[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
zg, FIN jjjj@ ,@vmmmv)I NNNI, SOUTH SHORE for the nASSAU and counTIES, n.y. L 'Island Reg ong, rional Planning Board HURRICANE DAMAGE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SHORE OF NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES NEW YORK i HURRICANE DAMAGE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SHORE OF NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, NEW YORK/ Dr. Lee E. Koppelman Project Director DeWitt Davies Project Coordinator U - S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOE-DON AVENUE October 1984 CHARLESTON , SC 2@9405-2413 Long Island Regional Planning Board H. Lee Dennison Office Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 ,4, CI), a* This document was prepared by the Long Island Regional Planning Board pursuant to Cooperative Agreement #EMN-K-0018 with the IF It Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 11, utilizing funding provided under 44CFR Part 300.6 Earthquake and Hurricane Plans and Preparedness. LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD Edward Cook John J. Hart Chairman Vice Chairman Patrick F. Caputo John V.N. Klein John Wickham John W. Wydler Lee E. Koppelman Executive Director NASSAU COUNTY SUFFOLK COUNTY Ex Off icio Ludwig Hasl A. Barton Cass Commissioner Commissioner Department of Public Works Department of Public Works Peter T. King Joseph Caputo Comptroller Comptroller Advisory Honorable Francis T. Purcell Honorable Peter F. Cohalan County Executive County Executive Honorable Thomas S. Gulotta Honorable Louis Howard Presiding Supervisor Presiding Officer County Board of Supervisors County Legislature County Coordination Herbert Libert Arthur Kunz y Report Preparation DeWitt Davies Arthur Kunz Randall S. 6avis Katherine Minsch PaulEnus Barry Seymour Roy Fedelem Dr. Edith Tanenbaum Lauretta Fischer-Key Ronald Verbarg Judith Klinge Michael Volpe Dr. Israel Wilenitz Cartographic and Publication Anthony Tucci -Cartographer Thomas Frisenda Robert Higgins Carl Lind Michael Roy Support Staff Gail Calfa Lucille Gardella Penny Kohler Edith Sherman Jeanne Widmayer Accounting Lucille Gardella Aerial Photography Typography Aero Graphics Corp. Info Scan, Inc. Bohemia, N.Y. Farmingdale, N.Y. Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, Inc. Syosset, N.Y. Farichild Aerial Photos Vj The preparation 0 f this report was facilitated through the cooperative efforts of numerous individuals both in and outside of government. Personnel from both Nassau and Suffolk Coun- ties, the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, New York State Office of Disaster Preparedness, National Weather Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided valuable in- put and support during the data gathering and plan development phases. The staff of the Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) would especially like to thank MT. Frank Petrone who, in his capacity as Director of FEMA Region 11, secured federal funds for the preparation of this plan. In addition, FEMA staff including Mr. Jose Bravo, Mr. Curtis Carlton, Mr. Richard Hellreigel, Mr. Stanley McIntosh, Ms. Joanne O'Sullivan, Mr. Joseph Picciano, Mr. Robert Reynolds, Mr. Gary Seidenfeld, Mr. Paul Weberg furnished their expertise and counsel throughout this planning process. The Long island Regional Planning Board staff would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the following people, in addi- Acknowledgements tion to FEMA personnel, who contributed information that helped in the preparation of this plan: William Applegate - Village of Massapequa Joyce Baker - Fair Harbor Charles Barnett - Village of Westhampton, Beach Jeremy Barth - Town of Oyster Bay Fredric Benson - Village of Saltaire Bruce Bergman - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NY District John Blankenhorn - Nassau County Police Dept. George Brundage - Town of East Hampton Silvio Calisi - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NY District Gordon Canary - Town of Babylon Carol Canning - Town of Babylon Larry Cantwell - Village of East Hampton Frank Carey - Village of Freeport Everett Chasen - U.S. Avmy Cofps oi Engineers, N.Y. District James Cashel - Fire Island Pines V) i Theodore Conklin - Village of Westhampton Julia Noeldechen - Town of Islip Beach Decker Orr - Village of Quogue Thomas Cramer - Town of Brookhaven Michael Perrone - Village of Lawrence Herbert Davis - Town of Brookhaven Thomas Potter - Village of Ocean Be'ach Mary A.S. Davis - National Weather Service, Gene Romano - Village of Southampton National Hurricane Center Irving Rosenthal - City of Long Beach Rose Davis - Town of Babylon Arthur Roth - Town of East Hampton Edward Deyermond - Town of East Hampton Harold Scully - Village of Island Park G. Ruiz De Zarate - Village of Freeport Beryl Shapiro - Village of Hewlett Harbor Thomas Doheny - Town of Hempstead Gary M. Simonson - Town of Southampton Edward Eaton - City of Long Beach Daryl Ann Smallwood - Village of Cedarhurst David Emilita - Town of Southampton Chris Soller - Fire Island National Seashore Kenneth Feustel - Town of Babylon Robert Spencer - Davis Park Jean Gilman - N.Y.S. Department of Glen Spiritis - City of Long Beach Environmental Conservation Robert Sweeney - Village of Lindenhurst Joseph Goetz - Town of Brookhaven Donald S. Terrell - Suffolk County Gilbert W. Hanse - Village of Babylon Wayne Thompson - Suffolk County Rich Hanington - Town of Babylon Ronald Travis - Town of Babylon Jack Hauptman . Fire Island National Seashore DeWitt C. Treder - Suffolk County Police Dept. Frank Hyland - L.I. State Park & Recreation Donald Weir - Fire Island National Seashore Commission Gabriele Wiener - Village of Atlantic Beach John Jacoby - Town of Brookhaven Roy Wines - Village of Southampton Brian Jarvinen - National Weather Service, Fred Zuckenberg - National Weather Service National Hurricane Center In addition, the staff would like to acknowledge the assistance Kenneth H. Jones - Town of Southampton rendered by the following groups: Charles King - Nassau County Fire Island Association Officers and Board of Directors Pat Klein - Village of Babylon Great South Bay Isles Association, Inc. Hannah Komanoff - City of Long Beach Oak Island Beach Association Martin Lang - Town of Southampton Regional Marine Resources Council Miles Lawrence - National Weather Service, West Gilgo Beach Association National Hurricane Center Michael Limongelli - Town of Hempstead A special note of acknowledgement must be paid to Senator Lisa Liquori - Town of East Hampton Alfonse M. D'Amato who was instrumental in the successful initia- Larry McCormick - Southampton College tion of the grant award from FEMA, and for his continuing interest Richard McGowin - Town of East Hampton and support of the project during the course of investigation. Gordon Moore - Village of Amityville As a resident of the affected area, the Senator has a first-hand Jesse Morris - Cherry Grove knowledge and concern for the successful mitigation of hur- Jo Movshon - Fair Harbor ricane consequences. As a former member of the Long Island John Muuss - Town of Islip Regional Planning Board, in his governmental capacity as Pre- Robert Myers - Nassau County siding Supervisor of the Nassau "Count,, Board of Supervisors, Y Charles J. Neumann - National Weather the Senator has been a staunch and long time supporter of plan- Service, National Hurricane Center ning activities in the region. Viii MASOACHUBETTD KEY TO MUNICIPALITIES IN NASSAUP VILLAGES IN NASSAU COUNTY T-0Hm Nld Ad @11. H..I- N.k :7 W - l'i P.,k 8 Cuh- 13. U.-o. NEW yomic CONNE icu-r Id. L,,,lo-k C7 Elut R= (1-1 ,k 'E. W.- Nmth H-n.,,,1) 16: Rooo, ll@ C-,, 7' 6@ F- 17 Solth F1111 P111, 7@ 7. G ,J,. City St- 8 H pund V,11,y Stm. PUNINDYLVANIA H@_ 74 75 21: mWil, 29. Mai,-k M. B-k@i 1. 30. Mu'l N k ;7 8 N. m 23 1.1-d! ..... 24@ ,l 0 d WookAll. 2S. F,miWd,l@ 33. Oyu., B.y C.- Z. -1-g- 34. Suicliff 27. l-,. H.110. 35. Up- :0 211. Mamou,ut, Purk at 2 .... To.. of N-1, H---d 83 .M: St., , E.-d '51. Old IN-, 337@ E., Hill (OYI,r MY) .0. 8 Eoftwilli (0y"erZY) 8 snowy 52. P n F ... Hill P::,d 4) G=N k -90 P.1-1.: MH`11 I 41. G Nk E- 55. P- MoblMit- N-l, 42 0- Nok PI.. 56 " 43. K dW- 57: 'Rtu'@". E.- .. Kl- Pilt .58.Rd@ V. H,@,r 45. ". u- My- @Y) .. M -h-. S9 R-11 G.. 47. mi..I. 60: Suldlo R.k LOCATION MAP M..- P. k 61 St,d, Poi@t N.. Hd. Puk 62. Th- 94 (H-d..W) 63 . -, 50. No,th Hill, 64: .1111- Puk CITIES IN NASSAU COUNTY 95 65 City of Gl@, C., 66. City of Lo.g 3-h 3 j, e",',z qg, - H.9.0- @y V N;2 2 Pit @Mk 3 61 65 I Olcl- @6. S.ah-. a., 0 0 Is I'a it-0 S'. qd 0, 1@7-j .3 44 '@4 < @4 S),1 E L T E R 2@1 I$ AND 1- py 43 -@4 -,,22 1 "@Ly 'J%.@X SOUTHOLD RIVERHEAD 'OYSTER y :r/ *K,._ cit HUNTINGTON Sill 1.2 V, 3* N.. YbA 631,"'1 BAY 7 IF --I BROOKHAVEN ---------------- 1-@Ij J, ,2 BABYLON It ').MPSTEAD ISLIP SOUTHAIAPTON 77 6 d, 71 -,'I' -13 12 2-1@ A 1, 0 T. o A Nassau and Suffolk Counties-Munkipal Boundaries ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 Introduction ....... . . . .................... 1 1.0 Federal Emergency Management Agency Preparedness Program ... ...................... .......... 1 1. 1 Goals of the Study ............... .............. .............. ..................... 2 1.2 Floodplain Management Approaches ........... . .......................................... 2 1.2.1 The Structural Approach ........ ............... .............. ....... ................ 2 1.2.2 The Do-Nothing Approach ............................................................... 2 1.2.3 The Non-Structural Approach ........................... ................... .... . .... 3 1.2.4 The Approach Taken in This Study ..... .. ........ . . .... ......... .... 3 1.3 Project Work Plan ....................... ...... ..... ................................... 3 1.4 Uses of the Hurricane Damage Mitigation Plan .................................. ............. ... 4 1.4.1 Local Uses .......................................................................... 4 1.4.2 Federal/State Uses ......... ....................................... ................... 4 1.5 References ............................................................................... 5 2 Vulnerability Of The South Shore To Storm Related Damage ........................................... 6 2.0 Introduction . . . @............ ... .. ... ................................................... 6 2.1 The Potential for Disaster .................................................................... 6 2.2 Description of the South Shore ............................................................... 12 2.3 Severe Storms and Their Impacts ............................................................ 19 2.3.1 Frequency of Severe Storms ........................................................... 19 2.3. 1.1 Tropical Cyclone Frequency ...................................................... 19 2.3.1.2 Frequency of Northeasters Causing Shoreline Damage ................................. 24 2.3.1.3 Frequency of Both Tropical Cyclones and Northeasters Causing Shoreline Damage ........... 24 2.3.2 Storm Surge ........................................................................ 24 2.3.2.1 Storm Surges of Major Storms ..................................................... 28 2.3.3 Storm Floods and Flood Insurance Rate Maps .............................................. 37 2.3.3.1 Flood Hazard Zone Base Map ......... ..................................... 40 2.3.4 Storms as Geologic Agents ............................................................. 50 2.4 Sea Level Rise ....................................................... .................... 52 2.5 Land Use by Category in Flood Hazard Zones .................................................... 53 2.6 Inventory and Value of Structures by Land Use Category in Flood Hazard Zones ......................... 59 2.6.1 Introduction ......................................................................... 59 2.6.2 Residential Structures ................................................................ 61 2.6.2.1 Single and Two-family Structures .................................................. 61 2.6.2.2 Multi-family Structures ........................................................... 68 2.6.3 Commercial and Industrial Structures .................................................... 68 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) Chapter Page 2.6.4 Institutional Structures .............. .... . ......... .......................... 70 2.6.5 Marine Commercial Establishments, Boat Slips and Pecreational Boats .......... ............... 70 2.6.6 Hazardous Material Storage Facilities and Sites .... ...................................... 75 2.7 Population at Risk in Flood Hazard Zones .. .................................................... 76 2.8 References .................................. ................................... ....... 80 Appendix 2-A Long Island South Shore Community FIRM Studies ....................................... 82 3 Strategies And Recommendations By Coastal Reach And Detailed Study Area .......................... 84 3.0 Introduction .................................. .......................................... @ 84 3.1 Study Area Selection Procedure .............................................................. 85 3. 1.1 Development of Criteria ............................................................... 85 3.1.2 Study Area Description ............................................................... @86 3.2 Long Beach Barrier Island: Reach Problems and Strategies ......................................... 88 3.2.1 West Long Beach Detailed Study Area .................................................... 91 3.2.1.1 General Description and Problem Statement ......................................... 91 3.2.1.2 West Long Beach Strategies .. .................................................. 92 3.3 Jones Beach Barrier Island: Reach Problems and Strategies . :............... ....................... 103 3.3.1 Gilgo/Oak Beach Detailed Study Area ................................................... 104 3.3.1.1 General Description and Problem Statement ................... ..................... 104 3.3.1.2 Gilgo/Oak Beach Strategies ... ............ .................................... 117 3.4 Fire Island: Reach Problems and Strategies . . ........ ............................ .......... 123 3.4.1 Village of Saltaire to Lonelyville Detailed Study Area ........................................ 124 3.4.1.1 General Description and Problem Statement .............................. ......... 124 3.4.1.2 Village of Saltaire to Lonelyville Strategies ... ... ......... ................ ....... 130 3.5 Westhampton Barrier Island: Reach Problems and Strategies ..... ................................ 134 3.5.1 Westhampton Beach Detailed Study Area ............. .... .................... ... . ..136 3.5. 1.1 General Description and Problem Statement .......... ............................ 136 3.5.1.2 Westhampton Beach Strategies . . @ ............................................... 148 3.6 Shinnecock Inlet to Montauk Point: Reach Problems and Strategies ................................. 154 3.6.1 Napeague Detailed Study Area ............................................. ........ ..155 3.6.1.1 General Description and Problem Statement ........................................ 155 3.6.1.2 Napeague Strategies ....... ............ ........ ....................... 156 3.7 Mainland Shoreline: Reach Problems ......................................................... 163 3.7.1 Mainland Shoreline Reach Strategies ...................................... . . ........ 164 3.7.2 Mastic Beach Detailed Study Area ........................................... .......... 166 3.7.2.1 General Description and Problem Statement ............................... ........ 166 3.7.2.2 Mastic Beach Strategies . @ ...................................................... 166 3.8 References .......................... ....... . ................................... @ 173 Xi I TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) Chapter Page 4 Suggested Modifications To Selected Government Programs ...... . ....................... 174 4.0 Introduction ......................... . ...................... 174 4.1 The National Flood Insurance Program ...... .. . . ................... 174 4.1.1 Hurricane Damage Mitigation and the NFIP ..... ...................... 176 4.2 Coastal Barrier Resources Act ........................ . . . . . .. .................... .178 4.2.1 Suggested Modifications to CBRA ...................................................... 179 4.3 New York State Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act ............................................... 180 4.3.1 Conflicts between the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act and the NFIP. . - ....... 181 4.4 Hurricane Evacuation Problems on the South Shore of Long Island ............ ..... .. . ... ...... 182 4.5 References ................ . .. ... ... ............... 184 5 Analysis Of Federal And State Disaster Assistance Programs ... .................................... 185 5.0 Introduction ......................... ...... .. - - ... ... ......... . . ...... 185 5.1 Survey of Federal and State Disaster Assistance Programs ........................................ 188 5. 1.1 Federal Disaster Assistance Programs ................................................. @ 188 5.1.2 New York State Disaster Assistance Programs . .......................................... 188 5.2 Development of Generic Assistance Needs ................................................ ... 193 5.2.1 Assistance Program Evaluations .............. .................... ................... 193 5.3 References ............................................................................. 193 Glossary Of Acronyms And Selected Terms ..................................................... .195 xii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-1 The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale .......................... . .. ...... ......... ........ 17 2-2 Selected Tropical Cyclones, Long Island ...................... ............. ........ ......... 22 2-3 Selected Northeasters, Long Island ............. ................ ......... - .......... . ... 25 2-4 History of Storm Occurrences, Long Island Region ................... .......... ........ ... ...... 26 2-5 Flood Insurance Zones for Municipalities on the South Shore of Long Island ....... ...... ........... .... 39 2-6 Effects of Hurricanes on the Long Island Shoreline ................... ......... . ..... . ...... 51 2-7 Land Use Classifications - 1981 ................................. . . ........ . .@ 53, 54 2-8 1981 Land Use By Municipality For South Shore Flood Hazard Zones ................................. 55-58 2-9 Number and Value of Single and Two-family Residential Structures in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Nassau County . @ ............... .. ........... 64 2-10 Number and Value of Single and Two-family Residential Structures in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Suffolk County .................. .. .......... 65 2-11 Number and Value of Single and Two-family Residential Structures on the South Shore Barrier Islands of Nassau and Suffolk Counties .......... .... ......... .. 66 2-12 Single and Two-family Residential Value at Risk in the V Zone for South Shore of Long Island ................. 66 2-13 Single and Two-family Residential Value at Risk in the A Zone for South Shore of Long Island ................. 67 2-14 Number and Value of Multi-family Residential Structures in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Long Island . .69 2-15 Floor Space and Value of Commercial and Industrial Structures in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Nassau County ................... . .. ........................ ..................... 71 2-16 Floor Space and Value of Commercial and Industrial Structures in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Suffolk County .................. . . ..................... ......... .................. 72 2-17 Institutional Structures in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Long Island ...... .... ................. 73 2-18 Marine Commercial Facility Counts Within the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Long Island ............ .. 74 2-19 Hazardous Materials Storage Facilities ............... .......................... ........... 75 2-20 Population in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Nassau County .................................... 76 2-21 Year Round Population at Risk in A and V Zones South Shore of Nassau County ........ .................. 77 2-22 Population in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Suffolk County .................................... 78 2-23 Year Round Population at Risk in A and V Zones South Shore of Suffolk County ....................... .... 79 2-24 Seasonal Population at Risk in A and V Zones South Shore of Suffolk County .............................. 80 3-1 Selected Study Area Characteristics ............ ...................... .. . ... 87,88 3-2 Long Beach Reach Strategies ....................................... . .91 3-3 Hurricane and Storm History of Long Beach Barrier Island Since 1938 ..... ........ ............ .... 100 3-4 Long Beach Barrier Island: Shoreline Construction History .............................. ....... 102 3-5 Jones Beach Reach Strategies .................... ... 105 3-6 Structures and Vacant Lots on Barrier Island and Bay Islands in Town of Babylon .................. ...... 118 3-7 Property Taxes and Lease Fees for Lots on Barrier Island and Bay Islands in Town of Babylon ............... 120 xiii LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.) Table Page 3-8 Average Property Tax/Structu re on Barrier Island and Bay Islands in Town of Babylon ...................... 120 3-9 1983-1984 Property Tax Contributions of Leaseholders on Barrier Island and Bay Islands in Town of Babylon .... 121 3-10 Schedule of Rents for Lots Leased by Town of Babylon on Barrier and Bay Islands ......................... 122 3-11 Fire Island Reach Strategies ................................................................... 125 3-12 Westhampton Barrier Island Reach Strategies ..................................................... 136 3-13 Population at Risk in the Westhampton Beach Detailed Study Area ..................................... 137 114 Westhampton Barrier Island: Shoreline Construction History ......................................... 151 3-15 Full Value Assessment of Land and Improvements in the Westhampton Beach Detailed Study Area ........... 153 3-16 Property Tax Contributions of Homes in Westhampton Beach Detailed Study Area ........................ 153 3-17 Shinnecock to Montauk Reach Strategies ........................................................ 155 3-18 1983-84 Property Tax Contributions of Leaseholders at Lazy Point, Town of East Nampton .................. 162 5-1 Index of Federal Aid Programs Targeted to Mitigation and Recovery Activities ............................ 190 5-2 Index of Emergency Federal Aid Programs and Applicable Non-Disaster Related Assistance Programs .... 191,192 5-3 Federal Disaster Assistance Programs and Assistance Needs ........................................ 193 Xiv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2rl Pre- and post-storm aerials-Sept. 1938 hurricane, vicinity West End Bridge (Jessup La.) Westhampton Beach ... 8, 9 2-2 Pre- and post-storm aerials-Sept. 1938 hurricane, vicinity of Moriches Inlet, Westhampton ................ 10,11 2-3 Westhampton-Coast Guard Dock east of Moriches Inlet ................ .............................. 1 3 2-4 Westhampton Beach-Barrier beach seen from southern end of West End Bridge (Jessup Lane) ............... 1 3 2-5 Westhampton Beach-West End Bridge (Jessup Lane) ................................................ 1 4 2-6 Westhampton Beach-Jessup Lane, near bay ....................................................... 1 4 2-7 Westhampton Beach-Main Street ............................................................... 1 5 2-8 Westhampton Beach-Main Street ............................................................... 1 5 2-9 Westhampton Beach-Main Street ............................................................... 1 6 2-10 Westhampton Beach-South Rd. Bridge over Beaverdam Creek ........................................ 1 6 2-11 Hurricanes passing within 50 nautical miles of Long Island, N.Y. 40.7'N. 73.0'W. 1886-1982 . ................ 20 2-12 Tropical storms and hurricanes passing within 50 nautical miles of Long Island, N.Y. 40.7 ON. 73.0 OW. 1886-1982 .21 2-13 Expected number of tropical storms and hurricanes per 1 00 years impacting the Long Island region. . . . @ . @ ..... 23 2-14 Point O' Woods, Fire Island-Destruction resulting from Northeast storm of March 6-8, 1962 .................. 28 2-15 Fire Island-Property damage after Northeast storm of March 6-8, 1962 .................................. 29 2-16 Aerial photo prior to March 6-8 1962 Northeast storm showing location of a breach in the barrier island and the structures destroyed and corresponding oblique aerial photo showing breach caused by the storm . .31 2-17 Storm Flood Elevations-Hurricane of 21 September 1938 ......... ................................... 32 2-18 Storm Flood Elevations-Northeaster of 25 November 1950 ............................................ 33 2-19 Storm Flood Elevations-Hurricane Carol, 31 August 1954 @ ............. .34 2-20 Storm Flood Elevations-Hurricane Donna, 12 September 1960 ........................................ 35 2-21 Storm Flood Elevations-Northeaster of 6-8 March 1962 .............................................. 36 2-22 Relationship of shoreline topography and flood elevation as shown by a typical coastal transect ............... 38 2-23 South Shore of Nassau and Suffolk Counties showing the A and V zones as per the FIRM's ................ 40-49 2-24 Deaths and Damages from Hurricanes in the United States (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1972; Herbert and Taylor, 1983) ................................................ 59 2-25 Municipalities and Census Designated Places (ODP's)-1980 .... .......... ............ .62, 63 3-1 Coastal Reaches and Detailed Study Areas of Long Island's South Shore within Nassau and Suffolk Counties .... 89 3-2 Atlantic Beach-View of boardwalk, high density development, and groins ................................ 90 3-3 Long Beach-High density development along the shoreline ........................................... 90 3-4 W. Long Beach-High density single and two family housing typifies the area .............................. 92 3-5 Detailed Study Aerials-West Long Beach ....................................................... 93-95 3-6 FIRM map for West Long Beach (prepared by FEMA, Dec. 1, 1983) ...................................... 96 3-7 A portion of the Sanitary Sewer map for the City of Long Beach (prepared Dec. 1982) ....................... 97 3-8 A WPA map of West Long Beach showing elevations relative to MSL (prepared Dec. 26, 1934) .............. @ .98 3-9 W. Long Beach-View of the shoreline showing lack of protective dunes .................................. 99 3-10 Point Lookout-illustration of an active dune protection and maintenance program ......................... 101 3-11 Oak Beach-Concrete rubble for shore protection near Fire Island Inlet .................................. 104 3-12 Lido Beach-An example of dune cross-over walk ................................................... 105 Xv LIST OF FIGURES (cont1d.) Figure Page 3-13 Detailed Study Aerials-Gilgo/Oak Beach ........................... ........... . . .......... 106-114 3-14 W. Gilgo Beach-Typical housing ......................................... .... ... ...... .... 115 3-15 Gilgo Beach-Typical housing .............. .... .......... ... .................... ........ 115 3-16 Oak Beach-Shoreline housing ................ ..................... .... .................... 116 3-17 Captree Island-Shoreline housing ...... ............................... ....................... 116 3-18 Oak Island-Flood waters surrounding houses ............. ................ .. ..... .... ....... 117 3-19 Gilgo Beach-Expansion of habitable floor space below flood elevation in the V Zone ....................... 119 3-20 Robbins Rest/Corneille Estates- New housing build in vulnerable location ........... .................... 123 3-21 Lonelyville-Eroded oceanfront dunes ............................................................ 124 3-22 Dunewood-Oceanfront housing with little or no dune remaining ....................................... 126 3-23 Detailed Study Aerials-Village of Saltaire to Lonelyville, Fire Island ................................. 127-129 3-24 Fair Harbor-Attempt to stem shoreline erosion through use of snow fencing ............................. 131 3-25 Saltaire-Rows of snow fencing line beach in attempt to halt shoreline erosion ............................ 131 3-26 Westhampton Beach-Oceanfront homes rendered inaccessible during the northeast storm of 29 March 1984 ..134 3-27 Westhampton Beach-Oceanfront homes west of the last westerly groin that are extensively vulnerable to storm induced flooding ................................................................ @ 135 3-28 Westhampton Beach-House damaged by storm ................................................... 135 3-29 Extensive dune line recession and overwash of the barrier at Westhampton Beach resulting from the February 1978 Northeast storm .......................................................... 138 3-30 Detailed Study Aerials-Westhampton Beach ........... .................................... . 139-143 3-31 Aerial of Moriches Inlet-September 23, 1947 ................ ..................................... 144 3-32 Aerial of Moriches Inlet-May 17, 1961 ........................................................... 145 3-33 Aerial of Moriches Inlet-April 8, 1974 ................................................ ........... 146 3-34 Aerial of Moriches Inlet-March 4, 1980 .......................................................... 147 3-35 Westhampton Beach-Damaged house on beach in Subsection 1 ................................... .. 149 3-36 Westhampton Beach-Attempt by shorefront residents to protect homes f rom wave action .................. 149 3-37 Westhampton Beach-View of Dune Rd. west of the last groin prior to the northeast storm of 29 March 1984 .... 150 3-88 Westhampton Beach-Homes on bay side of Dune Rd ......................................... .... . 150 3-39 Oceanfront houses built behind dunes fronting on narrow beach ....................................... 154 3-40 Detailed Study Aerials-Napeague ........................................................... 157-160 3-41 Lazy Point-Seasonal housing having habitable floor space below base flood elevation ..................... 161 3-42 Napeague-Oceanfront motel undergoing conversion to individual ownership . @ .................. ....... 161 3-43 Long Beach-Residential development fronting on canals typifies much of the south shore of Nassau and western Suffolk Counties .............................................................. 165 3-44 Island Park-Low lying housing fronting on a canal .................... . .... .................... 165 3-45 Detailed Study Aerials-Mastic Beach ........................................................ 167-171 3-46 Mastic Beach-Views of shoreline showing extensive wetland's and scattered residential development .. ...... 172 3-47 Mastic Beach .............................................................................. 172 5-1 The President's Disaster Relief Program ................................................ .... 186,187 xv i Long Island is highly vulnerable to the occurrence of a hur. ricane disaster of immense proportions. The data and informa- tion in this hurricane damage mitigation plan for the Island's south shore substantiate this ominous prediction. The concept for this plan was originally developed by the Long Island Regional Planning Board's Marine Resources Council in its report, Guidelines for Long Island Coastal Management, published over a decade ago, Hurricanes and northeast storms are not rare events in the history of Long Island. National Weather Service data indicate that the Island has been directly impacted by seven hurricanes and 15 tropical storms since 1886. Northeast storms causing significant water-related damage occur nearly every year. Unusually severe storms occur in the area about three times every century. Coastal areas on Long Island have -experienced dramatic resi- dential and commercial development and change in recent years. As a result, the Island's south shore is far more vulnerable Preface to storm-related damage and potential loss of life today than it was 46 years ago when the devastating hurricane of September 21, 1938 destroyed Westhampton Beach and other shoreline communities. This is despite the fact that early warning systems and hurricane forecasting techniques are now in place, and shoreline communities currently participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. The extent to which damage will occur from a hurricane will depend upon many factors, including magnitude of the storm, its duration, and other characteristics, The time and location of hur^ ricane landfall cannot be predicted with certainty. What is cer- tain, however, is that the damage and suffering will be stagger- ing, and even worse, the event will occur in the future. Long Island has the potential to become the next site of the Nation's costliest hurricane disaster! The implementation of the strategies and government pro- gram modifications recommended in this plan will help to mitigate and reduce storm-related damage and suffering by im- proving development practices in the floodplain. Implementation opportunities exist as development occurs, as well as after severe storm occurrence during the re-development process. In this sense, the plan provides examples of how to integrate hur- ricane preparedness concerns into the coastal land use planning process at the local level. XV] I There is a real and present threat of a hurricane impacting the highly developed South shore of Long Island. Recognizing this threat, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEIVIA), Region 11 provided funds for the Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) to develop a plan which, if implemented, would minimize the loss of life and property in flood-prone areas. The area chosen for study is the 100-year storm tidal flood- plain along the south shore of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, as identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) prepared under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). While inland areas may suffer wind and rain damage during severe storm events, the most devastating impacts of such storms occur along coastal areas- especially barrier islands-where flooding and wave action add to the destruction caused by high winds. In developing the recommendeck strategies and program mod- ifications of the plan, the LIRPI3 was guided by the following Executive Summary study goals: � minimize the potential loss of life � preserve and protect areas in their natural state that are vulnerable to flooding during severe storms � minimize adverse economic impacts resulting from severe storm floods � minimize future government expenditures for post- storm disaster recovery assistance � discourage redevelopment of areas subject to severe flood loss when the public benefits of doing so (i.e., protection of life, property and government investment, and/or provision of recreational opportunity) outweigh the positive aspects of private coastal occupancy, such as local economic impacts and the amenities of shore- line living. The recommended strategies of the plan provide a set of guidelines for development and post-storm redevelopment, em- phasizing the techniques of floodplain management. Those emergency activities undertaken immediately before and after severe storm events-the issuance of hurricane warnings, evacuating people from flood-prone areas, search and rescue operations-are not the focus of this study. The information and strategies presented in this plan are in- tended to be used by those groups, e.g., local planning boards, that are not specifically concerned with hurricane preparedness, xviii as well as by those who deal with this topic on a regular basis. In event of a major storm event, rather than projections of actual addition, this document will prove useful to the work of the flood damages. It should be noted that personal property, inven- Federal Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation Team (HMT) in tories and public investments, e.g., infrastructure, are not in- the preparat,ion of its Hazard Mitigation Report after the occur- cluded in these estimates. rence of a storm disaster. The 1980 population in Nassau County's 100-year floodplain The vulnerability of the south shore to severe storm events is consists of 74,879 year-round residents and an additional 750 documented in Chapter 2. The probability that at least one seasonal residents. In Suffolk County there are 34,818 year- tropical storm will impact the Long Island area during the next 10 round residents and an additional 34,344 seasonal residents. years ranges from 0.85 to 0.96, indicating the high likelihood of In 1980, there were nearly 110,000 year-round residents in the such an event in the next decade. The probability that at least 100-year floodplain along the south shore of Nassau and Suffolk one storm of hurricane magnitude will impact this area in this counties. In the summer, an additional 35,000 residents are time period is slightly less, ranging from 0.5 to 0.8. Northeast found in resort communities along the shore. All of these people storms can also cause significant coastal impacts; in a given would be subject to the high winds, waves and flooding asso- year there is roughly an 80% chance that a northeast storm will ciated with severe storms. occur that causes significant water-related damage in New York. Chapter 3 presents the recommended strategies for six south On the average, unusually severe storms occur in the region shore coastal reaches and detailed study areas. They offer solu- about three times a century. tions to both short-term and long-term problems regarding devel- Characteristics of significant tropical cyclone and northeast opment and redevelopment of coastal areas. One major strategy storm events impacting Long Island are included in this plan. that is applicable to all flood hazard areas is the need for com- Most of the damage to shoreline development in severe storms munities to adopt provisions for instituting temporary develop- results from storm surge flooding. Along the south shore, tide ment moratoria in flood zones during post-storm periods. Such elevations associated with the 1 00-year tidal floodplain range up moratoria will allow communities to temper the immediate post- to 18 tt above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), de- storm desire to rebuild structures as quickly as possible, and pending upon location and topography. give them time to implement redevelcipment plans that would The acreage of various types of land use in the 100-year flood- mitigate recurring storm damage. plain is presented. The south shore tidal floodplain comprises The strategies listed for each reach include recommendations 69,701 acres; approximately one-third of the floodplain is located in the areas of erosion and flood control measures, land use and within the V zone, and thus is subject to both flooding and wave development patterns, land acquisition strategies, environmen- action. There are 6,658 acres of vacant property in the 100-year tal regulations, the National Flood Insurance Program and other floodplain. The predominant land uses are residential and regulatory programs, and evacuation, warning and public educa- recreation. tion. Reach strategies have been applied to the detailed study The value of structures and population at risk in the south areas on a site-specific basis. The detailed study areas typify the shore A and V zones was determined. The results indicate a total characteristics and most severe flooding and development prob- single and two-family residential structural value in the south lems of the reach. The following is a brief synopsis of the recom- shore floodplain of over $3 billion. Structures in the V zone ac- mendations for each reach and its respective detailed study count for over $300 million of this total-, most of these are located area: on Long Island's five south shore barrier islands. The total value REACH #1 -Long Beach Barrier Island of multi-family residential structures was estimated at $62 Long Beach Island is dominated by artificial shore protection million. The structural value of commercial and industrial build- structures, such as groins and jetties; land use is characterized by ings in the floodplain was estimated at $140 million. These high density development. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) values are indicative of the potential structural value at risk in the designate the City of Long Beach outside of the 100-year flood- xiX plain. However, topographic maps and prior flooding events indi- Development/redevelopment should be prohibited within a cate that the 100-year floodplain boundary may be incorrectly uniform, dynamic dune district. drawn. Thus, it is strongly recommended that FEMA re-map the DETAILED STUDY AREA: Village of Saltaire to Lonelyville (Town Long Beach barrier island in order to correct this inadequacy. of Islip) DETAILED STUDYAREA: West Long Beach (Cityof Long Beachl Due to long-term shoreline erosion, only the landward flank of Town of Hempstead) the dunes remains to protect these communities. Should a It is recommended that the beach be maintained through a significant number of oceanfront houses be damaged or des- program of beach nourishment, and the existing groins repaired troyed in a storm event, Saltaire and the Town of Islip should pro- and strengthened. Should homes be destroyed in a storm event, hibit the rebuilding of these houses in the same location, and in- extension of the man-made dune system, which is present to the stead encourage the clustering of development at less vulner- west, should be considered in conjunction with the clustering of able inland locations. The possibility of using certain FINS residential units away from the ocean or bay shorelines. parcels for post-storm redevelopment should be explored. REACH #2-Jones Beach Barrier Island REACH #4 -Westhampton Barrier Island Jones Beach Island is designated on FIRIVIs as almost entirely The most significant problem along this reach is the severe within the V zone, and is subject to intense wave and flooding ef- erosion along the ocean shoreline of the unincorporated portion fects in the event of a storm. The entire reach is publicly owned of Westhampton Beach. New inlets or breaches of the barrier and is used predominantly for recreational uses; however, there island caused by storms should be closed on an emergency are residential areas at West Gilgo Beach, Gilgo Beach, Oak basis. Should the site of a new inlet include private property, Beach, Oak Island and Captree Island where individuals and such property should be condemned prior to repair to prevent leaseholder associations have leased land from the Town of future development on a vulnerable area. Babylon and constructed private houses. It is recommended that DETAILED STUDY AREA: Westhampton Beach (Town of Town owned land, currently leased to private homeowners, Southampton) should eventually be returned to public recreational use and Solutions to the erosion problems at Westhampton Beach natural resource protection. must involve a combination of structural and non-structural DETAILED STUDY AREA: GilgolOak Beach (Town of Babylon) measures. Non-structural strategies include the public acquisi- The Town of Babylon should not grant new leases or permit tion of properties after substantial structural damage occurs. additional construction on leased property in these now pre- This strategy should be instituted over the short-term. dominantly year-round residential areas. In addition, the Town REACH #5-Shinnecock Inlet to Montauk Point should never sell this publicly owned land to current or future There are few erosion control structures along the shoreline of leaseholders or private interests. Accommodations for public ac- the easternmost reach of the study area. The remaining vacant cess and additional recreational facilities should be expanded on parcels in the flood hazard areas are subject to extensive these Town owned properties as required. pressure for new residential and commercial development. A REACH #3 -Fire Island major strategy for this reach includes minimizing public in- Fire Island has a predominantly natural shoreline, an exten- vestments for beach stabilization. Any inlets which form at sive but irregular dune system, 20 private residential summer Napeague should be closed. Public open space should be ex- communities, and a large wilderness area owned by the Federal panded in locations vulnerable to overwash and flood damage. government as part of the Fire Island National Seashore (FINS). DETAILED STUDY AREA: Napeague (Town of East Hampton) There should be a limit to public expenditures on Fire Island for The structures located on Napeague Bay between Cherry artificial shoreline maintenance, except where it may be Point and Lazy Point are highly vulnerable to flooding., It should necessary to close or prevent the opening of a new inlet. be public policy to severely limit any additional development in Xx this area, and to phase out housing on lands owned by the Town pose a building moratorium in instances of large-scale storm of East Hampton Trustees. This land could then be retained for damage. Finally, FEMA, in cooperation with the National public access and recreational use. Weather Service, should expand the tidal gauge network on Long REACH #6-Mainland and Bay Island Areas Island, to provide expanded data and improved forecast and The mainland coastal reach is characterized by extensive warning capabilities. residential development. Many houses in the A zone were built at grade or below and have experienced repeated flooding. It may COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT (CBRA) be cost-effective to raise these structures above the base flood The CBRA prohibits Federal expenditures on and financial elevation. FEMA should examine the long-term benefits of pro- assistance (in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, and in- viding a grant or loan for such purposes. surance) for development of coastal barriers, or portions thereof, DETAILED STUDY AREA: Mastic Beach (Town of Brookhaven) which are not presently developed. Under CBRA, an undevel- The scattered residences suffering repeated flood damage oped coastal barrier can not be designated if it is otherwise pro- that are located immediately adjacent to wetlands should be tected, such as those areas held by a government agency or removed and relocated to suitable inland locations owned by the qualified group for wildlife refuge or natural resource conserva- Town of Brookhaven or Suffolk County. tion purposes. It has been recommended that the Federal gov- Chapter 4 presents an analysis and suggested modifications ernment include the otherwise protected are 'as within CBRA for three government programs which critically affect develop- and, thereby, eliminate Federal expenditures on and financial ment and post-storm redevelopment along Long Island's south assistance for c1dvelopment of privately owned properties that shore floodplain. The following is a brief summary of these pro- are within the boundaries of conservation areas. grams and recommended changes. NEW YORK STATE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS ACT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM The objective of the New York State Coastal Erosion Hazard The Federal government should modify the NFIP to phase out Areas Act is to prohibit certain activities and construction in flood insurance in V zones. Current policy holders whose struc- designated erosion hazard areas. Implementation of this legisla- tures are damaged greater than 50% of structural value, should tion would be facilitated if monies are made available to receive a final payment equal to the full value of their structures, localities for the purchase of certain properties in erosion hazard up to the policy limit, if they agree not to rebuild in the V zone. If areas. Sources of funding would include the presently defunct they elect to rebuild in the same V zone location, payments constructive total loss program and section 1362 of the NFIP. would reflect actual structural damage, but further NFIP cover- Chapter 5 reviews various Federal and New York State pro- age would no longer be available. In addition, FEMA should grams which provide emergency assistance and recovery aid. A delineate the boundaries of the flood zones with greater preci- guide was prepared that shows which Federal aid programs may sion on the FIRMs. It is also recommended that NFIP floodplain potentially be utilized for various types of mitigation and recovery management criteria be amended to require communities to im- actions, and which programs can be expected to meet various types of disaster assistance needs following a major storm. Xxi 1.0 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM Hurricanes are perhaps the most awesome and potentially destructive of all natural phenomena. For residents of coastal areas which must co-exist with the threat of hurricanes and coastal storms, there are a variety of responses available to reduce, or mitigate, the destructive forces of these storms. Federal, State and local governments have developed a wide range of mitigation actions including: � structural measures (e.g., construction of dunes, seawalls, coastal protection structures, channel and in- let stabilization) � improvement of structures and facilities at risk through Chapter I.... use of building codes that reflect the hazards of coastal occupancy and require, for example, floodproofing � non-structural measures, such as identification of hazard-prone areas and standards for prohibited or restricted use (e.g., floodplain regulations, hazard mitigation plans) � loss recovery and relief programs (e.g., insurance, n r o u c t o n disaster grants and housing, low interest loans) � hazard warning and population protection (e.g., emergency preparedness programs and training, public information, evacuation, relocation). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEIVIA) has primary responsibility for the implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program (N Fl P), the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, and other programs of support to State and local governments that are designed to improve emergency planning, prepared- ness, mitigation response, and recovery capabilities in a disaster or emergency situation. FEIVIA's Disaster Preparedness Assistance Program provides financial assistance for the development of preparedness plans for hurricanes (and other types of natural disasters) in high-risk, high-population areas (44 CFR Part 300.6). The objective of this program is to prepare plans and capabilities for achieving better response to the threat or consequences of hurricanes in high risk areas. The Long Island/New Jersey barrier coast was identified by FEIVIA as one of the hurricane-prone areas nationwide which could benefit through the development of a preparedness plan. A proposal submitted to FEIVIA by the Long Island Regional Plan- ning Board (LIRPB) for the preparation of a hurricane damage mitigation plan for the south shore of Nassau and Suffolk Coun- The emphasis on floodplain management reflects the LIRPB's ties was approved and funded by FEIVIA, Region 11; work on the expertise in land use and coastal development issues on Long plan was initiated by the LlRPB in January, 1983. Island. Those emergency activities 'undertaken immediately before and after severe storm events-the issuance of hur- 1.1 GOALS OF THE STUDY ricane, warnings, evacuating people from flood-prone areas, The strategies and program modifications recommended in search and rescue operations, provision of emergency housing this plan were developed hy the LIRPB to mitigate damage by and medical care-are not the focus of this plan. Work on the identifying actions that should be taken before, and in response plan was, however, coordinated with those agencies responsible to, the occurrence of a hurricane or severe northeast storm for emergency activities on Long Island. disaster in the Nassau-Suffolk region. The recommended strat- egies and program modifications were prepared in light of the 1.2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPROACHES following study goals: 1.2.1 The Structural Approach. There have been a variety of � minimize the potential loss of life � preserve and protect areas in their natural state that approaches taken by Federal, State and local governments to are vulnerable to flooding during severe storms reduce flood-related losses on public and private lands in the � minimize adverse economic impacts resulting from United States. Throughout the 1950's and 1960's, structural severe storm floods flood control works such as levees, seawalls, hurricane barriers � minimize future government expenditures for post- and channel improvements, were constructed by the U.S. Army storm disaster recovery assistance Corps of Engineers (COE). COE projects in coastal areas were � discourage redevelopment of areas subject to severe designed to stabilize the shores of large bodies of water where flood loss when the public benefits of doing so (i.e., wave action is the principal cause of erosion (U.S. Army Corps of protection of life, property and government investment, Engineers, 1973: 1-1). They have been criticized for causing and/or provision of recreational opportunity) outweigh adverse environmental effects, and encouraging additional un- the positive aspects of private coastal occupancy, such as local economic impacts and the amenities of wise coastal development by creating a false sense of protection shoreline living. and security from storms. In fact, despite a federal investment of over $10 billion in structural flood control measures since 1946, In order to achieve these goals, this plan identifies flood average annual flood losses have continued to increase (U.S. hazard areas; estimates the population, and number and value of Water Resources Council, 1979). structures at risk; recommends land use alternatives for both future coastal development and the redevelopment which would 1.2.2 The Do-Nothing Approach. A different response to the occur in the wake of a 100-year storm event; and analyzes Fed- threat of coastal storms and erosion is the do-nothing or eral, State and local legislation, ordinances and regulations to laissez-faire approach predicated on the philosophy that determine their potential impact on the development or redevel- coastal storms and shoreline erosion should be accepted as in- opment of coastal flood hazard areas. The recommended evitable. Under this philosophy, coastal systems would be allowed strategies provide a set of guidelines for development and post- to function naturally without any interference, and structures storm redevelopment-, the recommended program modifications subject to damage or destruction from erosion or coastal storms would adjust government agency actions and regulatory ac- would not be protected by structural flood control measures. The tivities. If utilized and adopted, the recommendations would ad- do-nothing approach is advocated by those who feel that struc- just the private and public sector response to severe storm tural measures often cost more than the value of property to be events so as to make it more compatible with the goals outlined protected, and that once the structural protection route is above. chosen, it must be followed and maintained indefinitely. 2 1.2.3 The Non-Structural Approach. In the past decade, 9 Land use and the intensity of development vary along governmental agencies have recognized that attempts to stabi- the Long Island south shore lize inherently dynamic coastal shorelines have sometimes re- 9 The shoreline itself varies in form as well as response sulted in ever increasing costs. Instead of adopting the do- to erosion/accretion processes nothing approach, though, a number of non-structural floodplain * Agency and municipal programs and controls pertain- management measures have been developed for use in place of, ing to the shoreline differ in content as well as or in conjunction with, structural flood control works. Federal in- philosophy. itiatives such as the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Section 406 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, and Executive Orders 11296 and 11988 (Floodplain Management), all direct at- tention to the use of non-structural floodplain regulations to reduce flood losses. 1.3 PROJECT WORK PLAN The work plan for this study involved the preparation of 10 selbarate technical reports based on four discrete tasks. The 1.2.4. The Approach Taken in This Study. A successful tasks and task reports are identified below: floodplain management program must incorporate a wide variety of available mitigation measures, which must be screened to TASK 1 -CONDUCT VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS TO identify those appropriate to a particular location and set of cir- DETERMINE HURRICANE LOSSES cumstances. The LIRPB recognizes that a hurricane damage Task 1.A Report- Characteristics and Impacts of mitigation plan for a high risk, high population area, such as the Historical Storm Events south shore of Long Island, must strike a balance among preser- Task 11.13 Report- Identification of Flood Hazard Zones vation, development, and restoration interests. Conflicts involv- Task 1.C Report- Inventory of Land Use by Acreage in ing these interests are inherent in the management of the Flood Hazard Zones coastal zone, where it is the national policy to preserve, protect, Task 1.D Report- Inventory of Structures by Land Use develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance coastal zone Category in Flood Hazard Zones resources (Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, P.L.92-583, Task 1.E Report- Value of Structures by Land Use Sec. 303). Category and Population at Risk in The LIRPB has attempted to tailor a combination of floodplain Flood Hazard Zones management strategies for the south shore of Long Island based TASK 2-DEVELOP HURRICANE CONTINGENCY PLAN on a site specific analysis of: RECOMMENDATIONS a the hurricane threat and vulnerability to damages Task 2.A Report- Objectives, Strategies and Applicable * the condition of the natural system and its ability to NYS Coastal Policies buffer storm effects * the extent of coastal development Task 2.13 Report- Draft Strategies and Recommendations * developmental trends by Coastal Reach and Detailed Study Non-structural mitigation measures are emphasized, but struc- Area tural solutions are sometimes recommended where the public Task 2.C Report- Analysis of Federal and State Disaster benefit clearly outweighs the short- and long-term costs. The site Assistance Programs specific recommendations in this report reflect an accommoda- TASK 3-PUBLIC PARTICIPATION tion of different concerns, and reflect three important facts. Task 3 Report- Public Participation 3 TASK 4-FINAL REPORT This document will also prove useful to the work of the Inter- Task 4 Report- Hurricane Damage Mitigation Plan for agency Regional Hazard Mitigation Team (HMT) in the prepara- the South Shore of Nassau and Suffolk tion of its Hazard Mitigation Report after the occurrence of a Counties, New York storm disaster. This inter-agency task force is mobilized in the event of a Presidential ly-declared disaster, and the report it This plan document constitutes the Task 4 report, which incor- subsequently prepares is incorporated by FEMA and various porates information from the nine previous task reports. In addi- Federal agencies in post-storm funding decisions. The purpose tion, a supplemental report on hurricane evacuation problems of this Federal effort is to target post-disaster Federal investment along the south shore was prepared, excerpts of which are in- so that future flood losses are reduced. cluded within this final report. Much of the background information required by the HIVIT in the preparation of its Hazard Mitigation Report is contained herein. Ways in which this study can assist the HIVIT include the 1.4 USES OF THE HURRICANE DAMAGE following: MITIGATION PLAN HMT members will need to be familiar with local 1.4.1 Local Uses. The information and strategies presented in mitigation opportunities and local issues. The 15-day this study are intended to be used by those groups, e.g., local time period alloted for the report preparation is too planning boards, that are not specifically concerned with hur- short to permit thorough evaluation without advance knowledge of the problem areas and potential mitiga- ricane preparedness, as well as by those who deal with this topic tion alternatives. This report provides a range of on a regular basis. This document should help to instill an in- potential and recommended site-specific mitigation creased awareness among the general population and citizen alternatives. groups of the vulnerability of Long Island to hurricanes and coastal storms, the costs of coastal development, and the oppor- The HIVIT handbook of common procedures (FEMA, tunities available to mitigate future damages. Local governments 1981) states that mitigation recommendations are more can use the recommendations of this report to initiate changes in likely to be accepted if the states and communities coastal land use affecting both continuing development and post- have already considered mitigation opportunities. This storm redevelopment, thereby protecting their citizens, and study will be made available to Long Island municipal- minimizing the social, economic and environmental costs of hur- ities, giving them the opportunity to evaluate recom- mended strategies in terms of consistency with local ricanes and coastal storms. This document is not intended to be community plans and programs. a detailed blueprint for a hurricane preparedness program, but rather a broad menu which presents a range of hurricane Following a Presidential disaster declaration, the HIVIT damage mitigation opportunities. sends an advance team into the affected areas to ob- tain information on damages, vulnerability and mitiga- 1.4.2 Federal/State Uses. The applicability of this study to tion opportunities. The team needs insight into the Federal and State damage mitigation/disaster assistance efforts amounts, types and causes of flooding in order to is twofold. First, suggested modifications are offered for select areas for implementation of mitigation actions selected government programs. These recommendations for that will result in the greatest potential to reduce future flood losses. change are intended to correct inadequacies or inconsistencies in the programs. 4, This study contains a series of maps, an analysis of vulnerability, 1.5 REFERENCES and an identification of potential mitigation opportunities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981. Flood hazard study, then, is a primary source of information and ideas for the mitigation: handbook of common procedures- interagency HMT in its deliberations. In fact, the task reports prepared under hazard mitigation teams. Report No. FEMA-14. Washington, the contract for this study were utilized by the Region 11 In- D.C. teragency Hazard Mitigation Team in preparing it!3 Hazard Miti- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1973. Shore protection manual, gation Report in response to the 28-30 March 1984 northeast Vol. 1. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. Fort storm and subsequent Presidential declaration of emergency. Belvoir, Virginia. Overall, the conclusions of the HIVIT report were in agreement U.S. Water Resources Council. 1979. A unified national program with the strategies contained in this study. for floodplain management. Washington, D.C. 5 2.0 INTRODUCTION This section presents an overview of the susceptibility of the Long Island south shore to severe storm events. The term storm event as used in this study refers not only to the meteorological characteristics of a storm, but also its associated floodplain im- pacts, including structural damage. The nature of the impacts of severe storms in terms of the flood hazard, and as a modifier of coastal landforms, is described. Tropical and extratropical storm frequency data, and information on storm surges have been re- viewed and summarized. While it is true that inland areas suffer damage from severe storm events as a result of high winds and heavy rains, the most devastating impacts of such storms occur along coastal areas Chapter 2. where flooding and wave action add to the destruction caused by high winds. For this reason, the geographic scope of the hur- ricane damage mitigation plan for the south shore of Nassau and Suffolk Counties will be limited to the 100-year storm tidal flood- plain. This floodplain has been identified through the use of F/ood Vulnerability of the Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) studies that predict the area to be flooded by the 1 00-year storm tide with added wave effects; it is South Shore to shown on the flood hazard zone base map for this study. The exposure of the Long Island south shore to flood and Storm Related Damage erosion-related damages associated with severe storm occur- rence is described by an analysis of land use and demography in the study area. Land use by type in the study area has been tabulated in order to show the extent to which the exposure to damage can be increased in the future through the development of available vacant land. The number of structures of various types located in the study area has been tabulated; structural values have been estimated in order to define a notion of proper- ty values that could be at risk in the event of a storm. Similarly, population-both year-round and seasonal within the south shore floodplain-has also been tabulated to reflect the issues of public health and safety during a severe storm. 2.1 THE POTENTIAL FOR DISASTER The devastating impact of the hurricane of September 21, 1938 on Long Island and in New England has been documented in several sources, including Allen (1976), Andrews (1938), Works Progress Administration (1938) and Clowes (1939). The memories and personal accounts of this storm help to point out 6 the fact that the south shore of Long Island today is more vulnerable to storm-related damages and potential loss of life than it was in 1938, despite the fact that early warning systems and hurricane forecasting techniques are in place. To confirm this, one has only to examine and compare existing development along the south shore of Long Island to that found in 1938 (Figs. 2-1, 2-2). As the years go by, Long Island is approaching the time when a disaster of immense proportions in terms of property Figure 2-1 (Pages 8, 9) destruction will occur. The following quotations reflect the nature Pre-storm aerial (circa 1931-1933) vicinity of West End Bridge of this natural disaster as it occurred at Westhampton Beach in (Jessup La.) Westhampton Beach 1938. Soon after three o'clock the situation on the beaches Post-storm aerial (Sept. 1938) of the same area showing the became critical, especially on that long strip from Shin- breach of the barrier beach at several locations and necock Bay to Moriches Inlet where the dunes were destruction of houses. mostly low and had at their backs a succession of bays and canals. And, as the storm approached from a bit west of south and the trend of the coast eastwards is a little north of east, the center reached Westhampton before it did points farther east, [sic]. By three the sea there was all over the beaches and beating and breaking at the foot of the dunes. By half-past three it was break- ing over and through the dunes at many places and sometime toward four o'clock the final catastrophe oc- curred. Before the onslaught of that terrible tide, itself perhaps ten to fifteen feet above the normal height and crested with breakers towering fifteen feet higher or Figure 2-2 (Pages 10, 11) more, the whole barrier of the dunes crumbled and went (Top) Pre-storm aerial (circa 1931-1933) prior to the creation of down save for here and there where a higher dune or a Moriches Inlet - Westhampton strong bulkhead held. In a few minutes along the stretch of beach from Quogue village to Moriches Inlet there re- (Bottom) Post-storm aerial (Sept. 1938) showing the breach of mained of 179 summer homes only 26 battered shells of the barrier beach and formation of Moriches Inlet houses of which hardly a dozen will ever be habitable - Westhampton again. (Clowes, 1939: 9-10) Shortly before four the dunes gave way before the terri- ble force of the roaring surf, houses collapsed, cars were tumbled like leaves, some of the stauncher houses were NOTE: floated intact and whirled crazily in the core of the hur- ricane. Geography changed as new inlets were pushed Information indicated in red on the aerials was taken from the through by the angry sea demanding an outlet for its 1974 Sewer Topographic Series (aerial photograph 418174) and force. For over two hours there was no difference be- illustrates the change in land form and development in the tween the Atlantic Ocean at its worst and the usually area. placid Moriches Bay, as the latter was swollen by the in- rush of lashing water. (Clowes, 1939: 22-23) 7 AQ litk -, *C kl-V JbI ."i owl AT flow -1 9''k, Nmw IL111% Y4 It wy A-1@1 Jr vp@ Oil 1*4 A Vill 7-77 OL The visual impact of the destruction wrought by this storm residential, commercial and industrial structures at risk in the must have been astounding. The Long Island Regional Planning. south shore 100-year floodplain is over $3 billion. This figure Boardis indebted to Mr. Thomas Morton of Islip, N.Y. who provid- does not represent a projection of expected damages, but is -ed-copies of photographs of the Westhampton Beach area that merely representative of the magnitude of the value at risk. It were taken during and after the hurricane. Mr. Morton was serv- should be pointed out that these estimates are for the coastal ing in the United States Coast Guard at the Moriches station floodplain only, and do not include infrastructure repair and when the storm hit Long Island. He was fortunate enough to sur- replacement and other ancillary costs.* In addition, it should be vive the destruction of the Coast Guard station and lived to tell recognized that storms of greater intensity than the 1938 hur- the story of the storm; 45 other people on Long Island were not ricane have hit the U.S. mainland and it is possible that such a as fortunate. Eight photographs from Mr. Morton's personal col- storm could impact Long Island. lection are shown in Figs. 2-3 to 2-10. Based on the Central Pressure Index (CPI), a hurricane with Perhaps there is a false sense of security arising from the the intensity of the 1938 hurricane (CPI of 28.00 in. of mercury) absence. of major damage-producing-- hurricanes and - north- can be expected to occur in the Long Island region about once in easters impacting the Long Island region during the past 20 40 years. Use of this approach to calculate the recurrence inter- years. Indeed, many Long Island residents have had little or no val of a storm does not necessarily capture the damage potential experience with the effect of the storm surge and winds resulting of a particular storm event. Since the 1938 hurricane hit Long from a major hurricane. This lack of experience makes planning Island during a rising spring tide, the water levels, and hence, for such an event very difficult. The National Weather Service damage resulting from this storm, are less frequent, i.e., have a has conducted studies that indicWe that as of 1980 almost 80% longer recurrence interval than one would expect on the basis of of U.S. coastal residents from Texas to Maine have never ex- storm intensity as measured by the CPI. The flood levels asso- perienced a direct hit by a major hurricane (Herbert and Taylor, ciated with the 1938 hurricane have a recurrence interval of 83 1983: 9). Records indicate that since 1900, four hurricanes years. * * classified as major have made direct hits on the New York The 100-year tidal floodplain that defines the geographic shoreline. These storms were assigned a #3 rating on the Saf- scope of the study area in this project, is based on flood eleva- fir/Simpson Hurricane Scale. A description of this scale, which tions that would be somewhat higher than those associated with relates hurricane intensity to damage potential, is shown in Table the 1938 hurricane in the area of maximum impact. For all in- 2-1. All four major hurricanes that hit New York were travelling at tents and purposes, a storm with flooding characteristics like forward speeds greater than 30 mph. A hurricane travelling at a those of the 1938 hurricane can be considered for illustration high speed can cause greater damage than implied by its scale purposes as approximating a 100-year flood event. rating, depending upon whether the impacted shoreline area lies to the right or left of the storm center. Indeed, the 1938 hurricane 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SOUTH SHORE produced results similar to a scale #4 storm because it hit the south shore of Long Island travelling north at 60 mph (Pierce, The south shore of Nassau and Suffolk Counties can be divided 1939). into two physiographic sections: an eastern headlands section The potential structural damage, let alone the potential loss in characterized by a narrow beach at the base of a bluff or cliff; life should a severe hurricane hit Long Island today, are indeed staggering. The 1938 hurricane caused $6.2 million in structural Flood-related damage estimates for various storm events will be updated by the damage (1938 prices) along the south shore of Long Island from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.Y. District in its reformulation study on the Fire Jones Inlet to Montauk Point (U.S. Army Engineering District, Island Inlet to Montauk Point beach erosion control and hurricane protection project. New York, 1977). The vulnerability analysis conducted for this ** Personal communication, Mr. Bruce Bergman, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, study and presented in this chapter indicates that the value of all N.Y. District. 12 V 0 Figure 2-3 Westhampton- 10517, Coast Guard Dock east of Moriches Inlet 41r, r 4 -.wow Figure 2-4 Westhampton Beach- Barrier beach seen from southern end of West End Bridge (Jessup Lane) NK 41" 4r 4L 13 -WAY.' Figure 2-5 Westhampton Beach- West End Bridge (Jessup Lane) ....... .. . . ......... . .. .... . IWO T Figure 2-6 Westhampton Beach- Jessup Lane, near bay AA A '7777 4-M @10 44 14 : q-4b AMN I-A o@ Figure 2-7 -WOO Westhampton Beach- 3e--' WAtP- Main Street lot, "T jar", t 4, /* Figure 2-8 Westhampton Beach- Main Street 77W 114 15 P7. IL - II- - . 11 1 1@ 4w F13 * 7C 711 Figure 2-9 Westhampton Beach- Main Street $INN .0 14 Figure 2-10 Westhampton Beach- South Rd. Bridge over Beaverdam Creek Al, 16 TABLE 2-1 The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale* SCALE NO. 1 -Winds of 74 to 95 mph. Damage primarily to shrubbery, trees, foliage, and unanchored mobile homes. No real damage to other structures. Some damage to poorly constructed signs. And/or: storm surge 4 to 5 ft above normal. Low-lying coastal roads inundated, minor pier damage, some small craft in exposed anchorage torn from moorings. SCALE NO. 2-Winds of 96 to 110 mph. Considerable damage to shrubbery and tree foliage; some trees blown down. Ma- jor damage to exposed mobile homes. Extensive damage to poorly constructed signs. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some window and door damage. No major damage to buildings. And/or: storm surge 6 to 8 ft above normal. Coastal roads and low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 2 to 4 hrs before arrival of hurricane center. Con- siderable damage to piers. Marinas flooded. Small craft in unprotected anchorages torn from moorings. Evacuation of some shoreline residences and low-lying island areas required. SCALE NO. 3-Winds of 111 to 130 mph. Foilage torn from trees; large trees blown down. Practically all poorly con- structed signs blown down. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some window and door damage. Some struc- tural damage to small buildings. Mobile homes destroyed. And/or: storm surge 9 to 12 ft above normal. Serious flooding at coast and many smaller structures near coast destroyed-, larger structures near coast damaged by battering waves and floating debris. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hrs before hurricane center arrives. Flat terrain 5 ft or less above sea level flooded inland 8 mi or more. Evacuation of low-lying residences within several blocks of shoreline possibly required. SCALE NO. 4-Winds of 131 to 155 mph. Shrubs and trees blown down; all signs down. Extensive damage to roofing materials, windows and doors. Complete failure of roofs on many small residences. Complete destruction of mobile homes. And/or: storm surge 13 to 18 ft above normal. Flat terrain 10 ft or less above sea level flooded inland as far as 6 mi. Major damage to lower floors of structures near shore due to flooding and battering by waves and floating debris. Low- lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hrs before hurricane center arrives. Major erosion of beaches. Massive evacuation of all residences within 500 yds of shore possibly required, and of single-story residences on low ground within 2 mi of shore. SCALE NO. 5-Winds greaterthan 155 mph. Shrubs and trees blown down; considerable damageto roofsof buildings; all signs down. Very severe and extensive damage to windows and doors. Complete failure of roofs on many residences and industrial buildings. Extensive shattering of glass in windows and doors. Some complete building failures. Small buildings overturned or blown away. Complete destruction of mobile homes. And/or: storm surge greater than 18 ft above normal. Major damage to lower floors of all structures less than 15 ft above sea level within 500 yds of shore. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hrs before hurricane center arrives. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5 to 10 mi of shore possibly required. Appears as Table 5 in Neumann, et al. (1981). 17 and a western barrier complex formed by a series of barrier Island, Westhampton Beach-and the barrier beach at Sout- islands and a barrier beach separated from the mainland coast hampton are near the northern end of the nearly continuous by lagoons and salt marshes (Taney, 1961 -1 Yasso and Hartman, chain of 282 barrier islands along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts 1975). (Dolan, Hayden and Lins, 1980). These long, narrow strips of The headlands section, which extends 33 mi from Montauk sand vary in width from less than 0.1 mi to over 1 mi in localized Point westward to Southampton, has suffered severe erosion; it areas and are being remolded continually by waves, wind and is classified as a glacial deposition coast (Shepard, 1973). The currents. The ocean beach in this section varies in width from a headlands are characterized by truncated hills of varying height few feet in the eastern portion to over 50 '0 ft in some areas; the and steepness fronted by a narrow beach of gravels and coarse average width is between 100 and 200 ft. Sand dunes in some sand. Formed by the deposition and subsequent erosion of the places rise to 30 ft in height behind the beaches. They display Ronkonkoma moraine, the headlands once extended several steep wind- and wave-eroded slopes on the seaward side and miles to the southeast. gentle slopes often stabilized by beach grass on the landward Bluffed headlands are located at the shoreline between Mon- side. The barriers are separated from the mainland by intercon- tauk Point and Hither Hills State Park-a distance of about 10 nected tidal lagoons: Shinnecock Bay (15 Mi2), Moriches Bay (16 mi. A steep cliff, 40-60 ft high has been cut into the Ronkonkoma Mi2), and Great South Bay (111 Mi2). West of Fire Island Inlet, the moraine, which rises to a height of about 185 ft. The various Hempstead Bay system (32 Mi2) contains numerous marsh beaches along this reach are bordered by a shallow submarine islands and tidal sloughs. terrace. The barriers are extremely unstable, subject to drastic altera- The central portion of the headlands section from Hither Hills tion as a result of storm events and net westward movement as a to Beach Hampton forms a 4 mi link between two areas of depo- result of long-shore transport. The position and number of south sition of the Ronkonkoma moraine. This region is marked by a shore tidal inlets have changed frequently within the historic past low, sandy shore with continuous coastal dunes. During severe in part due to catastrophic storms that have cut new inlets storms, ocean waters frequently surge across this area into through the barrier islands. Some of these inlets have filled Napeague Harbor. naturally due to the rapid movement of large volumes of littoral The western portion of the headlands section extends 19 mi to drift from the east to west along the shore@ others have been Southampton Village. It consists of sandy beaches fronting con- maintained through channel dredging and jetty construction. The tinuous ridges of sand dunes with elevations over 20 ft. Inland westward elongation of Democrat Point at Fire Island Inlet pro- from the shore are several salt ponds-Georgica Pond, Mecox vides a striking manifestation of the dynamic character of the Bay, Sagaponack Lake-that have formed in glacial depres- barrier. sions. These depressions have been dammed by the stream of It is ironic that the relative instability of the barrier complex is westward moving littoral material that has formed the present the key to its long-term survival. Information on relict barrier beach. The ponds have limited tidal connections with ocean islands on the shelf off Fire Island indicates that they have waters. re3ponded to submergence through the processes of in-place The barrier complex section stretches approximately 73 mi drowning and landward retreat. Indeed, the present barrier com- from Southampton to the Nassau County/Queens boundary. This plex along the south shore, which formed about 7500 yrs ago, section of the Nassau-Suffolk coast has been shaped primarily has migrated as a unit about 1.25 mi inland to keep pace with re- by marine deposition; it is classified as a barrier coast (Shepard, cent sea level rise since the last ice age (Sanders and Kumar, 1973). At the present time, five artificially maintained tidal in- 1975). Understanding the dynamics of this coastal feature is lets- Shinnecock, Moriches, Fire Island, Jones and East essential in developing effective damage mitigation strategies ZI Rockaway-break the continuity of this reach. The four barrier for the barrier/lagoon complex. islands separated by the inlets- Long Beach, Jones Beach, Fire 18 2.3 SEVERE STORMS AND THEIR IMPACTS Three'schemes for expressing storm frequency are contained in this report. One deals with the frequency of tropical cyclones 2.3.1 Frequency of Severe Storms.* Tropical cyclones'and ex- in coastal grids that include Long Island. The frequency of north- tratropical storms (northeasters) are important agents of ero- easters causing shoreline damage in the coastal waters of New sion, capable of causing significant damage along the shores of York is assessed in the second scheme. The third scheme com- Long Island. Tropical cyclones develop over open ocean areas bines the occurrence of both tropical cyclones and extratropical when surface water temperatures are above 260 to 270C (790 to storms that have caused some degree of damage in shoreline 81 OF), usually in August, September and October, although the areas. official tropical cyclone season is from June 1 to November 30. The counterclockwise vortex of such storms is created by winds 2.3.1.1 Tropical Cyclone Frequency. National Weather Ser- blowing toward a low pressure central updraft; the vortex is vice data indicate that 815 tropical cyclones have occurred in maintained by energy from condensation of water vapor derived the Atlantic area during the period 1886-1983 (Jarvinen and from the warm ocean surface. Tropical cyclones dissipate quick- Caso, 1978).**The landfall of these storms in the Long Island ly as they pass over land masses or cold water because they are area is not an uncommon event, though the frequency here is deprived of their source of energy (warm, moist air). The path of smaller as compared to that of the Gulf Coast states. Fig. 2-11 an individual storm is determined by its point of origin, and by the shows the tracks of the seven hurricanes passing within a circle relative position and strength of low and high pressure centers of 50 nautical mi radius centered at 40.7'N, 73.0*W during the located in the westerly wind belt and over the Atlantic Ocean. period 1886-1982. During this same period, 15 tropical storms Tropical cyclones range in diameter from 50-500 mi. They in- have hit the area; the tracks of all tropical cyclones (including clude tropical storms, characterized by sustained winds ex- hurricanes) are shown in Fig. 2-12. Table 2-2 describes some of ceeding 34 knots (39 mph); hurricanes, characterized by sustained the severe tropical cyclones that have affected Long Island. winds greater than or equal to 64 knots (74 mph); and great hur- It should be pointed out that no tropical storms or hurricanes ricanes, characterized by sustained winds exceeding 108 knots have hit the Long Island region during the period 1977-present; (124 mph). The area of high winds, and hence damage potential Hurricane Belle (August, 1976) was the most recent tropical and concern associated with such storms, is typically a 75 cyclone to hit the Island (Neumann, et al., 1981). nautical mile (86.3 mi) circle (Neumann and Pryslak, 1981). Utilizing statistical data on the motion of tropical storms in the Northeasters are much larger storms than tropical cyclones, Atlantic; area, Neumann and Pryslak (1981) calculated the ex- including hurricanes, and occur much more frequently. They pected number of tropical storms and hurricanes per 100-year develop in mid-latitudes in the fall, winter and spring in response period impacting locations along the U.S. coastline. Fig. 2-13 to the interaction of warm and cool air masses along a weather shows the grids used that encompass the Long Island area. The front. They may be more than 1000 mi in diameter-two or three data in Fig. 2-13 show that tropical storm occurrence in Grid 518, times the size of a tropical cyclone. Northeasters also form a which includes the eastern portion of Long Island, is greater than counterclockwise spiral directed toward a center of low baro- that in Grid 517, which includes western Suffolk and Nassau metric pressure, but the winds are of lower velocity than tropical County. Based on actual tropical storm occurrence and move- cyclone winds, Some gusts of hurricane velocity do occur with ment data, the expected number of tropical storms entering Grid northeasters. Wind direction at a particular area and time 518 per 100 years is 31; 16 of these storms would be hurricanes. depends on the location of the storm center. In Grid 517, 19 tropical storms per 100 years would be expected, of which seven would be hurricanes. Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.4 are based on Davies (1972); the material has * An update of the HURDAT (HURricane DATa) data set was provided by Dr. been updated as required. Charles J. Neumann, Chief, Research & Development Unit, National Hurricane Center, Coral Gables, Florida. 1.9 4 5 40 Storrv Track 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 3 35 80 75 70 65 Figure 2-11 Hurricanes passing within 50 nautical miles of Long Island, N. Y. 40.70N. 73.OOW. 1886-1982. 2.0 2 2 0 12 A 2 40 Storm Starting S1% Track Date Name Tra 1 6/18/1886 - 1 2 8114/1888 - 1 3 9/6/1888 - 1 4 10/8/1888 - 1 5 8/15/1893 - 1 6 10/1/1894 - 1 7 9/2011897 - 1 8 10/8/1900 - 1 9 9/8/1904 - 2 22 12 10 6/4/1934 2 S 11 9/5/1934 2 6 35 - 80 75 70 65 F Figure 2-12 Tropical storms and hurricanes passing within 50 nautical miles of Long Island, N. Y. 40.70N. 73.OOW. 1886-1982 21 TABLE 2-2 Selected Tropical Cyclones, Long Island Date Comments August 15, 1635 Probably the first hurricane historically recorded in New England. The high tides o f this storm (14 ft above high tide of Narragansett Bay, R.I.) undoubtedly had major effects on Long Island.a September 22-23, 1815 The Great September Gale of 1815 caused a great deal of damage to shorefront structures.b The south shore dunes were flattened, many homes and barns sustained damage. September 3, 1821 This storm crossed Long Island in the vicinity of Jamaica Bay, causing much damage. Twenty-one lives were lost.a, c September 21, 1938 Severe damage was incurred in-most coastal areas; flooding was the major cause of damage. Approximately 35,000 acres were inundated between Fire Island Inlet and Montauk Point. Wave heights averaged between 10 to 12 ft along the south shore. A maximum wind speed of 96 mph was recorded on the east end of Long Island. Rainfall for the period from September 17th to 21st totalled 11.3 in., including 4.2 in. on the last day. Total physical damage along the south shore, from Jones Inlet to Montauk Point totalled over $6 million (1938 prices).d September 14, 1944 Winds gusting up to 108 mph were reported at Block Island. High water, reported to be 9.2 ft above mean sea level at Manhasset and 7.9 ft above msI at the Lake Montauk.e $100,000 worth of damage was incurred in Westhampton Beach.d Damages to the North Shore and Eastern Forks totalled $733,000.f August 31, 1954 Hurricane Carol caused 14 ft waves and winds up to 125 mph. Damages in Nassau and Suf- folk Counties totalled approximately $3 million. 275,000 Long Island homes were left without electricity.9 Three in. of rain fell the last day of the storm at Setauket. Suffolk County was declared a major disaster area by President Eisenhower on 9/2/54.9 September 12, 1960 Hurricane Donna necessitated the evacuation of several hundred families from low-lying areas between Amityville and Babylon. A total of $1.9 million worth of damage was incurred in areas from Jones Inlet to Montauk Point. Four to five thousand people were evacuated from the barrier beach to the mainland! August 9-10, 1976 Hurricane Belle struck on a falling tide, lessening water damage. Sea level at Montauk was only about 3 ft above the predicted tide. Little coastal flooding and damage were reported.h However, the storm caused significant damage to vegetation by wind-driven salt spray. a Ludlum, D. 1963. Early American hurricanes, 1492-1870. American Meteorological Society, Boston. b Tannehill, I.R. Hurricane of September 16 to 22, 1938. Monthly Weather Review 66:286-88. c U.S. Army Engineer District, New York. 1958. Atlantic coast of Long Island, N.Y.: cooperative beach erosion control and interim hurricane study (survey). Appendix G: History of storms. Serial No. 69. P. G. 6. d Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. 1967. Jones Inlet to Montauk Point, New York (remaining areas). House Document No. 191. e Pore, N.A. and C.S. Barrientos. 1976. Storm surge. MESA, New York Bight Atlas Monograph 6. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, New York. f U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1969. North shore of Long Island, Suffolk County, New York, beach erosion control and interim hurricane study. New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York. 9 Newsday, 1 September 1954, p. 2. h Eisel, M.T. 1977. A shoreline survey: Great Peconic, Little Peconic, Gardiners and Napeague Bays. Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY. Special Report 5. 22 73' k, F- Ak vermont new CAPE ANN 42.5N Grid 517 tts Grid 518 Massachuse new CAP[ COD y o r k rhod," Connecticut 1 0 lisland' MONrAVK POINt new 6 1 L A Probability Probabl jersey Expected No. Expected Of At Least At Lsai of Tropical No. of One Tropical Hurd Storms/100 Hurricanes/ Storm Over a Ove % Ln CIA Grid Years 100 Years 10 Year Period 10 Year SANDY ffOOK 19 7 0.85 0.5 31 16 0.96 0.8 @-am@psi re Figure 2-13 and hurricanes per 100 years impacting the Long Expected number of tropical storms Island region. 23 Using the Poisson distribution function as illustrated in Category Neumann and Prysiak (1981), the probability of a certain number of storms passing through an area over a given time interval can A- unusually severe damage be calculated. Fig. 2-13 shows the result of such calculations fo@ B-severe damage Grids 517 and 518. Probability values range from 0.0 to 1.0. (A C-moderate damage probability of 0.0 indicates that there is no chance of an event oc- D-threatened area (no damage) curring; a probability of 1.0 indicates that the event is certain.) During the period 1635-1962 a total of 231 storms either The probability that at least one tropical storm will impact the threatened or did some degree of damage to the Long Island Long Island area over the next 10 years ranges from 0.85 to 0.96; shore areas. Table 2-4 summarizes the Corps data on storm this indicates that it is very likely that such an event will occur in occurrence. the next decade. The probabilities that at least one hurricane will A total of only 27 storms of all types were recorded during the impact this area over the next 10 years are slightly less, ranging time period 1635 to 1800. Storm data during this time period are from 0.50 to 0.80. They also indicate that such an event is likely, incomplete; however, the occurrence of storms that produced If a time period longer than 10 years is used in the calculation, severe damage (Category A) has probably been well docu- the probabilities would be even higher. mented. Based on the 204 st *orms which occurred during the period 1800-1962, the Long Island area experiences a storm 2.3.1.2 Frequency of Northeasters Causing Shoreline which causes moderate damage about once every two years. Damage. In a study of northeasters affecting the Atlantic coastal Unusually severe storms should occur, on the average, three margin of the United States during the period 1921-1962, Mather, times every century. Adams, and Yoshioka (1965) found that during the 42 year period of record, 34 extratropical storm events occurred that resulted in 2.3.2 Storm Surge. Both tropical cyclones and extratropical water-related damage, i.e., damage due to wave action and tidal storms produce storm surges, defined as the difference between flooding, in the coastal areas of New York. The recurrence inter- the observed water level and that which would have been ex- val of such storm events is 1.24 yrs. Stated in another way, a pected at the same place in the absence of the storm (Harris, storm of this nature has an 81 % chance of occurrence in a given 1963: 2). The height of the surge associated with a particular year, based on the observed data. Selected extratropical storm storm depends, in part, on the following four processes: events that have impacted Long Island are described in Table 1 .The inverted barometer effect. The sea level surface is 2-3. The northeaster of March 28-30, 1984 resulted in a Presiden- elevated in response to the low pressures associated tial Declaration of Disaster in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. with storms. In the open ocean, a pressure drop of 1 33.86 millibars of mercury (one in.) will lead 2.3.1.3 Frequency of Both Tropical Cyclones and North- theoretically to a 13 in. rise in sea surface elevation easters Causing Shoreline Damage. The U.S. Army Corps of (Hobbs, 1970). Engineers (1969) has reviewed literature on storms that have af- 2. Wind set-up. Wind stress on the water surface will fected the segment of shoreline from central Mar .yland north to cause water levels to increase along the fetch in a the New Hampshire-Massachusetts state boundary. Storms downwind direction. Wind stress, and hence, wind set- passing through this region were believed to have caused either up are proportional to the square of the wind velocity. some degree of shoreline damage on Long Island, or at least Wind set-up is also enhanced by decreasing depth (Harris, 1963). threatened the area. The storms were classified as hurricanes, 3. Wave set-up. Breaking waves transport water into the extratropical storms and tropical storms. Categories were as- near-shore zone, thus leading to increased height of signed to the storms on the basis of damage they inflicted on the water level surface in this area. Wave set-up may Long Island shore areas as follows: account for as much as 3.2 to 6.4 ft of storm surge 24 TABLE 2-3 Selected Northeasters, Long Island Date Comments March 11-14, 1888 The high winds of the Blizzard of '88 created snow drifts 10-12 ft high in the Long Island Sound area. Over 44 in. of snow fell in New Haven.a October 24-25, 1897 Tidal flooding separated Orient Village from the rest of the North Fork.b November 25, 1950 At Brookhaven Laboratory, sustaining winds of 73 mph and gusts up to 93 mph were reported. Sixteen breaks occurred in the Westhampton barrier bar. Roughly $1.75 million in damages oc- curred along the North Shore and the PeconiCS.b The U.S. Coast Guard reported waves reaching 20 ft in the vicinity of Jones Inlet.c November 6-7, 1953 Average wind speeds at Block Island were recorded at 75 mph, with gusts reaching 95 mph. Estimated wave heights along the south shore of Long Island were approximately 20 ft. Total damage to the barrier beach between Jones and Fire Island Inlets was approximately $600,000. Damage in the inner bay areas, including damage to the barrier island east of Fire Island Inlet, totaled $1.1 million (1953 prices).c March 6-8, 1962 Extensive damage occurred to the barrier beach and inner bay communities of the south shore. Strong east winds and fetch lengths of 1,000 mi created ocean waves 20 to 30 ft high. Total damage to the south shore from Jones Inlet to Montauk Point was estimated at $16,549,000. On March 16th, President Kennedy declared coastal sections of N.Y.C. and Long Island a disaster area.c, d This storm caused 50 washovers between Fire Island Inlet and Southampton. February 6-8, 1978 The heaviest snow storm since December 26, 1947e dropped 12 in. of snow on Montauk Point, 22 in. on Long Beach, and 23 in. at Islip-MacArthur Airport.f The Orient Point Causeway was under 2 ft of water while the south shore was battered by 15 ft waves.e Six Fire Island homes collapsed and 60 more were endangered. South shore home damages totalled over $1 million. Three storm-related deaths were reported in Nassau and Suffolk Counties! March 28-30, 1984 This large storm, accompanied by gale force winds and wind-driven waves up to 20 ft high, had a central pressure of 28.5 in. Nassau and Suffolk Counties were declared disaster areas by President Reagan on April 17, 1984. Tides at Willets Pt. were 5.5 ft above normal at high tide. Beaches and dunes suffered severe erosion and shoreline protection structures were damaged, as were public recreational facilities along the south shore. Residential structures were im- pacted by extensive basement flooding.9 a Brumbach, J.J. 1965. The climate of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. New Haven. Bull. 99. b U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1969. North shore of Long Island, Suffolk County, New York, beach erosion control and interim hurricane study. New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York. c Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. 1967. Jones Inlet to Montauk Point, New York (remaining areas). House Document No. 191. d U.S. Weather Bureau. East coastal Atlantic storm. Shore and Beach. 30 (1962): 4-10. e Newsday, 7 February 1978. f Newsday, 8 February 1978. 9 Region 11 Hazard Mitigation Team. 1984. Interagency hazard mitigation report in response to the April 17, 1984 disaster declaration, State of NewYork. FEMA, Region 11, N.Y. 25 TABLE 2-4 History Of Storm Occurrences, Long Island Region* Recurrence Interval Occurrences in Time Interval By Category (years) Category Storm Type 1635-1962 1800-1962 1885-1962 1800-1962 1885-1962 Unusually Hurricane 8 5 2 Severe Tropical storm - - - (A) Extratropical 32.4 38.5 Unknown 1 - - Total 9 5 2 Severe Hurricane 9 7 6 (B) Tropical storm - - - Extratropical 4 4 3 13.5 8.5 Unknown 3 1 - Total 16 12 9 Moderate Hurricane 41 35 23 P Tropical storm 3 2 2 Extratropical 35 35 37 2.1 1.2 Unknown 8 5 1 Total 87 77 63 Threatened Hurricane 46 41 31 the area Tropical storm 24 23 21 (D) Extratropical 39 39 41 1.5 0.8 Unknown 10 7 1 Total 119 110 94 Total Hurricane 104 88 62 Tropical storm 27 25 23 Extratropical 78 78 81 Unknown 22 13 2 231 204 168 Appears as Table 7 in Davies (1972). 26 height at a beach (Gentry, 1966). This effect is max- Review of the storm tracks of major damage-producing hur- imized by waves which break parallel to the coast ricanes in the Long Island region, shown in Fig. 2-11, confirms (Harris, 1963). the dominant effect of shoreline orientation on storm surge. The 4. Rainfall effect. Intense rainfall can lead to an-increase hurricanes of September 21, 1938 and August 31, 1954 travelled of water levels, especially in estuaries. in paths #3 and #5 in Fig. 2-11 perpendicular to the shoreline, Shoreline configuration plays an important role in modifying and caused record tides at many Long Island locations. storm surge. In general, configurations which favor an increase In general, fast moving tropical cyclones have peak storm in the range of astronomical tide will also favor an increase of surges that are higher than slower moving storms. However, if storm surge heights. there is no over-topping of a barrier island, for example, a slower Shoreline damage and erosion are often related to the max- moving storm will cause a higher surge in bay areas than a faster imum tides produced by a storm. Factors which determine the moving storm. In this instance, there is more time for water to magnitude of storm surge in relation to mean high water are the flow into bays via tidal inlets. However, if barrier over-topping oc- stage of the astronomical tide, the intensity of the storm, the curs, the faster moving storm will cause higher surges in the speed of storm movement, and the angle of the storm track at bays as compared to a slower moving storm. The problems of the shoreline (Hobbs, 1970). Tropical cyclones and northeasters hurricane forecasting and adequate evacuation are exacerbated produce different effects with regard to the latter three factors. in the Long Island area by the fact that hurricanes travel at faster The strongest winds in tropical cyclones are located in a nar- speeds in the North Atlantic region, as compared to the Gulf and row band surrounding the center, or eye, of the storm (Tannehill, South Atlantic coasts. 1950). The barometric pressure of the eye is a good indicator of Extratropical cyclones are about three times as large as storm intensity (Harris, 1966); indeed, empirical relationships tropical cyclones (Byers, 1959). The pressure gradients, and suggest that hurricane central pressure is the dominant factor hence, wind velocities of extratropical storms are lower than determining storm surge (Hoover, 1957). Storm surge peaks and those associated with tropical cyclones. Gusts of hurricane maximum wind velocities, however, are not found at the eye of velocity, however, have been associated with northeasters the storm, but are displaced into the region to the right of the (Brumbach, 1965). Wind patterns of northeasters form a storm track. counterclockwise spiral directed toward the center of low The wind pattern of tropical cyclones consists of a counter- barometric pressure. Wind directions from such storms at a par- clockwise spiral. The winds in the right quadrants of this spiral ticular area depend on the relative position of the storm track are more or less parallel with, and reinforced by, the transla- (Zeigler, Hayes, and Tuttle, 1959). When a storm center passes tional movement of the storm. This reinforcement can be of con- to the west of Long Island, winds blow initially from the east or siderable magnitude, as hurricanes have travelled at forward southeast. As storm movement progresses, the winds shift to speeds of over 50 knots. Wind and wave set-up are at a max- south and then west. This typo of storm results in offshore winds imum in the right, or dangerous half of tropical cyclones (Hall, for the north shore of Long Island, and onshore winds for the 1939). South-facing coasts like Long Island's south shore, that south shore. If, on the other hand, the storm center passes to the are aligned perpendicular to storm tracks, receive the full impact east of Long Island, the initial winds will blow from the northeast, of the reinforced winds and wave set-up. North-facing coasts are Later, the winds will veer to the north and northwest. This type of somewhat protected. If the storm track passes to the right of a storm produces onshore winds along the north shore, leading to coast, wind and waves will be directed in an offshore direction, increased wave height and wind set-up along this area. Offshore thus minimizing shore damage due to tidal flooding (Hobbs, winds on the south shore would reduce wave height along this 1970). The winds to the left of the storm track are also weaker coast. than those to the right, in that the winds blow in directions op- The effect of northeasters on shoreline areas often depends posite to the translational movement of the storm. on their speed of forward movement. If the storm progresses 27 so -4- V rapidly, variable wind directions over a given fetch length pre- vent the buildup of large storm waves, However, if storm pro- gress is delayed by ridges of high pressure, winds from a par- ticular direction have time enough to act on a given wave group, -7@ to produce waves of maximum height for a specific wind velocity and fetch (Burt, 1958-1 Darrielsen, Burt and Rattray, 1957). The wave heights on an open coast produced by a stationary north- easter of sufficient intensity may equal or exceed those produc- ed by many tropical cyclones. Those storms with easterly winds of long duration have the greatest effect on the Island's south shore. The severe winds and extreme tides of tropical cyclones RM usually last less than six hours (Gentry, 1966). The wind and wave effects of extratropical cyclones, though perhaps less severe, can last up to four or five tidal cycles. Prolonged attack 0. during successive high tides on an eroding beach can lead to substantial dune and bluff recession (Hayes and Boothroyd, 1969), and damage to shoreline development. Such a situation occurred when the March 6-8, 1962 northeast storm caused ab- 140 normally high water levels on five successive high tides. Figs. A- 2-14 and 2-15 show damage to structures on Fire Island caused by this storm. The long duration of northeasters can result in higher flood levels in bay areas than those associated with hur- ricanes producing the same surge peak elevations in open ocean waters (Balloffet and Scheffler, 1980). Urbanization and wetland destruction through landfill has also been shown to significantly increase the areal extent of surge flooding along bay shorelines. -A Fig. 2-16 shows a breach of the barrier beach at Westhampton Beach and its destruction. @A 2.3.2.1 Storm Surges of Major Storms. The south shore of 1, Long Island has been impacted by five major storms in the past KPIn 50 years. These storms caused serious coastal flooding in many .4 ci:@ communities. The 1938 hurricane damaged or destroyed 1000 Fire Island homes and 45 lives were lost in Nassau and Suffolk Counties'(U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1977). The November 25, 1950 northeast storm caused 16 breaks in the Westhampton barrier bar; 20 ft waves were recorded at Jones Inlet (U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, 1969). In 1954, hurricane Carol packed winds up to Figure 2-14 125 mph and waves of 14 ft; the severity of the damage war- Point 0' Woods, Fire Island- ranted the declaration of Suffolk County as a major disaster area. Destruction resulting from Northeast storm of March 6-8, 1962 Photo-courtesy Newsday 28 /4 --- / Figure 2-16 Aerial photo prior to March 6-8 1962. Northeast storm showing location of a breach in the barrier island and the structures destroyed. The corresponding oblique aerial photo shows an eastward view of the breach caused by the storm Figure 2-15 Fire Island- Property damage after Northeast storm of March 6-8, 1962 NOTE: Structures marked by a red 'Y' indicate destroyed. (Oblique photo courtesy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Hurricane Donna prompted the evacuation of the low-lying areas of Amityville and Babylon, as well as thousands of people from the barrier beach in 1960 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1969). The March 1962 northeast storm caused ocean waves of 20 to 30 ft; $16 million in damages were incurred from Jones to Fire Island Inlets; and coastal sections of Long Island were declared disaster areas (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1969). Most of the damage caused by these storms was due to the storm surge in many coastal locations. Figures 2-17 thru 2-21 display the flood elevations experienced by south shore loca- tions during each of the five storms. Each figure shows the I I iia lt@ ft"W. general location of the measurement and the height of flood waters above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) dur- ing each storm event (Topo-Metrics, Inc. undated). 29 -,4 -ZVI MEW JP et All AKI it ------------ L 0 N G I S L A N D I&A 74 - ------- -hlf@d -------- - - 3 0 U N D .... ... . .... - ---------- _y T, - .... . ..... ------- - ------- . . . ........ &I A T A I I 0 C E A N co M. cD 10 LA- 5- 0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) Level - 0 Figure 2-17 I. 77' STORM FLOOD ELEVATIONS 32 (Hurricane - 21 September 1938) S L . . . S 0 Ctt ......... . @,. r@-;z --I V7 .......... X T: ............ A---- ---- V x;o 20, co co 5- 0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum JNGVD) Level - 0 Figure 2-18 33 STORM FLOOD ELEVATIONS (Northeaster - 25 November 19501 t 0 N a 1 5 L A N 5 0 U N 0 .......... h Boy 7 --- - --------- 41 le k v-, A T L A N T A C 0 C E A N 2 15 C* Co w 5 OL @-- . fi: National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) Level - 0 Figure 2-19 34 STORM FLOOD ELEVATIONS lHurricane Carsl - 31 Auiust 19541 1 0 N G 1 $ L A N D --- --- ----- $ v N 17@1 4@ -- ---- ly ---- -------- ----------- JAI A T L A N T I C 0 C E A N 20i CD N.- 10 A 5 0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) Level - 0 Figure 2-20 35 STORM FLOOD ELEVATIONS (Hurricane Donna - 12 September 1960) L o N 6 f S L A N D s o u N D Ji ................ ........ ------- ------------- W @j A T A N T I C 0 C F A N 20 15 CM 10 Co LA- 0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD] Level - 0 IV- 3.6 STORM The highest flood elevations in the 1938 hurricane (Fig.2-17) the first floor and basement of new construction in A and V occurred in the eastern portion of Suffolk County. The flood zones must be elevated above the level of the base flood. The height observations range from 6 ft above NGVD in Bay Shore base flood elevation includes the height of the 100-year stillwater and West Islip to 17.5 ft above NGVD in Westhampton Beach. In storm surge and wave effects as they relate to mean sea level. the hardest hit community, photographs of watermarks on Fig. 2-22 illustrates the 100-year stillwater elevation level; the buildings indicate that flood waters were 6 ft above the sidewalk 100-year flood elevation with wave effects; the physical con- on Main Street, Westhampton Beach. figuration of the land as it affects wave heights; and the location The flood elevations associated with the Northeast storm of of A and V zones in a typical transect of a coastal area.* November 25, 1950 are shown in Fig. 2-18. Generally, the Although actual wave conditions in all coastal areas may not in- highest flood elevations were recorded in Nassau County. The clude all situations shown in Fig. 2-22, the schematic attempts to flood heights range from 5 ft above NGVD in Islip to 12 ft above graphically display the general conditions. The calculation of the NGVD in Amityville. The City of Long Beach also experienced effects of wave heights on the 100-year flood elevation involves severe flooding. With flood elevations 10 ft above NGVD, the three major concepts. area surrounding Long Beach Hospital was under 2 ft of water. First, depth-limited waves in shallow w ater reach a max- In 1954, Hurricane Carol (Fig. 2-19) flooded many south shore imum breaking height that is equal to 0.78 times the communities. The flood elevations ranged from 5 ft in the Say- stillwater depth. The wave crest is 70 percent of the total ville-Patchogue areas to 8 ft above NGVD in East Rockaway. The wave height above the stillwater level. The second major flooding was most severe in Nassau County. concept is that wave height may be diminished by dis- Fig. 2-20 depicts the flood levels associated with Hurricane sipation of energy due to the presence of obstructions Donna. The south shore communities of Nassau County exper- such as sand dunes, dikes and seawalls, buildings, and ienced the highest flood elevations. Areas in Atlantic Beach and vegetation. The third major concept is that wave height Long Beach recorded flood elevations of 10 ft. The barrier beach can be regenerated in open fetch areas due to the trans- was breached at Lido Beach. The lowest flood elevation was fer of wind energy to the water. This added energy is observed to be 4 ft above NGVD at Mastic. related to fetch length and depth.** The northeast storm of March 6-8, 1962 (Fig. 2-21) caused Along the transect, flood elevations and wave heights for the flooding which ranged from 11 ft at Oceanside to 5 ft above 100-year flood were determined by the combined effects of NGVD in the Massapequa area. South shore communities of changes in ground elevation, vegetation, and physical features. Nassau and western Suffolk Counties experienced the highest The 1 00-year flood area can then be divided into A and V zones. flood elevations. The V zone extends landward until the point where the flood depth is insufficient to support 3 ft breaking waves. At this point, 2.3.3 Storm Floods and Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Flood the A zone begins and it continues to the edge of the 100-year Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) show mathematically projected flood boundary. storm tide elevations with recurrence intervals of 100 and 500 V and A zones are subdivided into Flood Insurance Zones, years. The FIRMs identify zones of varying flood hazard which each having a specific flood potential or hazard. Therefore, flood exist within the 100-year, and 500-year floodplain areas. The V insurance rates differ within each V zone and each A zone in ac- and A zones comprise the 1 00-year flood area, and the 500-year cordance with their designation (e.g., A5, A6, V7). floodplain contains the B zone as well as the V and A zones. Areas prone to experiencing a 100-year flood have been cited by *This figure is typically found in the flood insurance wave height analysis studies the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as-areas prepared for coastal communities by FEMA. appropriate for floodplain management and the application of **These quotations are typically found in FIRM studies. developmental controls. In compliance with FEMA regulations, 37 ZONE "A" ZONE WAVE HEIGHT GREATER THAN 3 FT. WAVE HEIGHT LESS THAN 3 FT. BASE FLOOD ELEVATION INCLUDING WAVE EFFECTS 100-YEAR STILLWATER MEAN SEA -LEVEL 1/752@7_777__ MIUKELINE SAND DUNE WOODED REGION OVERLAND BUILDINGS F TIDAL WIND FETCH FLOODING AND WAVE Figure 2-22 Relationship of shoreline topography and flood elevation as shown by a typical coastal transect Table 2-5 lists the municipalities along the south shore of Long V zones would be most severely affected by the 100-year- Island, their respective flood insurance zones, and the range of flood. In this zone, structures must be elevated by piles or piers flood elevation in ft in each zone (shown in parentheses). Due to above the base flood level. Basements and first floors of new the relatively low hazard associated with occupancy in the B construction in an A zone must be elevated above the level of the zone, and the fact that riverine flooding is a minor problem on base flood. Long Island, it was decided that the geographic scope of this The B zone is located between the special hazard area and study would be limited to the 100-year floodplain, which includes the limits of the 500-year floodplain. Included in the 500-year both A and V zones. In the communities of the south shore, the A floodplain are areas protected f rorn the 1 00-year flood by control zones,range from 4 to 16 ft and the V zones range from 8 to 18 ft structures; also, areas subject to 100-year flooding where depths above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Water damage are less than 1.0 ft; and also, areas subject to 100-year flooding associated with flooding in V zones is typically more severe than from sources with drainage areas less than 1 Mi2. that found in A zones, because of direct wave action impacts. 30 TABLE 2-5 Flood Insurance Zones For Municipalities On The South Shore Of Long Island* Flood Insurance Zones Governmental Unit (range of base flood elevations in ft above NGVD) NASSAU COUNTY: 1. Town of Hempstead A4 (7-12) A5 (7-12) A6 (10) V4 (9-12) V6 (110) V7 (12-15) 2. Village of Atlantic Beach A5 (7-12) V7 (12-15) 3. Village of Cedarhurst A4 (8) 4. Village of East Rockaway A5 (8) 5. Village of Freeport A3 (7) 6. Village of Hewlett Bay Park A4 (7-9) 7. Village of Hewlett Harbor A5 (8) 8. Village of Hewlett Neck A4 (7-8) 9. Village of Island Park A4 (8) 10. Village of Lawrence A5 (7-9) A4 (7-9) 11. Village of Rockville Centre A2 (7)-- 12. City of Long Beach A5 (7-12) V7 (12-15) 13. Village of Woodsburgh A4 (7-8) 14. Town of Oyster Bay A7 (14) A8 (12-14) A9 (14-16) V4 (8-9) V7 (12-14) V9 (14-18) V6 (12) 15. Village of Massapequa Park A4 (7-8) SUFFOLK COUNTY: 16. Town of Babylon A4 (6-8) A5 (5-12) V4 (8-10) V7 (11-15) 17. Village of Amityville A3 (6) 18. Village of Babylon A3 (6) 19. Village of Lindenhurst A3 (5) 20. Town of Islip A4 (4-7) A5 (5-12) A6 (4-12) V7 (11-15) 21. Village of Brightwaters A4 0-7) 22. Village of Ocean Beach A6 (5-12) V7 (12-15) 23. Village of Saltaire A6 (5-12) V7 (12-14) 24. Town of Brookhaven A4 (4-6) A4 (111) A5 (5-10) A7 (7-9) A7 (11-13) V7 (12-15) V8 (9-17) V9 (14-17) 25. Village of Bellport A4 (4-6) 26. Village of Patchogue A4 (4-6) 27. Town of Southampton A5 (8-11) A6 (7-9) A7 (7-12) A8 (7-12) V7 (10-15) V8 (9-12) 28. Village of Quogue A6 (7-9) A8 (7-9) V7 (12-15) V8 (9-12) 29. Village of Southampton A7 (10-12) A8 (7-9) V7 (12-15) V8 (9-12) 30. Village of Westhampton Beach A7 (7-9) A8 (7-9) V7 (12-15) Beach V8 (9-12) 31. Town of East Hampton A7 (10-12) A8 (8-11) V7 (10-15) 32. Village of East Hampton A7 (10-12) V7 (12-15) A listing of the community flood insurance studies and FIRMs used to compile this table is included at the end of the References section of this chapter. Wave height analysis not included. 39 2.3.3.1 Flood Hazard Zone Base Map. Flood insurance beyond the extent of tidal influence, are not shown on the base studies and FIRMs were used to prepare a base map of the study map.'Generally, tidal exchange in south shore creeks is limited area that shows the extent of the 100-year tidal floodplain, i.e., by cultural features, i.e., roads, spillways, and usually does not the geographic scope of this study. Figure 2-23 shows the base occur landward of Merrick Road, Montauk Highway, Sunrise map, including the A and V zones, and provide a regional Highway or the LIRR-Montauk line. Information on the extent of perspective of the storm induced tidal flooding problem along the tidal influence in south shore streams from the Queens/Nassau Island's south shore. boundary line to the Carmans River, Suffolk County was obtained Stream corridors shown in the A zone on the FIRMs, but from Koppelman, et al. (1982). ................ . . .. . .. . .. . . - -- - -- - - -- - -- - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - -- 7----S@ L 0 N G II. tI S L A N D S 0 U N D ---------- W-d s.y LW. -- ------------- P..-k - --- - - - - - - - - A T L A N T I C 0 C E A N Figure 2.23 Index to the base map on pages 41 thru 49 showing the A and V zones as per the FIRM's along the south shore. 40 Null A T L A N T I C OCEAN uN. A, BAI Al TLOOP PAY KAC PL&9- A T L A N T I C 0 C 8 A N 42 ----------- ---------- --------- -------------- - --- ---------- - ------- I N L 8 E A C H 0 R ..ACM .......... A T 44 ri ET - ------ ------- A T L A N T I C 0 C E A N S H I N N E C 0 C K B A Y AAP A T L A N T I C 0 -C E A N 46 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S,b.... io F, 4 ------ ---------- 4Y -------- --- --------------------------------- A A T L .. ........ It It er -: ------ ----- ---------------- NZ@ ji A T L A N T I C 48 B L 0 C K A T L A N T I C 0 C E A N 2.3.4 Storms as Geologic Agents. Hurricanes and north- btjvere northeaster, or several northeasters occurring in a short easters have played important roles in the modification of the time interval. However, the magnitude of the changes will prob- shoreline., The present shoreline is, in fact, mainly the resuit of ably be larger in the instance of severe hurricanes since tidal in- erosion and deposition caused by these storms. A severe north- undation is the major cause of shoreline damage (Freeman, Baer easter or a hurricane can cause as much damage to the shore in and Jung, 1957). a matter of a few hours as it would take normal weather condi- The impact of the September 21, 1938 and the September 14, tions to produce in a hundred years. Observations indicate that 1944 hurricanes on shores in the Long Island region have been ... most energy is expended in present-day nearshore- well documented (Nichols and Marston, 1939; Howard, 1939; marine environments, not in a uniform constant manner Brown, 1939; Chute, 1946). These studies indicate that there will but rather in sporadic bursts, or spurts, as a series of be different results of severe storm occurrence for different minor catastrophes (Hayes, 1967: 52). shore environments. Two main types of shore environment are Such a catastrophe occurred on September 21, 1938. In a few found along Long Island's shores: bluffed coasts (including hours the storm surge of this hurricane leveled dunes along headlands) and barrier bars (spits, barrier islands, barrier south shore beaches that had taken a hundred years to build. beaches, baymouth bars). Bluffed coasts are erosional features; Hall (1939) found that the surge and storm waves of the 1938 barrier bars are primarily depositional features. The effects of hurricane breached most of the dunes on Fire Island that were hurricane attack on bluffed coasts and barrier bars are outlined less than 16 ft in elevation; after the storm, dune elevations were in Table 2-6. The most dramatic changes-dune and bluff ero- reduced to 5-8 ft. Dunes 18 ft or more in elevation were generally sion and inlet formation-are the result of the storm surge, left intact, although deposits of sand on top of some of the higher which for a few hours creates a new, submerged shoreline in dunes indicated that they, too, were overtopped. This storm areas not normally exposed to direct wave and tidal action. created eight inlets in the barrier bar between Moriches Inlet and Chute (1946) studied bluff recession along the southern Cape Southampton (Howard, 1939). Along the Rhode Island coast, the Cod coast caused by the hurricane of September 14, 1944. The 1938 hurricane caused glacial cliffs 48 ft in height to recede over magnitude of cliff recession was found to be related to several 33 ft (Brown, 1939). Highlighting the impact of major storms, shoreline characteristics: Rich (1975) found that about two-thirds of the average annual Virtually no cliff recession occurred in those areas beach recession along the south shore between Amagansett and where the beach was at least 140 ft wide. Smaller Moriches Inlet during the period 1939-1972 was due to hurricane beach widths were associated with cliffs that retreated occurrence. up to 48 ft as a result of the storm. The wider beaches The shoreline effects of the hurricane of September 14, 1944 were effective in absorbing wave energy. were also severe, despite its northeasterly track angling off Mon- High bluffs receded less than low bluffs. Given the tauk. This storm cut back the bluffs at Shoreham, Long Island, a same length of recession, more debris will slump to the horizontal distance of over 39 ft; by undercutting the bluff base base of a high bluff than a lower bluff. Therefore, more so that the face collapsed, the storm created a vertical cliff 11 ft material must be removed by wave action at the base high (New York, Joint Legislative Committee, 1947). of the high bluffs in order for recession to occur. * Vegetation and beach ridges at the bases of the bluffs The effects of northeasters differ from those of hurricanes in retarded bluff erosion. that the latter produce higher tides (Davies, Axelrod and O'Con- * Bluffs composed of till and clay were more resistant to nor, 1973). However, northeasters occur much more frequently wave attack than those composed primarily of sands. than hurricanes, and the combined effect of two or more storms - Seawalls were ineffective in curtailing bluff erosion in a short period of time can be just as devastating to beaches unless they were constructed heavily enough to with- that have not achieved full post-storm beach buildup. Therefore, stand direct wave impact. The seawalls must also be similar shoreline changes can be expected from a hurricane, a higher than the height of the storm surge and waves. 50 Table 2-6 These conclusions, based upon hurricane Effects Of Hurricanes On The Long Island Shoreline damage at Cape Cod, are generally applicable to similar situations found along the Island's shore- Bluffed Coasts Barrier Bars* lines where bluffs are present. Bluffs fronted by wide beaches would tend to erode less than 1 . Beach recession. Mean high water- 1. Beach recession. Mean high those fronted by narrow beaches. Under the line migration landward as beach waterline migration landward as same conditions of wave attack, a high bluff deposits are removed and trans- beach deposits are removed and would be cut back less than a low bluff. Vege- ported offshore. transported offshore. A low, tation stabilizing the bluff face also tends to flat hurricane beach profile retard erosion. develops. Howard (1939) and Nichols and Marston (1939) found that inlets formed in those sections 2. Bluff recession. Bluff and headland of barrier bars that were narrow and low in erosion due to direct wave attack 2. Dune erosion. Dune scarps (ver- elevation. Also, large areas of the bars were during the peak of the surge flood. tical slopes) are formed as a re- completely inundated at the peak of the storm sult of wave attack. Overtopping surge. In their review of barrier island research, occurs during time of peak surge. Leatherman and Joneja (1980) concluded that 3. Formation of benches. Benches are inlet creation and migration are the principal level or gently sloping planes 3. Inlet formation. Inlets are mechanisms responsible for landward barrier inclined seaward. Formation of formed by bayside ebb and island migration along the Atlantic coast; over- wave-cut bench widens the beach. overwash surges at locations wash and aeolian activity were considered of Material eroded from the bluff is where: a. the barrier is narrow secondary importance in this process. deposited on the beach face, and in and low in elevation; b. old The historical review of shoreline changes some instances raises beach elevation inlets or washovers formed in the found in Leatherman and Joneja (1 980) indicates above pre-storm levels. past; or c. the adjacent lagoon that there have been many inlets in existence in area is relatively deep, e.g., in the area extending from Fire Island Inlet to dredged channels and tidal creeks Southampton. Fire Island Inlet is the feature with (Leatherman and Joneja, 1980). the longest duration. Twenty-five inlets have been created and destroyed during recent his- torical time in this area. In general, the area from 4. Deposition of tidal deltas central Fire Island to the east has been more and overwash fans. Beach and dune unstable than the area to the west. In the sands are deposited in the bays Moriches Inlet area, six inlets have opened and and on the tidal marshes, in- closed; in the Westhampton Beach area, five in- creasing bar width. lets opened and closed; and there have been eight inlets in existence from time to time in the Adapted from Koppelman, et al. (1 976), Table 3.4, and Davies (1 972), Fig. 1 1. vicinity of Shinnecock Inlet. * Hurricane impacts on dune coasts in Southampton and East Hampton include beach recession and dune erosion. 51 Severe storms move tremendous quantitites of sediment 2.4 SEA LEVEL RISE (Hayes, 1978). The widespread erosion and deposition of sedi- Sea level rise is a phenomenon which is occurring globally. ment is caused not only by breaking waves at the shore, but also While a detailed review of the causes of sea level rise is not in by the dramatic increase in current velocities found in coastal the scope of this study, it should be pointed out that one of the ocean waters and in estuaries and lagoons. Storms can double or contributors to sea level rise-the gradual warming of the triple the maximum current velocity found at a particular location. lithosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere- could also dramat- Millions of cubic yards can be moved by a severe storm along ically alter the frequency of severe storms in the North Atlantic a barrier complex shore (Tanner, 1961). The U.S. Army Coastal region. Warmer ocean temperatures could shift the location of Engineering Research Center (1977) has developed estimates of tropical cyclone genesis to higher latitudes. This could result in the average volume of sand eroded above mean sea level from an increase of tropical storm occurrence in the Long Island area beaches more than five miles long as a result of storm occur- over the long-term. rence. Moderate storms may remove 4-10 ydS3/ft of beach front It has been estimated that apparent sea level on the south above msl; an extreme storm (or a moderate storm that persists shore of Long Island is rising at a rate of 3 mm/yr (0.1 in./yr) (Hicks for a long time) may remove 10-20 ydS3/ft; and rare storms, such 1973; 1978; 1981). At this rate, it would take approximately 100 as hurricane Donna, may remove 20-50 ydS3/ft. In comparison, a years for sea level to rise 1 ft in elevation. Although the annual in- beach 100 ft wide at an elevation of 10 ft contains 37 ydS3/ft. This cremental rise is of minor consequence, the trend over the long- quantity would be adequate except for rare storm events. As for term has important ramifications for the stability and relative posi- horizontal recession, even a moderate storm can erode a typical tion of the shoreline. Zimmerman (1983) examined the effects of beach 75-100 ft, leaving it vulnerable to greater erosion if ex- sea level rise on shoreline dynamics of the south shore of Long posed to a second storm within a short period of time. Island. The long-term sea level rise rate was utilized in a model Storm activity does not necessarily cause all beaches to that estimated the amount of shoreline recession in the area be- erode. Wind direction and coastal configuration can cause lit- tween Amagansett and Shinnecock Inlet. The study determined toral drift to accumulate in areas downstream from those that that an average annual landward shoreline migration of 3.3 ft are eroding (Zeigler, Hayes and Tuttle, 1959). could be expected if present conditions remain constant in the The shoreline has a remarkable ability to restore itself to its study area. Shoreline erosion would be demonstrated in both dune pre-storm condition (Nichols, 1967). Beach configuration is con- line recession and barrier island migration due to overwash. trolled by average, long-term sea state conditions (Zeigler, et al., The gradual rise in sea level may also, to varying degrees, 1964). Sediment is eventually restored to the beaches from bars result in the: offshore. The net effect of a severe storm on a bluffed coast * mobilization of new sediment in the littoral system (This would be cliff recession. Some bluff-eroded material remains on additional sediment may be lost to offshore areas.) adjacent beaches. Barrier bars, on the other hand, would be- * gradual inundation of coastal structures, e.g., come wider and flatter. However, there may be a net loss in the bulkheads, revetments, docks sediment supply available for seasonal beach accretion as a 9 extension of flood zone areas inland result of storm occurrence. The berms on the beaches gradually * displacement of coastal habitats, e.g., wetlands build up a convex profile. Dunes, however, require many years to e intrusion of salt water into aquifers and increased rebuild to their former heights. This process is often retarded by salinity in tributaries human interference (Leatherman, 1982). e interference with gravity flow systems, e.g., storm water drainage The specifications of engineered shoreline structures typically do not take into account the implications of sea level rise on design. 5.2 2.5 LAND USE BY CATEGORY IN THE Sity (2-4 D.U./acre). The remaining land use categories-com- FLOOD HAZARD ZONES mercial, marine commercial, industrial, transportation and utili- The land use data have been tabulated by land use classifica- ty, and institutional -account for approximately 5% of the tion within the A and V zones of each south shore municipality on 100-year floodplain acreage on the south shore of Nassau and Long Island. Table 2-7 illustrates the variety of activities within Suffolk Counties. each land use classification. The land use information and color maps contained in the report, Land Use-1981: Quantification and TABLE 2-7 Analysis of Land Use of the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk (LIRPB, 1982) were utilized to generate the acreage figures con- Land Use Classifications-1981 tained in this plan. The 1981 land use information presented in Residential the LIRPB publication was prepared using 1980 aerial photo- Low Density - 1 D.U. or lessfacre graphs, Nassau and Suffolk County tax maps and USGS maps, Medium Density - 2-4 D,U./acre supplemented by field surveys to verify and update the data Intermediate Density - 5-10 D.U./acre derived from the aerial photos. The quantification of the area/ex- High Density - 11 or more D.U./acre tent of each land use classification was accomplished using a Commercial new videodigitizing technique developed by Resources Planning Hotels-Motels Commercial establishments in which Associates Inc. of Ithaca, N.Y. short term lodging is the major The 1981 land use acreage for the 100-year south shore flood- business activity- plain of Nassau and Suffolk Counties is displayed in Table 2-8. Hotels Nearly one-third of the 69,700 acres that comprise the 100-year Motels floodplain lies within the V flood hazard zone, which is subject Cabins not only to flooding, but also wave action. Nearly two-thirds of Retail & Services Establishments whose main purpose is the sale or rendering of a personal the bi-county floodplain is located in Suffolk County. service on a retail level and not listed Vacant land accounts for approximately 15% and 10% of the under "offices." A and V zone acreage, respectively, in Suffolk County. Nassau Autmolive Service Stations County has less than 2% of its acreage in both the A and V Dealers zones categorized as vacant. Recreation and open space, agri- Repair, painting and washing Tire sales culture, and vacant land use categories account for almost 65% Seat covet installation of the A zone acreage and nearly 85% of the V zone acreage in Recreational Amusement parks Suffolk County. Similarly, for Nassau County almost 60% of the Beaches and Pools (profit oriented) land in the A zone and over 95 % of the land in the V zone is con- Billiards tained in the recreation and vacant land use categories. The A Bowling Dance (school, hall, studio, etc.) and V zone boundaries contained on the FIRMS for both the City Day camps and nursery schools of Long Beach and the Village of Atlantic Beach appear to be in- Miniature golf and driving ranges correctly mapped. If these two municipalities were remapped to Theaters-indoor and drive-in reflect more extensive A and V zones, the percentage of land in Sports arenas, skating rinks the recreation and vacant land use categories within the A or V Race tracks Offices Banks, credit agencies and loan companies zones of Nassau County would be less than what is stated above. Investment and securities Most of the residential land use in the Nassau County flood- Advertising, blueprinting and mailing services plain is at intermediate density (5-10 D. Wacre), while the major- Doctors, dentists & legal services ity of the residential land use in Suffolk County is at medium den- Medical labs and animal hospitals Employment and travel agencies 53 TABLE 2-7 (contd.) Marine Commercial Boat yards and marinas (private) Agriculture Sales and services Agriculture Crop Fishery services Orchard Boat Storage Poultry and ducks Dairy and livestock Institutional Nursery Public Schools (elementary, junior and Greenhouse senior nigh school) Colleges and universities Municipal buildings Transportation- Courts Utilities- Hospitals Communications Post Offices Utilities Pumping stations Indian reservations Water rights-of-way Fire stations Electric rights-of-way Quasi-Public Churches, convents, seminaries Water and sewer treatment Colleges and universities plants Nursing and rest homes Transportation Railroads Schools- parochial and private Airports Synagogues and temples Taxi stands, bus depots, truck Fraternal organizations terminals Hospitals Streets & Parking All streets, public or Industrial private, paved or unpaved Manufacturing Production of a product- finished or unfinished Driveways for a single use Food products Public parking Printing. publishing and book-binding Private parking Non-Manufacturing Warehousing, wholesaling Parking garages Distributors Expressways Existing and proposed Construction material, welding shops General contractors, masonry Vacant Salvage and junk yards Vacant Tidal land Coal and oil bulk stations Land not in use Mining Used and abandoned sand pits Land containing abandoned Recreational and buildings Open Space Urban renewakapproved areas Public Beaches and pools Water Golf courses, conservation and Inland Recharge basins, drainage wildlite areas, arboretum areas Cemeteries Lakes and inland fresh water Marinas and boat ramps Tidal South Shore only: Parks Channels and bays (excludes Playgrounds Peconic Bay) Quasi-Public Beach clubs, golf clubs, gun clubs Wetlands - conse(vat ion water Cemeteries, scout camps and areas a(( non-profit recreation Parkways Existing and proposed 5A TABLE 2-8 1981 Land Use By Municipality For South Shore Flood Hazard Zones Residential commercial Transportation Low Medium Intermediate High Marine Utility Total Density Density Density Density Total Commercial Commercial Total Industrial Communication Institutional Recreation Agriculture Vacant Town of Hempstead AcresinAZone 15,551 28 129 4,190 83 4,430 297 377 674 199 241 425 9,295 0 287 Acres in V Zone 5,819 0 0 98 28 126 1 41 42 0 128 59 5,419 0 45 Total 21,370 28 129 4,288 ill 4,556 298 418 716 199 369 484 14,714 0 332 Unincorporated Areas Acres in A Zone 12,524 0 55 3,192 71 3,318 256 265 521 162 220 382 7,688 0 233 Acres in V Zone 5,800 0 0 98 28 126 1 29 30 0 128 59 5,413 0 44 Total 18,324 0 55 3,290 99 3,444 257 294 551 162 348 441 13,101 0 277 Atlantic Beach Acres in A Zone 72 0 5 10 0 15 0 37 37 0 0 2 10 0 8 Acres in V Zone 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 6 0 1 Total 91 0 5 10 0 15 0 49 49 0 0 2 16 0 9 Cedarlhurst Acres in A Zone 78 0 0 60 0 60 5 0 5 0 4 9 0 0 0 Far Rockaway Acres in A Zone 178 0 0 138 0 138 13 19 32 0 0 6 1 0 1 Freeport Acres in A Zone 991 0 2 559 10 571 5 43 48 35 13 13 297 0 14 Hewlett Bay Park Acres in A Zone 9 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Hewlett Harbor Acres in A Zone 112 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 Hewlett Neck Acres in A Zone 12 0 11 0 0 11 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Island Park Acres in A Zone 205 0 0 153 2 155 18 10 28 2 4 10 6 0 0 Lawrence Acres in A Zone 1,231 24 1 31 0 56 0 2 2 0 0 0 1,142 0 31 Rockville Centre Acres in A Zone 5 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Valley Stream Acres in A Zone 48 0 0 45 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Woodsburgh Acres in A Zone 86 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 55 TABLE 2-8 (cont'd.) Residential i Commercial Transportation Low Medium Intermediate High Marine Utility Total Density Density Density Density Total Commercial Commercial Total Industrial Communication Institutional Recreation Agriculture Vacant City of Long Beach Acres in A Zone 226 0 0 132 24 156 3 0 3 0 15 28 12 0 12 Acres in V Zone 77 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 10 Total 303 0 0 132 29 161 3 0 3 0 15 28 74 0 22 Town of Oyster Bay AcresinAZone 1,393 0 558 611 66 1,235 17 8 25 0 0 34 94 0 5 Acres in V Zone 2,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,406 0 0 Total 3,799 0 558 611 66 1,235 17 8 25 0 0 34 2,500 0- 5 Unincorporated Areas Acres in A Zone 1,379 0 545 611 66 1,222 17 8 25 0 0 34 93 0 5 Acres in V Zone 2,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,406 0 0 Total 3,785 0 545 611 66 1,222 17 8 25 0 0 34 2,499 0 5 Massapequa Park Acres in A Zone 14 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NASSAU COUNTY Acres in A Zone 17,170 28 687 4,933 173 5,821 317 385 702 199 256 487 9,401 0 304 Acres in V Zone 8,302 0 0 98 33 131 1 41 42 0 128 59 7,887 0 55 Total 25,472 28 687 5,031 206 5,952 318 426 744 199 384 546 17,288 0 359 Town of Babylon Acres in A Zone 2,925 26 279 1,115 57 1,477 32 113 145 10 55 21 1,104 0 113 Acres in V Zone 4,611 0 115 0 0 115 4 0 4 0 0 0 4,477 0 15 Total 7,536 26 394 1,115 57 1,592 36 113 149 10 55 21 5,581 0 128 Unincorporated Areas Acres in A Zone 1,871 0 146 476 45 667 30 46 T6 5 55 15 988 0 65 Acres in V Zone 4,611 0 115 0 0 115 4 0 4 0 0 0 4,477 0 15 Total 6,482 0 261 476 45 782 34 46 80 5 55 15 5,465 0 80 Amityville Acres in A Zone 379 0 59 180 12 251 1 27 28 0 0 4 65 0 31 Babylon Acres in A Zone 391 26 64 249 0 339 0 24 24 0 0 2 15 0 11 Lindenhurst Acres in A Zone 284 0 10 210 0 220 1 16 17 5 0 0 36 0 6 Town of Islip Acres in A Zone 9,901 433 2,088 399 29 2,949 13 117 130 29 96 524 5,514 0 659 Acres in V Zone 678 0 36 43 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 33 526 40 Total 10,579 433 2,124 442 29 3,028 13 117 130 29 96 557 6,040 0 699 56 TABLE 2.8 (cont'd.) Residential Commercial Transportation Low Medium Intermediate High Marine Utility Total Density Density Density Density Total Commercial Commercial Total industrial Communication Institutional Recreation Agriculture Vacant Unincorporated Areas Acres in A Zone 9,638 433 2,032 338 29 2,832 9 117 126 29 96 533 5,490 0 542 Acres in V Zone 606 0 31 37 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 33 481 0 24 Total 10,244 433 2,063 375 29 2,900 9 117 126 29 96 556 5,971 0 566 Brightwaters Acres in A Zone 46 0 35 4 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 Ocean Beach Acres in A Zone 70 0 1 53 0 54 4 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 Acres in v zone 1 6 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Total 86 0 1 58 0 59 4 0 4 0 0 1 22 0 0 Saltaire Acres in A Zone 147 0 20 4 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 113 Acres in V Zone 56 0 5 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 1 6 Total 203 0 25 5 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 129 Town of Brookhaven Acres in A Zone 10,493 251 1,243 435 2 1,931 40 126 166 25 44 249 6,699 190 1,189 Acres in V Zone 3,744 1 5 74 289 0 378 6 0 6 0 0 0 3,305 0 55 Total 14,237 266 1,317 724 2 2,309 46 126 172 25 44 249 10,004 190 1,244 Unincorporated Areas Acres in A Zone 10,322 214 1,220 432 0 1,866 35 126 161 1 8 42 246 6,638 190 1,161 Acres in V Zone 3,744 1 5 74 289 0 378 6 0 6 0 0 0 3,305 0 55 Total 14,066 229 1,294 721 0 2,244 41 126 167 1 8 42 246 9,943 190 1,216 Bellport Acres in A Zone 92 37 1 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 25 Patchogue Acres in A Zone 79 0 22 3 2 27 5 0 5 7 2 3 32 0 3 Town of Southampton Acres in A Zone 4,352 807 542 6 2 1,357 1 4 70 84 1 1 1 5 161 359 487 1,878 Acres in V Zone 2,923 630 375 9 1 1 1,025 148 27 175 0 5 4 766 0 948 Total 7,275 1,437 917 1 5 1 3 2,382 162 97 259 1 1 20 165 1,125 487 2,826 Unincorporated Areas Acres in A Zone 2,874 315 454 6 2 777 5 48 53 8 8 149 187 473 1,219 Acres in V Zone 1,402 167 202 9 1 1 289 59 27 86 0 3 4 594 0 326 Total 4,276 482 656 1 5 1 3 1,166 64 75 139 8 1 1 153 781 473 1,545 57 TABLE 2-8 (cont'd.) Residential Commercial Transportation Low Medium Intermediate High Marine Utility Total Density Density Density Density Total Commercial Commercial Total Industrial Communication Institutional Recreation Agriculture Vacant Quogue Acres in A Zone 439 74 28 0 0 102 0 9 9 0 3 1 34 0 290 Acres in V Zone 531 196 32 0 0 228 23 0 23 0 2 0 47 0 231 Total 970 270 60 0 0 330 23 9 32 0 5 1 81 0 521 Southampton Acres in A Zone 557 313 0 0 0 313 0 12 12 0 1 5 76 14 136 Acres in V Zone 564 217 0 0 0 217 2 0 2 0 0 0 21 0 324 Total 1,121 530 0 0 0 530 2 12 14 0 1 5 97 14 460 Westhampton Beach Acres in A Zone 482 105 60 0 0 165 9 1 10 3 3 6 62 0 233 Acres in V Zone 426 50 141 0 0 191 64 0 64 0 0 0 104 0 67 Total 908 155 201 0 0 356 73 1 74 3 3 6 166 0 300 Town of East Hampton Acres in A Zone 3,358 300 177 16 0 493 66 0 66 0 145 39 1,358 131 1,126 Acres in V Zone 1,244 102 75 0 2 179 24 0 24 0 4 15 699 47 276 Total 4,602 402 252 16 2 672 90 0 90 0 149 54 2,057 178 1,402 Unincorporated Areas Acres in A Zone 2.759 124 160 16 0 300 65 0 65 0 145 36 1,242 65 906 Acres in V Zone 1,172 87 74 0 2 163 24 0 24 0 4 14 665 46 256 Total 3,931 211 234 16 2 463 89 0 89 0 149 50 1,907 ill 1,162 East Hampton Acres in A Zone 599 176 17 0 0 193 1 0 1 0 0 3 116 66 220 Acres in V Zone 72 15 1 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 34 1 20 Total 671 191 18 0 0 209 1 0 1 0 0 4 150 67 240 SUFFOLK COUNTY Acres in A Zone 31,029 1,817 4,329 1,971 90 8,207 165 426 591 75 355 994 15,034 808 4,965 Acres in V Zone 13,200 747 675 341 13 1,776 182 27 209 0 9 52 9,773 47 1,334 Total 44,229 2,564 5,004 2,312 103 9,983 347 453 800 75 364 1,046 24,807 855 6,299 BI-COUNTY REGION Acres in A Zone 48,199 1,845 5,016 6,904 263 14,028 482 811 1,293 274 611 1,481 24,435 808 5,269 Acres in V Zone 21,502 747 675 439 46 1,907 183 68 251 0 137 ill 17,660 47 1,389 Total 69,701 2,592 5,691 7,343 309 15,935 665 879 1,544 274 748 1,592 42,095 855 6,658 58 2.6 INVENTORY AND VALUE OF STRUCTURES BY LAND USE CATEGORY IN FLOOD HAZARD ZONES 2.6.1 Introduction. The two most drastic potential effects of DAMAGE DEATHS hurricanes are fatalities and property damage. Since the turn of (Adjusted to 1957-59 base) the century, the general trend has been toward a reduction in the 4600- 6000 number of deaths from hurricanes, but an exponential increase in the amount of property damage. Figure 2-24 illustrates these 4400- -5500 trends from 1900 to today. The deadliest U.S. hurricanes were the 1900 storm in Gal- 4200- -5000 veston, Texas, where 6000 people were killed, and the 1928 hur- ricane, which took 1800 lives at Lake Okeechobee, Florida. -4500 V Since these events, hurricanes have not killed a substantial C 2090- number of people. The main reasons for the reduction and stabilization in the nationwide death rate attributable to hur- 4000 1800- ricanes has been a combination of improvements in monitoring and warning systems, and local preparedness and evacuation -3500 1600- planning (White, et al. 1976). However, where population ex- ceeds the safe evacuation capacity, the potential for substantial tt loss of human life remains. 1400 - 3000 m While hurricane fatalities have decreased since 1900, the in- 1200- crease in property damages is staggering. This increase in -2500 damages parallels the increase in population and development in 1000 coastal hurricane-prone areas since World War 11. The two cost- - 2000 liest U.S. hurricanes were Hurricane Frederic, which caused 800- $2.3 billion in damages throughout the Gulf Coast states in 1979, -1500 and Hurricane Agnes, which wrought $2.1 billion worth of 600- destruction in the northeast in 1972 (Herbert and Taylor, 1983). 1000 Structures inventoried include those residential, commercial, 400- industrial, marine commercial and institutional structures located within the A and V zones of each south shore municipal- - 500 200 ity on Long Island. It is important to note, however, that the basic unit inventoried varies among the land use categories. In the 0 -0 residential category, the unit inventoried is the structure itself. K, OP C? CP However, commercial and industrial structures cannot be similarly inventoried, because a small store is vastly different from a department store building. Thus, for these categories the Figure 24 basic unit inventoried is square feet of floor space. The basic unit Deaths and Damages from Hurricanes in the United States inventoried in the marine commercial category is the number of (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1972; boat slips. Institutional structures will be quantified by Herbert and Taylor, 1983) municipality. 59 An extensive data base consisting of aerial photography, cen- vulnerable in a severe storm event; approximately $400 million sus information, land use maps and FIRMs was used to prepare worth of recreational boats are at risk on the south shore. Over composite storm hazard maps for the entire south shore of 50 institutional structures are located in the A and V flood hazard Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The composite map series, to- zones. A residential, commercial, and industrial structural value gether with field checks when necessary, served as the basis for totaling $3.2 billion is at risk within Long Island's south shore A the structure inventory, The structure inventory in turn served as and V zones. Approximately one-tenth of this total is located input for quantification of value of structures by land use within the high hazard V zone. category along that portion of the south shore of Long Island This $3.2 billion value is not a projection of expected hurricane vulnerable to tidal-induced flooding from hurricanes and north- losses. Instead, it represents only the value of residential, com- east storm events. mercial and industrial structures at risk within the 100-year The LIRPB originally planned to utilize COE damage functions, floodplain, the area most affected by a major hurricane. While it as well as results from the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point is unlikely that a major storm would destroy these structures to Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Reformulation their full value, damage from such a storm could be substantial. Study, in estimating structural loss due to certain flood events. In addition, there are a number of 'public and quasi-public However, the revised timetable of the COE project unfortunately buildings, as well as a significant infrastructure investment at did not coincide with the completion of this plan. Therefore, a risk that have not been included in the calculations. For example, change in strategies was required. The structural value at risk the value of institutional buildings, such as schools, hospitals, or was determined rather than the projected structural loss. With- churches located in the floodplain, has not been determined. out the COE flood damage functions, it was not possible to Utilities, including water and sewage treatment plants, pumping predict potential flood damages in the event of a major storm. stations, telecommunication and electrical facilities were not in- Damage to hazardous materials storage facilities located ventoried. The value of roads in the floodplain was not calcu- within the 100-year floodplain may present potential threats to lated; nor was the value of the many park facilities along Long health and the environment as a result of a hurricane or north- Island's south shore, including the substantial infrastructure in- east storm. This plan identifies the facility locations, their con- vestment there. Many of these facilities are likely to be damaged tents and storage capacities where appropriate. It is important to or destroyed in a major hurricane, and would require a substan- note that facilities such as gas stations and home oil storage tial public investment to rebuild. The plan does not include the tanks, will be excluded since they are ubiquitous in flood hazard value of the interior contents of the many homes or commercial areas. and industrial structures along the south shore; nor the structural 11 has been determined that there are 2349 single or two- value at risk outside of the south shore 100-year floodplain or family residential structures and 485 units of multi-family hous- along the north shore coast. In addition, the value of agricultural ing located within the Long Island south shore V zone valued at equipment and crops in the floodplain was not determined. While $331 million. In addition, there are 36,353 single or two-family the LIRPB's calculations clearly illustrate a substantial structural residential structures and 1335 units of multi-family housing lo- value at risk, the value of structural improvements within the cated within the south shore A zone valued at $2.8 billion. south shore 100-year floodplain, but not included in the value at Commercial floor space totals 72,000 square feet in the V zone risk figures for this plan, are also significant. and over 3 million square feet in the A zone. There is no industrial Long Island has experienced tremendous growth along the floor space in the Long Island south shore V zone. Approximately south shore since World War 11. Much of this development has 1.5 million square feet of industrial floor space exists in the A occurred in the flood hazard area and in coastal areas wiped zone. Commercial and industrial structures located in the clean by the 1938 hurricane. Today, with over $3 billion at risk in 100-year floodplain are valued at $101 million and $39 million, the south shore flood zone, Long Island has the potential to respectively. Nearly 17,000 boat slips on the south shore are become the next site of the nation's costliest hurricane. 60 2.6.2 Residential Structures ed 120 houses in the V zone. By contrast, Freeport contained 3084 houses in the A zone. While the severity of hurricane 2.6.2.1 Single and Two-family Structures. Once the damage may be expected to be greater at Point Lookout/Lido preparation of the composite storm hazard map was complete, Beach, the overall magnitude of destruction may be greater in the structures were inventoried. Using the 100-year floodplain as Freeport. Other Nassau County communities with a significant the boundary of the study area, individual single and two-family number of residential structures-all in the A zone-are: houses were counted from 1980 aerial blueprints and aggre- Woodmere - 1796 houses gated by 1980 Census block and tract. The tabulation of single Oceanside - 1783 houses and two-family residential structures was further aggregated into Massapequa - 2395 houses cities, towns, villages and unincorporated places for Nassau and The total number of single and two-family houses in the Suffolk Counties as shown and described in Fig. 2-25, Munic- floodplain along the south shore of Nassau County is 21,687. ipalities and Census Designated Places (CDPs)-1980. To deter- There are single and two-family residential structures worth $11 mine the values of single and two-family homes in the A and V million in the V zone, and $1.5 billion in the A zone, of the south zones, the number of structures counted in a given census block shore of Nassau County. outlined on the aerial composite maps was multiplied by the Housing counts in Suffolk County record many more houses in mean structure value given in the 1980 Census report. The the V zone, due to residential development on the barrier islands resulting total structural value at risk for each census block was from Gilgo Beach to Southampton. In Suffolk County as a whole, then summed to the tract level, and compiled by municipality and there are 2229 houses valued at $300 million in the V zone and CDP. Multi-family houses, apartment buildings, and condo- 15,427 houses valued at $1.3 billion in the A zone for a total of miniums were not counted at this time and are inventoried 17,656 single and two-family houses at risk in the south shore separately below. Table 2-9 presents the number. and value of floodplain. Those communities with the greatest number of single and two-family houses found in the 100-year floodplain of houses at risk are: Nassau County, and Table 2-10 presents the same information Fire Island communities - 586 in V zone; 2991 in A zone for Suffolk County. Copiague - 1823 in A zone In examining these figures and assessing a community's vul- Mastic Beach - 986 in A zone nerability to storm damages, it is necessary to examine both the Babylon, Village of - 957 in A zone severity and magnitude of risk that exist in each community. Thus,the value of single and two-family structures within the The severity of risk is a function of the number and intensity of Long Island south shore floodplain is over $3 billion. physical forces (storm surge, wave action, wind) that a storm is The severity of risk is clearly greatest on the barrier islands, likely to impose on a particular area. The magnitude of risk is which must bear the full brunt of both wave action and storm basically a function of the number of houses exposed to severe surge associated with hurricanes and northeast storms. While storm forces in a community. Thus, it can be expected that a only 20% of the housing stock in the floodplain is located on the community with many houses in the V zone will experience a barrier islands, 86% of all the structures in the V zone are greater percentage of structural loss than a community where located on the barrier islands. Table 2-11 presents the number houses are predominantly located in the A zone. In the event of a and value of houses on each barrier island. severe storm, the V zone represents the area of greatest risk, A note of interest: in 1938 there were 179 houses between the and thus, can be expected to suffer the greatest damage. How- Village of Quogue and Moriches Inlet on the Westhampton ever, communities with houses in the A zone are still subject to Beach barrier island. The hurricane of September 21, 1938 storm damage and should not necessarily be considered free destroyed all but a dozen of those houses (Clowes, 1939). In from danger. 1980, there were 915 single or two-family homes along that In 1980, the community of Point Lookout/Lido Beach contain- same stretch of beachfront. 61 Huntington Cold Spr I-or Hor T" Snifhtown Bay P !a I RZ Pan A@77 Ai "Ail Y --L-4 -------- - Z., 7-- ------- I'@ A 10 'li-,& Gr at South Bay xk- @n I 62 j, Gardiners Bay 31ock r v E. I.,? A '\\ /I Pocqbic Bay ......... ... G r e a Pecon;c Say k '16 @Zi-nlnecock Bay if C a fl Figure 2-25 Municipalities and Census Designate 653 Tables 2-12 and 2-13 present those com- TABLE 2-9 munities with the highest single and two-family residential value at risk in sequential order. The Number and Value of Single and Two-Family Residential Structures Village of Westhampton Beach, the unincorpor- in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Nassau County ated portion of Westhampton, and the Brook- haven section of Fire Island show the highest 'IV" Zone 'IV" Value "A" Zone "A" Value Total Value value at risk in the V zone in Table 2-12. Table Municipality Structures (in millions of Structures (in millions of (in millions of 2-13 shows the Islip portion of Fire Island, and Village of Cedarhurst 182 10.8 10.8 the communities of Woodmere and Massa- Inwood 55 2.5 2.5 pequa, to have the highest residential value at Village of Atlantic Beach 141 14.2 14.2 risk in the A zone. Atlantic Beach (Uninc.) 240 23.1 23.1 There were certain problems inherent in the South Valley Stream 514 42.9 42.9 methodology that was employed in calculating Village of Lawrence 37 6.3 6.3 the value of structures at risk. The residential Woodmere 1,796 185.3 185.3 structural values represent the market prices Village of Woodsburgh 2 4.0 4.0 Village of Valley Stream 217 20.7 20.7 from 1980 Census data, while commercial, in- Village of Hewlett Neck 6 1.2 1.2 dustrial, and multi-family structural values were Village of Hewlett Harbor 11 2.3 2.3 culled from tax assessment records. The market Bay Park 762 34.0 34.0 prices contained in the 1980 Census data for Village of East Rockaway 582 40.0 40.0 residential property include the value of both the Village of Island Park 914 41.0 41.0 Island Park (Uninc.) 416 27.0 27.0 land and structures, while the tax assessment Oceanside 1,783 113.8 113.8 values for commercial and industrial properties Village of Rockville Centre 7 .5 .5 represent structural value only. In most cases, Lido-Pt. Lookout 120 11.0 1,212 96.6 107.6 the tax assessment values, even where equal- Baldwin 1,015 63.3 63.3 ization rates are applied, are significantly lower Village of Freeport 3,084 141.5 141.5 Merrick 1,182 116.0 116.0 than the market values. In some cases, the tax Bellmore 978 83.7 83.7 assessment value is less than one half the Wantagh 779 44.5 44.5 market value.* The non-residential values Seaford 1,046 52.4 52.4 presented in this report are therefore likely to TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD TOTAL 120 11.0 16,961 1,167.6 1,178.6 understate the true worth of such properties. CITY OF LONG BEACH* TOTAL 995 50.6 50.6 Finally, a problem existed in respect to the location of the floodplain boundary. The FIRMS Massapequa 2,395 161.0 161.0 prepared by FEMA were used as a guide to the Village of Massapequa Park 118 13.1 13.1 100-year floodplain A and V zones. However, in East Massapequa 814 61.3 61.3 certain cases, this boundary appeared to be in- West Amityville 284 14.5 14.5 correct TOWN OF OYSTER BAY TOTAL 3,611 249.9 249.9 . Most notably, the FIRM boundary for the NASSAU COUNTY TOTAL 120 $11.0 21,567 $1468.1 $1474.1 City of Long Beach excluded the majority of the city from the 100-year floodplain. In view of the *Most of the City of Long Beach is not within the A or V Zone as mapped by FEMA. topography and lack of natural or structural pro- tection along this barrier island, this boundary is believed to be incorrect. Personal communication, Mr. Charles King, Director of Assessment Review, Nassau County, Mineola, N.Y. 64 TABLE 2-10 Number and Value of Single and Two-Family Residential Structures in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Suffolk County "V" Zone "V" Value "A" Zone "A" Value Total Value Municipality Structures (in millions of $) Structures (in millions of $) (in millions of $) Village of Amityville 758 48.3 48.3 Copiague 1,823 83.3 83.3 Village of Lindenhurst 831 32.4 32.4 West Babylon 575 27.0 27.0 Gilgo/Oak Beach 324 31.3 119 11.2 42.5 Village of Babylon 957 58.3 58.3 TOWN OF BABYLON TOTAL 324 31.3 5,063 260.5 291.8 West Islip 689 60.6 60.6 West Bay Shore 75 6.1 6.1 Fire Island (Islip) 236 27.2 1,673 190.9 218.1 Fire Island (Brook.) 350 43.8 1,318 157.4 201.2 Fire Island Total 586 71.0 2,991 348.3 419.3 Village of Brightwaters 56 4.1 4.1 Bay Shore 308 20.4 20.4 Islip 135 13.7 13.7 East Islip 77 9.7 9.7 Great River 21 2.3 2.3 Oakdale 681 41.3 41.3 West Sayville 88 2.6 2.6 Bayport 184 12.1 12.1 Sayville 98 6.7 6.7 TOWN OF ISLIP TOTAL 236 27.2 4,203 377.2 404.4 Blue Point 148 8.0 8.0 Village of Patchogue 80 2.9 2.9 East Patchogue 107 5.2 5.2 Brookhaven 97 6.2 6.2 Village of Bellport 24 2.3 2.3 Mastic Beach 5 .2 986 33.8 34.0 Mastic 32 1.2 1.2 Poospaluck Indian Res. 7 .2 .2 Shirley 130 4.0 4.0 Center Moriches 141 8.1 8.1 East Moriches 2 .1 110 7.4 7.5 Eastport (Brook.) 6 .3 .3 Eastport (S.H.) 6 .3 .3 Eastport Total 12 .6 .6 TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN TOTAL 358 44.1 3,186 237.0 281.1 Remsenberg-Speonk 1 .1 150 18.1 18.2 Westhampton* 342 49.5 90 8.7 58.2 Quiogue 24 3.3 3.3 Village of Westhampton Beach 355 57.9 354 53.2 111.1 Village of Quogue 192 35.6 164 26.9 62.5 East Quogue 54 9.0 409 31.7 40.7 Hampton Bays 41 2.9 265 20.4 23.3 Shinnecock Hills 13 1.0 205 17.9 18.9 Shinnecock Indian Res. 25 0.7 0.7 Village of Southampton 66 14.6 102 21.5 36.1 Water Mill 72 11.3 11.3 Bridgehampton 102 13.9 13.9 Sagaponack 3 .5 125 18.4 18.9 TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON TOTAL 1,067 171.1 2,093 246.3 417.4 Wainscott 35 6.3 6.3 Village of East Hampton 3 .6 131 24.4 25.0 Amagansett 78 9.8 386 67.4 77.2 Napeague-Hither Hills 127 13.3 232 30.2 43.5 Montauk 36 3.3 98 9.6 10.9 TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TOTAL 244 27.0 882 135.9 162.9 SUFFOLK COUNTY TOTAL 2,229 $300.7 15,427 $1,256.9 $1,557.8 *Includes unincorporated portion of Westhampton Beach. TABLE 2-11 Number and Value of Single and Two-Family Residential Structures on the South Shore Barrier Islands of Nassau and Suffolk Counties (in millions of dollars) 'IV" Zone "A" Zone 'Reach Structures 'IV" Value Structures "A" Value Total Value Atlantic Beach to TABLE 2-12 Point Lookout* 120 11.0 2,588 184.5 195.5 Jones Beach to Captree Single and Two-Family Residential Value Island 324 31.3 119 11.2 42.5 at Risk in the 'IV" Zone for South Shore of Long Island Robert Moses to Moriches (in millions of dollars) Inlet (Fire Island) 586 71.0 2,991 348.3 419.3 Westhampton Beach to Village or Community Value Shinnecock Inlet (Dune Road) 915 144.4 - - 144.4 Westhampton Beach $57.9 Shinnecock Inlet to Mecox Westhampton (unincorporated)* 49.5 Bay (Southampton) 66 14.6 45 10.2 24.8 Fire Island (Brookhaven) 43.8 Quogue 35.6 Total Barrier Islands 2,011 $272.3 5,743 $554.2 $826.5 Gilgo/Oak Beach 31.3 Fire Island (Islip) 27.2 % of L.I. residential 86% 87% 15% 20% 27% Southampton 14.6 structures/value in Napeague/Hither Hills 13.3 south shore flood Lido Beach/Pt. Lookout 11.0 hazard zones on Amagansett 9.8 barrier islands East Quogue 9.0 Montauk 3.3 *Most of the City of Long Beach is not within the A or V Zone as mapped by FEMA. Hampton Bays 2.9 Shinnecock Hills 1.0 East Hampton .6 Sagaponack .5 Mastic Beach .2 Remsenberg/Speonk .1 East Moriches .1 TOTAL $311.7 *Includes unincorporated portion of Westhampton Beach. 66 TABLE 2-13 Single and Two-Family Residential Value at Risk in the "A" Zone for South Shore of Long Island (in millions of dollars) Village or Community Value Village or Community Value Fire Island (Islip) $190.9 East Quogue 31.7 Woodmere 185.3 Napeague/Hither Hills 30.2 Massapequa 161.0 Island Park (unincorporated) 27.0 Fire Island (Brookhaven) 157.4 West Babylon 27.0 Freeport 141.5 Quogue 26.9 Merrick 116.0 East Hampton 24.4 Oceanside 113.8 Atlantic Beach (unincorporated) 23.1 Lido Beach/Pt. Lookout 96.6 Southampton 21.5 Bellmore 83.7 Valley Stream 20.7 Copiague 83.3 Bay Shore 20.4 Amagansett 67.4 Hampton Bays 20.4 Baldwin 63.3 Sagaponack 18.4 East Massapequa 61.3 Remsenberg/Speonk 18.1 West Islip 60.6 Shinnecock Hills 17.9 Babylon 58.3 West Amityville 14.5 Westhampton Beach 53.2 Atlantic Beach 14.2 Seaford 52.4 Bridgehampton 13.9 Long Beach* 50.6 Islip 13.7 Amityville 48.3 Massapequa Park 13.1 Wantagh 44.5 Bayport 12.1 South Valley Stream 42.9 Water Mill 11.3 Oakdale 41.3 Gilgo/Oak Beach 11.2 Island Park 41.0 Cedarhurst 10.8 East Rockaway 40.0 Remaining South Shore Communities 123.0 Bay Park 34.0 TOTAL $2720.3 Mastic Beach 33.8 *Most of the City of Long Beach is not within the A or V Zone as Lindenhurst 32.4 mapped by FEMA. An examination was made of the reduction in the total value at commercial, industrial, and multi-family structures alone is over risk lost through this improper delineation of the 100-year flood- $680 million. The structural values at risk calculated for the plain boundary. Tax assessment records for the entire Long floodplain as it is currently drawn were only $230 million. Thus, Beach barrier island, including the Village of Atlantic Beach, assuming that the entire barrier island should be included within Atlantic Beach (uninc.), City of Long Beach, and Liclo/Pt. Lookout the 100-year floodplain, an additional $450 million would be in- show a total structural value of over $800 million dollars after ap- cluded in the calculation. plying the current equalization rate. The value of residential, 67 2.6.2.2 Multi-family Structures. A different method was used hazard V zone. All of these units are located either at Lido to determine the number and value of multi-family houses, apart- Beach/Pt. Lookout in Nassau County, or along the Westhampton ments, and condominiums existing in.the A and V zones. While Beach portion of the Town of Southampton in Suffolk. Those these buildings could be located on the aerial photographs, there communities with a significant value of multi-family structures in was no indication as to the number of individual housing units the A zone include the Village of Freeport and the Town of Islip. contained therein. In addition, the Census data contain no infor- mation on the value of these structures, listing only the value of 2.6.3 Commercial and Industrial Structures. A simple struc- single and two-family residences. It was therefore necessary to ture count, as used for houses, would not be appropriate for use the following procedure: commercial and industrial structures. The diversity of size of the 1 .Multi-family homes, apartments, and condominiums facilities, ranging from small refreshment stands to large shop- were located on the composite storm hazard map. ping centers, would be lost in a simple head count. Instead, 2. Each parcel was located on the corresponding tax these facilities are inventoried by total floor space, a figure more map to determine section, block, and lot number. representative of the value at risk. 3. The county clerk's office in Nassau County and the in- The same methodology was used for both Nassau and Suffolk dividual town assessors offices in Suffolk were con- Counties: tacted to determine the type of facility, the size, the 1 -The composite storm hazard maps, containing the number of dwelling units, and the value for each perti- aerial photographs, floodplain boundaries, land use in- nent tax map parcel. formation, and Census tracts were used as the basic 4. The number and value of dwelling units on the ground reference source. floor only was determined by A and V zones, as these 2. Each commercial and industrial facility noted on the are the units most likely to suffer from tidally-induced aerials was located on the appropriate tax map, and storm damage. section, block, and lot numbers were recorded. The number and value of multi-family houses, apartments, and 3. Using the section, block and lot numbers, the tax condominiums in the south shore flood hazard zones of Long assessment records of each property and structure Island are presented in Table 2-14. It is important to note that were examined. Tax assessor records denote location, these values are based on tax assessment records, and differ type of facility, square footage of the property, square from the single-family residential values, which are based on footage of the structure, and assessed value. market values. In many cases, the assessed value after equaliza- 4. Ground floor square footage and value were recorded tion is considerably below the market value because it reflects for each commercial or industrial facility identified on only structural value, and ignores the substantial differences in the aerial photographs, and aggregated by county, real estate prices due to location. Under this system, two town, village and place using Census tract boundaries. buildings constructed identically within a given township would While the Census Bureau publishes detailed information on be assessed identically. But if one building was located on the residential structural value, there is no comparable information waterfront and the other was not, the waterfront building would available for commercial or industrial structures. The best likely have a much greater market value. Nevertheless, market source of information available regarding the value of commer- value information was unavailable for these structures, and tax cial and industrial structures is tax assessment records which assessment records are the most reliable data source for use contain the assessed valuation of both the land and structures within the time constraints of this study. thereon. Nassau County tax assessments are stated in 1939 dol- The total value of multi-family structures on Long Island's lars, while each Suffolk County town keys assessments to dif- south shore floodplain is $61.6 million. Structures worth over $39 ferent years. To convert to current values, it Was necessary to million are located in Nassau County. Of the $61.6 million total, apply an equalization rate, different for each town, which should approximately a third, or over $20 million is located in the high yield current (1983) values. 68 TABLE 2-14 Number and Value of Multi-Family Residential Structures in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Long Island (in millions of dollars) Community or "V" Zone "A" Zone Municipality Dwelling Units "V" Value Dwelling Units "A" Value Total Value Village of Cedarhurst 10 .38 .38 Inwood 40 1.06 1.06 Village of Atlantic Beach 6 .30 .30 Woodmere 5 .08 .08 City of Long Beach 7 .38 .38 Bay Park 15 .19 .19 Village of East Rockaway 16 .56 .56 Village of Island Park 59 1.33 1.33 Island Park (unincorporated) 9 .24 .24 Oceanside 125 3.47 3.47 Lido-Pt. Lookout 378 14.2 48 1.05 15.25 Baldwin 17 .48 .48 Village of Freeport 341 9.43 9.43 Merrick 85 3.90 3.90 Bellmore 3 .11 .11 Seaford 74 1.82 1.82 Massapequa 2 .13 .13 Nassau County Total 378 $14.2 862 $24.91 $39.11 Town of Islip 157 8.62 8.62 Town of Southampton 107 6.11 51 2.99 9.10 Town of East Hampton 266 4.77 4.77 Suffolk County Total 107 $6.11 474 $16.38 $22.49 Long Island Total 485 $20.31 1,336 $41.29 $61.60 69 The assessed value is used for taxation purposes, and does dential structures, would incorrectly group all of the various in- not represent the full market value of structures. Furthermore, stitutional uses together. A quantification of floor space, as done the value of a structure is assessed only on initial construction or for commercial and industrial structures, would be inappropriate significant reconstruction. Although all assessments are based for institutional structures ranging from schools to churches. on a constant dollar rate updated to current values, it is still Instead, institutional structures were inventoried by communi- suspected that most of the structures inventoried are assessed ty, and quantified by subcategory. The methodology involvad in at significantly below their current market value. the institutional inventory included: The total value of commercial and industrial structures in the 1 .The composite storm hazard maps were used to locate south shore A and V zones of Long Island is approximately $140 institutional structures. million. This figure, although substantial, is relatively insignifi- 2. Tax maps were used to determine section, block, and cant in light of the $3 billion at risk in the residential sector. Com- lot numbers of institutional properties. mercial and industrial structures represent less than five percent 3. Deed and tax assessment data for each property were of the total value at risk in Long Island's south shore floodplain. examined. Tables 2-15 and 2-16 present the square footage and value of 4. The final listing of institutional structures was quan- commercial and industrial structures in the south shore flood- tified by subcategory for each municipality and is plain of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. In Nassau County, com- shown in Table 2-17. mercial structures in the A zone are valued at $68.9 million; For Long Island as a whole, there are seven schools, 18 chur- there are no commercial buildings in the V zone. In addition, ches or temples, and 29 assorted municipal buildings-in- there are $38 million worth of industrial structures in the A zone. cluding fire houses and post offices-in the floodplain. The communities with the most significant holdings include the Village of Freeport, with $15 million each in the commercial and 2.6.5 Marine Commercial Establishments, Boat Slips and industrial categories. Oceanside has $11 million of commercial Recreational Boats. The marine commercial facilities inven- structures and over $17 million of industrial structures. Wood- toried include marinas, boat basins, fishing stations, yacht clubs, mere has $14.5 million of commercial structures. and boat slips. Municipal boat basins are also included in this tal- Suffolk County has a considerably smaller value at risk in the ly although they are not included in the marine commercial land commercial and industrial sectors than Nassau. There are ap- use category. Boating Almanac Co., Inc. (1983) and 1980 aerial proximately $32 million worth of commercial structures at risk in photographs were the principal data sources for the marine com- the flood zones, $1.6 million of which is in the V zone. There are mercial inventory. Table 2-18 summarizes the total number of relatively few industrial structures in the Suffolk County south marine commercial facilities, by municipality, within the shore floodplain, representing a value of less than one million floodplain. dollars. Recreational activities on Long Island are intimately asso- In addition, there are a number of oil storage facilities located ciated with the waterfront. It is therefore not surprising to in Nassau County which are not represented in this inventory. discover that Suffolk County has more registered boats than any These facilities are discussed separately in section 2.6.6. It is im- other county in New York State; Nassau County has the second portant to note that compared to the 1 million gallons of petrol- greatest number of registered boats in the State. eum product storage capacity in the Suffolk floodplain, there are Records from major storms elsewhere in the country indicate almost 90 million gallons in Nassau's floodplain. that boat damage associated with hurricanes and northeast storms is often substantial. Data are not available on the number 2.6.4 Institutional Structures. The variety of structures in- of recreational boats found along the south shore waterfront of cluded within the institutional classification necessitated a dif- Long Island; nor is it possible to predict the percentage of these ferent inventory approach. A lump sum count, as done for resi- boats that would be destroyed in a major hurricane. Neverthe- 70 TABLE 2-15 Floor Space and Value of Commercial and Industrial Structures in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Nassau County* Commercial Structures ("A" Zone) Industrial Structures ("A" Zone) Municipality Floor Space (ft2) Value ($) Floor Space (ft2) Value Village of Atlantic Beach 67,050 4,680,000 Village of Cedarhurst 10,800 150,000 Village of East Rockaway 40,836 1,710,000 Village of Freeport 363,160 14,830,000 632,143 15,150,000 Village of Hewlett Harbor 32,878 930,000 Village of Island Park 72,086 1,860,000 See Oil Storage 300,000 Village of Rockville Centre 9,350 1,060,000 City of Long Beach" 25,000 790,000 Unincorporated Areas South Valley Stream 23,070 750,000 1 nwood 51,835 1,800,000 56,535 2,500,000 Woodmere 117,500 14,510,000 Bay Park 13,156 430,000 47,364 890,000 Oceanside 533,987 11,300,000 650,751 17,280,000 Atlantic Beach 92,000 3,000,000 Baldwin 27,494 1,350,000 120,000 Merrick 42,991 3,080,000 Bellmore 40,269 1,180,000 12,860 190,000 Seaford 22,308 870,000 8,435 80,000 Island Park 50,640 1,410,000 3,310 1,800,000 Point Lookout/Lido 61,380 2,720,000 TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD TOTAL 1,697,790 67,620,000 1,411,398 38,310,000 Unincorporated Areas Massapequa 9,260 290,000 West Amityville 15,314 200,000 TOWN OF OYSTER BAY TOTAL 24,574 490,000 NASSAU COUNTY 1,722,634 68,900,000 1,411,398 38,310,000 *There are no commercial or industrial structures recorded in the V Zone of the south shore of Nassau County "Most of the City of Long Beach is not within the A or V Zone as mapped by FEMA 71 TABLE 2-16 Floor Space and Value of Commercial and Industrial Structures in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Suffolk County* Commercial Structures Commercial Structures Industrial Structures ("A" Zone) ("V" Zone) ("A" Zone) Municipality Floor Space (ft2) Value Floor Space (W) Value Floor Space (ft@ Value Village of Amityville 21,406 610,000 17,600 160,000 Village of Lindenhurst 109,600 1,930,000 10,000 100,000 Village of Babylon 45,950 1,090,000 Unincorporated Areas 247,900 3,970,000 TOWN OF BABYLON TOTAL 424,856 7,600,000 27,000 260,000 Village of Ocean Beach 24,400 3,000,000 Village of Saltaire 4,600 180,000 Unincorporated Areas 381,200 4,360,000 89,000 130,000 TOWN OF ISLIP TOTAL 410,200 7,540,000 89,000 130,000 TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN TOTAL (All Unincorporated Areas) 176,000 4,310,000 9,600 Village of Westhampton Beach 65,600 3,070,000 6,400 70,000 Village of Southampton 11,200 780,000 Unincorporated Areas 109,600 3,700,000 33,600 710,000 TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON TOTAL 186,400 7,550,000 40,000 780,000 TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON TOTAL (All Unincorporated Areas) 99,200 3,610,000 22,400 820,000 SUFFOLK COUNTY TOTAL 1,296,656 30,610,000 72,000 1,500,000 116,600 390,000 *There are no industrial structures recorded in the V Zone of the south shore of Suffolk County. 72 less, an attempt was made, using available data, to determine the value of boats at risk along the south shore floodplain in the TABLE 2-17 event of a major hurricane. The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles maintains Institutional Structures in the South Shore data on motor vehicle and boat registrations in the State. Data Flood Hazard Zones of Long Island are available on the number of boats in each of five size classes, for every county in 1982. The data also contains information on Municipality Structures the distribution of boats by category within each size class at the state level, but not at the individual county level. The categories NASSAU COUNTY listed are outboard, inboard, inboard/outboard, sail, and others. The five size classes include under 16 ft, 16-25 ft, 26-39 ft, 40-65 Town of Hempstead ft, and over 65 ft. South Valley Stream 1 school, 2 municipal buildings Inwood 1 child care center, public housing facility, Assuming a similar distribution by categories within size class LILCO natural gas storage facility at the county level as at the state level, the state data was used Bay Park 1 minicipal building to determine the probable distribution on Long Island. It is possi- Village of Rockville Centre 1 municipal building ble that the distribution within size classes at the state level does Oceanside 2 LIFIR stations, LILCO power plant, 1 school, not accurately reflect the distribution in Nassau and Suffolk 2 fraternal organizations, 3 municipal Counties. For example, there may be more sailboats on Long buildings Baldwin LILCO storage Island than the State distributions would indicate; however, there Village of Freeport Municipal stadium, 1 school, 2 municipal are no methods to accurately assess this situation. Therefore, buildings, 2 fraternal organizations the State distributions were used as a template for Long Island Merrick I temple distributions. Seaford 1 fire station The average value of different types of boats within different Village of Island Park 1 school, 4 municipal buildings, 1 church, 1 post office, 1 fraternal organization size classes is published annually by the National Marine Manu- Point Lookout/Lido 1 municipal building, 2 churches, 1 fire station facturers Ass'n. (1983). These values represent the current Village of Atlantic Beach I municipal building, 1 Coast Guard station, average unit cost for the different categories of boats throughout 1 Town beach club the United States. Applying these values to the distribution of City of Long Beach 2 churches, 2 schools, 1 fire station boats by size and category on Long Island, the most likely value Town of Oyster Bay of all boats on Long Island was determined. Massapequa 1 municipal building The available data do not illustrate the distribution of boats by West Amityville 1 temple either size or category between the north shore and south shore SUFFOLK COUNTY of Long Island. For all of Long Island, the total value of all registered boats is approximately $800 million. Assuming that at Town of Babylon 1 Coast Guard station, 2 municipal buildings least half of these boats are located along the south shore, there Town of Islip 7 churches, 1 school, 3 fire stations are more than $400 million worth of boats in south shore waters. Town of Brookhaven 4 churches, 3 fire stations, 1 Indian Reservation Exactly how many of these boats would be destroyed in a major Town of Southampton 1 Indian Reservation, 1 Coast Guard station hurricane depends on the warning time available before the Town of East Hampton 1 fire station storm, the direction of and intensity of the storm, the number of protected mooring sites, and the number of boats that could be moved by trailer. In any case, the value of boats damaged or destroyed in a major storm would likely be substantial. 73 TABLE 2-18 Marine Commercial Facility Counts Within the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Long Island Marine Marine Commercial Commercial Municipality Establishments Boat Slips Municipality Establishments Boat Slips NASSAU COUNTY 96 7,018 Town of Islip 38 2,793 Town of Hempstead 91 6,561 Village of Brightwaters 1 200 Village of Lawrence 2 140 Unincorporated areas City of Long Beach 1 85 West Islip 1 134 Village of East Rockaway 9 214 Bay Shore 11 644 Village of Island Park 6 583 Islip 3 90 Village of Freeport 27 1,728 East Islip 2 335 Unincorporated areas Great River 2 155 Oceanside 10 747 Oakdale 4 363 Point Lookout 4 394 West Sayville 2 159 Baldwin 4 ill Sayville 8 284 LISPC-Jones Beach 1 50 Bayport 3 309 Merrick 6 678 Captree State Park 1 120 Wantagh 1 136 Town of Brookhaven 43 3,446 Bellmore 4 169 Village of Patchogue 7 908 Seaford 15 1,469 Village of Bellport 1 50 Inwood 1 57 Unincorporated areas Town of Oyster Bay 5 457 Blue Point 3 370 Unincorporated areas East Patchogue 2 150 South Oyster Bay Township 2 325 Brookhaven 1 65 Massapequa 3 132 Mastic Beach 3 187 Center Moriches 4 167 East Moriches 14 900 Eastport 1 100 Ocean Bay Park 2 40 Fire Island Pines 1 4 Davis Park 1 234 Fire Island National Seashore 2 186 SUFFOLK COUNTY 142 9,943 Great Gun Beach 1 85 Town of Babylon 29 2,334 Town of Southampton 32 1,370 Village of Amityville 5 208 Village of Westhampton Beach 4 183 Village of Lindenhurst 7 1,447 Village of Southampton 2 24 Village of Babylon 7 175 Unincorporated areas Unincorporated areas Speonk 1 130 Copiague 5 252 Remsenberg 1 West Babylon 2 135 Westhampton 1 32 Gilgo Beach 1 55 East Quogue 1 40 Cedar Beach 2 62 Hampton Bays 22 961 BI-COUNTY TOTAL 238 16,961 74 2.6.6 Hazardous Material Storage Facilities and'Sites. Ma- TABLE 2.19 (cont'd.) jor hazardous material storage facilities in the floodplain zones on the south shore of Long Island are identified in Table 2-19. A Storage Capacity total of 1 1 petroleum product storage facility sites, one natural Natural Gas (millions of gas storage facility, 13 sewage treatment plants, two active land- Storage Facilities Location cubic feet) fills and three municipal incinerators have been inventoried. In- formation on the location and capacity of hazardous materials LILCO Gas Storage storage facilities was obtained from the Nassau County Fire Mar- Holder Sheridan Blvd., Inwood 6.0 shal's Office (petroleum storage facilities in Nassau County), Nassau County Health Dept. (sewage treatment plants (STPs) in Nassau County), N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation (landfills on Long Island), Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Sewage Treatment (STPs in Suffolk County), and LILCO (power plants and natural Plants (STP) Location Capacity (MG D) gas facilities). West Long Beach 2150 Bay Blvd., Atlantic Beach 0.67 Lawrence Doughty Blvd., Lawrence 0.97 Inwood Bay Blvd., Inwood 1.70 Cedarhurst Peninsula Blvd., Cedarhurst 0.97 TABLE 2-19 Bay Park 4th Street, East Rockaway 63.60 Long Beach National Blvd, Long Beach 6.21 Hazardous Materials Storage Facilities Cedar Creek Merrick Rd., Wantagh 29-60 Jones Beach Jones Beach State Park 1.00 Petroleum Product Storage Capacity Southwest Sewer Dist. Bergen Ave., Babylon 30.50 Storage Facilities Location (millions of gallons) Ocean Beach 940 Bay Walk, Ocean Beach 0.50 Patchogue Hammond St., Patchogue 0.50 Wechter Petroleum 1 Sheridan Blvd., Inwood 1.5 Watergate Apts. 33 Midship Lane, Patchogue 0.23 Southville Industries 180 Roger Ave., Inwood 1.5 Yardarm Condominiums Dune Road, Westhampton Beach 0.10 Shell Oil Corp. 20 Roger Ave., Inwood 2.4 Mobil Oil Corp. 464 Doughty Blvd., Inwood 16.2 Amoco Oil Corp. 555 Doughty Blvd., Inwood 1.1 Landfills Location Acreage Carbo Oil Corp. 1 Bay Blvd., Inwood 2.4 Paragon Oil/Texaco East Ave., Meadowmere Park 11.1 Oceanside East of Long Beach Rd. approx. 150 Sun Oil Co. Hampton Rd., Oceanside 5.1 Merrick East of Meadowbrook Pkwy. approx. 50 Gulf Oil Corp. Hampton Rd., Oceanside 4.3 B.P. Oil Co. Hampton Rd., Oceanside 3.0 Exxon Inc. Daly Blvd., Oceanside 3.4 Incenerators Location Cirillo Bros. Washington Ave., Island Park 15.8 LILCO Long Beach Rd., Island Park 20.2 Merrick East of Meadowbrook Pkwy. Freeport Power Plant 298 Buffalo Ave., Freeport 1.5 Saltaire Beacon Walk, Saltaire Marran & Sons, Inc. 102 Mulford St., Patchogue 1.0 Ocean Beach Bay Walk, Ocean Beach 75 2.7 POPULATION AT RISK IN FLOOD HAZARD ZONES TABLE 2-.20 The population at risk represents the number of persons re- Population in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Nassau County siding within the south shore A and V flood hazard zones. An estimation has been made both of the year-round population at Total of risk in the flood hazard zones, and the seasonal population pres- Additional Year-round and Community or Year-round Seasonal Seasonal ent during the hurricane-susceptible summer months. The year- Municipality Population Population Population round and seasonal populations at risk in the south shore flood hazard zones were calculated from the residential structure in- Town of Hempstead 58,249 558 58,807 ventory and 1980 Census data. The Census block statistics do Village of Cedarhurst 651 651 not contain information on seasonal population or dwelling units; Inwood 240 240 this information is available only at the Census tract level. Village of Atlantic Beach 342 71 413 Therefore, it was necessary to use different methods in the Atlantic Beach (unincorporated) 794 22 816 determination of year-round and seasonal population. There is South Valley Stream 1,689 1,689 also no reliable method to segregate seasonal population into A Village of Lawrence 103 103 or V zones. Seasonal population presented at the municipality Woodmere 6,069 6,069 and CDP-level therefore represents the 100-year floodplain as a Village of Woodsburgh 7 7 whole, with the A and V zone populations aggregated. Village of Valley Stream 1,017 1,017 The results of these calculations are presented in Tables 2-20 Village of Hewlett Neck 17 17 through 2-24. Table 2-20 lists the population in the south shore Village of Hewlett Harbor 31 31 flood hazard zones of Nassau County. There are a total of 74,879 Bay Park 2,093 2,093 year-round residents in the 1 00-year floodplain of Nassau County Village of East Rockaway 2,178 2,178 and an additional 750 seasonal residents, yielding a total popula- Village of Island Park 4,021 4,021 tion at risk in the floodplain during the summer months of 75,629. Island Park (unincorporated) 1,396 1,396 Table 2-21 sequentially orders the Nassau communities based Oceanside 6,820 6,820 on total population at risk. Freeport, Massapequa, Oceanside Village of Rockville Centre 23 23 and Woodmere, respectively, have the greatest year-round Liclo-Pt. Lookout 3,478 465 3,943 floodplain population at risk. Baldwin 3,759 3,759 Suffolk County's floodplain population at risk is presented in Village of Freeport 9,612 9,612 Tables 2-22 to 2-24. Table 2-22 lists the year-round and seasonal Merrick 4,291 4,291 populations for all south shore Suffolk County communities run- Bellmore 3,194 3,194 ning west to east (from Amityville to Montauk). There are 34,818 Wantagh 2,853 2,853 Suffolk County year-round residents in the floodplain, and an ad- Seaford 3,570 3,570 ditional 34,344 seasonal residents, yielding a total summer pop- City of Long Beach* 3,018 192 3,210 ulation at risk of 69,162. Table 2-23 reorders the Suffolk County communities to illustrate those with the greatest year-round Town of Oyster Bay 13,612 13,612 population at risk. These include Copiague, the Villages of Massapequa 8,966 8,966 Babylon and Lindenhurst, and West Islip. Table 2-24 presents a Village of Massapequa Park 436 436 ranking of the communities with the greatest seasonal popula- East Massapequa 3,272 3,272 tion at risk. More than half of Suffolk County's entire seasonal West Amityville 938 93 8 population at risk is located in Fire Island communities. Adding Nassau County Total 74,879 750 .75,629 the seasonal component to the year-round population, Fire *Most of the City of Long Beach is not within the A or V Zone as mapped by FEMA. 76 TABLE 2-21 Year-round Population at Risk in "A" and "V11 Zones South Shore of Nassau County Village or Community Population Village or Community Population Freeport 9,612 Island Park (unincorporated) 1,396 Massapequa 8,966 Valley Stream 1,017 Oceanside 6,820 WestAmityville 938 Woodmere 6,069 Atlantic Beach (unincorporated) 794 Merrick 4,291 Cedarhurst 651 Island Park 4,021 Massapequa Park 436 Baldwin 3,759 Atlantic Beach 342 Seaford 3,570 Inwood 240 Lido Beach/Pt. Lookout 3,478 Lawrence 103 East Massapequa 3,272 Hewlett Harbor 31 Bellmore 3,194 Rockville Centre 23 Long Beach* 3,018 Hewlett Neck 17 Wantagh 2,853 Woodsburgh 7 East Rockaway 2,178 TOTAL 74,878 Bay Park 2,093 South Valley Stream 1,689 *Most of the City of Long Beach is not within the A or V Zone as mapped by FEMA. 77 TABLE 2-22 Population in the South Shore Flood Hazard Zones of Suffolk County Total of Total of Additional Year-round and Additional Year-round and Community or Year-round Seasonal Seasonal Community or Year-round Seasonal Seasonal Municipality Population Population Population Municipality Population Population Population Town of Babylon 16,806 1,353 18,159 Town of Brookhaven 4,548 1,051 5,599 Village of Amityville 2,369 2,369 Blue Point 410 410 Copiague 6,109 6,109 Village of Patchogue 239 239 Village of Lindenhurst 2,709 2,709 East Patchogue 312 312 West Babylon 2,129 2,129 Brookhaven 269 26 295 Gilgo/Oak Beach 418 1,353 1,771 Village of Bellport 66 66 Village of Babylon 3,072 3,072 Mastic Beach 2,036 862 2,898 Mastic 96 96 Town of Islip 8,595 19,970 28,565 Poospatuck Indian Res. 31 31 West Islip 2,449 2,449 Shirley 430 37 467 West Bay Shore 237 237 Center Moriches 369 73 442 Fire Island (Islip) - - East Moriches 262 53 315 Fire Island (Brookhaven) - - Eastport (Brookhaven) - - Fire Island Total 509 19,970 20,479 Eastport (Southampton) - - Village of Brightwaters 219 219 Eastport Total 28 28 Bay Shore 1,098 1,098 Town of Southampton 4,005 9,228 13,233 Islip 402 402 Remsenberg-Speonk 328 73 442 East Islip 297 297 Westhampton* 193 2,815 3,008 Great River 57 57 Quiogue 83 83 Oakdale 2,239 2,239 Village of Westhampton West Sayville 132 132 Beach 421 2,712 3,133 Bayport 644 644 Village of Quogue 222 1,410 1,632 Sayville 312 312 East Quogue 673 571 1,244 Hampton Bays 1,261 281 1,542 Town of East Hampton 864 2,742 3,606 Shinnecock Hills 285 365 650 Wainscott 76 30 106 Shinnecock Indian Res. 51 51 Village of East Hampton 109 317 426 Village of Southampton 112 375 487 Amagansett 167 1,350 1,517 Water Mill 90 144 234 Napeague-Hither Hills 146 936 1,082 Bridgehampton 108 221 329 Montauk 366 109 475 Sagaponack 178 261 4 3 nu *Includes unincorporated portion of Westhampton Beach. SUFFOLK COUNTY TOTAL 34,818 34,344 69,162 78 TABLE 2-23 Year-round Population at Risk in "A" and 'IV" Zones South Shore of Suffolk County Village or Community Population Village or Community Population Copiague 6,109 East Moriches 262 Babylon 3,072 Patchogue 239 Lindenhurst 2,709 West Bay Shore 237 West Islip 2,449 Quogue 222 Amityville 2,369 Brightwaters 219 Oakdale 2,239 Westhampton (unincorporated)* 193 West Babylon 2,129 Sagaponack 178 Mastic Beach 2,036 Amagansett 167 Hampton Bays 1,261 Napeague/Hither Hills 146 Bay Shore 1,098 West Sayville 132 East Quogue 673 Southampton 112 Bayport 644 East Hampton 109 Fire Island (Islip and Brookhaven) 509 Bridgehampton 108 Shirley 430 Mastic 96 Westhampton Beach 421 Water Mill 90 Gilgo/Oak Beach 418 Quiogue 83 Blue Point 410 Wainscott 76 Islip 402 Bellport 66 Center Moriches 369 Great River 57 Montauk 366 Shinnecock Indian Res. 51 Remsenberg/Speonk 328 Poospatuck Indian Res. 31 Sayville 312 Eastport 28 East Patchogue 312 TOTAL 34,818 East Islip 297 Shinnecock Hills 285 *Includes unincorporated portion of Westhampton Beach. Brookhaven 269 Island again outnumbers all other Suffolk County communities, The total year-round population at risk within the Nassau and with 20,479 persons at risk during the summer months. This Suffolk south shore A and V zones is approximately 110,000 peo- figure represents nearly a third of all Suffolk County residents in ple. During the summer months, there are an additional 34,0()o the floodplain during the hurricane-prone summer months. people present and at risk in the bi-county south shore floodplain. 79 2.8 REFERENCES TABLE 2-24 Allen, Everett S. 1976. A wind to shake the world. The story of the 1938 hurricane. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. Seasonal Population at Risk in "A" and 'IV" Zones Andrews, W. Earle. 1938. Report on plan to restore and protect South Shore of Suffolk County Fire Island. Consultant engineers report prepared for Long Island State Park Commission. Babylon, N.Y. Village or Community Population Balloffet, A. and M.L. Scheffler. 1980. Influence of storm type and urbanization on tidal flooding. Pages 2256-2270 in B. L. Fire Island (Islip and Brookhaven) 19,970 Edge, ed. Coastal zone '80, Vol. 111. American Society of Civil Westhampton Beach 2,815 Engineers, N.Y. Westhampton (unincorporated)* 2,712 Boating Almanac Co., Inc. 1983. Boating Almanac, Vol. 2, 1982. Quogue 1,410 Severna Park, Maryland. Gilgo/Oak Beach 1,353 Brown, C. 1939. Hurricanes, and shoreline changes in Rhode Amagansett 1,350 Island. Geogr. Rev. 29:416-430. Napeague/Hither Hills 936 Brumbach, J.J. 1965. The climate of Connecticut. State Geo- Mastic Beach 862 logical and Natural History Survey of Connecticut Bull. 99. East Quogue 571 Burt, W.V. 1958. Can mid-latitude storms be as severe as tropical Southampton 375 typhoons and hurricanes? U.S. Naval Inst. Proc. 84 Shinnecock Hills 365 (6):127-129. East Hampton 317 Byers, H.R. 1959. General meteorology, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill Hampton Bays 281 Co., New York. Sagaponack 261 Chute, N.E. 1946. Shoreline changes caused by hurricane of Bridgehampton 221 September 1944. Mass. Dept. Public Works, Bull. No. 9, in Water Mill 144 cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, Montauk 109 D.C. Center Moriches 73 Clowes, Ernest S. 1939. The hurricane of 1938 on eastern Long Remsenberg/Speonk 73 Island. Hampton Press, Bridgehampton, N.Y. East Moriches 53 Darrielsen, F.F., W.V. Burt and M. Rattray. 1957. Intensity and Shirley 37 frequency of severe storms in the Gulf of Alaska. Trans. Amer. Wainscott 30 Geophys. Union. 38 (1):185-188. Brookhaven 26 Davies, D.S., E.W. Axelrod and J.S. O'Connor. 1973. Erosion of TOTAL 34,344 the north shore of Long Island. Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook, N.Y. Tech. Rep. Series 18. *Includes unincorporated portion of Westhampton Beach. Davies, DeWitt S. 1972. Stability of the north shore, Long Island, New York. M.S. thesis. State University of New York, Stony Brook. Dolan, R., B. Hayden and H. Lins. 1980. Barrier islands. Page 17 in American Scientist, Vol. 68, No. 1. Freeman, J.C., L. Baer and G.H. Jung. 1957. The bathystropic storm tide. J. Marine Res. 16:12-22. 80 Gentry, R.C. 1966. Nature and scope of hurricane damage. Howard, A.D. 1939. Hurricane modifications of the offshore bar Pages 229-254 in S.A. Stubbs ed. Hurricane symposium. of Long Island, New York, Geogr. Rev. 29:400-415. American Society of Oceanography, Houston. Jarvinen, B.R. and E.L. Caso. 1978. A tropical cyclone data tape Hall, C.L. 1939. The 1938 hurricane and its effect on Long Island for the North Atlantic basin, 1886-1977: contents, limitations, beach-protection structures. Civil Engin. 9 (3):169-172. and uses. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NWS Harris, D.L. 1963. Characteristics of the hurricane storm surge. NHC 6. National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL. U.S. Weather Bureau. Washington D.C. Tech. Paper no. 48. Koppelman, L.E., et al. 1976. The urban sea: Long Island Sound. -. Hurricane storm surges. Pages 200-228 in S.A. Stubbs, Praeger Publishers, N.Y. ed. Hurricane symposium. American Society for Ocean- Koppelman, Lee E., et al. 1982. The Long Island segment of the ography, Houston. nationwide urban runoff program. Long Island Regional Plan- Hayes, M.O. 1967. Hurricanes as geological agents: case ning Board, Hauppauge, N.Y. studies of hurricane Carla, 1961, and Cindy, 1963. Bureau of Leatherman, Stephen P. 1982. Barrier island handbook. Coastal Economic Geology, Austin, Texas. Report of Investigations no. Publications, Charlotte, N.C. 61. Leatherman, Stephen P. & Joneja, Danielle. 1980. Final report . 1978. Impact of hurricanes on sedimentation in geomorphic analysis of south shore barriers, Long Island, estuaries, bays,and lagoons. Pages 323-346 in M.L. Wiley, ed. New York: Phase 1. National Parks Service Cooperative Estuarine Interactions. Academic Press, N.Y. Research Unit Report 47. The Environmental Institute, Univer- Hayes, M.O. and J.C. Boothroyd. 1969. Storms as modifying sity of Mass., Amherst, Mass. agents in the coastal environment. Pages 245-265 in Coastal Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1982. Land use 1981. Research Group, ed. Field trip guidebook, coastal en- Quantification and analysis of land use for Nassau and Suffolk vironments of northeastern Massachusetts and New Hamp- Counties. Hauppauge, N.Y. shire. Univ. of Mass., Amherst. Mather, J.R., H. Adams and G.A. Yoshioka. 1965. Coastal storms Herbert, P.J. and G. Taylor. 1983. The deadliest, costliest, and of the eastern United States. J. Appl. Meteorol. 3:693-706. most intense United States hurricanes of this century (and National Marine Manufacturers Ass'n. 1983. Boating 1982-a other frequently requested hurricane facts). Dept. of Com- statistical report on America's top sport. Chicago, 111. merce, NOAA Tech. Memo NWC 18. National Hurricane National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1972. Project Center, Coral Gables, FL. Stormfury 1972. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Hicks, S.D. 1973. Trends and Variability of yearly mean sea level Neumann, C.J, et al. 1981. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlan- 1893-1971. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and tic Ocean. 1871-1980. Revised edition to include data for 1982 Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Survey, NOAA and .1983. National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C. in Technical Memorandum No. 12. cooperation with the National Hurricane Center and National - . 1978. An average geopotential sea level series for the Hurricane Research Laboratory, Coral Gables, FL. United States. Pages 1377-1379 in Journal of Geophysical Neumann, C.J. and M.J. Pryslak. 1981. Frequency and motion of Research, vol. 83, no. C3. Atlantic tropical cyclones. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA - . 1981. Long-period sea level variations for the United Technical Report NWS 26. National Hurricane Center, Coral States through 1978. Pages 26-29 in Shore and Beach, April Gables, FL. 1981. New York, Joint Legislative Committee. 1947. Report to the State Hobbs, Carl H. 1970. Shoreline orientation and storm surge. Legislature on the problem of checking erosion along the Maritime Sediments 6:113-116. north shore of Long Island. Albany, New York. Hoover, R.Z. 1957. Empirical relationships of the central Nichols, R. and A.F. Marston. 1939. Shoreline changes in Rhode pressures in hurricanes to the maximum surge and storm tide. Island produced by hurricane of September 21, 1938. Bull. Monthly Weather Rev. 85:167-174. Geol. Soc. Amer. 50:1357-1370. &1 Nichols, R.L. 1967. Shoreline changes in Rhode Island produced U.S. Dept. of interior. 1977. Final environmental impact state- by hurricane of September 21, 1938 sequel Pages 529-530 in ment, general management plan, Fire Island national sea O.C. Farquhar, ed. Economic Geology in Massachusetts. shore, New York. Prepared by Denver Service Center Na- Univ. of Mass. Graduate School, Amherst. tional Park Service. Pierce, C.H. 1939. The meteorological history of the New White, G.F., et al. 1976. Natural hazard management in coastal England hurricane of Sept. 21, 1938. Monthly Weather Review areas. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Of- 67(8):237-285. fice of Coastal Zone Management. Washington, D.C. Rich, Charles A. 1975. Effects of storms and construction ac- Works Progress Administration. 1938. New England hurricane. tivities on beach accretion and recession rates from Moriches Hale, Cushman & Flint, Boston. Inlet to Amagansett, Long Island, New York. M.A. Thesis, Yasso, W.E. and E.M. Hartman, Jr. 1975. Beach forms and Dept. of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Queens College, coastal processes. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany. CUNY. MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 11. Sanders, J.E. and N. Kumar. 1975. Evidence of shoreface Zeigler, J.M., C. Hayes and S. Tuttle. 1959. Beach changes dur- retreat and in-place drowning during holocene submergence ing storms on outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. J. Geol. of barriers, shelf off Fire Island, New York. Geol. Soc. of Amer. 67:318-336. Bull. 86(l):65-76. Zeigler, J.M., et al. 1964. Residence time of sand composing the Shepard, Francis P. 1973. Pages 111-121. Submarine geology, beaches and bars of outer Cape Cod. Pages 403-416 in Amer. 3rd edition. Harper & Row, New York. Soc. Civil Engineers, Proc. 9th Conf. on Coastal Engineering. Taney, N.E. 1961. Geomorphology of the south shore of Long Zimmerman, M.S. 1983. Coastal facets as indicators of shoreline Island, New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, response to rising sea level. M.S. thesis. State University of D.C. Beach Erosion Board TM No. 128. New York, Stony Brook. Tannehill, 1.%!. 1950. Hurricanes. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton. Tanner, William F. 1961. Mainland beach changes due to Hur- ricane Donna. J. Geophys. Research 66:2265-2266. Appendix 2-A Long Island South Shore Topo-Metrics, Inc. undated. Flood observation records for the Community FIRM Studies 1938 Hurricane, the 1950 Northeaster, 1954 Hurricane Carol, 1960 Hurricane Donna and the 1962 Northeaster. Reports Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1982 (Dec. 16). Flood prepared for the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, contract insurance study. Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New DACW51-80-c-001 1. Central Islip, N.Y. York. Community number 360467. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1977. Shore . 1982 (Aug. 4). Flood insurance study. Village of protection manual, Vol. 1, 3rd edition. U.S. Gov't. Printing Off., Cedarhurst, Nassau County, New York. Community number Washington, D.C. 360460. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1969. North shore of Long Island, _. 1982 (July 19). Flood insurance study. Village of Hewlett Suffolk County, New York, beach erosion and interim hur- Bay Park, Nassau County, New York. Community number ricane study. New York District Corps of Engineers, New 360468. York. _. 1982 (July 19). Flood insurance study. Village of Hewlett U.S. Army Engineering District. New York. 1977. Final en- Neck, Nassau County, New York. Community number 360470. vironmental impact statement for Fire Island Inlet to Montauk . 1982 (Nov. 16). Flood insurance study. Village of Point, New York: beach erosion control and hurricane protec- Lawrence, Nassau County, New York. Community number tion project. Vol 11. Appendix E: Coastal storms. 360476. 82 . 1982 (May 17). Flood insurance study. Village of - . 1982 (Dec. 1). Flood insurance study. Town of Rockville Center, Nassau County, New York. Community Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York. Community number number 360488. 365334. - . 1982 (Aug. 5). Flood insurance study. City of Long - . 1982 (April 15). Flood insurance study. Village of Beach, Nassau County, New York, Community number Bellport, Suffolk County, New York. Community number 365338. 361069. . 1982 (Dec. 1). Flood insurance study. Village of - . 1982 (May 3). Flood insurance study. Village of Patch- Woodsburgh, Nassau County, New York. Community number ogue, Suffolk County, New York. Community number 360803. 360496. - . 1982 (Dec. 1). Flood insurance study. Town of - . 1982 (Sept. 16). Flood insurance study. Town of Oyster Southampton, Suffolk County, New York. Community number Bay, Nassau County, New York. Community number 360483. 365342. - . 1982 (July 19). Flood insurance study. Village of - . 1982 (Aug. 16). Flood insurance study. Village of Massapequa Park, Nassau County, New York. Community Quogue, Suffolk County, New York. Community number Number 360480. 360806. . 1982 (Sept. 2). Flood insurance study. Town of - . 1982 (Aug 2). Flood insurance study, Village of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York. Community number Southampton, Suffolk County, New York. Community number 360700. 365343. _. 1983 (Jan. 14). Flood insurance study. Town of Islip, Suf- - . 1982 (Nov. 2). Flood insurance study. Village of folk County, New York. Community number 365337, Westhampton Beach, Suffolk County, New York. Community . 1982 (Mar. 2). Flood insurance study. Village of number 365345. Brightwaters, Suffolk County, New York. Community number - . 1982 (Sept. 16). Flood insurance study. Town of East 361342. Hampton, Suffolk County, New York. Community number _. 1982 (Aug. 16). Flood insurance study. Village of Ocean 360794. Beach, Suffolk County, New York. Community number - . 1982 (Dec. 1). Flood insurance study. Village of East 365339. Hampton, Suffolk County, New York. Community number _. 1982 (July 19). Flood insurance study. Village of Saltaire, 360795. Suffolk County, New York. Community number 365341. 83 3.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents strategies and recommendations by coastal reach and detailed study area. They have been for- mulated to mitigate damage caused by severe storms. Some should be used over the short-term to guide/control incremental development in the floodplain as it occurs-, other recommenda- tions are targeted for use after a major storm disaster in hazard areas that have essentially been wiped clean of development. In the latter context, the recommendations pertain to the re- development process. The strategies listed for each reach include recommendations in the areas of erosion and flood control, land use and develop- ment patterns, land acquisition strategies, environmental regula- tions, the NFIP and federal policies, and evacuation, warning and public education. These strategies were developed in re- Chapter 3.... sponse to concerns voiced in interviews with community repre- sentatives and government officals, and problems identified dur- ing LIRPB staff site visits. Several of the objectives and strategies for each reach have been stated previously in various Strategies and regional plans, including the New York Coastal Management Plan (LIRPB, 1979) and the Long Island 208 Waste Treatment Management Plan (LIRPB, 1978). Recommend ati ons by An effort was made to identify geographically specific strat- egies and recommendations for each reach. However, many of Coastal Reach and the strategies developed were found to be applicable to all coastal reaches in the south shore floodplain. For example, a Detailed Study Area strategy to protect and maintain dunes and beaches as natural protective features applies to all of the coastal reaches except the mainland shoreline. Likewise, suggestions regarding mod- ifications in the NFIP and the New York State Uniform Fire Pre- vention and Building Code will apply equally to all reaches. Sug- gested modifications to government programs are included in Chapter 4. Other strategies applicable to all flood hazard zones include the need for communities to adopt provisions for instituting tem- porary development moratoria in the A and V zones during the post-storm period. Such moratoria will allow communities to temper the immediate post-storm desire to rebuild structures as quickly as possible (often in the same location) and give them time to implement redevelopment plans. Another strategy which is applicable to all coastal reaches is the need to examine alter- native acquisition strategies for selected areas, such as pay- ment of flood insurance claims to full coverage limits, restrictive easements, land exchanges and donations. 84 3.1 STUDY AREA SELECTION PROCEDURE 3.1.1 Development of Criteria. During the process of inter- In developing a hurricane damage mitigation plan for Long views with local officials undertaken in July and August, 1983 it Island's south shore, an area that encompasses more than 500 became apparent that particular geographic areas face similar miles of bay and ocean coastline, the LIRPB was faced with the flooding and erosion problems based in part on shoreline problem of limiting the scope of the areas to be studied. A detailed, characteristics and land uses in the flood hazard zones. In par- parcel-specific plan for the entire',.south shore coastline was ticular, storm damage is most likely to occur in developed areas clearly not feasible, given the financial and time constraints of where there are: this study. On the other hand, a general policy document for the * severe or chronic flooding problems south shore WOLIld fail to accomplish a key study objective: ap- * structures exposed to direct high energy wave attack plication of damage mitigation planning at the local level. Such a e densely developed areas document would be no more than a listing of generic policies and 9 patterns of recurring flood insurance claims. strategies, without the details and guidelines needed for local A review of current land uses indicated that certain areas implementation. could be differentiated. The Long Beach barrier island, for exam- The method that was selected by the LIRPB staff combines ple, is characterized principally by high and medium density both of the above approaches. Recommendations have been residential land use, whereas the Jones Beach barrier island is prepared for two levels of investigation: coastal reaches and primarily recreational in nature. Such similarities within shore- detailed study areas. Coastal reaches are discrete coastal line reaches (as well as differences) help to facilitate the analysis segments affected by similar coastal processes, land use, and of storm-induced flooding and the formulation of mitigation alter- development patterns. Dividing the south shore into a number of natives. separate reaches enables the preparation of policies and im- The identification of general criteria to be used in the delinea- plementation strategies tailored to the individual characteristics tion of reaches is accomplished by an analysis of natural and of that reach, irrespective of political boundaries. man-made systems and their interaction. The criteria include the Detailed study areas are smaller, specific areas within the following: coastal reaches that typify the characteristics and most severe 1 .NATURAL RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS. Elements flooding problems of the reach. In this respect, they represent a to be considered include natural buffers and protective worst case example of the types of problems encountered in features, such as bluffs, dunes and tidal wetlands, each reach. The mitigation policies and implementation along with erosion-stabilizi@ng features, such as strategies developed for each reach were applied on a site maritime flora and gradual slopes. specific basis in each of the detailed study areas as an example 2. EROSION RATES. The severity of erosion as evi- of local damage mitigation planning. Implementation actions at denced by annual rates, or the existence of severely the Federal, State or local levels are illustrated. eroding areas that would pose a significant threat to Detailed study areas were selected for in-depth analysis for life and/or property in the event of a major storm are two reasons. First, as indicated above, they represent an oppor- two factors to consider. tunity to highlight and give special attention to areas with par- 3. FLOOD HAZARD ZONE LOCATION. A significant ticularly severe flooding, erosion or other identified management amount of land area within the A and V flood hazard problems. Second, these detailed study areas represent proto- zones is an important criterion. Furthermore, an area type or case studies which serve to illustrate how the information that is primarily in the V zone will require different and recommendations developed in this study can be utilized by management and mitigation strategies than an area in localities to develop their own mitigation planning efforts. the A zone. 85. 4. SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS. The presence (or 7. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION. One cri- lack of) natural features that serve to protect shoreline terion is the presence of governmental jurisdictions in development during severe storms is an important con- an area with sufficient powers to implement plan sideration. The nature of the area's shoreline, whether recommendations. Another is the presence of overlap- engineered (e.g., an area where structural measures, ping jurisdictions with conflicting or contradictory such as groins, jetties, bulkheads, etc., have been policies. utilized to control erosion and build up beaches), or 8. POPULATION AND STRUCTURES AT RISK. Another natural (e.g., a natural beach and dune system with no important factor is an area's population at risk (i.e., disruption of normal sand transport patterns along the population residing in flood hazard zones), or the special characteristics of the population that make it shore) is another. particularly vulnerable to hurricane-induced damage. 5. LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS. The presence of For example, an area with a high percentage of elderly similar land uses and intensities of use in an area is a or relatively immobile residents would require special criterion, especially if the location of these land uses consideration if evacuation of those residents was re- leaves them vulnerable to storm-induced damage, by quired. Similarly, the value of structures at risk in a virtue of their low elevation or proximity to the shore. flood hazard zone is also important. Furthermore, if a majority of the development in an area pre-dates the adoption of floodplain management 3.1.2 Study Area Description. For the purposes of this regulations, the area needs special attention to report, the Long Island south shore was divided into six coastal safeguard structures that do not conform to NFIP or reaches, using the procedure and criteria described above. Four floodplain management regulations. Another considera- tion is whether or not residences are primary or secon- of the six coincide with the Long Beach, Jones Beach, Fire Island dary. If secondary (e.g., summer or vacation homes), and Westhampton barrier islands. The fifth includes the eastern there is less urgency to protect them compared to headlands section and extends from Shinnecock Inlet to Mon- year-round homes. Finally, the existence of significant tauk Point, and the sixth includes the mainland bay shoreline, tracts of vacant, developable land in the floodplain is which extends from Brosewere Bay in western Nassau County important, because of the additional threat that would through Great South Bay, Moriches Bay and Shinnecock Bay in be posed if it is developed inappropriately or unwisely. Suffolk County. Detailed study areas were selected within each 6. SPECIAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS. reach to represent conditions encountered there. The selected The presence of problems with respect to transporta- coastal reaches, along with their associated detailed study tion, evacuation and localized instances of flooding is areas, are listed below: a criterion. For example, some areas will have dif- ferent evacuation capabilities and be easier to -REACH #1: Long Beach Barrier Island evacuate than others, based on available transporta- DETAILED STUDY AREA: West Long Beach (City of Long tion routes, facilities and emergency equipment. Areas Beach; Town of Hempstead) will also be at different states of preparedness, depen- REACH #2: Jones Beach Barrier Island ding on the status of emergency planning efforts. DETAILED STUDY AREA: GilgolOak Beach (Town of A history of documented flooding problems in an Babylon) area or a history of frequent flood insurance claims REACH #3- Fire Island would indicate the need for special attention. Finally, DETAILED'STUDY AREA: Village of Saltaire to Lonelyville the presence of significant amounts of stored hazar- (Town of Islip) dous materials, landfills or sewage treatment plants that could create environmental hazards in the event REACH #4: Westhampton Barrier Island of storm-induced flooding would also indicate the need DETAILED STUDY AREA: Westhampton Beach (Town of for special attention. Southampton) 86 REACH #5: Shinnecock Inlet to Montauk Point Table 3-1 describes the six coastal reaches in terms of the DETAILED STUDY AREA: Napeague (Town of East characteristics or features of the reach selection criteria de- Hampton) tailed previously. Fig. 3-1 illustrates the boundaries of the six REACH #6: Mainland and Bay Island Areas coastal reaches and serves as a location key for the detailed DETAILED STUDY AREA: Mastic Beach (Town of study areas. Brookhaven) TABLE 3-1 Selected Study Area Characteristics Characteristics Special Population Predominant Natural of Population Transportationl Value Shoreline Resource Predominant Public or at Risk Evacuation Special Flooding at Risk Governmental Reach Characteristics Characteristics Land Uses Private Ownership (Age, Seasonal) Problems Problems (Millions $) Jurisdictions Long Beach Groins, Jellies, Developed man-made V Zone-Recrea- V Zone - Public Densely populated Flooding of High density development 8,382/$222.6 City of Long Beach Sand Nourishment. Dunes; tidal wetlands tion & Commer- A Zone - Private Year-round resi- bridges and in low lying, flood-prone Town of Hempstead cial dents access roads; areas; suspected error in Village of Atlantic A Zone-Commer- High % elderly few evacuation FHZ designation Beach cial, Recrea- routes tion, Open Space, High Density Resid. @Jones Beach Groins at Oak Beach, natural dune V Zone-Open A & V Zones Public Predominantly No special Substantial park infra- 1,7711$42.5 L.I. State Park Beach, Beach system; tidal wet- Space/Recreation (Private Leases) seasonal; small problems structure and residential Commission maintained by lands (Active) Medium year-round development in V Zone Town of Babylon nourishment. Density Resid. population Town of Oyster Bay at Oak & Gilgo Beaches A Zone-Open Space Medium Density Resid. Fire Island Natural Shoreline Beach, natural dune V Zone-Vacant, V Zone - Public Very large Evacuation Location of resid. de- 20,479/$419.3 Fire Is. National system; tidal wet- Open Space and A Zone - Public seasonal; small depends on ve)opment in FHZ; ero- Seashore lands Recreation except in develop- % year-round ferry service sion & dune migration Town of Islip A Zone-Medium ed communities exacerbate problem Town of Brookhaven Density Resid. Village of Saltaire Communities Village of Ocean located between Beach Open Space and Recreation 87 TABLE 3-1 (cont'd.) Characteristics Special Population Predominant Natural of Population Transportation/ Value Shoreline Resource Predominant Public or at Risk Evacuation Special Flooding at Risk Governmental Reach Characteristics Characteristics Land Uses Private Ownership (Age, 73-easonal) Problems Problems (Millions $) Jurisdictions Westhampton Natural Shoreline Beach, natural dune V Zone-Vacant, V Zone - Public Large seasonal Limited bridge Severe flooding and 4,959/$144.4 Town of Southampton Barrier except groins at system; tidal wetlands Open Space and Tiana Beach; (95%) capacity, rela- erosion west of groins Vill. of Westhampton Island Westhampton Pqcreation east Private Quogue to tive of season- (700 & 800 block Village of Quogue Beach of Cuogue; Cupsogue Park al pop. - Dune Dune Rd.) Cuogue and Rd. extremely Westhampton Low vulnerable to and Med. Density flooding Resid. and Com- mercial Shinnecock Natural Shoreline Dunes & beach system V Zone-Open V & A Zones Large seasonal Montauk Hwy. Potential for over- 5,146/$243.8 Town of Southampton Inlet to Gabions at Shinnecock to Napeague; Space Residen- Public at (75%) has limited wash at Napeague, thus Town of East Hampton Montauk Point Montauk Point beach and bluffs tial near Montauk, Napeague, carrying cutting east end evacu- Vill. of Southampton Napeague to Montauk Shinnecock and Amagansett; capacity ation routes Vill. of East Hampton A Zone-Open remainder mixed Space near Resid. & Vacant Montauk and Napeague,Low Density Resi- dential (High value) & Vacant Mainland Heavily bulk- Some tidal wetland; A Zone-Medium & Predominantly Year-round None Areas of resid. 122,054/ 6 Towns Hempstead Bay headed shoreline predominantly Low Density Private development $2,160.9 16 Villages to Shinnecock developed Resid. and Com- constructed below mercial base flood elevation 3.2 LONG BEACH BARRIER ISLAND: REACH PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES Dominated by shore protection structures, such as groins and Long Beach Island is characterized by high density, year- jetties, Long Beach is an example of a barrier island shoreline round residential development in low-lying, flood-prone areas. which is artificially maintained. Few natural features remain; (See Figs. 3-2 and 3-3.) The majority of this development, which man-made dunes exist at a few locations and a small tidal wet- includes high rise buildings of up to 10 stories, was built prior to lands area is found on the bay side of the island. The ocean implementation of NFIP construction standards, and is neither shoreline is subject to continued erusion, due to the poor condi- floodproofed nor elevated above the base flood level. The low- tion of the groins, and there is little or no protective buffer along lying elevation of many of the structures results in a relatively the bay side of this barrier island. as it has been almost entirely high structural value at risk@ there is also a high population at risk bulkheaded. due to the density of development. 88 ...... ...... ...... M 1 0 0 i I S L A N D S 0 U N D P.-k ------------- of A j7, -- ----- - - - ------- . ...... A*-N @iO-R E-Y@ N E ii 0". Shinnocack Intel To Montoulk G- Westhampton Barrier Island a, 4 5 ,A@JQ A N 7_1 C Long Beach 2 g?stj@ 9--*. CE'I'A Barrier Island Jones Beach Barrier Island2 F' Word 3 T 4- M.,tic Beach + - r- -T -----3- Vill. of Saltaire to Lonelyvilie I- West Long Beach H E S 0 C @jj GO 5- V/esth 2- Gilgo Oak Beach PP,- 41, - 0@- GO Figure 3-1 Coastal Reaches and Detailed Study Areas of Long Island's South Shore within Nassau and Suffolk Counties 89 -2 Figure 3 Atlantic Beach- View of boardwalk, high density development, and groins Lr" IM, M@16N' 771 Figure 3-3 Long Beach YJ IZ High density development along the shoreline X" 'W@ 90 One of the key reasons that Long Beach was selected for de- graphic maps. Based on USGS information, the elevation of the tailed study was a suspected improper designation in flood study area is less than 10 ft above msI. The majority of the study hazard zones on the FIRMs used to determine flood insurance area is between 6 and 7 ft above msl. The current FIRMs, which rates. Based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic designate this area as outside of the 100-year floodplain, maps, it appears that large portions of the City of Long Beach therefore appear to be incorrect. now classified in the FIRM B zone, which is considered relatively safe from 100-year storm flooding, are actually at elevations that TABLE 3-2 should place them in the more hazardous A or even V zone. If this is in fact true, the communities on Long Beach Island would Long Beach Reach Strategies face even more serious problems in the event of a severe storm, EROSION AND FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES since new or rebuilt structures located in B zones are not re- oMainta'in the general position and configuration of the quired to be floodproofed or elevated, as are structures in A and ocean shoreline. V zones. 0Promote creation and maintenance of dunes and A significant portion of this barrier island serves high intensity beaches as natural protective features. Protect public recreational uses. Accordingly, there is a substantial existing natural dune formations. public infrastructure investment to be protected. A major prob- lem on Long Beach Island is the difficulty of evacuation due to LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS the flooding vulnerability of its transportation routes. The eCluster development/ redeve lopme nt away from high presence of a large number of elderly residents in high rise hazard area. apartments and nursing homes situated close to the beachfiront 0Retain and improve existing shorefront recreational will create additional evacuation difficulties. The recommended use. storm damage mitigation strategies for Long Beach Island are eDevelop reconstruction plans for the placement of presented in Table 3-2. utilities. 3.2.1 West Long Beach Study Area LAND ACQUISITIONS STRATEGIES Identify specific hazard area parcels adjacent to parks 3.2.1.1 General Description and Problem Statement. The and recreation facilities for post-storm detailed study area includes unincorporated portions of the Town acquisition. of Hempstead and the westernmost section of the City of Long THE NFIP AND FEDERAL POLICIES Beach. It is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the south, Rey- oAmend FIRMs and change policy designations where nolds Channel to the north, New York Ave. on the east, and appropriate. Clayton Ave. on the west. The West Long Beach study area was 9Do not extend flood insurance coverage to basements selected because the area has experienced severe flooding, as within the 100-year flood zone. Deny the Town of evidenced in 1944 when a storm resulted in an overwash from Hempstead exception request. the ocean to the bay. The area also sustained damage in 1938, 1950, 1953, 1960 and 1962. It should be noted that the study EVACUATION, WARNING AND PUBLIC EDUCATION area is located on the narrowest portion of Long Beach Island 9 Upgrade access from barrier island to mainland and is not protected by a dune system. The northern shoreline through improvements to bus and train facilities. adjacent to Reynolds Channel is completely bulkheaded. In addi- *Determine feasibility of vertical evacuation. Seek ar- tion to the flooding problems since its development, the area is rangements with owners of buildings for use as evacua- known to be a prior inlet site, as evidenced on 1913 USGS topo- tion shelters. 91 The land use of the area consists of medium to high density The FIRM for the study area, prepared by FEMA in 1983 (Fig. residential, with limited commercial development. The residen- 3-6), shows the boundary of the A and V zones, the base flood tial density is approximately eight dwelling units per acre. Many elevations for each zone, and several reference mark elevations. of the residential structures located in this detailed study area The base flood elevations (100-year storm) for the V zone is were originally summer residences now converted to year-round noted as 14 ft msl, while 11 ft rnsl is the A zone base flood eleva- occupancy, most of which are neither elevated nor floodproofed. tion. The current boundary of the A zone ends south of Ocean (See Fig. 3-4.) The total structural value at risk of the approx- View Ave. An examination of Figs. 3-7 and 3-8, however, shows imately 2300 houses in this study area is $92 million (based on the ground elevations throughout the study area to be less than 1980 Census data). 11 ft, and in most cases no more than 6 or 7 ft. Figure 3-7 is taken The streets within the detailed study area have a north/south from a 1982 sanitary sewer map, prepared for the City of Long orientation and, as such, appear to provide a ready conduit for Beach, and Fig. 3-8 was prepared in 1934 under the Works Prog- storm surge water to travel between the bay and ocean. This de- ress Administration (WPA) program. The very close correlation of tailed study area is also particularly vulnerable to storm-induced these two maps clearly establishes the elevation of the area. In flooding because it is located at the southern terminus of Broad addition, a site visit to the area revealed the complete lack of any Channel. A substantial ebb flow of the storm surge from Broad protective dunes which could serve to modify the flood hazard. Channel would hit the bulkheaded shoreline and, if high enough, (See Fig. 3-9.) could overtop the bulkhead and flow down the streets. Fig. 3-5 shows the boundaries of the West Long Beach study area. 3.2.1.2 West Long Beach Strategies. The FIRMs for the study area appear to be incorrect. Based on the uniformly low elevation, lack of protective features such as dunes, and historical flooding pat- terns, FEMA should update and amend the FIRMs as required. The configuration of flood zone boundaries on Long Beach Island appear unusual in relation to the other south shore barrier islands. While the Jones, Fire Island and Westhampton Beach barrier islands are enti rely with i n the A - if not V - zone, a la rge portion of Long Beach Island is designated as being outside of the 100-year floodplain. Elevation data was collected for the West Long Beach study area to document the inappropriateness of the flood zone boun- look-,, daries. While the data presented here is relevant for only a small portion of the barrier island, the LIRPB recommends that FEMA re- examine the entire island, including the Village of Atlantic Beach and the City of Long Beach, and amend FIRMs accordingly. -7 Figure 3-4 W. Long Beach- High density single and two family housing typifies the area 92 Ae .-7-7 410 VA 41. . ..... sib* 0 -40 mi, All, Ns W low 4f Town Park f N sel #I 61M A. lee 416- oo*w City Beach -@-d jj,@ @414j, 61.1P A. ok, KC CoFtPORATE LIMITS > 0 L to [R > z z z z z z 0 > > > > > z > < RM 2 > > 0 x z < in a z Z z X, Z z > z u, a z z @z (C MW -:' x > > > > > > > - 1- < C z > < z so 4 to 0 0 z Ic 3 . < z 0 0 0 Ll H @--YA--- U00111 WT L- I tj Ll U [I L] L---' L-J,@ D H LJ H "L--j H U Ll WE WM z 4 4 4 5 NE B 4 Q M, z co z E U Z z 0 0 0 4 z X a 0 > a 0 LU z .0 i < . 2 .2 ') 0 M ca 0 >2 0 4 U I z 0 0 U, 0 cc z I z 'z Z! z N 0 L--!j W1 " L- " Lj Lf L-i L-i L-i L-i I I r--1 F7 F--i r --- 1 F--1 F-1 F--@ F---1 F---7 F- I z :'h edV-"@! ELEVATION REFERENCE MARKS cc COASTAL BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS APPLY ONLY 0 LANDWARD OF THE SHORELINE SHOVJN ON THIS MAP. REFERENCE ELEVATION DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION MARK IN FT. INGVD 0 U RM 1 9.918 USC&GS tidal risk, stamped BM 2 1927, 1op of 3 foot concrete block incorporated in Pavement at intersection of Ohio AvenueandWest BmchStreet, 114 feet north of curb line of West Beech St eet. between houses 60 and 61 Ohio Avenue - End Grammar School, RM 2 8.054 C&G standard d:,sk, stamped BM 5 1927, top of concrete wall at north end of entrance steps of the Maryland Avenue entrance to West 0.1 2 e north of tersect,on of Wes, Beach Street and Maryland Avenue, RM 3 5.643 one an fone-half inch outlined square on top of rounded co, er of curb, level with sidewalk, 0.3 foot southwest of d te southwest edge of catch basiri southwest come, 0 seclon of Wes, Park Avenue and Wyoming Avenue. RM 4 7.467 Chiseled square on north curb of West Park Avenue in front of light pcle, at northwest corner of intersection of West Park Avenue and Grand Boulevard. RM5 8@927 Chitcled @q-e on top of curb of West Park Avenue, at northeast cornp, of intersection of West Park Avenue and Magrinli, 8-evald Figure 3-6 'National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 FIRM map for West Long Beach (prepared by FEMA, Dec. 1, 1983) 9.6 REYNOLDS CHANNEL 203 P PING STATION U 1.11 15 t6l 186 1)2 197 9 216 2 0 225 2 9 35 0 252 2 262 216 5 -6-;-\ - - .11 rr Is, 4 U. 168 174 45, IME. T5DR00%y\ J 56 ON 35(s) 1 -11 2. 11 I'Al WE dw@,-aw 109 Ila 127 136 45 150 70(s)) 0(. 02 6.23 z (E.-I -2 55' ,k 21 A4% _44 6 W LLj Uj Lj LJ Lj LIJ LLJ Lj W Ld Uj > > > > 12-1-- > >-LI 7> 126 > L35 14 > > > 173 > > U) @X - In < (n in < W 679 < < .1 5-% < -4 (n [email protected] .1. .54 -1- e 196 250 ? 06 2 17 234 239 261 Z55 191 _219 224 -220 - 247 - I 1 1.11111 10-1 ,G 149 178 165 1- C4. 4 4 Ta 14. 1.31 0 .40 JL_ 160 1.41 -i-33 172 1 -7 7 1 124 -133 @14 2 61 3B - - - ... e 1-13 0'. 195 1311 6 214 249 1 '1 14 184 ST W. 01@EC 3.54 (N) 1411 338 171 t7 243_ 141 4 6 2 A 7" B 193 1.- 114 3,13 3' B2 4-E) j4S 739 104 @23 7 z a: Ll- 711 Z) M. T.T. 0- W W L52 4@ 113 d $ . .189 - y -j lu I >- < z 0 182 .1-4 (n 232 423 < 7.11 9 (D < W W 0 y z z .0 U) 1,99 1-- 2 U) >- - < . - z < a z 0 L) < U) V) Z 4- z @23 z U) 0 LL 0 LZ < 0 CI 0 W z -j 0 W Ld 0 co 1`4 3: 01 13_9X < z z 0 < -j < z z IAO Fr , .... I- X: 0 < -i W 00 z 103 D -j W Er X e 244 L'i W C3 W W - z 0 z z X C) Uj z :'N50 . @-z Q- Ui 2 z I Y < no (D 198> > '4- : > Z W < 0 6 W ZE 6 @45 L20 i29 - 7-9. 9- 1134' '70 -1'4'1 751 - -- - 41 14) 1.10 5.1 9 41. 4- 1.0 .11 141 Q 163 1_87 !V Ilk 250 ?17 T 4k210 _10.2 @ --.1 1 .4 VI'7 221 0 9 128 156 4 L(L- ISO f.91 @1 - k 51: 11 5 101 11,121 (6) 1 -5 -4 ,:41 119 110 HIT ClrY OF LONG BEACH ------------ MANHOLE SYMBOL NOTE: MANHOLE NUMBER RIM ELEVATION A TL ANTIC OCEA IV MSL relative to Sandy Hook, N.J. INVERT ELEVATION 0 Figure 3-7 A portion of the Sanitary Sewer map for the City of Long Beach (prepared Dec. 1982) z .97 REYNOLDS CHANNEL b.9 %.4 1.4 Ui W W W V. W > > > > > > > < < < < *EJ. EJ u, -lei. U - L-2i h -A IU-1, I [It is 1,1 Di ULD U11 L -i U, U. S < z W W 0 V z 0 1( 9 < 0 < z Z: < z z I - 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 W 0 < < .1 V) U 0 to a D IL < 47 (f J U y 0 Ld jj V W j <> 0 z ,$@ -i z - J 1jiPj W < 7 0 __j Z: 0 J z 0 0 C ALM V I WE z D W 4. z 4P ATLANTIC OCEAN 6 LAI. j, 0 b'I Li K- UUH I IF I F HI F I Z J9020S @ MP to M"o En L P I-ST E @Uzl Figure 3-8 NOTE: MSL relative to Sandy Hook, N.J. A WPA map of West Long Beach showing elevations relative to MSL (prepared Dec. 26, 1934) 98 Figure 3-9 W. Long Beach- View of the shoreline showing lack of protective dunes As further evidence of the flood hazard in this area, a brief are for the most part neither elevated nor floodproofed. Des- history of flood effects since 1938 was prepared. Most of the in- ignating this area as part of the 1 00-year floodplain would require formation presented in Table 3-3 was taken from the series of all new construction, and substantial improvements (over 50% Topo-Metrics Flood Observation Records prepared for the U.S. of structural vallue), to be built to the standards of the NFIP. Army Corps of Engineers (Topo-Metrics, Inc., undated). Long Regulations of the NFIP also require that coastal communities Beach Island, including the entire area currently designated as with defined V zones adopt regulations prohibiting the man-made outside of the 100-year floodplain, has experienced severe alteration of sand dunes which would increase potential flood flooding on at least six separate occasions in the past 50 years. damage. A problem on the Long Beach Island is that dunes in Furthermore, none of these storm events approached the mag- most areas are non-existent, except in the unincorporated areas nitude or intensity of the 100-year storm. It is therefore recom- of the Town of Hempstead where an active program of dune mended that FEMA remap the flood zone boundaries for the en- creation and maintenance is ongoing. (See Fig. 3-10.) In con- tire barrier island. Designating this area as part of the 100-year trast, the Village of Atlantic Beach annually spends between floodplain would be accompanied by the associated restrictions, $2500 and $5000 to bulldoze the dunes flat! FEMA should including standards for building elevation and floodproofing, vigorously enforce the prohibition against dune alteration. Other standards for dune protection, and requirements of flood in- federal agencies, such as the COE or the Dept. of the Interior, surance as a prerequisite for new mortgages. The majority of should condition the awarding of grants and funds to coastal structures within the study area were originally built as summer communities by requiring the creation and maintenance of pro- cottages, which were later converted to year-round usage. They tective dune systems. 99 A related flood insurance issue on Long Beach Island is the re- TABLE 3-3 (cont'd.) quirement of federal flood insurance by banks on federally in- 1950 Northeaster sured mortgages. The federal program requires banks to de- eWest Hudson St. at National Blvd. was flooded with 1 it of mand flood insurance for structures in the V and A water.c zones-areas of the 100-year flood. A local bank in Long Beach . *Area surrounding Long Beach Hospital was under 2 it of reported that banks there currently require flood insurance water.c policies as a prerequisite for new mortgages in C zones, and Most of Park Ave. was under 1 it of water.c sometimes in B zones as determined by individual appraisal. The Lido Canal area was flooded with 1 it of water.c This would indicate that the banking community on Long Beach island is more cognizant of the flooding threat there, by requiring 1960 Hurricane Donna flood insurance coverage for those structures at locations which 9Total damages estimated at over $4 million. The maximum FEMA has deemed to be outside of the 500-year floodplain. tide of record, 8.6 it, msI, was recorded on the ocean side of The shoreline should be maintained in its present posi- Long Beach.d tion. The beach should be maintained through a pro- aWaterfront near the Atlantic Bridge was inundated from the gram of beach nourishment, and the existing groins bay with 1 it of water.e should be repaired and strengthened. 9The Lido Canal area of Long Beach was inundated with 1 it of water.f *Main-St. in Lido Beach was under 1 it of water.9 TABLE 3-3 eThe LIRR trestle was under 1 it of water.9 9The barrier island was breached, as the ocean came through Hurricane and Storm History of Long Beach the access road, across Lido Blvd., and into the marina at Barrier Island Since 1938 Hempstead Town Park.9 1938 Hurricane 1962 Northeaster � In the East Atlantic Beach area of Long Beach, homes were 9 The ocean met the bay at Florida St. Most all of Long Beach flooded and a stream of water 2 it deep linked the ocean was under water up to 1 it deep.h with Reynolds Channel.a 0LIRR trestle to Long Beach was under 2 it of water.h � On the beachfront near Wyoming and Arizona Avenues, the 1984 Northeaster first floor of houses was flooded with 1 it of water.a Certain oceanfront apartment buildings had 5 it of water in � The first floor of Long Beach Hospital was flooded with 2 it the lobby.' of water; Long Beach was under water in most places.3 aNassau Daily Review 9/22/38 � Lido Beach was under water in most places; Lido Blvd. was bNassau County Tax Assessment Records covered with 1 it of water.a � Point Lookout was under water in most places and was the cLong Beach Life 11/30/50 hardest hit of the Nassau Beach resorts. Water from the dNYSDEC, 1976 ocean crossed the Town Park and formed a channel to the eNew York Times 9/13/60 bay. Lido Bivd. was under 2 it of water in this area.a fNassau Herald 9/16/60 1944 Storm 9 Newsday 9/13/60 11 houses were destroyed south of Ocean View Ave., be- hNewsday 3/8/62 tween Connecticut and New York Avenues.b 1Newsday 3/30/84 1QO The entire shoreline of Long Beach Island, from Point Lookout to Atlantic Beach, is artificially maintained through a series of groins, jetties, and beach nourishment. The history of structural shoreline protection is presented in Table 3-4. Beach erosion in f not Mv this reach has been partially minimized by this structural protec- 2 W; tion; however, the flooding effects documented in Table 3-3 have still been extensive. Furthermore, the potential for enormous damage from a severe storm remains. The high density nature of existing development on Long Beach Island precludes a strictly non-structural approach to hur- ricane damage mitigation. Structural protection measures must be used in combination with certain non-structural approaches to yield a degree of storm safety. Therefore, the LIRPB recom- mends that the communities of Long Beach Island continue or in- itiate efforts to protect and maintain the shoreline. Structural shoreline protection measures need not necessarily take the form of a large construction project, such as the plan proposed by the COE for Long Beach Island in 1965. This multi- ple purpose beach erosion control and hurricane protection plan 'i5t featured hurricane barrier gates at the inlet openings, as well as closure -levees, groin construction and beach nourishment. The plan was opposed at the time by local interests and dropped from consideration in 1972. A new structural protection plan should be prepared for this reach, at a scale amenable to the local concerns. Such a plan could include a program of groin repair, dune building, beach grass planting, snow fence place- ment, and other smaller scale measures. For example, the Town of Hempstead has created protective dunes at Point Lookout/ Lido Beach through the use of snow fencing, vegetation planting, and the utilization of available dredged material. An 1800 If pro- tective dune was recently created where none previously existed for a cost of approximately $90,000. These methods of construc- tion may be applicable to other portions of Long Beach Island. The use of special taxing districts for erosion control projects a 0V should also be considered. In the event of a storm that inflicts damages to struc- tures equal to or exceeding 50% of the structural Figure 3-10 value, such structures should be relocated to inland Point Lookout- locations to allow the extension of the dune line system, which has been artificially created to the west. Illustration of an active dune protection and maintenance This dune system should then be maintained to provide program a degree of storm protection. r, 2W-1 TABLE 3-4 Long Beach Barrier Island: Shoreline Construction History Project Date Description Area Complete Cost (Reference) Federal-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1. East Rockaway Inlet 1930 Dredge channel 12 ft. deep, 100% $603,969 (a) Channel Improvement 250 ft. wide, .6 mile long. Construct 4,250 ft. jetty on eastern side. 2. East Rockaway Inlet to Jones Inlet 1965-proposed Multiple purpose beach erosion 10 miles of 0% $45,000,000 (b) Beach Erosion Control and 1972-plan control and hurricane protec- ocean shoreline project (proposed) Hurricane Protection dropped tion plan featuring: hurricane not barriers, reconstruct groins, authorized. construct new groins and clo- sure levees, and periodic beach nourishment. 3. Lido and Long Beach 1962 Emergency Beach rehabilitation 4,500 feet 100% $260,000 (a) project. ocean shoreline State and Local Atlantic Beach 1954-58 14 Stone Groins, 4 Contracts Total 100% $2,400,500 (c) Atlantic Beach 1959-60 Hydraulic Fill of 382,320 cu. yds. 100% 317,172 (c) East Atlantic Beach 1950-51 2 Stone Groins 100% 207,000 (c) East Atlantic Beach 1949 Hydraulic Fill 100% 80,599 (c) Long Beach (West End) 1955 Hydraulic Fill 100% 81,000 (c) City of Long Beach 1960 2 Stone Groins 100% 474,340 (c) City of Long Beach 1945-46 3 Stone Groins 100% 276,866 (c) City of Long Beach 1946-1947 2 Stone Groins 100% 208,727 (c) Jones Inlet (Fed. Coop.) 1953-59 Stone Jetty Hydraulic Fill of 334,397 cu. yds. 100% 3,645,049 (c) Pt.Lookout 1952-53 3 Stone Jetties 100% 750,000 (c) Pt. Lookout 1972 Hydraulic Fill of 130,000 cu. yds. 100% 258,000 (d) References (a) North Atlantic Division, 1977 (b) NYSDEC, 1976 (c) NYS Conservation Department, 1968 (d) Gilman, J. NYSDEC. Personal Communication, March 19, 1984 102 Those structures most vulnerable to storm-induced damages zoned for single family houses, with a limited commercial strip are located along the oceanfront, south of Ocean View Ave. An along West Beech St. analysis was conducted to determine the land use and structural Post-storm redevelopment should focus on prohibiting the value of these structures, to determine the fiscal and socio- rebuilding of the line of oceanfront structures, and instead economic impacts of their relocation. For the purposes of the establishing a protective dune to provide a measure of storm pro- analysis, a line was extended west from Ocean View Ave. to the tection for all. Residents of Long Beach have resisted dune con- Long Beach City boundary. (See Fig. 3-5.) The value of all struc- struction in the past, preferring an unobstructed ocean view. tures south of this line from the western City boundary to New However, an oceanfront dune would have reduced the effects of York Ave. and the boardwalk was determined using the Nassau flooding experienced in 1938, 1944, 1950, 1960, 1962 and 1984. County tax assessment records and applying the current Redevelopment could then take the form of clustered or multi- equalization rate. Within this relatively small area, there is a story construction at less vulnerable inland locations. combination of single and two-family houses, and multiple unit apartment buildings with a combined total of 294 dwelling units. In addition, there are hotels with 115 units, two day camps, and one restaurant/refreshment stand. The assessed structural value 3.3 JONES BEACH BARRIER ISLAND: of all buildings within this area is $6,655,947. Including the REACH PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES assessed land value of $2,482,195, the total assessed value of The Jones Beach barrier island i's located almost entirely land and structures in this area equals $9,138,142. The mag- within the V zone, and is subject to intense wave and flooding im- nitude of this figure illustrates the very high structural value at pacts in the event of a storm. Except for concrete rubble and risk in this area. wooden groins at Oak Beach (Fig. 3-1 1), the shoreline is void of Should the West Long Beach area be subject to exten- sand entrapment devices, such as groins or jetties; however, the sive damage, there is an opportunity for redevelopment entire length of the dune system has been filled and leveled for that would mitigate future damages. Development con- Ocean Parkway. straints include the following elements: There are scattered bits of freshwater wetlands inland. Tidal - Prohibit redevelopment along the oceanfront and con- wetlands dominate the bay side of the barrier island and the adja- struct a dune to create a degree of storm protection cent bay islands. The beach is artificially nourished through the for all. - Cluster development and redevelopment away from by-pass of sand dredged from Fire Island Inlet. The many the immediate oceanfront. wetland islands directly north of the barrier island are - Develop new street patterns to accommodate the undeveloped, save for small sections of Oak and Captree clustering or construction of multi-story buildings and Islands. Extensive dredging along the bay side of the barrier has remove the existing north/south street orientation, occurred primarily to create the State boat channel and to obtain which serves as a ready conduit for flood waters. fill for the construction of Ocean Parkway. Zoning requirements for the West Long Beach area were last The remainder of the reach, except for several commercial modified in 1980. Current standards permit only single family establishments and the primarily seasonal, low-to-medium den- houses along the oceanfront, all of which must be constructed sity residential development at West Gilgo Beach, Gilgo Beach, on piles and elevated to the base flood height. The existing multi- Oak Beach, Oak Island and Captree Island, is open space and ple story apartment buildings along the oceanfront are now recreational. This entire reach is publicly owned. The land con- classified as non-conforming uses, which will not be permitted to taining the commercial and residential development is owned by rebuild in the event of damage equal to or exceeding 50% of the Town of Babylon, but is leased to individuals and leaseholder structural value. The inland portion of the study area remains associations. 103 jI 3h@ W-T 7 Figure 3-11 Oak Beach- 711 Concrete rubble for shore A-1 protection near Fire Island Inlet low 71 N'l % MW 7 All' 7 The recreational use of this reach is particularly intensive, with Jones Beach attracting between 8-10 million visitors per 3.3.1 Gllgo/Oak Beach Detailed Study Area:** year.* There is a substantial public infrastructure investment, and the shoreline is maintained with a beach nourishment pro- 3.3.1.1 General. Description and Problem Statement. The gram. Major recreational facilities include Jones Beach State Jones Beach barrier island detailed study area (Fig. 3-13) encom- Park, Captree State Park, Gilgo State Park, and Town of Babylon passes the five residentially developed communities at West and Town of Oyster Bay beaches. The public benefits of these Gilgo Beach, Gilgo Beach, Oak Beach, Oak Island and Captree recreation facilities justifies their continued protection. Island. Many of the residences in these communities are used All of the commercial and residential development within this year-round (except on Oak Island) and are privately owned, but reach, with the exception of that located on the bay islands, is in are located on land leased from the Town of Babylon, In three of the V zone. There are still a number of vacant town owned lots these areas (West Gilgo Beach, Oak Island and a portion of Oak scattered within the developed communities. The continuance of Beach) homeowners associations lease all or large segments of private residency on the Jones Beach barrier island and bay the communities from the Town of Babylon. The homeowners as- islands conflicts with the goals of this study. sociations, in turn, have leased parcels to individuals who have Illegal parking along the Ocean Parkway and illegal access subsequently constructed single family homes. (See Figs. 3-14 to through the dunes have been persistent problems along the 3-18.) Jones Beach reach. There have also been problems with im- proper use of off-road vehicles. The strategies recommended for Jones Beach barrier Island are presented in Table 3-5. * Personal communication, Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission, Includes communities of West Gilgo Beach, Gilgo Beach, Oak Beach, Oak 1984, Island and Captree Island. 104 TABLE 3-6 Jones Beach Reach Strategies EROSION AND FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS � Encourage natural sand transport patterns, but ar- 9 Retain and expand recreational uses as the most ap- tificially maintain the shoreline as required. propriate land use in this reach. � Maintain inlets at current locations and configurations. 9 Prohibit the rebuilding of structures if they suffer Close new inlets if they develop. Do not allow com- damage from storm- related flooding and/or erosion merial or residential structures to be rebuilt after a equal to or exceeding 50% of structural value. breach is repaired. * Provide for the gradual phase-out of leases to � Protect and maintain dunes. Construct pedestrian homeowners on publicly owned land. crossover points along Ocean Parkway, as required, to ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS allow for safe pedestrian access to beach and to pro- * Improve the control of off-road vehicle traffic and tect dunes. (See Fig. 3-12) illegal access sites. THE NFIP AND FEDERAL POLICIES e Enforce the prohibition on illegal parking along Ocean Target federal investments to recreational facilities on Parkway. this barrier island. -7 Figure 3-12 Lido Beach- An example of dune cross-over walk 105 Aw @"A' <w 40 ? Ilp en Mill. 10 log iv@' , P-r vt 41;Z Oak 13 47 j /j? Fr, Or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N rv - 47 777VFlT;lT",r 777V Vtk Alt, oa "F#A i T2;- @Rl IF f 4irj! IAL WE fir -C, lip, 14, t4- 17 PL 74 VA 44 Al " fl@ M4 OFSMyLM or BUYLON Jilt, IR 110 I ------------- ME .... .... . .... .. . 7@1 ?Ay @v t-lv- 4111-" Al If g7- i4 Ak Ar' A At@ ,a-Ir JF t07. A 4e 91 47 'or LF-k A L 'y 4h a e Z@ ISTATE -J6 OF ST 12A. a. ^La. 7 Figure 3-14 W. Gilgo Beach- Typical housing NOTE: Both figures depict residential development having habitable floor space below base flood elevation Figure 3-15 Gilgo Beach- Typical housing ='w 115 ... .. . .. 77, Figure 3-16 Oak Beach- Shoreline housing NOTE: Both figures depict extensive residential development in the 100 yr. floodplain JAL Figure 3-17 Captree Island- Shoreline housing 116 4@1 A NIP" Figure 3-18 Oak Island- Rood waters surrounding houses (photo-courtesy Newsday) It is important to note that all of the development on the barrier e The Town should never sell the publicly owned land to island is located entirely in the V zone (West Gilgo Beach, Gilgo leaseholders or private interests. Beach and Oak Beach) and that erosion is threatening the Oak * The Town should phase out leases on town owned Beach area homes. The Oak Island and Captree Island commun- property over the long-term. The Town should in- ities are located in the A zone. Total value at risk in these five vestigate the option of extending the leases on an in- areas is $31.3 million in the V zone and $11.2 million in the A dividual basis to allow present leaseholders a chance zone (based on 1980 Census data). It should also be noted that to amortize their structural investment over a 30-year period, in exchange for leaseholder agreement that the Town has developed four active recreation facilities within or structures will not be rebuilt after sustaining damage adjacent to these areas. These facilities are at Overlook Beach, from storm-related flooding and/or erosion equal to or Cedar Beach, Gilgo Beach and Oak Beach. exceeding 50% of structural value. The 30-year amor- The residentially developed areas on the Jones Beach barrier tization period would begin at the time a structure was island were selected because of the severe flood damage poten- built or purchased by the current leaseholder. Leases tial. The Town of Babylon has the opportunity to eventually would be extended beyond their current termination redevelop leased properties on the barrier and bay islands to pro- dates to the extent necessary to provide for the 30-year vide additional recreational facilities and open space for all town period. In those cases where structures will have been residents to enjoy. owned by the same party for a period greater than 30 years when the existing leases expire, lease extensions 3.3.1.2 Gilgo/Oak Beach Strategies would not be warranted. * After phase-out of leases, the Town should provide The Town should not grant new leases or permit addi- facilities for additional public recreational use and im- tional construction on leased property. plement programs for natural resource protection. 117 In June 1984, the Town of Babylon adopted a nine month owner associations or held by the Town. moratorium on the issuance of building permits on the barrier Table 3-6 also shows that only 1/3 of the mailing addresses of and bay islands. The number of vacant lots within the com- the 420 leaseholders are located on the barrier and bay islands. munities that can be considered developable building lots is The Town of Babylon does not require town residency as a condi- shown in Table 3-6. Considering the presence of tidal wetlands, tion to obtain a lease for property on the barrier or bay islands. access and size of subdivided lot, it was determined that there Over 50% of the mailing addresses of the 420 leaseholders are are 82 vacant developable lots that are either leased to home- not within the Town of Babylon. TABLE 3-6 Structures and Vacant Lots on Barrier Island and Bay Islands In Town of Babylon Mailing Address* of Leaseholders Vacant Lots*** Babylon Barrier Town of Leased to Total Area or Property Beach and Babylon No. of Individuals Town Vacant Leaseholders Assoc. Bay Islands Mainland Other Structures" or Assoc. Hold Lots West Gilgo Beach 22 1 57 80 0 26 26 (West Gilgo Beach Assoc.) Gilgo Beach - 5 1 30 36 0 17 17 western section Gilgo Beach- 2 9 11 22 0 0 0 eastern section Oak Island 3 21 30 54 7 0 7 (Great South Bay Isles Assoc. Inc.) Captree Island 16 4 12 32 1 0 1 Oak Beach - 5 7 11 23 0 0 0 western section Oak Beach - 42 9 48 99 1 4 5 middle section Oak Beach - 42 9 23 74 26 0 26 eastern section (Oak Island Beach Assoc.) TOTAL 137 61 222 420 35 47 82 *Mailing address on record with Receiver of Taxes, Town of Babylon, 1983-1984, for individuals leasing town-owned property on the barrier island or bay islands. * *Includes residential and commercial. -includes only those lots where a residential structure could be accommodated considering tidal wetlands, access, and size of subdivided lot. 118 The 1980 Census has recorded that 246 of the 418 homes property tax dollars for the 43 students from the barrier and bay (59%) on the barrier and bay islands in the Town of Babylon are islands during the 1983-84 school year is $165,980., not in- used on a seasonal basis. The 1960 Census data list 351 of the cluding extraordinary transportation costs. The school district 402 homes (87%) on the barrier and bay islands in the Town of property taxes for 1983-84 that were paid by leaseholders on the Babylon as seasonal. As shown by the Census data, conversion barrier and bay islands totaled $445,921. Although there now ex- of seasonal dwellings to year-round homes on the town owned ists a property tax situation advantageous to the school district, land has been on the rise. (See Fig. 3-19.) Considering the bridge there is no certainty that this situation will continue to exist con- and road access to the mainland and the year-round utility ser- sidering the rise in year-round residency and school enrollment vice (except for Oak Island), one can expect the trend for conver- on the barrier and bay islands. sion to year-round residency to continue on Jones Beach and A detailed listing of all current property taxes and lease fees Captree Islands. collected from leaseholders on the barrier and bay islands is Over the last decade the number of school age children trans- contained in Tables 3-7 and 3-8. Leaseholders paid a total of ported from the barrier and bay islands to the Village of Babylon $719,389 in property taxes for 1983-84 and $121,950 in lease schools on the mainland has also increased considerably and fees for 1984. Table 3-9 illustrates the proportion of property tax now totals 43 pupils. An additional six students are transported to raised from leaseholders for various taxing entities. The property private schools. The current student enrollment in the Village of tax contribution of the leaseholders ranges from 6.4% of the Babylon school district is 1803, and the 1983-84 property tax total Village of Babylon school district property tax to less than levied on property in the school district is $6,959,102. The 1 % of the total Town of Babylon property tax, Suffolk County amount of property tax supporting each student in the district property tax within Babylon Town, and Suffolk County Police equals $3860. Thus, the cost of public education in terms of property tax within Babylon Town. KAMM'. lfiftfti'@Mft 0W0AWWW Figure 3-19 Gilgo Beach- Expansion of habitable floor space below flood elevation in the V Zone 119 rr NI\ TABLE 3-7 Property Taxes and Lease Fees for Lots on Barrier Island and Bay Islands in Town of Babylon Property Taxes for 1983-1984 Lease Fees for 1984 Lease Total Taxes Area or Property Leaseholders Assoc. Town Special Dist. School County County Police Total Fee/Structure of Leases Revenue and Fees West Gilgo Beach (West Gilgo Beach Assoc.) $16,993 $3,786 $81,322 $9,026 $19,832 $130,960 $225 80 $18,000 $148,960 Gilgo Beach-western section 10,268 3,201 50,875 5,454 11,984 81,783 525 36 18,900 100,683 Gilgo Beach-eastern section 2,910 861 13,631 1,546 3,396 22,345 325 22 7,150 29,495 Oak Island (Great South Bay Isles Assoc., Inc.) 5,780 467 27,652 3,070 6,745 43,714 225 54 12,150 55,864 Captree Island 6,394 2,056 35,260 3,396 7,462 54,569 200 32 6,400 60,969 Oak Beach-western section 5,187 1,550 24,539 2,755 6,053 40,084 350 23 8,050 48,134 Oak Beach-middle section 21,502 6,300 98,584 11,421 25,094 162,901 350 99 34,650 197,551 Oak Beach-eastern section (Oak Island Beach Assoc.) 22,905 7,174 114,056 12,167 26,732 183,034 225 74 16,650 199,684 TOTAL $91,939 $25,395 $445,921 $48,835 $107,300 $719,389 420 $121,950 $841,339 TABLE 3-8 Average Property Tax per Structure on Barrier Island and Bay Islands in Town of Babylon Property Taxes for 1983-1984 Area or Property Leaseholders Assoc. Town Special Dist;-- School County County Police Total West Gilgo Beach (West Gilgo Beach Assoc.) $212 $47 $1,017 $113 $248 $1,637 Gilgo Beach-western section 285 89 1,413 152 333 2,272 Gilgo Beach-eastern section 132 39 620 70 154 1,016 Oak Island (Great South Bay Isles Assoc., Inc.) 107 9 512 57 125 810 Captree Island 200 64 1,102 106 233 1,705 Oak Beach-western section 226 67 1,067 120 263 1,743 Oak Beach-middle section 217 64 996 115 253 1,650 Oak Beach-eastern section (Oak Island Beach Assoc.) 310 97 1,542 164 361 2,473 Average of all above areas 219 60 1,062 116 255 1,713 120 TABLE 3-9 1983-1984 Property Tax Contributions of Leaseholders on Barrier Island and Bay Islands in Town of Babylon Town % of Total School % of Total School County % of Total County County Police % of Total County Area or Property Property Town Property District District Property Property Property Tax Property Police Property Leaseholders Assoc. Tax Tax Property Tax Tax Tax In Babylon Town Tax Tax In Babylon Town West Gilgo Beach $16,993 .10 $81,322 1.2 $9,026 .09 $19,832 ng (West Gilgo Beach Assoc.) Gilgo Beach- 10,268 .06 50,875 0.7 5,454 .05 11,984 .05 western section Gilgo Beach- 2,910 .02 13,631 0.2 1,546 .01 3,396 .02 eastern section Oak Island 5,780 .03 27,652 0.4 3,070 .03 6,745 .03 (Great South Bay Isles Assoc., Inc.) Captree Island 6,394 .04 35,260 0.5 3,396 .03 7,462 .03 Oak Beach- 5,187 .03 24,539 0.4 2,755 .03 6,053 .03 western section Oak-Beach- 21,502 .12 98,584 1.4 11,421 .11 25,094 .11 middle section Oak Beach- 22,905 .13 114,056 1.6 12,167 .11 26,732 .12 eastern section (Oak Island Beach Assoc.) TOTAL $91,939 .52 $445,921 6.4 $48,835 .46 $107,300 .49 (of $17,812,859) (of $6,959,102) (of $10,629,241) (of $21,914,100) Over the years, the Town has made leased property available The long lease term, coupled with the year-round vehicular ac- for development and, bymeans of the lease agreements, has re- cess, close proximity to New York City, and waterfront and park- quired leaseholders to construct dwellings on what is now clas- like setting have contributed greatly to the market value of the sified by FEMA as a V zone. Current leases require that the structures on the barrier and bay islands. The routine renewal of leaseholder construct a house, cottage or building with a value leases by the Town in the past and the current long-term lease of at least $10,000 on said premises within one year of the date extensions may have given some leaseholders a false sense of of the lease agreement. A schedule of rents associated with the real property ownership and financial security. Although the leases on lots within the various communities on the barrier and 1980 Census data do not show the leaseholders to be in a low in- bay islands is shown in Table 3-10. The Town has leased property come bracket (median yearly family income for the subject area here since the late 19th century. In the mid-1970's, the Town re- is $27,188 compared to the Suffolk County average of $24,195), newed the leases on barrier and bay island lots for a period of 25 the Town should be prepared to provide relocation assistance to years. Thus, the current leases do not expire until the turn of the those low income, year-round residents now living on the barrier century. and bay islands once their leases terminate. 121 TABLE 3-10 TABLE 3-10 (cont'd.) Schedule of Rents for Lots Leased by Town of Babylon on Barrier and Bay Islands Oak Island Beach Assoc. 8/7/73 - 8/6/78 $175 8/7/78 - 8/6/83 $200 Area or Property Yearly Rental 8/7/83 - 8/6/88 $225 Leaseholders Assoc. Time Period Developed Lot 8/7/88 - 8/6/93 $@50 8/7/93 - 8/6/98 $275 West Gilgo Beach *Lease extension for seasonal residence purpose only. (West Gilgo Beach Assoc.) 1/1/75 - 12/31/83 $200 1/1/84- 12/31/88 $225 1/1/89- 12/31/93 $250 1/1/94- 12/31/99 $275 Map of Gilgo Beach West 1/1/77 - 12/31/77 $450 1/1/78 - 12/31/82 $500 1/1/83 - 12/31/88 $525 The Town of Babylon has beach and parking facilities on the 1/1/89 - 12/31/93 $550 barrier island at Gilgo Beach, Cedar Beach, Overlook Beach and 1/1/94 - 12/31/99 $575 Oak Beach. Parking lots at these facilities can accommodate ap- proximately 2000 cars and are utilized to capacity during the Map of Gilgo Beach 1/1/77 - 12/31/81 $300 summer weekends. Virtually all of the mainland shoreline in the 1/1/82 - 12/31/86 $325 Town of Babylon is fully developed at the greatest population 1/1/87 - 12/31/91 $350 density of any town in Suffolk County, and thus offers little poten- 1/1/92 - 12/31/96 $375 tial for active recreational development. The town owned barrier 1/1/97 - 12/31/01 $400 beach holdings offer the greatest potential for expansion and creation of much needed recreation space within the Town that Oak Island* would be available to all town residents. Recreation and open (Great South Bay Isles Assoc., Inc.) 1/1/84- 12/1/01 $225 space, rather than residential development on the barrier and bay islands, will better serve the residents of the Town of Captree Island 1/1/75 - 12/31/75 $150 Babylon and minimize the potential loss of life and property 1/1/76 - 12/31/79 $175 resulting from the occurrence of severe storm events. 1/1/80 - 12/31/84 $200 A detailed land use plan for this area should be 1/1/85 - 12/31/89 $225 prepared, showing the accommodation of public ac- 1/1/90 - 12/31/94 $250 cess and additional recreational facilities and the rever- 1/1/95 - 12/31/99 $275 sion of certain currently developed properties to uses compatible with natural resource values. Map of Oak Beach 1/11/77- 12/31/81 $300 The Town should initiate preparation of the cletatiled (and use 1/1/82 - 12/31/86 $350 study for this area during the existing building moratorium. Fund- 1/1/87 - 12/31/91 $375 ing for this study may be available under a Local Waterfront 1/1/92 - 12/31/96 $400 Revitalization Program grant pursuant to the NYS Coastal 1/1/97 - 12/31/01 $425 Management Program. 122 3.4 FIRE ISLAND: REACH PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES owned by the Federal government as part of the Fire Island Na- Fire Island is a narrow, highly dynamic barrier island subject tional Seashore (FINS) and managed by the National Park Ser- to severe erosion and dune migration, it has a predominantly vice, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. There have been a number of natural shoreline, with an extensive but irregular dune system up jurisdictional conflicts on Fire Island, stemming from phil- to 30 ft in elevation. However, in some Fire Island communitieg, osophical differences on management techniques between the dunes have been disturbed, and residences have been con- FINS, the Towns of Islip and Brookhaven, the Villages of Saltaire structed along the dune line (Figs. 3-20 and 3-21). The bay side of and Ocean Beach, the unincorporated COMMUnIlies on the Island, the reach and the bay islands north of the reach are dominated and individual property owners. FINS and the Dept. of the In- by tidal wetlands. terior are in the final stages of approving the four local zoning The large number of houses in the V zone results in a large codes for Brookhaven, Islip, Saltaire and Ocean Beach. This will structural value at risk. Severe erosion of the beach and dunes resolve a major long-standing conflict on the Island. However, threatens many residences, and the island has suffered severe the FINS philosophy of minimizing interference with natural damages from historical storm events, including inlet formation shoreline processes will continue to conflict wilt) those inter- and overwash. ested in stabilizing the shoreline. The two Towns and two Villages Flanked by Robert Moses State Park on the western tip of the on the Island each have different regulations governing the clune reach and Smith Point County Park to the east, the middle of the district, all of which meet or exceed the the rflinirnUffl re reach consists of 20 private residential summer communities, quirements of the Federal government. Only the Town of Islip has, public beaches and open space, and a large wilderness area a dynamic dune district line, which is based on existing conditions. Figure 3-20 Robbins Nest/Corneille Estates New housing built in vulnerable location _,7 777, 4 :;@7 P, - en, 13, -4. 12, !L nu Figure 3-21 Lonelyville- Eroded oceanfront dunes. A continuing problem on Fire Island is how to control develop- 3.4.1 Village of Saltaire to Lonelyville Detailed Study Area ment and post-storm redevelopment in the V zone. The com- munities are almost exclusively seasonal in nature because of 3.4.1.1 General Description and Problem Statement. The the lack of year-round services and paved road access. Judicial incorporated Village of Saltaire and the communities of Fair Har- decisions in the past with regard to development controls have bor, Dunewood and Lonelyville are located on the western por- tended to support property owners and developers, forcing mu- tion of Fire Island approximately five miles east of Democrat nicipalities to either approve development requests or acquire Point. The detailed study area encompasses approximately 6600 the properties. There have also been problems regarding inade- linear feet (If) of shoreline. Due to long-term shoreline erosion, quate zoning and building code enforcement. only the landward flank of the dunes in this area remains (Fig. Additional problems on Fire Island include the vulnerability of 3-22); thus, the dunes are low and in some instances, non- water supply and waste disposal systems to flooding, and the dif- existent. Since the Village of Saltaire's incorporation in 1917, the ficulty of swiftly evacuating a very large seasonal population via shoreline has retreated 200 ft northward. ferry service. There are bridges at either end of the Island, but no The vast majority of residences in these communities are used permanent access roads on the Island itself which residents only during the summer vacation season. The predominant could use to reach the bridges. A seasonal population estimated range of residential density is 5-10 D.U./acre. It should be noted at over 20,000 would need to be evacuated through the use of that the density in Saltaire is closer to 5 D.U./acre, and in Fair 0 4L ferries to the mainland. The storm hazard mitigation strategies Harbor, Dunewood and Lonelyville it more closely approximates recommended for Fire Island are presented in Table 3-11. 10 D.U./acre. 124 TABLE 3-11 Fire Island Reach Strategies EROSION AND FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES * Any erosion control measures taken by private interests � Limit public expenditures for artificial -,horeline to protect an area of beach should not adversely affect maintenance east of Robert Moses State Park and west the downdrift transport of sand. of Smith Point County Park, except where it may be * Institute a uniform, dynamic dune district line for both necessary to close or prevent the opening of a new in- the Towns of Islip and Brookhaven to protect the dunes let. Should the site of a new inlet include private pro- and natural shoreline features. perty, such property should be condemned prior to LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS repair of the breach. e Prohibit development/redevelopment within a uniform, � The implementation of large scale dune building and dynamic dune district. beach maintenance projects along Fire Island is not 9 Severely limit any multi-family or high density develop- recommended. Government agencies (Federal, State, ment in V zones. Such development would be accep- local) should not provide funding for erosion control table outside of the V zone if total community density is projects along the waterfront to protect seasonal notincreased. homes, except for small-scale projects such as snow * Examine the use of alternative land use strategies such fencing or vegetation planting. as transfer of development rights. � The Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Beach Erosion e Improve enforcement of zonings and building codes on Control and Hurricane Protection Project currently be- Fire Island. ing reformulated by the COE is not expected to be ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS completed until 1988. Preliminary estimates for the pro- ject, however, indicate that the total cost of the propos- e Use critical or environmentally sensitive area designa- ed project will be between $300 and $350 million. The tions with associated land use restrictions where war- Fire Island segment alone is expected to cost approx- ranted to severely limit or ban incompatible activities in imately $57 million. fragile areas. The COE project on Fire Island will include: * Locate new public water supply wells away from flood - 154,000 It of dune for $34.2 million ($22211f); hazard areas. Do not rebuild damaged wells in vul- - 38,000 If of beach nourishment for $6.4 million nerable locations. ($169/lf)@ THE NFIP AND FEDERAL POLICIES - up to eight groins (if necessary) for $8.0 million ($1 Coordinate management activities between FINS, the million/each)@ towns and villages to develop a consistent manage- - limited land acquisition costs of $3.0 million-, and ment philosophy. - engineering, design and supervision costs of approx- imately $5.4 million. EVACUATION, WARNING AND PUBLIC EDUCATION � Individual owners should bear the brunt of structure 9 Establish policies related to terry evacuation practices. loss due to erosion. FINS should not purchase in- * Increase police powers to limit access to the Island dividual storm-damaged structures. during storm watch and warning periods. 125 A FIT '11, 71 J A Figure 3-22 Dunewood- Oceanfront housing with little or no dune rernainIng The Village of Saltaire is zoned primarily for single-family These communities were selected for detailed study principally residences on lots that approximate 1/4 acre. The communities because they typify flooding problems and patterns of residential of Fair Harbor, Dunewood and Lonelyville are zoned for single- development characteristic of the Fire Island reach. Significant family residences on 6000 sq ft lots. flooding last occurred during the northeast storm of March 1962, The potential for new residential development is summarized when seven houses were destroyed from Saltaire to Lonelyville, below. Saltaire can accommodate 150 of 267 potential additional and an additional 28 were damaged. In the hurricane of 1938, 85 structures. of 158 houses in the Village of Saltaire were totally destroyed. The level of destruction may have been enhanced by the fact No. of Potential that the Fire Island Beach Development Corp., the developers of Community Existing Structures Add'1. Structures Saltaire, leveled oceanfront dunes in the early 1900s to entice prospective buyers with an unobstructed view of the sea Saltaire 371 150 (Johnson, 1983). Storm-driven water and spring tide conditions in Fair Harbor 400 50 recent years have threatened the Village's water supply well. Dunewood 98 10 The structural value of all houses in the 100-ear floodplain iq qn- Lonelyville 69 57 proximately $102 million (based on 1980 Census data). Fig. 3-23 Total 938 267 shows the Saltaire to Lonelyville detailed study area. 126 15TFI, i@M L Ir IA 'WAvw- MAIT to Z! lo IJ lu 41 jr It wv@ it wA, V tA Ilk Village of Saltaire Town of Islip County of Suffolk U.S.A. Sites Appropriate for Cluster Re-Development IWO, 0 V 7AJ W.-S a AW j X6 low Iwo .74* AW we On 3.4.1.2 Village of Saltaire to Lonelyville Strategies. Hur- dinance prohibits'. ricane damage mitigation strategies for the Saltaire to Lonely- - the rebuilding of non-conforming structures that suffer ville detailed study area must address the possibility of a variety storm damages equal to or exceeding 50% of struc- of potential scenarios. The worst case scenario involves the tural value direct hit of a major hurricane, such as occurred in 1938. Such a - major (over 50% of value) additions or changes to storm would cause enormous damage in the study area, and existing structures would necessitate a wipe the slate clean type of redevelop- - any new construction within this area. ment plan. In the absence of a severe hurricane, damage Should houses along the oceanfront be damaged or new associated with northeast storms will likely be focused on the development proposals offered, a survey will be undertaken to first several rows of oceanf@ont houses. Mitigation measures will determine the 40 ft line and development/redevelopment re- also address the destruction of individual houses due to long- quests will be denied within this area. This dune protection boun- term erosion. Those houses that are most vulnerable to damage, clary differs from the proposed NYSDEC Coastal Erosion Hazard either from long-term erosion or individual storm events, are Area, which extends 100-200 ft inland from the dune crest. located in the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Should a significant number of oceanfront houses be (NYSDEC) Coastal Erosion Hazard Area along the oceanfront. damaged or destroyed by a hurricane or northeast Prohibit the rebuilding of structures located in the storm, the communities should prohibit rebuilding in the NYSDEC Coastal Erosion Hazard Area in the event that same location, and instead encourage the clustering of they suffer erosion/storm damage equal to or development at less vulnerable inland locations. exceeding 50% of structural value. An inventory of all publicly owned land within the Village of Due to long-term shoreline erosion a number of these houses Saltaire and the other communities was undertaken using the are now situated directly on, or in some cases seaward of, the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Maps, to identity suitable in- primary dune line. (See Figs. 3-24 and 3-25.) land parcels for redevelopment. The results of this inventory are An analysis was conducted to determine the number and shown on Fig. 3-23. There are no parcels currently available for value of structures within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, as il- cluster development within the communities of Fair Harbor, lustrated on the draft coastal erosion hazard maps (NYSDEC, Dunewood and Lonelyville. In the Village of Saltaire, however, 1984). This line is superimposed on Fig.. 3-23. The structural there appear to be several parcels appropriate for cluster value of all houses within this area was determined using data development. The three sites shown on Fig. 3-23 are owned by from the COE Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Reformulation the Village of Saltaire and are located a sufficient distance inland Study (URS Company, Inc., 1982) in conjunction with the to be out of the V zone. NYSDEC maps. It was calculated that there are 34 houses in the Provided that the Village owned parcels are not needed for Village of Saltaire located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard other municipal purposes, the Village should consider selling or Area with a structural value of $4.4 million. For the remainder of swapping these properties to provide alternative sites to those the study area, which includes the communities of Fair Harbor, homeowners within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area that are Dunewood, and Lonelyville, there are 77 houses in the Coastal threatened with the loss of their houses. These parcels could be Erosion Hazard Area with a structural value of $5.2 million. sold to groups of homeowners, who could establish a cluster As individual houses are damaged or destroyed, the development at a density previously specified by the Village. An Village of Saltaire should prevent the rebuilding of alternative would be to trade these publicly owned inland sites certain storm-damaged houses along the oceanfront by for the oceanfront sites, provided that the oceanfront home- enforcing its dune protection ordinance. owner pays the differential in cost between a non-buildable lot The Village dune protection ordinance prohibits development and a protected inland site. The Village should also encourage within 40 ft of the crest of the primary dune. Any existing homes oceanfront homeowners to buy an inland site and donate the within this area are classified as non-conforming. A Village or- oceanfront land to the Village for tax benefits. 1 ao Figure 3-24 Fair Harbor- Attempt to stem shoreline erosion through use of snow fencing 41 6", Figure 3-25 Saltaire- Rows of snow fencing line beach in attempt to halt shoreline erosion N- 44 Rb 131 By selling or swapping these publicly owned parcels to current These development rights could then be sold to builders to con- Village of Saltaire residents, the Village would retain its residents struct a number of houses at a greater density on their inland and total tax base, remove housing from the vulnerable and locations. Those Village residents whose houses along the dynamic coastal erosion area, and acquire ownership of the oceanfront were destroyed would have the first opportunity to oceanfront strip. The net proceeds from the sale of these parcels purchase these new clustered houses, using their compensation could then be used for a program of dune restoration and erosion from the NFIR Such a redevelopment plan would result in control, providing a measure of protection to the entire Village. clustered development between Harbor Promenade and Light- Coastal commu 'nities, such as the Village of Saltaire, house Promenade, and little if any redevelopment south of Light- should develop policies and guidelines for post-storm house Promenade. redevelopment now-before the storm-rather than In the event of a major storm which destroys large por- after the event when redevelopment pressures are tions of these or other Fire Island communities, an greatest. alternative redevelopment proposal would include the The 1938 hurricane, with flood levels less than that associated use of certain FINS properties as sites for clustered with the 1 00-year storm flood events, destroyed more than half of development, in exchange for parcels more susceptible the houses in the Village of Saltaire. If the equivalent of the 1938 to flooding and erosion damage. hurricane-or one of an even greater magnitude-were to FINS owns, in addition to its wilderness and recreational strike the area today, it would cause damages unparalleled in the holdings, a number of undeveloped bay to ocean strips of land history of Long Island. Few people are able to envision the between Saltaire and Kismet. These parcels were acquired for results of a major hurricane, and most community leaders are open space purposes. FINS personnel have indicated that in the too busy with day-to-day municipal affairs to make plans for what event of a catastrophic storm that destroys large portions of a is perceived as a low probability event. Nevertheless, the developed community, the potential exists for using these un- possibility of a major hurricane impacting the Long Island coast developed bay to ocean strips for clustered redevelopment, thus is very real. providing an opportunity to relocate development in areas of the Should a major hurricane wipe the slate clean at Saltaire, barrier Jsland that are less vulnerable to flooding and erosion dt:@stroying a majority of the existing structures, the first step for hazards. Ownership of parcels subject to storm damage in the the Village would be to initiate an immediate moratorium on all communities would be transferred to FINS in exchange for par- redevelopment. The Village would then have the opportunity to cels with a higher residential density in the bay to ocean strips. move away from single-family development in vulnerable areas Instead of the existing grid pattern with single-family houses on and encourage clustered development at less vulnerable inland individual lots, the clustered redevelopment would accommo- locations. This clustered development should be targeted for the date the same number of dwelling units as provided for under area between Harbor Promenade and Lighthouse Promenade. it current zoning, but at a density three to four times as great in would probably be necessary to condemn certain private inland areas less vulnerable to flooding and erosion in the central por- properties, as well as use all publicly owned properties, to pro- tions of the Island. Bay and oceanfront parcels, as well as storm- vide sufficient areas to accommodate this redevelopment. damaged parcels acquired by FINS, would be kept in public open Owners of properties along the oceanfront would be prohibited space. The public would gain a net increase in open space on from rebuilding, using the mechanisms already mentioned, and Fire Island, and a protective dune could be created and maintained. these property owners would be encouraged to participate in the Other public entities owning property on Fire Island, together inland clustered development. A transfer of development with FINS. should identify publicly owned parcels which coWd be rights (TDR) proposal could be orepared, whereby those inland used for redevelopment purposes in the event of a catastrophic property owners whose property is condemned for cluster storm. Options for implementing this concept (e.g., creation of a redevelopment would be issued certain development rights. development authority) must be investigated and put in place 1@12 prior to the occurrence of a major storm. There are several im- sell the properties. The use of certain FINS properties as sites for pediments to each of the stated strategies which must first be clustered redevelopment in the event of a major storm should be overcome for implementation to occur. Enforcement of either considered by the Village of Saltaire as well as by the other com- the Village dune district ordinance, or the NYSDEC Coastal Ero- munities on Fire Island. sion Hazard Areas Act, which prohibits reconstruction of de- stroyed structures within certain areas, will prove difficult The Village of Saltaire should consider the establish- because homeowners will most likely challenge these laws as ment of an erosion control district for small scale or confiscatory. Recent judicial decisions* have sided with the emergency projects, as provided under New York State homeowners in these instances, forcing the jurisdictions to Village Law: Article 4 - Powers, Etc. of Officers - Sec- either grant a variance or pay compensation. tion 412; and Article 22 - Local Improvements - Section Clustered development within the Village of Saltaire will also 2200. be difficult to implement. Current zoning regulations for the Any village board of trustees. may construct drains, culverts, Village permit only single-family residential development- there dams and bulkheads, and dredge channels, and regulate water are no provisions for clustered development. Any changes in the courses, ponds, etc. within or without the village for arresting zoning regulations would require approval from the Village and preventing damage to property within the village resulting Board. from floods or erosion. Any property acquired or public improve- The use of Village owned land for clustered development is ment constructed outside the village requires the approval of the also unlikely at this time, because the Village has already in- governing body of that city, town or village. The cost of such im- dicated its desire to sell these properties at public auction. The provement, including acquisition, can be charged at the expense Village owned properties indicated on Fig. 3-23 as suitable sites of the whole village or just the owners of the property benefited for cluster development were acquired on tax lien after the 1938 pending notice and public hearing. hurricane. The Village owns these properties jointly with Suffolk County, but the Village has sole responsibility for tax payment to The unincorporated areas of Fair Harbor, Dunewood the Town of Islip. Because the tax burden of $60,000/year is and Lonelyville are also eligible to establish an erosion almost 10% of the total Village budget, the Village has decided control district as part of the Town of Islip, under New to sell these properties through a public auction at fair market York State Town Law: Article 12 - District and Special value. These properties constitute a total of 11 building sites Improvements; and Article 12A - Establishment or (under current zoning regulations) and have been recently ap- Extension of Improvement Districts, Alternative Pro- praised at $3 million. Three building sites will be offered for sale cedure - Sections 190-209h. this summer, three or four will be offered in 1985, and the re- The town board of any town which borders navigable waters mainder will be sold in 1986. Terms of the sale require 30% may establish or extend in their town a beach erosion control down payment, and full payment within three years. Suffolk district, public dock district, harbor improvement district or County will receive one-half of the purchase amount, and the aquatic plant growth district and provide improvements and/or Village of Saltaire will retain the other half. services totally at the expense of the district. This district cannot The Village of Saltaire should consider delaying the sale of be established or extended within a city or incorporated village these properties, and instead prepare a plan to use the proper- boundary. However, a district or part of a district can be ties to relocate structures out of the Coastal Erosion Hazard established in an incorporated village if the village consents to Area. The Town of Islip should lower the tax assessment on such establishment by local law and subject to a petition (Village these undeveloped parcels as an incentive for the Village not to Home Rule Law - Section 6) or a permissive referendum (Village Seidner v. Town of Islip. 453 N.Y.S. 2d 636; 439 N.E. 2d 352; 56 N.Y. 2d 1004. Law - Article 5A). 133 3.5 WESTHAMPTON BARRIER ISLAND: fill and revetment construction at Cupsogue Beach, and the REACH PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES stabilization of the Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets. Any struc- The most significant problem along this reach is the severe tural solution to the erosion problem on this reach will involve an erosion along the oceanfront shoreline of the unincorporated even greater commitment of public funds,in the future. portion of Westhampton Beach west of the last groin, where a The eastern half of the reach is a natural beach and dune large number of houses are in imminent danger of clestruction. shorel i ne- system, with dunes up to 30 ft in height, primarily used Many houses have already been destroyed, and others remain in for recreational use. There is extensive residential, beach club extremely vulnerable locations. There have been frequent and motel development in the western half of the reach. Some of breaches and washovers along this section of the reach, leaving the high density residential and commercial structures are non- the Town of Southampton with large road maintenance expen- conforming with respect to the Village of Westhampton Beach ditures. Beside the acute problems in this area, the entire reach zoning and building code ordinances. The vast majority of the is vulnerable to storm damages, as evidenced by historical storm population on the reach is currently seasonal, but given the ex- events and the V zone flood designation. (See Figs. 3-26 to 3-28.) isting bridge and road access, and year-round utility service, the Significant public investments in shoreline engineering and potential for conversion to a year-round community is high. Fur- maintenance along this reach have been made in the past, in- thermore, there are continuing development pressures adjacent cluding the construction of a series of 15 stone groins, the beach to the environmentally sensitive wetlands of the reach. ---------- v7" TJ Figure 3-26 Westhampton Beach- Oceanfront homes rendered inaccessible during the northeast storm of 29 March, 1984 Photo-couriesy Newsday Our 134 :!!4K - - k, Figure 3-27 Westhampton Beach- Oceanfront homes weSt of the last WeSterly groio that are extensively vulnerable to storm induced flooding T M " a-, Figure 3-28 Westhampton Beach- House damaged by storm jw@ 4AIVirw 135 _7Z A concern for this reach is that the houses on the barrier 3.5.1 Westhampton Beach Detailed Study Area island comprise approximately 15% of the Remsenberg/Speonk 3.5.1.1 General Description and Problem Statement. The School District property tax base. The fiscal impacts of removing Westhampton Beach detailed study area includes the barrier these houses or losing them as a result of a storm event are 6x- island extending east from Moriches Inlet to the most westerly amined later in this section. Additional problems along this reach groin, including the 220 acre Cupsogue County Park. With the ex- include limited public shorefront access, and the difficulty of ception of the County Park, the land in the study area is used evacuating residents west of the Jessup Lane bridge in the event principally for medium density seasonal residences. There is of a breach of Dune Road. Strategies for the Westhampton bar- also a small amount of land used for commercial-recreation pur- rier island are presented in Table 3-12, poses. The area is zoned for single-family residences on one TABLE 3-12 Westhampton Barrier Island Reach Strategies EROSION AND FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES e Mitigate the effects of a tax base loss resulting from � Implement a cost-effective alternative which will storm-induced destruqtion of development. For exam- restore the net rate of longshore sand transport. ple, investigate the possibility of combining small � Stabilize Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets through a school districts. sand by-passing program. o Examine the use of a transfer of development rights � New inlets or breaches of the barrier island caused by scheme to relocate property owners in Westhampton storms should be closed on an emergency basis as they Beach from the barrier to mainland locations. develop. Should the site of a new inlet include private LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGIES property, such property should be condemned prior to Expand local oceanfront parks to increase public ac- repair to prevent development or redevelopment. cess through acquisition of suitable parcels after the � Examine issues of finishing or removing the groin occurrence of a major storm. system at Westhampton beach. Recognize that any ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS solution to maintaining the ocean shoreline at its cur- rent location and configuration will involve large expen- o Minimize residential density adjacent to tidal wetlands. ditures of public funds. Based on studies to date, the * Minimize bulkheading along bay shorelines, the most feasible solution will likely involve a combination cumulative effect of which can possibly increase tidal of structural and non-structural measures, including ranges. land use controls and limited acquisition. THE NFIP AND FEDERAL POLICIES LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Seek to expand undeveloped coastal barrier designa- Enforce. a prohibition on development and redevelop- tions under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act on storm ment in Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas in accordance damaged portions of the island. with Arilcle 34 of the ECL. EVACUATION, WARNING AND PUBLIC EDUCATION Prohibit redevelopment of high density non-conforming Provide storm evacuation contingency plans in uses which suffer storm damage equal to or exceeding response to a possible breach along Dune Road west 50% of structural value. of the Jessup Lane bridge. 136 acre plots. Approximately 5% of the area's residents reside houses in the study area totals approximately $25 million (based there year-round; another 15% spend weekends at their homes on equalized town assessment values). Although there are only throughout the year, while the remaining 80% use their homes approximately 10 year-round residents at risk, there are approx- as summer residences. imately 1300 seasonal residents at risk during the hurricane- The area's natural resources include beach, dunes, tidal wet- prone months of June, July, August and September (Table 3-13). lands, maritime flora, and marine waters-both bay and ocean The area was chosen for detailed study for several reasons: -of high quality. Erosion has been a significant and persistent * the serious nature of the flooding problem and the problem since the area was severely impacted by flooding during significant losses incurred thus far the 1938 hurricane. The area also experienced severe flooding * the potential for extraordinary losses in the future during the March 1962 northeast storm. As a result of this storm, * the potential to create open space in a flood prone the COE began work on the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point area Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project, which * the need to limit Federal, State and local expenditures resulted in the construction of a series of groins located within in an area vulnerable to flooding the Village of Westhampton Beach. The project's original intent Fig. 3-30 shows the boundaries of the Westhampton Beach was to extend the groin field (with beach fill) west beyond its pre- detailed study area. sent location to Moriches Inlet. This, however, did not occur. The The shoreline in the western end of the study area at Moriches incompleted project has apparently exacerbated the erosion pro- Inlet has also demonstrated dramatic changes in recent years blem along the 700 and 800 blocks of Dune Road. The area im- (Kassner and Black, 1982). Figures 3-31 through 3-34 show pacted again by the northeast storms of February 1978 and Moriches Inlet at various dates from 1947 to 1980. Attempts to March 1984 (see Fig. 3-29). stabilize the Inlet with jetties, as well as the dredging of naviga- In spite of the obvious and persistent erosion and flooding tional channels to the Inlet, have resulted in modifications of problems experienced in the area, pressure to develop vacant sedimentation patterns both along the oceanfront and in the parcels continues unabated. Indeed, individuals whose homes lagoon tidal delta. In January 1980, the shoreline immediately to have been destroyed by flooding and erosion have been seeking the east of the east jetty at the Inlet was breached. The breach to rebuild in the same location. Insurance claims for flood- was subsequently closed by the Corps of Engineers under an related losses in Westhampton Beach since 1977 are the highest emergency project to prevent potential storm-induced flooding on Suffolk County's south shore. The structural value at risk for along the shores of Moriches Bay. TABLE 3-13 Population at Risk in the Westhampton Beach Detailed Study Area No. of Struct. Avg. Year-round Housing Total No. of Struct. Avg. Seasonal Total Census Structure Residents Per Year-round Year-round Used Residents Per Seasonal Block Count Household Residents Residents Seasonally Household Residents 801 129 1.6 3 5 126 5.5 693 804 102 2.5 2 5 100 5.5 550 802 11 2.0 - - 11 5.5 61 10 1,304 la7 IN, 4 '067-, 1' pA if ,Ow A 10 r Al A, xp* ARM Figure 3-29 I f, xtensi.ve dune line recession and overwash o m,1144LO #10144 ht.-' laillon4v !MOVW@ volOff-m-m-4 .00 W7 At All- v NC- -7f SID! .4, 100% k 4L IL tw lot -Jr to, 'lop" -4w- qF log 14, 21, 41 Irmw ORT - --A! I I - I ' " :,- , , jr, im po XPA Ir All all 'QW I L tA, "t, In-'s kr -%AW A*Aa- wv-@ -m@ -0, J@i JOS vw kA 40. -Tw . -Z -A. A J Qvl NN k,- I4A@@ 3:1 Olt., i-h -c Ile, omi I N V 40 its "AA .4 @v "'A6 oa- P$,4 Arl 3.5.1.2 Westhampton Beach Strategies. Strategies for the within the detailed study area; it is on the north side of Dune Westhampton Beach study area must address both short-term Road, lots are generally deep, and overwash has not recently oc- problems as erosion threatens individual houses, and long-term curred there. (See Fig. 3-38.) problems pertaining to the integrity of the barrier island. A solu- All levels of government should focus their attention on mit- tion to the problems of Westhampton Beach could include a igating the impacts of erosion in subsections 1 and 2. It is recom- combination of both structural and non-structural alternatives. mended that as houses suffer damage greater than 50% of Long-term solutions will likely involve large public expenditures. structural value, the land should be condemned and purcha@ecl � Decisions regarding the final .choice of a structural by appropriate levels of government after flood insurance claims solution should be based on a comprehensive analysis are paid by FEMA. of the advantages and disadvantages of each, including Over the long-term, however, hurricanes pose the greatest scientific, engineering, economic and social issues. threat to the entire study area. The hurricane of 1938 destroyed Many important knowledge gaps remain to be filled. virtually all houses in this area. In a post-storm situation, govern- � Interim structural strategies include the emergency ment should stabilize the barrier, prohibit redevelopment, and closure of any new inlets that breach the barrier beach. purchase the land. Such action is necessary to retain access to properties The erosion problem within the detailed study area has been located on the barrier as well as the public recreational exacerbated by the failure to complete the groin system. It may facility at Cupsogue Beach. Should the site of a new in- not be necessary to complete the project in its original scope; let include private property, such property should be however, it appears that a structural alternative will be condemned prior to repair of the breach. necessary to restore the natural longshore transport of sand and � Non-structural strategies along this reach include the to protect the mainland and bay environments. It has been es- public acquisition of properties after substantial struc- tural damage occurs. National Flood Insurance pro- timated by the COE that the cost of the proposed structural alter- grams, such as Section 1362, or the presently defunct natives for beach erosion control within the detailed study area constructive total loss program should be used to will range from $50-$75 million. purchase properties, in conjunction with local funds. It should be noted, however, that this estimate does not in- This strategy should be instituted over the short-term clude approximately $9.8 million spent thus far to nourish as damage occurs. beaches, build dunes and construct groins. Nor does it include The detailed study area has been divided into subsections, as future maintenance costs. Table 3-14 summarizes the history of depicted in Fig. 3-30, based on erosion patterns and loss of expenditures for shoreline protection projects as well as proposed structures esulting from previous storm events. Subsection 1 COE shoreline protection projects on the Westhampton barrier appears to be the most threatened portion of the detailed study island. The total cost of additional COE projects on the area; 11 houses have been lost to storm-related erosion since Westhampton barrier island is between $125 and $175 million. December 1982 and many others are in imminent danger. (See The non-structural alternative, which involves purchase of Figs. 3-35 and 3-36.) There are no dunes protecting the homes, homes and property by appropriate units of government, will prob- and washovers from the ocean to the bay have occurred in a few ably cost at least $25 million based on equalized assessment locations. Subsection 2 appears to be somewhat less threatened values. A modified structural solution will be necessary to provide by erosion because it is located north of Dune Road. The ocean a minimal level of stabilization on the barrier island and the non- has, however, approached the homes in this subsection, re- structural alternative will be necessary to protect lives and limit sulting in the deposit of 3 ft of sand and debris on Dune Road future government expenditures in post-storm situations. (Fig. 3-37). Subsection 3 appears to be somewhat less vulnerable The value of flood insurance policies currently in effect in the than 1 and 2 because lots have greater depth and a dune system detailed study area totals at least $22.6 million. It should be fronts the houses. Subsection 4 is probably the least vulnerable noted that this value represents the value of policies on 160 out 148 Figure 3-36 Westhampton Beach- Damaged house on beach in Subsection 1 77, -Ow Figure 3-36 Westhampton Beach- Attempt by shorefront residents to protect homes from wave action t AM 149 &46- Figure 3-37 Westhampton Beach- All View of Dune Rd. west of the last groin prior to the northeast storm of 29 March, 1984 Figure 3-38 Westhampton Beach- Homes on bay side of Dune Rd. rso Ir hit r WIV J, 7TV AT 150 TABLE 3-14 Westhampton Barrier Island: Shoreline Construction History Date of Study or % Project Authorization Description Area Complete Cost (Reference) Federal-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1. a. Phase I-Fire Island Inlet to Montauk 1960a 11 stone groins constructed in 1966; 3.5 miles 100% $6,000,000 (a) Pt. Beach Erosion Control and Hurri- 4 additional groins constructed in 1970; cane Protection 2 million yc13 of sand used to fill in groin field and rebuild beach. b. Phase II-Interim Project at 1977s 4 million yd3 to fill existing groin 2 miles 0% $50-75 million (d) Westhampton Beach field; 4 million yc13 to nourish beach (proposed) west of western-most groin-widen (1984 Cost beach to 100 ft., increase dune to Estimate) 16 ft. c. Phase III 1977s Beach and dune construction for re- 12 miles 0% $55-80 million (d) mainder of Island; up to 8 additional (proposed) groins are authorized. (1984 Cost Estimate) 2. Emergency Shore Protection 1962i Repair of beach and dune erosion; 5 miles 100% $970,000 (a) 370,000 ycls. of sand filled. 3. Moriches Inlet Channel Improvement 1960s Excavate entrance channel, inner 0% $20,000,000 (b) channel, repair existing jetties, con- (proposed) struct 300 ft. deposition basin, place (1984 Cost dredged sand downdrift of inlet. Estimate) 4. Emergency Fill Project 1983i 1600 ft. stone revetement built and 100% $1,500,000 (e) sand filled. (70% Fed.) 5. Emergency Shore Protection 1984i Dune Road rebuilt and 125,000 yd3 1.3 miles Anticipated $900,000 used to create dune protection. Completion 6/84 (Anticipated Cost) State and Local 1. Emergency Dune Repair 1938i Dune fill by Suffolk County following 100% $180,000 (c) hurricane of 1938; bulkheading on west side of Shinnecock to stabilize inlet. 2. Westhampton Beach 1951i Dune fill and beach grass to close 100% $193,000 (c) inlet formed by storm. 3. Westhampton Beach 1958i 380,000 yd3 and 250,000 yd3 of dune fill. 100% $184,300 (c) 1967i 4. Westhampton Beach 1983i Emergency bulldozing of sand to open 100% $40,000 (c) References and maintain Dune Road. (a) North Atlantic Division, 1977 (b) North Atlantic Division, 1981 a-authorization date (c) NYS Conservation Department, 1968 s-study date (d) Bergman, B., and S. Calisi, New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal Communication, May 4, 1984 i-implementation date (e) Gilman, J., NYSDEC. Personal Communication, March 19, 1984 15.1 of a total of 242 homes. Some homes may not be covered by Should a hurricane or severe northeast storm event destroy all flood insurance; however, many of the remaining 82 homes prob- or most of the homes in subsection 1, FEMA will probably face ably do have flood insurance, but the addresses are not included $5.7 million in flood insurance claims. New York State, Suffolk on the policies, and thus will not appear on the computer prin- County and Southampton Town would share the $2.7 million of tout* which lists policies. The average value of a flood insurance land acquisition costs (assuming the equalized assessed value policy in the detailed study area is approximately $141,400. If closely approximates market value) if the decision were made by this value is applied to the remaining 82 homes, it is estimated these units of government to acquire this land. Again, it is em- that an additional $11.6 million in flood insurance could be in ef- phasized that FEMA should seek modification of the NFIP to per- fect. Thus, an estimate of the total value of flood insurance mit homeowners in a V zone to receive only a one-time recovery coverage would be $34.2 million. on the value of the structure up to the flood insurance policy A comparison of the non-structural alternative (payment of limits. Once the claim is paid by FEMA, the homeowner would no flood insurance claims for destroyed structures followed by the longer be eligible for flood insurance. purchase of land) with the COE proposed structural alternative The Southampton Town master plan and waterfront revitaliza- (COE interim project at Westhampton Beach) reveals that signifi- tion plan recommends the acquisition of ocean facilities west of cant cost savings of at least $25 million will be realized by im- the Village of Westhampton Beach. This can be accomplished by plementing the non-structural alternative. This savings does not the purchase of vacant property immediately east of the existing include the additional liabilities FEMA and ultimately the tax- town beach and parking lot. payer would bear if FEMA does not seek changes in the NFIP In addition to acquisition costs, government must consider the and once again insures structures in a V zone. Thus, it is envi- impact of property tax revenue lost as property is acquired by sioned that the non-structural alternative will not require future government and taken off the tax rolls. Table 3-16 lists the pro- and increasing government expenditures beyond the satisfaction perty tax revenue generated for the Town, County and Remsen- of flood insurance claims, purchase of land and minimal beach berg/Speonk School District. Homes and property. in the de- stabilization efforts. tailed study area in 1983 generated a total of $382,174 per year Table 3-15 lists the full value assessment of the land and im- in property taxes. Suffolk County would lose $67,907 or approx- provements as determined by the Town of Southampton, and the imately 0.8% of the County property tax revenue generated in combined total by subsection; the addresses and the number of Southampton Town. Southampton Town would lose $121,707 or structures included within each subsection are also shown. approximately 0.9% of the total town property tax revenue. The Table 3-15 also lists the value of structures by subsection based Remsenberg/Speonk School District would be the most severely upon an analysis conducted in 1983 for the COE for its refor- impacted taxing entity. The district would lose $182,792 in taxes, mulation study on the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Beach or approximately 15 % of its total property tax revenue. It is an- Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project (URS Com- ticipated, however, that this revenue loss could be offset by the pany, Inc., 1982). It is noteworthy that the assessed values and expansion of the tax base that is occurring on the mainland. The the COE estimates compare favorably in three of four subsec- Ocean Bay-Dune Road West Fire District would lose $9768 in tions. The larger discrepancy in the fourth subsection is probably revenue, or approximately 56% of its property tax revenue. It due to older town assessments, which are less accurate. The should be noted, however, that the district contracts for fire pro- total equalized assessed value of land and improvements is ap- tection services, which would be reduced as a result of the pur- proximately $22 million. Thus, the COE (in its 1977 proposed in- chase of property and elimination of re-building, thus minimizing terim project at Westhampton Beach) is proposing to spend the impact of revenue loss. The revenue losses described as- $50-$75 million to protect homes and property in the detailed study area valued at approximately $22-$25 million. It should be FEMA data listing the value of flood insurance policies in effect in the noted, however, that the COE project is also designed to provide Nassau/Suffolk region as of 1983. benefits to the mainland shoreline as well. **Personal communication, Mr. Gary M. Simonson, Southampton Town Assessor. 152 TABLE 3-15 Full Value Assessment* of Land and Improvements in the Westhampton Beach Detailed Study Area Full Value Assessment Avg. Assess. No. of Value of C.O.E. Estimate of Subsection Addresses Structures Land Improvements Total Structures Structural Value 1 667-859 662-686 89 $2,653,290. $5,779,460. $8,432,750. $75,057. $6,274,874. 2 688-792 34 962,553. 2,161,418. 3,123,971. 63,571. 2,205,000. 3 861-963 34 1,247,659. 1,876,879. 3,124,538. 55,202. 1,995,000. 4 794-902 Dune Lane Cove Lane 85 1,441,134. 5,869,148. 7,310,282. 69,049. 7,169,000. TOTAL 242 $6,304,636. $15,686,905. $21,991,541. $17,643,874. TAX RATES PER $100 OF ASSESSED VALUE: County = 4.38; Town = 7.85; School Dist. = 11.79; Fire Dist. (Ocean Bay - Dune Rd. West) .63 *Equalization Rate of .0705 applied to yield full value. TABLE 3-16 Property Tax Contributions of Homes In Westhampton Beach Detailed Study Area Remsenberg/Speonk School District Ocean Bay-Dune Rd. West County Property/Tax Revenue Property Tax Fire District Generated In Detailed Study Area Town Property Tax Revenue Revenue Property Tax Revenue % of Total County Revenue/ Revenue Within Subsection Subsection Southampton Town Town Total % of Total Sch. Dist. Total % of Total Fire Dist. Total % of Total 1 $26,039 .3% $46,669 .4% $70,092 5.8% $3745 21% 2 9,647 .1% 17,289 .1% 25,966 2.1 % 1388 8% 3 9,648 .1% 17,292 .1% 25,971 2.1 % 1388 8% 4 22,573 .3% 40,457 .3% 60,763 5.0% 3247 19% $67,907 .8% $121,707 .9% $182,792 15.0% $9768 56% 153 sume that all homes in the detailed study area would be lost at 3.6 SHINNECOCK INLET TO MONTAUK POINT: once after occurrence of a hurricane. The impacts would be REACH PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES significantly less severe if purchase of homes and land were The easternmost reach in the study area is characterized by a phased over a period of years. natural shoreline. The first several miles consist of a narrow bar- The Town of Southampton moratorium on development rier-spit- Southampton barrier beach-with irregular dunes up along the oceanfront in this study area should be con- to 30 ft in height. The rest of the reach consists of mainland, un- tinued until conditions dictate otherwise. protected by a barrier beach. The beaches are quite narrow, with The storm of 29 March 1984 has left approximately 150 homes less extensive dunes than the barrier beaches to the west. (See extremely vulnerable. Water washes under the homes at high Fig. 3-39.) The last 10 miles of the reach consist of steep, bluffed tide. Approximately 20 oceanfront lots remain undeveloped. The headlands with elevations up to 70 ft. moratorium instituted by the Town of Southampton on develop- Both the barrier spit portion and the headlands bluff portion ment of vacant parcels, and the re-construction of dwellings are subject to severe erosion. Shoreline protection struc- which suffer damage equal to or exceeding 50% of structural tures-including gabions at Montauk Point, groins at East value, should remain in effect under current conditions. Addi- Hampton, and stone revetments at various locations-have tional construction would result in placing more property at risk been built to protect shoreline property. This erosion threatens should the full force of a hurricane strike the area. the high value, but relatively low density residential housing Figure 3-39 Oceanfront houses built behind dunes fronting on narrow beach 154 0 44 'WWW"Kew,"', along the coast. There are considerable pockets of residential development at risk at Montauk Beach, Amagansett and Nap- TABLE 3-17 eague. Because of the narrowness of the beach and the height of the bluffs in the eastern portion of the reach, most of the develop- Shinnecock to Montauk Reach Strategies ment there is elevated safely out of the floodplain. There are* large recreation areas located in this portion, including EROSION AND FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES Napeague, Hither Hills, and Montauk State Parks. There is extensive pressure for new residential and commer- eAccept the natural shoreline regression along the cial development in the remaining vacant portions of the flood headlands portion of the reach as beyond practical hazard areas. In light of recent trends, it is possible that the control. owners of newly constructed motels will seek conversion to in- eMinimize public investments to stabilize the barrier dividual residential ownership at a later date. The expanding beach portion of the reach. seasonal population and tourism industry will continue to create *Close any breach that may form along the barrier spit development pressures for this reach. east of Shinnecock Inlet. Should the site of the breach Evacuation of the eastern end of the south fork is a particular include private property, such property should be con- concern because of the limited carrying capacity of Montauk demned prior to repair to prevent development or Highway-the reach's only major east-west transportation cor- redevelopment. ridor-and the potential for an overwash of the highway at LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Napeague, which would effectively cut off all land-based evacua- tion routes for the Montauk peninsula. The potential for flooding 9Limit public investments in infrastructure to coastal is particularly high at Napeague because the area is low-lying, dependent uses only. Avoid public investments which narrow, and fronted by small irregular dunes. Recom, 'mended may increase development pressures within the strategies for this reach are presented in Table 3-17. 100-year floodplain. eEncourage the use of clustering techniques to keep 3.6.1 Napeague Detailed Study Area development away from hazardous areas and preserve open space. 3.6.1.1 General Description and Problem Statement. Nap- LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGIES eague was chosen as the detailed study area for the Shinnecock Expand public open space in areas vulnerable to over- Inlet to Montauk Point reach. The Napeague study area is wash and flood damage. bordered by Napeague Bay to the north and the Atlantic Ocean to the south. The western boundary is a straight line from Cherry THE NFIP AND FEDERAL POLICIES Point through the Napeague Meadow Road/Lazy Point Road in- Seek to expand undeveloped coastal barrier designa- terchange to the ocean. The eastern boundary is the western tions under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act on storm- edge of Hither Hills State Park. (See Fig. 3-40.) damaged portions of the island. A large percentage of this area is publicly owned by New York State and under the jurisdiction of the Long Island State Park and EVACUATION, WARNING AND PUBLIC EDUCATION Recreation Commission (LISPRC). Much of the State land north Develop plans for emergency response procedures in of Montauk Highway is designated by NYSDEC as tidal wetlands the event of a breach at Napeague. and has not yet been developed for recreation uses. The State parklands south of Montauk Highway include a large undevel- 15.5 oped segment of ocean beach with an extensive natural dune 3.6.1.2 Napeague Strategies system. The Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town The multiple residence zoning district south of Montauk of East Hampton also own land within the study area, including a Highway, which includes both motel and co-op/ large area at and around Lazy Point. The majority of this land is condominiums and permits development of up to 10 undeveloped; however, part of this land, is leased by the D.U./acre, should not be expanded, nor should its den- sity be increased. The low-lying nature of this area Trustees to seasonal and year-round residents on an annual makes it susceptible to flooding, and the thin, shallow basis. In addition to the limited single-family residential develop- water table can be easily polluted. ment at Lazy Point, there is a small seasonal community of ap- The narrow land area between Napeague Harbor and proximately 100 single-family houses south of Montauk Highway. the Atlantic Ocean, which includes the multiple res- Most of the structures in this seasonal community, as well as idence district outlined above, is highly vulnerable to those located at Lazy Point, were constructed prior to the enact- washovers in the event of a hurricane. An appropriate ment of the Town's Special Flood Hazard Overlay District in policy for this area would be to repair and maintain 1976 and thus, are not elevated or constructed to conform to the dunes in areas subject to overwash. provisions specified in the ordinance. (See Fig. 3-41.) There are The structures located on Napeague Bay between also several high density motel and cooperative/condominium Cherry Point and Lazy Point are highly vulnerable to developments south of Montauk Highway along the ocean (Fig. flooding. Many of these houses are on land owned by the Trustees of the Town of East Hampton, which is 3-42). However, the Town of East Hampton has amended its zon- leased to individual homeowners. Approximately one- ing ordinance to reduce the size of the multiple residence district half of the houses in this area appear to be year-round at Napeague, thereby limiting additional high density develop- residences. All of the structures along the shoreline are ment at this area. Most of the area that was formerly in the multi- within the 100-year floodplain. It should be public policy ple residence district has been changed to limit residential den- to severely limit any additional development in this sity to one structure per two acres. There is also a town-wide area, and to phase out housing on the Town Trustee moratorium on development greater than five units per acre cur- owned land. This land could then be retained for public rently in effect. access and recreational use. Essentially all of the land within this study area is within the To mitigate the effects of re@noving the low income 100-year floodplain, and a significant number of structures are housing on leased property at Lazy Point, the Town of located in the V zone. The area was almost completely flooded East Hampton should explore strategies to provide af- fordable housing opportunities to those affected low in- during the 1938 hurricane, and suffered extensive flooding dur- come leaseholders. ing the storms of March and April, 1984. Erosion of the ocean In accordance with the Long Island Regional Element shoreline is a gradual, but not a critical problem in this study of the NYS Coastal Management Plan, accept the area. The greatest threat remains from bay side flooding; the nar- natural, long-term regression along the Atlantic Ocean row land area between Napeague Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean shoreline in this area. Structural protection measures is particularly vulnerable to overwashes in the event of a storm, should be de-emphasized along this shoreline. which isolates the Montauk peninsula and blocks the lone road In the publicly owned portion of this study area, which access along Montauk Highway. includes the State owned land south of Montauk High- way, low intensity recreational uses, such as camping, should be encouraged. Infrastructure investment, such as parking lots or pavilions, should be minimized in the 100-year floodplain. 156 L gay ell Herb At, As qL@ IVA- fi oe V-7 slow AN21 wn@ A., 7 14 41 Oit lo Plo o Aik. 'r ,W'@ 'Jim f @a, 1-Ut, All, Af 'Lan 1K, sk, 14, ql- t 17 Jill, 10001 44 @7d If f16@ It look sn j R@' ...... . ..... .... . . .. . Figure 3-41 Lazy Point- Seasonal housing having habitable floor space 4, below base flood elevation 40 Figure 3-42 Napeague- Oceanfront motel undergoing conversion to individual ownership A 'P40 ,%Oe@. 161 "A There are 54 privately owned structures located on a 75-acre The Town Trustee owned lots are leased for a one year period parcel of land owned by the Town Trustees at Lazy Point in the to Town of East Hampton residents for an annual fee of $50 per Town of East Hampton. Most of the structures are situated 5 to 6 lot. The leases are routinely renewed each year. The Trustees ft above msl. The base flood elevation for the 1 00-year f loodplain realize a total annual rental fee of $2700 from the 54 lease- is 9 ft above msl. Thus, anticipated flood depths would approx- holders. Transfer of lease title requires the approval of the Town imate 3 to 4 ft. Approximately 50% of these structures are used Trustees. No new leases are granted on previously unleased seasonally and a significant number of the leaseholders are trustee lots. In 1935 nearly 40 residential structures were commercial fishermen. Almost all structures are very modest in located on the publicly owned property at Lazy Point. As a result that relatively little investment in improvements has been made. of the subdivision map of Shore of Lazy Point, Town of East Property tax revenue generated by these structures for each Hampton, filed with the County Clerk on 16 September 1935 by taxing entity is found in Table 3-18. It is apparent from this table the Trustees (listed on the map as the owners and developers), that property tax receipts from this area are insignificant; the and the adoption of rules and regulations by the Trustees concer- various taxing entities would not be severely impacted by this ning the property at Lazy Point, the Trustees legalized the squat- loss of revenue. ters position through leaseholder agreements. TABLE 3-18 1983-84 Property Tax Contributions of Leaseholders at Lazy Point, Town of East Hampton Taxes Paid by Property Tax Leaseholders on Total Property Payment by Lease- Tax Rate in Town Improvements Taxes Levied in holders as a % of of East Hampton Located on Town Town of East Total Property Tax per $1000 of Trustee Land at Hampton by Taxing Levied by Taxing Taxing Jurisdiction Assesed Valuation Lazy Point* Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Suffolk County $41.26 $2,993 $3,727,101 0.08 Town of East Hampton $65.87 $4,779 $4,570,669 0.10 Town Highway $23.41 $1,698 $1,624,402 0.10 Amagansett School District $72.90 $5,289 $ 942,925 0.56 Napeague Fire Protection District $ 9.81 $ 712 $ 29,789 2.39 TOTAL $213.25 $15,471 $10,894,886 0.14 *There are 54 privatefy owned structures situated on 75 acres of Town Trustee owned land at Lazy Point. The land is assessed at $72,200 and the leaseholder improvements are assessed at $72,550. 162 It is recommended that the Town Trustees immediately formu- property at Lazy Point. Nearly half of these structures are lo- late a plan to phase out the leases and remove the structures at cated in the V zone. Almost all of the structures are older dwell- Lazy Point. The Trustees should investigate the option of exten- ings that predate the Town's Special Flood Hazard Overlay ding the leases to allow present leaseholders a chance to amor- District and, therefore, are not elevated or constructed to con- tize their structural investment over a 10 year period, in ex- form to the provisions specified in the ordinance. Should some or change for leaseholder agreement that structures will not be all of these structures and/or trailers be destroyed in a northeast rebuilt after sustaining damage from storm-related flooding storm or hurricane, it is recommended that the LISPRC purchase and/or erosion equal to or exceeding 50% of structural value. the land after FEMA has paid the flood insurance claims. The The LIRPB recognizes that the area contains a high percen- LISPRC could add this property to its adjacent Napeague park- tage of low income families and that the displaced leaseholders land and therefore consolidate its holdings. will have difficulty in finding other affordable housing on the South Fork on Long Island. Therefore, the LIRPB recommends that the Trustees work closely with the the Town Board to ex- plore options for the provision of affordable housing oppor- tunities for displaced, low income, year-round residents at Lazy Point, such as: � the approach taken by the Town of East Hampton at 3.7 MAINLAND SHORELINE: REACH PROBLEMS the former Montauk Air Force Base, where 27 houses The mainland coastal reach is characterized by extensive were obtained by the Town from the Federal govern- residential development, bulkheading along the shoreline, and ment and sold to low/middle income families for man-made canals. There are some undeveloped tidal wetlands $40,000 each and shorefront recreation areas, but the reach is predominantly � the approach taken by the Town of East Hampton with developed. the old filed subdivision of Olympic Heights at Three Land use is almost exclusively medium density residential, Mile Harbor, where vacant, substandard lots were ag- gregated, replatted into lots that conform to existing with a limited amount of high density residential in Nassau Coun- zoning, and then sold by the Town to low/middle in- ty and low density residential in eastern Suffolk County. There come families at affordable prices are also scattered areas of waterfront commercial development. � using community development funds, per the example Most of the development along this reach is in the A flood zone. of the Town of Southampton, to clean up and improve However, the density of this development, coupled with the fact low income housing areas. that much of this housing stock was built prior to the enactment The Trustees should prepare a site plan for the Lazy Point of the NFIP and is, thus, neither floodproofed nor elevated, property that would accommodate public access, additional creates a situation of high vulnerability to storm-induced parking and recreational opportunities for residents of the Town flooding, characterized by high structural values and a high of East Hampton. Expansion of the boat ramp and parking area population at risk. at Lazy Point should also be considered in the site plan in light of Because of the many north/south transportation corridors, the fact that many of the leaseholders at Lazy Point are commer- evacuation is not considered to be a problem on the mainland. cial fishermen who utilize their leasehold not only for residency, Flooding problems exist in certain areas where residential but also for drying of nets and storage of gear and boats. development was built on low-lying wetland areas below base Two trailer parks, one located in the V zone and the other in flood elevations. These areas include portions of the com- the A zone, are also situated on privately owned property at Lazy munities of Island Park, Bay Park, Oceanside, Freeport, Amity- Point; they contain about 50 residential units. Approximately 75 ville, Copiague, Lindenhurst, Babylon, Islip, Oakdale, Mastic additional residential structures are situated on privately owned Beach, and mainland areas in Westhampton Beach. 163 There is little vacant developable land in the western half of by all communities on the mainland shoreline are similar and are this reach. The objective is to steer any future development/re- dealt with in a generic manner. development to inland sites where structures may be clustered, The need for widescale redevelopment along the mainland in leaving the waterfront as open space. The remaining undevel- the event of a severe storm is very unlikely. Instead, mitigation oped sections of the 100-year floodplain on the eastern end of efforts should focus on measures that could be implemented in the reach should be preserved to protect the-wetlands and pro- day-to-day development decisions. Any hurricane damage miti- vide a buffer zone between the upland development and adja- gation strategy for the mainland should address the small-scale cent wetlands and bay environments. changes that will occur gradually over the long-term, instead of A problem for this reach appears to be the inconsistent re- the complete redevelopment option applicable to the barrier quirements among communities regarding the maintenance of islands. bulkheads. Another problem is that many of the streets and road- The primary objective for the mainland shoreline is to steer ways along the canals and creeks of this reach were built below future development or post-storm redevelopment in flood hazard the base flood level, and will not only flood, but will serve as con- zones to inland sites where structures may be clustered, leaving duits for flood waters. (See Figs. 3-43 and 3-44.) The flood hazard the waterfront as open space. This strategy can only be effective vulnerability of this reach will probably increase greatly in the in those areas with vacant developable land. Such a shift in event of a storm-induced breach of the barrier island chain along development would also have the additional benefit of maintain- the south shore. ing open space along the waterfront. A more likely strategy for the mainland shoreline involves the 3.7.1 Mainland Shoreline Reach Strategies. The prepara- response to repeated flooding of structures in densely developed tion of storm hazard mitigation recommendations for the communities. For these areas, damage mitigation strategies mainland shoreline, which differs both qualitatively and quan- must address options other than relocation. For example, most titatively from the other five coastal reaches, necessitated a dif- houses built in the mainland A zone were built at grade or below, ferent approach. The mainland shoreline, as opposed to the and are neither floodproofed nor elevated. Many of these houses other coastal reaches, is not likely to suffer large-scale storm have experienced repeated flooding. It may be practical and damage resulting in a clean slate redevelopment situation. cost-effective to raise these structures above the base flood The mainland reach differs from the other five coastal reaches elevation and place them on piles. FEMA should examine the in that it is located almost entirely in the A flood zone, with a long-term benefits of such a one-time expense as a payment or minimum of area designated as V zone. Each of the other five as a loan, contrasted against repeated flood insurance claims. coastal reaches has large areas classified as V zone, which will The community of Island Park is an example of a location where subject them to the greater destructive forces of storm-driven this strategy may prove effective. waves. Structures in the V zone are often completely destroyed Raising a house is feasible for those structures which were in a hurricane. A zone structures, on the other hand, are subject constructed on level slabs. Unfortunately, many houses in the to static flooding, but not wave action. These structures, there- mainland A zone were built with basements, which are frequent- fore, will face water damage from flood waters, but not signif- ly flooded. In this case, the suggested strategy is for FEMA and icant structural damage. The presence of offshore barrier the NYS Dept. of State (NYSDOS), through the Uniform Fire islands and wide, shallow south shore bays provides protection Prevention and Building Code, to institute standards for the flood- for the mainland shoreline. proofing of existing basements and to deny requests for base- Site specific hazard mitigation planning for post-hurricane ment construction in flood hazard zones. redevelopment on the mainland shoreline is neither practical nor A sug gested strategy for local municipalities is one which has applicable. Most of this reach is already extensively developed; already been initiated in several communities. Many of the some vacant land in Suffolk County remains. The problems faced streets and roadways built along the canals and creeks of the 164 Figure 3-43 Long Beach- Residential development fronting on canals typifies much of the south shore of Nassau and western Suffolk Counties Figure 3.44 Island Park Low lying housing fronting on a canal. Note oil storage tanks in background & 165 mainland reach were originally built below the base flood level, older residential areas are periodically inundated by tidal and are not only subject to flooding, but act as conduits for flood flooding, resulting in persistent and significant flood-related waters. Communities such as the Villages of Island Park and damage. It was also chosen because there are structures lo- Lindenhurst have used Community Development Block Grant cated within or adjacent to tidal wetlands that, if destroyed, may funds for street raising programs. Implementation of this present an opportunity to protect wetlands, while at the same strategy by municipalities throughout the study area would be time reducing potential flood losses. (See Figs. 3-46 and 3-47.) It highly desirable. is anticipated that as shorefront property becomes scarce on A potentially serious problem for mainland communities is the eastern Long Island, pressure to develop the vacant shorefront presence of hazardous material storage sites (such as oil ter- areas in Mastic Beach will increase. Thus, this area presents an minals), sewage treatment plants, landfills and incinerators opportunity to prepare a development plan that recognizes the within flood hazard zones. Damage to hazardous material stor- need for sound floodplain management. age facilities located within the 100-year floodplain may result in the release of this material into the coastal environment, thus 3.7.2.2 Mastic Beach Strategies posing potential threats to public health and coastal ecosystems. The scattered residences in the flood zone should be It is, therefore, imperative that if these structures are to remain removed and relocated to inland locations. Suitable or be constructed within the 100-year floodplain that they be ade- upland parcels owned by the Town of Brookhaven or quately floodproofed. Suffolk County should be identified and designated as appropriate sites for relocation. 3.7.2 Mastic Beach Detailed Study Area The relocation of structures from this study area would help to provide a buffer zone between the upland development and adjacent wetlands and bay en- 3.7.2.1 General Description and Problem Statement. The vironments. The establishment of a buffer zone would Mastic Beach detailed study area is located on the south shore also add to the protection of the more densely of Brookhaven Town, east of William Floyd Parkway. It is flanked developed areas in the event of a major storm. This on two sides by public open space. Study area boundaries are strategy is in accordance with the State purchase of depicted in Fig. 3-45. wetlands in the western portion of the study area. Three principal land uses can be found in this study area: There is a high potential for future development of the medium density residential, commercial recreation, and vacant. low-lying flood-prone areas of Mastic Beach, due in The vacant category comprises approximately 50% of the detailed part to its proximity to FINS and the Suffolk County study area. A significant portion of the vacant category contains Park at Smith Point. Therefore, there is a need to act either maritime flora or tidal wetlands. The entire area is zoned swiftly to protect and rehabilitate the extensive for single-family residences with minimum lot sizes of 15,000 sq wetlands in the study area. ft. It is important to note that an old-filed subdivision with a grid The Town of Brookhaven should rezone to a lower den- sity those areas within the study area subject to old- street pattern covers much of the vacant area. The shoreline filed subdivision maps in order to limit the density of along much of Narrow Bay has not yet been bulkheaded. future development should a large number of parcels All of the land in the study area is within the A zone. There is a be assembled by a single owner. small seasonal population in Mastic Beach, but the majority of Use of public funds to upgrade roads and provide homes are used as primary residences. The value of all residen- municipal water supply should be discouraged in the tial structures in the Mastic Beach study area totals $6.6 million detailed study area. (based on 1980 Census data). Designated tidal wetlands encompass approximately 50% of The area was chosen for detailed study because it typifies the detailed study area depicted in Fig. 3-45. New York State has flooding problems found on the bay shoreline in which low-lying, purchased tidal wetlands adjacent to and surrounding Johns .16.6 &4 47 Ilk ,AF "4 do-M ;P7 -Ar NIZIll @4 I 10 4fl gt@ I'N 777-r DN 41 *,V I -"A -,W#., Ift IN. WW let, ot v 'Al I I 'ik 'As ire Ao Ail 4w 40 At low, qi6 A IL ego A jwll, 91 'Rehr 113 4r i 140(@ 410 Amp, ,-Atw V, Figure 3-46 Mastic Beach- FT, . t Views of shoreline showing extensive wetlands and scattered residential development Figure 3-47 Mastic Beach 71- in 172 Neck Creek. Based upon an analysis conducted in 1983 for the avoid future public expenditures for flood-related damages and COE reformulation study on the project entitled Fire Island Inlet disaster assistance. Thus, this plan recognizes that residential to Montauk Point Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protec- use will continue in the detailed study area. tion Project, it was determined that there are 59 homes situated within 100 ft of tidal wetlands valued at approximately $2,100,000 (URS Company, Inc., 1982). These homes range in elevation from 1.5 to 3.4 ft above msl. The base flood elevation identified on the FIRMs for the 100-year floodplain is 8 ft msI. 3.8 REFERENCES Thus, should the area experience a 1 00-year flood, one could an- Dvirka and Bartilucci. 1982. City of Long Beach sanitary sewers. ticipate that these homes would be inundated with 4.5 to 6.5 ft of Dvirka and Bartilucci Consluting Engineers, Syosset, N.Y. water, resulting in the probable destruction of these homes. Johnson, Madeleine C. 1983. Fire Island 1650s-1 980s. Shoreland A review of census data indicates that 25% of the homes Press, Mountainside, N.J. within the census tract are used on a seasonal basis. If one ap- Kassner, Jeffrey and John A. Black. 1982. Efforts to stabilize a plies this percentage to the 59 homes adjacent to tidal wetlands, coastal inlet: a cast study of Moriches Inlet, New York. Shore 15 of these homes would be used seasonally. Therefore, there and Beach 50 (2): 21-29. would be 44 primary residences adjacent to tidal wetlands which Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1978. The Long Island would be subject to significant flooding effects. comprehensive waste treatment management plan. Haup- Should this occur, FEMA should pay the full value of the flood pauge, N.Y. insurance policies on a one-time basis. Suffolk County, in - . 1979. Long Island regional element, New York State cooperation with the Town of Brookhaven, should then seek to coastal management program. Hauppauge, N.Y. relocate these individuals to County-owned land outside of the New York State Conservation Dept. 1968. Helicopter survey of 100-year floodplain. Redevelopment efforts should focus on beach erosion and hurricane protection projects. Division of parcels within the Mastic Beach area which have been acquired Water Resources, Albany, N.Y. through tax liens. This could be accomplished through a swap or New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation. 1976. In- trade of land between the owner(s) and the County. Should the terim report on flood plain management: beach erosion and tax lien parcel include a house, the owner being relocated could hurricane damage reduction, South Shore Long Island. Task pay the County the fair market value of the house, or the value of 7.2. Albany, N.'@. the flood insurance claim, whichever is less. The parcels adja- - . 1984. Preliminary coastal erosion hazard area maps, cent to tidal wetlands would then be owned by the County. This Village of Saltaire, Town of Islip. Albany, N.Y. land should be kept as open space. North Atlantic Division. 1977. Water resources development in There are a total of 222 homes located within the detailed New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York. study area, of which it is estimated that 25%, or 55, are used - . 1981. Water resources development in New York. U.S. seasonally. If one subtracts the 59 homes adjacent to tidal Army Corps of Engineers, New York. wetlands from the total within the detailed study area, 163 Topo-Metrics, Inc. undated. Flood observation records for the homes remain within the detailed study area on land having an 1938 Hurricane, the 1950 Northeaster, 1954 Hurricane Carol, elevation ranging from 3.5 to 5 ft msl. These homes would ex- 1960 Hurricane Donna and the 1962 Northeaster. Reports perience 3 to 4.5 ft of flooding in the event of a 1 00-year storm, prepared for the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, contract and probably would not be completely destroyed. In these in- DACW51-80-c-0011. Central Islip, N.Y. stances, it is recommended that the Federal government issue a URS Company, Inc. 1982. Structure value determination for the grant or low interest loan to the homeowner for the purpose of Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point damage study. Montvale, raising the structures to or above the base flood elevation to N.J. 173 4.0 INTRODUCTION There are a myriad number of federal and state regulatory pro- grams which affect development and post-storm redevelopment along Long Island's south shore floodplain. Many of the strat- egies and recommendations contained in this report cannot be implemented independently- successful application of these strategies will require a number of changes in several of the regulatory programs. This chapter presents an analysis and recommendations for changing the following three programs: � National Flood Insurance Program � Coastal Barrier Resources Act � New York State Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act Chapter 46 0 These three programs were chosen for detailed examination because they were found to most critically affect both current coastal development and post-storm redevelopment. In addition, this chapter includes an analysis of hurricane evacuation problems on the south shore of Long Island, based Suggested Modifications upon a series of interviews with county and local officials respon- sible for emergency action. Federal and state programs which to Selected are geared to emergency assistance and recovery are not ad- dressed here; they are reviewed in Chapter 5. Government Programs 4.1 THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM Federally subsidized flood insurance has been available in the United States since 1968 when Congress passed and the Presi- dent signed into law Title XI I I of the Housing and Urban Develop- ment Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448). It provided previously unavailable flood insurance protection to owners of structures in flood-prone areas. At that time, participation in the NFIP was voluntary. The Federal government offered low-cost flood insurance to in- dividuals in those communities that adopted and enforced cer- tain minimum floodplain management regulations. The Act was amended in 1973 by the Flood Disaster Protec- tion Act (P.L. 93-234). The 1973 act required: � designated communities to participate in the flood in- surance program or face restrictions of federal finan- cial assistance � property owners to purchase flood insurance to receive new or additional federal or federally related financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes in identified special flood hazard areas. 1.74 To obtain federal disaster assistance for construction or The minimum standards for community floodplain manage- reconstruction purposes, this Act also required property owners ment regulations include, but are not necessarily limited to: in participating communities to first purchase flood insurance. * A permit procedure to assure that buildings are ade- The Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 removed quately anchored and constructed with materials utiliz- the prohibition against conventional mortgage loans from ing methods that will minimize flood damage. federally regulated lenders in flood-prone communities not par- * Water and sewer design requirements which will limit ticipating in the program, and added a notification procedure to infiltration of flood waters. alert prospective mortgagees that flood disaster relief would not * A requirement that the lowest habitable floor (including be available for properties in those communities. basements) of all new residential construction and The maximum insurance coverage presently available depends substantial improvements be elevated above the base on whether a community is in the emergency or regular program. flood level. Basement exceptions can be granted based A community initially enters the emergency program by adopt- upon a show of severe economic hardship and gross ing minimum floodplain management regulations to guide new inequity in a particular community. a A requirement that an architect or engineer certify that construction in flood-prone areas. The community enters the the floodproofing methods are adequate to withstand regular program after a detailed FIRM is completed by FEMA, the forces of flooding and that the structure has been and local officials enact regulations that require all new or floodproofed to the proper elevation. substantially improved structures to be built in accordance with e A requirement that all new'construction within the V federal floodplain management criteria. The maximum amounts zone must be located landward of the reach of mean of insurance are as follows: high tide, and that the use of fill to elevate structures within such zone is prohibited. 9 A requirement that new construction within the V Zone has the space below the lowest floor free of obstruc- Maximum Insurance Available tions or constructed with breakaway walls. Such space is not to be used for human habitation. Program and building type Building Contents Variances to floodplain management regulations can be issued by the community. Should the issuance of variances in- Emergency Program: dicate a pattern inconsistent with the objectives of sound flood- Single family residence $ 35,000 $ 10,000 plain management, the community could face suspension from Other residential 100,000 10,000 the NFIP. Non-residential 100,000 100,000 There are other sections of the law that are intended to have Regular Program: the effect of reducing storm-related damage. Section 1362 Single family residence 185,000 60,000 authorizes the purchase of structures and property when the Other residential 250,000 60,000 structures have been damaged: Small business 250,000 300,000 e substantially beyond repair Other non-residential 200,000 200,000 e not less than three previous times during the preceding five-year period, each time the cost of repair equalling 25% or more of the structure's value 9 from a single casualty of any nature so that a statute, It is noted that all municipalities with a marine floodplain in ordinance or regulation precludes its repair or restora- Nassau and Suffolk Counties currently participate in the regular tion or permits repair or restoration only at significantly program. increased cost. 175 Section 1362 is intended to minimize recurring storm related tures). They do not guide new development away from the flood- damage. Funding for Section 1362 nationwide amounts to $5 plain, nor do they encourage the removal of existing structures million per year in fiscal years 1984 and 1985. These funds have out of coastal high hazard areas. already been obligated. As noted earlier, communities may issue variances to the Section 1316 permits a state or community to declare in- floodplain management criteria. The issuance of such variances dividual structures in violation of required floodplain manage- generally is limited to a lot size less than one-half acre; as the lot ment regulations. The community can then petition FEIVIA to ter- size increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification minate the flood insurance. A threat of flood insurance revoca- required for issuing a variance becomes more demanding. Thus, tion would in theory force compliance with floodplain manage- the issuance of variances is facilitated in flood-prone areas, such ment regulations. This section of the law, however, has never as the Long Island south shore barrier islands (especially Fire been used. Island), since lot sizes in most cases are smaller than one-half FEIVIA is responsible for managing the NFIP. It is responsible ac re. for the conduct of the mapping program, establishment of flood- The basement exception is a form of variance that has been plain management criteria and ensuring that participating com- sanctioned by FEIVIA and is under active consideration for the munities adopt and enforce ordinances and floodplain manage- Town of Hempstead. A basement exception has recently been ment regulations. The Federal Insurance Administration within granted to the Town of Southold. Under current regulations, a FEIVIA manages the insurance aspects of the program. local government cannot permit the construction of basements in an A zone. The Town of Hempstead has petitioned FEIVIA for 4.1.1 Hurricane Damage Mitigation and the NFIP an exception to this requirement so that it can allow the con- struction of basements in the 100-year floodplain and its res- A central question to the issue of hurricane damage mitigation idents can receive appropriate flood insurance coverage. The is the extent to which the program contributes to the reduction of potential for increased flood losses which will probably result storm related damages. The program was designed to serve two could be significant. FEMA should examine flood insurance principal objectives: to provide a federally subsidized insurance claims in Southold and other areas with basement exceptions to (up to 90%) for existing floodplain uses as an incentive to state determine the extent of flood-related basement damages. If this and local government for them to adopt regulations guiding new figure is significant, FEMA should eliminate the current base- development away from the floodplain; and to provide a ment exceptions and not grant any new eiceptions. mechanism whereby floodplain occupants eventually would help Communities in the regular phase of the NFIP and with iden- pay for flood losses (Kusler, 1982). tified coastal high hazard (V zone) areas must ensure that con- A review of the floodplain management. criteria found in 44 struction is located landward of mean high water. However, CFR Part 60, Section 60.3 indicates that the regulations do little under NFIP standards, structures may be built in wave velocity to guide new development away from the floodplain. Structures zones and erosion areas if protection is provided to the 1 00-year must be adequately raised and anchored; basements and use of flood elevation and a registered architect or professional fill (in the V zone) are prohibited. The regulations prohibit man- engineer certifies that the structure is properly secured to ade- made alteration of sand dunes within the V zones. However, the quately anchored pilings or columns in order to withstand velo- NFIP does not provide for the mapping of dunes, nor are dunes city waters and hurricane wave wash. Thus, structures once lo- within the A zone similarly protected. Section 1362 of the Act cated on the beach that have been destroyed by storm-induced could be used to remove development in the floodplain subject to flooding, such as at Westhampton Beach, could be rebuilt on pil- recurring damage; however, it is drastically under-funded. Thus, ings and remain eligible for flood insurance, so long as other if properly enforced, the floodplain management criteria prob- regulations are met, thereby establishing a cycle of repeated ably do provide some protection from flooding (for new struc- flood losses. 176 Merely elevating the structures on piles in a V zone is insuffi- cate, or should the locality want the structure rebuilt on another cient. A review of the calculations of expected damage made parcel outside the hazard zone, the individual will not be com- prior to 1981 by FEMA showed that the first increment of pensated for the property, i.e., the land and undamaged portion damage to a building with no basement was assumed to occur of the structure. It is up to the individual to take the loss, or the when water reached the lowest floor. However, when the locality to condemn and purchase the property should the in- building is located in a V zone environment, insurance claim files dividual not desire to sell. In this sense, the NFIP does not en- document that considerable flood damage begins to occur when courage relocation outside the flood hazard zone. It is recom- flood waters and wave action first reach the building site, prior to mended that the Federal government, through FEMA, re-institute any water actually entering the building (Reilly, 1983). The the constructive total loss program, whereby a claimant is paid Federal government should modify the NFIP to phase out flood the total insured value of the structure and, in return, the clai- insurance in V zones. Flood insurance should not be made mant donates the property to the locality. Monies for this pro- available to new development in V zones. Current policy holders gram should come from increased NFIP premiums. In addition, whose structures are damaged greater than 50% of structural Congress should significantly increase appropriations for sec- value should receive a final payment equal to the full value of tion 1362. their structure, up to the policy limit, if the homeowner agrees The NFIP floodplain management criteria do not address re- not to rebuild in the V zone. If the homeowner wishes to rebuild in development in a post-storm situation. There may be areas, such the V zone, flood insurance payments would reflect the actual as V zones or barrier islands, where re-development in the same structural damage only, up to the policy limit; and further, flood location would be imprudent and would result in a continuing cy- insurance coverage would not be available for that structure. cle of flood losses. It is recommended that the floodplain FIRMs for Long Island communities have been adjusted to management criteria be amended to require communities to en- take into consideration the potential wave impacts. There are, act a building moratorium in instances of large scale storm however, still some potentially significant mapping errors. The damage. This will provide all levels of government time in which most conspicuous are the maps depicting the Long Beach bar- to assess the problem and formulate and implement land use rier island. The City of Long Beach is shown as having a signifi- alternatives that will mitigate future storm damage. cant portion of its land area outside the 1 00-year floodplain, i.e., The floodplain management criteria also do not address the above the base flood elevation of 12 ft msl. Examination of topo- types of land uses permitted on municipally owned property. The graphic data and sewer maps indicates that much of the City is common assumption is that oceanfront or barrier beach property below 10 ft msi. Thus, some of the City's residents may not have owned by the locality will be used for recreation purposes. This is flood insurance and yet are exposed to potentially serious not the case in certain instances on Long Island where residen- flooding. FEMA should amend the FIRMs as required. (See Sec. tial structures are built on town owned land in the V and A zones. 3-2.) Sound floodplain management practices should be required of FIRMs are suitable for insurance purposes, but not for land localities. FEMA, through its floodplain management criteria, use management. Scales are often too small to make a deter- should require that municipally owned property be kept in or mination whether a proposed development is within or outside of revert to recreation, open space or water dependent uses. the 100-year floodplain. Topographic information, existing land FEMA, however, has steadfastly refused to influence local land use and other data are lacking. FEMA should delineate the boun- use policies. Over a 15 year period, only three communities na- daries of the flood zones with greater precision on the FIRMs. tionwide have been disqualified from the NFIP despite other This may require FIRMs at a larger scale. repeated, documented violations of floodplain management cri- The NFIP does not encourage the owner of a structure in the V teria (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1982). FEMA should use zone to relocate. Payment is only made for the replacement cost the Community Assistance and Program Evaluation (CAPE) pro- of the damaged structure. Should an individual desire to relo- cedure to closely monitor the performance of local floodplain management efforts. 177 Finally, FEMA, in cooperation with the National Weather Ser- Associated aquatic habitats, including adjacent wetlands, vice, should expand the tidal gauge network on Long Island, to marshes, estuaries, inlets, and near shore waters are also in- acquire more flood elevation data and improve forecast and war- cluded in the definition of a coastal barrier. ning capabilities. During the northeast storm event of 29 March To be included within the System, a coastal barrier must be 1984, the two existing tidal gauges for Long Island were insuffi- undeveloped. A coastal barrier is considered undeveloped only if cient in providing the lead time necessary to take emergency there were few, if any, man-made structures on the barrier and response measures (FEMA, 1984). these structures and man's activities on the barrier do not significantly impede geomorphic and ecological processes. The Federal government based its coastal barrier unit designations 4.2 COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT upon the level of development on the ground as of 15 March, On 18 October 1982, President Reagan signed the Coastal 1982. A threshold of approximately one structure per five acres Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) into law (P.L. 97-348). The new law of fastland was used in determining if a coastal barrier was establishes the Coastal Barrier Resources System as referenced developed. The fastland portion of coastal barriers is that por- and adopted by Congress, and prohibits Federal expenditures tion of a coastal barrier between the mean high tide line on the and financial assistance (grants, loans, loan guarantees, and in- ocean side and the upper limit of tidal wetland vegetation (or, if surance) for development of coastal barriers, or portions thereof such vegetation is not present, the mean high tide line) at the which are not presently developed. These provisions of the Act, rear of the coastal barrier. with the/ exception of the prohibition of new Federal flood in- Areas established under Federali-st6te, or local law or held by surance coverage in designated coastal barrier resource units, a qualified organization (as defined in paragraph (3) of section became effective immediately. The statuatory ban on Federal 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), primarily for flood insurance went into effect on 1 October 1983. wildlife refuge, sanctuary, or natural resource conservation pur- The legislation does not give the Federal government any new poses were not included within the Coastal Barrier Resources acquisition authority, nor does it offer any appropriations for ac- System. A ' qualified organization must have had the intent, as quisition purposes. Furthermore, the Act does not prohibit is- well as the capability, to maintain the natural character of a suance of Federal permits for dredging projects, sewage dis- coastal barrier ecosystem. The organization must have also had posal, etc., nor does it preempt local government zoning and per- a real property interest to provide for its protection and mitting authorities. The Act simply advances the philosophy that maintenance. the risk associated with new private development in these hazar- In summary, to be eligible for consideration as a designated dous areas should be borne by the private sector and not under- coastal barrier unit, an area must be a coastal barrier, it must written by the Federal government. be undeveloped, and it must not be otherwise protected. Section 4 of the Act establishes the Coastal Barrier Resources New Federal expenditures and financial assistance for System which is shown by a set of maps dated 28 April 1982. The development of designated coastal barrier units are prohibited addition of new units to the System or the deletion of existing for any purpose including, for example, the construction of roads units within the System as approved by the Congress can only be and bridges, sewers, or federally guaranteed loans, such as authorized by an act of Congress. Minor changes to coastal bar- Veterans Administration or Federal Housing Administration rier units, however, are permitted under section 4(c). loans for home construction. Federal assistance for stabilization The term coastal barrier is defined as: projects is also prohibited, except in cases where an emergency a depositional geologic feature which consists of uncon- threatens life, land and property immediately adjacent to a solidated sedimentary materials subject to wave, tidal, coastal barrier unit. and wind energies and which protects landward aquatic The Act does not prohibit banks, savings and loans or other habitats from direct wave attack. commercial financial institutions (including those insured by the 178 Federal government) from making loans for homes or other Old Field Beach Unit Southampton Unit forms of construction within the coastal barrier units. This Shelter Island Barriers Unit Tiana Beach Unit legislation does not prohibit private financial transactions or the Sammys Beach Unit Mecox Unit construction of structures or facilities that are funded with private funds or funds provided by state and local governments. 4.2.1 Suggested Modifications to CBRA Although the Act prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds on CBRA and section 341 (d) of the Omnibus Budget Reconcilia- designated undeveloped coastal barriers, certain exceptions to tion Act (OBRA) of 1981 (P.L. 97-35), which prohibited the is- the prohibition are permitted and are listed below: suance of new Federal flood insurance on designated undevel- � exploration and extraction of energy resources, which oped coastal barriers and was subsequently superceded by can only be carried out within the System CBRA, provide that an undeveloped coastal barrier shall not be � maintenance of existing channel improvements and designated if it is otherwise protected. The term otherwise related structures, such as jetties, including the protected is a protected status referring to coastal barriers disposal of dredged materials related to such which are included within the boundaries of an area established improvements under Federal, state or local law or held by qualified not-for-profit � military activities essential to national security organizations. In both instances, the area must be held primarily � establishment, operation, and maintenance of air and for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource water navigation aids and devices conservation purposes. � projects under the Land and Water Conservation Fund A U.S. Dept. of the Interior (undatL-d) report to Congress � projects which provide for the study, management, pro- tection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources recommended that the provision in the OBRA providing for the and habitats. Such projects may include acquisition of exclusion of undeveloped coastal barriers having protected habitat or structural stabilization to protect these status be eliminated, and that protected areas in governmental habitats, and recreational projects and private ownership be included within the scope of OBRA. � scientific research The report gives the following two reasons why protected areas � assistance for emergency actions essential to saving should be included within the scope of the OBRA: lives or protection of property within the coastal barrier First, not all of the areas which are excluded under the units. Such actions shall be limited to the extent terms of this provision are actually protected. Determin- necessary to alleviate the emergency and not be used ing with certainty that protection is actual and permanent as a justification for any projects that exceed the scope is extremely difficult and requires the detailed examina- and needs of the true and immediate emergency tion of the terms of such statutory authorization or deed. � funds for the maintenance, replacement, reconstruc- More significant, however, is the difficulty in cataloging tion, or repair, but not the expansion, of publicly owned privately owned properties within the boundaries of or publicly operated roads, structures, or facilities governmental conservation areas. Because these in- � nonstructural projects, such as the planting of dune holding areas are privately owned, they are generally grass or beach nourishment which mimic, enhance, or subject to development, even though within the boun- restore natural stabilization systems, would be per- daries of a conservation area. mitted for shoreline stabilization The following 12 Long Island coastal barrier units, which con- Our second concern is whether there is any reasonable tain approximately 20 miles of shoreline and over 5000 acres of purpose in excluding otherwise protected areas from land, are included within the Coastal Barrier Resources System: designation. From our perspective, this aspect of the Fishers Island Barriers Unit Acabonack Harbor Unit Reconciliation Act does not appear to be consistent with Eatons Neck Unit Gardiners Island Barriers Unit the overall intent of Congress. To the degree such areas Crane Neck Unit Napeague Unit are truly otherwise protected and not subject to 179 development, Federal flood insurance seems not to be Local implementation is not required until after the NYSDEC necessary or appropriate. The sale of Federal flood in- has filed coastal erosion hazard area maps with a city, town, or surance for development within governmental areas set village. Local governments then have the option to submit a pro- aside for conservation purposes seems particularly inap- gram to the NYSDEC for approval within six months; however, propriate. Not only is this inconsistent with the protection should a town refuse or fail to adopt a satisfactory program of the conservation area, but it is also inconsistent with which meets the standards and administrative and enforcement the treatment of similar lands outside of the boundaries requirements, regulatory authority will revert to the county and of the protected governmental unit. then to the State. The Dept. of the Interior is compiling a list of all coastal bar- The NYSDEC is now in the process of reviewing the erosion riers in public or private ownership that are treated as otherwise hazard area maps that have been prepared for the south shore protected for consideration by Congress for inclusion within coastal areas. Erosion hazard areas are defined in the regula- CBRA. The Federal government should include the otherwise tions as natural protective feature areas or structural hazard protected areas within CBRA and, thereby, eliminate Federal ex- areas. Most of the south shore falls into the first category, where penditures and financial assistance for development of privately natural protective features were used to determine the landward owned properties that are not otherwise protected, but yet boundary of the hazard area. This boundary or setback line is within the boundaries of governmental conservation areas. defined in the regulations as being set back 25 ft from the land- ward edge of the dominant natural protective feature. Three 4.3 NEW YORK STATE COASTAL EROSION types of natural protective features were used in delineating the HAZARD AREAS ACT boundary: * the highest, most continuous dune formations New York State's Coastal Management Program (CMP) 9 bluffs, where existent received Federal approval in September 1982. In order to meet 9 the landward edge of the beach in areas with no dunes the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 or bluffs (P.L. 92-583), the State had to enact legislation addressing This line was surveyed independent of political divisions, erosion coastal erosion problems. Thus, in 1981 the State Legislature rates (too variable in these areas) or existing structures. Struc- passed the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, (Article 34 of the tural hazard areas have been designated along bluff shorelines ECL) as the principal law governing erosion and flood control with known annual recession rates of .1 ft or more (e.g., the along New York's coastline. The accompanying regulations and eastern portion of East Hampton). The depth of the zone is de- area maps are now in the final stages of approval (Coastal Ero- fined as 40 times the average annual recession rate plus 25 ft. sion Management Regulations, 6 NYCRR 505). The sole acceptable basis for an appeal of a hazard area Thepurpose of Article 34 is to minimize or prevent damage designation by a property owner is through submission of and destruction to property and natural resources from flooding technical information showing that the long-term average annual and erosion due to inappropriate actions of man. This coastal rate of shoreline recession was incorrectly established, or that hazard mitigation policy is to be carried out through a regulatory the area was mistakenly identified as a natural protective feature program based on the control, through permits, of development area. and other land use activities in designated erosion hazard areas. Erosion area permits must be obtained for development, new Article 34 is intended to be implemented at the local level, except construction, erosion protection structures, public investment, for State agency activities, which will require permits directly and other land use activities within the designated coastal from the NYSDEC. Localities must adopt State-approved coastal hazard areas. Permit applications are to include a description of erosion ordinances incorporating the standards outlined in the the proposed activity, a map, any additional information, and a regulations. fee. Approval is contingent upon compliance with the standards, restrictions and requirements; however, conditions can be at. hardship or result in practical difficulties. They also must show tached to the permit, if deemed necessary. The proposed that no reasonable alternative site exists, that responsible regulated activity must meet the following general standards: means and measures have been incorporated into the project �it must be reasonable and necessary, relative to alter- design at the developer's expense, and that the structure(s) will native sites and the necessity for a shoreline location be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage (Section �it must not aggravate erosion 505.13). A bond may be required from applicants with a record of �it must prevent or minimize adverse effects on natural non-compliance (Section 505.12). Whenever emergency activ- protective features, erosion protection structures or ities are undertaken, damage to natural protective features and natural resources. other natural resources must be prevented or minimized, and the Furthermore, the regulations delineate restrictions on specific NYSDEC must be notified according to set procedures (Section land use activities within both types of coastal hazard areas. For 505.11). natural protective feature areas (Section 505.8), specific restric- tions are delineated for activities in nearshore areas, beaches, 4.3.1 Conflicts between the Coastal Erosion bluffs, and primary and secondary dunes. Regulated activities in- Hazard Areas Act and the NFlP clude: The management regulations promulgated by the NYSDEC for �dredging, excavating and mining the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act contain several areas of �construction, modification or restoration of docks, potential conflict with the NFIP as currently administered by piers, wharves, groins, jetties, seawalls, bulkheads, FEMA. Article 34 was created to minimize damage and destruc- breakwaters and revetments tion to property and natural resources from flooding and erosion �beach nourishment by prohibiting most development, construction, or excavation �vehicular traffic within erosion hazard areas as defined by a coastal construction �the creation of pedestrian passages. setback line. This line, or boundary, is to be drawn relative to Activities not requiring a permit include planting, sand fencing, natural protective features, such as dunes; or in relation to and the erection of private elevated stairways. Within structural structural hazard areas, such as bluff shorelines. This ap- hazard areas (Section 505.7), the construction of non-moveable proach differs from the 100-year floodplain designations of the structures is prohibited; the construction of moveable structures NFIP, which are based on hydrologic models. The south shore is allowed, but only if the structures are set back 50 ft from the floodplain will encompass some erosion hazard areas; the struc- edge of the bluff, with no permanent foundations, and if a reloca- tural hazard area, however, may be located out of the floodplain tion plan is included with the permit application. The installation because of bluff elevation. of public service utilities requires a permit. Grading and ex- If a structure within a designated erosion hazard area was cavating near bluffs must not direct surface water runoff over the damaged or destroyed by a storm, Article 34 administrators receding edge. could prohibit rebuilding by denying a permit. If the structure is A permit is required for the construction, modification, or insured under the NFIP, the only compensation available would restoration of erosion protection structures, with the following be the amount needed to replace the home or its damaged por- conditions: proper design, minimum 30 year life, long-term main- tion, less the deductible, up to the value of the policy. The tenance program, and the use of appropriate materials. The homeowner could be denied a permit to rebuild his home, structures cannot aggravate erosion at the site or adjacent sites rendering the house uninhabitable; yet he will only be eligible to and must minimize/prevent adverse effects to natural protective receive the partial value of his property from FEMA, as features (Section 505.9). represented by the damaged portions. Any permit applicants wishing to obtain a variance must prove Should this situation arise, Article 34 administrators will be that compliance with the restrictions would cause unnecessary faced with a choice of two undesirable alternatives. The first op- tion would be to stand firm behind the permit denial decision, and Section 1362 is that the former may be used at the discretion which may lead to assertions of taking and lawsuits by the of the Federal Insurance Administrator and uses funds from the homeowner seeking to recover the full value of the property. Re- general program revenues, while Section 1362 is applicable only cent judicial decisions in New York State* in which homeowners when specific criteria are met, is difficult to qualify for, and uses challenged local ordinances restricting or deny iing building/ funds from a special appropriation pool. The funds allocated for rebuilding in hazard areas have ruled in favor of the home- Section 1362 are less than $5 million per year and are already owners, instructing the local municipalities to either approve the committed through fiscal year 1985, allowing for a minimum of permit application or acquire the property through condemnation activity under this program. proceedings. Unfortunately, the constructive total loss program was discon- The second option available under Article 34 would be to per- tinued by FEMA in 1984, leaving only Section 1362 in place as a mit the rebuilding of the damaged structure through the issuance means to relocate damaged structures. The constructive total of a variance. Such an action could run contrary to the goals of loss approach, as originally conceived, could have provided an Article 34, which seek to minimize or prevent damage or destruc- ideal solution to the problems raised by the Coastal Erosion tion to man-made property and prevent the exacerbation of ero- Hazard Areas Act. By providing a single payment, homes would sion hazards. Nevertheless, without sufficient compensation be removed from flood hazard areas, homeowners would be from FEMA and the NFIP, variances may become inevitable. compensated for the full value of their property (up to the policy There are two elements of the NFIP that could provide a solu- limit), local government would acquire additional property for tion to the potential conflict outlined above: the constructive total park or conservation purposes, and FEMA would benefit in the loss approach and the Section 1362 relocation program. The long run by not having to make repeatbd payments on a constructive total loss approach was designed to cover those vulnerable property. Additional benefits would accrue if a protec- cases where a property is not totally destroyed, but has lost its tive dune could be created on the property, offering protection to economic value. It would be most applicable where the (oca( nearby structures. Reinstatement of the constructive total loss government has taken action to prohibit damaged structures program with sufficient funding could contribute to the suc- from being rebuilt in areas with a high likelihood of future cessful implementation of Article 34. flooding. This would allow FEMA to declare the property a con- structive total loss and pay the owner's claim up to the policy 4.4 HURRICANE EVACUATION PROBLEMS limits, even though the actual damages do not equal the total ON THE SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND covered by the policy. The owner can then use the money to re- The evacuation of people from the south shore of Long Island in build on a site outside the flood hazard area, and ownership of the event of a hurricane could pose serious problems in several in- the damaged property is dedicated to the community for open stances. The problems arise from the fact that it is difficult to per- space use. suade people to leave their homes prior to a storm's actual occur- Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act empowers rence. When a storm actually impacts the area and people may be FEMA to purchase insured properties that have been seriously willing to leave, key evacuation routes could be flooded. These damaged by flooding, to move the damaged structures, and to problems, and others, are discussed in this section. transfer the land as open space to a state or local government A series of interviews with various agency representatives re- agency. The property owner can use the money from the sale to sponsible for hurricane evacuation planning on Long Island in- rebuild at another location outside the flood hazard area. dicates that official concerns range from fairly modest to crucial. The difference between the constructive total loss program FEMA should consider all of them; however, some deserve more *Lernp v. Town Board of Town of Islip (90 Misc. 2d 360, 394 N.Y.S. 2d 517, Sup. attention than others. These concerns are listed on the following Ct. 1977) page. It should be emphasized that this grouping does not Seidner v. Town of Islip (84 A.D. 2d 819, 449 N.Y.S. 2d 440, 453 N.Y.S. 2d 636, necessarily agree with the opinions of the officials interviewed. Sup. Ct. 1982) 182 1 Some problems will require a significant input of 5. Regret was expressed in some quarters at the public funds to reach a viable solution. Included in aging of the current body of public-spirited vol- this category would be the raising of roadways unteers, whose help is vital during any emergency. above the 100-year base flood elevation. The three FEMA should give thought to methods of public roadways accessing Long Beach Island, and Mon- education directed toward recruitment. A common tauk Highway at Napeague in East Hampton, are complaint was the extreme tardiness of the Fed- susceptible to flooding during storms. Since ex- eral government in remitting reimbursements to perience shows that many people fail to leave their local authorities for expenses incurred in handling homes until a storm actually hits, these flooded emergencies. Streamlining the procedures would roads may prevent evacuation in the areas men- greatly improve morale. tioned. It is reasonable to assume that engineering 6. Long Island officials are very much aware of the studies of this problem will show that roadway fact that all drinking water is drawn from ground- elevation will entail high costs. Potential funding water. Consequently, they are sensitive to the sources for road improvement projects, such as hazards of flood damage to all buried facilities, Community Development Block Grants, should be namely septic systems, liquified petroleum gas identified. An associated problem at Long Beach is tanks, gas lines and power lines. An engineering the blocking of the railroad bridge with ballasted review of the current standards for the design and cars during storm alerts. If the bridge could be installation of buried facilities is recommended strengthened, it would be usable at all times. A with a view to reducing dangers to public health study of the cost of this undertaking, together with and safety. a study of the railroad's effectiveness as an 7. Communications are not viewed as a problem in evacuation route would be desirable. Nassau County, where the Emergency Operations 2. Another category of problems concerns the short- Center also houses the police communications age of necessary emergency equipment, such as center. However, in Suffolk County, problems do auxiliary generators, radios, shelters for emergen- exist. Various agencies, county and local, have cy personnel, amphibious vehicles, and firefighting their own radio frequencies. Personnel are pro- apparatus. vided with radios which can receive only their own 3. The Suffolk County Dept. of Emergency Pre- agency's frequencies, but not others. What is paredness (SCDEP) has welcomed the support and needed is a single command frequency which is assistance provided to local authorities by the accessible to all key personnel. FEMA should in- State Office of Disaster Preparedness. However, stitute a study of the feasibility of establishing such SCDEP believes that a FEMA review of local emer- a command frequency, and determine the quantity gency plans is desirable in order to ensure unifor- and cost of new equipment needed to make it mity and adequacy. Such a review would also operational. identify plans that require updating. Furthermore, 8. The Town of Islip and authorities responsible for SCIDEP believes that rehearsals are necessary, Fire Island believe that evacuation procedures are and that funds be made available for this purpose. hampered by the reluctance of some people to pay 4. A number of officials emphasized the need for an fares when they have been ordered to leave their education program to inform the public of the homes or vacation accommodations. Such people problems inherent in storm forecasting, and to believe that if the government tells them to move, alert them to the dangers of ignoring evacuation the government should pay the ferry fare or bus orders. In particular, authorities would like to fare. Thus, to avoid delay at the ferry terminal, it is distribute an educational pamphlet to summer recommended that the town enter into a pre-nego- visitors on Fire island, and to hold periodic public tiated lump-sum contract to obtain emergency seminars. ferry service when evacuation becomes neces- 183 sary. It was further considered desirable that these 4.5 REFERENCES contracts include a clause stating that the decision to terminate ferry operation may be taken by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1984. Interagency ferryboat captains only after consulting with the hazard mitigation report in response to the April 17, 1984 appropriate town supervisor or his designee. disaster declaration. Region 11 Hazard Mitigation Team. 9. The evacuation of Long Beach Island by road is Kusler, J.H. 1982. Regulation of flood hazard areas to reduce hindered by the density of traffic on the mainland flood losses, Vol. 3. U.S. Water Resources Council, responding to the evacuation order, and by the Washington, D.C. flooding of roads. The City of Long Beach believes Reilly, F.V. 1983. NFIP-inclividual risk rating for coastal areas. that safety lies not in leaving the barrier island, but FEMA, Washington, D.C. rather in taking refuge on the upper floors of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior. undated. Undeveloped coastal bar- 40 to 50 high rise buildings in the City. City of- riers: report to Congress. U.S. Gov't. Print Off., Washington, ficials believe that these buildings could accom- D.C. modate the entire population. However, these tall buildings could be subjected U.S. General Accounting Office. 1982. National flood insurance: to buffeting by gale force winds and waves in a marginal impact on floodplain development; administrative severe storm. There is a need to determine improvements needed. GAOICED - 82 - 105. Washington, D.C. whether the buildings can tolerate these forces, particularly when carrying heavy loads at their up- per levels. An engineering study of the buildings designated as refuges by city management should be undertaken immediately to see if it is possible to use this means of safeguarding the population in a storm. 10. Flooding of Montauk Highway (Route 27) at Napeague can cover several miles of roadway, and effectively isolate the east end of the Town of East Hampton. Local authorities are concerned that the closure of the highway deprives people of access to a hospital. The Town believes that the best solution is to set up a mobile hospital, having a range of capabilities yet to be determined, and to dispatch it to a suitable location east of Napeague when a storm warning is issued. The local fire departments believe that they would have little trouble handling any other storm-related difficulty. 184 5.0 INTRODUCTION Information about the Federal Disaster Assistance Program, established by the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288), can be found in a series of handbooks published by FEMA. The first in the series, entitled Handbook for Applicants, describes the policies and procedures used to request, obtain and administer Federal grants for public assistance. Others in the series provide information and guidelines on such topics as applicant eligibility, fire suppression, community disaster loans, environmental review, floodplain management, hazard mitigation, and contract- ing guidelines (FEMA, 1981 a-d). FEMA's Program Guide for Disaster Response and Recovery states that the President's Disaster Relief Program is designed Chapter 5.... to supplement the efforts and available resources of state and local governments and voluntary relief organizations. The Presi- dent's declaration of a major disaster or an emergency authorizes Federal assistance under P.L. 93-288 and triggers other Federal disaster relief programs. The Federal response is Analysis of coordinated by Disaster Response and Recovery office in FEMA. By Executive Order 12148, the President delegated the primary Federal and State responsibility for administering the Act to the director of FEMA. The flowchart in Fig. 5-1 details the procedure for the provi- Disaster Assistance Programs sion of Federal assistance following a Presidential declaration. FEMA coordinates the Federal response and provides assis- tance in accordance with the terms of the declaration. The network of Federal, State and local officials and private relief agencies works out of a Disaster Assistance Center estab- lished by FEMA within the affected area. The center serves as an information center for individuals impacted by the disaster as well as a command center for coordinating the recovery effort. A Presidential declaration of a major disaster makes available a broad range of assistance to individual disaster victims, in- cluding: temporary housing home repairs, mortgage and rental assistance unemployment assistance low interest loans to individuals, businesses and farmers for repair, rehabilitation or replacement of damaged real and personal property agricultural assistance distribution of food coupons 185 Federal Eme, an- - - - - - - Management A;.,,.y, r (FEMA Local Offl Now York State Governor's Office 4-- 146Y f if cSI te I, 4- N.Y. State Of ice of Disaster Prepa-@dn:,,J State/Local Disaster Decla tion -.0, FEMA Regional Post-Disas Director (F Survey Request tDI far (Assessment) PRESIDENT F=aA "ate Director, 9soc Other Federal Agencies S nd Local Programs . . ... and Support Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) EtablishoDl 0. State Coordinating lis if Officer (SCO) Field Off GOVERNOR glonal Director Long Island Regional iurric, Individual Assistance salon Assignments Assistance Hazard Mitigation Planning Board: Hurric.. -.3 ml F Damage Mitigation PI,]n Briefings with State/Local Section 406 Report Officials Family Grants Damage Survey Report E.0-11988 Review Temporary Hous71n]g (DSR) Preparation ounseling Unemploym.:,,n:t]' Project Application Hazard Mitigation Team Assistanc (HMT) Disbursement of Funds Figure 5-1 The President's Disaster Relief Program 186 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Establish Disaster Federal Field Office Disbursement of Funds 1. Monitor developing or potential disasters. 1 . Set up, within affected area, within 48 hours of the 1. Funds are obligated following the FEMA RD's State/Local Post-Disaster Survey disaster declaration. approval. 2. Staffed by FCO and Federal officials witn disaster 2. Advances may be made any time after obligation of 1 . Survey the affected areas (jointly w/FEMA) to deter- assistance responsibilities in the area. funds. mine the extent of public, private and agricultural 3. Located in conjunction with Office of SCO. damage. 2. Estimate the types and extent of Federal disaster GOVERNOR Mission Assignments for Federal Agencies . assistance required. 1. Appoints State Coordinating Officer (SCO) and 1. Delegated to various Federal agencies by FCO, re- 3. Consult w/FEMA Regional Director on the eligibility for Authorized Representative (GAR) questing the provision of specific assistance and ser- Federal disaster assistance. vices which will then be refunded out of Federal State Coordinating Officer (SCO) disaster funds. 4. Advise the FEMA Regional Office of the State's inten- 1 . Serves as the primary point of contact between the tion to request a major disaster declaration. FCO and state and local officials. Hazard Mitigation Disaster Declaration Request 2. Sets up office in conjunction with FEMA Disaster Field 1. Submitted to FEMA RD, appropriate public agencies 1. The request is based on the finding that the disaster is Office. and the news media for implementation. of such severity that effective response is beyond the 3. Coordinates activities of state agencies, local govern- 2. FEMA coordinates and monitors implementation. capabilities of the state and the affected local ments, assistance from non-affected communities, and 3. Submitted to FCO for incorporation into Federal governments. the private sector. disaster assistance programs. 2. The request must include a certification of the Governor's Authorized Representative (GAR) 4. Submitted to state and local agencies through in- reasonable expenditure of state and local funds, and 1. Evaluates, recommends and relays local and state teragency team members. an estimate of the extent and nature of Federal agency requests for assistance to the FEMA RD. assistance required for each of the affected counties 2. Prepares project applications for FEMA assistance, or Long Island Regional Planning Board: Hurricane and the state. review and approves those prepared by local agencies Damage Mitigation Plan 3. Governor must direct execution of the state's before forwarding them to FEMA for final review and 1. Site specific mitigation recommendations. emergency plan. approval. 2. Evaluation of mitigation alternatives. FEMA Regional Director (RD) (Assessment) FEMA Regional Director 3. Local assistance and input. 1. Evaluates damage, requirements for Federal 1. Upon notification by President, activates Hazard 4. Local damage assessments, maps & studies, aerial assistance, makes recommendation to FEMA Director. Mitigation Team. photos, flood insurance information. FEMA National Director 2. Responsible for FEMA financial assistance programs. 5. Development/redevelopment policies & guidelines. 1. Recommends course of action to President. Briefings with State/Local Officials Section 406 Report PRESIDENT 1 . Within a week of the disaster declaration, FEMA in- 1 .Pursuant to Section 406 of the Disaster Relief Act, 1. Declares either a major disaster or emergency. forms State/Local officials of the types of assistance states are required to prepare long range hazard FEMA Associate Director, State and Local Programs available under the declaration, and the means by mitigation plans within 6 months of the signing of the which funds are provided for eligible disaster federal/state agreement following the declaration of a and Support assistance projects. disaster. 1. Designates counties/municipalities eligible for Federal assistance Damage Survey Report (DSR) Preparation E.O.11988 2. Appoints Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) 1. DSR's prepared by federal engineers to document 1. Requires federal agencies to incorporate floodplain disaster damage and to provide FEMA with a recom- management practices into federally funded programs Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) mended, scope of work and estimated costs in accor- 1. Initial appraisal of types of relief most urgently dance wth-FEMA eligibility criteria. or facilities. needed. 2. Coordinates all Federal disaster assistance programs Project Application Hazard Mitigation Teams (HMT) and private relief organizations to ensure their max- 1 . Submitted by eligible applicants through the state to 1 .Within 15 days after the declaration, the HMT must imum effectiveness, helps citize.,ls and local officials the FEMA RD for approval, along with supporting submit a Hazard Mitigation Report that contains obtain assistance. DSR's. I recommendations for implementing flood hazard 2. Must be submitted within 90 days of Presidential major mitigation measures in the recovery process. The Other Federal Agencies disaster declaration; within 20 days of Presidential recommendations are submitted to the FEMA RD and 1. FEMA coordinates Federal response, provides Federal emergency declaration (unless FEMA RD shortens or affected Federal agencies. The recommendations are assistance according to terms of declaration. extends the periods). non-binding. 187 � legal services Finally, private relief organizations, e.g., American National � emergency disaster loans Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Mennonite Disaster Service, � consumer and crisis counseling and other charitable organizations provide essential assistance � Social Security and veterans assistance such as the distribution of food, medicine and supplies, the provi- A Presidential declaration of an emergency makes available a sion of emergency shelter, and the restoration of community ser- narrower range of assistance targeted directly to the stated vices. (FEMA, 1980). emergency (FEMA, 1980). A major problem with past Federal disaster relief efforts has The key to providing assistance to state and local govern- been that the provision of assistance to rebuild a community has ments is the Damage Survey Report (DSR), prepared by Federal typically not been tied to plans for redevelopment that incor- engineers, which documents the damage to public facilities and porate floo@lplain management and hazard mitigation guidelines, provides FEMA with an estimate of the scope and cost of the which would act to guide development away from high hazard work necessary to reconstruct the damaged facilities. The areas, and thus reduce future flood losses. following types of projects could be eligible for funding: The Federal approach to hazard mitigation is embodied in sec- �clearance of debris on public or private land or waters tion 406 of P.L. 93-288 and the procedures for flood hazard �emergency protective measures mitigation outlined in the FEMA manual entitled Flood Hazard �repair or replacement of roads, streets and bridges Mitigation, Handbook of Common Procedures-Interagency Re- �repair or replacement of water control facilities, public gional Hazard Mitigation Teams (FEMA, 1981e). Section 406 buildings and utilities, recreational facilities and parks, mandates that hazard mitigation be included in the Federal-State and certain private non-profit facilities Disaster Assistance Agreement as a condition requiring state �community loans to communities suffering substantial and local governments receiving Federal assistance to evaluate losses of tax revenue natural hazards and undertake appropriate mitigating actions. A �repairs and operating assistance to public elementary and secondary schools long-range State Hazard Mitigation Plan must be submitted to �use of equipment supplies, facilities, personnel and FEMA's regional director by the state within 180 days after the other resources from various Federal agencies (FEMA, Presidential declaration. The plan is based upon the recommen- 1980). dations from an Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, site visits, analysis of damage survey reports, and state and local hazard A substantial amount of assistance is available, however, from mitigation plans and programs (McElyea, Brower and Godschalk, the Federal Government without the need for a Presidential 1982). declaration of either a major disaster or an emergency. This aid includes the following: 5.1 SURVEY OF FEDERAL AND STATE *search and rescue operations by the U.S. Coast Guard DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 9flood protection from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The information developed in this section is intended to be 9fire suppression assistance in the form of grants, equip- used both as a reference by public officials with disaster assis- ment, supplies and personnel tance responsibilities, and by interested citizens. It describes *vocational rehabilitation assistance through the U.S. Dept. of Education disaster assistance programs on the Federal level and opera- 9cost-sharing of emergency conservation measures and tions and responsibilities of New York State agencies that can be emergency loans for agriculture extended and expanded to assist disaster recovery efforts. *Small Business Administration disaster loans for The programs described herein do not represent a compre- homeowners and businesses hensive listing of all Federal eme rgency- related assistance. *repairs to federally aided roads and highways Rather, an attempt has been made to highlight only those pro- *tax refunds for losses resulting from natural disasters. grams that relate in some way to long-term recovery and mitiga- 188 tion efforts, namely, those programs that provide assistance for those not specifically targeted toward the provision of disaster mitigation measures, post-disaster repairs, reconstruction and relief funds which can be used to provide pre- and post-disaster redevelopment. Programs that provide immediate post-disaster assistance. * emergency assistance or general individual and community as- Once the significant assistance programs dealing with hur- sistance that is not necessarily emergency-related have not ricane damage mitigation and long-term recovery assistance been included. Information on these programs can be obtained were identified, their program descriptions were obtained from from the Digest of Federal Disaster Assistance Programs the 1962 edition of OMB's Catalog of Federal Domestic (FEMA, 1982). Assistance, which is the most recent edition published. 5.1.1 Federal Disaster Assistance Programs 5.1.2 New York State Disaster Assistance Programs Tables 5-1 and 5-2 are two indexes that summarize the key The mandate for New York State's Disaster Preparedness Pro- parameters of the Federal assistance programs. An attempt has gram is Article 2-B of the State's Executive Law. The law been made to distinguish long-term recovery programs from establishes the N.Y. State Disaster Preparedness Commission short-term emergency assistance. Table 5-1 describes the sig- (sec. 21), provides for a State declaration of a disaster or nificant Federal disaster-related assistance programs that pro- emergency (sec. 28), mandates the preparation of a State disaster vide assistance that is targeted for long-term recovery and preparedness plan and authorizes local plans (secs. 22, 23), and mitigation activities, including post-disaster repairs, reconstruc- provides guidelines for post-disaster recovery planning and the tion and redevelopment, floodplain and emergency management use of local government resources in a disaster situation. assistance, emergency loans for businesses and homeowners, The New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission has and various other forms of disaster assistance. Most of these general coordination and overview responsibility for the State's programs require a Presidential disaster declaration before they Disaster Preparedness Program. It is assisted by the Office of can be utilized in the community. Table 5-2 describes Federal Disaster Preparedness, which carries out the day-to-day func- assistance programs that, while they are not specifically intend- tions required by the programs. In addition, the office acts as the ed to provide disaster relief funds for long-term recovery and focal agency for h u rricane- related disasters, which involves the mitigation activities, may nonetheless prove to be a significant suggestion of new or improved activities, and means and meth- source of assistance for many people following a disaster. ods to improve state mitigation activities with respect to other Tables 5-1 and 5-2 identify, for each program: levels of government and the private sector. �the Digest page number With respect to damage mitigation. activities, the State has �the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) three major roles: (1982) catalog identification number(s) e It encourages and supports activities carried out by �the types of assistance other organizations. �the target(s) of the assistance e It funds activities carried out by other organizations. �whether or not a Presidential disaster declaration is re- * It carries out activities directly as program functions of quired to release the assistance the State (N.Y. State Disaster Preparedness Commis- �whether the assistance is eme rgency- related sion, 1982). �whether the aid is to be used prior to or following the disaster (or both). In addition, every State agency is required to incorporate The Federal aid programs listed in this section were identified disaster mitigation considerations into their rules, programs, by examining the Digest of Federal Disaster Assistance Pro- projects and activities. grams, published in June 1982. The digest is the most current and comprehensive listing of available Federal programs, even Personal communication, Mr. Jose Bravo, FEMA Region 11, New York. 189 TABLE 5-1 Index of Federal Aid Programs Targeted to Mitigation and Recovery Activities FEMA** OMB*** Program DFDAP Page No. CFDA No. P e $ L dp g I NF G C B bd ad b/a 1. Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) 1-5 10.054 X X X X X 2. Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) 1-1 10.063 X X X X 3. Emergency Feed Program 1-6 10.066 X X X X X 4. Emergency Loans 1-7 10.404 X X X X X X 5. Federal Crop Insurance 1-3 10.450 X X X X 6. Beach Erosion Control Projects 10-4 12.101 X X X 7. Flood Control Works and Federally Authorized Coastal Protection Works 5-3 12.102 X X X X X 8. Flood Plain Management Services (FPMS) 5-8 12.104 X X X X X 9. Protection of Essential Highways, Highway Bridge Approaches, and Public Works 5-11 12.105 X X X X 10. Flood Control Projects 5-2 12.l06 X X X X 11. Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control 5-14 12.108 X X X X 12. Protection, Clearing and Straightening Channels 5-10 12.109 X X X X 13. Planning Assistance to States 5-1 12.110 X X X 14. National Mapping, Geography and Surveys 9-8 15.803 X X X 15. Taxpayer Service 8-6 21.003 X X X X X 16. Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property 10-11 39.003 X X X X 17. Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) 2-3 59.002 X X X X X X 18. Physical Disaster Loans 8-5 59.008 X X X X X X 19. Flood Insurance 5-7, 5-9 83.100 X X X X X X X X 20. Aqusition of Flood-Damaged Structures 10-1 83.502 X X X X 21. Emergency Management Assistance 9-3 83.503 X X X X X 22. State Disaster Preparedness Grants 9-7 83.505 X X X X X 23. Earthquake and Hurricane Loss Study and Contingency Planning Grants 9-1 83.506 X X X X X 24. Disaster Assistance VAR1* 83.516 X X X X X X X X 25. School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas- Construction 10-22 84.04O X X X X X 26. School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas -Maintenance and Operation 10-23 84.041 X X X X X 27. Flood Hazard Studies 5-5 -- X X X X 28. Flood Insurance Studies 5-6 -- X X X Symbol Key Symbol Key L financial assistance in form of loans C aid targeted to private citizens g financial assistance in form of grants B aid targeted to businesses i financial assistance in form of insurance e assistance is emergency- related without requiring presidential dp .financial assistance in form of direct payments declaration of disaster area pd aid to be used for mitigation and pre-disaster planning ad aid to be used following (after) disaster b/a aid to be used both before and after disaster * VAR1 1-13; 3-1, 2, 4, 7; 4-1; 6-1; 7-1, 2, 12; 8-1, 2, 3, 4, 7; 10-5, 14, 19, 20 P Presidential designation of disaster area required to release aid ** FEMA DFDAP: The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Digest of Federal Disaster Assistance Programs. $ financial assistance NF non-financial assistance *** OMB CFDA: The U.S. Office of management and Budget's Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. G ais targeted to slate and/or local governmental units 190 TABLE 5-2 Index of Emergency Federal Aid Programs and Applicable Non-Disaster Related Assistance Programs FEMA** OMB*** Program DFDAP Page No. CFDA No. P e $ NF L dp g l G C B bd ad b/a Dairy Indemnity Payments 1-4 10.053 X X X X Soil and Water Loans 1-12 10.416 X X X X X X Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Claim Information 2-2 -- X X X X Emergency Relief (for Federal-Aid Roads) 3-3 -- X X X X X X Forecasts and Warnings 3-5 -- X X X X X X National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 3-6 -- X X X X Radiological Emergency Assitance 3-8 81.028 X X X X X X Fire Suppression and Emergency Rehabilitation of Indian Lands 4-2 -- X X X X Flood Fighting and Rescue Operations 5-4 12.103 X X X X River and Flood Forecast and Warning Services 5-12 -- X X X X X X Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 5-15 10.904 X X X X X Disease Control -Investigations, Surveillance and Technical Assitance 6-2 13.283 X X X X Plant and Animal Disease and Pest Control 6-3 10.025 X X X X Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants 7-3 10.405 X X X X X X Housing Grants, Direct Payment/Loan and Guaranteed/Insured Loans 7-4 VAR1* X X X X X Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans 7-5 14.410 X X X X Manufactured (Mobile) Home Loans Insurance-Financing Purchase of Mobile Homes as Principal Residences of Borrowers 7-6 14.110 X X X X X Mortgage Insurance 7-7 VAR2* X X X X Mortgage Insurance- Homes for Disaster Victims 7-9 14.119 X X X X X Rural Housing Site Loans 2-10 10.411 X X X X X Rural Rental Housing Loans 7-11 10.415 X X X X Very Low-income Housing Repair Loans and Grants 7-13 10.417 X X X X Assistance Payments -Maintenance Assistance 10-3 13.808 X X X X Community Facilities Loans 10-6 10.423 X X X X X Community Planning and Dvelopement 10-7 VAR3* X X X X X X Community Relations Service 10-8 16.200 X X X X Comprehensive Employment and Training Programs 10-9 17.232 X X X X Cooperative Forestry Assistance 10-10 10.664 X X X X Grants-In-Aid for Railroad Safety-State Participation 10-13 20.303 X X X X Indian Assistance 10-15 VAR4* X X X X X X Motor Carrier Safety 10-16 20.217 X X X Refugee Assistance- State Administered Programs 10-18 13.814 X X X X Resource Conservation and Development 10-21 10.901 X X X X State and Community Highway Safety 10-25 20.600 X X X x Victim Identification 10-26 16.303 x x x x Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities 10-27 10.418 x x x x Weatherization Assistance Program for Low-Income Persons 10-28 81.042 x x x x 191 TABLE 5-2 (cont'd.) FEMA** OMB` Program DFDAP Page No. CFDA No. P a $ NF L dp g I G C B bd ad bia Volunteer Organizations: American National Red Cross 11-1 x x x x x x x x x Mennonite Disaster Service 11-3 x x x x The Salvation Army 11-4 x x x x Footnotes: OMB CDFA Program No.'s Community Planning VAR,*: Housing Assistance VAR2*: Mortgage Assistance VAR3*: and Development VAR4*: Indian Assistance 14.103 14.135 14.137 14.218 15.103 14.105 14.108 14.124 14.219 15.108 14.141 14.112 14.125 14.221 15.113 14.142 14.115 14.126 14.222 15.114 14.146 14.116 14.127 15.123 14.147 14.117 14.128 15.124 14.149 14.118 14.129 15.130 14.151 14.120 14.130 15.141 14.156 14.121 14.132 15.142 14.157 14.122 14.133 15.143 14.158 14.123 14.134 14.138 14.154 FEMA DFDAP: The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Digest of Federal Disaster Assistance Programs. 9 ***OMB CFDA: The U.S. Office of Management and Budget's Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. KEY: See Table 5-1. With respect to recovery activities, the State Office of Disaster With respect to direct State involvement in mitigation and Preparedness assists in the development and review of local recovery activities, the agencies' various programmatic respon- disaster planning efforts. The Disaster Preparedness Commis- sibilities empower them to provide assistance to localities and sion may appoint a temporary group of policy level personnel citizens. In addition, they command a certain amount of regu- from various State agencies that provide technical assistance to latory control over local actions wherein the State can require recovery efforts required of local communities under Article 2-13. the adoption of a number of disaster mitigation measures. 192 With respect to direct State involvement in mitigation and 5.2.1 Assistance Program Evaluations recovery activities, the agencies' various programmatic respon- Table 5-3 compares the Federal disaster assistance programs sibilities empower them to provide assistance to localities and identified in Table 5-1 with the generic assistance needs iden- citizens. In addition, they command a certain amount of regu- tified by the LIRPB. An x in a program's column on the row of one latory control over local actions wherein the State can require of the assistance needs means that, according to the descrip- the adoption of a number of disaster mitigation measures. tions of that aid program's objectives and uses given in the OMB The following State agencies-assist and support local disaster Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, the aid provided by that mitigation and recovery, and have responsibilities pertaining to program should be able to help fulfill that specific assistance long-range recovery, repair, reconstruction and redevelopment. need. Since this evaluation is intended to be generic, and be- � Dept. of Agriculture and Markets cause aid amounts depend largely on the specific cir- � Dept. of Audit and Control cumstances of the need, it is not possible to quantify the match- � Dept. of Banking ups of aid and assistance needs now. � Dept. of Commerce � Dept. of Education 6.3 REFERENCES � Dept. of Environmental Conservation Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1980. Program guide. � Dept. of Health Report No. MP-91. Washington, D.C. � Division of Housing and Community Renewal � Office of Mental Health 1981a. Federal disaster assistance program: handbook � Division of Military and Naval Affairs, Office of Disaster for applicants. Report No. DR&R-11. Washington, D.C. Preparedness - . 1981b. Federal disaster assistance program: eligibility � Public Service Commission handbook. Report No. DR&R-2. Washington, D.C. � Dept. of State . 1981 c. Federal disaster assistance program: document- � Dept. of Social Services ing disaster damage. Report No. DR&R-7. Washington, D.C. � Dept. of Taxation and Finance . 1981d. Federal disaster assistance program: floodplain � Dept. of Transportation management handbook. Report No. DR&R-1 1. Washington, � Urban Development Corporation D.C. For a more complete description of State disaster response ac- - . 1981e. Flood hazard mitigation: handbook of common tivities conducted by these agencies, see the New York State procedures-interagency regional hazard mitigation teams. Disaster Preparedness Commission (1982). Report No. FEMA-14. Washington, D.C. - . 1982. Digest of federal disaster assistance programs. 5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF GENERIC ASSISTANCE NEEDS FEMA Manual 8600.2 (ECS-2). Washington, D.C. In order to develop a framework within which to evaluate the McElyea, William D., D.J. Brower, and D.R. Godschalk. 1982. coverage and adequacy of the identified assistance programs, a Before the storm: managing development to reduce hurricane listing was drawn up identifying, in a general way, the types of damages. Center for Urban and Regional Studies. University assistance that would most likely be needed in the occurrence of of North Carolina at Chapel Hill..Chapel Hill, N.C. a major flooding event. By evaluating the generic assistance New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission. 1982. New needs against the available assistance programs, it should be York State disaster preparedness plan (revised). Albany, N.Y. possible to identify the assistance programs that will be most ap- U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1982. Catalog of federal propriate for use in a post-disaster situation on the south shore of domestic assistance. U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., Washington, D.C. Long Island. 193 TABLE 5-3 Federal Disaster Assistance Programs and Assistance Needs Assistance Needs Federal Disaster Assistance Programs A. Repair, Restoration and/or Replacement of propertylstructures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7@8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 .Public acquisition of property/structures X 2. R/R/R Industrial, Business, Residential X 3. R/R/R Private/Non-profit X 4. R/R/R Farm property/supplies X X 5. Housing Loans/Grants X 6. Loan/Mortgage Adjustments X 7. Replacement of supplies/equipment X X 8. Refund of excise & other taxes X 9. Insurance to cover losses X 10. R/R/R of public facilities X X 11. Unemployment assistance X 12. Health care/disease control 13. Provision of Operating Expenses/Liability Coverage X X X B. Environmental/Erosion Control 1. Water Conservation X X 2. Pollution abatement/control X X 3. Erosion control/conservation of farmland X X 4. R/R of dunes/beaches 5. R/R/R and construction of erosion/flood control works and projects X X X X 6. Wreckage/debris clearance X 7. Channel clearance/maintenance X 8. Bank Protection X 9. Fioodplain management/regulations X C. Information/Study Needs 1. Emergency/disaster plans X X X 2. Public information program X X 3. Flood hazard studies X X X 4. Floodplain planning X X 5. Vulnerability analysi's X X 6. Preparedness/response programs X X X 7. Technical assistance X X X X X 8. Legal assistance X R/R/R = repair, restoration and/or replacement Note: The columns Nos. 1-28 under Federal Disaster Assistance Programs refer to the numbered programs listed in Table 5- 194 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND SELECTED TERMS CAPE - Community Assistance and Program Evaluation CBRA - Coastal Barrier Resources Act CDP - Census Designated Places CEHA - Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act CMP - Coastal Management Programs COE - U.S, Army Corps of Engineers CPl - Central Pressure Index DSR - Damage Survey Report ECL - Environmental Conservation Law FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency FINS - Fire Island National Seashore FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map HMT - Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation Team LIRPB - Long Island Regional Planning Board LISPRC - Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission Glossary NFIP - National Flood Insurance Program NGVD - National Geodetic Vertical Datum NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOS - New York State Department of State OBRA - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act OMB - U.S. Office of Management and Budget SCDEP - Suffolk County Department of Emergency Preparedness STR - Sewage Treatment Plant USGS - U.S. Geological Survey A Zone - a special hazard zone located within the 100-year floodplain, extending from the boundaries of the V zone to the limits of the 100-year flood hazard area. Base Flood Elevation - height of the 100-year stillwater storm surge, including wave effects, relative to sea level. Typically, elevations are highest at the open shoreline and decrease landward. 195 IS Zone - located between the limits of the A zone and-the limits Flood Insuidnce Zones - subdivisions of velocity zones (kg.,-A4, of the 500-year floodplain, including areas protected from the V4, V7, etc.) based on flood hazard factors, which correlate 100-year flood@by control structures; eLlso, areas subject to flood information with insurance rate tables. 100-year flooding where'depths are less than 1 ft; andalso, Hurricane - a warm@core tropical cyclone in which the maximum areas subject to 100-year flooding from sources with dr ,ainage sustained surface wind (1 minute mean) is greater than or areas less than 1 Mi2. equal to 64 knots (73.6 mph). Central Pressure Index - The, estimated minimum barometric National Geodetic Vertical Datum - formerly called Sea Level pressure in the eye (approximate center) of a particular hur- Datum of 1929. A geodetic datum derived from general adjust- 6cane. The CPI is considered the most stable index to intensi- ment of the first order level nets of both the United States and ty of hurricane wind velocities in the periphery of the storm; Canada. In the adjustment, sea levels from selected tide sta- the highest wind speeds are associated with storms having tions in both counties were held as fixed. The year indicates the lowest CPI. the time of the last general adjustment. This datum should not Cyclone - an atmospheric closed-circulation rotating counter- be confused with mean sea level. clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere. Tropical Storm - awarm-core tropical cyclone in which the max- Oepth-Limited Waves - breaking height equal to 0.78 times the imum sustained surface wind (1 minute mean) ranges from 34 Stillwater depth; wave crest is 70% of the total wave height to 63 knots (39-72.5 mph). above Stillwater level. Velocity Zones - V Zone high hazard area identified by the poten- Energy Dissipation - reduction of wave height due to presence of tial occurrence of 3 ft breaking waves, extends from shoreline obstructions including sand dunes, buildings and vegetation. landward to the A zone. Fetch - the horizontal distance (in the direction of the wind) over Wave Setup - Super-elevation of the water surface over normal which a wind generates seas or creates a wind setup. surge elevation due to onshore mass transport of the water by Flood Boundaries - determined by 100-year flood, i.e., the flood wave action alone. that has a 1 % chance of being equalled or exceeded each Wind Setup - The vertical rise in the Stillwater level on the lee- year and is expected to be exceeded on the average during ward side of a body of water caused by wind stresses on the any 100-year period,- delineated by A and V Zones. surface of the water. 196 Se, W- DATE DUE J-1 GAYLORD No. 2333 JIMIT-1111@1 mmillill 11111 3 6668 14108 4733