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63
Year
Figure 3- 1

529

Austin' has also discussed conditions which are favorable for cyclogenesis along the east
coast. Both his situation 1 and situation 2 cyclogenesis conditions correspond with
class 3@ storms as listed here. @ Desc'riptions of the different classes as well as sample
weather maps illustrating synoptic conditions during each major storm class follow.

1. The unique characteristics of hurricanes are well known. Hurricanes
possess higher wind velocities than other storms that affect the east coast. Their
destructive power is great, although from the descriptive records of damage, hurricanes
do not generally appear more severe than rnany class 2 storms. This is undoubtedly
related to the more rapid movement of many hurricanes and to the relatively small dia-
meter of the storms which result in shorter over-water fetch of the winds and, hence,
less opportunity for wind-driven waves to pile up along the coast. . During the period of
record, 62 hurricanes brought damage to some part of the Atlantic coast. The synoptic
charts of figure 3@2, showing the movement of hurricane Donna on three successive days
in September 1960 along the east coast of the United States, are fairly typical for storms
in this class.

2. - Storms of the second class include waves that develop into storms at some
distance east or south of the continental United States in the Atlantic Ocean or in the
vicinity of Cuba. With such [ate-forming depressions, the high pressure system north
of the storm center has movedfar enough eastward to block the northeasterly movement
of the storm center. This results in very slow-moving depressions that often have a
pronounced east-west elongation. This configuration of the isobars will, in turn, Lead to
a long over-water fetch of the winds and the build-up of significant wind-driven waves
along the coast. As a result, this group is probably the most destructive of all of the
storms that irif luence the -coast. Figure 3-3 is an example of an intense class 2 storm
that occurred in January 1956. There were nine stcrms in this class during the 44-year
period of record.

3. . Class 3 storms include waves that form over the southeastern coastal states
or in the Atlantic Ocean fairly close to the coastal margin. These storms are also
frequently blocked by high pressure systems pushing eastw4rd north of the Low center.
.Often a pronounced east-west orientation of the isobars results from the juxtaposition of
the low center and the blocking high. In both the class 2 and 3 storms, the actual damage
may result as much from the pressure gradient around the intense blocking high and the
long east-west orientation due to the high as from the gradient around the low itself.
Figure 3-4 shows a portion of the synoptic charts for three days in November 1953 ,
illustrating the development and movement of a class 3 storm. There were 27 storms in
this class during the 44-year period of study.

4. Class 4 storms include depression originating in the Gulf of Mexico west
of 85 W longitude. These storms as well as class 3 storms originate as waves that often
develop on the front marking the leading edge of a strong, cold mass of cP air moving

J. M. Austin, "Favorable Conditions for Cyclogenesis near the Atlantic Coast,
Bull. , Amer. Met. Soc., 22, 270, 1941.

530

southward from continental United States. The storms usually move eastward across
Florida and often strengthen as they reach the Atlantic Ocean. Since they are seldom
blocked, these storms generally move up the coast quite rapidly. Often they are pushed
out to sea by the surge of high pressure which moves southeastward behind the storm
center. Figure 3-5 illustrates the development and movement of a typical class 4 storm
during mid-February 1960. During the period of investigation there were 25 storms of
this type that brought damage to the east coast.

S. Class 5 storms are relatively few in number. The original cold front ahead
of a mass of cP air moves eastward from the central part of the country and out in the
Atlantic. Cyc[ogenesis occurs on the front before it reaches the coast. As the low
center moves over the ocean, deepening occurs, The center then generally moves fairly
rapidly eastward or northeastward. There were only 15 storms of this class which pro-
duced damage to the coastal areas during the 44-year period of record. Figure 3-6
shows the pattern of development of a typical class 5 storm injanuary 1961.

.6. Class 6 storms are a more complex group. In general, cyclogenesis occurs
in the vicinity of the coast on a warm or stationary front emanating from a parent cyclonic
disturbance to the west. With the rapid development of the coastal secondary, often in
the region of Cape Hatteras, the parent depression over the continental area fills and
dissipates. Wave development over the coastal area can be most rapid, but generally the
storm center moves rapidly northeastward so that damage is minimized. Figure 3-7 is
an example of a March 1962 storm in this class. Twenty-six storms of this type have
-resulted in damage to the coast since 1921.

7. . Class 7 storms consist of disturbances which generally move northward
over the Great Lakes and down the St. Lawrence River valley. These storms are usually
highly developed and often move rapidly. .. Damage results when a. strong pressure
gradient develops between the storm center and a high pressure systeni to the east. There
are 17 storms in this category. Figure 3-8 shows a typical example of the occurrence and
development of one of these storms during a period in early February1960.

8. Class 8 storms consist mostly of severe local storms accompanying squalL
lines that'are associated with strong cold fronts. There are no well-developed cyclones
associated with most of these storms and the damage produced is generally localized and
rela.Avely u*nimportant. There were eight storms in this class during the 44-year period
of study.

Only rough estimates of damage from coastal storms are possible. In certain
cases, broad ranges of dollar amounts of damage are available in published form. More
usually, only general descriptive accounts of the storm and the resulting damage are
available. From this information, it has been possible to divide estimated damage into
three broad classes: low, moderate, and severe. Assir ing 1 for low damage, 2 for
moderate damage, and 4 for severe damage conditions , it is possible to obtain a rough

Actual dam Iage amounts increase more, nearly geometrically than linearly as storm
intensity increases. Severe damage conditions thus should be emphasized in relation to
low and moderate damage conditions.

100 1006

O\?.
rIC31

C)
Xk
/0/61
006t

14.

1300 ESTSept.!D, 1960 1300 ESTSept. 11.1960 1300 EST, Sept. 12,196o

Figure J-2. Dcvclopnient and movement of typical clasS I storin alt)jIg t..,asl
k
-Ist of the Uvitcd Staics. 10 -)cr 11
), 12 Scplcnil -)6().

024
1008 101.6
-4b %OOA
1008
-cr

1000

k004
"2

1000
1004

1012
1008

tole
1016 1012 1020 01
1330 EST, ion.?, 1936 1350CSTjon.8.1956'] 1330 EST, ion. 9,4956

Figure 3- 3). Development and 111twement of typical c I a s -s2storm aloag ca,@t coast
of the United Staics, 7-4 January 1956.

0 0

v 107-1@

1020

Y@'

1014-

42.
L
1530 EST, Nb@- 4,1953 J330 EST, Nov. 5, 1953 1330 EST, Nov. 6,1953

Figure 3-4@ Development and movement of typical class 3. storni along, cast coast
Ofthe United States, 4-6 November 1953.

1016
L
L 1004
1 996 1012
1008
1000
IOC4 101.2 1049
1008
O"s
C@
1012
iL
\P&I
JH 1016
N

10
,1. lb
S V2

Y
1016

10,24

1006 1012 1024 16?0 1016.
1330 EST, Feb. 12, t960 f.330 EST, Feb. 13,1960 1330 EST, Feb. 14,1960

Figure 3-5. Do-elcpmcnt and movement of typical class 4 storin jlont@ Gutf and
c
-t coa, -14 Fcbruavv l0m).
a, r of the United States, 12

-----------
L

fO28

ko%6

1020

07-0
0
tBOO EST, ion-Is, 1961 1300 EST, Jon. 19,1961 1300 EST, Jon-20,1961

Figure 3-6. Developmenr .2:-,i movement of typical claSS 3 StOl:lll a[L);Ig C@ISI COdSt
of the United ST-a!es, 18-20 January P-)61.

14
1008
1028
1000

10 L
L

AO
0

1012 1012
0130 EST, M*rcb 11, 1962 ST, Marcb 12,1962 0.130 CST, Merch 13,1962

Figure 3-7. E)CIVC10PIllellt alld 1110VOIllent of typical class 6 storm along cast coast
of the United States,. 11-13 March 1962.

5
1028 io,20

1020

"0 6

1020

1012

1004 1020
1300 EST, Feb. 411960 1300 EST, Feb. 5.1960 t 1500EST,Feb.6,1960

-)ic- ctass7storlil @Ijojjcr cast 4: oa s t
Figurc S, Dcvc ot'rl ont and movement (if tyl a
of the Unitcd Statesi 4-6 February 1060.

531

estimate of the average severity of each of the foregoing classes of storms. Table 3-1
shows that class 2 storms are the most severe on the basis of this qualitative interpre-
tation of the record, followed by class I and class 3 storms. Class 8 storms resulted
in the lowest amount of coastal damage.

Table 3-1

Frequency and Damage Estimate by Storm Type,
Atlantic Coast, 1921-1964

Class of Storm Total Number Damage Estimate

1 62 2.40
2 9 2.89
3 27 2. 18
4 25 2.00
5 15 1.64
6 26 1.84
7 17 1.44
8 8

Table 3-2 gives the seasonal frequency of storms of different types. The
seasonal maximum of class I storms comes as expected in September, with a range of
occurrence from June through November (except for one in February). Both class 2 and
3 storms are more frequent in the fall and early winter. While class 4 storms do occur
in the fall and winter, the maximum of these storms occurs in March. Class 5 storms
occur mainly from November through April, although two summer occurrences have
been noted. C Lass 6 and 7 storms are also most frequent in the winter and early spring,
while class 8 storms seem to favor the [ate summer although the number of storms is so
low that the distribution is not significant.

Table 3-2

Seasonal Occurrence of Storms by Class

Type J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Y
1 1 1 3 15 24 15 3 62
2 2 1 2 3 1 9
3 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 5 6 27
4 2 4 5 3 2 2 2 3 2 25
5 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 15
6 3 4 3 5 1 1 1 4 4 26
7 3 3 1 1 3 4 2 17
8 1 - - - I - 1 1 3 1 - - 8

Tota 1 13 16 15 11 6 4 4 21 33 29 26 11 189

532

Area[ Distribution of Coastal Storms

In a hearing before the Congress following the storm of March 5-8, 1962,
Simpsoni estimated that some portion of the Atlantic coast would experience appreciable
storm damage about once in four years. He further pointed out that there had been ten
storms since 1900 which compared in severity to the March 5-8, 1962 storm. Any one
locality on the coast might experience a storm of the severity of the March storm About
once in 30 to once in 60 years.

These figures give the impression of a relatively infrequent occurrence of
coastal storms. While there is the qualification that the figures apply to storms of like
severity to the disastrous storm of March 1962, this is often overlooked or misunderstood.
It would be useful to both coastal dwellers and builders to have information on the total
number of storms that have produced some damage to the coast. At the same time, know-
ledge of the specific coastal areas subject to repeated damage would be desirable. It is,
of course, important to know that, on the long-term average of once in every 30 years a
very severe storm will bring extensive damage not only to a particular area but to the
whole,.coastat margin. It may be of even greater significance, however, to know that an
area has experienced 20 storms in 30 years that resulted in some damage to houses,
streets, power lines, or commercial establishments. The individual who lives along the
coastal margin may experience damage or toss from any of the 20 storms in 30 years.
He will almost certainly experience some damage or loss from the once-in-30 years storm.
His over-at[ chance of damage and loss is greater than once in 30 years because of the
possibility that one or more of the smaller storms causing only localized damage will
affect him particularly.

. Table 3-3 tists by states the number of coastal storms resulting in some
reported damage during the 1921-1964 period. The storms have been separated by class
as well as geographically by states. 'Me data show that the northern part of the coastal
margin has experienced a considerably greater number of storms than the southern part.
Coastal Massachusetts has experienced 88 damaging storms during this 44-year period,
or two per year, while New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticut follow in that
order. On the other hand the coasts of Georgia, Delaware, and South Carolina have
experienced the fewest damaging storms, less than once every other year for Georgia
and Delaware. Florida, with its long coast line exposed to hurricanes and other tropical
disturbances, has experienced slightly fewer storms than has New Hampshire, with only
a short coast line in an area removed from the general hurricane track. The more
exposed location of North Carolina is clearly revealed, since it experiences slightly more
than one damaging storm every year in contrast to one damaging storm approximately
every two years for South Carolina and Georgia. Of course, this pattern of distribution
sa@s nothing of the severity of the storms involved.

Table 3-4 includes a breakdown, by states, of the number of storms resulting
in severe, moderate, and light damage that have affected the coast. This qualitative

I See page 10 of U. S. House of Representatives, "Improvement of Storm Fore-
casting Procedures, " Hearing before Subcommittee on Oceanography, Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, 87th Congress, 111 pp.

533

Table 3-3

Number of Damage -Producing Storms, by C Lass and State, 1921-1964

Storms
State/CLass 1 2 3 4 5@ 6 7 8 Tota L per Year

Maine 9 5 9 13 6 5 8 55 1.25
New Hampshire 8 2 8 11 3 5 4 41 .93
Massachusetts 22 4 14 16 7 14 7 4 88 2.00
Rhode Island 11 1 10 10 6 12 3 1 54 1.23
Connecticut 11 1 7 10 5 10 5 1 50 1.14
New York 11 1 10 8 4 9 4 47 1.07
New jersey 18 3 10 8 4 8 4 1 56 1.27
Delaware 8 1 5 4 1 2 21 .48
Mary [a-nd 12 1 5 4 2 2 2 28 .64
Virginia 22 1 7 7 1 38 .86
North Carolina 27 3 5 8 3 46 1.05
South Carolina 19 i 3 2 1 26 .59
Georgia 16 1 2 19 .43
FLorida 26 5 5 2 38 .86

Table 3-4

Intensity of Coastal Storms and Recurrence Interval for Storms Bringing
Moderate and Severe Damage, by State, 1921- 1964

Numbers of Storms Average* Mean Recurrence
Light Moderate Severe Severity Intervat (years)

Maine 25 24 6 1.76 1.5
New Hampshire 15 21 5 1.88 1.7
Massachusetts 31 46 11 1.90 .8
Rhode Is [and 24 24 6 1.78 1.5
Connecticut 22 23 5 1.76 1.6
New York 14 24 9 2.09 1.3
New Jersey 25 26 5 1.73 1.4
Delaware 7 13 1 1.76 3. 1
Maryland 13 14 1 1.61 2.9
Virginia 11 22 5 1.97 1.6
North Carolina 14 23 9 2.09 1.4
South Carolina 7 15 4 2.04 2.3
Georgia 5 14 0 1.74 3. 1
Florida 7 21 10 2.34 1.4

Based on I for light damage, 2 for moderate damage, and 4 for severe damage.

534

assessment of damage has again been made on the basis of available descriptions. In
this case, average severity does not vary greatly from state to state, ranging from 1. 61
for Maryland, to 2. 34 for Florida. There seems to be a tendency for the southern states
to be influenced by storms of greater severity, although the number of storms per state
is generally greater for the northern part of the coast tine than the southern.

Storms that bring only light damage are often quite restricted in geographic
extent. To determine the likelihood of a particular state with a coast line of a certain
finite extent to receive appreciable damage, it is assumed that the less significant and
more restricted light intensity storms should be disregarded. Assuming that storms
bringing moderate and severe damage are sufficiently large to result in some damage to
the whole coastal margin of the state in which damage is listed, it is possible to obtain a
rough estimate, by state, of the recurrence interval for damaging storms. In the right-
hand column of table 3-4, the number of storms resulting in only light damage to the coast
has been removed from the total in each state, and the storm frequency is given as the
number of years between storms resulting in moderate to severe damage.

The figures for frequency of damaging storms vary from one every 10 months
(0. 8 year) for Massachusetts to one every 3. 1 years for Georgia and Delaware. The
recurrence interval given for the entire Massachusetts coast is undoubtedly shorter
than is really experienced along any particular coastal reach. This is because the
coast is so oriented that it presents two distinct areas for coastal damage. The south-
facing shore from Buzzards Bay to Chatham on Cape Cod is exposed to all winds from
southeast to southwest. At the same time such winds result in generally offshore
movement of,water along the coast from Orleans on the northern side of Cape Cod to
the New Hampshire border. Storms that affect the shore north and south of Boston and
the north shore of Cape Cod have winds from the north and east. These might bring
relatively little damage to the south shore of Cape Cod and Buzzards Bay. Thus, the
orientation of the shore tine has made part of the Massachusetts coast particularly
susceptible to damage from storms with southerly winds and a different part of the coast
susceptible to storms with northeasterly winds. Actually, the chance of coastal damage
in Massachusetts is probably not much greater than in Rhode Island or New Hampshire.
Separating the storm figures for Massachusetts into those affecting the southward-facing
shore and those affecting the eastward-facing shore, the values of recurrence interval
must approximate closely the figures of 1. 5 years for Rhode Island and 1. 7 years for
New Hampshire. The low value of storm recurrence for North Carolina may similarly
be influenced by the particular exposure of the coast line.

I
Information on the occurrence of damaging coastal storms can also be obtained
from a study of the records from the tide-gaging stations that have been established along
the coast. Records of height of the tides during each of the storms that occurred during
the period 1952-1962 have been collected from the Coast and Geodetic Survey. The data
at 29 gaging stations have been summed in table 3-5 showing the relation between. intensity
of damage and averages of the highest tide recorded during each storm. In this case, the
damage estimates have been divided into five different classes -- very light, light,
moderate, moderate to heavy, and heavy. The results show a reasonable relation between

535

Table 3-5

Average -of Maximum Tides Above Mea .n High Water, by Damage CLasses.
.1952-1962

Very Light Light Moderate Moderate-Heavy Heavy
No. Avg. No. Avg. No. Avg. No. Avg. No. Avg.
Gaging Station Storms Tide Storms Tide Storms Tide Storms Tide Storms Tide

Eastport 34 1.89 5 0.60 6 2.62 2 0.20 2 2.35
Bar Harbor 37 1.42 7 1.24 8 2.15 2 1.05 3 1.27
Portland 34 1.86 11 2.16 8 1.78 2 J. 65 4 3.63
Portsmouth 25 1.75 6 2.08 6 2.10 2 2.60 3 2.97
Boston 37 1.55 9 1.90 9 2.00 5 2.86 4 3.58
Woods Hole 33 1.36 15 1.81 9 1* 77 6: 2.57 21 5.10
Providence 28 1.28 13 1.97 4 1.53 4 3.28 0
Newport 38 1.38 14 ..1.87 5. 1.90 .4 2.80 1 7.40
New London 37 1.46 14 1.70 8 2.51 3 3'* 37 1 7.10
Montauk 53 1.55. 4 2.18 3 2.40 4 2.52 4 4.25
Willets Point 58 1.96 5 2.60 4 4.40 3 2.97 4 5.00
Battery 56 1.56 5 2.44 4 2.75 1 2.30 4 4.58
Sandy Hook 38 .1.71 7 2.71 3 2.97 1 5.70 2 5.15
Atlantic City 44 1.75 6 3.52 4 2.58 0 3 3. 80
Reedy Point 33 1.13 3 1.70 4 1.45 0 1 3.50
Breakwater Harbor 48 1.75 4 2.82 3 2.30 0 1 5.30
Baltimore 55 1.25 4 1.25 4 2.38 0. 1 3.30
Annapolis 53 . 1,18 3 1.47 4 2.15 0 1 3.60
So lomons @55 1.08 3 1.50 4 1.72 0 1 .3.30
Hanpton Roads 21 1.54 5 2.32 0 3 3.93 4 2.68
Portsmouth 22 1.64 5 2.72 0 3 4.23 4 3.52
Little Creek 14 1.46 5 2.40 0 3 3.30 1 1.70
Morehead City 10 0.90 9 1.25 3 1.47 1 3.00 4 3.62
Wilmington 16 1.01 7 0.84 4 1.28 2 1.55 2 2.55
Charleston 22 1.73 2 2.15 2 1.90 0 1 3.40
Savannah River 8 1.99 1 2.70 3 0.90 0 0
Fernandina 7 1.57 2 2.60 1 1.80 2 2.40 0
Mayport 7. 1_27 3 2.10 1 1.60 2 .2.05 0
Miami 1 0.80 2 1.45 1 0.70 3 1.63 0

Average 1.48 2.00 2.04 2.66 3.79

536

height of the tide and damage category when the figures for all stations are averaged
together although the relationship at individual stations varies markedly. . The results
from single stations, of course, are strongly influenced by the number of storms that
have occurred at the station, the assignment of damage categories, the exposure of the
gage itself, and surrounding environmental factors.

. From table 3- 5 it can be seen that on the average with observed tides 2 feet
above mean high water light to moderate damage was experienced. The damage increased
to moderate to heavy as the tide exceeded 2.6 feet above mean high water. Heavy damage
was generally experienced with tides more than 3. 8 feet above mean high water. The
individual variation a m-ng stations still deserves special study in order -to determine the
influence of topography and exposure on potential damage.

The data in table 3-5 refer only to the tides that occurred during periods when
there were reports of storms in at Least one of the publications reviewed during the
course of the study. A second method of looking at the data of high tides would be to obtain
tide records for all tides above certain minimum values to see how often such tides occurred
regardless of whether they resulted in damage. Since table 3-5 showed that tides 2 feet
above mean high water resulted on the average in light damage, the tide records from the
Coast and Geodetic Survey were rec'hecked'to number of iimes tides had
exceeded 2 feet, 3 feet, and 4 feet above mean high water. The results for twelve
selected stations along the coast are given in table 3-6. At the same time, the figures

Table 3-6

'Number of Occurrences of Selected High Tidal Values

Number of
Tides Above Mean High Water storms causing
2. 0-2. 9 ft 3. 0-3. 9 ft 4. O+ft Total some damage
Portland 115 29 1 145 59
Boston 93 20 1 114 64
Newport 29 3 1 33 62
Montauk 29 7 2 38 68
Sandy Hook 44 8 4 56 51
Atlantic City 65 5 1 71 57
Breakwater Harbor 46 8 1 55 56
Hampton Roads 17 1 22 33
Portsmouth 28 4 4 36 34
Wilmington 4 0 1 5 31
Char Les ton 69 3 0 72 27
Mayport 12 0 0 12 13

from table 3-5 giving the totat number of storms causing some reported damage (including
very Light) are also included in the right-hand column for comparison purposes. The
discrepancies between the reported number of tides over 2 feet above mean high water and
the reported number of storms causing damage are most revealing in indicating something

537

of the difficulty in using tide records directly in assessing storm damage. In Portland,
Maine,, tides were more than 2 feet above mean high water 145 times during the eleven-
year period 1952-1962 yet only 59 periods of any type of storm damage were reported.
At Newport, Rhode Island, however, the tide exceeded 2 feet above mean high water
only 33 times yet damaging storms occurred 62 times. Damage will occur with quite
different heights of tide at different places along the coast. The relationship can vary
greatly even along relatively uniform coastal reaches. Consider the great variation in
the results from Wilmington, North Carolina, and Charleston, South Carolina, for
example. Tides 2 to 3 feet above mean high water at Charleston hardly ever result in
damage while tides considerably less than 2 feet above mean high water can cause
reported damage at Wilmington. While these differences are clearly related to exposure
of the gage and environmental factors in its vicinity, the individual or local nature of
damage problems and the great variability from place to place is sometimes overlooked
in an effort to draw general conclusion&br Long reaches of the coast.

Lateral Extent of Storm Damage

The damage history of storms may a [so be considered from a different point of
view. While figures indicating the damage frequency at a point along the coast give some
idea of the relative hazard along different reaches of the coast, they give no indication of
the lateral extent of coast that might suffer damage from a single meteorological event,
If one could predict the frequency with which coastal storms damage various lengths of
coast line, such information, together with estimates of damage levels, would suggest the
magnitude of the total damage risk from a national rather than a local point of view. An
indication of the probabilities to be'attached to storms damaging various lengths of coast
line would suggest how often to expect total damages of various amounts and the geographic
extent of such damage. This information might be helpful in planning of coastal disaster
programs and estimating over-all levels of insurance risk that would be required for a
national insurance program.

The length of coast line affected by a particular storm will, of course, depend
largely on the intensity and size of the storm, its track, and speed of movement. A
large storm of moderate intensity moving slowly up the coast can generate destructive
storm surges and seas persisting for several successive high tides. Such storms will
often affect 400 or more miles of coast line. A very slowly moving storm such as that of
March J962 may be of only moderately great intensity and yet prove extremely destructive
simply because of its persistence and extensive area of wave generation.

Using the reports of damage that were available for each of the storms during
the well-documented period from 1952 to 1962, supplemented by the records from the tide
gaging stations, it has been possible to prepare maps of the lateral extent of damage from
each storm. The damage was separated into only two classes, light and moderate to severe,
because of the lack of detail in the data. Table 3-7 gives a summary of the average Lateral
extent in nautical miles of damage along the coast by each of the eight types of storms listed
previously. The high value of lateral extent for type 5 storms is undoubtedly related to the
fact that only three type 5 storms occurred during this period and they each covered a great

538

Table 3-7

Lateral Extent of Damage by Storm Types 1952-1962
(in nautical miles)

Extent of Damage
Moderate to Tota I No. of
Type Light Severe Extent Storms
(naut. mi.) (naut. mi.) (naut, mi.

1 175 86 261 27
2 192 110 302 9
3 197 106 303 is
4 195 23 218 11
5 308 83 391 3
6 154 21 175 11
7 262 - 262 4
8 25 25 1

horizontal extent. It is possible that this figure would be reduced with the inclusion of
additional storms of this type. The tabulation shows very tittle real difference in the
lateral extent of damage from type 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 storms. Type 6 and 8 storms are
apparently much smaller in horizontal extent. Type 7 storms should influence a fairly
short coastal area although the four type 7 storms that occurred between 1952 and 1962
were fairly extensive.

It is interesting to note that type 2 and 3 storms, cyclones forming over the
southeastern coastal area or on cold fronts that have moved well off the southeast coast,
seemed to damage a larger extent of coast line than did hurricanes. This was especially
true in the southern section of the coast although again, the small number-of such storms
might bias the results. The results are probably influenced by the nature and orientation
of the coast line in retation to the favored paths of movement of the various storm types.

At the present time only tentative predictions about the lateral extent of future
coastal storms are possible. Predictions, in the absence of complete knowledge of the
physical processes involved and with the important assumption of no climatic change,
must be based on the record to date. However, this record is a shaky basis for pre-
diction not only because the data themselves are in need of refinement, but also because
it shows the over-all vulnerability of the coast to be increasing with time. Only if the
pattern of coastal occupancy is frozen at the present [eve[ would it be in any way realistic
to attempt to look into the future. With this proviso, we can now examine the record of
the past 30 years in order to assess the future.

Maps of extent of coastal damage were prepared for each of the 121 damaging
storms that occurred during the 30 years 1935 through 1964. For this analysis, the
lateral extent of damage was defined as the not necessarily continuous length of coast line,

539

in nautical miles, for which any significant water damage (any damage but that classed
very light) was reported for a single storm event.

Table 3-8 shows the lateral extent of significant damage produced by the 121
storms by year. It is seen that 81 percent of the storms damaged less than 400 nautical
miles and that 97 percent of the storms damaged less than 700 nautical miles of coast.
Only 4 storms during the period significantly affected more than 700 miles of coast.

The over-all trend previously noticed (figure 3- 1) toward a higher incidence of
damaging storms has been reflected in an increase in the frequency of storms in all
classes of lateral extent. In figure 3-9, the lateral extent of damage per storm has been
plotted against the logarithm of the average number of storms per year having that extent.
For the 30-year period, this plot seems to be fairly well represented by a straight line
on semilogarithmic paper, implying that frequency per year is a negative exponential
function of damage extent. Because there are so few very extensive storms, the quality
of the fit deteriorates for very extensive storms.

One might be inclined to use the record to predict expected frequencies, assum-
ing that the past may be relied upon as a satisfactory guide to the future. That there has
been a change during the period of study is clear in figure 3-9 where the history of the
latter 15 years is compared to the whole period. The same general relationship between
frequency and damage extent appears to hold for the more recent years, except that the
incidence per year of storms in almost all classes has been higher than for the whole 30
years. Consequently, prediction would require assuming the pattern and level of coastal
development to be frozen at the present state and should be based on the most recent
storm record. Under these conditions, there would be some reason to believe that a
storm damaging about 600 nautical miles of coast would be expected to occur on the
average every 1/. 3 or 3. 3 years, and a storm damaging about 1300 miles (such as the
March 1962 storm) might be expected about once in 1/. 035 or 29 years. 1

A better and more useful prediction might be based on the theory of extreme
values. The statistical theory of extreme values applies to the frequency distribution
of the largest observation per sample of N primary samples, each of which primary
sample contains n observations of unspecified number, but assumed to be large and equal.

In the present case, this stipulation of n large and equal is not applicable since
we are actually dealing with relatively unlikely events; i. e., damaging storms per year
that have occurred only around 0 to 11 times per year.. We are trying to predict the
magnitude of damage extent of these events. The applicability of the theory in such a
case can only be tentative and will depend on the goodness of the fit of the data. There is
some reason to suppose that a double exponential distribution will adequately describe
the extreme values of the data since the basic distribution does appear to be exponential.

1 The east coast of the United States can be considered to be approximately 1600
nautical miles in extent if bays and other minor indentations are disregarded.

Table 3-8

C)
Distribution of Lateral Extent of Storm Damage by Years (1935-1964)

Late-rat Extent in Nautical Miles
1- 101- 201- 301- 401- 501- 601- 701- 801- 901- 1001- 1101- 1201- Number
100 200 -300 400 Soo 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Storms
1964 6 1 1 1 9
1963 3 2 1 1 7
1962 2 3 3 1 1 1 11
1961 2 1 1 1 1 6
1960 3 2 1 1 1 8
1959 2 3 1 6
1958 2 1 1 2 3 1 10
1957 3 1 1 5
1956 1 1 1 1 2 6
1955 3 1 4
1954 1 2 1 4
1953 2 1 1 1 5
1952 1 1 2
1951 2
1950 2 1 2 1 6
1949 1 1 2
1948 2 2
1947 3 4 7
1946 2 1 1 4
1945 1 2
1944 1 3
1943 1 1 2
1942 0
1941 0
1940 1 1
1939 0
1938 1 1
1937 1 1
1936 1
1935 4 -4
Totals 42 2@4 16 16 8 6 5 1 0 1 0 1 1 121

RELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE NUMBER OF STORMS PER YEAR
AND THEIR LATERAL EXTENT OF DAMAGE FOR TWO TIME PERIODS
2.0 1 1 1 1 1

1.0-
1950-1964
.8

.6-
5-19664X'
.4- 193

CX .3
U)
E

2-
0

.08-

.06-

.04-

\7 -0-

.021
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Lateral Extent of Damage (Nautical miles)
Figure 3-9

541

The method described by Gumbel was used to fit the extreme value curves in
figure 3-10 to the most extensive damaging storms per year for the two 15-year periods,
.1935-49 and 1950-64. Comparison of the two plots clearly shows an increase in the
extent of the most extensive storms. . During the former 15-year period, the probability
of getting a storm during a year that damaged 600 or more nautical miles of coast was
about . 13; while during the latter period, the probability for such a storm had increased
to about . 42. Relying on the record of the recent 15 years, then the return period
implied for a storm of at least 600 miles extent is 1/. 42 or about 2. 4 years and for a
storm damaging at least 1300 miles of coast, 1/. 05 or 20 years.

Causes for Increasing Storm Damage Frequency

The foregoing analysis of stornis along the east coast of the United States has
shown a great increase in the number of such storms in recent years. The cause of this
increase needs real study. Is the present high number of damaging storms the result
of better reporting? Is it the result of a real climatic change.? Or is the increase the
consequence of more intensive development of the coastal margin so that storms that
formally would have been considered benign now result in damage?

There is some reason to believe that improved reporting isrot the major cause
of the increase in reported damage. If there were a marked improvement in reporting,
an increase in the number of reported storms causing comparatively insignificant damage
would be expected. Table 3-9 shows no such increase in the number of insignificant

Table 3-9

Number of Cyclonic Centers and Damaging Storms
During Two Different Periods of Time

Number of closed Significant to Significant Insignificant
lows within 100 mi. heavy damage damage damage

1949 68 0 2 0
1950 56 2 3 2
1951 65 0 2 4
1952 66 0 2 3
1953 61 2 3 0
Tota 1 316 4 12 9

1960 62 2 6 1
1961 57 3 2 2
1962 64 4 7 1
1963 61 2 5 2
1964 67 1 7 2
Tota 311 12 27 8

542

damage storms. Of course, it could be argued that improved reporting may have resulted
in the "promoting" of reported storms. That is, storms now assigned significant damage
might previously have been listed inaccurately as insignificant as a result of poor reporting.
Storms now called insignificant might not even have been reported in earlier years. How-
ever, there is no evidence that this has occurred.
@_2
In order to see whether there has been a climatic change in the number of storm
centers, daily weather maps for two 5-year periods (1949-53 and 1960-64) were examined.
There were reports of 25 damaging storms in the earlier period and 47 in the more recent
period.

The appearance on the weather map of a closed low within 100 miles of the east
coast (either inland or seaward) was accepted as a criterion for a possible coastal storm.
All such lows for which there was no report of damage were considered non-damaging
storms. Both the midnight and noon maps were examined for each day of the two 5-year
periods (except for ten days when the maps were missing). If two or more closed tows
appeared within 100 mites of the coast on the same map, and if they appeared to be part
of a single meteorological disturbance, they were counted as only one storm. If a
particular low appeared on more than one map, it was, of course, counted only once.

The total number of damaging storms for each year is compared with the
number of closed lows in table 3-9. Despite the increase in number of damaging storms
in recent years, the total number of closed lows moving within 100 mites of the coast has
remained essentially the same, Consequently, if the increase in damaging storms is to
have a climatological origin, there must have been a change in some other statistic such
as storm intensity or storm track.

To test the possibility that low pressure systems tended to be deeper during
recent years, the central pressures of all the closed lows occurring within 100 miles of
the coast during the period 1952 to 1962 which produced significant damage were studied.
The average minimum central pressures for these storms is given in table 3- 10. -The
table shows that:

1) The average minimum central pressure of heavy damage storms is in
general lower than that of significant damage .storms.
This seems to indicate that there is a relationship between central pressure
and damage.

2) The number of damaging extratropical storms has increased, a fact pre-
viously established.

3) Central pressures of damaging extratropical storms tend to be lower in
more recent years. This is evident for both significant damage and heavy
damage storms. In fact, the average minimum central pressure of all
damaging extratropical storms occurring during the years 1958-1962

CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF LATERAL EXTENT OF
LARGEST STORM PER YEAR. 1935-'49 a 1950-'64

-100
- so

60
980
40
----.970 -,so

20
C+@
C.
-,-.930 1935-1949
9 10
00 1 5.7
8Z
2 x
6
1950-1964
> x
goo
Z
V
4
t.700
E 3
U

2
x X
0- 1.6

71 -1.2
.100 1.1

1.01
150 300 450 600 750 900 1060 1200
Lateral Eittent of Storm Damdge-.- Nautical Miles
Figure 3-10

543

is 11. 6 mb lower than the average minimum central pressure of storms for
the years 1952-1957. . Students t test with 45 degrees of freedom shows
this difference to be significant at the 1 percent level.

Table 3-10

Average Central Pressures of Damaging Storms by Years, 1952-1962
Tropical and Extratropical Storms
(pressure in mb)

1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 -1960 1961 1962

Extratrop. -sig. damage 1 2 1 1 4 5 9 5 6 4 9
Avg. min. central press. 1011 994 1005 1000 996 1004 989 982 990 988 993

Extratrop. -heavy damage 0 2 0 0 3 1 2 1 1 3
Avg. min. central press. 994 991 996 982 984 980 984 985

Tropical-sig. damage 1 3 3 3 2 0 1 1 2 2 2
Avg. min. centralpress. 1005 975 980 976 1002 984 992 986 988 994

Tropical-heavy damage 0 0 3 3 2 0 1 1 1 2 1
Avg. min. central press. 980 976 1002 984 992 976 988 996

Note: . Data are averages of the lowest pressure found on the synoptic map for each storm.

Does this difference in minimum central pressure indicate a climatic trend or
change or can it be explained in any other way? If, of course, there has been no ctimato-
logical change, then the increase in number.of damaging storms must have resulted from
the increasing vulnerability of the coast itself. Several different lines of evidence have
been used to study the possibility of climatic change or trend.

The frequency of high tides by years at selected east coast points is shown in
table -3-11. The table shows that there has been a small increase in the average maximum
high tide at five of the seven stations during the eleven years. Since the change has been
rather small, it would not seem to be related to the increase in storm damage found during
the period.

However, totaling the number of excessively high tides shows that there has been a
marked increase in the frequency of very high tides. For example, at Portland there was
only one tide over 3. 5 feet above MHW from 1952 to 1956, but there were seven in the
1957-1962 period. Montauk had three tides over 3. 0 feet above MHW during the early
period and six between 1957 and 1962. Atlantic City had one tide over 3. 5 feet above MHW
in the first period and three in the second. Thus, the evidence from the tidal record
suggests an increase in exce ssively high tides that appears to be correlated with an increase
in the strength of the damaging Low pressure systems.

544

Table 3-11

Frequency of Maximum High Tide above Mean High Water by Year

Tide above MHW 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962
(feet)
Portland, Mai
2.0-2.4 10 9 5 3 4 7 5 7 4
2.5-2.9 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 3 5 7
M-3a4 2 3 1 4 2 0 1 2 3 2 3
3.5- 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 0
Total -14' -1@- fl =2 -7- =1 717- =1 -117
Avg. ht. 2.54 Avg. ht. 2.65
Boston,, Massachusetts
2.0-2.4 4 5 5 5 7 5 7 6 6 lo 5
2.5-2.9 2 2 2 4 3 2 5 2 4 o 2..
3.0-3.4 2 2 1 1 0 0 3 1 2 3 1
3-5- 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
Total -7 9 - r -fO- -7 -17 =0 = -17- - 9
Avg. Jht. 2.5o Avg. ht. 2.55
Montauk, Long Island
1.5-1.9* 5 2 4. 4 5 3 6 0 4 4 3
2.0-2.4 1 1 1 0 2 1 7 1 5 3 1
2.5-2.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1
3-0- 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 1
Total 5 -2 -11 11 '7
Avg. ht.-2-59 Avg. ht. 2.49
Atlantic City, New Jersey
2.0-2.4 @5 2 5 1 6 7 6 3 6 4 1
2 .5-2.9 1 1 1 3 3 0 2 1 1 2 3
3 .0-3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
3 .5- 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
-7- = -77 --7 -9 -7 --T 4 b d
Total
Avg. ht. 2.41 Avg. ht. 2.45
Portsmouth,, Virgini
2.5-2.9 2 3 5 2 4 1 3 2 3 1 2
3.0- 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 2
Total 2 3 7- -2 --T- -2 --7 772- --7 -2 --T
Avg. ht. 2.58 Avg. ht. 2.73
Charleston, South Carolina
2.0-2.4 1 2 5 3 5 6 8 4 8 6 9
2.5-2.9 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 1
3-0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
Total 1- `-7 -7 -9 -7 -11 7 11
Avg. ht. 2.30 Avg. ht. 2.34
Mayport., Florida
1.5-1.9 4 4 7 6 5 6 4 6 4 4 5
2.0-2.4 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 3 0 1
2@5- 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
`V -7- , = --7- = -7 7
Total 9
Avg. ht. 2.32 Avg. ht. 2.20

.545

An increase in height of the tides or a decrease in the central pressure of
damaging low pressure systems would seem to be a climatological trend unrelated to
possible changes in coastal vulnerability. It is possible, of course, that something else
besides just a deepening of central pressures is involved. The possibility of a shift in
storm tracks or in the paths of movement of the Low pressure systems must also be
considered.

Previous studies have shown a greater increase in damaging storms in recent
years along the northern portion of the coast. It is further recognized that low pressure
areas at higher latitudes are more strongly developed and have lower central pressures
than in lower latitudes. Thus, it might be possible to explain the deepening of the central
pressures of damaging storms as well as the increase in the damage to the northern
portion of the coast line by means of a northward shift in the locations of storm centers
in more recent years. Figures 3- 11 and 3- 12 show the location of the minimum Low
pressure observed for each destructive storm for the two periods 1952-1957 and 1958-
1962. Aside from the more than twofold increase in storm frequency, two other changes
are obvious.

1. The marked increase in the number of damage producing centers that attain
greatest intensity outside of the zone 100 miles east and west of the coast.

2. The marked increase in number of damaging storm centers reaching their
greatest intensity north of 40 0N.

This second point -might indicate a northward shift in the Location of the storm
centers except that a count of storms both north and south of latitude 40 ON (table 3- 12)
reveals no corresponding decrease in number of storms south of 400N. If nothing more
than a northward shift of low centers was involved, assuming no significant change in
total numbers of lows affecting the coast (table 3-9), it would be expected that an increase
0
in low pressure centers north of latitude 40 N should be almost balanced by a corresponding
decrease in the number to the south of that latitude. This evidently has not occurred so
that a mere shift in location of low pressure centers can be discarded.

Table 3-12

Changes in Number and Central Pressure of Lows
North and South of Latitude 40ON 1952-1962

North of 40ON South of 40ON
Avg. Min. Avg. Min.
Number Pressure Number Pressure
(mb) (mb)
1952-1957 1 998 13 1001

1958-1962 17 987 16 992

546

Table 3-12 shows a 3 to 5 mb change in pressure between lows south of 40ON
and those north of 400N. This change is evidently related to the stronger development of
cyclones at higher latitudes. The significant trend is the change in pressure of a[[ Lows
between the 1952-57 period and the 1958-62 period. There was a deepening of pressure
of 9 mbs during this time in those Lows south of 40ON and of 11 mbs in those north of 400N.

The results would seem to verify a change in intensity of low pressure areas
without necessarily suggesting any change in storm tracks or locations of the damaging
Low pressure centers. Still no physical reason for this trend is readily apparent. And,
of course, there is no indication that this apparent trend is the only thing responsible for
the increase in damage along the coastal margin.

It is clear from the results expressed elsewhere in this report that there has
been a rapid and, in most cases, unplanned and possibly even unsound, development of
most coastal areas over the past ten or more years. This development has undoubtedly
resulted in a weakening of the natural coastal defenses against storms, and of course,
made possible the greatly increased dollar values of damage. Thus, these two aspects,
the increase in number and strength of damaging low pressure areas and the weakening
of coastal defenses, both will result in the same end -- an increase in damage frequency
and amount. It is not yet possible to separate out the exact contribution of each but it
appears that they have both played a part in our recent coastal damage experience. A
great deal of further study of these aspects needs to be done in an effort to identify the
real contribution of each.

Analysis of Damage Frequency

Thirty years of detailed recorded storm damage covering 1935-1964 have been
analyzed to determine the frequency of damage to all points along the east coast of the
United States. The coast line as defined here omits the interior shorelines of bays and
estuaries, such as the De[aware' Chesapeake, and Cape Cod Bays, and Long Island
Sound. The coast thus defined extends 1600 nautical miles from Eastport, Maine, to
East Cape,. Florida. The coast has been divided into sixty-four increments or reaches
of 25 miles each.

Descriptions of the damage sustained along the coast were obtained and
evaluated for severity for each 25-mile reach of the coast. Damage reports for interior
coast Lines of bays and sounds were averaged with those for the exterior coast lines.
Damage to property judged from the reports to be due to flood or wave action and
incidents of beach erosion were mapped for each storm. Information on the heights of
abnormal tides along the coast were also used to Judge the severity of each storm at
various points along the coast. The tide information aided in determining the lateral
extent and intensity of the storm damage. It was used as a supplement to and a check on
the actual damage reports. By using both damage and tide information, it was possible to
get some idea of the broad pattern of the potential for damage along the coast including
uninhabited places and sites between points of definite reported damage. The resulting
pattern is, therefore, a combination of actual damage to vulnerable points along the coast

LOCATION OF DAMAGING EXTRA-TROPICAL STORM CENTERS
AT THE TIME OF MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE

1952-1957 de 1958-1962

dashed lines approximately
100 miles from coast)

Figure 3-11 Figure 3 -12

547

and a generalization of this damage frequency to nearby points that may or may not be
vulnerable at future times depending on local circumstances. In this way, it was hoped
to free the analysis from excessive reliance on detailed Local topographic and human
occupance factors, and thereby to obtain a measure of the board patterns of hazard along
the coast.

There were some storms in which the damage reports indicated only inconse-
quentiaL damage. In other cases, it was difficult to distinguish between major and
inconsequential beach erosion. Therefore, the 121 damaging storms analyzed here
include only those storms in which there was judged to be greater than minimal damage to
real estate or natural coastal. defenses somewhere along the coast. Intermediate points
were sometimes considered to have been damaged when tides were as high as the tides
known to be associated with damaging storms.

A map of the damage (actual and potential) produced by each storm was prepared
for each of the 121 storms. From these maps the frequency of significant damage for each
25-mile reach of coast was determined.

The over-all frequency of damaging storms for the whole Length of coast line has
increased over the 30 years from about I per year to a current frequency of about 8
damaging storms per year. The frequency of damaging storms per 25-miLe reach of
coast line is shown in figures 3-13, 3-14, and 3-15 for the three decades 1935 through
1964. (The number of storms per segment has been rounded up to the nearest even
number to simplify the results.)

Of the total of 121 damaging storms during the 30-year period, the number per
decade increased from 12 during the years 1935-44 to 35 during 1946-54 and to 71 during
the final ten years 1955-64. In each of the three decades, just under one-half of the
.storms seriously affected the vicinity of Cape Cod on the southern New England coast. It
is clear from figures 3-14 and 3-15 that since 1945 the New York-New England coast has
been significantly more subject to storm damage than has the remainder of the United
States east coast lying to the south of New York City. . During the just completed decade,
for instance, there were an average of 22 damaging storms for each 25-miLe segment of
coast line between New York City and Eastport, Maine. By contrast, there were only an
average of 8. 3 storms bringing damage to each of the 25-miLe segments south of New York.
Within New England, storm damage was most frequent along the Rhode Is land- Mas sachu setts
coast line, where there were an average of 28 damaging storms per 25-miLe segment
between Provincetown, Massachusetts, and Groton, Connecticut. North of Provincetown,
the number of damaging storms is only slightly lower.

Nowhere south of New York does the total number of damaging storms exceed the
storm frequencies experienced in New England. And the average frequency, as noted
above, is less than haLf that experienced in New England. Yet, within the southern coast
(in this context, the whole coast south of New York) the region immediately north and south
of Cape Hatteras, from Albemarle Sound to Cape Fear, not surprisingly, has been damaged
more often than any other reach of the southern coast during the past ten years. It is
interesting to note, however, that there has been a marked increase in the relative damage

548

frequency along this reach of coast since 1955. This may reflect accelerated development.
The number of structures in the Nags Head study site almost doubled in the decade 1953-
1963.

There are two reaches of the coast south of New York where damage frequency
during the past ten years has been notably Lower than the average for the whole coast.
These include an extensive reach of the New Jersey coast north of Atlantic City and the
bight of coast from the vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina, to the vicinity of Palm
Beach, Florida, During the decade 1945-54, however, this reach of coast line showed a
greater relative frequency of damaging storms than was observed during the other two
decades of the 30 years under study.

Maps were also prepared to show the frequency of heavy damage -producing
storms for each of the three decades. Figures 3- 16, 3- 17, and 3- 18 show the frequency
of heavy damage for comparison with the frequency of a[[ significant damage shown in
figures 3-13, 3-14, and 3-15. Of the total 121 storms, 48 resulted in heavy damage some-
where along the coast.

Again, the whole New England coast is significantly prone to damage. During the
last decade, each ofthe nineteen 25-mile segments between Eastport and New York City
received an average of almost 6 heavy damage-producing storms during the ten years.
To the south of New York, only in the Hatteras area, and the area near Norfolk, Virginia,
is there found an equivalent frequency of heavy damage during the just past ten years.

Broad categories of relative storm hazard were assigned to individual segments
of the coast line from the storm frequencies shown in these two sets of maps. In
evaluating the relative hazard, it seemed appropriate to give more weight to storms
producing heavy damage. This is necessary since the dollar value of damage is usually
given in damage classes increasing by factors of ten. Consequently, the difference
between moderate and heavy damage may correspond to dollar loss differences of several
orders of magnitude. In order to make some allowance for this fact in assigning values of
relative hazard, double weight has been given to heavy damaging storms.

Figures 3-19, 3-20, and 3-21 show the relative coastal storm hazard by 25-mile
sections of coast line for the three decades. The relative hazard is simply the total.
number of damage occurrences per reach, with heavy damage occurrences being given
double weight. (The actual, unrounded storm frequencies were used. Consequently,
there may be a discrepancy of one storm between the hazard value and the sum of storm
frequencies in figures 3-13 to 3-18) The weighi6d d4magifig.. storm, frequencies were
broken down into four classes of hazard: 1-10 (tight hazard), 11-20 (moderate hazard),
21-30 (considerable hazard) and 31-up (great hazard).

Figure 3-21 indicates relative hazard of coastal damage at the present time
based on the history of the last ten years. The New England coast around Cape Cod is the
only reach of coast that experiences great hazard. Two other regions, the balance of the
New England coast line south to New York together with the Hatteras region from Albemarle

NUMBER OF STORMS PRODUCING SIGNIFICANr REPORTED DAMAGE
ALONG INDICATED REACH OF COASTLINE

16
1935-1944 1945-1954 1955 -1964
V
0 8 10 22 28
N.@ 8
6
10 18
J @c 20
4 22
14 24 34

4 6
2 )t 2 6 10 12 426 32
4 115 24
4
2 2 8
4
4 2 4 12 14
2
4 Is

14
4
8
-2 6

4
2 31
2 4 4
6
12 damaging storms 6 8 35 damaging storms 4 71 damaging storms

6 6

6
8
2 Number of storms grouped
to nearest even number

Figure 3 - 13 Figure 3 - 14 Figure 3 15

NUMBER OF STORMS PRODUCING HEAVY DAMAGE
ALONG INDICATED REACH OF COASTLINE

1935-1944 )c
1945-1954 1955-1964

je 0 3

4
2 7 8

2
T

3 6
4 5

5
4

0
2

2
23 3

Figure 3 16 Figure 3 17 Figure .3 18

REGIONS OF RELATIVE COASTAL STORM DAMAGE HAZARD

X
1935-1944 1945-1954 1955-1964

A-
Hazard Scale Hazard Scale Hazard Scale
low low x low
less than 6 less than 6 less than I I
6-1 0 6-10
moderate moderate
11-20 11-20
considerable
21-30
great
over 30

Figure 3 19 Figure 3 -20 Figure 3 -21

549

Sound to Morehead City are found to be considerably hazardous. The coasts of New Jersey,
the Delaware peninsula, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida are all found to experience
only low hazard. Of course, -it is to be remembered that these definitions have been made
in terms of frequency of damage and occa sional highly damaging events occur on these low
hazard coasts. The high damage caused by the,occasional severe storms along a low
hazard coast may, of course, be more a consequence of the pattern of coastal development
than the severity of the infrequent attacks by storms.

Conclusions

The foregoing study of coastal climatology has shown something of the great
increase in storm hazard that has occurred in recent years. A review of possible reasons
for this increase suggests that man as welt as nature have been responsible. While the
likelihood of a devastating storm Like that of March 1962 may be only one in 20 to 30 years
the more frequent storms of restricted extent result in an over-all frequency of damage that
is much greater. Continued action by man in developing the coastal margin can only increase
this damage potential unless great care is exercised in the future development of the coast.

White the present study should now be refined to permit determination of the likeli-
hood of damage area by area, the broad scale picture is clear. The southern New England
coastal margin is particularly vulnerable to coastal storm damage. Further developments
here should be carefully considered. Many parts of the New Jersey and Maryland- Delaware
coasts are more favorably situated but of course here, use of the low lying offshore bars
invites damage. The exposed Hatteras region is an area subject to great damage potential
as is the gouthern Florida area. The other areas while suffering damage from time to time
seem to be much more favorably situated although along no part of the coast should unre-
stricted development be permitted. Coastal storms occur too frequently to permit the
increased occupancy of the coast without adequate warning or understanding on the part of
all users concerning the potentials for damage. It would seem that only through education
of the coastal inhabitants and builders to the damage potential from coastal storms can any
permanent and effective solution to this serious problem be achieved.

550

CHAPTER IV

HUMAN ADJUSTMENT TO COASTAL FLOODING

Over the long span of settlement on the outer shore, many adjustments to the
hazards of coastal flooding have evolved. These range from construction of massive
engineering works designed to keep the sea away to the passive acceptance of losses when
storms occur. Between these extremes are many alternate strategies designed to minimize
danger to life and damage to property, to keep water out of structures, to keep structures
out of floodable areas, and to bolster natural defenses against coastal floods.

This chapter explores the prevalence of these adjustments considering their
extent, diversity, and efficiency in reducing damage. For this we have drawn heavily
upon special surveys of damage from tidal flooding, or on studies of the extent of coastal
engineering structures, zoning laws, and interviews with nearly 400 commercial and
residential users of the shore.

Loss Bearing

The most common adjustment to coastal flood hazard is simply to suffer damages
when they occur. Estimates of the extent and value of such damages are, however,
extremely difficult to make. Damage stems from the action of both wind and water, and
in general, wind damage is insurable and water-borne damages are not. Data on flood
damages are collected consistently only by the Weather Bureau and the Corps of Engineers;
the former by written questionnaire; the latter by survey. Seldom do their estimates
agree. . Some coastal damages enter into these general estimates of flooding, others into
estimates of storm or wind damage, and estimates of beach erosion losse-s are usually
prepared only in connection with specific studies. No agency collects data specifically on
losses from tidal flooding.

. Therefore, to provide an order of magnitude estimate, data on losses from tidal
inundation have been brought together from the hurricane studies prepared under the
authorization of P. L. 71 by the Corps of Engineers.1 The studies available to date cover
about one-third of the 1300 miles of study shore, and tend to concentrate on areas of high
damage. They do not provide an adequate sampling of the whole shore. Within these studies,
two types of damage estimates are found: average annual damages calculated for the rela-
tively small areas where projects were recommended or considered, and estimates of the
recurrence of a. single large storm, such as the 1938 hurricane, for more extensive areas.

1 Public Law 71, 84th Congress, Ist Session, authorized the Corps of Engineers
"to cause an examination and survey to be made of the eastern and southern seaboard of
the United States.with respect to hurricanes, with particular reference to areas where
severe damages have occurred..

551

Thus for 215 miles of the study area (16 percent) recurring average annual damages are
estimated by the Corps of Engineers at about $ 10, 000, 000 and for 441 miles of the study
area (34 percent) damages exceeding $385, 000, 000 are estimated to arise from the
recurrence of a single catastrophic event. This might be further compared with the losses
estimated to have occurred from the March 6- 9, 1962 storm of $192, 000, 000.

A somewhat different measure of the magnitude of loss bearing is derived from
the interview data. Using a qualitative measure, damage was classified into light,
medium, and heavy. Light damage, reported by 15 percent of the 371 respondents, was
damage mainly to lawns and grounds. Medium damage, reported by 16 percent, includes
damage by inundation mainly to contents of buildings. Heavy damage suffered by 22 per-
cent of respondents involved major structural damage as well. Thus well over half of the
respondents had suffered some sort of water damage in their occupance of the shore.

. Not subject to classification or evaluation is the loss of life from coastal storms.
Fortunately the cases reported occurring on shore are few and far between. . Dangerous
situations do exist; the large causeway at the Pt. Judith site is evidence of the recognition
of the danger especially on isolated barrier bars. Loss of Life has been reduced by the
widespread implementation. of warning procedures and emergency adjustments, the next
set of adjustments to be considered in this review.

Warnings and Emergency Actions

The sensitivity of coastal dwellers, recreationists, and commercial interests to
weather has always been high. Marine interests actively seek accurate weather forecasts
and the chain of warning, communication, and action related to tidal flooding is built, in
part, on the existing network of coastal warning facilities. This chain shown in figure 4-1,
involves the assemblage of three types of information required for a tidal flood warning.
Meteorological forecasts of atmospheric systems whose winds provide the major motive
force for onshore water movements, are combined with tidal predictions and topographic
data on the shore and foreshore. At Least four major agencies are involved, but primary
responsibility rests with the Weather Bureau.

A specific warning then enters the warning network for dissemination to both
shore and marine users. In the study area the warnings are issued from 10 stations along
thestudyshore.1 The warnings reflect their maritime history and are based on the flag
display system for small craft in which wind speed is the major variable. -For seaward
display, warnings go to communications media, the Coast Guard, marinas, and yacht clubs.
For Landward dissemination, they are sent to police, civic officials, civilian defense
organizations, and through various arrangements to the business and agricultural commu-
nity. Table 4-1 presents a typical notification list used at one of the stations along the
study shore.

I Memorandum dated April 22, 1963, N. A. Matson, Chief,. Emergency Warning
Section, U. S. Weather Bureau.

552

Tabie.4-1

Sample Warning Network, by Type of Warning

Type of Warning Cumulative Network

Small Craft Coast Guard Stations
(Winds < 33 knots) Life Guard Stations
Marinas, Yacht Clubs
Other Flag Display Stations
Radio Stations

Gale, Whole Gale Shore Police Departments
(Winds 34-63 knots) Utilities
Airfields
Newspapers
Piers

Hurricane Civil Defense
(Winds > 64 knots) Red Cross
School systems
Inland Police Departments
Chamber of Commerce List
Agricultural Network

.Tidal Flood Included where appropriate with
above storm warnings

.The prediction of tidal floods. Tidal flood warnings are but one of the variant s
of storm warnings in the network, but one that places critical pressure on the predictive
capacity of the forecaster. This problem has been summarized well by the Weather
Bureau at a Congressional hearing.

"The problem of predicting inundation, erosive wave action, and
damaging wind along the coast is a complex one. It is basically a
meteorological problem involving the development and movement of atmos-
pheric storms. However, the problem embraces a spectrum of related
oceanographic factors, including the process of interaction between ocean
and air which generates large waves and causes storm surge, the latter
augmenting the normal astronomical tides. The height and. frequency of
wave crests generated by storm winds depends both upon the strength and
duration of strong winds, and the fetch or distance over which the
generating winds follow the waves without change of wind direction. . For
example, the waves generated by a small circular storm are not as
damaging to the coastline as those from an oval-shaped storm in which
strong winds blow from the same direction for several hundreds of miles.
And in the same way the waves generated by a rapidly moving storm are

Geological Corps of Coast.and
Survey Engineers Geodetic Survey

4-
Meteorologic Topograpfiic'!- Tidal
Forecasts Data Predictions

Tidal Flood
Warning

Warning Network

Communications Media

Police, Civic Officials Coast Guard
Civilian Defense Marinas
Business, Agriculture Nets Yacht Clubs

ShoreUsers arine Users
IM

Emergency Actions

Evacuation
Temporary Removal
Elevation and Securing
of Property

Figure 4- 1. The communication chain for reduction of tidat flood damage
by warning and emergency action.
-as

553

generally less damaging than one which is stationary or slow moving,
since the wind at any one locality changes its direction continually as
the storm moves by.

"Experience and theory have provided reasonably effective
tools for predicting the size of waves generated by winds of known
strength, direction, and fetch. . Thus if one can predict the development,
strength, and geometry of storm winds, and the movement of the storm
system, useful wave forecasts can be computed.

.."A. more subtle -but,equally important factor in: coastal inunda-
tion, and the resulting Loss of life and property damage, is the storm
surge. This effect is one in which the tidal Level of the sea is raised
due to the accumulation of water transported by stresses of the wind
on the sea. Wave action itself is responsible for little or no actual
transport of water except when the churning wave motion touches bottom
as it approaches the coast. However, the term "storm surge" refers to
an unspecified number of effects which combine to transport and
accumulate water along coastal regions. The storm surge associated
with a hurricane may cause water Levels to rise more than 15 feet above
the [eve[ of astronautical tides. It is in this area of prediction that the
greatest gap in knowledge exists, even though great progress has been
made since studies of this effect were inaugurated in connection with
hurricane research in 1956. Hence, if one knows the exact size and
frequency of waves which will reach the shore, the extent to which
damage will extend inland remains dependent upon the rise of water levels
due to the storm surge.

"Finally, if meteorological prediction has been accurate, the
computation of wave heights dependably determined, and the rise of water
level due to the storm surge adequately anticipated, there remains an
important problem of beach topography which may strongly influence the
extent of inundation. This concerns the initial condition of beaches at the
onset of the storm. If beaches are well stocked with sand to begin with,
wave erosion may stop short of the protective dunes which in many areas
act as a levee to inhibit massive flooding of the coastal plain, However,
if the beach is already deeply eroded by earlier storms, the battering
action of waves may extend far inland. "I

But the problem of prediction is not the only one of concern. There is a question of inter-
pretation as well. Consider this statement from the Weather Bureau forecast of 5 AM
Tuesday, March 6, 1962 from the Washington Airport.

U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session,
.Improvement of Storm Forecasting Procedures, Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Oceanography, Washington: April 4, 1962, pp. 201-21.

554

"Tides caused by strong onshore winds wit. L increase to 3 to 5 feet above
normal today to the north of the storm center. This will cause extensive
flooding in coastal lowland New Jersey northward into Southern'New
England today and tonight."I

An adequate interpretation of the warning by an individual coastal dweller would
require both knowledge of the normal tides for the period and the elevation and expected
runup at his own particular location. Except by experience such information is difficult
to obtain. Only three maps designed to show coastal inundation specifically have been
prepared and these were in the nature of an experiment@ To help bridge the interpretive
gap-, most Weather Bureau stations have developed detailed surge maps for use in Local
instructions. A series of surge warning maps for some of the coast has been developed
by the Weather Bureau giving key elevations, critical causeway heights, information as
to past inundation, and the like.3

The effectiveness of the warning network. How many shore users are reached
by a warning? How many respond, and what is the nature of the response to a specific
situation? The questions,could not be readily investigated within the design of this study.
But, it is possible from the interview data to derive a rough measure of aggregate
responsiveness to the warning network and participation in emergency actions. . From the
respondents at the study sites, it was found that minimal emergency actions involving
persona[ safety, or the temporary removal, elevation, and securing of property were
very widespread. At least 60 percent of our respondents had employed them at some time.
(See table 4-2.)

Table 4-2

Extent of Floodproofing Adjustments, by Type,
368 Respondents
Number of Percent of Total
Type of Adjustment Respondents Respondents

Emergency actions, evacuation, elevation and
temporary removal:
Without prior preparation 224 61
Requiring prior preparation 10 3
Land elevation 10 3
Other structural changes 16 4

1 .Ibid., p. 73.
2 Ibid., p. 35. These were prepared for Atlantic City, N.J. ; Providence, R.I. ,
and Charleston,. S. C. One additional map can be found in D. A. Crane, Coastal Flooding in
Barnstable County,. Cape Cod, Mass. (Boston: Mass. Water Resources Commission, 1962).
3 An unpublished location diagram for storm surge warning maps lists 124 maps,
.8-1/2 x.14 from 1:250,000 base maps, prepared or being prepared for the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts. I

555

Major public concern is with evacuation procedures which is as it should be,
especially in areas subject to hurricanes. The Weather Bureau publication, "A Mode[
Hurricane Plan for a Coastal Community, "I deals almost exclusively with planned evacua-
tion. The most outstanding example of evacuation to date has been the Hurricane Carta
experience, which saw over half a million persons evacuated from the Louisiana and Texas
coasts in 1961.2

Emergency actions without prior preparation. Most emer gency actions that may
be taken in response to a warning involve little or no prior preparation. These include the
removal of life and property from the path of the water, or taking protective action to mini-
mize damages from actual inundation. The pr *otection. of property may involve "battening
down" or various forms of placing portable property where it cannot be damaged. Some
procedures are part of wintering routines of summer cottages. Simple adjustments involve
the tieing up of boats or removal of lawn furniture; more elaborate ones might find furniture
placed on a second floor.

F loodproof ing

A comprehensive damage reduction program that employs combinations of minimal
emergency actions, adjustments requiring more elaborate prior preparation, and permanent
3
changes to structures has become commonly known as floodproofing.

Emergency actions requiring prior preparation. Sixteen respondents employed the
more elaborate emergency actions that require the advance stockpiling of special materials.
By example, one commercial manager covered metal parts of machinery with grease to
prevent rusting; another had constructed special crates to place around gasoline pumps to
prevent their damage from floating debris. One householder constructed a special rig to
use in elevating household appliances above flood levels.

Structural change. A more permanent set of adjustments involves changes to
structures -- homes, commercial buildings, factories, and the like. These adjustments
are basically of four types: (1) land filling and elevation designed to place buildings above
the level of tidal floods, (2) anchorage devices designed to prevent structures from being
washed away, (3) installations designed to keep water out of buildings and (4) measures to
allow water through buildings to reduce buoyancy or hydrostatic pressures.

Many adjustments are incorporated into original construction. Land filling,
elevation of structures, or deep piling (see figure 4-2) may be specified as part of the

1 U. S. Weather Bureau, "A Model Hurricane Plan for a Coastal Community,
National Hurricane Research Project Report No. 28,. U. S. Weather Bureau, 1959.
2, Harry E. Moore, et. at. , Before the Wind: A Study of the Response to
Hurricane Carla, NAS@NRC Pub. 095, 1963.
3 Sheaffer, op. cit.

556

subdivision plat, in architectural plans, or in the course of replacement of previous
damage. .(See figure 2-12 for the extent of filling at the Dennis site.) But existing
structures have been elevated as well. Interviews at Hampton Beach. turned up two. cases
of elevation of existing structures (18 and 30 inches respectively). (See figure 4-3.)
Similarly, anchorage devices are often provided as part of quality construction, but many
have been installed as a result of subsequent experience. At Bethany Beach one resident
tied down his building with steel cables as a kind of land anchor.

More difficult to effectuate are provisions to keep water out of structures. This
type of floodproofing technology is now partly developed for riverine situations, but the
structural requirements for successful seating are stringent. The wood construction most
commonly found along the shore does not lend itself well to this -type of adjustment. Still,
several examples of attempts to keep water out, using special doors combined with sand-
bags, or even bath towels, were discovered in. the course of interviewing. Equally
common and more adapted to coastal construction were adjustments designed to let the
water run through. The use of piling was common. Other examples including the con-
struction of a special trapdoor to let water out were observed. It should be noted that
unlike land elevation, some of these adjustments require action after a warning in order
,to initiate them, i.e. opening a trap door, placing sand bags, etc.

Altogether, there were 10 cases of land filling and 16 exampLes.of other
structural adjustments among the 368 interviewed shore users. (See table 4-2.) While
these provided evidence of the wide range of adjustments and testimony to individual
ingenuity, most coastal dwellers and commercial interests place their main. reliance on
protective works.

Protective Works

Major reliance for the prevention or reduction of tidal flooding is placed on pro-
tective works of various types. In the main, there appear to be two types of works; those
that attempt to bar the passage of surges by artificial means, bulkheads, seawalls, and
revetments; and those that attempt to use the natural defenses of beach and dune. The
sloping beach up to and including the berm is usually considered the outer line of natural
defense. Sand dunes which normally absorb a great deal of wave energy are considered
an inner natural defense.1 'To maintain these inner and outer defenses, groins and jetties
are constructed, beaches artificially nourished, and dunes are built and stabilized.

All protective works interfere with natural shore processes and their impact and
effectiveness varies. The state of the coastal engineering arts seems to be continuously
improving but the shore is littered with earlier structures whose effectiveness has been
obviously impaired or that have apparently created problems equal or even greater than

U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Land Against the Sea,
Miscellaneous Paper No.@ 4-64, May 1964, pp. 23-33.

zr
A@

e
P

Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3

At,Bethany Beach, piling is being driven deep View of marsh fill at Hampton Beach, New
into the sand upon. which a house wi I I be bui It. Hampshire. Fill is placed on the landward side
When property designed, this construction is of the barrier bar. Houses raised above the
well suited for a shore location providing fill are still subject to flooding during severe
excellent views and protection at the same time. storms.

Figure 4-4 Figure 4-5

Air view of groins in southern New Jersey. The jetties at Point Judith which protect the
At this particular period, fall 1964, waves are inlet between Point Judith Pond and Block
coming directly onshore and material is evenly Island Sound connect with a large breakwater
spread along the beach, which forms the Point Judith Harbor of Refuge.
The buildings on stilts in the background are
part of the town of Jerusalem.

557

those they were intended to solve. Some specific examples observed at the study sites are
cited in the detailed discussion of protective works that follows.

Groins. The walls or fences installed across the beach from the dune or bulkhead
down to, in some instances, a 6-foot depth in the ocean, are called groins. (See figure 4-4.)
They are built both to retain the beach by interfering with lateral transport and to help build
it up by trapping sand between them. As early as 1898 these structures were being built
along the Atlantic coast to help improve beach conditions and today, groins comprise about
90 percent of the major engineering structures found along the study shore. They are found
most frequently in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts while Virginia, Maryland,
and North Carolina have groins only near beach resorts where beach erosion is a serious
problem. In New Jersey, the state with the largest number of groins, about 64 miles of the
total 150 miles of coastline are protected by them. More than 200 groins can be counted
along this coast. 1

The effects of groin construction can be illustrated by its history at Bethany Beach,
Delaware where recession of the shoreline has averaged nearly three feet per year since ..
1843@ The problem is particularly serious at Bethany Beach because the Littoral supply of
sand is limited. Ocean currents move away from this section of the coast both towards the
north and the south.

In 1929 nine groins were built along the beach front of this resort and shore erosion
since then has been lessened. Generally the nine groins at Bethany Beach showed accretion
on the south side in summer and on the north side in winter with the net accretion indicating
a slight northerly Littoral drift. But changes in the contours of the coast indicate that there
has been an average over-all Loss of about 8 feet per year. Along one critical mile of
beach approximately 20, 000 cubic yards annual [y is removed. It appears that this particular
section of the coast has been a supplier of sand to other parts of the Eastern Shore of
Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

When groins were first built along the east coast of the United States it was
generally believed that the sand came from offshore and that a groin would create a beach
regardless of other factors., But in reality most sand is derived from headlands or nodal
points and transported along the immediate shore by Longshore currents. Many groin fields
have obstructed the normal movement of sand and helped to dry up the so-called stream of
sand. Thus, groins in a number of instances have done great damage to adjacent sections
of shore. This appears to be the case at Bethany Beach. A design now permits the stream
of sand to pass over the top of the groin and to continue downstream to nourish neighboring
shores. It is hoped that these will perform better.

1 U. S. Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center, "A Pictoral History of
Selected Structures Along the New Jersey Coast, " Miscellaneous Paper No. 5-64, October,
1964, Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers.
2 Corps of Engineers, Delaware Coast from Kitts Hummock to Fenwick Island,
Beach Erosion Control Study, 85th Congress, Ist Sess. , House Doc. No. 216, 1957,
pp. 21, 29, and 35.

558

jetties. . jetties are built to modify or control sand movement at navigation
openings. When sand moves zigzag along the beach and arrives at an inlet it flows into
the opening and is carried inward on the flood tide to form an inner bar and out on the ebb
tide to form an outer bar. Both of these bars are navigational hazards. -In many ways a
jetty is similar to a groin, but usually the jetty is larger and completely blocks all sand
movement along the coast. Nearly all of the inlets along the east coast of the United* States
have some type of protective work, usually a rock jetty.

These structures are major sources of sand depletion along the coast because
when no jetties exist sand is transported intermittently across the inlet to help feed the
downstream side of a beach. Attempts are now being made to dredge or pump the sand
through pipelines across the inlets. A good example of this is at Absecon Inlet in New
Jersey where sand from Brigantine Island is being'pumped across the inlet to supply the,
beaches at the north endof' Atlantic City. This process appears to be much too slow and
costly, and it is a never-ending task.

Study sites where jetties are particularly important in protecting inlets include:
Wildwood Crest and Cape May where the jetties at. Cold Spring Inlet protect the entrance
to the Cape May Canal; Bethany Beach where jetties protect the entrance through Indian
River -Inlet; Point Judith where the jetties protecting the entrance to Point Judith Pond have
been extended to form a breakwater and a harbor of refuge; Dennis where jetties protect
the entrance to the Bass River; and Hampton Beach where jetties Line the entrance to
Hampton Harbor Inlet.

Breakwaters. These structures are constructed mainly for navigation purposes
and have both beneficial and harmful effects on the shore. Usually a breakwater is a
stone wall, up to. 10 feet high, built to inclose a harbor area and then connected to the
shore to provide a shelter for boats. It acts like a jetty in that it obstructs the free flow of
sand along the coast and has been known to starve the downstream beaches of material.

Breakwaters are found at several of the study sites. The best example of a large
breakwater is at Point Judith, Rhode Island where a 4- to 5-foot high rock wall has been
built over a mile seaward. This stone wall helps absorb the energy of storm waves but
does not protect from flooding. (See figure 4-5.)

Beach nourishment. As more of the Atlantic coast is protected by structures,
less sand is available to fill the areas between groins and jetties. It is now the policy of
the Corps of Engineers to place sand artifically on the beach. There seems to be a grow-
ing realization that in the long run the best methods of beach growth must be as similar as
possible to natural ones. To simulate this natural protection, dunes and beaches are re-
built artificially. Sand sources in the lagoons and marshes behind the beach are transported
by pumping across the barrier islands onto the beach. Artificial beaches have been built
in this manner at the Sandy Hook,. Cape May, and Hampton Beach study sites.

I The Bethany Beach site, previously discussed in connection with its groins, has
also been the site of substantial nourishment. Because of the gradual erosion at Bethany
Beach the Corps of Engineers proposed in 1957 to truck-haul 78, 000 cubic yards of beach

559

fi It in order to make a beach 4, 800 feet wide. The plan was then to add annually an
average of 20, 000 cubic yards of sand by truck-haul from a source one mile away on the
lagoon side of the barrier island.

But beach fitting is not always nature's requirement to detain beach erosion.
Figure 4-6@shows that in one storm at Bethany Beach in the summer of 1962, over half of
the new 20, 000 cubic yards of beach f i It trucked onto the beach in the spring was eroded
away. Part of this sand was returned during the next few weeks under calmer conditions,
but the beach was not returned to its former width or height. Since this section of coast
appears to be an area of natural erosion from which sand is moved north and south along
the coast, its nourishment would be a continuing task.

Land stabilization. As man has sought to improve the outer defenses by groins
and nourishment, there has been a belated recognition of the need for protecting the inner
defenses, as well. Dunes come under the attack of wind, water, and increasingly, the
bulldozer. Unfortunately efforts to deal with the bulldozer appear limited, but numerous
state and federal projects are now underway to hold the sand on the barrier islands and to
help sand dunes to grow.

At a number of places along the East Coast, including at least five of the study
sites' sand fences have been erected to trap the sand as it blows from the beach. Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, which is at the southern end of the Nags Head study site, is
an area where dune building has been very successful.' After the March 1962 storm,
bulldozers pushed sand from the foreshore to the backbeach to form a line of high dunes.
On top of these dunes, fences were placed to trap the sand. Figure 4-7 shows four foot
fences [aid out 300 feet from mean high tide. As the dunes build up (and sometimes it
takes only one year to bury the fence) a new line of fences are placed .16 to 20 feet closer
to the shore.

On top of the newly formed dunes, grasses such as American beach grass
(Ammophi[a breviligulata) and sea oats (Uniola paniculata) are often planted. The grass is
usually planted by hand or by machine but at Bethany Beach the dunes were seeded and
fertilized by plane. In figure 4-8 private individuals have planted grass by hand, in front
of summEr homes. 0 ne motet owner in Wildwood Crest has put down bales of hay, covered
it with sand, and planted dune grass on top. The grass is doing very well because the hay
holds the moisture and protects the plants from wind erosion while they are young. At
Nags Head, Assateague, Bethany Beach,. Sandy Hook, Wellfleet, and Montauk major efforts
are beingmade to stabilize the backbeach with grass.

Bulkheads, seawalls, and revetments. When man first settled along the shore
adequate beaches and dunes served to protect the shore developments. An occasional

Edward Nash, "Beach and Sand Dune Erosion.Control at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, " U. S.. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,. Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, Manteo, N. C., @1962, pp@ 4-12.

560

@severe storm would cause beach erosion, the opening or closing of an inlet, or the
removal of dunes, but nature wouLd heat these wounds during the calmer summer months.
Alt barrier bars, being temporary wave-built features, were subject to these changes.

As barrier bars were settled, dunes were removed to provide unobstructed views
of the sea and to provide level Land. The removal of the dunes enabled storm waves to
reach deep into a barrier island. Man soon discovered that some protection was needed.
He turned to walls of various types as a partial substitute for the dunes he had destroyed.

The walls, called bulkheads, served as a secondary line of defense behind the
beach which was the first line of defense. These structures are constructed of concrete,
steel, or timber piling. It was found over time that the bulkhead acted only as a temporary
solution because the beach continued to retreat and large waves would cross it. The bulk-
head evolved into a massive seawall, capable of withstanding the direct force of the waves.
Such a massive seawall is shown at Sandy Hook,. New Jersey; figure 4-9.

Large numbers of these'seawa[Ls have been built along the east coast of the
United States. . In every one of the study sites where numerous structures occur close to
the beach there is usuatLy some type of bulkhead or seawall.

But in developing this type of protection it has been found that white these
obstr*uctions might protect structures behind them, they have little influence in holding or
protecting the beach which in the long run is the greatest asset of shorefront property. In
fact, a seawall is detrimental to the beach because as waves strike against the wall the
backwash wilt cut away the beach in front of it. Often a stone apron has to be built out in
front of the structure.

A revetment consists of covering the sloping face of a dune or bluff with one or
more Layers of rock or concrete. This type of structure dissipates wave energy with less
damaging effect on the beach than is caused by waves striking vertical walls.

At several of the study areas a boardwalk serves as a seawall because it helps
break the energy of storm waves. 'Me boardwalks at Bethany Beach and Cape May helped
to deter wave energy during storms. However, at both sites the boardwalks were very
heavily damaged in the March 6-7, 1962 storm. (See figure 4-10.)

Bulkheads,. seawalls, and revetments are the favored substantial adjustment
undertaken by individuals along the shore. However, most of these individual adjustments
were modest in size and design. and often constructed to. prevent erosion or keep sand off
lawnis as much as to prevent tidal flooding. (See figure 4-11.)

At Cape May,, New Jersey, the boardwalk which was destroyed is being replaced
with a large bulkhead. Construction of this seawall (figure 4-12) consists of putting in an
8-foot high wall of steel piles, then placing Large boulders around it and covering the whole
structure with concrete. A 10-foot high completed section is shown in an air photo in
.figure 4-13. It can be noted in the picture that the seawall is under heavy pounding by waves

4110

"we

Figure 4-6 Figure 4-7

In July 1963 a moderate storm off the Delaware At Nags Head, a line of sand fences have been
coast cut away the beach fill at Bethany Beach. put up to trap sand and help build up the dunes.
In two days time much of the sand was replaced When this set of fences is buried a new line
by a calm sea, but the beach did not return to will be placed 16 to 20 feet closer to the shore.
its former size.

"OOTV

Figure 4-8 Figure 4-9

View of hand planted American beach grass View of the 10-foot rock bulkhead at Highlands
(Ammophita breviLigulata) at Bethany Beach, Beach, Sandy Hook study site. This is a new
Delaware. The grass will grow best when new stone wall built to an elevation of 10 feet above
sand moves around it and forces it to grow taller. mean sea level. Damaged jetties are shown
in the distance.

F7__ - ------------------- 71,

Figure 4- 10 Figure 4- 11

View of the board walk at Cape May, New Jersey At Fairfield, Connecticut study site residents
several weeks after the March 6-7 storm. Planks have constructed their own form of groins and
of the board walk were carried across the street bulkheads. Part of their structures have
against buildings. Cape May pier was very suffered damage as shown by the posts stick-
heavily damaged. ing out of the water.

Figure 4-12 Figure 4-13

The new bulkhead being built at the eastern end Air view of the completed 10-foot bulkhead at
of Cape May will consist of steel piling, then Cape May, New Jersey. Note that a sandy
large boulders on both sides, And on top of this beachis completely lacking from this section
cement. A section of the nearly finished bulk- of the coast. Residences and hotel facing the
head is in the foreground. sea suffered minor damage in March 6-7,
1902 storm.

561

with almost no beach in front of it. Great erosion is taking place along this section of the
coast.

Study sites, other than Sandy Hook and Cape May, where large bulkheads and sea-
watts have been built include Hampton Beach, and Point Judith. At Chincoteague a Low dirt
seawall has been constructed on the northwest shore of the island.

.Extent of protective works. Some of the many probLems that arise from inadequate
understanding of, and basic interference with, natural shore processes have been recounted
in the foregoing passages. But these should not deny the proven effectiveness of protective
works in certain situations.

In order to provide an order of magnitude estimate of the prevalence of use, a
rough tabulation was made of the length of coast in each state from Maine to South Carolina
with some type of protection through engineering structures. These figures are shown in
table 4-3. Of the 1095 mites of outer coastline tabulated, approximately 240 mites or
,roughly 23 percent of the coast has some type of protection by either groins, jetties, bulk-
heads, seawalls, or revetmerits.

The tabulations were based on various official studies of the Corps of Engineers
including Beach Erosion Board reports and hurricane studies. The estimates are neces-
sarily crude because:

1. Only large structures built by either the Corps of Engineers, state govern-
ments, counties, or cities are usually shown in Beach Erosion Control reports.
All small seawalls, bulkheads, etc. built by private individuals are not
included.

2. Data were lacking for sections of the coast, especially the north shore of
Long Island and sections of Massachusetts. Because of this the measured
coastline was 1095 miles instead of 1302 mites.

3. In measuring the length of coast it was difficult to define the extent of
coastal protection. An example is Wildwood Crest where jetties built at Cold
Spring Inlet at the entrance to Cape May Canal have resulted in sand being
deposited north of the jetty forming a wide beach at Wildwood Crest. As the
wide beach is the direct result of jetties this section of coast is considered
protected, but the lineal extent is difficult to measure. (See note on table 4-4.)

Table 4-3 shows that the New England and Middle Atlantic states have the bulk of
the protective works. The state with the largest number of engineering structures is
Connecticut with 68. 5 miles of coast, roughly 50 percent of its entire outer coastline
protected by man-made structures. New Jersey is a close second with 68 miles or roughly
45 percent of the coastline having protective works.

562

Table 4-3

Coastal Engineering Structures and Protective Works Along the East Coast
of the United States from Maire to South Carolina

Length of Length of
State Coast in Miles Coast Protected Percent

New Hampshire 17.0 8.2 48
Massachusetts 116.0* 40.0 35
Rhode Island 51.5 21.0 4i
Connecticut 137.5 68.5 30
New York 125.0* 22.3 18
New Jersey 151.5 68.0 45
Delaware 25.0 1.8 7
Maryland 31.5 0.2 1
Virginia 113.0 3.0 3
North Carolina 327.0 7.0 2

Total 1095.0 240.0 23

Of the total 370 miles of Massachusetts coastline only 116 miles were examined
for engineering structures, and of the total 307 miles of New York coastline only 125 miles
along the south shore of Long Island were studied.

The pGrtion of total coastline protected decreases rapidly south of New Jersey.
Maryland with a total coastline of 31. 5 miles has only 0. 2 mi Les protected at Rehoboth
Beach. For Virginia the resort of Virginia Beach has a few structures, mainly a series of
bulkheads, Of the 327 miles of North Carolina coastline only 7 miles have any type of pro-
tective works. At Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach there are a series of groins built
to trap sand and protect the beach from erosion. Nags Head has several piers which were
badly damage 'd in the March 6-7, storm in 1962, but their presence offers some protection
to the structures behind them.

With the growth of resorts, especially along the eastern shore of Virginia and in
North Carolina, the most likely adjustment to the hazards of erosion and storms will be
the construction of more and more engineering works. The striking result of this survey
is the similarity between the estimated percent of shore frontage developed, 21 percent,
and the crude estimate of percent protected, 23 percent.

Protective works at the study sites. Table 4-4 is a tabulation of engineering
structures and protective works found at the 15 study sites. Although a more accurate
count of the structures at each of the study areas can be given than for the outer coastline
stretching from Maine to South Carolina it is still difficult to estimate the length of coast
protected by a singLe jetty or groin. At several study sites, for example, Sandy Hook,
New Jersey, the series of groins built at Sea Bright affect the entire coast to the north even
though few protective works continue to the tip of the spit.

563

Table 4-4

Coastal Engineering Structures and Protective Works
at the 15 Study Sites

Study Site Length of Length of Percent
No. Name Coast Coast Protected of Coast

1. Point Judith 8.3 3.5 34
2. Wellfleet 5.8 0 0
3. Vi [ [as 1.3 1.0 77
4. Chincoteague 17.01, 2.4 14
5. Lynn-Nahant 7.2 6.4 88.
6. Fairfield 4.0 3.2 80
7. Hampton Beach 4.3 2.3 53
& Montauk 8.4 .4 6
9. Sandy Hook 6.8 5.3 77
10. Cape May 1. 6 1.6 2 100
11. Wildwood Crest 3.7 3.7 100
12. Dennis 4.4 3.5 79
13. Nags Head 9.3 .3 14
14. Bethany Beach 7.5 .6 8
15. Assateague 7.1 0 0

Tota L 96.7 34.2 35

1 Although the island of Cl@incoteague is not on the ocean, the length of shoreline
around the island is given in miles.
2 The growth of the beach at Wildwood Crest is the result of jetties built at Cold
Spring Inlet. Therefore, the beach has been indirectly widened and protected by
engineering structures.

Of the 96. 7 miles of coastline included in the 15 study areas, approximately 34. 2
miles or 35 percent of this coastline is protected. This higher percentage in comparison
with 23 percent for the over-all coastline from Maine to South Carolina comes from the
more intensive use of the study sites as summer resorts, urban communities, and villages
requiring protective works.

A second measure of tbe wide prevalence of protective works come from the shore
user interviews. (See table 4-5.) Thirty-two have constructed some type of structure,
although often quite modest, as in the brush revetment at Bethany Beach shown in figure
4-14. Land stabilization practices were employed by twelve respondents and some were
quite elaborate. But to be truly effective, protective works need good design and
maintenance. This freqeunt[y exceeds the ability of individuals or even individual
communities.

564

Table 4-5

Extent of Adjustment by Protective Works,
368 Respondents

Number of Percent of
Type of Adjustment- Respondents Respondents

Groins, seawalls, bulkheads or revetments 32 9
Land stabilization 12 3
Special activity to secure community
protection 15 4

Therefore, as part of their individual adjustments, many shore users turn their
attention to the Long and time-consuming process of securing public assistance rather than
attempt to construct protective devices. The interviews turned up many instances of
participation in,i4@provement,organizations,wi7.iting, Letters,. attending meeting, and the Like.
In addition, some fifteen respondents were especially active in trying to secure protection;
many having made trips to Washington or to the state capitol.

One interesting facet of the agitation for protection, and somewhat unexpected
initially, was the prevalence of similar agitation against protective works. It almost
appeared that every jetty had its proponents and opponents, depending on which side of
the drift they lived. In a sense, this opposition mirrors the misgivings shared by the many
technical experts and the authors themselves as to the desirability of protective works.
There is no denying the effectiveness of a massive seawall against tidal flooding; the concern
is with the cost, incl@udin ton . term costs not. initially foreseen, and,the paradoxical des-
.. @. 9 .: 1 9
truction of some of the amenities desired to be protected. The cottages shown in figure
4-15 at Hampton Beach are protected by an old and partially destroyed seawall and a new
steel pile bulkhead, but the view of the seawall from the cottage window and the scant
beach do not add to the attractiveness of the location. Thus it is not surprising to find
reluctance upon the part of communities to implement apparently well designed engineering
plans. The most outstanding case was Fairfield, Connecticut.

At Fairfield, the expressed opposition was not against protective works per se
but against the specific seawall and its size. Residents tried to resolve the problem of
need for protection and yet loss of attractiveness by suggesting that the wall, if it should
be built, be a "small" one. In its most extreme form, the desire for amenity actually
increases hazard as in the case of extensive dune leveling to improve the view.

A more recent example is found in the May 20,,1965 issue of the New York Times
when "residents of Long Beach, Atlantic Beach, and Lido Beach turned out today to object to
a proposal by the Army Engineers to build a 10-mile-4ong, , 100-foot-wide sand dune across
the ocean front communities" in a hearing marked by "personal attack" and "persistent boos
and hisses" directed to the representatives of the Corps of Engineers.

'n'j

@AA

Figure 4-14 Figure 4-15

At Bethany Beach, Delaware, brush in front of a The cottages shown in this picture at Hampton
private residence serves as a revetment. The Beach, New Hampshire were formerly pro-
owner hopes that sand will pile up against this tected by a sea wall, now partially destroyed
type of wall and help stabilize the man-made fill as shown in the foreground. The new steel
behind it. pile bulkhead behind the sea wall obstructs
the view and probably accounts for the skimpy
beach.

565

Land Use Change and Control

The final set of adjustments employs a variety of devices to guide land use in
a direction that Will reduce damage from tidal flooding. The devices themselves are fairly
standard, based in law upon the responsibility of a community for health and welfare, and
employing both police power and the right of eminent domain. A community or state
employing them may purchase land outright,, specify permitted uses-through zoning
ordinances, or control building elevation and construction through zoning ordinances and
building codes.

Purchase of land. Outright purchase of land to reduce tidal flood damage is
apparently extremely rare or nonexistent. More common is the purchase of land for
public uses, frequently recreational,::,. which. also leads to low. dama. e:_patterps of tand.use.
The prospective establishment. of the Assateague National Seashore, while intended pri-
marily for recreation, has been given urgency because of the impending subdivision and
construction on the Maryland portion of Assateague Island. The National Park Service
urges establishment of the seashores and other recreational areas to reduce potential tidal
flood damage.2

Zoning ordinances. The major device used for control of Land use is the zoning
ordinance. Three types of zones have been suggested for riverine flood plains and the
classification would seem appropriate for coastal areas as weL0 The first is a prohibitive
zone within which all permanent s-tructures would be banned except those requiring direct
adjacency to water. Such a zone is provided for in the Warwick, R. 1. ordinance.4- Identified
as an area of "extreme hurricane danage, " all structures are banned within it except non-
commercial boating docks.

The second zone is a restrictive zone in which certain uses are permitted and
others are banned. The Warwick ordinance provides an example of one variant of the
restrictive zone. There, a zone identified as a zone of "hurricane danger" provides a
minimal structure elevation, "no building shall be lower than 15 feet above mean sea
level. " The minimum elevation device is common in restrictive zones as is the alter-
native of enumerating uses as in the Fairfield, . Connecticut ordinance.5 Permitted uses

See extensive literature cited in bibliography of Tennessee Valley Authority,
op. c it.
2 U. S. National Park Service, Region Five, Seashore Preservation and Recreation
Opportunities and Storm Damage, April 1962.
3 Robert W. Kates and Gilbert F. White, "Flood Hazard Evaluation, " Papers on
Flood Problems, op. cit., p. 142.
4 City of Warwick, R. 1. , Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, City Council, 1958.
5
Fairfield, Connecticut, Zoning Regulations, Section 22, Town Plan and Zoning
Commission,. p. IM3.

566

in the, "Flood Plain District" are parks, playgrounds, marinas, boathouses, landings,
docks, clubhouses, and accessories. In both cases the underlying rationale seeks either
to encourage the elevation of structures or the limitation of land use to low damage uses
where structures are not elevated.

A third zone more theoretical than actual is the warning zone. Here the hazard is
of such a nature that the community would desire to provide warning,@ but only as guidance
to land users. No specific instances of such zones are known to the writer, but in.one
sense, the area shown subject to tidal flooding on map sheets such as the Atlantic City
sheets or Providence, Rhode Island serves this function- if they are widely distributed.

Building codes that specify a fixed elevation or storm resistant construction, may
serve the same desirable ends as the restrictive zoning ordinance, In addition special
regulations relating to filling of tidelands, protection for shellfish or navigation @channels
may have some slight effect on damage reduction.

Nature herself may be an instrument of land use change by the destructiveness
of storms themselves. The 1938, hurricane cleared much,of the property,out of tow-lying
areas at Guilford, Connecticut and these have not b een rebu ilt. This may be more
effective where the power to prevent rebuilding is established as in the Rehoboth Beach
ordinancel and is exercised to reduce future damage potential.

.Me employment of land use controls to reduce tidal flood damage is not
extensive. A nine month inquiry direcied to 150 communities.. mostlikeLy to be subject to
damage elicited only fifty replies and ten.examples of specific flood plain regulation.
Eleven c'ommunities'rbf6rred- to toastal%'hdzai@ds@"withou't'rtaking' specific regulatory pro-
visions. Sixty percent of the responding communities had no. regulations relevant to
coastal hazard. (See table 4-6.)

While the survey was in no way comprehensive it was strongly biased in favor of
potential respondents that might have adopted land use controls. First relevant state
agencies were canvassed from Maine to North Carolina for information relating to Land
use guides and controls. Based on their replies and suggestions, the 150 communities
were chosen. The letters to local planning authorities were most likely to be answered
by those communities that had taken action, they naturally being most eager to share their
experience. Thus it might be safety inferred that the limited use of land use guides
revealed by the survey is characteristic of the entire study area.

Zoning Code for the City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, amended 1953
Ordinance-Ro. 68, Sec. 804, p. 18.

567

Table 4-6

Extent of Land Use Controls to Reduce Tidal Flood Damage

Specific Some References No
Agencies Flood Plain to Flooding in Reference
State, Responding Regulations Plans to Flooding

Connecticut 4 2 4
Massachusetts 12 1 2 9
New Jersey 2 1 0 1
New Hampshire 0 0 0 0
Maine 4 0 3
Delaware 2 0 1
New York 11 1 4 6
Rhode Island. 2
.2
North Carolina. 5 0 4
Maryland 2 .1 0 1

Totals 50 10 29

568

CHAPTER V

THE CHOICE OF ADJUSTMENT

The range of adjustment is broad; but neither public agencie s nor private interests
seem to combine adjustments adequately into a comprehensive program for damage reduc-
tion. This chapter inquires into the process of choice employed both in the public and
private sectors. However, a necessary, if not sufficient condition for choice among.
adjustments is a motivation to reduce hazard. This can only come from a perception of
danger and a knowledge of the available means for hazard reduction. Therefore, a first
concern is to explore and measure the perception of hazard from coastal storms.

The Perception of Storm Hazard

Public perception. In one sense any public manifestation of the awareness of the
hazard from coastal storms is. an expression of public perception. A local newspaper
editorial anticipating the hurricane season, or a small craft warning flying from the Coast
Guard masts are examples of public display. Rather than. catalogue the obvious, -the public.
perception is best exemplified in the expression of the national policy found in Public Law
71 adopted in 1955.

"Sec. 1. That in view of the severe damage to the coastal and tidal
areas of the eastern and southern United States from the occurrence of
hurricanes, particularly the hurricanes of August 31, 1954, and September
11, 1954, in the New England, New York, and New Jersey coastal and tidal
areas, and the hurricanes of October 15, 1954, in the coastal and tidal areas
extending south to South Carolina, and in view of the damages caused by
other hurricanes in the past, the Secretary of the Army, in cooperation with
the Secretary of Commerce and other Federal agencies concerned with
hurricanes, is hereby authorized and directed to cause an examination and
survey to be made of the eastern and southern seaboard of the United States
with respect to hurricanes, with particular reference to areas where severe
damages have occurred.

"Sec. 2. Such survey, to be made under the direction of the Chief of
Engineers, shall include the securing of data on the behavior and frequency
of hurricanes, and the determination of methods of forecasting their paths
and improving warning services, and of possible means of preventing loss
of human lives and damages to property, with due consideration of the
economics of proposed breakwaters, seawalls, dikes, dams, and other
structures, warning services, or other measures which might be require

iPubtic Law 71, 84th Congress, approved 15 June 1955.

569

'The law is evidence of public awareness that a problem exists and authorizes the making
,.of a more technical appraisal of hazard for the purpose of public action.'

A tec hnicaL appraisal of hazard. In earlier chapters, aspects of the scientific-
technical problem of hazard appraisal were reviewed. In one instance, the problem of
prediction as envisioned by the Weather Bureau was set forth (see p. 552), and Chapter III
represents a large- scale attempt to appraise the hazard potential of the east coast. These
problems of prediction and appraisal are very germane to the over-all problem, but not
necessarily related to the situation of the manager of a shore front property - the owner,
renter, or public agent:who seeks to reduce his damage potential. Prediction is, of course,
required for the adoption of emergency actions but the uncertainties of prediction do not
enter into the consideration of other long-term adjustments. Thus the problem of fore-
casting the direction that a unique storm will follow need not be considered in making a
decision to build a seawall. Rather, some average expectation of direction, fetch, and
wave height is required. Or consider the problems raised in Chapter III. The difficulty
of generalization as to tide height and damage for the entire shore can be resolved for a
single small area in terms of the peculiarities of topography, prevailing wind, and the like.

Thus, a more appropriate model of how technical ap praisal of hazard takes place
might be derived from a description of current practice of the Corps of Engineers in
designing protective works for a single area. Such practice, while less than the idea[ or
even best scientific technique, being constrained always by problems of funds and personnel,
does provide a hazard appraisal to which private perception of hazard can be compared.
The Corps estimate of its@ own capabilities is as follows:

"Since 1955 the Corps has intensified its research in the field of protection
from major storms, particularly those of hurricane force. As a result
there is now sufficient technical knowledge available to predict the height
of storm tides and waves, as well as the damage they @kou[d be capable of
inflicting, for almost any specified locality and for any storm of specific
magnitude and duration.

A recent example of such an appraisal might be taken from the interim hurricane
survey of Stratford, Connecticut@ The hazard appraisal begins with a historical review of
hurricanes going ba.ck to August 1.5, 1635, and a rough description of hurricane frequency-
Specific characteristics of hurricanes: origins and, tracks, winds and barometric pressure,
rainfall, waves, and tidal surges are examined. But these materials are background or
illustrative. The crucial calculation is the development of the "Standard Project Hurricane.
This is defined as a storm that may be expected from the most severe combination of
meteorologic conditions that are considered reasonably characteristic of the region involved,

1 U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Land Against the Sea,
Miscellaneous Paper No. 4-64, May, 1964, p. 10.
2 U. S. Congress, Stratford, Connecticut, An Interim Hurricane Survey, House
Document No. 292, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, 1964, pp. 20-38.

570

excluding rare combinations. The estimated frequency of such a Standard Project
Hurricane is not found in the published report. The Standard Project Hurricane is derived
in the case of Stratford by transposition of the hurricane of September 1944, which had,
off Cape Hatteras, the greatest energy known of any hurricane along the Attar-tic Coast.

The hurricane was routed over water to provide high estimates of storm surges
along the Connecticut shoreline of Long Island Sound -- 1. 4 times the recorded surge of
the September -1938 hurricane. 'This hurricane surge was then placed on top of a spring
tide to give a design -tide level of 13. 2 feet rnst or 4. 0 feet higher than the levels of flooding
actually experienced in 1938 and 1954.

While unpublished estimates of frequency are apparently made in connection with
economic analysis , no expression of frequency is provided other than a listing of the number
of hurricanes in historical times. The emphasis in the hazard appraisal is placed on the
estimation of maximum values of hazard for use in constructing engineering works that
possess only very small probabilities of failure. Hazard appraisals for economic optimiza-
tion or land use gu idance, probably within the technical competence of the Corps, are not
routinely provided by Corps reports.

Private perception. Compared to the procedures of the Corps in appraising
hazard, which start with careful reconstruction of past experience, then include extension
beyond actual experience by storm transposition, and the combination of extreme conditions
of tide and surge, the perception of hazard by most managers of shore front property must
appear rudimentary at best. This primitive appearance stems not only from the actual
appraisals made by individuals but may be exaggerated by the interviewing procedures used
to identify these private perceptions. The interviews themselves provide only rough insights
into the surely complicated ways in which people perceive hazard.

Interviews at the study sites. At fourteen of the fifteen sites (omitting the empty
shore) over 1, 000 interviews were taken from a variety of shore users. Of this group,
371 interviews were made with managers of property, those who controlled the use of an
establishment found on the study shore. These managers were in three groups; owners of
seasonal residences, owners of year-round or permanent residences, and commercial
establishments. The sample at each site was not selected bj random process and it fluctuates
in size from 9 interviews at Wetlfleet to 44 interviews at Chincoteague. The residences or
businesses selected for interview were chosen to provide variation in elevation and hazard,
and variation in the characteristic land uses found at each site. In contrast with the air
photo sampling procedure, the lack of random selection was not considered critical as
estimates of the characteristics of all shore users were not intended. Rather, the field
workers were instructed to carry out, within a time constraint, a sufficient number of
interviews to provide for the interviewer an understanding of the preception of hazard and
modes of adjustment to be found at the study site. This was done, and these understandings
have been incorporated into the case studies. For this section, the 371 interviews wiLl be
considered as a group of characteristic users of the shore but not necessarily representa-
tive of the entire study. shore. Informative data about these respondents are presented in
table 5- 1, along with comparative characteristics of the general population. The interviews

571

Table 5-1

Characteristics ofRes
pondents in Study Site Interviews.

Number of U. S. Population
a
Characteristics Respondents Percent Percent
(371 respondents)

Seasonal Resident 114 31.7
Permanent Resident 127 34.2.
Commercial 130 35.0

Education:
.(230 respondents)

39.1
Grade (0- 8 yrs. completed)
High School (9-12 yrs- completed) 99 43. 1 43.8
College (13+yrs. completed) 1.00., 43.5 16.5

Income:.
(198 respondents)

less than $ 2,999 ..26 13. 1 20.5
$ 3,000 - 5,999 38 19.2 @30.2
6,000 - 7,999 37 18.7 18.2
8,000 - 14,999 53 26.8 23.9
15,000 and over 44 22.2 7.2

Elevation of Ist Floor
ReLativelto Maximum Tidal Flood:
(274 respondents)

More than'l ft below 51 20.8
Within I ft of maximum tidal flood 64.2
More than I ft above 41 15.0

4-
a From St4ti8tica I Abstract of the U. S. 1964, pp. 113, 338

are divided almost evenly among permanent residents, seasonal residents, and commercial
managers. It is quite evident that the users of the shore are considerably above the national
average in education and income, a not unlikely finding considering that many were owners
of second homes or prosperous businesses.

The elevation of the first floor of the home and business relative to the height of the
maximum tidal flood is shown in the table as well. These elevations were estimated by the

572

field parties using topographic maps as a guide. They have been grouped into .three
general c[as'ses: more than one foot below the height of the maximum tidal flood, within
one foot of the height of m aximum tida I f lood, and more than, one foot above the height of
maximum tidal flood. Fifteen,percent of the respondents, had. Is t floor elevations at, Least
one foot above'the maximum tidal flood.

Respondents' Perception of Storm Hazard

Perception or awareness of storm hazardtas@'two compone,nts:' -(I) the evaluation
of past,experiencei and (2) the expectation.of futdre,storni@. '. Just as. the., techn;.C'al,
appraisal seeks to identify the historical record of storm experience, -respondents evaluate
and assimilate What they know about storm haze@id and what they have experienced. In seek-
ing to identify these experience,s it is not sufficient to -conclude that -a respondent experienced
hazard because he happened to live at the site at the time of some h-iajor storm. Rather, it
requires the recognition of the storm as such, by the respondent. As will be shown not all
respondents accept the common appraisal. of a storm.

But if one.accepts as a definition of minimal knowledge, the simple awareness of
storms, then 99 percelt ct the respondents share in this knowledge. For. a -more sophisticated
standard of.knowledge 73 percent make very reasonable estimates of the maximum tidal
f Loods. experienced.1 Ninety percent of the respondents have. exper ienced.a storm to the
extent that they cite the fact of 1having-been the:present owner or.manager during, the passage
of a storm. Over fifty percent recognize having suffered some water damage, and many
more, wind damage. (See table 5-2.)

The coast dwellers. interviewed exhibited,an extremely high awareness of past
experience, e ,ven when it is not their own. Two@thirds knew of storm hazard at the time of
their original location at the study site. This would seem to arise from the distinct
orientation of the respondents. In contrast to flood plain dwellers or inhabitants of zones
of high seismic activity, coastal dwellers do not just happen to be there. Over half, in re-
sponse to an open-ended question, suggested that it is the adjacancy to the sea that has
attracted them to their location. The coastal dweller attracted to the sea for recreation or
commerce becomes uniquely aware of its variation. Even the seasonal residents, who only
see the sea.in its usually more .placid moods seem to share this heightened awareness. On
the coast the sea is always present, the daily variation of tide reminds one of its potential
for changing its level. The use of boats, beach, and water sports, with their sensitivity to
weather, provide at least some knowledge of phenomena thai contributes further to this
awareness.
1 These estimates were calculated by first asking respondents to indicate the
highest known water at.their Location. Then the interviewer converted this. s1tatement into-
an elevation and this was compared with the range of tidal flooding given for each site in
table 1-4. It is obvious that in the process of conversion many errors creep in and the data
should only be considered as illustrative of the very high level of hazard knowledge found
among coasta I respondents. The knowledge of maximum flood heig@its by Tiverine f [ood plain
residents is much inferior.

573

'Table 5-2

Knowledge and Experience of Hazards of Respondents

Number of
Respondents Percent

Knowledge of Hazards at Time of Location on Shore:
No knowledge 117 33@ 1
Knowledge 236 66.9
Total 353 100.0

.Knowledge of Hazards at Present:
No kfiowtedge 3 0.8
.Knowledge 366 99.2
Total __@6_9 100.7

Knowledge of Maximum FLood:
Estimate more than 1 ft below maximum flood 76 23.0
Estimate within 1 ft of maximum flood 241 72.8
Estimate more than I ft above maximum flood 14 4.2
Total 331 100.0

Actual Hazard Experience

No Experience 39 .1o.6

One Experience
No damage 49 113
Light damage 22 6.o
Medium damage 19 5.1
Heavy damage 21 5.7

Two or More Experiences
No damage 86 23.3
Light damage 33 8. 9
Medium damage 38 10.3
Heavy damage 62 16.8
Total 369 10.71

But the realistic appreciation of what is possible by storm or tide, the universality
of knowledge of the past or present, does not carry over into the future. The high aware-
ness of past experience is diluted considerably in the second component of perception, the
expectation of future hazard. Table 5-3 relates information, and table 5-4 damage experi-
ence, to future expectations of storms and damage. Despite the fact that 90 percent of the
respondents experienced storms, only two-thirds expect them in the future. OnLy half

574

Table 5-3

Present Hazard Information of Coastal Respondents
and Expectations of Future Hazards.
(368 Respondents)

Expectation of Future Hazards (% of respondents)
@ 11 No Storms
Present Hazard storms Storms expected Storms
Information or and but no or and Total
damage damage uncertain damage
expected uncertain damage expected I

No knowLedge 0.8 - - 0.8
Knowledge 2.2 2.4 0.8 9.7
One experience 6.5 5.7 8.4 9.4 30.0
Two or more experiences 4.6 8.7 22.7 23.0 59.0

To -ta 1 14.1 16.8 35.4 33.2 99.5

Table 5-4

Present Damage Experience of Coastal Respondents
and Expectations of Future Hazards
(370 Respondents)

Expectation of Future Hazards (% of respondents)
No Storms
Present Damage storms Storms expected Storms
Experience or and but no or and Total
damage damage uncertain damage
expected uncertain damage expected,

None 8.4 8.4 23.2 6.5 46.5
Light 2 2.7 5.4 5.1 15.4
edium 1.4 2.2 4.3 7.8 .15.7
eavy 2.2 3.5 2..7 14.0 22,4

Tota 1 14.2 16.8 35.6 33.4 100.0

575

of the respondents that experienced damage in the past expect damage in the future. The
link between simple awareness of the past and expectations of future events is apparently
complex.

Interpretation, the link between past experienceand future expectations. Our
knowledge and our experience of real events in the world is personalized and even distorted
as it passes through preconceived frameworks of reference related to concepts of uniqueness
and repetitiveness in a process that we may cal I interpretation. In table 5-5 respondents
have been classified by a type of content analysis based on their responses to structured
and unstructured questions. The field party tried to get people to talk about storms, and it
is from these verbal clues that the categories of interpretation have been some-what sub-
jectively derived.

Most respondents appear to interpret storms as repetitive events and many feel
that the repetition is in some fashion constant. "Just the process of nature in this area for
storms to come every year. " ".We get storms, with serious ones at about ten-year intervals.
For others, storms are increasing, either by the hands of men, "They are shooting these
rockets up on Wallop's Island, " or as a. result of perceived spatial migration of hurricane
tracks, "They are running up theIcoast. " Spatial cycles are also reversed and others
perceive it as "the cycle goes from North Carolina to Florida. " For these respondents
storms are decreasing either in frequency or intensity.1

But for a fair number of respondents, storms are either unique or unknowable.
"The 1962 storm was a freak. " "Nature is too unpredictable. " And for a very small
number of respondents hazard is to be denigrated or even wished away by some semantic
magic. "We never have any bad storms, " "We might have a couple of hurricanes, but not
a storm.

These interpretations, garnered from the spoken clues of the world within
peoples' heads, do help to explain the gap between experieuce and future expectation? For
example, the coastal respondent who interprets his experience as a freak, unique event
derives no future direction from his experience, and uncertainty or deniaL are likely future
expectations. Or it is common for elderly retired couples, to feet, despite their awareness
of storm hazard, a sense of personal exclusion. Storms are spaced in time sufficient that
they wilt be granted a breathing spell, to spend their limited years in retative security.

I Note that these are spatial cycles and they may be compared with temporal cycles
identified in the perception of hazard by riverine floodplain. dwellers.
2 Statistically the improvement in relationship between present information and
future expectation can be measured by the use of @, appropriate for measuring the
strength of a relationship in 4x4 contingency tables. For the relation between information
and future expectation of storms and damage, -4) = . 34. It increases to . 85 in a 4 x 4 table
in which interpretation is substituted for information.

576

Table 5-5

Present Interpretation of Hazards by CoastaL Respondents
and Expectation of Future Hazards
(327 Respondents)

Expectation of Future Hazards (% of responden s
No Storms
Present Interpretation storms Storms expected Storms
of Hazards or and but no or and Total
.@daindge dditi@]:ge@ U ncertdin :ddrfiage
expected uncertain damage expected

I Respondents do not share
in the common knowledge
of storms 0.9 0.9

II Respondents share in the
common knowledge of
storms but:
a) Deny the common..
image of storms 2. 1 0.3 0.6 0.3 3.3

b) Think storms are
unique 5.3 4.0 9.8

c) Think storms are
repetitive and also
t1iink:
1. They are per-
sonaLly excluded 3.7 0.9 0.3 4.9

2. Storms are de-
creasing in time
or -space 1.2 1. 5 0.3 3.0

3. Storm trend can not
be ascertained 2.7 16.2 12.8 31.7

4. Storms are constant
in time or space M 0.9 20.1. 21.6 43.2

S. Storms are increas-
ing in time or space - 0.3 1 2.4 1 2. 7

Total 14.3 8.8 39.0 37.4 99.5

577

But by no means do interpretations always lead in the obvious direction of
expectations. Even for those respondents who find the repetition of storms an ordered
event, the cyclical frequency might be such that the occurrence of the event reinforces a
negative expectation in. the future. Consider, "We get storms once in ninety years, we're
not due for another. ". If a major storm occurs and an individual escapes serious damage,
the net impact frequently is to reinforce feelings of security as at Wildwood Crest. Storms
might be expected by a respondent in the future, but only as a remote depersonalized
observation of his habitat with no implication of possible liability.

These interpretations also help to answer the puzzling question as to..why people
seemingly continue to place themselves in areas of high natural hazard by suggesting ways
in which the common experience can be individually interpreted to enhance the security of
expectations. In this sense, they suggest something of the way men think about natural
phenomena.

Most hazards ar e apparently random phenom na. Those who are members of
the technicat-scientific community, have by. their training been prepared to accept a high
degree of uncertainty, at least in their scientific work, if not in their private lives. They
strive with the best scientific skiR to order the unknowns of natural phenomena within a
framework of random probability theory, but are prepared to accept the unexplained to
await. tomorrow's knowledge.

The respondents, intelligent and articulate Lay people, seem to react to uncertainty
in one of two fundamentally dif f@rent. ways. They respond to the random occurrences of
storms either by making the events knowable, finding order where none exists, identifying
cycles on the basis of the sketchiest of knowledge of folk insight, and in general, striving
to reduce the uncertainty of the threat of hazard by making it certain. Or conversely, they
deny all knowability, accept the uniqueness of natural phenomena, throw up their hands,
transferring their fates into the hands of a higher power. (See table 5-6.

Choice of Alternative Adjustment

For both private agencies and private individuals there is widespread, although
far from complete, perception of storm hazard. This perception provides, as noted, the
necessary but not sufficient condition for action to reduce the toll of tidal flood damage.
Awareness of alternative adjustments, proper resources to undertake them, and a set of
institutional arrangements for their implementation are required for the choice between
adjustments. The process of public choice is partly formalized and differs from private
choice; thus each may be considered separately.

Public choice of adjustment. It may help to recall the range of adjustment
described in the previous chapter. They were: loss bearing, warning and emergency action,
floodproofing, protective works, and land use change and guidance. No single agency seems
to choose among the entire range of adjustments for a combination that might provide for
beneficial use of the shore at Lowe st cost to society. However, the Corps of Engineers,
especially after passage of P. L. 71 which empowers it to investigate - " . . . methods of ...

578

Table 5-6

Common Response to the Uncertainty of Storm Hazard

Eliminate the Hazard Eliminate the Uncertainty

Deny or Denigrate its Deny or Denigrate Making it Determinate T ransfer Uncertainty
Existence its Recurrence and KnowabFe-- to a Higher Power

"We might have a "The 1962 storm is "we get storms once "An Act of God, im-
couple of hurricanes, a freak. in ninety years, possible to tell.
but not a storm. we're not due for
another.

"We never have any "That was a freak, "The cycle goes from "God doesn't tell us
bad storms. won't happen North Carolina to things like that.
again. Florida.

improving warning services, and of possible areas of preventing loss of human lives and
damages to property, " 1. comes closest to having such a com prehensive policy. A recent
publication of the Coastal Engineering Research Center "intended to describe-in non-
technical terms how the forces of the sea operate and the measures we can take to combat
them, " provides an authoritative statement of the present view of the Corps as to appro-
priate adjustments and the responsibility for their implementation? This has been
supplemented by a review of seventeen studies made on the study shore under the author-
i zati on of P. L. 7 1.

The range of choice for the Federal Government. For the Federal Government,
the range of choice seems to consist of: loss bearing in areas that cannot be protected
within economic feasibility, protective works where feasible, and the provision of
information, mainly hurricane Warnings.

The position on loss bearing is of course only implied. The Corps 'does not
advocate that people bear losses, but it follows from the requirement that protection must
show benefits in excess of costs that such an adjustment might be the cheaper,one in the
long run.

The Corps strongly supports effective warning nets and emergency action, but
here the emphasis is upon the Weather Bureau to provide and disseminate warnings to the
local communities for their action.
1 Public Law 71, 84th Congress, approval 15 June 1955.
2 U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, La nd Against the Sea, foreword.

579

Protective works are the favored adjustment of the Corps. In the words of the
standard phrase of New England District reports, "the most positive means of protection
consists of structures which will physically reduce or,prevent the inundation of properties
by tidal flood waters.

Floodproofing and land use change and guidance are thought to be important
methods of reducing damages "with respect to future construction" but "Cannot be expected
to rectify past errors. "2 But it, is ",the responsibility of seaside communities to provide
zoning regulations so that no permanent buildings are constructed within the area of shore-
line fluctuations or without adequate dune protection, " and "to prcvide adequate build;ng
standards to minimize damages during extremely severe storms. "3

In their attitude. towards adjustments. over, which the Corps has no dire.ct control,
reports differ in two important aspects. In reports that recommend protective works, only
perfunctory discussion! is found regarding alternative. means of flood damage reduction. 4
Where such works are not found feasible (in half the studies examined) lengthy discussions
of damage- reduction adjustments that include warning and emergency actions, zoning,
building codes, dune, protection,,.and the pr.e aration of maps are found. But, considerable
differences.are found in.C Iorps of Engineers reports from district to district.'. Some"districts
include supplementary data designed to encourage development of evacuation procedures
or to encourage further work in providing information utilizing the provisions of the flood-
plain information program. 5

As part of any decision to employ protective works, there is need to consider
the amount of protection. As noted, congressional approval prescribes that the benefits

U.S. Congress, Wareham and Marion, Mass. Interim Hurric- ane Survey,
House Doc. 548, 87th Congress 2nd Session, 1962, p. 54. 1
2 U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, op. cit. , p. 36.
3U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, op. cit. , p. 36
4 Some adjustments, such as building code revisions, are seemingly dismissed
in advance because of local attitude: "Such measures are highly desirable but tend to meet
opposition when proposedin a high ly'deve Loped area where property owners and municipal-
ities face . an increase in building costs due to more rigid building codes. " U. S.
Congress, New London, Conn. . . . An Interim Hurricane Survey, House Doc. 478, 87th
Congress 2nd Session, 1962, p. 34. The implication of providing protection to communities
unwilling to protect themselves is not discussed.
5For example: U. S. Congress, Atlantic Coast and Southern New Jersey and
Delaware . . . Interim Hurricane Survey, House Doc. 38, 89th Congress 1st Session, 1963
includcs a resume of Sec. 206, P. L. 86-643 Flood Control Act of 1960 and the objectives
of floodp[ain inforniation studies, procedures for application, etc. Another section includes
a complete copy of a "A Model Hurricane Plan for a Coastal Community.

580

shall exceed the costs, but this 'criterion is not sufficient to yield an economic optimum,1
nor is one apparently sought. Rather, the informal rule that appears from a reading of
these studies is to build to the level of the Standard Project Flood or provide the maximum
protection within economic feasibility.

The range of choice of state and local governments. Potentially, the range of
choice of state and tocal..goverr.-ments should be greater than the Federal Government. In
addition to authorizations similar to the congressional ones to provide for const ruction of
projects, these non-Federal Governments have a set of police powers reserved to them by
the Constitution@ One exercise of such power, found in a number of states, is the
regulation of coastal structures. A second exercise of power is shown in these instances
of floodplain zoning and building ordinances found in the course of the special survey. A
third example is the use of health regulations on Assateague Island to delay proposed
construction of summer homes in the area proposed for the -National Seashore.

How one state views its range of choice can be found in the following statement
from a recent report prepared for the North Carolina: Department of Water Resources:

"(1) When it is realized that hurricanes, which may strike any part of
the North Carolina coast, can cause damages within a 13-month period
greater than the total state tax revenue, then it becomes clear that every
effort must be made to develop an effective program of damage prevention.
Not only are the initial damages great, but destruction of natural resources
and capital equipment paralyzes the coastal economy.

(2) In broad terms the elements of a program of hurricane damage pre-
vention appear to include adequate storm warning and disaster relief
systems, physical measures to control shore erosion and to rehabilitate
damaged beaches, and land use regulations designed to minimize damages.

1 The failure of the test of economic feasibility to provide optimal economic
allocation of resources has been well documented in widely available literature. See:
Otto Eckstein, Water-Resource Development, The Economics of Project Evaluation
(Cambridge- Harvard University Press, 1958); Jack Hirshleifer, James De Daven,
Jerome Milliman, Water Supply: Economics, Technology, and Policy (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1960); Roland McKean,. Efficiency in Government Through Systems
Analysis (New York: john Wiley and Sons,.Inc. , 1958); Arthur Maass, Maynard
Hufschmidt, et at.,. Design of Water-Resource Systems (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1962);Maynard M. Hufschmidt,. John, Kruti Ila and Julius Margolis, Report of Panel
of Consultants to the Bureau of the Budget on Standards and Criteria for Formulating and
Evaluating Federal Water Resources Developments (Washington: U. S. - Bureau of the
Budget, 1961); W. R. D. Sewell,. John; Davis, A. D. Scott, and D. W. Ross, Guide to Benefit-
Cost Analysis (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1962).
2 Allison.Dunham, "Flood Control Via the Police Power, " Univ, of Pennsylvania
Law Review, vol. 107 (June, 1959). pp. 1098-1132.

581

@(3) No serious questions have been raised concerning existing warning
and disaster relief measures. Federal and state programs apparently
operate to general satisfaction. At the local level a program such as
Dare County's shows what can be done locally.

(4) In the wake of recent destructive storms, rese arch is still in pro-
cess to identify the most effective and economical physical means of
controlling shore erosion and rehabilitating damaged beaches. Its results
will bear upon financing questions as well as upon a choice of physical
methods.

(5) It is apparent that the task of restoring and maintaining shore pro-
tective works is beyond the capacity of local governments in the area.
Continued Federal aid wiH undoubtedly be essential. A,.basic issue to be.
settled is the proper role of the state government in this area.

(6) Another element of a comprehensive damag e prevention program
ties in the ap
.pLication of building codes and other regulations retating
to land use.

The: state has-moved di.rectly-in one aspect of land -use reguLa-
ti'on by-eni'ctme'nt of legislation pr,ohibitifig unju 11stified damage to sand
dunes along the Outer,Banks.. Presently the application and enforcement
of this law is left to local government.

This surnmary represents a thoughtful attempt to grapple with the definition of the
proper role of the state and local government in the combination of protective works
(about which it is noted much remains unknown), warning and emergency actions, and
land use regulations. Unfortunately, this study is almost unique; only a simila 5 study made
int Rhode lsiand,- provides a comprehensive state review of the range of choice.

On the whole, the heavy reliance on protective structures found in Corps recom-
mendations are matched by state and local governments with all the study shore states
except one having various programs of funding protective works from state funds, or more 3
often, sharing with the local governments, in the non-Federal portion of Federal projects.

Trends in the public choice of. adjustment. Some important trends might be noted
in the public choice process. First and most important, the extent of Federal commitment

I
State of North Carolina, Department of Water Resources,. Flood Damage
Prevention in North Carolina,. Dept. of Water Resources, 1963, pp. 94- 95.
2 Rhode Island Development Council, The Rhode IsLand Shore: A Regional Guide
Plan Study, 1955-1970, Rhode Island Development Council, 1957.
3Coastal Research Notes, Oct. 1964, pp. 12-15, carries a reproduction of a
review of state participation in local shore protection projects made by F. 0. Diercks.

582

has grown over time although it is still far short of the commitment of the Federal
Government to provide flood protection on rivers. The history of the expansion of commit-
ment 'is linked to a now familiar pattern of crisis.1 Public Law 71 authorizing the hurricane
studies followed on the heels of the devastating hurricanes of 1954 and 1955. Public Law
87-874, which increases federal support for beach erosion control projects from one-third
to one-half for public areas and up to 70 percent for public areas meeting park criteria,
followed the storm of March 6-7, 1962.

Along with the increasing commitment has come greater knowledge of shore
processes and the range of adjustment to hazard. The consequence of the first is a trend
to greater reliance on providing artificial support for natural defenses of beach and dune.
With the second has come further interest in other adjustments, but little implementation
of these to date, except for the substantial improvement in the warning network.

Private choice of adjustment. The process of public adjustment is formalized to
a considerable extent and it is possible therefore to study it in some detail. Reports and
surveys are available that attempt to set forth the adjustments considered at individual
sites and some of the thinking employed in their evaluation. These reports are prepared
by individuals with a major, professional commitment to reducing tidal storms damage.
It is to be expected that their range of choice will be much broader than that of a single
user of the shore, for whom the process:of decision-making for tidal storm damage re-
duction is only a small part of the welter of decisions that face his every-day existence.

The range of choice of respondents. Because one expects a restricted, perceived
set of alternatives for the private users of the shore, it may help to recall the findings in
the previous chapter related to actual adjustments. Every form of adjustment to hazard
was found to be applied in some form by the respondents, but these applications were
limited in extent and in incidence.

A similar finding holds true for the range of alternatives perceived. Alternatives
for tidal storm damage reduction recognized by respondents include the entire range of
such adjustments, but no single respondent perceives more than a small set of adjustments.
Nor is it necessarily reasonable to expect otherwise. The range of adjustments suitable
for consideration over the entire study shore may not be practicable at every site and even
less so in the individual situation of each respondent. Therefore, in order to explore further
the process of choice of the private users of the shore, and to allow for variation between
sites, a simple differentiation of adjustments was devised between common and uncommon
adjustments.

In general, the common adjustments are those described in the previous chapter
that require little prior preparation and are seldom of a permanent nature. They include
all the emergency actions without prior preparation. By contrast a planting of imported
beach grass for dune stabilization represents a higher order of adjustment requiring not

1 The classic discussion of this pattern is found in Henry C. Hart, "Crises,
Community and Consent in Water Politics, " Law & Contemporary Problems, voL. 22 (1937),
pp. 510-537.

583

m
r
erely expense, but a higher order of attention and concern as well. For those respondents
who seek adjustments through public aid, the signing of a petition requesting the construction
of a seawall would represent a common adjustment. In contrast, participation in a personal
deleg.s.,tion to Washington seeking protection represents a higher order of action. In this way,
the large variety of hazard reducing acti.ons ar e categorized and the relative difficulty of
pursuing them at different sites considered. For the entire sample, the alternatives per-
ceived and adopted are identified in table 5-7.

Table 5-7

Perception and Adoption of Alternative Adjustments by Respondents
(368 Respondents)

AdjJustments only Perceived Number Percent
No adjustments perceived' so 22.0
Common adjustments perceived 40 10.9
Uncommon adjustments perceived 4 1. 1

Ad4ustments Perceived and Adopted

Common adjustments perceived and adopted 159 43.2
-Uncommon adjustments perceived and adopted 85 22.8

Total 368 100.0

Two-thirds adopt some minimal action, one-fourth adopt at least one uncommon
adjustment, and on the other hand, one-fourth of the respondents perceive no possible
adjustments. As might be reasonably expected the willingness to adopt actions, especially
uncommon ones, is strongly related to the perception of hazard, and information about the
past conditions and future expectations. More critical though is the motivation that -stems
from previous damage experience and the availability of resources to undertake uncommon
adjustments. - Significantly larger proportions of uncommon adjustment adopters have
suffered heavy damage and possess higher incomes. (See table 5-8).

Comparison of the Perception of Riverine and Tidal Flood Hazard

The foregoing section presented a set of relevent characteristics of the perception
of hazard and of the choice and adoption of adjustments. However, these data cannot by them-
selves provide an adequate basis for evaluation. The perception of hazard seems high, and
the perception and adoption of adjustments appears widespread. But an understanding of
hazard perception requires some comparison, either relative to an absolute base, or
relative to other groups. No meaningful base seems to exist, but two comparisons are

584

Table 5-8

Relation between Adoption of Uncommon Adjustments to Hazards
and Characteristics of Respondents

No. of Percent of Percent of
Characteristics of Uncommon Uncommon Total Uncommon Total
Adopters Adopters Adopters Respondents

Expect future storm and damage 37 44.0 33.5
Suffered heavy damage 32 38.1 22.8
Income over $8, 000 28 59.5 49.0
Income over,$ 15, 000 16 34.0 22.2

possible. The first has been presented; a comparison in hazard perception between shore
users in the private sector and the technical experts employed by public agencies. A
second comparison would be between the shore users and land users in somewhat similar
hazard areas, namely riverine floodplains.

By agglomerating interviews with 216.floodplain dwellers at seven sites with
varied physical situations and land use, a somewhat comparable sample to the 371 shore
users is provided.' In both samples similar interview schedules were used. The compara-
tive results for four major parameters of hazard and adjustment are presented in figure
5- 1, Two major conclusions are easily drawn. There is clearly a higher order of hazard
perception and adjustment adoption among the coastal respondents than among the flood-
plain dwellers, confirming an intuitive estimate of the high state of hazard awareness by
the users of the shore.

A second and most interesting observation deals with the amount of variation
in the same characteristic in the two samples. For example, a variety of interpretations
is found in both groups but 75 percent of all coastal respondents' interpretations fall into
two categories (storms are repetitive, trend cannot be ascertained or trend is constant in
time or space) and their interpretations are markedly more concentrated. It previously
had.been felt that the amount of variation in interpretation was a function of the ambiguity of
the hazard itself. If interpretation reflects the personalized view of the- world superimposed
on some common knowledge, to the extent that the common knowledge is ambiguous or
obscure -- then the distortion of that knowledge measured by the variance of interpretation
should increase. Evidence on the floodpLain first suggested the hypothesis that variation
of all sorts in knowledge and experience, interpretation, future flood experience, and the

1 See R. W. Kates, Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management,
Dept. of Geography Research Paper No. 78, Univ. of Chicago, Dept. of Geography, 1962,
pp. 29-44; and R. W. Kates "Perceptual Regions and Regional Perception in Flood Plain
Management, " Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 11, (1963),
p. 219, for details.

VARIATION BETWEEN FLOODPLAIN AND COASTAL
RESPONDENTS IN MAJOR HAZARD PARAMETERS

FLOODPLAIN % of COASTAL
(216 Respondents) Respondents (371 Respondents)

a - No knowledge of hazard c - One damage experience
b - Knowledge of hazard d - Two or more damage
experiences

-25

a b c d a b c d
I nf ormation

a - Did not share in common knowledge e - Thought storms repetitive
of storms but decreasitig
b - Knew about storM3 but denied f - Thought storms repetitive
common image of storms trend not known
c - Thought storms unique g -Thought storms repetitive
trend constant
d - Thought storms repetitive but
they personally excluded --So h - Thought storms repetitive
but increasing

a b, c d e f g h a b c d e f 9 h
Interpretation
Figure 5 -1 (a)

VARIATION BETWEEN FLOODPLAIN AND COASTAL
RESPONDENTS IN MAJOR HAZARD PARAMETERS

% of
FLOODPLAIN Respondents COASTAL
(216 Respondents) (371 Respondents)

Yes

Yes --50
No

--25
Uncertain No Uncertain

Future Storm Expectation

a - No adjustment perceived c- Uncommon adjustments perceived
b Common adjustments perceived d- Adjustment perceived and adopted

--50

--2

E:l
a b c d Adjustment 'a b c d

Figure 5-1 (b)

585

perception and adoption of hazard-reducing actions were highest in areas where floods
occurred often enough to be fairly well known but not often enough to make their occur-
rence certain. Variation among,.indiv du off ln_aTe4s.@ofjrequen floods
41,
or very infrequent floods. Here the meaning of the absence or presence of events seemed
less confused and liable to variation in interpretation. , Ibis variance of behavior found in
interpretation is higher for floodplaih, respondents in all the other hazard parameters as
well. As suggested, this seems to be a function of the ambiguity of the hazard andt.he
greater variation in hazard settings at the seven floodplain. sites as compared to the
relatively greater consistency in hazard found along. the shores of Megalopolis. As an index
of this hazard differential, the weighted mean recurrence of floods for the 216 floodplain
respondents was about four every ten years and a similar recurrence of damage-producing
storms for coastal respondents was nine every ten years.

Stitt another comparison between coastal andfloodplaih respondents is the
,adoption of adjustments. In previous study of riverine floodplaihs, a classification similar
to the one employed in this study showed evidence of scaling, i. e. , those that adopted
uncommon adjustments also adopted common adjustments andthose that adopted any adjust-
ment, generally perceived an uncommori.adjustment.1 In other words adopters appeared to
choose from a wider range of alternatives than non-adopters. Thi.s.does not seem to be
the case with the coastal respondents. Two-thirds of all respondents adopt some minimal
action but of the 159 common adopters only four perceived some uncommon alternative
which they did not act upon. The discrepancy between this study and the previous one
might arise from the classification employed, the sampling and interview techniques, or
may represent a genuine difference. The very high perception of hazard by coastal dwellers
leads to a very high rate of adoption. of. alternatives. lf,th@ey are perceived,. they are acted
upon.

Robert W. Kates, Hazard and Choice Perception . p 125.

586

CHAPTER VI

THE HUMAN USE -.OF THE SHORE

The 1300 miles of outer shore studied in this report.provides recreation for
many of the,40 million inhabitants of Megalopolis. For thousands of them, it provides
home and livelihood.as well. Enough structures to house a city the size of Boston tine the
shore. Although protected by almost three hundred miles of engineering works, average
annual damages fromlidal flooding might be estimated conservatively at $25 million. @Vhat
appear to be the major trends in use of the shore and what is an appropriate strategy for
human occupance of this boundary between land and sea?

The Village Shore: Between Two Worlds

The village shore is an occupance type in transition between two very different
economies, one based on the food resources, the other based on the amenity resources,
of the sea. The former, despite the coloration lent by romantic nostalgia, is at best a
difficult livelihood, and the only sizable numbers of poor people found along the study shore
were at the village sites. Fishing was not the only source of income, and agriculture was
frequently found close to the village shore possibly attracted originally by the convenient
cutting of salt hay in.the tidal marshes. Today, the only sizable amount of agricultural
land encountered in the intensive study was along the village shore. (See table 6-1.)

Table 6-1

Land Use by Occupance Type and Hazard Zone

Land Use Zone B: Tidal - 10 Feet Zone C: 10 Feet - 20 Feet
Percent of Acreage Found in Percent of A@reage Found in'
Village Urban Summer Village Urban Summer
Shore Shore Shore Shore Shore Shore

Industrial 0.5 3.9 1. 1 0.0 16.4 0.0
Commercial 1.4 1. 3 5.2 1.8 13.4 6.6
Public 0.5 3.9 4.5 0.0 7.6 0.6
Recreation 5..1 24.7 19.:2 5. 5 10.5 S.7
Residential 35.6 53.2 19.6 27.6 37.4 37.9
Agriculture 1.8 0.0 2.1 11.6 0.0 4.4
Undeveloped 55.1 13.0 48.2 53.4 14.6 44.8

Tota 1 100. 00 100. G. 99.9 99.9 1 99.9 1 100.0

587

The amenity resources attract a summer visitor who is different from the
permanent resident of the village, and with tastes and desires frequently alien to the host
community. Each of the four sites studied are in different stages of transition between a
food resource-based and amenity resource-based economy and they suggest varied
directions towards which the village shore might move. Sig-nificant findings for each site
are summarized in table 6-2.

In all except Chincoteague, fishing continues to decline to minor proportions, but
the degree that tourism flourishes varies. WeLlfleet appears most successful, a tasteful
transition preserves much of the favor of the original settlement and adds to the attraction
of the area, Vhlas represents another potential direction providing a low-cost site for
vacation or retirement. Point Judith suggests a major opportunity to use the valuable
small harbors of the village shore for small craft, with marina-type services and sport-
fishing replacing commercial fishing. A major growth opportunity is found on Chincoteague
especially if the road connecting the Maryland end of Assateague Island is built. Here the
community might strengthen its economy with the help of an outside infusion of capital and
tasteful direction.

The direction of the transition of the village shore is important for understanding
the nature of future damage potential. For in a rea[sense, the traditional village repre-
sents a long-term human adjustment to natura[ hazards: in the course of its evolution. Thus
the hazard potential of the village shore is quite moderate today, but it could change for
the worse if, in the course of transition to a recreational economy location decisions similar
to those made on the summer shore become common. J

The Urban Shore: The Economics of Protection

The use of the urban shore differs markedly from the use of the village and
summer shore (see table 6- 3). Almost all of the Land is built up and agriculture, of
course, is nonexistent. Most of the industrial acreage, as expected, is found on the urban
shore. Not ini-tially anticipated were the relatively large amounts of recreational land use
found on the shore in urban areas. This arises from. the formal character of urban redrea. tion,
usually set aside as public parks and beaches. The far more extensive recreation area on
the summer. shore may be in the form of commercial motels or, most commonly, private
beach residences.

Change in land use will come, in the main, from programs of renewal, both public
and private, and these opportunities for damage reduction should be vigorously pressed.
The substantial construction found on the urbanshore makes floodproofing and the use of
rigorous building codes for controlling new building and remodeling most feasible. But
the major outlook for substantial damage -abatement comes from the construction of pro-
tective works. Thus the problem of the urban shore is essentially one of dealing with the
economics of protection.

C.n
00
00

Table 6-2

Village Shore: Summary of Study Site Data

Past Growth Relative Pa- s _t P e r c el@ti -on- Adoption
Study Site and Storm Storm of of Adjust- Prognosis
Development Frequency Damage Ha.zard ments

1. Pt. Judith Slow growth of High Heavy High Wide range Continued slow growth
recreation as directed away from
fish and agri- hazard area above 10-
culture decline. foot contour.
2. Wellfleet Moderate growth High Moderate Moderate Few Rapid growth expected
of recreation, with development of
as fishing de- National Seashore.
clines. Village Large growth of
atmosphere damage potential
persists. unlikely.
3. Villas Steady growth Low Low Low Few Continued slow growth
of recreation, by marshland recla-
as fishing mation. No rapid rise
dec lines. in damage potential.
4. Chincoteague Slow growth of Low Heavy Moderate Moderate Rapid growth possible
recreation, as range at uncertain future
fishing remains date. Big increase in
important. damage potential also
possible.

589

Table 6-2

Urban Shore: Summary of Study* Site Data

Past. Growth Relative Past
Study Site and Storm Storm
Devetopment- Frequency' Damage
S. Lynn-Nahant Steady intensification of Moderate Low
densely developed urban
shore.

6. Fairfield Slow growth of urban Moderate Heavy
residential property.

Perception of Adoption of
Study'Site @Hazard Adjustments Prognosis

5. Lynn- Nahant, Low. Moaerate Change contingent upon
urban renewal projects.
Further increase in
damage potential unlikely.
6. Fairfield Low Moderate Public protection rejected.
Slow increase of damage
potential.

However, the economic's of protection need to be pursued further than the question
presently asked by the Corps -- namely, do the benefits exceed the costs? The apparent
emphasis on building for the standard , project hurricane does not insure an economic
optimum, although:it does lead to the construction of substantial engineering structures.
Moreover, all along the study shore there is substantial opposition to recommended works. 4-

Much of this disquietude arises from the suspicion that present benefit-cost
analysis does not weight sufficiently the loss of benefits arising from destruction of amenity
values, changing the ecology of esturine waters, increasing the problems of small-boat
navigation, and the like., Until such time as field-levet economic analysis appears more
able or ready to cope'with these external effects of engineering structures, one powerful
instrument for improved decision-making may simply be local willingness to participate
in sharing the substantial expenditures.

The attitudes discussed in Chapter IV are symptomatic of this, as is the more
recent opposition voiced against the hurricane barrier at Narragansett Bay and the proposed
protection for the North Shore of Long Island.

590

The urban shore by definition is built-up, reflecting substantial fixed investment.
The opportunities for reducing damage would seem to lie in the use of a broad range of
alternatives,. subjected to a stringent analysis that recognizes the many negative effects
of artificial control of the shore, and that insures local public concern by requiring large
financial commitments from local interests.

Summer Shore@ The Amenities of Sun, Sand, and Sea

The summer shore is the dominant form of occupance on the shores of Megalopolis.
The future development of the summer shores is relatively simple to forecast. Except
for areas earmarked for preservation by public action, the summer shore will cover all
the barrier bars with a thin line of closely spaced housing, wilt fill much of the tidal
marshes with niarina- type -subdivision,. and will dot the bluffs with dispersed housing.
For part of the New Jersey shore this barrier bar and bluff development is completed or
even going through cycles of renewal, and subdivision of the lagoons is being vigorously
pressed. As one goes south, or north, extensive areas of development are still available
and this is reflected in the forecast for an increase in damage potential for five of the
eight summer shore sites summarized in table 6-4. . The disturbing aspects of this
prognosis are underlined by the findings, in Chapter III, of the high vulnerability to storm
hazard of the northern and southern margins of the study shore.

The summer shore poses a unique challenge to resource management. The major
value of the summer shore is adjacency to the natural attractions of sun, sand, and sea.
But the very desire for adjacency to the shore also makes conventional protection costly
and impractical. Only one of the seventeen Interim Hurricane Studies recommended
protection for a barrier bar area of the summer shore. Hazard reduction must come
primarily from the rionstructural adjustments or from stiffening the natural defenses of
beach and dune. A second challenge to resource management results from the present dis-
tribution of access to the amenities of sand and sea. Should thepleasures of the summer
shore be reserved for the farsighted or the fortunate or should public policy consciously
strive for a more equitable distribution of access to these amenities?

The Empty Shore: The Wilderness Preserve of Megalopolis

Part of the empty shore is in one sense the wilderness analogue of western
America. Here, on the very shores of the most intense urban development in the world,
elementary natural processes of birth, death,and renewal take place undisturbed by man
with each return of the tide, change of the season, shift in climate, or passage of geologic
time.

Of the four major opportunities for preservation of the empty shore foreseen by
the National Park Service in 1955, three (or their equivalent) have been or will be shortly
1
,realized in the form of Cape Cod,. Fire Island, and Assateague Island National Seashores'.

These were the'Great Beach, Mass., Shinnecock Inlet and Fire Island, New York,
and Parramore Island, Virginia. National Park Service, Seashore Recreation Area Survey,
Washington,, 1955.

Table 6-4

Summer Shore: Summary of Study Site. Data
Past Growth Relative Past Perception Adoption
Study Site 'and Storm Storm -of of Adjust- Progno-sis
Development Frequency Damage Hazard ments
7. Hamptou Rapid_growth of High Moderate Low -Moderate Further expansion into
Beach residential marshland areas probable,
property. with associated growth of
damage potential.
8. Montauk Slow growth of Moderate Low Moderate Few Rapid growth possible at
recreation uncertain future time. Big
increase in damage po-
tential unlikely._
9. Sandy Hook Moderate rate of Moderate Heavy High Wide range Further growth limited to
growth in past 20 intensification of'develop-
years, now fully ment. Rapid increase in
developed. damage potential unlikely.
10. Cape May Steady growth by- Low Heavy Moderate Moderate Change contingent upon
intensification of urban renewal projects.
existing develop- Rapid increase of damage
ment. potential unlikely.
11. Wildwood Rapid growth of Low Moderate Low Few Continued rapid develop-
Crest recreation and as- ment and growth of damage
sociated commer-, potential.
dial development
12. Dennis Very rapid growth High Moderate Moderate Few Continued rapid growth and
of recreation and creation of new damage
summer residen- potential.
tial property.
13. Nags Head Rapid growth of Moderate Heavy_ High Wide range Continued rapid growth and
recreation and creation of new damage
summer residen- potentia 1.
tial property.
14. Bethany Rapid growth of Low Heavy Moderate Wide range Continued rapid growth and
Beach recreation and creation of new damage
summer residential potential.
property.

592

(See table 6-5.) But much empty shore remains. The estimate made earlier in this
report was that only 21 percent of. the. shore frontage had been developed by 1960. The
challenge is to perserve and to make accessible many of the smalLer, less 'grandiose sections
of empty shore, which by default might pass into summer shore precisely when society is
showing a clear and high valuation for nondevelopment or. limited development in -the poLiti-
caL marketpLace.1

Table 6-5

Empty Shore: Summary of Study Site Data

Past Growth Relative Past
Study Site and Storm Storm
Development Frequency Damage
15. Assateague Wildlife refuge partly convert- Low Low
ed to recreation area

Perception of Adoption of
S.tudySite . Hazard Adjustments Prognosis
15. Assateague No residents Not applicable To be preserved as.open
space b.ut increased recrea-
tional use Likely.,

Process, People, and Policy: A Strategy for Human Use of the Shore

The shores of Megalopolis provide the meeting ground for two major systems
man and nature. The former is characterized by processes and patterns of economic
activity, urbanization, and civilization, on scales unparalLeled in human history. The latter,
involves the complex interaction of the oceans of air and water upon the land. Meeting at
the shore, these systems create unique forms of settlement, opportunities for respite and
relaxation and increasingly important but still peripheral, economic values. An under-
standing of the processes of the major systems and their relation to the people of the shore,
seems fundamental to any prescriptions for policy.

Process. The authors sense that the boundary of Land, sea, and water ispot
merely, the joining of three sub-systems but an important research frontier as well.,

1,
For example, in contrast to opposition to the hurricane barrier, Rhode Island
residents voted 2 to 1 for the expenditure of $5 million dollars to:develop seven new state
parks,'fbur of them on the shores!of Narragansett Bay. Personal communication from
Lewis M. Alexander, -December 22, 19,64.

593

.Everywhere this study turned, evidence of human ignorance of the system was uncovered,
much af it painfully revealed in errors of yesteryear. At the same time, there is con@
siderable evidence of increased appreciation of the complexity of the natural processes at
work on the shore. . Effort and energy commensurate with both the problem and the
opportunities for knowledge are forthcoming.

The study of natural process per se has not been the task of this study; rather the
interrelation between the natural and human systems. In that light, it seems. to the authors
that there are four critical gaps in our knowLedge of natural process that directly affect a
strategy for use of the shore:

1. Knowledge of the transport of material along the shore is a most pressing
need. Where does the sand come from and where is it going? Inadequate
knowledge of this sort is evidenced by the faiture of some protective works,
the unexpected adverse effects from others, and the costLy maintenance,
beach nourishment, dredging, and artificial transport required in many of
the successful efforts. It would seem desirable to construct materiel
balances, inflows and outflows, for the entire shore.

2. A second pressing question. is related to the dramatic increase in damaging
storms discussed in the chapter on climatology. Rational use of the shore
requires reasonable estimates of the probability of inundation and such
estimates are not availabLe. Moreover, frequency estimation of climatological
phenomena involves a basic assumption of the essential stability of the under-
lying climatic conditions, an assumption requiring further investigation since
there is present evidence of an increase and intensification of storm systems.

3. A third area,:@. and one that will! increase, int, importance. deals with the tidaL
marshes. The effects of filling of marshes need further study, both in
relation to marsh ecoLogy and to the movement of materiaL in and out of the
estuary and its effect on shellfish and fish life in the estuary. A most press-
ing need is for a scientific base for setting elevations and conditions to be met
in permitting marsh filting.

4. Finally, further study of the impact of surges on the shore, the effect of
differential topography on run-up, and the stability of dune forms subject to
repeated inundation is required. One goal of such study should be relatively
simple methods of routing surges overland in order to.assist in understanding
the amount and frequency of hazard.

Despite th e shortcomings of knowledge of natural processes, the natural system
is more regular than the system of spatial interaction that has fostered the development of
the shore. However, the broad outlines of the human system are cLear and can be described.
The initial advantage of coastal location is manifest , today in the great port cities on the
shores of Megalopolis. The nineteenth century saw a decline in many of the smaller, viable
settlements found on the outer shore, a decline marked by the exhaustion of marine
resources and the need of the marine industry for larger harbors. The remnants of these

594

communities are found today in the village shore. Concurrent with the decline of a
coastal-based economy has been the rise of recreational activity along the shore. Recrea-
tion fosters new forms of settlement along the shore and patterns of recreational occupance
seem to follow rules different from the more work-oriented activity,

Trends relevant to this recreational growth can be briefly summarized. Recrea-
tion activities are growing faster than population and increases in income. Growth rates
of development of the shore and the coastal counties exceeds the rate of Megalopolitan
growth and the highest rates (although still the lowest densities of development) are found
in the zones of highest hazard. Associated with recreational development that places a
very high premium on adjacency to water are two land-using practices that exacerbate
natural hazard; inadequate filling of tidal marshes, and the leveling of sand dunes. Thus,
unchecked, the rate of growth of recreational activity and the land use practices encouraged
in private recreational development sets in motion a process leading to growth in damage
potential- considerably higher than the general growth of the nation and its economy.

People. The process of recreational development of the shore presented in the
foregoing skei-ch has consequences for the character and attitudes of the shore population.
There are in fact two populations reflected in the transition of the -village shore: a popuLa-
tion of fishermen, seasonal workers, and older persons, with incomes considerably below

A major attempt was made to develop empirical relations between the amount
and growth of development along the study shore as a function of a set of independent
variables representing natural conditions, historical development, regional growth,
accessibility, and public use using a step-wise multiple regression approach. The density
and proportion of frontage developed, as well as the growth or decline between 1940-60 and
1950-60, for the sixty-five sample areas were compared with a set of appropriate variables
drawn from the following list- 1940 structures per acre, 1940 ocean frontage developed,
-water'temperature, presence of developable sand beach, storms 1935-64, density of
dwelling units in county, growth or decline of dwelling units in county, distance to town of
50, 000 population or greater, and distance of town of 1, 000, 000 population or greater.
That the findings were essentially negative, except for the expected relationship that highly
developed places stayed developed, reflects in part the special nature of recreational land
use.

For example in a yet unfinished dissertation study by Richard Hecock of beach
use on Cape Cod, there is ample evidence that people do not tend to minimize their travel
distance to the shore. On the other hand, once located on the shore, the friction of distance
is very high and they tend to go to beaches located nearby. This same trend was observed
in the five hundred beach user interviews made as part of this study. One explanation is that
recreational travel has its own pleasurable value, evidenced by the Large amount of pleasure
driving. But whatever the explanation, it is obvious that the process of growth and develop-
ment of shore communities is not to be explained by simple indicators of accessibility or
natural conditions.

595

the average --'and a@m_uth target ,group of summ'er, p-e ,o,pfe with"- education' 'and incomes'.
con.,@id:erably higher than.the population at large.

For both groups it has been shown that their adjacency to the sea has Led to a
relatively high perception of the risks of Locating along the shore: knowledge of storms was
universal and knowledge of the highest tides of record was impressive. There is also a
high acceptance of hazard. ..For the first group it arises out of their long fannitiarity with
the sea, and in a.sense their adjustment to it. For the summer visitor it seems to arise
in part from his seasonal use of the shore, and in part from the Luxury aspects of
recreational consumption. The view and proximity of the. shore is desired; if nature is to
add on a surcharge, that is part of the price to be paid. With the acceptance of the hazard
is also evidenced a willingness to reduce it or ameliorate it, but not to the point that the
values of sun, sea, and sand are substantially diminished.

Policy. There are numerous policy implications raised by the findings of this
study. . Several proposals ref lect the@'personal views of the authors that arise from their
concern with problems of natural hazard and the use of the shore. In this sectioftP@" a set
of implications and, in some cases, frank prescriptions for public policy are made under
three levels of government: federal, state, and local community. To place thes e in
proper perspective it is appropriate to begin by summarizing some of the personal views
of the authors as to the elements in a strategy for the human use of the shore.

The proper.use of the shore.,: The shore has a unique -character and servesa
special function for the population of Megalopolis. In both its natural state, and developed
for recreation, the shore provides opportunities for Leisure and refreshment for which
there. are no alternatives within easy reach of the region. The provision for a wide
variety of shore recreational activities is a proper use of the shore and should be assisted
by public policies.

At the same time, there are still many and varied uses of the shore not directly
connected with recreation. A useful classification of the uses of the shore might be the
following:

1. Coast based. These are industrial, commercial, or recreational enter-
prises that require direct access to the shore (e. g. in the form of docks,
pump houses, etc.) or to the shore-using public (e.g. in the form of bath
houses, marinas, etc.).

2. Coast-oriented. These are enterprises or residences found along the coast
because their products or.services are related to the use of the shore. These
include motels catering to recreationists, -stores.selling beach apparel, or
fish-packing plants.

3. Footloose. These are enterprises or residences for which coastal location
is coincidental to their major purpose.

596

Within the framework -of this classification, it would appear proper for only coast-
based structures to be found in high hazard zones. Coast-oriented structures are properly
located near the shore but need not be in hazard areas, and for footloose structures,
coastal location may even represent some misallocation of resources.

. The proper set of adjustments. There is no best adjustment to storm hazard,
but in general some combination of the range of adjustments available can provide opportu-
nities to society to use the shore at lowest cost. Thus proper policies are those that move
towards a wider consideration of adjustments.

As there is no best adjustment in general, neither is there a favored toot of
coastal engineering. The physical features of the shore are too varied to reject out-of-
hand any type of protective works. But clearly those defenses against the sea that are in
harmony with natural processes have greater chances of success and are likely to be Low
cost solutions to problems in the long run.

The proper role of government. With the exception of a few villages inhabited
by retired couples or *-impoverished fishermen, coastal users are well educated and we[[-to-
do. They have come to the shore to share the constant attractions found at the interface of
.land and sea or to serve and profit by those who are so attracted. They are by and large,
knowing and we[[-informed about the broad outlines of the hazard they face, and as to the
details, the scientific-technicaL community is not much better off, A high proportion of
coastal dwellers adopt minimal actions to reduce their hazard, but have chosen, on
occasion, constant or even greater Levels of hazard rather than reduce their seaward
amenities. In such a situation it is only by a vast extension of the concept of the welfare
state that it would appear to be a function of the Federal government to protect private
property along the coast.

Conversely, it would seem to be the very proper function of government to dis-
courage the increase in hazard potential due to ignorance and lack of knowledge or when
the increase in hazard potential will cause harm to others and encourage irrational demands
on public agencies.

Federal Policy Implications

Since 1955, the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of Federal programs for
reducing coastal storm damage appear to be increasing. Substantial areas of empty shore
have been preserved. New opportunities for storm damage reduction through purchase of
recreational land will become possible with Federal grants to the states under the Land and
Water Conservation Act. The warning system, especially as related to tropical disturb-
ances, appears to @be considerably improved. A more knowledgeable and thoughtful
appraisal of protective works has emerged from the research of the Corps of Engineers
with major future emphasis on the conservation of sand and the maintenance of the natural
defenses of beach and dune. Interim Hurricane Survey Reports reflect the beginnings of a
comprehensive approach to storm-damage reduction, although a disturbing dichotomy
between protective works and alternative adjustments still persists.

597

In contrast with the improvement of@ Federal effort, each new crisis of damage
brings new pressures for an increase in commitment to protect the users of the shore.
Such pressures, fed both by the -intensification d use of the shore and the appareD.t short
term increase in damage-producing storms, will increh *se, It thus seems important to
continue with damage reduction programs and create, as well, a climate whereby storm
damage might be placed in proper perspective. To this end, the following suggestions
are offered.

Information and research program.s. No other,,@ level, of government has the
capability for disseminating accurate information and for, undeftaking or encouraging
needed research than the Federal agencies with shore- oriented. missions. In this respect,
while part of the critical research needs no-ced in a previous section might be carried out
within the internal capability of these agencies, other aspects will require the use of
competent investigators wherever they rnay be found. . It would also be a, wasteful procedure
to neglect wide dissemination of information, much of it already in the files of the Corps
of. Engineers,. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Geological Survey, and Weather Bureau but not
in proper form for use by lay people.

Specifically, the information collected fox, the Interim Hurricane Surveys should
not require much additional x@ork to be developed into floodplain information reports
similar to those issued under Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960. . It would seem
logical to request of Congress funds for that purpose as be ing.in the spirit if riot the letter
of P. L. 71. A, requirement that coastal communities must apply for such information
would seem self-defeating. It is precisely in those communities where present develop-
ment is limited, but the possible increase in damage potential is considerable, that local
goverliment is weak and vacillating and unlikely to make formal requests for information.

Comprehensive dAmage-reduction programs. To improve the process of choice
of alternatives, several improvements ia the delineation and evaluation of alternatives
seem possible.

The first required action is to make loss-bearing respectable. Loss bearing is
and will continue to be a minimum cost solution for the use of the shore in many areas.
Although this is implicitly recognized, it is seldom explicitly set forth. But there is much
to gain through encouraging public understanding that bearing tosses is a legitimate way
to pay nature's rent for use of the shore, It is neither a confession of engineering in-
competence nor a failure of public responsibility to make clear thatfor much of the barrier-
bar portion of the summer shore, continued loss bearing by private individuals may be the
cheapest way they and society can obtain the use of the shore.

Secondly, a comprehensive damage reduction program should not have favored
solutions. The present predilection for constructing protective works, -and where
feasible to the level of the standard project hurricane, leads to an unfortunate choice
situation. In all of the eight hurricane reports reviewed m- aking. favorable recommenda-
tions for protective structures, other alternatives tend. to.be dealt @with in denigrating terms.
.But there is no guarantee that, even if structures built to maximum height are desirable,
they will be acceptable to the communities concerned. Thus, communities seem to be

598

offered only two choices, build the protective works or bear losses, where in actuality a
variety of damage reduction programs exist.

Third, the planning for protection should be in accord with natural processes
where possible, much as river basins have become standard in water resource develop-
ment. Unfortunately for the shore, the Corps recognizes this and district office respons-
ibility generally follows watershed boundaries. These watershed boundaries are not in
accord with the critical lateral movement of materials along the shore. This is shown in
figure 6- 1. Table 6-6 that accompanies the figure suggests a set of natural regions for
planning shore protection and preservation. It is not known whether the district adminis-
trative boundaries contributed to the fragmented protection process that characterizes much
earlier planning, but adoption of more comprehensive planning regions seems advisable.

Table 6-6

Suggested Natural Regions for Coastal Engineering

1. New England - A complex area with currents from several directions but pre-
dominateiy from north to south. All headlands are source regions.

2. Long Island Sound Characterized by an internal circular current system.

3. South shore of Long Island Wave erosion takes place at Montauk Point. Main
current moves from east to west.

4. New Jersey - Wave erosion takes place from Atlantic Highlands to Asbury Park.
Small current moves material north to Sandy Hook. Main current
moves material south.

5. Delmarva Peninsula - Wave erosion takes place between Rehoboth Beach and
Bethany Beach. Small current moves material north toward Cape
Henlopen. Main current moves material south.

6. North shore of Cape Hatteras - Source area near Virginia Beach. Small current
moves material north toward Cape Henry. Main current moves
material south toward Cape Hatteras.

7. South shore of Cape Hatteras - Bulk of the material moves north from source
region in South Carot.ina and Georgia.

Source for ocean currents - Dean F. Bumpus and Louis M. Lauzier, Serial Atlas of the
Marine Environment, Folio 7, American Geographical Society, 1965.

me.
(V t. N. H.

Mass.
/L F
N. Y. Conn. R.I.

Pa.
N J. 3

4
Md.

P`R ESENT -CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND
SUGGESTED NATURAL REGIONS
5 FOR COASTAL ENGINEERING

Va.

Legend

Study Shore
Corps of Engineers
District Boundarie3
Suggested Natural
Regions for Coastal
Engineering
N. C. Predominant Currents

Figure 6-1

599

'Public access to the shore. Fortunately, the public goals of increased opportuni-
ties for recreation and the reduction of damage potential are generally harmonious. Much
more work needs to be done in developing program.s that combine damage reduction and
increased recreation especially through purchase of land. Much of this is more appropriate
at other levels of government, but Federal encouragement financially and otherwise is needed.
In connection with the relation between public recreation and damage reduction, peripheral
observations made by the field parties in the course of study are relevant.

Everywhere, and in many guises, the public right of access to publicly owned
shore is abrogated by private or excessively parochial local governments. In a few
instances, this takes the form of actual misuse of the land but more often it is a de -facto
appropriation by a variety of devices including the following: failure to inform of rights
of access, erection,of, trespassing orprivate property signs., closing of streets or paths
to be the beach, failure to provide passage across sea walls, or prohibitions on traffic
and parking.

The provision for open public use is a clear requirement for FederaL. Participation
in many protection and preservation projects. Provisions should be made for the inspection
to insure the maintenance of these rights and Congress should provide funds to -use pro-
jection projects as a [ever to extend public access to the -shore. At a minimum, signs
should be posted informing the public of their rights to open use, when such rights are
not self-evident.

State Policy Implications

In reviewing the entire gamut of actions that might be taken to reduce storm
damages, it appears that the major opportunities lie with the respective coastal states
and for the most part, these have been sadly neglected. The states have reserved
to themselves a wide variety of police powers. Each has distinctive laws and even
traditions relevant to the use of the shore which makes Federal legislation, even where
proper, somewhat complicated. And the states have a vigor and financial base not often
found in most.small shore front communities. A proper state program, blending reguLa-
tion, financial encouragement, and planning assistance can be a most effective approach to
reducing tidal flood damage.

All the coastal states have some program aimed at damage. reduction. Almost
all provide matching funds to local communities for protection. Many have ambitious pro-
grams for purchase of open space that may be artfully employed to reduce damage potential.
And at least two have attempted to assess the elements of a comprehensive damage reduc-
tion program. But there seem to be three neglected areas of improvement.

Planning assistance. All the states in the coastal region has provisions for
planning assistance in local communities and some on the state level.as welt. Some states
employ personnel to work with communities directly, others merely act as certifying agents
for contracts with private consultants. Table 6-7 presents the general status of relevant

C)
CD
Table 6-7

Summary of Selected State Planning Activities and Legislation
for State Planning and Local Land Use Controls

State State has State Plan- State State has local State has local
has agency ning Agency provides zoning subdivision control
State actively is concerned local enabling enabling
planning concerned with flood planning legislation? legislation?
legislation? with over- damage assistance?
all State prevention?. For For For For
planning? Cities Counties Cities Counties
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Connecticut 0 0 0
Delaware 0 0 0
Maryland 0 0 0 0 40 0 0
Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0
New York 0. 0 0 0 0 0
North Carolina 0 0 0 .0 0 0
Rhode1sland 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Virginia .0 41

Legend: 0 certain classes of cities or counties; 0 no provision for county regulations but boroughs (Alaska),
parishes (Louisiana), or towns (Connecticut and Rhode Island) may adopt regulations.
Source: H. F. Morse, Role of the States -in Guiding Land Use in Flood Plains, p. 27.

601

planning programs in the coastal states. Tennessee has the most extensive program of
planning assistance to communities for reducing riverine flood damage programs and their
actions might provide a model for other coastal states.

Regulation. Three types of regulations seem suited for adoption on the state Level.
These should be regulations to control the filling of marshland, preservation of dunes, and
provision within the state building codes for hurricane- resistant construction and minimum
elevations in coastal areas. North Carolina, which has adopted state legislation to protect
the Outer Banks, leaves enforcement to the local communities. However, all three areas;
marshLand filling, dune preservation, and specialized building codes require services for
enforcement usually not found on the locaL government leveL. The widespread use and
acceptance of a state fire marshal might be duplicated in this need for specialized service.

Public access of the shore. The ownership of tidelands varies from state to state.
(See table 6-8.) In six coastal states tideLands are held in public ownership from the mean

Table 6-8

Tidelands Ownership and Access, Coastal States

Upland Boundary
of State Extent of Use Rights of Upland Owner
State Ownership
Accretion
High Low Slight Prior claim and
water water Extensiv Moderate or none of purchase reclamation
Conneticut X .... (1/) (1/) .... .... X
Delaware X X .... .... X
Maryland .... X .... ....
Massachusetts X X .... ....
New Hampshire .... X X .... .... X
New Jersey X .... X .... X
New York X .... .... X X ....
North Carolina X .... .... X
Rhode Island X .... X .... .... ....
Virginia' X X

1/ Not available.
�o-urce: Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States, ORRRC Report No. 4, p. 20

1 A comprehensive guide for state activity is found in H. F. Morse Role of the
States in Guiding Land Use in Flood Plains, Georgia Inst. of Tech. Eng. Exp. Station
Report 38 (Atlanta, 1962) and its accompanying bibliography.

602

high water line to the sea. In these states, vigorous programs for access could provide
almost the entire shore in public trust. Experimentation might be made with programs to
purchase narrow strips of land paralleling the shore. Such a strip, possibly ten yards wide,
does not have to interfere seriously with private property rights, and yet it @ould provide
both public access to the shore and an extended buffer area that could be prepared to absorb
the energy of a storm surge. In all states there are a considerable number of small pockets
of empty shore. Imaginative use of funds provided by the HHFA open space program and
the Land and Water Conservation Act might preserve and make accessible these parcels.

Local Government Policy Implications

Many of the foregoing policy suggestions may be applicable on the level of local
government as well as higher levels. There is some evidence of the desire of many
communities for a stable, orderly pattern of development. But of all the actions best
suited to local implementation, it has long been the consensus that zoning is most properly
done on a local, and occasionally, regional basis.

As demonstrated many times in this study, natural conditions, hazard, settlement,
and economy all vary tremendously even within short distances. Three very different
communities were found adjacent to each other and studied intensively for that reason:
Cape May, Wildwood Crest, and Villas in New Jersey. Regulation of land use by zoning
ordinance or subdivision regulation should differ in each community. Yet there are two
classifications suggested in this study that can provide a general framework for zoning
legislation, the details of which might differ from place to place. Such a framework is
offered in table 6-9.

Table 6-9

A Framework for Zoning for Tidal Flood Damage Reduction

Hazard Zones Functional Uses
Coast-Based Coast-Oriented Footloose

Prohibitive x

Restrictive x x Low damage
use only
Warning x x x

x = Use permitted

In Chapter IV, three types of hazard zones were suggested for the shore based on
experience in riverine flood plains: a prohibitive zone, a restricted zone, and a warning

603

zone. These may be illustrated in a sample application using local elevations resulting
from a model hurricane zoning regulation suggested for use in Rhode Island.

1. Prohibitive zone., For shores of southerly exposure all the area within
300 feet of the tide, below 20 feet mst, would fall within this zone. Only
coast-based uses would be permitted.

2. Restrictive zone. AIL the area beyond 300 feet of the tide and above an
elevation of 10 feet mst falls within the restrictive zone. ALI coast-based
structures and coast-oriented structures are permitted. Footloose uses
are discouraged but permitted if damageable property is minimal. All
other footloose structures are not permitted.

3. Warning zone. -This zone is all land not in the other two zones below
15 feet or the elevation of the*standard project hurricane, whichever'is
higher. There areno restrictions in this zone. It is advisory only, and
users are informed when they make application for building permits.

Several innovations might be used to introduce greater flexibility. Structures
with deep pile foundations and surge-resistant anchorage might be permitted in a zone in
which it is normally restricted by raising the critical elevation (usually the first floor) to
the level of a permitted zone. Thus a properly bui It beach house might be permitted in
the prohibitive zone if its first floor elevation exceeded 10 feet.

A community might want to permit for recreational purposes cheap cottage-type
construction. Without compromising the basic zoning ordinance, two classes of structures
might be created. These are permanent, to which the general ordinance applies, and
temporary. or expendable.-, Permits. would be granted for this type of building even in
hazard areas, provided: 1) the structures were occupied within prescribed seasons, 2) the
owner acknowledged that the structure was subject to damage, 3) assumes responsibility
for removal of debris in case of severe damage, and 4) agrees not to rebuild if severely
damaged. This provision is designed to allow for recreational use within reach of Lower
income groups provided that undue burdens are not placed on the towns when severe storms
arise.

This suggested framework seems to be within reach of any community, even those
that are unable to provide maps with sufficient detail to delimit these zones. They can be
stated in elevation with the burden on the would-be builder to demonstrate conformance.
Maps of course are desirable, but for small communities without sufficient resources
prompt action can still be taken.

Finally, the framework for zoning would appear to be legally sound. Although this
is but a layman's judgment, it does embody what appears to the authors as the essence of a
strategy for the human use of the shore: an acknowledgment of the awesome power of the
ocean and a recognition of the age-old human need to come to the edge of the sea.

Rhode Island Development Council, op cit. , p. VIII-3.

PUBLICATIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY
(continued)
VOLUME XIII -- 1960
No. 1 ..Site Evaluations for Nuclear Reactors, by C. W. Thornthwaite, J. R. Mather,
-and F. K. Davis, Jr.
No. 2 Annotated Bibliography on Precipitation Chemistry, by John R. Mather
No. 3 Equation and Table for Determination of the Wave of Leaching in the Soil,
by C. W. Thornthwaite and. Sally Thornthwaite

VOLUME XIV -- 1961
No. I The Measurement of Vertical Winds and Momentum Flux, by C. W. Thornthwaite,
W. J. Superior, J. R. Mather, and F. K. Hare
No. 2 Vertical Winds Near the Ground at.Centerton,.,N.J. , by C. W. 'fbornthwaite,
W. J. Superior, and J. R. Mather
No. 3 The Climatic Water Balance, by John R. Mather; Instructions for Use of the
IBM 602A Calculator for Daily Soil Moisture Accounting, by Ray F. Pengra;
Manual for Use of the IBM 650 Calculator for Computing Potential Evapo-
transpiration and the Water Balance, by Howard H. Engelbrecht

VOLUME XV 1962
No. 1 The Climatic and Hydrologic Factors Affecting the Redistribution of Strontium
in Soils, by J. R. Mather and J. K. Nakamura
No. 2 Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part I. Africa
No. 3 Evaluation of an Ocean Tower for the Study of Climatic Fluxes,
by C. W. Thornthwaite, W J. Superior, and R. T. Field

VOLUME XVI 1963
No. I Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part II. Asia
(Excluding U. S. S. R.)
No. 2 Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part III. U.S.S.R.
No. 3 Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part IV Australia,
.New Zealand, and Oceania
No. 4 Water Purification by Natural Filtration, by J. R. Mather and D. M. Parmelee

VOLUME XVII - - 1964
No. I Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part V. Europe
No. Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part VI. North
America (Excluding United States)
No. 3 Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part VII. United States
No. 4 Study of Climatic Fluxes Over an Ocean Surface, by Richard T. Field and
Wi I liam J. Superior

VOLUME XVIII 1965
No. I Recent Developments in Meteorological Sensors and Measuring Techniques to
150, 000 Feet, Part I Analysis; Part 2 Bibliography, edited by John R. Mather
No. 2 Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Part VIII. South
America
No. 3 The Shores of Megalopolis: Coastal Occupance and Human Adjustment to Flood
Hazard, by Ian Burton, Robert W. Kates, John R. Mather and Rodman E. Snead

Lim I r- Ljur-

GAYLORD No. 2333 PRIVTED IN U S k

3 6668 14106 5500