[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Appendix I report no. 2.!7' AOPP IL loop, lira: -W"d -!:Opp. It S 0 e ne erosion TC 224 ana ysis an .C8 S56 1979 reco en e Plannimng process Ithe connecticut coastal area management program S H 0 R E L I N E E R 0 S 1 0 N A N A L Y S I S A N D R E C 0 M M E N D E D P L A N N I N G P R 0 C E S S State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Coastal Area Management Program June, 1979 i coastal ama i@ 71 captd avenue hartford. conn. 06115 P R E F A C E The Connecticut Coastal Area Management Program was established in August, 1974, under the auspices of the Federal Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972 (CZMA). The CZMA was passed by Congress in response to a perceived need for wise and balanced planning and management of the nation's coastal resources. The Act gave the country's thirty-five coastal and Great Lakes states and territories the opportunity and financial means to develop planning programs for their shorelines. Although participation in the planning effort is voluntary all coastal states have participated in the program. The CZMA provides federal funding for eighty percent of the cost of designing a coastal management program, provided the state complies with certain broad procedural guidelines. Four years are allowed for the planning process; at the end of that time the state must submit a final management plan for federal approval in order to qualify for continued funding to implement its plan and recommendations. Connecticut's program is now in its fourth year of planning. During the planning effort the program, under the guidance of an Advisory Board, has prepared recommendations for the possible implementation of a coastal management program. This planning report contains an analysis of shoreline erosion and a recommended planning process designed to mitigate the impacts of erosion on Connecticut's coast. The erosion planning process and analysis are intended to fulfill the shoreline erosion planning requirements of the CZMA. This document was financed in part by a grant provided through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. T A B L E 0 F C 0 N .T E N T S Page PREFACE ................................................................... LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ................................................ iii INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1 CONNECTICUT'S SHORELINE ................................................... 3 General Description ................................................... 3 Geologic History ...................................................... 5 Physical Climate ..................................................... 10 SHORELINE CONFIGURATION COMPOSITION AND EROSION .......................... 36 Byram River, Greenwich to Norwalk Harbor (District A) ................ 39 Norwalk Harbor to Milford Harbor (District B) ........................ 43 Milford Harbor to Lighthouse Point, New Haven (District C) ........... 46 Lighthouse Point, New Haven to Guilford Point, Guilford (District D).49 Guilford Point to Hatchett Point, Old Lyme @Distrilct E) .............. 51 Hatchett Point, Old Lyme to Groton Long Point (District F) ........... 55 Groton Long Point to Pawcatuck River, Stonington (District G) ........ 59 EROSION PROBLEM .......................................................... 63 Erosion Control Techniques ........................................... 67 RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT APPROACH .......... z ............................... 79 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................ 92 SELECTED REFERENCES ....................................................... 95 APPENDICES L I S T U F T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S Jables Paae I Tidal Ranges for Shoreline Locations in Connecticut .................... 11 2 Wave Data for Stratford Point .......................................... 21 3 Hurricanes Affecting New England ....................................... 28 4 Shoreline Statistics ................................................... 38 5 Connecticut Towns Fronting on Long Island Sound ........................ 40 6 Shoreline Composition and Erosion Statistics ........................... 64 7 Estimated Annual Coastal Erosion Damages ............................... 66 Figures Page 1 Long Island Sound Basin ................................................ 4 2 Physiographic Regions of Connecticut ................................... 6 3 Moraines-of Southern New England and Moraines and Outwash Deposits of Connecticut and Long Island ...................................... 8 4 Wind Roses for Bridgeport Airport ...................................... 14 5 Wave Characteristic s .................................................. 16 b Wave Refraction ....................................................... 18 7 Wave Induced Longshore Transport ................. ..................... 19 8 Wave Height vs. Percent Occurren ce ...................................... 22 9 Tracks of Selected Hurricanes .................... e ..................... 26 10 Storm Surge ....................... ..................................... 30 Li Hurricane Flood Levels-Connecticut ..................................... 31 12 Connecticut Shoreline Districts ............. I .......................... 37 13 Typical Revetment ....................................................... 69 14 Typical Bulkhead .................. ..................................... 69 15 Typical Stone Groin ................................................... 72 16 Typical Sheet Steel Groin .........I .................................... 72 Figures Page 17 Typical Pile and Timber Groin .......................................... 73 18 Typical Stone Breakwater ................................................ 73 B-1 Shoreline Change Map ............................................... Appendix B B-2 Littoral Sediment Systems and Surficial Geology ..................... Appendix B iv I N T R 0 D U C T 1 0 N For as long as man has lived on and utilized the northern shore of Long Island Sound, shoreline erosion and its impacts have been of concern. In 1955 the state legislature declared: "...that because of the-occurrence of severe storms accompanied by winds up to hurricane force, abnormal high tides and tide flooding, the lives and property of residents and other persons within areas exposed to such hazards are endangered and that in the interests of public health, safety and welfare it is neces- sary to minimize ... loss of life, property and revenue...." The legislature further defined exposed (hazard) areas as: "...Land areas fronting on the ocean, or on bays, inlets and coves, or bordering on rivers in which tides occur, that are subject to the full force of storms; or land areas in direct contact with storm waves, including banks, bluffs, cliffs, promontories and headlands or similar topographical or geo- logical formations, that are subject to erosion through wave action; or open beach areas, including spits, dunes and barrier beaches, that are subject to loss of sand through high waves, strong currents or scouring wave action; or land areas subject to inundation during storms or vulnerable to storm damage because of geographical situation ...... I-lore recently, the Congress of the United States, as part of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), recognized that states, in their efforts 1. to develop coastal management programs, should formulate a "...planning pro- cess that can access the effects of shoreline erosion and evaluate management policies and techniques for addressing shoreline erosion." The need for a comprehensive approach to planning forand managing shore erosion is clear. Our coast is intensely used. Over forty percent of the land within one mile of the shoreline is developed. The economic value of shorefront property and the high recreational use demands placed on sandy beaches, which are most susceptible to erosion, further amplify the signifi- cance of the problem. In 1975 the United States Army Corps of Engineers, as part of the Long Island Sound Regional Study, estimated that annual erosion damages incurred along our shores were in excess of $1.8 million (1970 dollars).In addition, approximately ten percent of Connecticut's coast was classified as "critically eroding." These figures and statistics, although indicative of the magnitude and effect of erosion are subject to rapid and considerable variation resulting from the dynamic nature of the shoreline and its physical environment. In order to continuously evaluate, plan for and minimize the impacts of shoreline erosion, a systen, of long range observation, analysis and planning is necessary. Th is SySt em .,,,'ust be based on a firm understandina and know- ledge of the geologic and geophysical factors which have originated and continue to modify our coast. -1- The purpose of this report is to identify a planning process de- signed to cope with the problems of shoreline erosion as they pertain to Connecticut and meet the requirements of the CZMA (Appendix A). First, and most importantly, it presents a current picture of the geology, geomorphology and important coastal processes which influence shoreline erosion. Presentation of these features and processes is necessarily brief with emphasis placed on the factors which are most important in producing shoreline change. Secondly, after discussion of the geophysical base, an attempt has been made to quantify the impacts of erosion through a general identification of those portions of our shoreline which are potentially erodible and those areas which are influenced by significant erosion. Subsequent to this general char- acterization, management alternatives are presented with the objective of enumerating a recommended planning process aimed at mitigating the types of erosion impacts which are experienced along Connecticut's shore. Based on exploration of the existing data base and informational availabilities, recommendations have been developed for further inves- tigation for the purposes of filling in gaps in the research base. When viewed in context these three elements form the foundation of a long range, resource-based planning process which is needed to adequately evaluate and mitigate shoreline erosion and its impacts on Connecticut. This planning report is presented in four sections. The initial sections contain a non-technical description of the geologic properties and form of Connecticut's coastline and its interaction with winds, waves and tides, the primary agents of erosion. Subsequently, section three (Erosion Problem) containg a summary of the information presented in the initial sections, various statistics on the nature and extent of shore- line erosion and a discussion of erosion control alternatives. Section four contains the recommended planning process. Those readers interested solely in statistical information and a brief summary of Connecticut's erosion problems are directed to section three. -2- C 0 N N E C T I C U T ' S S H 0 R E L 1 11 E GENERAL DESCRIPTION Connecticut's coast occupies the northern shore of Long Island Sound -- an elongate, estuarine embayment whose major axis trends west- south-west to east-north-east for a distance of approximately 110 miles between New York City and Westerly, Rhode Island. At its point of maximum width the Sound is twenty-five miles across between New Haven, Connecticut and a point east of Port Jefferson, Long Island on its southern boundary. Long Island Sound is influenced by the Atlantic Ocean at its eastern-most terminus through a channel commonly known as the "Race" and at its western-most end through a more restricted connection with the East River and 141ew York Harbor. In a general sense, the Sound may be characterized as consisting of three major basins: the eastern basin, which lies between Westerly, Rhode Island and the Mattituck Sill, a submarine ridge extending be- tween Duck Point on Long Island and Hammonasset Point in Connecticut; the central basin, which extends from the Mattituck Sill on the east to the Hempstead Sill on the west and; the western basin, which is bounded by Hempstead Sill on the east and the entrance to the East River on the west (Figure 1). On the northerly side of the Sound, Connecticut's shoreline ex- tends for almost 280 miles. Two major divisions of the shoreline may be identified on the basis of approximate geographical trends. The first segment trends roughly southwest-northeast between the Byram River in Greenwich and New Haven Harbor. The second trends generally east- west between New Haven Harbor and the Pawcatuck River in Stonington. Geologically speaking, the northern shore of Long Island Sound may be classified as a submerging, primary coast of glacial deposition. Simply stated, this means that Connecticut's shoreline was originated by non-marine processes and is subsequently being inundated as a result of rising sea level. More specifically, it means that the shoreline is characterized by the occurrence of land forms which were deposited by glaciation and more recently submerged. In a larger sense the present day configuration of the shoreline is really the result of the interaction of a number of climatic, geo- logic and oceanographic factors. Most important among these factors are: geologic history, including bedrock and glacial geology; physical climatic variables such as wind patterns and storms; and oceanographic phenomena such as waves, tides, tidal currents and variations in sea level. Working over geologic (thousands of years) and human (tens and hundreds of years) time periods these physical forces have formed and will continue to alter the configuration of the present day Connecticut shoreline. -3- MATTITLICK SILL ..25M .... .... .. .. .. PA@ ...25M 'CENTRAL BASIN ... ................. ........... W s 1,1, nrn ............ as KILOMETEF 0 47 4,0 STATUTE M 740 730 LONG ISLAND SOUND BASIN (Source: Hardy, 1971) GEOLOGIC HISTORY To a major extent the configuration of all shorelines reflect the geology of the land mass of which they are part. The composition and character of the earth materials which are exposed at the water's edge almost singularly determine the ways in which the coast will respond to wave, wind, storm and tidal action. In Connecticut two types of geology contribute to the composition of the shoreline. The most recent history of the state is dominated by glacial geology while the pre-glacial character was determined largely by bedrock geology. Bedrock Geology Connecticut is disting uished by three physiographic regions: two highland masses divided by a central lowland valley (Figure 2). The east and west highland regions have bedrock of slightly different character. However, for the purposes of this discussion, their qualities are very similar and can be considered to be identical. The central valley con- sists of bedrock very different from the highland regions 5but its significance with respect to the shoreline is minimized by its limited exposure at the coast.t The bedrock of the highland regions consists of folded and faulted metamorphic rocks. The central lowland valley is composed of inter- bedded sedimentary and igneous rocks and is separated from the highlands by a series of faults on its eastern and western boundaries. At the coast@the eastern highlands extend from the Rhode Island border in Stonington to Lighthouse Point in New Haven. The composition of these highlands at the shoreline is variable, although most exposures are dominated by gneiss, One igneous rock body, the East Haven granite, extends from Sachem's Head, Guilford west to the highland boundary at Lighthouse Point, (Rodgers, et al, 1956). The central valley achi@eves a maximum width of 25 miles at the border between Massachusetts and Connecticut. From there,to the shore, the south.trending valley,tapers to an exposure of five miles in, width at New Haven. The low-lying characteristic of the valley has produced a major embayment (New Haven Harbor) which minimizes the ef- fect of the already reduced expanse of the valley upon shoreline con- figuration. Although most exposures have been covered by extensive artificial fill in the harbor area, the rock unit present at the shore- line is the New Haven Arkose, a reddish brown sandstone. The western highlands extend from Savin Rock, West Haven to the New York border in Greenwich. The rocks of these highlands differ only slightly from that of the eastern highlands. -5- FIGURE 2 LOWLAND VALLEY. A EASTERN WESTERN HIGHLANDS HIGHLANDS S0000 @_0@4G ONG z C) 0 A z wiscorlisitlK 0 -i MORAINE TRIASSIC Rr,@31N COAS TAL PI-AiN PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF CONNECTICUT -6- Glacial Geology Glaciation has had a dominant influence on the present configura- tion of Connecticut's shoreline. It has affected the coast through the erosion of the pre-glacial landscape and associated re-deposition of glacially eroded materials. Indirectly, through the storage and release of water as ice in polar ice masses, glaciation continues to control the actual position of the shoreline by regulating global sea level. Throughout the last 10 million years portions of North America, including New England, have experienced several glacial periods punctu- ated by warmer inter-glacial periods. A complete and authoritative discussion of glacial geology and its mechanisms are beyond the scope of this planning report. For a detailed presentation of all aspects of glaciation and glacial geology the reader is di,rected to R.F. Flint's Glacial and Quatenary Geology. The most recent glacier to affect Connecticut was part of the late Wisconsin Glaciation which reached its greatest extent 18,000 years ago. At its point of maximum development the glacier extended across present day Long Island Sound as indicated by the position of two moraines deposited at its margin on Long Island (Figure 3). The Ronkonkoma Moraine of Long Island marks the southern most position of glaciation while the more northerly Harbor Hill Moraine locates a second equilibrium position. During the ensufng retreat of the ice a number of unique glacial materials were deposited as a blanket, or mantle, over the rocky Connecticut landscape. The shoreline area is therefore composed of a number of glacial and bedrock landforms. Their form and composition as modified by marine erosion control coastal configura- tion. Glacial Landforms As the late Wisconsin glacier passed over Connecticut it altered the form of the land in several ways. First, it stripped existing vegetation and soils and transported them away in the ice. Second, it altered the bedrock surface. Finally, it deposited material contained in the ice as it advanced and retreated. During its advance the gl-acier smoothed out the existing topography. Hills were eroded to a greater degree than the valleys because of the increased friction involved in passing over a topographic high. Alterations in the pre-existing bedrock surface caused by glacial advance were generally confined to modifications of pre-existing features. Rarely did glacial ice carve a new valley, especially in southern New England where the ice sheet was 1300 to 1600 feet thick, substantially thinner than to the north. Till, the material transported in the glacier, was often deposited as elongate hills during glacial advance. The long axes of these hills approximate the direction of glacial movement. Called drumlins, these -7- FIGURE 3 - - -- - -- - -@Lss5LUTTS CONNECTICUT -@H-o 67s awo 0 50k. HH - HARBOR HILL MORAINE R oct R - RONKONKOMA MORAINE MORAINES QF SOUTHERN NEW ENCILAND CONNECTICUT IAJ N ISLLKANER OUNEW HAVEN TWASH DELTA MATT(TUCK EIR [)GEPORT OUTIWASH DELTA SILL sASIN Cp4TRAL NQ"yVAl K ISLANDR I II U, r;.;AtN ISLANDS OR, HILL ISLAND MORAINE IL014G Rotv'OTA ATLAN11C OcEAN MORAINES AND 06TWASH DEPOSITS OF CONNECTICUT AND LONG ISLAND -8- hills are more common in some regions than in others. Their dis- tribution appears to be controlled by several geologic factors. Drumlins most often formed where hills already existed.,, These hills acted as traps for further deposition. In such cases the amount of material deposited depends on many factors, but the distribution is relatively consistent. The bedrock deflected the ice up and around the area behind it. This protection allowed deposition to occur there without subsequent erosion. Most drumlins are composed of till which has a high clay concentration. The abundance of these fine grain sizes fills pore space and results in a very compact unit (Flint, 1971). Erodibility varies directly with clay content. Drumlins in Connecticut are most common in areas of greater pre- glacial relief. Conditions were evidently optimum for drumlin forma- tion at the far western and eastern ends of the state, and in an area just west of New Haven Harbor. Most of these drumlins have substantial bedrock cores, some of which have been exposed by wave-caused erosion. As climatic conditions eased and warming occurred, several types of land forms were produced by the ice sheet. One such form is the end moraine, formed at the terminus of the glacier by the deposition of glacial debris during equilibrium conditions. Glacial retreat is a dynamic event. Throughout its existence, the glacier continued to flow, with different velocities and often with a dead ice zone at its margin. During advance, the rate of flow was greater than the rate of melting. During retreat, the rate of melting was greater than the rate of flow. Equilibrium positions occurred when climatic conditions produced a melt- ing rate equal to the flow rate. In these positions end moraines were formed. Fi-gure 3 shows the distribution of moraines in southern New England. Large continuous moraines resulting from longer,periods of equilibrium were formed on Long Island (Ronkonkoma Moraine) and on Long Island and Fishers Island (Harbor Hill Moraine). Both of these features are part of termi-nal moraines which extend eastward into Rhode Island and appear in Massachusetts on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. North of these extensive units much smaller and less continuous moraines occur at or near shore 'in Connecticut. The size and disjunct nature of these deposits indicate that a relatively shorter equilibrium period was responsible for their origin. They occur in a band generally less than six miles in width, which is present in the form of islands (Captain Island and Norwalk Islands') in Greenwich and Norwalk and as a segmented land feature extending east from Madison through Old Saybrook and into Rhode Island (Madison and Old Saybrook Moraines). These moraihes are present in areas of low local relief which are not dominated by bedrock. Because of their composition, morainal deposits are generally less affected by erosion than till. Land forms produced by the retreating ice sheet are composed pre- dominantly of outwash, sand and gravel carried away from the glacier by melt water and deposited by glacial streams. -9- Outwash is the dominant material in valleys where melt water flowed. In regions of low relief, where early deposition in the lower elevations evened out the topography, large outwash plains occur. They are most extensive when deposited on the continental shelf behind a moraine such as those which form Long Island. Most outwash landforms are low sloping plains or valleys, broken occasionally by a hill which is usually com- posed of till. Outwash is often deposited on top of till, since till was laid down first by the advancing glacier, and because the de- position of till was usually thicker in the valleys. Two rather extensive outwash deposits occur along the shoreli,ne in the vicinities of New Haven and Bridgeport (Figure 3). Other smaller outwash deposits occur in numerous small stream valleys which intersect the coast. The loosely consolidated sandy, gravelly character of out- wash makes it most susceptible to erosion and provides an excellent source of materials for beach development. PHYSICAL CLIMATE The physical climate to which Connecticut's shoreline is exposed is a unique assemblage of climatic and oceanographic phenomena. Climatic influences include regional wind patterns and infrequent storms and hurricanes. Oceanographic forces include tides and tidally induced currents and wind generated waves. Although its influence has received somewhat less notice, climatically fnduced fliuctuations in sea level also form an integral component of the physical climate of the shoreline. Acting in concert these physical phenomena produce shoreline changes through their interaction with the geologic materials of the shoreline and are the primary causative agents of erosion. Tides Because of tts naturally semi-enclosed, embayed form and consequent restricted circulation, Long Island Sound experiences vastly different tidal conditions than those that occur along open ocean shorelines. As in other locations on the east coast, ttdes in the Sound are primarily seml-diurnal. That is, two high and two low tides are experienced in the basin over a period of 24 hours, or more precisely 24 hours and 50 minutUes. Long Island Sound tides are produced by astronomical tides occurring in the open ocean. Ocean tides act to force the tidal os- cillation of the waters within the Long Island Sound basin. The natural period of oscillation of Long Island Sound is very close to that of the semi-diurnal ocean tide - roughly 12.5 hours. As a result, the geometry of the Sound, which determines its natural period of oscillation, is particularly well tuned to the ocean tide and acts to amplify it. This condition in which the ocean tide at the Race induces the tide within Long Island Sound is referred to as tidal co-oscillation (Swanson, 1976). Mean tidal ranges within the Sound vary from 2.7 feet at the eastern terminus to 7.3 feet at Greenwich in the western end. Spring tidal ranges are slightly greater, varying from 3.2 feet to 8.4 feet respectively at the eastern and western ends of the Sound. Diurnal _10- TABLE 1 TIDAL RANGES FOR SHORELINE LOCATIONS IN CONNECTICUT Location Tidal Range (in feet) (Listed from east to west) Mean Spring Stonington 2.7 3.2 New London 2.6 3.1 Waterford 2.7 3.2 Old Saybrook 3.5 4.2 Westbrook 4.1 4.7 Madison 4.9 5.6 Guilford 5.4 6.2 Branford 5.9 6.8 New Haven 6.2 7.1 Milford 6.6 7.6 Stratford 5..5 6.3 Bridgeport 6.7 7.7 Norwalk 7.1 8.2 Stamford 7.2 8.3 Greenwich 7.4 8.5 inequalities (differences in elevation between succeeding high tides or succeeding low tides) are observed within the Sound and may range as high as 0.8 feet. Tidal range within the Sound increases most markedly as th tide progresses through the first 21 miles of the eastern end. An increase in range of 2.6 feet occurs between the Race and Hammonasset Point while an additional range increase of only 2.1 feet is experienced between Hammonasset Point and Great Captain Island, 60 miles west i'n Greenwich. Table' I shows tidal range for various locations along.the Connecticut shore of Long Island Sound. In addition to monthly and seasonal variations in tides, caused by changes in position of the sun and moon with respect to the earth, atmospheric forces such as winds and waves can function to alter tidal elevations. These alterations, such as wind and wave set up and storm surge, are discussed in succeeding sections. The most important influences of tides on physical shoreline pro- cesses (erosion and deposition) are their effects in producing tidal currents and in controlling the depths of water in shoreline areas which can affect the ways and locations in which waves break and ex- pend erosi,ve energy on the shore. Tidal Currents The co-oscillating tide in Long Island Sound produces changes in water surface elevations which in turn induce flowing of water within the basin to accommodate the rising and falling tides. As water level is rising, after low tide, water flows into the basin from the east and tidal currents are said to flood. FollovMn.g high water, as the water's surface falls, currents flow out of the basin from the west and tidal currents ebb. As the tide wave enters Long Island Sound through the Race, be- tween Great Gull Island and Fishers Island, tidal currents begin their flood phase. Flood tidal currents also enter Long Island Sound via Fishers Island Sound, between the eastern tip of Fishers Island and Napatree Point, Rhode Island and through Plum Gut to the west of Great Gull Island. During flood, colder more saline ocean waters enter the Sound as a wedge progressing westward into the basin. Since the colder saline ocean waters are more dense than Sound water the major inflow of water occurs near the bottom. Approximately 20 miles west of the Race the submarine ridge of the Mattituck Sill creates a dam that limits inflowing tidal water. Limited exchange then occurs through a northern notch or low point in the Sill (Hardy, 1971). Maximum (spring) flood tidal currents on the order of 5 knotsl occur at the Race, from that point westward flood velocities diminish to a maximum of 0.5 knots at the western end of the Sound. Currents flowing into Fishers Island Sound between Fishers Island and Napatree Point reach a maximum velocity of approximately 2.5 knots. Following,high tide, currents begin to ebb-and flow out of Long Island Sound to the east. The major portion of outflowing occurs A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour or 1.15 statute miles per hour. -12- at the surface as lighter, less dense Sound water flows out over more dense ocean water. As was the case for flood currents, maximum ebb currents occur at the Race with velocities diminishing toward the western end of the Sound. Maximum ebb tidal currents at the Race are slightly higher than flood currents, since additional freshwater introduced by three major rivers (Connecticut, Housatonic and Thames) and numerous smaller streams increases the volumes of water flowing out of the Sound. In addition, the restricted opening of the Race has a greater influence on ebbing tides and functions to increase the velocity of ebb tidal flow. Maximum ebb and flood tidal currents occur approximately 3.1 hours after high and low tides respectively. During high and low tides, tidal currents are slack (i.e., no flooding or ebbing occurs). Anomalously high tidal currents are experienced in the central basin at the Housatonic River, and three major headlands: Long Point in Darien, Shippan Point in Stamford, and Greenwich Point. Increased current velocities at the Housatonic River are a result of substantial discharge from the river, while the greater magnitude of currents at the headlands arises from the fact that they project into deeper waters which experience more rapid flows. Ellis (1961) reports that tidal currents decrease with proximity to shore. However, in areas of large tidal range, such as western Long Island Sound, a greater component of the overall tidal current is directed perpendicular to shore. Other researchers (Farrar, 1977) have indicated that in some shoreline areas, particularly near headlands and river mouths, tidal currents may act to augment transport of materials along shore by waves. Winds Wind and regional wind patterns are perhaps the most important feature of the physical environment of Connecticut's shoreline. Wind generates surface waves which cause erosion and transport of shoreline materials. Strong onshore winds also contribute.to storm surge (ab- normal tidal surface levels) by means of wind set-up. In addition, wind can cause the movement of sand or other loosely consolidated, fine-grained materials on to and off beaches and dunes through aeolian transport. The seasonal distribution of wind patterns for Long Island Sound is shown in Figure 4, "Wind Roses for Bridgeport Airport," which includes measurements of wind velocity and direction made during all weather conditions over the period between 1951 and 1970. Concentric circles are used to indicate the percentage of time a wind with a given velocity blows. Axes radiating from the center of the circles show the direction from which the wind blows. Lines and shaded bars are used to indicate wind velocities in accordance with the key. The figure is representative for the Connecticut shoreline with the exception of the New Haven region. -13- Ln m Ln -n C:) 0 ;:a CALM 0 Ul =r 4-6 Knots 0 M E3 -u )-16 K'nots c:) X > 17-33 Knot 0 >33 Knots 0 m C-) S ts it The influence of Connecticut's central lowland valley produces a channeling effect which funnels winds in the New Haven vicinity such that a high north-south directional flow occurs there. However, in general, wind patterns in all of the coastal area are dominated by a southwesterly flow in summer and by a northwesterly flow during winter months, with transition between the two in spring and fall. The wind rose for June, July, and August indicates wind patterns for the summer months. The summer rose shows a high percentage of southwest winds. These winds are the result of thd prevailing south- west circulation caused by a high pressure system located near Bermuda (Bermuda High). Wind circulation around the high pressure area is clockwise and causes air masses to move from the southwest along the east coast. Wind velocity during the summer months is very low. No winds greater than 33 knots were recorded and less than 2.5 percent of the total wind blew from the southwest quadrant at velocities between 17 and 33 knots. The most prevalent winds were those with speeds be- tween 7 and 16 knots. For the months of September, October, and November the wind rose demonstrates the meteorological transition that occurs during the fall. The influence of the Bermuda High is reduced as polar fronts begin to pass through the region from the northwest. The equal dominance of each is illustrated by the even distribution of wind blowing from the northwest and southwest quadrants. The high wind velocity (greater than 33 knots) recorded in the northeast quadrant is the result of hurricanes or northeast storms which-are most likely to occur- during the early fall. The winter (December, January, February) wind rose is characterized by dominant northwest flow associated with the polar front. Winter winds are much stronger than the summer winds, showing velocities great- er than 33 knots. Winter winds are also more closely concentrated within one quadrant. Northwest winds blow 57 percent of the time during the three winter months, while winds are from the southwest for 47 percent of the three summer months. Finally, the spring wind rose exhibits the transition between the dominant winter and summer circulation patterns as well as the influence of increased storm activity. The northwest quadrant exhibits the prevalence of dwindling winter winds while the southwest quadrant in- dicates the beginning of the summer's southwesterly flow of wind. Evidence of strong northeast storm winds is also apparent during the spring months. The effect of the regional wind climate on the north shore of Long Island Sound is moderated by the orientation of the shoreline. Because Connecticut's coast faces south it is protected from strong northwest winter winds and wind induced waves, since both propagate offshore. During the summer the shoreline is exposed to southwest winds. However, these winds are generally much lower in velocity and generate smaller waves. -15- Damaging, high velocity winds are regularly associated with low pressure systems and hurricanes. By definition, hurricane winds ex- ceed 64 knots (Davies et al, 1973). The highest velocity (hurricane) winds normally blow from the southeastern or northeastern quadrants where the least resistance is presented by land masses. Winds associated with the 1938 hurricane varied from 5 minute sustained velocities of 60 to 78 knots to gusts of over 87 knots. Winds associated with low pressure systems can exceed the minimum hurricane value, but this situation occurs only rarely. Maximum gale force (35 to 55 knots) storm winds usually blow from the eastern quadrants where they meet little land resistance. Although lower in velocity, storm winds carry the potential for greater damage because they are usually longer in duration. Waves Surface waves are the primary causative agent of erosion along the shoreline. Waves are generated by, and therefore inherit their physical characteristics (length, height and velocity) from the wind which initiates them (Figure 5). L = Wave length Direction of Wove crest wove trovel H= Height ............T Wove crest _'T`4@ove tr ugh Still water level Wove trough dz depth WAVE CHARACTERISTICS Ocean bottom V111V% FIGURE 5 (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975) The wave generation process is the result of energy transfer from air to water. Waves generated by the wind propagate in the direction to which the wind is blowing. Three factors are important in the generation of waves: the fetch, or unobstructed distance of water over which the wind blows; the duration or length of time for which the wind blows; and the intensity, or velocity with which the wind blows. An increase or decrease in any of these factors results in a correspond- ing increase or decrease in wave size (height and length). The depth of water at the site of wave generation also exhibits some control on wave size. Generally speaking, wave height cannot exceed three-fourths (3/4) of the water depth before breaking occurs. @.c,est H 0 -16- From their creation by wind to the point near shore where they first interact with the sea floor, waves travel at a constant velo- city which is dependent on the length and period. Wave period is the time required for two successive wave crests to pass a fixed point. Fluid dynamics allow transfer of energy in water with very low loss of energy. Thus, when waves approach shore they possess most of the energy transferred from wind as well as energy from any other similar waves traveling with them. As waves approach a shoreline they begin to dissipate their energy. When water depth decreases to half the wave length of the approaching wave, the wave begins to frictionally interact with, or "feel" bottom. As depth continues to decrease the wave shoals. Its height increases and its crest becomes steeper. Eventually the wave becomes too steep or the water too shallow and breaking occurs. At this point the wave dissipates or transmits its energy to the shoreline. The manner in which a wave approaches the shoreline and breaks is a function of the wave's length, height, direction of approach and the shape of the nearshore bottom (bathymetry). In most cases, the nearshore bathymetry is not a regular feature. The irregularity, or differences in water depth along the shoreline, cause-a varying degree in the wave's frictional interaction with the bottom along the wave front. As a result, those portions of the wave in shallow water travel more slowly than those portions of the wave in deep-water; and the wave front is bent or refracted. Through the process Of refraction, wave energy may be focused on portions of the shoreline in a manner which is somewhat similar to the way in which a magnifying glass focuses light. Figure 6 illustrates the refraction of waves under the influence of several different types of bathymetry or submarine topography. The lines labeled as orthogonals in the figure are drawn perpendicular to the wave front (not shown). Where orthogonals converge, wave energy is focused, where they diverge energy is decreased. Figures 6(b) and (c) show how energy is concentrated by a submarine ridge and dissipated by a submarine canyon. Figure 6(d) shows concentration of energy at head- lands and dissipation of energy at bays. Refraction of waves obliquely approaching a linear beach'i.s indicated by Figure 6(a). Littoral Transport Movement of shoreline materials in the nearshore area by waves, tidal currents, and wave induced currents is defined as littoral trans- port. Littoral transport occurs in two ways: transport of material parallel to shore (longshore transport) and movement of material per- pendicular to shore (onshore-offshore transport). Material moved by littoral transport is termed littoral drift. Onshore-offshore transport depends on wave steepness. Generally, steeper waves tend to plunge as they break moving material off shore. -17- FIGURE 6 Beac h Line Breakers 'Xxx XXX @-)txx L)LA ,)L% IL I Contours Wave Crests a) Beach Line. Beach Line - Contours Orthogonals Contours Ort-hogonals (c) ....:Headland Boy.,\ "'q Oy Contours Orthogonals (d) WAVE REFRACTION (Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 1975) Gently sloping waves, on the other hand, tend to spill as they break transporting materials onshore. Longshore transport results from the suspension of material by the breaking wave and subsequent movement of the material by the component of wave energy which is directed parallel to shore (Figure 7). The direction of Ibng9hore transport is directly related to the direction of wave approach. The magnitude of longshore transport is controlled by wave energy and the angle of wave attack. Due to the variability of wave approach and to seasonal and storm-related variations in wave energy and steepness, the rates and directions of littoral transport vary randomly. However, because of regional weather patterns, which produce similar wave conditions on an average yearly basis, a net or dominant direction of longshore transport is usually evident for most shoreline segments. 0 Irection of uprash d1,r8Ct10fi Of Incoming wOV03 deaCh 510PS d1rif t. FIGURE 7 Wave Induced Lonqshore Transport (Source: Sanders and Ellis, 1961) Wave Conditions in Long Island Sound The generation and occurrence of waves in Long Island Sound are primarily localized phenomena. Long Island severely restricts the fetch available for wave generation in the Sound and limits the ex- posure of Connecticut's shoreline to larger, more powerful waves generated in the open Atlantic Ocean. There is, however, small oceanic influence at the eastern end of the Sound. Ocean swells (long, low waves) from the east-southeast can enter Long Island Sound through the Race. The influence of these waves is limited and affects only the eastern portion of the state's coastline. Waves in Long Island Sound, because they are generated locally, are normally short and steep, and reflect directly the patterns of local winds (preceding section). Seasonal variation in wind direction elicits similar variation in wave direction. Strong, northwest winter winds form larger waves, which break on the north shore of Long Island but have less affect on Connecticut's shoreline. Summer winds blow from the southwest, creat- ing onshore waves. The irregular configuration of the shoreline and the complex and variable nature of the nearshore bathymetry markedly influence wave behavior through the process of wave refraction. Consequently, al- though regional wind patterns may produce waves which approach the shore from the south in the open Sound, refraction is capable of completely changing the direction of wave approach once the wave enters shallower nearshore waters. As a result each small segment of Con- necticut's coast is exposed to differing wave conditions arising from their different configurations. Table 2 shows observed wave heights and directions of approach recorded at Stratford Point Light Station between October, 1954 and October, 1957. The record is dominated by waves varying in height up to 4 feet. Waves with heights up to 2 feet occurred nearly 90 percent of the time during the period of observation. No recorded waves ex- ceeded 15 feet in height and only once (October, 1955) were waves in excess of 10 feet recorded. Direction of wave approach is dominated by the southerly quadrants (E, SE, S, SW) with east (E) and southeast (SE) approaching waves generally accounting for the major directions of approach. It is worthy of note that waves rarely approached from west, northwest or northerly directions. The distribution of wave height as@a percentage occurrence over the period of record is shown in Fiqure 8, along with similar data recorded for other east coast stations. Examination of this information clearly indicates the smaller, lower energy nature of waves in the Sound. The information presented here, for Stratford Point, is not necessarily reoresentative of conditions throughout the Sound. Be- cause of its seaward projecting configuration, its location and the orientation of the shoreline in general, the Point is exposed to a limited degree to waves from the northeast. In addition, local bathy- metry and the presence of deeper water near shore probably allow larger waves to approach the shoreline. Other portions of the shore are thought to be more protected, on the average, due to decreasing fetches over the southerly quadrants as the Sound narrows towards the west and east. The period of record (1954-1957) includes only one hurricane event: Hurricane Diane, which passed south of Long Isla6d between August 17th and 20th of 1955. Undoubtedly hurricanes and other low pressure storm systems contribute a preponderance of erosive waves to the Long Island Sound System (see section on storms). Maximum. wave heights recorded during the 1938 hurricane ranged from 10 feet at New London to 15 feet at Bridgeport (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975). Wave heights of this magnitude coupled with abnormally high tides which accompany coastal storms are the most important factor influencing erosion in the coastal environment. Aside from the information obtained at Stratford Point, virtually no other published information on wave statistics is available for Long Island Sound. This lack of published information is one of the major deficiencies in the physical data base of the Sound. -20- SUYT HAEH7 IN rwr PER.OD WAVE DIXACTION (A) sum Hiam is Fim m P)EPj00 WAVE DIREMION 0: + + Aye m ME in E lye Sw w )"W 8 C& 5.2 N NX F IS 3 96 3 1 2 3 SW W NW 1:5 5.6 Nov. 3 34 31 14 18 100 3:0 37.j ig." I 67 5.5 1 a 3.1 3.5 IJ 2 12-11 8 24 40 JUL. 5.2 15 13 3 0 7 0 - 91 3 5 4 3.3 1:9 35 k 12- 9 86 12 2 2: 8 24 - 13 AUO. 4, 31 5 41F 6.5 -40 15 90.1 S.h b.1 3:1 18 2.2 9 A _ 17 98 2 2-a 5sp. 18 FIE. 6.0 5 27 49 1 5 2:1 93 6 1 3.8 9-el 0 1 6 13 1 26 15 11 5 7 19 36 is OCT. 5.3 MAR. 5.8 $3.3 15.6 la 2.3 81 13 5 1 2.8 1 1--*-- 28 14 ig 27 9 @ I , f 10 36 1 32 6 Nov. 5.2 APR. 6 13 85.0 11.5 2.3 2.5 3.5 1'1.0 23 4 21 25 1? 8 86 1 ih 1 266 DEC. 5.4 0 1 0 9 2.6 MAr 5 2 1 86.0 ih.0- OA I m 97.8 2.2 Ko 19571 5.0 IA 91 in I I]. 2.0 7-5 20.L -12U 12.9 26.9 JAII@. 92.51 '7.51 3-3 JUN. 5.3 3-9 L4.0 7.9. 16.1 16.1 5. 10.9 93.4 5.5 1.1 3.2 2.2 4 2,n 12.2 32.2 32-3 8.9 12-2 ym. I J 10.71 3:3 JUL. 96 4 4 - 0 1 52.1 6.J IL! 17A 7.1 1.6 4 3:1 YAR. 4 8 9 . 34 is 14 3:4 25 86.j 13.6 2 24.4 51.2 11.0 13.L 6.1 83 13 3 1 2.3 AFR. 5 5jr. 2-1 11 27 29 is is 3:4 4.2 92J 5. 2.2 1 9.5 28.5 37.0 13.3 11.1 87.0 13.0 3-3 5 5 ocl. -2.k- - 12.9 16.5 43.5 17.7 9.4 92.0 8.o 3:1 55 3 4 8 3 1 7 9 T 6.2 1 1 1 1 il 51.8 26.4 13.6 6.8 1-7 4.o JUN. 3.6 Nov. 2.2 2.1 3-1 36.5 30.2 .'16.7 11.4 100 J:L Ti 1 1 6 6 1 7 JUL. 1.0 9 0 cr- 5.3 3:0 59 1 1 7 9 13 5 97.71 2-3 2 7 0 A , 5 1956 2 AUG. 4.0 2: 16 60 17 7 88 12 2.1 JAN.' 35.3 - I-A 8 14 33 27 18 87.1 11.8 1.1 '5 SFJ,. 4.4 2.0 4 12 4 54 ' 2o 6 88 M Flo. 5.9 12 2 1 6 23 27 21 21 1 89.8 8.9 1-3 2.4 1.7 21.7 7.5, 18.8 36.9 7.6 7.5 8 53.3 MAR. 79.1 5.6 90 1 J;A 21 9 18.7 2.2, 2:3 16 24.41 13.7 22-3 123.6, 8.4 7.61 1 Nov. 1 9 DW,. 1" -11 3.3 14.1 25.81 12.5 13.3 2.21 1 1 :8 31 5:9 18 1 1 31 31 1-5 13.8 19.1 1 12.2 22.1 TABLE 2 WAVE DATA FOR STRATFORD POINT Dj (Source: Helle, 1958) 14 12 a - I - Moose Peak Lifeboat Station > West Jonesport, Maine M 6 - 2- Hampton BeaCh Lifeboat Station Hampton, N. H. M 0 - 3- Nouset Lifeboat Station 0 .4 Eastham, Mass. Zn 4 10 (1) 0 - 4- Point Judith Lifeb at Station 0 Qj Narragansett R. 1.0 U 0 - 5_ S:rot;o d Point Light Station 0 8 S rat ord. Conn. !@ a - 6- Short Beach Lifeboat Station 4-) Freeport, N.Y. Cn CD M 6 4- S- C) 4 C= M M 2 =z!@ 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent Per Year (1955-1957) Littoral Transport in Long Island Sound The predominantly low energy nature of the Long Island Sound system coupled with a shoreline which is markedly irregular and highly vari- able in composition, due to its geologic history, is responsible for the development of numerous discrete and segmented patterns of littoral transport along the shoreline. Directions and magnitudes of littoral transport vary continuously Soundwide. No dominant pattern of trans- port is apparent which would generally characterize the movement of material along, or on or off, the north shore of Long Island Sound. Primarily because of the irregular nature of the shorefront, directions of net longshore transport vary from east to west and include almost all intermediate directions. For instance, on a north-south trending segment of shoreline northerly longshore transport may occur. On an east-west oriented shoreline wave induced movement of material may vary from easterly transport to the opposite westerly transport de- pending on wave conditions and bathymetry. Net directions of longshore transport were observed and recorded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for all sections of Connecticut directly fronting on Long Island Sound, during a cooperative study conducted with the state between 1949 and 1958 as a result of field observations throughout the area. This information is far too voluminous to present here. However, it is being tabulated in map form by the Coastal Area Management Program as part of a resource inventory. Appendix B shows an example of this information compiled for the Old Lyme quadrangle. Onshore-offshore components of littoral transport are less readily specified than the longshore components of littoral transport. Due to seasonal and long term variations in weather conditions, the occur- rence of storms, and hence, wave and wave-breaking conditions, no attempt can be made to quantify the effects of this component of lit- toral transport. However, some general observations are valuable in this regard. The way in which a wave breaks is a function of the wave's height and length and the slope of the nearshore bottom. Davies et al (1973) note that waves formed in Long Island Sound by local winds (called seas) have short periods and are relatively steep. When these waves break on gently sloping beaches they plunge causing substantial movement of material offshore, and/or along shore. Plunging waves are more likely to cause offshore transport on gently sloping beaches. Long, low waves, on the other hand, are less steep and tend to spill as they break producing onshore transport on gently sloping beaches. When beach slope is steep the wave breaking process tends to reverse. Steeper seas spill as they break while the more gentle swell tends to plunge during breaking.(Sanders and Ellis, 1961). Since wind conditions vary seasonally wave-conditions Vary seasonally. Under normal open ocean conditions during calmer summer months long low swell exhibits the dominating influence*on the shore causing onshore transport. During more severe winter conditions seas dominate causing offshore transport. As a result many authors have noted seasonal beach cycles between "winter" (eroded) and "s-Ommer" (accreting) beaches. These -23- terms are actually misnomers since the variation in beach conditions is really related to storm events which may occur without respect to seasons. In Long Island Sound the importance of beach cycles is further reduced since long low swell is virtually completely excluded from.the basin by Long Island. As a result, seas (steep waves) dominate through- out the year and beach cycles have not been shown to occur consistently throughout the Sound. Several authors have made estimates of net littoral (onshore- offshore and longshore) transport on beach areas in Connecticut. Based on profiling (survey) on Prospect Beach, West Haven conducted between 1956 and 1960, Vesper (1961) estimates that an average of 13,000 cubic yards of material was removed by littoral forces from the shoreline area. Farrar (1977) estimates (on the basis of profiles) that between March of 1976 and February of 1977 more than 14,000 cubic yards of beach material was lost from the shoreline of Harinonasset State Park in Madison. A third study, also conducted by Vesper (1965) over a five year period for Seaside Park in Bridgeport, yielded estimates (from pro- files) of approximately 8,000 cubic yards for the violume of material lost from the study area. These case studies indicate a variation in net littoral transport for beach areas in Connecticut which ranges from 8,000 to 14,000 cubic yards per year. However, the range in the estimated figures also points out the tremendous variability in the nature of sediment movement. This variation can most probably be attributed to the differences in orientation of the shoreline at the various locations. Prospect Beach and the beach at Hammonsset State Park are both oriented more nearly north-south while Seaside Park trends approximately east-west. Since Seaside Park is aligned more nearly perpendicular to waves approaching from the dominant southern quadrants, it is apparently more stable than the other north-south trending shorelines. That is, waves approaching the @hore at Seaside Park approach at a smaller angle to shore inducing a correspondingly smaller amount of longshore transport. Waves which approach Hammonasset and Prospect from the south do so at a larger angle to shore producing a significantly higher volume of longshore transport. This hypothesis is very basic since,as mentioned earlier, littoral transport is influenced by factors other than orientation such as the shoreline composition, bathymetry and wave breaking conditions. Storms and Hurricanes As emphasized in the preceding discussion of waves, the Long Island Sound environment is low energy in comparison to the open ocean. Normal wave attack, resultant littoral transport and tidal currents do not account for all the changes in configuration (erosion and deposition) which occur along the shoreline. While these events have a cumulative effect, their influence is less significant than high energy catastrophic storms and hurricanes. In the Sound the impact of catastrophic events is marked in contrast to the normal low energy environment. In fact most major changes are the result of low pres- sure storm systems. -24- Two types of storms are important agents of shoreline erosion on Connecticut's shore: tropical cyclones and frontal storms, most commonly called northeasters. Northeasters originate in mid-latitudes through the interaction of warm and cool air masses. Tropical cyclones, as the name implies, originate in more southerly latitudes and progress west into the Caribbean or north towards the eastern United States. Tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic may be categorized into three divisions according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra@ -tion: 1. Tropical depressions (sustained wind speeds of less than 34 knots). 2. Tropical storms (sustained wind speeds of at least 34 knots). 3. Hurricanes (sustained wind speeds of at least 64 knots). Tropical cyclones are characterized by: 1. Low central barometric pressure. 2. Counterclockwise (cyclonic) circulation of wind about a calmer central core. 3. Large amounts of precipitation. 4. Overall diameter of the circle of influence of up to 1000 miles. The structure of a low pressure storm system is such that the most intense winds are present near the central core. Wind velocity gradually decreases radially from the center. Wind intensity also varies around the storm center. Maximum velocities occur on the riqht side of the core(when viewed in the direction of travel) where wind velocity is augmented by the direction of movement of the storm system. Wind speeds in excess of 65 knots are possible although most-storm winds peak at gale (.34-40 knots) or whole gale force (48-55 knots). Mather et al (1965) have determined from analysis of storm re- cords for the period between 1921 and 1962 that the recurrence interval for damaging coastal storms (including hurricanes) in Connecticut is 1.14 years. Mather also states that the frequency of their occurrence has increased during the period between 1955 and 1964. On an annual basis tropical storms and northeasters are most frequent (in descend- ing order) during the months of November, March, October, February, December, January and August. Hurricanes are similar to low pressure systems in their wind circulation patterns, low pressure, and precipitation. The dis- similarities include greater wind intensity, tropical origin, smaller diameter, and seasonal distribution. Hurricanes form in the tropics during the months of August, September and October and travel west into the Caribbean or north towards the U.S.@(Figure 9). In order for a storm to rank as a hurricane, winds must exceed 64 knots and central barometric pressure must be less than 29 inches (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975). -25- FIGURE 9 0 20 W., PA. o" Iit .WOV 21 V1 TRACKS OF SELECTED HURRICANES N-W @.*land U.S. Army Inginoor 01wWon, Corp. Of Invinosrs Wallis.., Mass- :10 A '954 09 C. 11LA. oforl"ll", "44 51"F1481R, 193S IL IP SCALI OF MIUS 1960 0 -26- Hurricanes have smaller diameters than low pressure systems, vary- ing from 50 to 500 miles. The core is a well developed eye, or area of fair weather, with very low pressure. More intense winds surround the eye, and the most intense winds lie to the right of the storm center where the wind speed is augmented by the storm speed. Table 3 lists recorded hurricane events which have affected Connecticut. Hayes and Boothroyd (1969) discussed coastal storms as geologic agents and listed variables@ affecting the impact of the storm upon the shoreline as: 1. Storm intensity (wind velocities). 2. Storm track (di,rection of storm movement). 3. Storm speed (velocity of the movement of the storm as a whole). 4. Tidal Phase (spring or neap). 5. Tidal level (high or low water). 6. Interval between storm occurrences. The impacts of variations in storm intensity and speed are readily apparent. More intense storms generate higher and more sustained wind velocities. Storm speed contributes to the severity of wind speeds, as previously noted, by augmenting wind velocities on the right side of the storm. Increases in wind velocity attributed to the forward progression of a hurricane, for instance, can be significant. Hurri- canes have been known to obtain forward speeds of as much as 50 knots. Storm track is of critical importance since the movement of the storm determines which shoreline areas will be most affected. More specif-ically, since wind circulation is counter-clockwise around a storm center, if a storm passes to the right of a coastline, less damage will be experienced in that the coast will be exposed to off- shore winds. If the storm passes to the left of a shoreline, onshore winds will prevail. Tidal phase and tide level are also important in determining storm effects. Storms occurring during periods when tidal elevations are normally higher, such as spring high tides, generate waves which can approach more closely to shore as a result of increased water depths. In such instances a wider area of the coast is affected by the storm. Occurrence of storm related elevations of the coastal water surface in conjunction with high tide also lead to more extensive coastal flooding. -27- TABLE 3 HURRICANES AFFECTING NEW ENGLAND Hurricanes causing considerable damage, listed in order of magnitude (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1956) -Hurricane of September 21, 1938 Hurricane of August 24, 1893 Hurricane of August 31, 1954 (Carol) Hurricane of September 15, 1815 Hurricane of September 14, 1944 Non-ranked hurricanes estimated to have been more intense than the hurricane of September 21, 1938 'Hurricane of August 15, 1635 Hurricane of August 3, 1638 Other hurricanes affecting New,England Hurricane of September 11, 1954 (Edna) Hurricane of August 12-19, 1955 (Connie and Diane) Hurricane of August 27, 1971 (Doria) Hurricane of August 10, 1976 (Belle) -28- Finally, the interval between storm occurrences affects the period over which damaged shoreline areas can recover. This is parti- cularly true in the case of beaches when calmer weather conditions produde onshore transport of sediments which replenish them. Effects of Storms and Hurricanes Storms and hurricanes create extreme conditions in Long Island Sound. They form the largest waves, and produce storm surges. One factor that increases the impact of storms and hurricanes is the'east-west orientation of Connecticut's shoreline. Because storms and hurricanes approach from southerly direction, the east-west orienta- tion increases the potential for direct onshore impacts of winds and hence,, waves and storm surge. Storm surge is defined as the "difference between observed water level and that which would have been expected at the same place in the absence of the storm" (flarris, 1963). Storm surge can be broken down into the following elements (Davies et al, 1973): 1. Low central air pressure in the storm center causes water level to ri@se at a rate of 1 inch for every 13 inch drop in barometric pressure (Hobbs, 1970). The ratio is probably lower on Long Island because of the small basin size. 2. Stress produced by onshore wind pushes water towards shore result- ing in raised water surface level called wind set up (Figure 10). 3. Waves produced by onshore winds transport additional water into nearshore areas in the form of wave set up. Wave set up may account for as much as 3 to 7.0 feet additional increase in water surface elevation (Figure 10). 4. Wave run up resulting from the shoreward progression of water in the form of breaking waves extends the influence of water level further inland (Figure 10). 5. Heavy rainfall associated with the storm contributes to increased runoff which raises water levels in coastal streams particularly where they drain into Long Island Sound. The effects of several major hurricanes on Connecticut's coast serve to illustrate the particular impacts of storms on the Sound's north shore, The following descriptions are taken from the Connecticut Coastline Study: Effects of Coastal Storms which was compiled for the Coastal Area Management Program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, in 1976. Storm surge levels which resulted from the 1938 and,(,1954 hurricanes in Long Island Sound are shown in Figure 11. -29- \A019 A5@ MIC Ine. an ('0W watigr FIGURE 10 STORM SURGE ."Hurricane of September 21, 1938. On September 21, 1933, the New England area was struck by a devastating hurricane which originated around the Cape Verde Islands. It travel- ed in a curved path in a northwesterly and then northerly direction, arriving in the New England area during mid- afternoon of the 21st of September. It entered Connecti- cut with i,ts,center just west of New Haven at 3:30 p.m. E.S.T., and continued northward at 50 to 60 miles per hour. Its eye was clearly observed at New Haven. Winds that were easterly since noon died down between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., and were then followed by increasing southwest- erly winds. The region of strongest wind lay in the dangerous semi-circle about 75 miles to the right of the storm center. Minimum barametric pressures were reported as follows: at Bridgeport 28.30 inches, at New Haven 28.11 inches at 3:50 p.m., at Hartford 28.04 inches at 4:17 p.m.. They dropped gradually until noon, and then dropped rapidly to their lowest pressures until about 4:00 p.m. Pressures then rose rapidly until 3:00 p.m., when the noon pressure was attained, then rose gradually. Maximum wind velocities in miles per hour for five min- ute periods and for @usts, respectively, were observed as follows: New Haven 38 and 46, Hartford 46 and 59 , over and area 80 miles wide from Saybrook, Connecticut, to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts 70 to 90 and probably IV -30- z z 0 z z uj Z LLJ 0 cr 0 LAJ 0 0 0 Ir cr 0 0 > ui > 0 cr LJ a: 0 0 < > < cr z Z x m 0 z 0 LLJ L&J 0 z LLJ a_ LL. 0 0 0 LL (:) z > z LL. < (L - W 0 U- 0 (n m cr _j 0 z > LLJ LJ 3: U- (D < LL_ z U- cn LLJ z LLJ uj LLI jr cr (1) cr 9 - _j C/) 3: Lo < Z cn,-c -.0 3: 0 __0__ n- 12 _j -12 <_0 ul - cr LLJ ui < cr uj W cr @- 1 -1 < C) ui V) a z 3: LL m (n 3: LJ m 0 0 C) ui z (D 0 < < LLJ LLJ 00 V) 10 10 z z < .000 w AUGUST 311 1954 HURRICANE@@ 8 uj ui ___ i i i > > 1938 HURRICANE--/ 0 SEI PTEMBER 211 0 m < F- 6 6 ui LLJ uj ui LA_ U- z 4 4 MEAN H)GH WATI LL_ z z 0 0 2 < 2 > > ui w LLJ w 0 0 0 to 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 STATUTE MILES HURRICANE FLOOD LEVELS -CONNECTICUT z "n C", SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Enginee,rs, 1973) in excess of 100. The precipitation directly attribut- able to the hurricane is difficult to determine due to the fact that it rained for two days before it reached New England. The total precipitation ranged from 2 to 5 inches along the Connecticut shore, the major portion of which was probably directly due to the storm. Tides rose above their predicted heights. Tidal heights were in- creased more to the east of the hurricane center than to the west because of the counter-clockwise wind rotation. Reported high tide during the hurricane occurred 2 to 2 3/4 hours before the time of predicted tide. The effect of the hurricane was an addition of about 9 to 10 feet to the predicted high tide at the entrance to Long Island Sound, this addition decreasing to 7 feet at Bridgeport and increasing to 9 feet at the west end of the Sound. Wave action accompanying the storm produced a devastating effect upon the shoreline, pounding it mercilessly and resulting in widespread damage. Wave heights ranged from 10 feet at New London to 15 feet at New Haven and Bridgeport." "Hurricane of September 14-15, 1944. - On September 14, 1944 the New England area@was struck by a tropical hur- ricane which originated in the West Indies. This hur- ricane traveled in a northwesterly then northerly direction to Cape Hatteras, then swerved north-northeast across Long Island about 11:00 p.m., E.S.T. From there, it proceeded northeastward across Providence, Rhode Island, and then followed closely along the New England coast and passed over Newfoundland and out to sea. The greatest wind intensities occurred to the east of the storm center. The calm during the passage of the "eye" and the shift in the wind direction after its pas- sage, were clearly noted at Westerly and Providence. The following minimum barometric pressures in inches were reported in the Connecticut area on September 14: New Haven 28.86 at 9:50 p.m.; Hartford 28.94 at 10:50 p.m.; Fisher Island 28.41 at 10:4.5 p.m.; Groton 28.40 at 11:00 p.m.; Westerly 28.30 at 11:00 p.m.; Block Island ?8.34 at 11:09 p.m. Maximum wind velocities in miles per hour for five minute periods and for gusts, respectively, were reported as follows: New Haven N 33 and NE 38, Hartford N 50 and N 62. Block Island SE 32 and SE 88, gusts only in New London - 70 and Westerly - 75. Gusts were mostly estimated. Heavy rainfall was reported practically throughout the coastal portion of the . Providence D.istrict, which extended from New York State to Cape Cod. In Providence, a total of 4.49 inches fell from 5:55 p.m. to midnight on 14 September. Tides rose above their predicted heights. The hurricane -32- effect occurred on the ebb tide about 3 to 5 hours after predicted gravitational high water in the area from Watch Hill, Rhode Island, to Wood's Hole, Massachusetts." Hurricane of August 31, 1954. - Hurricane Carol entered southern New England on Augu t 31, 1954. It traveled in a north-northeastward direction from a central position about 100 miles off the Virginia Capes at midnight of August 30th and swept over the extreme eastern end of Long Island nine hours later. Its center moved on a northward course up the Connecti- cut-Rhode Island border into east central Massachusetts. Sustained winds and gusts, respectively, were recorded as follows: flew Haven - 40 N and 65 11; Block Island - 100 SE and 135 SE; Providence - 90 ESE and 105, Nantucket - 72 SE and 77 ESE, Boston - 86 SE and 100 SE; Portland - 69 E and 78 E. Minimum barometric pressures and total precipitation, respectively, were recorded in inches as follows: New Haven - 28.77 (910 EST) and 2.75; Block Island - 28.40 (1000 EST) and 3.31; Providence - 28.69 (1045 EST) and 2.79; Nan- tucket 29.32 (1100 EST) and 1.39; Boston 28.83 (1148 EST) and 2.60; Portland 29.15 (1412 EST) and 2.26. The hurricane was most violent during the morning over the region extending eastward 100 miles from the center line of passage. Sustained hurricane winds ravaged extreme eastern Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Similar but lesser devastation occurred in the strip of Massachusetts and Connecticut west of the hurricane's center line to the Connecticut River. Damages from flooding occurred at low shore areas throuahout Connecticut as a result of extremely high tides. Damages from wave attack were particular- ly severe only east of the Connecticut River, increas- ing in severity to the east with the greatest damages in the town of Stonington. Some damages due to wave attack occurred between flew Haven and the Connecticut River at shore developments which were particularly vulnerable because of their locations at low beach areas. The greater part of all statewide losses re- sulted from water damage to industrial plants, busi- ness establishments and shorefront residences while east of the Connecticut River heavy losses resulted from damages to fishing and pleasure craft and harbor facilities and physical destruction of shorefront residences and bathing beach establishments." -33- A Sea Level Rise The accumulation of ice in the form of the Late Wisconsin Glacier resulted in a related loss of water volume available to the world's oceans. Accordingly, sea level began to retreat and continued to fall until the glaciercreached its maximum areal extent app@oximately 18,000 years ago. At the point of maximum development, Curray (1965) has estimated that sea level had fallen at least 360 feet exposing most of the gently sloping continental shelf. As the continental ice sheet began to recede, in response to global warming, sea level began to rise. This marine transgression was rapid by geological standards, representing an average rate of approximately 2 feet per century over 18,000 years. During the initial.per*iod of glacial recession much variation in climate occurred resulting in local readvance and re- cession of the ice front (Curray, 1965). The accumulation of glacial ice affected relative sea level in a way other than the alteration of the global water budget. The thickness of glacial ice, estimated at 1300 to 1600 feet in southern extremes, caused the underlying earth to subside as much as one- third of its thickness (Flint, 1971). Relative sea level change incurred by this movement is called isostatic sea level change. At present, the crust has rebounded to its original position prior to glaclat4 on fFlint, 1971). However, the completion of crustal rebound was delayed until well after the ice load had melted away. This caused an initial drowning of some areas as the sea level rose onto a depressed crust. As rebound reached com- pletion, sea level rise continued at a slower pace. Until approximately 8,000 years ago, sea level stood below minus 32 feet, the lowest elevation on the Mattituck Sill. As a result most of Long Island Sound was not influenced by -the Atlantic Ocean. Between 7,000 and 3,000 years ago, sea level continued to rise finally gaining access to the Sound. During the initial 1,000 years of marine transgression in the Sound, sea level rise was too rapid for sediment accumulation to keep pace. As a result, tidal marshes did not begin to form until approximately 3,500 years ago (Bloom, 1967). The rate of sea level rise deter- mined by Bloom for the period between 8,000 and 3,5000 years B.P. is 4.7 inches per century. From 3,500 to 75 years ago, the rate slowed further"to 3.3 inches per century. The past 75 years have witnessed an apparent increase in sea level rise to 1 to 1.5 feet per century. Recent periods of sea level rise have produced corresponding coastal submergence marked by a gradual migration of the shoreline landward. Tidal action has increased its influence on the Long Island -34- Sound est uary as the limit of saltwater intrusion gradually extended upstream. The configuration of the shoreline has also experienced change in response to marine transgression. Steep headlands and bluffs experience minor changes due to rising sea level. However, as a result of gradual increases in the depth of nearshore waters caused by rising sea level, erosive waves can approach closer to shore expending their energy on the bases of previously unexposed cliffs. Bedrock shore- line areas occupying low lying points on the shore have been drowned forming reefs and islands. Beaches have migrated landward under the influence of inundation, and associated erosion. Clearly the more rapid rates of submergence indicated for the last 75 years play a significant role in shoreline erosion. -35- S H 0 R E L I N E C 0 N F I G U R A T 1 0 N C 0 M P 0 S'I T 1 0 N A N D E R 0 S 1 0 N The geology and physical climate of Connecticut's coastal area shoreline and Long Island Sound have been briefly discussed in pre- ceding sections. As previously noted, geologically speaking, the north shore of Long Island Sound is most aptly described as an embayed, primary coast, originally formed by glacial deposition and currently being submerged by rising sea level. These two processes, glacial deposition and submergence, are responsible for the overall configur- ation of Connecticut's shoreline. Coupled with the low energy envir- onment of Long Island Sound, which is protected from the open ocean by Long Island, they have produced a shoreline which is variably irregular and curvilinear in configuration, and which is composed of bedrock, glacial drift, tidal marshes and beaches. Review of all available pertinent literature and research dealing with the problems of shoreline erosion in the state indicates that only those portions of the coastal area fronting directly on Long Island Sound and the lower reaches of the state's three major tidal rivers are affected by erosion of any consequence. This direct Long Island Sound-fronting shoreline constitutes 278 miles of the total 458 miles of coastal area frontage. Examination of state and federal expenditures for erosion control over the past twenty-five years further verifies this conclusion. For these reasons the analysis and planning processes focus on the 278 mile portion of direct Sound-fronting shoreline. H.S. Sharp (1929) presented the first discussion of the geology and physical history of Connecticut's shoreline. At that time he recognized several general districts, or shoreline divisions, based on geologic com- position. Later in 1967, Sharp's classification was revised slightly by Arthur Bloom. Bloom's designation of shoreline districts is shown in Figure 12. Using shoreline composition as a basis for classification, seven shoreline districts may be recognized. Shoreline composition for each district has been tabulated from surficial geology and soils maps and is presented in Table 4. Information on shoreline composition has also been tabulated by town in Table 6. Statistical data on the occur- rence of significant erosion (see definition 8, Table 12) have also been compiled on a town by town basis. -36- FIGURE 12 CONNECTICUT SHORELINE DISTRICTS New Have as -Fairfield Greenwich aven V, I e@t estport Norwalk Bridgeport Mi 1 -,I@ord Haven Darien Str' ord Stamford ranford Merwin Frost Pt. Shoal Milford Pt. Pt. Indian Guilford Shippan Neck Greenwich Pt. rock Pt. Thimble Is. Sachem Hea B. Glacial drift and beaches D. Rock ani marshes A. Rock and drift; much artificial fill LONG ISLAND SOUND ast Lyme aterford N nton Groton Westbroo London SHORELINE FEATURES Old Stonington Madison Saybrook Old Bedrock Lyme PZA Glacial drift ammock Goshen Bi ff Sandy P Hammonasset Pt. Cornfield Gri Swol d Black Pt. Pt. Sand or gravel beaches Pt. Pt. Pt. Pt. Tidal marshes F. Glacial drit and rock Rock and marshes Artificial fill E. Glacial drift and beaches 0 10 mi 1 es LONG ISLAND SOUND OOM, 19C-7 'Source: B1 -37- TABLE 4 Shoreline Statistics SANDY GLACIAL ARTIFICIAL TIDAL TOTAL LINEAR DISTRICT BEACH DRIFT BEDROCK FILL MARSH MILES MILES A 17.7% 29.3% 22.4% 22.2% 5.8% 68.9 15 B 37.0% 20.0% 0.67% 28.30/11 13.8% 60.0 20 C 50.0% 14.8% 3.9% 30.5% 0.8% 12.8 8 D 13.2% 10.3% 56.5% 9.0% 3.7% 33.3 12 E 54.4% 18.9% 1.8% 10.0% 14.3% 34.9 22 F 27.7% 36.4% 12.7% 13.0% 10.2% 39.3 13 G 16.0% 41.0% 16.5% 10.0 16.5% 18.2 8 Erosion statistics are based on information from the following sources: 1. Data gathered by coastal area Regional Planning Agencies. 2. Comparison of aerial photographs. 3. Comparison of historical shoreline configurations shown on National Ocean Survey Coastal Charts, for the years of 1835- 38, 1884-86, 1933 and 1949-53. 4. Examination of state and federal expenditures for erosion control. 5. Review of all pertinent available literature including government documents, academic papers (theses, dissertations) and technical papers contained in various professional publications such as: The National Shoreline Stu (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973) The Long Island Sound Regional Study.(New England River Basins Commission,1975) Beach Erosion Control Cooperative Study of Connecticut. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1949-1958) 6. Limited information obtained from municipal flood and erosion control boards in response to CAM Program inquires regarding shoreline erosion in municipalities with Long Island Sound- fronting shoreline. -38- Appendix C contains more site specific information on those shoreline areas considered to be significantly affected by erosion. The listing is intended to be inclusive. As such, it contains data tabulated for all locations known to be of concern with respect to erosion. Undoubtedly, as additional information is obtained from future investigations the listing will change. However, for the purposes-of establishing the nature and extent of erosion and to provide the basis for developing a planning process, as required by the Coastal Zone Management Act, the listing is considered to be adequate. The following is a general description of shoreline composition, configuration and erosion in the districts shown in Figure 12. Names and locations referred to are those indicated on U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps. Due to their volume these maps are not included in the text. Rather, the interested reader is directed,to them for further reference. BYRAM RIVER, GREENWICH TO NORWALK HARBOR (District A) General Character The shoreline between the Byram River on the New York border in Greenwich and Norwalk Harbor is the most irregular segment of Connecticut's coast. A general measure of this irregularity is given by a comparision of irregular shoreline length, shown as total miles in Table 4, with the shoreline length measured linearly between the Byram River and Norwalk Harbor (linear miles). The geologic composition of the district is controlled by bedrock which is covered by a mantle of glacial till. Man's presence and use of shoreline areas strongly i@fluence the natural shore- line and processes. Artificial fill and shore protection works occur along 50 percent of the shorefront and have so <ered the system that any analysis of the physical environment is difficult, particularly in the absence of recent field study. Sediment sources, littoral transport and wave energy dissipation are all significantly affected by the occurrence of fill and coastal structures. Thus, the response of the shoreline to nat- ural phenomena is much less predictable than along relatively less altered shore fronts. More than 200,000 people inhabit the municipalities which comprise the district (Table 5) and a preponderance of development occurs near the coast. Shoreline ownership is predominantly private with some municipal park and beach areas interspersed. Estimated property values range well above an average of 200,000 dollars per acre. Physical Climate The physical environment of this shore district is dominated by two primary variables. First, the fetch is extremely limited to the south and west, thus reducing the influence of the dominant summer southwest winds and waves generated thereby. The maximum fetch lies to the east: a quadrant which usually produces storm waves. Therefore, the area is exposed -39- TABLE 5 CONNECTICUT TOWNS FRONTING ON LONG ISLAND SOUND. with estimated square mileage and population from Connecticut State Register and Manual 1978 Town Sq.Mi. POP. Town Sq.Mi. Pop. 1. Branford 27.9 21,800 15. Norwalk 27.7 80,300 2. Bridgeport 17.5 148,000 16. Old Lyme 27.1 5,600 3. Clinton 17.2 11,200 17. Old Saybrook 18.3 9,300 4. Darien 14.9 22,800 18. Stamford 38.5 107,000 5. East Haven 12.6 24,100 19. Stratford 18.7 50,600 6. East Lyme 34.8 13,400 20. Stonington 42.7 17,000 7. Fairfield 30.6 59,000 21. Waterford 36.7 18,500 8. Greenwich 50.6 63,800 22. West Haven 10.6 54,100 9. Groton 38.3 37,200 23. Westbrook 16.2 4,800 10. Guilford 47.6 14,900 24. Westport 22.4 29,500 11. Madison 36.3 12,700 TOTAL 639.1 1,018,900 12, Milford 23.5 51,600 13. New Haven 21.1 131,000 14. New London 7.3 30,700 -40- to less frequent storm wa ves while being sheltered from more docile southwest, summer waves and winds. The second dominating variable is the large tidal range which varies from 7.3 feet (mean) in Greenwich to 7.1 feet in Norwalk. The large tidal range produces tidal currents with larger onshore and offshore directional components. Coupled with a steep offshore slope the currents can facilitate a net offshore transport of sediments. The generally smaller (less than 0.6 knots) magnitude of current velocities in the area appears to confine this movement to finer silt type sediments which can be carried by low velocity water flows. The large tidal range also affords some degree of storm protection. When stGrms occur in conjunction with low tide, wave breaking and energy release occur further offshore away from the heavily developed shoreline. Composition and Morphology The dominant role of bedrock is a major factor controlling the overall configuration of the district's shoreline. Inherent bedrock structures (hills and valleys) trend generally north-south producing a topographic "grain" which runs perpendicular to the shore. This bedrock relief has also controlled the deposition of glacial material as evidenced by the north-south orientation of the major drundinoid (glacially sculpted hills) features which project seaward as headlands throughout the area. These features are most notable at Long Neck, Darien; Shippan Point, Stamford; and Greenwich Point. The slope of the bedrock surface here is markedly steeper than that to the east as indicated by the proximity of the 50 foot contour line to shore. The steep onshore slope is reflected by a steep slope of the Long Island Sound bottom in the nearshore which can enhance offshore sediment move- ment and reduce reciprocal onshore transport. The most extensive areas of bedrock are exposed along the shoreline in Greenwich, Darien and Norwalk. Sediment transport in the district is small in magnitude and highly irregular in average, or net, direction. These local phenomena are a direct result of low shoreline sediment availability and irregular config- uration attributable to bedrock control. Structural stabilization and naturally developed protection have further reduced the availability of the limited, naturally occurring sources of sediments along the shore. The latter is produced by the presence of large boulders contained in glacially deposited materials, which are removed by waves and deposited by gravity at the base of exposed cliffs and bluffs, forming natural .revetments or sea walls. Deposits of boulders in ;,ireas offshore of most headlands indicate their former size and the extent of erosion. Directions of alongshore transport usually diverge at headlands, flowing north into the bordering coves. Magnitude of sediment transport is limited by the small volume of material available at shorefront sites. The result is an extremely variable system of weak longshore transport which lacks any general directional continuity. The north south topo- graphic trend of bedrock-cored headlands in the district limits the exposure of areas on their western flanks to storms generating waves from the east, while affording protection from southwesterly summer waves to areas on their eastern flanks. -41- Beaches in the district occur in pockets between headlands from which their sediments are derived. Where they are present their com- position varies from .17oulder lag at the tips of exposed headlands to finer material which has been transported to and deposited in sheltered coves forming pocket beaches. Beach continuity is often broken by the presence of bedrock and stabilization, structures common to the district. Most of the notable beach deposits occur between Greenwich Point and Holly Pond on the Stamford-Darien town line. In the protected coves between the irregular headlands there are small exposures of saltmarsh. These exposures are more common in the eastern section of the district since most marsh exposures to the west have been artificially filled. Notable examples of artificial filling in wetland areas and small tidal coves are present at Holly Pond on the Stamford-Darien border and at Manresa Island on the west side of Norwalk Harbor. In many instances fringing marsh deposits have begun to develop in front of exposed headlands such as those at Greenwich Point, Greenwich, and Long Neck in Darien. This unusual phenomenon is indicative of the generally low energy nature of the shoreline in the district. Numerous curvilinear beach features connecting islands and mainland (tombolos), which began to form naturally, have since been artificially stabilized for road bed construction. Examples include Hay Island and Pratt Island in Darien; Greenway Island in Stamford; and Elias Point, Saw and Horse Islands in Greenwich. Nature and Occurrence of Erosion The occurrence of recent erosion induced changes in this district are the least pronounced for any portion of the coast reflecting the area's bedrock composition, structural stabilization and the fetch- limiting protection afforded by Long Island. Significant natural changes in shoreline configuration are rare in the area (Bloom, 1967). On the other hand, more extensive changes arising from artificial filling of tidal areas are common. The effects of erosion are most focused on beach areas and unprotected glacial deposits which lie immediately behind them. Histori- cally much time and effort have been expended in attempts to stabilize the beaches in the district. Two state and federally-funded projects were initiated in the vicinity: one at Cummings Park in Stamford, and the other at Greenwich Point Park in Greenwich (Appendix C). The latter project, which was to consist of beach filling, was never completed. Attempts to locate submarine sand sources near the beach were unsuccessful. Areas noted to have experienced significant erosion lie on the east and west sides of the large drumlinoid headland at Shippan Point in Stamford and between Flat Neck and Greenwich Points in Greenwich. Appendix C contains a more detailed description of the areas, their hi.story of change. ownership and more precise extent. The primary response of the more erosion resistant shoreline in the district is submergence as a result of rising sea level. -42- NORWALK HARBOR TO MILFORD HARBOR (DISTRICT B) General Character Glacial drift, composed primarily of outwash and ice-contact, stratified drift,forms most of the shoreline in this district. Bedrock is virtually absent from the area, while the influence of filling and shoreline stabilization works are again in evidence along most of the segment. Artificial fill accounts for shoreline composition in nearly 30 percent of the district occurring primarily in harbor areas. The district also includes the Norwalk Islands a series of submerged end moraine segments (Flint and Gebert, 1976) south of Norwalk Harbor. The more homogenous and erodible nature of these glacial materials has led to a development of a semi-regular, curvilinear shoreline. In many instances erosion has affected and will continue to affect shoreline residents. More than 400,000 persons live in the towns of Norwalk, Westport, Fairfield, Bridgeport, Stratford and Milford. The use of shoreline areas is very intense and ave.rage land Values of 110,000 dollars per acre are characteristic, with higher values occurring in the more western munic- ipalities. Shorefront ownership is predominantly private with some segments under public ownership. Twomajor state owned recreational faci-lities are@present in the distriet: o'ne 'at Sherwood,Island in Westport, and the other, which is at present undeveloped, at Silver Sa-nds Beach in Milford. Physical Climate The physical climate of this district is similar to that of District A, although it is exposed to larger fetches from the south and west, and correspondingly reduced fetch to the east, as a result of its more easterly location on Long Island Sound. Consequently, the area is somewhat less sheltered from gentle southwesterly summer waves, but it is still exposed to storm winds and waves from the eastern sector. Wave data, obtained by observation at Stratford Point and presented in the section on waves are representative for the area. Tidal range decreases from 7.1 feet in Norwalk to 6.6 feet at Milford Harbor. Maximum tidal current velocities are generally of the-same order of magnitude as those in District A. However, in the vicinity of the mouth of the Housationic River, maximum tidal currents on the order of-1.5 knots occur during spring tides. Th6 large tidal range gives rise to larger offshore and onshore components of tidal motion as was the case for the area previously discussed. However, the more gently sloping nearshore area produces a better balancing between on and offshore transport induced by tidal currents and waves. Composition and Morphology The dominant occurrence and erodibility of glacial outwash, composed mainly of sand and gravel, between Norwalk and Milford Harbors have produced two major effects. First, the onshore topography and the nearshore bath- ymetry both reflect the more gentle slope of their parent outwash plain. Secondly, the erodibility of the shoreline has resulted in a configuration which is comprised of relatively longer, more nearly east-west trending segments. The Housatonic River, one of the state's three larger tidal rivers, punctuates the district, at the Stratford-Milford boundary. -43- Beaches derived from eroded glacial deposits occur throughout the district and the nearshore area is characterized by extensive sandy shoals. Several of the state's larger barrier beaches, which are a mile or more in length, protect marshes at Sherwood Island State Park, Westport; Fairfield Beach, Fairfield; Long Beach, Stratford; and Myrtle through Silver Beaches in Milford. Other beaches in the area are fringing beaches which occur directly in front of deposits of glacial drift from which they are derived. The most highly developed areas of sandy shoals occur near shore at Compo Cove, Westport; Southport Harbor and Fairfield Point, Fairfield; near Bridgeport Harbor in Bridgeport; and continously from the Housationic River east to Milford Harbor. These shoal areas are unquestionably related to the behavior of beaches in the area. During storm events materials are removed from beach and adjacent nearshore areas and deposited on the shoal areas. Under calmer, normal conditions, waves can reverse the transport process resulting in a more balanced onshore-offshore system of sediment transport. The precise nature of the balance between the two types of transport is very complex. Storms may remove material from shore and deposit it at a depth at which more gentle waves are unable to effect transport onshore. The depth beyond which waves causing onshore transport of materials fail to induce such transport is termed the depth of closure (Dean, 1976). The depth of closure for Long Island Sound is wnknown, however it may be on the order of 10 feet. Owing to the more linear nature of shore in the district, longshore transport directionality is better developed. The dominant, or net, direction of longshore transport throughout the area is generally west- erly, although in several localities the reverse is true, These reversals are most commonly due to shoreline orientation which precludes westerly movement. The net direction of alongshore transport is apparently a result of stronger southeastern storm waves. During a study of the Norwalk Islands, Ellis (1962) noted the reversal of longshore currents under storm conditions. During average conditions, longshore currents flowed in as easterly direction, with the exact path determined by the,orientation of the shoreline. However, during storm conditions, a reversal of this general trend under the in--@ fluence of strong, strom-generated southeast waves occured. Despite low frequency of occurrence, the resultant westerly, longshore currents trans- port more material than the weaker, more common, easterly currents, thus producing a net transport to the west. Numerous groins, jetties and seawalls are present along all the bea- ches in the district and have significantly altered the natural movement of sediments along the shore. At Milford Point, Milford and at Pleasure Beach, Bridgeport the construction of major jetties at the distal ends of barrier beaches has resulted in larger scale accretion of as much as 600 feet. Two major groin fields occur at Long Beach in Stratford and Fairfield Beach in Fairfield. The former was constructed in response to storm induced brea- ching of the Long Beach barrier, possibly in 1938, although the exact date is unknown (U.S.A.C.E., 1952). The latter groin field at Fairfield Beach was erected to protect heavy residential development there and to prevent future breaching by storms, such as that which removed several hundred feet from the west end of the beach. Groin protection in both areas, except as it serves to widen the beach, is not likely to prevent future breaching. Groins are designed to inhibit longshore transport rather than storm over- wash, which is a result of onshore-offshore transport perpendicular to shore. -44- Several large ti0al marshes have developed in the area, m6st notably behind the westward trendinq barrier beaches at Fairfield Beach, Fairfield; Long Beach and Pleasure Beach in Bridgeport and Stratford;and Milford Point in Milford. The marshes obviously owe their existence to the protection afforded by the barriers. Artificial filling for residential development, harbor.,industrial, and airport facilities and sanitary landfill purposes are evident in the marshes at Fairfield Beach, Fairfield; Long Beach, Stratford and Myrtle to Silver Beaches, Milford. The few less pronounced headlands which occur in the area are com- posed of coarser glacial materials, which have developed natural protection through the deposition of boulders at their bases which form natural revetments. Coupled with numerous private seawalls, and the presence of nat- ural protection they seriously limit sediment available to the system in headland areas. Boulder lag deposits offshore of Cedar Point, Sherwood Point, Frost Point and Kensie Point indicate three things. First, these head- lands once extended farther south than at present. Second, their erosion has provided material for near by barrier beaches such as Compo, Alvord, and Burial Hill Beaches, in Westport. Third, the high percentage of boulders offshore indicate that they are composed of till. This factor in part explains the greater irregularity of the western section of the district as compared to those sections to the east which are dominated by outwash. Similar lag deposits offshore of Grover Hill, Fayerweather Island, and the headland at the east end of Seaside Park in Bridgeport indicate similar conditions. The Norwalk Islands which occur at the western end of the district in Norwalk,and Charles Island located offshore of Silver Sands State Park in Milford, are evidence of relict upland features which are being inundated by rising sea level. Both are glacial in ori.gin. The Norwalk Islands, as previously noted, are end moraine features, while Charles Island is most probably a remnant hill composed of glacial till and isolated by encroac- hing sea level and erosion. Nature and Occurrence of Erosion The shoreline between Norwalk and Milford is more significantly impacted by the effects of shore erosion than any other district of Connecticut's coast. The intensity of development located in immediate proximity to the water, and the highly erodible nature of beaches and their source glacial deposits are the primary elements contributing to the problem. The most evident recent changes in the shoreline have taken place along the major barrier beach features of the district. They are a result of shoreward migration in response to rising sea level, lateral growth induced by longshore transport, and breaching by storm activity. Nineteen erosion control projects have-been initiated and completed in the district utilizing state and federal funds. Together they account for more than half the total monies expended on state, or partially state, funded projects (See Appendix D). In spite of these expenditures erosion continues to impact the shore- line. State funded studies of erosion at Compo Beach and Sherwood Island State Park in Westport and for the entire Milford shoreline have been initiated recently. _45- Evaluation of shoreline changes in the area indicate that signifi- cant erosion is affecting more than twelve miles of the shoreline between Norwalk and Milford Harbors at the following locations: Calf Pasture Beach, Norwalk Compo Beach, Westport Sherwood Island, Westport Sasco and Southport Beaches, Fairfield Fairfield and Jennings Beaches, Fairfield Seaside Park, Bridgeport Long Beach, Stratford Short Beach, Stratford Milford Point to Silver Sands Beach, Milford More detailed information on the history and extent of erosion at these locations and their management is contained in Appendix C. MILFORD HARBOR TO LIGHTHOUSE POINT, NEW HAVEN (DISTRICT C) General Character The shoreline of district C lies east of Milford Harbor. The general trend of the coast here is more northeasterly than that of the preceding districts. Glacial drift, which is high in clay content, dominates shoreline composition. Several exposed bedrock points and till headlands punctuate the district, and large amounts of artificial fill are present, with concentrations in New Haven Harbor. As was the case for previous westerly districts, the incidence of development is extremely high and in close proximity to shore. Seawalls and groins occur almost continuously between Milford Harbor and Lighthouse Point, limiting sed- iment availabilities and movement. The district's three towns are inhabited by more than 230,000 residents half of whom reside in New Haven (Table 6). Private ownership of shorefront is most common but a significant portion (more than 7 miles) is in public use. Average land values range as high as 140,000 dollars per acre. Physical Climate The more northeasterly trend of the shoreline all but eliminates the effects of winds and waves from due west. Consequently, the district is most influenced by southerly or southeasterly wind and wave patterns. At New Haven Harbor the Sound reaches its widest point, appreciably increasing the fetch to the south and, hence, the potential influence of southerly waves. The major embayment at New Haven Habor further limits shoreline exposure to waves traveling over large fetch areas between Bradley Point, West Haven and Lighthouse Point, New Haven. The shoreline between Milford Harbor and Oyster River Point in West Haven is most exposed to easterly and southeasterly storms. North of Oyster River Point three large breakwaters, located south of New Haven Harbor, function to significantly reduce the in- fluence of east and southeast winds and waves. As a result the area north of the Point is most exposed to southerly and southwesterly influence. -46- Tidal range in the district decreases from a mean of 6.6 feet at Milford Harbor to 6.3 feet in New Haven Harbor. The difference of almost one foot in average -tidal range between-the area and District A reduces the significance of the-onshore-offshore component of tidal flow. Tidal currents are normally weak throughout the area and probably do not contribute appreciably to shoreline sediment motion. However, they are responsible for the erosion and redeposition of a small thickness of bottom sediments in the Sound's central basin on a daily basis (Gordon et al 1972).. Composition and Morphology Intermixed deposits of glacial outwash and till characterize the com- position of the district west of Bradley Point, West Haven. The more resistant till, which occurs as several north south trending hills, forms points which punctuate the outwash deposits at Welches Point in Milford and Oyster River Point in West Haven. Two other more pronounced points are occupied by exposed bedrock at Merwin Point in Milford and Bradley Point in'West Haven. A fifth projecting headland is backed by glacial outwash at Pond Point in Milford. Normally, outwash would not be expected to occupy a point area since it is more easily eroded than bedrock or till. However, Pond Point is protected by an extensive stone revetment. East of Bradley Point, deposits of sandy outwash form the shoreline between the point and the West River on the New Haven-West Haven border. In New Haven Harbor, which occupies the embayment created by the occur- rence of Connecticut's Central Lowland Valley at the coast, extensive artificial filling has covered most of the naturally occurring outwash deposits. On the east side of the harbor at Lighthouse Point another till hill fronted by areas of exposed bedrock forms the shore. Bedrock lies very near the surface throughout the district and is not uncommonly exposed in intertidal and nearshore areas. The intermixed, somewhat transitional, nature of the district has re- sulted in a mixed shoreline morphology. West of Bradley Point coastal and nearshore @areas are relatively steep as a result of the presence of the north-south trending till hills. East of Bradley Point, the reverse is true. The presence of outwash in New Haven Harbor has led to the develop- ment of a more gently sloping shoreline and nearshore. Beaches which have developed in the area are primarily of the fringing variety and were initially derived from erosion of outwash and till deposits. Between Milford Harbor an@_: Bradley Point most of the beaches are extremely narrow and composed of coarser material derived from erosion of till. Two small barrier beaches occur at the western end of Gulf Beach in Milford and in a pocket area between Welches Point and Pond Point. Substantial deposits of sandy outwash at Pond Point which could provide sediment for the natural development of beaches have been stabilized by shore protection works and are occupied by residential development. -47- Littoral sediment transport in the westerly segment of the district is probably dominated by offshore movement because of the steeper slopes in nearshore bathymetry. The area south of Bayview and Point Beaches is an exception. A gentler slope has developed here as a result of the outwash composition of shoreline materials. East of Bradley Point extensive sandy beaches occur on the more east- west oriented shore of West Haven. The gently sloping nearshore area here leads to a more balanced relationship between on and offshore sediment move- ment. Pronounced, sandy tidal flats which lie in front of these beaches bear a similar resemblance, both in form and in function, to the tidal flats mentioned in the discussion of District B. That is, storm activity removes material from the beach and deposits it offshore. During calmer conditions the material stored offshore can be returned to the beach. As was the case in District B the so called depth of closure is important in this process. On the east side of the harbor, the area near shore is somewhat less gently sloping and the intertidal flat is generally less developed. At Lighthouse Point, a glacially-sculpted, till hill and bedrock occupy the shore and nearshore bathymetry, which becomes relatively steep, generating conditions favorable to dominant offshore movement of materials. Longshore sediment transport in the district is variable in direction and magnitude. The effects of numerous groins and jetties further com- plicate the evaluation of this type,of sediment movement. West of Bradley Point transport is generally to the west in east-west trending areas and to the north on more north-south oriented shorelines. Because steep shore- line relief is more conducive to offshore transport, alongshore movement of material is less developed and hence smaller in magnitude. Vesper (1961) concluded, after a five year study of behaivor of beach fill at Prospect Beach, West Haven, that the movement of fill material lost from the area between mean high and mean low waters could be accounted for by deposition of material above mean high water and below mean low water. Along the east-west trending shoreline of West Haven, longshore trans- port is apparently much better' developed, as indicated by the presence of two small scale barrier beaches extending eastward into New Haven Harbor at Sandy Point and Morse Park. Both features indicate net easterly long- shore transport. Their lateral growth has undoubtedly been influenced and augmented by the placement of 1,000,000 cubic yards of sand on beaches to th6ir immediate west in 1949, and by the protected environment afforded by the construction of the three New Haven Harbor breakwaters in 1915. On the eastern side of the harbor longshore transport is ag&in less apparent, probably due to the extreme wave sheltering conditions provided by its lo- cation on the Harbor which eliminates the possibility of storm wave attack from the east and southeast. However, the shoreline here is exposed to short, steep, choppy waves generated by predominantly northwesterly winter winds. Virtually no tidal wetlands occupy shorefront areas in the district. The few small marshes that are evident have developed behind protective beaches, and in the lower reaches of two or three small tidal streams which dissect the area. The absence of marsh in the New Haven embayment is a re- sult of filling for roadways and port facilities. -48- Nature and Occurrence of Erosion Shore erosion in beach areas along the north-south trending shore- lines of the district has been a long standing concern. The situation has been aggravated by extensive stabilization of major sources of sediment along eroding headland areas particularly.at Pond Point. Over the past 3 decades well over one million dollars in public funds have been expended for beach fill and construction of groins and revetments in the areas of Gulf Beach, Morningside and Woodmont in Milford; Prospect Beach and Oyster River (Aimes) Point in West Haven; and Lighthouse Point Park in New Haven (Appendix D). Even so, erosion has continued to affect these till dominated areas and is considered to be of significant magnitude along over seven miles of shorefront between Milford Harbor and Ligh'thouse Point. Approximately half of the affected shorefront is in public owner- ship while the other half is privately controlled (see Appendix C). Average erosion rates are on the order of 1.5 feet per year but have ap- parently exceeded the average in a few scattered locations. Gulf, Point and Bayview Beaches, Woodmont Shore, Prospect and Savin Rock Beaches, and the shorelines at Lighthouse Point Park and Morris Cove are all considered to be significantly affected by erosion. LIGHTHOUSE POINT, NEW HAVEN TO GUILFORD POINT, GUILFORD (DISTRICT D) General Character This district, which consists of the shorelines of Guilford, Branford, and East Haven, exhibits radical differences from the districts to its east and west. The highly irregular configuration of the shoreline is pro- duced by the presence of bedrock. Strikinqly few deposits of glacial drift are present in the district. As a result, beaches are- coa-rse in -com- position and infrequent in their occurrence. Numerous small rocky islands are present, particularly in the Guilford-Branford areas where the Thimble Islands form a northeast-southwest chain. ' I Development in shoreline areas is lower in intensity than that in towns to the west of New Haven. Slightly more than 60,000 persons live in the area and population decreases markedly to the east in Guilford (Table 6). Most of the offshore islands are inhabited and a preponderance of develop- ment occurs in the shoreline areas. On the average, shorefront property is similar in economic value to that in the preceding district. However, the cost of acreage in Branford and Guilford can range well above those for the more urban East Haven area. Shoreline ownership is almost exclusively private. Minor segments are in public ownership consisting primarily of municipal beaches. One state owned facility occurs in the area at Cockaponset State Park, but Park shore frontage is extremely small. Physical Climate The district is nearly centrally located on the north shore of Long Island Sound and is exposed to approximately equal fetches to the south east and southwes.t. Directly to the south, an available expanse of twenty miles of open water between Connecticut and Long Island is the most limited -49- fetch for the district. High velocity, northwest winter wind patterns, and waves which they generate, have little influence on the coast, except on the north sides of rocky headlands and islands which extend to the southwest at Indian Neck in Branford, Sachems Head in Guilford and in the Thimble Islands chain on the Branford-Ouil ford border. Uther south- facing shorefronts are equally exposed to more gentle, southwest summer winds and waves, and more severe southeast storms. On east-facing shore- fronts the effects of summer winds and waves are-. reduced, while the' impacts of storms are increased by shoreline orientation. Tidal ranges in the district decrease from 6.2 feet in New Haven to 5.4 feet at Sachems Head in Guilford. Tidally induced currents on the other hand are appreciably greater in magnitude, reaching maximum flood and ebb current velocities of nearly 1.2 knots near Sachems Head. Consequently, tidal currents in the Sound begin to play an important role in the movement of shoreline sediments of the district particularly on more seaward projecting promentories. Composition and Morphology With the exception of segments of the shoreline in East Haven and Indian Neck in Branford, bedrock is the primary variable controlling the configuration of the district's coastline. In East Haven and at Indian Neck substantial deposits of glacial drift, primarily till, are present at the shore. The bedrock is part of a large body of granite called the East Haven Granite which extends from Lighthouse Point to Sachems Head (Rogers et al, 1956). The structure and relief of this unit have created a topographic grain, similar to that observed in the Greenwich, Darien and Stamford areas. The northeast-southwest trend of the grain has also con- trolled glacial deposition and erosion. As a result, the configuration of the shoreline is a system of irregular coves and headlands which trend northeast almost perpendicular to the general east-west orientation of the coast. Post-glacial, sea level rise @has, submerged major portions of the-bed- rock ridges which extend into Long Island Sound, forming the Thimble Islands which occupy the ridges' high points. Beaches in the Branford and Guilford areas are very narrow and ex- tremely coarse in composition as a consequence of the paucity of parent glacial material. They form.in small coves between rocky he'adlands-as pocket beaches. In contrast beaches in East Haven and at Indian Neck in Branford are better developed due to their proximity to the deposits of glacial till which occur in these locations. Most of these beach features lie directly in front of the deposits of till and are termed fringing beaches. At one location at West Silver Sands Beach, East Haven a small barrier beach has developed fronting tidal marsh between bedrock features at Morgan Point and South End Point. Littoral transport in the district is extremely variable in direction and magnitude. The irregular configuration and dominant bedrock compos- ition complicate any general assessment of shoreline sediment movement. Along the east-west oriented shoreline of East Haven net longshore trans- port is predominantly to the east, most probably as a result of exposure to storm waves from the southerly quadrant. The eastward growth of the bar- rier beach between Morgan and South End Points is indicative of this situation. Along the Guilford and Branford shores longshore transport is north into -50- numerous small coves and embayments on north-south trending shorelines, and dominantly east (as in East Haven) on east-west trending shorefront. The paucity of materials available for transport significantly reduces the influence,of this mode of littoral transport in the Guilford-Branford areas. It is, therefore, less developed here than in East Haven. Onshore-offshore movement of material in the district is also complex. Normally the occurrence of bedrock would produce a relatively steeper off- shore than is evidenced. Bloom and Ellis(1965) have suggested that the lower offshore slope may be a result of outwash plain, which once extended over the area and which is now covered by estuarine mud. At any rate, the lower offshore slope in much of the area tends to reduce the effects of offshore transport which might normally be expected. Tidal marsh occurs in many of the small coves and embayments in the districts, as well as behind the small barrier beaches in East Haven. Significant marsh areas are also present in the more seaward reaches of the Branford River in Branford, and the East and West River Little artificial fill is evident at the shoreline in the area. However, significant deposits are noticeable in the lee of barrier beaches in East Haven and covering the fringes of marsh areas in Branford and Guilford. Most of the 'fill was placed to facilitate the construction of residences and the placement of roadway embankments which cross marsh areas. Nature and Occurrence of Erosion Because of its dominant bedrock composition, most of the districts' shoreline is remarkably stable. However, erosion has been a continual problem along beach shorefront in East Haven. The presence of many resid- ential structures on the beach there have further aggravated the signifi- cance of the problem. The largest magnitude of shoreline change resulting from erosion is being experienced along the marshes of Chaffinch Island in Guilford Harbor, where the marsh edge is retreating at an annual rate of approximately 3 feet (Bloom and Ellis 1965). Three public erosion control projects (Appendix D) have been developed in the area. One at West Silver Sands Beach, East Haven, and the others at Branford and Guilford Point Beaches. Each consisted of ciroin construction and/or sand fill, but the Guilford project also required dredging of silt prior to the placement of sand fill and could more properly be considered a beach building project. Funds have recently been appropriated for the mitigation of flooding and erosion occurring at Silver Sands Beach in the Momauguin area of East Haven. The Momaugin, Silver Sands Beach and Chaf- finch Island areas are considered to be significantly affected by erosion (Appendix C). GUILFORD POINT TO HATCHETT POINT, OLD LYME (DISTRICT E) General Character East of Guilford Point an abrupt change in the composition of Connect- icut's coast produces a more gentle, semi-linear shoreline configuration. _51- The presence of large amounts of glacial drift, primarily outwash and end moraine, contribute to the development of low, wave-cut bluffs which lie behind laterally extensive beaches. The shoreline of the district encompasses coastal frontage'in the towns of Madison, Clinton, Westbrook, Old Saybrook and Old Lyme. The population density in these municipalities is the lowest of any coastal segment. The immediate shoreline area is characterized by the presence of many year- round residential structures, and summer homes which are rapidly being converted to year-round use. Less than 50,000 inhabitants live in the district and the average value of coastal property is more than 80,000 dollars an acre. Heavy summer recreational use of beaches, and the proximity of homes to Long Island Sound, have generated much shoreline stabilization work. Many privately constructed groins, jetties, and seawalls occur throughout the district, dividing the natural shoreline into artificial segments. More than five miles of shorefront are in public ownership including a major state facility at Hammonasset State Park in Madison. -Physical Climate The climate of the shoreline along the western end of this district is very similar to that presented for District D. However, the influence of winds and waves from the southwest is stronger, since the fetch to the south- west is significantly increased over that which exists to the southeast. In addition, the area of the Sound in which waves may be generated by winds from the south decreases toward the east from the maximum of twenty miles in Madison. At the extreme eastern etid of the district in Old Lyme the shoreline is exposed in a southeasterly direction to the open Atlantic Ocean, through the Race at the Sound's eastern terminus. Logic would there- fore dictate that this exposure would produce a shorel'ine charact-erized by the influence of open ocean swell (long low waves), and more severe storm waves approaching from the ocean through the Race. Unfortunately, infor- mation gathered to date neither proves nor disproves this theory, even though several shoreline features may indicate its validity. Mean tidal range in the district decreases from 4.9 feet in Madison to slightly over 3 feet at Hatchett Point in Old Lyme. Tidally induced cur- rents continue to increase from a spring tidal maximum of more than 1.0 knot offshore in Madison to nearlyl .1 knots at Hatchett Point, East Lyme. Recent investigations (Farrar, 1977) have demonstrated that stronger ebb tidal currents act to measurably augment the influence of southwest waves on shoreline sediment transport. Similarly, they serve to reduce the effects of waves approaching from the southeast by flowing in opposition (on the ebb) to longshore currents produced by these waves. Very little of the shoreline directly fronting on Long Island Sound in the district is protected from locally generated waves, although several small north-south oriented shoreline sections, notably at Hammonasset State Park in Clinton, and west of Cornfield Point in Old Saybrook, afford some sheltering from winds and waves originating in eastern quadrants. -52- Composition and Morphology The curvilinear shoreline of this district is characterized by extensive exposures of glacial outwash in wave-cut bluffs which are fronted by wide, sandy fringing beaches. Also present in this district are moraine exposures and a few drumlinoid headlands composed of till. Several large barrier beaches have formed here protecting relatively large salt marsh deposits. Outwash is present in the eastern section of the district, but it is most prevalent west of Hammonasset Point. There, it is the primary shoreline material, as far west.as Chipman Point, Madis result of the homogeneity of this exposure , the shoreline maintains a linear configuration. Any deviation from this configuration is a re- sult of topographic influence. High points project further seaward than low points, creating small headlands. This is the case at Middle Beach, Madison where Tunxis Island represents a drowned continuation of the head- land. Sections of glacial moraine are exposed along the shoreline from Hammonasset Point east.to Old Ly .me, where they. occur in the area immediately east of t he Connecticut River. Their trend is generally parallel to shore, or on a line slightly north of east. The major impact of these morainal segments on the shoreline is their relative resistence to erosion. Cornfield Point, Old Kelsey Point, Kelsey Point, Hammonasset Point and Guardhouse Point all project into Long Island Sound as a result of their morainal composition. The ability of moraines to serve as sed- iment sources is limited by the large fraction of boulders which have been deposited at their bases providing natural protection. East of the Connecticut River in Old Lyme, two north-south oriented drumlinoid hills form more resistant points on the shoreline at Hatchett Point, and at an unnamed point approximately two miles east of Griswold Point. They are composed of glacial till, and theiroccurrence marks the beginning of a transition in shoreline composition from the predominantly outwash and moraine character of District E, to the till and bedrock character of the shoreline to the east. The till which forms these features has a larger boulder content, which has produced natural protection similar to that mentioned for the moraine deposits. Bedrock does not outcrop extensively anywhere in this shoreline district. There are substantial exposures both inland and offshore as islands, but no major exposures at the shoreline. As a result, bedrock has minimal influ- ence, either directly or indirectly, on shoreline configuration in this district. Several moderatley sized barrier beaches occur in the district at Plum Bank Beach and Great Hammock Beach in Old Saybrook, West and Grove Beaches in Clinton, along part of Hammonasset Beach in Madison, and at Griswold Point in Old Lyme. These features are associated primarily with the glacial, moraine deposits.although the source of sediment for the development.of the -53- barrier beach at Hammonasset State Park is an outwash deposit. Other beaches in the district are fringing beaches, lying immediately in front of deposits of glacial outwash, till and end moraine which pro- vide a source for their sediments. Tidal marshes are present throughout the district and have generally developed in protected areas behind the noted barrier beaches, and in the southern reaches of the district's tidal streams. Particularly well developed marshes are present in the Hammonasset River which flows into Clinton Harbor; east of Plum Bank in Old Saybrook; and in the Connecticut River behind the barrier beach at Griswold Point. Artificial fill'for residential development, roadway construction, and marina development is common in most marsh fringe areas. Large deposits of artificial fill, apparently derived from historic dredging of the navigation channel in the Connecticut River, are present on the Great Island Marsh. However, most of the fill has been recolonized by marsh vegetation. The offshore slope in the district between Hatchett Point and Hammon- asset Point is relatively gentle. However, west of Hammonasset Point, where the shore is backed primarily by outwash, the slope of the nearshore bottom is steeper than that observed in other outwash areas. Several hundred feet offshore in this area, the slope lessens to form an extensive shelf Littoral transport of material longshore is well developed in the dis- trict, due to both the linearity of the shoreline and its composition, whi .ch is almost totally comprised of erodible glacial materials. The dire cti on and magnitude of longshore transport are variable. West of the Patchogue River in Westbrook, on east-west trending shore- lines, net transport is largely eastward with several minor exceptions. East of the river the general movement varies from domfi-iantly east to prim- arily west depending on precise shoreline alignment. East of the Connecti- cut River, longshore transport is dominantly west as evidence by the lateral growth of the barrier beach at Griswold Point. Movement of materials onshore and offshore in the district has shown some evidence of being cyclic. Recent investigations at Hammonasset Beach (Farrar, 1977) have indicated that material removed from the beach by storm waves is restored during periods of calmer weather. Farrar makes two obser- vations concerning the process. First, the cycle is a function of wave steepness which depends on storm frequency, not season. Second, although there is cyclic behavior of the beach, there is also a net loss of material. It is likely that these phenomena,occur on other beaches in the area but such a conclusion is not fully documented. Nature and Occurrence of Erosion The erosion of beaches and low bluffs of glacial materials, with which they are associated, is common in the district. More than ten miles of shoreline here are significantly influenced be erosion (Appendix C), and numerous private attempts at controlling erosion are evidenced by the con- sistent presence of groins and seawalls in the area. Slightly 1'ess thani one million dollars in public funds has been expended for erosion control with a majority of that being used for protection at Hammonasset State Park (Appendix D). The relatively low rate of public expenditure is most likely 4 -54- a result of private ownership of shoreline and the reluctance of private interests to share in construction costs. Structural erosion control efforts, particularly"groins and seawalls, have succeeded in altering natural shoreline processes. In many areas they are responsible for aggravating the natural process of erosion by stabilizing sediment sources needed for natural beach replenishment, and artificially interrupting longshore drift. Several large scale changes in shoreline configuration have occurred along the barrier beaches of the district. They are most notable at Menunketesuck Island in Westbrook and at Griswold Point in Old Lyme. Analysis of old shoreline charts shows that the former was connected to shore at Grove Beach west of the Patchoque River, prior to 1929, by a small sandy strip of barrier beach. Subsequently, the beach was breached, probably by storm activity, creating an island. Griswold Point is pro- bably the most dynamic barrier beach in the state. It has developed from the lateral, westward growth of two small barrier spits which joined to form the present day barrier. Erosion rates as high as 3 feet per year (Demico, 1977) are experienced along the beacW and in the area to the east at White Sands Beach. These rates are well in excess of the average for Connecticut's coast. Other areas affected by significant erosion are (Appendix C): Circle Beach, Madison West Wharf, Madison Hammonasset Beach, Madison Middle Beach, Madison Seaview Beach, Madison Grove Beach, Clinton West Beach, Westbrook Chalker Beach, Old Saybrook Chapman Beach, Old Saybrook Plum Beach, Old Saybrook Great Hammock Beach, Old Saybrook HATCHETT POINT, OLD LYME TO GROTON LONG POINT (DISTRICT F) General Character Glacial till, in the form of large drumlins, is the principal shore- line material in this district. Bedrock is present in several locations, but its appearance is markedly secondary to the massive exposures of till. The large drumlins project Soundward dividing the district into several cuspate sections, and affording protection for moderately extensive bar- rier beaches which have formed near the mouths of the smaller rivers entering the Sound in the area. The Thames River, which dissects the district between New London and Groton, is one of the three largest tributaries to Long Island Sound. For the most part, development in immediate shorefronting areas is less intense than that evident in preceding districts. The effect of lower inten- sity development is reflected in the less frequent occurrence of shoreline stabilization structures. -55- The towns of East Lyme, Waterford, New London and Groton, which comprise the district, have a combined population of more than 100,000 people and the average value of shorefront land is estimated to be 150,000 dollars per acre. A majority of the shoreline in the district is in private ownership. However, more than 5 miles of shoreline are in public use, including two state parks: Rocky Neck in East Lyme and Harkness Memorial in Waterford. Bluff Point in Groton is the largest single tract of undeveloped land in the coastal area. The Point has been acquired by the state and is a designated coastal preserve. Physical Climate The shoreline of District F occupies a position very near the extreme eastern terminus of Long Island Sound. It is therefore exposed to a rela- tively large fetch (nearly 100 miles) from the southwest. Most of the shoreline is also exposed to southerly waves entering Long Island Sound from the open Atlantic ocean through the "Race." Exposure to open ocean waves is limited, however, by strong ebb tidal currents which flow in a direction opposite to wave propogation and can cause-wave steepening and breaking in the "Race." This process may prevent larger waves from reaching shore during ebb tidal cycles. The eastern segment of the district between New London and Groton is afforded protection from southeast winds and waves by Fishers Island which limits the maximum fetch in this direction to approximately four miles. On a regional basis the area is most exposed to the southwest quadrant which is dominated by lower energy summer wind and wave activity. It is least exposed to the east and southeast directions from which less frequent storm winds and waves approach. The north-south orientation of drumlinoid hills offers additional protection to shoreline areas on their east and west flanks. Shorelines on the western sides of the hills are protected from waves generated in eastern quadrants. Similarly, shorelines on the eastern sides of the hills are protected from waves approaching from western quadrants. Northwest winter winds and waves generally have a very limited influence on the shoreline, except on the western flanks of the drumlinoid hills. For the most part northwest winds and waves propogate offshore. Tidal ranges in the district decrease from a mean of.slightly over 3 feet at Hatchett Point in Old Lyme to 2.6 feet at Groton Long Point. Tidal currents continue to increase from west to east as in preceding districts. Maximum flood tidal currents of greater than 1.5 knots are observed at Hatchett Point in Old Lyme and Black Point in East Lyme. Ebb tidal currents reach a maximum of 1.7 knots near Goshen Point in Waterford. Current velo- cities of these magnitudes are certainly capable of contributing to the movement of shoreline materials. Composition and Morphology Large, elongate drumlinoid hills, composed of glacial till are the dominant feature of the shoreline area between Hatchett Point and Groton Long Point. The long axes of these hills trend generally north-south, forming a topographic grain which is similar to that of District A. -56- The hills are more resistant to erosion and project Sound-ward producing well developed points or headlands at Black Point in East Lyme, Goshen Point in Waterford and at Avery, Bluff and Groton Long Points in Groton. Except in areas occupied by drumlins the covering of glacial materials is thin, and bedrock is exposed at several locations in the form of islands, such as Griswold and Huntley Islands in East Lyme, and as more resistant and pronounced points at Land's End and Grant's Neck in East Lyme, and at Millstone Point in Waterford. Bedrock is also evident along the more southern perimeters of the drumlinoid features where it has been exposed by marine erosion at McCook Point in East Lyme; Magonk and Seaside Points in Waterford; Long Rock and Quinnipeag Rocks in New London; and at Eastern Avery and Bluff Points in Groton. A number of variably sized tidal streams which range in magnitude from the Thames River to Brides Brook, a small meandering tidal creek, dissect the district and flow into small bays and coves which are separated by drumlins. The most notable embayments occur at the mouth of the Niantic River on the Waterford-East Lyme border (Niantic Bay), and at the mouth of the Thames River. Other small coves occur at the mouth of Jordan Brook (Jordan Cove) in Waterford, and at the mouths of the Patagaunsett and Pocquonock Rivers in East Lyme and Groton respectively. Mumford Cove in Groton occupies the embayment between Bluff Point and Groton Long Point. The numerous exposures of till in the district have provided sub- stantial sources of beach material for the development of several small to moderatley large scale barrier beaches on the east and west flanks of exposed headlands throughout the area. A number of these barrier beaches can be more precisely termed baymuth bar-r-lers since they formed across the mouths of rivers and streams forming more protected coves and embayments. Lxamples of such features are The Bar in Niantic Bay, the small beach at the mouth of Jordon Cove in Waterford and Bushy Point Beach at the mouth of the Poquonock River in Groton. Other barrier beaches occur in the district at Groton Long Point in Groton; Ocean Beach in New London; south of Goshen Cove in Waterford;and extending immediately to the west of Black Point in East Lyme. Salt,marsh d'eposits in the district.are'limited*in their occurrence. They are present in minor expanses in the lower reaches of the smaller rivers and streams in the area. No significant marshes are present in the lower Thames River. The lack of saltmarsh in this estuary is probably a result of its naturally steep stream banks and the heavy commercial, indus- trial and residential development which occurs there. Artificial fill is relatively scarce as a shoreline material in the area except for a moderate concentration which has been placed in the Thames River in conjunction with waterfront development. The placement of fill for railway embankments on The Bar in Waterford has rendered this barrier beach essen- tially stable. The topographic relief of the shoreline in the area is relatively steep as indicated by the proximity of the 20 foot contour elevation to shoreline. Steep onshore relief is reflected by a steep offshore bathymetry particularly -57- at the southerly ends of the major headlands in the district. Within the confines of several bays and coves at Niantic Bay, Jordon Cove and Mumford Cove, and between Giants Neck and Land's End in East Lyme, off- shore slope is considerably gentler forming exceptions to the general rule. Littoral transport of sediments is again variable in magnitude and direction as is the case for all of Connecticut's coast. The steep off- shore slope which exists in most areas is conducive to the development of strong offshore movement of sediments. Longshore transport, as a general rule, diverges at headlands flowing,on the average, to the north and west on their westerly sides and to the north and east on their eastern flanks. However, local and seasonal reversals in the direction of long- shore transport are not uncommon. As previously noted, a number of barrier beach features have developed in bays and coves to the east and west of headlands as a result of historic patterns and volumes of longshore trans- port. At present the volumes of material available to the system is thought to be generally small due to the natural protection of headlands which is afforded by exposed bedrock and the concentration of boulder lag in point areas. As a result of this natural limitation of sediment supply and the sporadic presence of stabilization works, beaches in the district are com- monly narrow, and little large scale change in the configuration of most barrier beaches has occurred in recent years. The development of scattered small offshore islands and rocky shoals in the district are evidence of the influence of rising sea level on coastal configuration, as are the locations of embayments which occur in areas of low relief. Nature and Occurrence of Erosion The relative resistance of glacial till to erosion coupled with the protection from southeast storm waves afforded by Fishers Island have re- duced the impact of shoreline erosion in the district. No major large-scale changes have been evidenced in the district although marine erosion has resulted in the development of steep bluffs at the southern ends of several of the major headlands in the area. These bluffs are commonly associated with bedrock exposures and large deposits of boulder lag indicating the extent of recent erosion. The principle resul:t of erosion at headlands has been a depletion of source materials available to beaches, due to the exposure of bedrock and the deposition of boulder lag which now protect their shorelines under normal conditions. Currently most significant erosion is being experienced at beach locations. More than 609,,000 dollars in state and municipal funds have been expended to construct protection works at six locations in the district: Giants Neck and McCook Point in East Lyme; Esker and Avery Points in Groton; Neptune Beach in New London;and Seaside Regional Center in Waterford. Recent analysis indicates that significant erosion is being experienced along approximately five miles of coast between Hatchett Point and Groton Long Point. Nearly three miles of the significantly eroding shorefront are encom- passed by barrier beaches at Goshen 'Poin't and J6rdan Co@e fn Waterford; Ocean Beach in New London;and Bushy Point Beach in Groton. -58- Other shoreline areas which are significantly affected by erosion include: Oak Grove Beach, East Lyme Pond Point, East Lyme GROTON LONG POINT TO THE PAWCATUCK RIVER, STONINGTON (DISTRICT G) General Character The geologic composition and configuration of the shoreline east of Groton Long Point is dominated by bedrock. The irregularity of the coast is very similar to that evidenced in the Greenwich, Stamford and Darien areas at the western end of the Sound. Scattered salt marsh deposits occur in the district and beaches are notably limited in their appearance as shore- line landforms. Development of the immediate shoreline area is perhaps the least intense of any.of the seven shoreline districts. However, concentrated residential use occurs at Morgan Point in Groton, Stonington Point in Stonington and in the Mystic River estuary on the Stonington-Groton border. Development of shorefront for marine purposes (marina and fisheries uses) is most common in the Mystic River and on the west side of Stonington Point. In these locations artificial fill and shoreline structures such as piers, seawalls and bulkheads are most noticeable. More than 20,000 residents, most of whom live in Stonington, inhabit the district. Shorefront ownership is predominantly private, with several inter- spersed municipal beach facilities and one major state hunting area. The latter is comprised primarily of salt marsh acreage at Barn Island in Stonington. Estimated values of shorefront property may exceed 170,000 dollars per acre depending on location. Physical Climate The coastline between Groton Long Point and the Pawcatuck River is the most protected area on the Connecticut shore of Long Island Sound. The presence of Fishers Island, which occupies the eastern end of the Harbor Hill Moraine, appro- ximately two to three miles south of the coasts of Groton and Stonington provides effective sheltering for the shoreline in the area. As a result of this shel- tering and protection afforded by Napatree Beach, the east-west trending barrier beach between Napatree and Watch Hill Points in Rhode Island, the influence of south and southeasterly winds and waves is substantially reduced. To the west and southwest the shore is exposed to a much larger fetch (approximately 100 miles). However winds and waves approaching from these directions are generally less severe since they are produced by calmer summer weather conditions. The north-south orientation of several major hills which occur at shore throughout the district serves to further alter the influence of waves on the shoreline. The hills' eastern flanks are protected from westerly winds and waves while their western sides are similarly protected from easterly wave and wind phenomena. -59- Northwest winds and waves which dominate the winter months on Long Island Sound have little influence on most of the shoreline, except on the western sides of the seaward projecting hills and islands. For the most part winds and wind generated waves from this direction propogate offshore towards Fishers Island where their influence on the island's north shore is more pronounced. Tidal range in the district varies slightly.from a mean of 2.3 feet at the entrance to the Mystic River to 2.7 feet at the mouth of the Paw- catuck River on the Connecticut Rhode Island boundary. Associated tidal currents are, on the average, relatively strong within Fishers Island Sound. Maximum ebb and flood tidal velocities of greater than 1.5 knots are observed in mid-sound areas while velocities of approximately 0.5 knots or less occur nearer shore in Groton and Stonington. Ebb current velocities in excess of 2 knots, and flood current velocities slightly less than 2 knots, are commonly observed during spring tides at the eastern end of Fishers Island. No field investigations have been conducted to determine the influence of these currents on shoreline erosion, but their magnitudes suggest they play an important role in the process. Composition and Morphology The presence of bedrock at shore and in upland areas near the coast typify the district. The bedrock is characteristically covered by a relat- ively thin layer of glacial till, but its resistance to erosion and control of shoreline configuration are evident. Elongate hills form projecting north- south oriented headlands at Morgan Point in Groton and Wamphassuck Neck, Stonington and Pawcatuck Points in Stonington. At the southern extremes of most headlands, bedrock has been exposed by primarily wave induced marine erosion. Exposed bedrock is also common along the perimeters of most of the islands in the area. Between headlands a series of small to moderately sized coves and harbors occupy low lying areas whose shores are comprised of glacial outwash and salt marsh. 1-hese coves and harbors occupy the most southerly tErminus of the Mystic River and several other smaller tidal streams which enter Fishers Island Sound in the district. They are best developed at Mystic Harbor on the Groton- Stonington border and at Stonington Harbor and Quiambog and Wequetequock Coves in Stonington. A number of islands are present near the shore principally in Stonington. They occupy the higher points of former hills which have been submerged as a result of rising sea level. The islands are similar in composition (bedrock and till) and orientation (north-south) to the previously noted headland features. Mason Island, located near the mouth of the Mystic River,is the state's largest island. Other smaller but noteworthy islands occur immed- iately to the south and east of Mason Island (Ram, Baker, Dodges and.Andrew Islands) and on the west side of Wequetequock Cove (Elihu Island). Few beaches occur along the shoreline reflecting the limited availability of natural sediments necessary for their formation. The beaches that have developed in the area are most consistently found in small protected coves and -60- harbors between the major headland features. Their composition is commonly very coarse consisting of cobbles or pebbles. Most of the beaches are of the fringing variety located immediately in contact with deposits of glacial till or outwash, although several minor barrier beaches protect salt marshes on the east side of Mason Island and approximately one quarter of a mile west of Quiambog Cove. Sandy Point, a barrier island, formerly connected to Napatree Point, extends slightly across the Connecticut-Rhode Island boundary just east of Stonington Point. The island was created in 1938 as a result of breaching by the hurricane which occurred in September of that year. Technically, Sandy Point is not a part of District G. Rather, it marks a distinct tran- sition from the rocky irregular shorelines of Groton and Stonington to the nearly continuous sandy barrier beach shoreline of western Rhode Island. Saltmarshes in the district are generally small in areal extent. They consist chiefly of thin veneers of sandy peat material punctuated by pro- jecting boulders and bedrock. Most marsh deposits are confined to protected locations between headlands.in or in the lee of islands. Structural alteration of shorefront is minor as evidenced by the small amount of artificial fill present in the district (Table 4). Most filling for development and alteration of the coastline has occurred in the estuary of the Mystic River, in Stonington Harbor and on the east side of Stonington Point. The only other extensive deposits of artificial fill are those which were placed during the construction of the New York, New Haven and Hartford rail line, which dissects the district and crosses nearly every salt marsh near the shore. Patterns of littoral transport in the district are exceedingly difficult to discern. The offshore slope varies greatly throughout the district, corre- sponding roughly with shoreline configuration. Coves and harbors exhibit gentle slopes resulting from increased sedimentation in their protected low energy environments. The combined effects of greater topographic relief and the focusing of wave energy at points have produced steeper bottom topography in offshore areas south of headlands. Because of the variation in offshore slopes and their influence on littoral transport perpendicular to shore, it appears that onshore transport dominates in cove and harbor areas, and off- shore movement is more prominent in headland areas. Movement of shoreline materials by wave and tide caused longshore currents is very small in magnitude. The reduced role of longshore transport is due to a number of factors. First, the composition of the shoreline renders it highly resistant to erosion. Bedrock protects the coast in a number of areas, and substantial deposits of accumulated boulders provide natural protection in others. Hence, the availability of sediment to the longshore transport system is small. Second, waves, the primary agent of longshore transport, are normally small and of lower energy in nature. These characteristics result because of,the �heltering affo@ded by Fishers Island and Napatree Beach. Waves therefore are-less c"apable of.trah5portinq the coarser 'shbreline-materials of the district along shore. Finally, the irregular configuration of the shore prohibits the development of any continuous system of longshore trans- port. Net directions of longshore movement of materials are extremely variable. However, sediment is generally transported to the north on north-south -61- oriented shoreline segments, and to the west on east-west trending seqments. .The dominance of westerly transport on east-west trending coastlines suggests that waves entering Fishers Island Sound from the south-east through the straight between the eastern end of Fishers Island and Napatree Point have a strong influence on longshore transport. Nature and Occurrence of Erosion Because of the protected nature of the eastern Groton and Stonington shore, and as a result of the rocky compositi.on, erosion has had limited influence on the area. No recent significant changes in shoreline config- uration have been noted. Over the past thirty years only one state-funded, public erosion control project has been initiated in the area. The project consisted of the placement of 7,400 cubic yards of sand along the shore at Esker Point Park in Groton for the purposes of creating a public beach. Prior to the placement of the sand fill more than 14,000 cubic yards of silt were removed from the area. Hence, the action could more properly be considered a beach construction rather than an erosion control project'. Only one portion of the shoreline of Stonington is considered to be significantly affected by erosion. It consists of the most northerly tip of the north-south trending barrier island, Sandy Point. -62- E R 0 S 1 0 N PROB-LEM Shoreline erosion in Connecticut has expressed itself most significantly in the form of erosion affecting beaches and related bluffs which are sources of beach sediment. Statistics compiled for the Long Island Sound Regional Study (LISRS) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1975 indicated that approximately 26 miles, or 10 percent of our shoreline, could be classified as subject to 11critical erosion." The LISRS further states: The erosion is mainly confined to beaches that are receeding at an estimated rate of one to one and one- half feet per year." A more recent inventory conducted by the Coastal Area Management Program has concluded the following. Connecticut has a total 278 miles of shoreline which front on Long Island Sound. Of that total approximately 85 miles are beach, 69 miles are composed of glacial drift, 30 miles are salt marsh,44 miles consist of bedrock and the remaining 50 miles are dominated by artificial fill. Potentially, the beach, salt marsh,glacial drift and artificial fill portions of the shoreline are erodible, while bedrock can be considered non-erodible. Based on a comparative analysis of historical shoreline data, aerial photographs and information obtained from other sources listed in the preceding section, 48 miles, or approximately 17 percent, of our shore- line are significantly affected by erosion. Table 6 gives further details on measurement techniques and definitions and statistical breakdowns by town. Examination of the figures contained in the table indicates the following towns encompass a majority of the state's significantly eroding shoreline. Milford 6.5 miles West Haven 4.6 miles Fairfield 4.6 miles Madison 4.0 miles Old Lyme 3.5 miles Stratford 3.2 miles Westport 2.7 miles Stamford 2.7 miles It is also worthy of note that 30 percent of the total shoreline miles classified as significantly eroding is attributable to erosion being experienced along the state's larger barrier beaches. A complete listing of those sites considered to be significantly eroding is contained in Appendix C. Relatively speaking, shore erosion on the north side of Long Island Sound is not as critical, in terms of magnitude, as that encountered along shorelines exposed to the open ocean. For instance, the outer shore of Cape Cod is subject to average erosion rates on the order of three feet or more per year -- these rates are three times that experienced along Connecticut's coast. The difference is primarily a result of fetch lim- iting by Long Island. That is, Long Island functions as a wind break -63- TABLE 6 SHORELINE COMPOSITION AND EROSION STATISTICS DOM I NANT SHOREL I N__E_COMPOS I T TON SHORELINE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANTLY GLACIAL SALT ARTIFICIAL ERODIBLE AFFECTED SHORELINE TOWN BEACH DRIFT2 MARSH5 FILL SHOREL I NE 3 BY EROSION 3 BEDROCK4 TOTAL7 mi. (km) mi. (km) mi. (km) mi. (km) mi. (km) mi. (km) % mi..(km) mi. (km) Greenwich 1.7 (2.7) 7.3(11.8) 2.7 (4.4) 7.0(11.3) 18.7 (30.3) 0.8 (1.3) 3-5. 3.8 (6.1) 22.5 (36, 5) Stamford 3.2 (5.2) 1.1 (1.8) 0.3 (0.5) 3.8 (6.1) 8.4 (13.6) 2.7 (4.3)26.? 1.9 (3.1) 10.3 (16.7) Darien 0.6 (1.0) 4.9 (7.9) 1.1 (1.8) 1.1 (1.8) 7.7 (12.5) 5.9 (9.5) 13.6 (22.0) Norwalk 15.0(24.3) 9.7(15.7) 1.6 (2.6) 3.4 (5.5) 29.8 (48.4) 0.4 (0.6) 1.1 3.8 (6.1) 33.6 (54.4) @Iestport 5.0 (8.2) 4.3 (6.9) 2.1 (3.4) 2.6 (4.2) 14.1 (22.9) 2.7 (4.3)19.1 ---- 14.1 (22.8) Fairfield 4.2 (6.8) 1.6 (2.6) 0.7 (1.1) 1.3 (2.1) 7.8 (12.6) 4.6 (7.4)58.9 ---- 7.8 (12.6) Bridgeport 3.0 (4.8) 2.1 (3.4) 0.3 (0.5) 8.7(14.0) 14.1 (22.8) 2.4 (3.8)17.0 ---- 14.1 (22.9) Stratford 4.0 (6.5) 0.7 (1.1) 3.2 (5.2) 3.6 (5.8) 11.5 (18.6) 3.2 (5.1)Z7.8 ---- 11.5 (18.6) Milford 5.9 (9.6) 3.3 (5.4) 1.9 (3.1) 0.8 (1.3) 12.0 (19.4) 6.5(10.4)52.4 0.4 (0.7) 12.4 (20.1) West Haven 4.5 (7.4) 1.1 (1.8) 0.1 (0.2) 0.4 (0.7) 6.3 (10.2) 4.6 (7.4)71.8 0.2 (0.3) 6.4 (10.4) New Haven 1.8 (2.9) 0.8 (1.3) --- 3.4 (5.5) 6.0 (9.7) 1.0 (1.6)15.8 0.3 (0.5) 6.3 (10.2) East Haven 1.0 (1.6) 0.2 (0.3) 0.2 (0.3) --- 1.4 (2.3) 0.9 (1.5)39.1 0.9 (1.5) 2.3 (3.7) Branford 2.6 (4.2) 2.3 (3.7) 2.0 (3.Z) 1.1 (1.8) 8-0 (13.D) --- 12.9(20.9) 20.9 (33.9) Guilford 0.8 (1.3) 0.9 (1.5) 1.5 (2.4) 1.9 (3.1) 5.1 (8.3) 1.3 (2.1) 13.0 4.9 (7.9) 10.0 (16.2) Madison 4.9 (7.9) 1.1 (1.8) .2 (0.3) 0.8 (1.3) 7.0 (11.3) 4.0 (6.4)52.6 0.6 (1.0) 7.6 (12.3) Clinton 2.7 (4.4) 0.8 (1.3) 1.3 (2.1) 1.2 (1.9) 6.0 (9.7) 1.2 (1.9) 20.0 ---- 6.0 (9.7) Westbrook 3.8 (6.2) 1.7 (2.8) --- --- 5.6 (9.1) 1.4'(2.2)25.0 ---- 5.6 MI) Old Saybrook 3.8 (6-2) 1.5 (2.4) 1.4 (2.3) 1.4 (2.3) 8.1 (13.1) 2.0 (3.2)24..6 ---- 8.1 (13.1) Old Lyme 3.8 (S.2) 1.4 (2.3) 2.1 (3.4) 0.1 (0.2) 7.4 (12.0) 3.5 (5.7) 47.3 --- 7.4 (12.0) East Lyme 3.0 (4.7) 2.7 (4.4) 1.3 (2.1) 0.2 (0.3) 7.1 (11.5) 0.5 (0.8) 'S.4 2.0 (3.2) 9.1 (14.7) Waterford 2.5 (4.0) 2.7 (4.4) 0.2 (0.3) 0.6 (1.0) 6.0 (9.7) 1.2 (1.9)17.6 0.8 (1.3) 6.8 (11.0) New London 1.7 (2.7) 1.2 (1.9) ---- 1.7 (2.7) 4.5 (7.3) 0.5 (0.7)10.0 0.4 (0.7) 5.0 (8.1) Groton 3.8 (6.1) 7.6(12.3) 2.5 (4.0) 2.6 (4.2) 16.5 (26.8) 1.2 (1.9) 6.6 1.8 (2.9) 18.3 (29.6) Stonington 2.9 (4.7) 7.4(12.0) 3.0 (4.9) 1.8 (3.0) 15.2 (24.6) 0.3 (0.5) 1.6 3.0 (4.9) 18.2 (29.5) TOTALS 36.2 ( 139.6 68.4 (110.8) 29.7(48.'l) 49.5(80.1) 234.3(379.4) 46.9(75.0)16.8 43.6(70.6) 277.9 (450.1) 1 -Shoreline composition categories indicate dominant shoreline types (i.e. minute. narrow.beach shorefront. backed immediatel by glacial till, is considered to be dominantly glacial drift). Measurements were compiled from Surficial Geology and Soils.maps of a scale o@ 1:2_000. 2. Glacial drift Includes all types of glacial material: outwash. till, end moraine. etc. 3. Beach, glacial drift. salt marsh and artificial fill are all considered to be potentially erodible. 4. Bedrock is considered to be non-erod1ble or to have limited potential for erosion. 5. Salt marsh measurements are generalized and do not include frontages an minor streams and ditches. 6. Only large islands, such as Masons Island ( Stonington), and large island groups, such as the Norwalk and Thimble Islands, are included in the shoreline measurement. 7. Shoreline measurements include river frontage up to the first bridge, usually 1-95. 8. Significant erosion occurs where erosion presents significant problem because the rate of erosion, considered in conlunction with economic, industrial, recreational, demograpnic, environmental, and other relevant factors indicates that action to miticate such erosion may be 'Justified. -64- which effectively controls the generation of surface waves in the Sound. Consequently, smaller shorter waves predominate in the Sound and lit- toral transport along the shoreline is generally very weak. However, the persistent occurrence of these shorter steeper waves can, and does, contribute appreciably to long term erosion trends. As a secondary characteristic, fetch limiting confines major erosion to those periods when storms and hurricanes occur. It also markedly reduces the gen- eration of swell (long, low waves) which can act to move materials onshore to replenish eroded areas. Near the mouths of the three major coastal rivers, the Connecticut, Thames and Housatonic and at several of the large seaward projecting headlands, strong tidal currents act to supplement weak, wave-induced littoral transport and may, at times, play a dominant role in the erosion process. In conjunction with the erosion process, rising sea level is also affecting the shoreline. Recently (within the last 100 years), sea level in Long Island Sound has been rising at the rate of one to one and one-half feet per century. On initial consideration an annual in- crease in sea level of .08 to .16 inches seems insignificant. However the impact of such a fluctuation is more evident when its effect on a sloping land surface is considered. For example, an increase in sea level of one to one and, one-half feet over a century would "drown" 20 to 30 feet of shorefront with a slope of 1:20 (one foot increase in elevation for every 20 horizontal feet). Although Connecticut's shoreline experiences lower erosion rates as a result of sheltering by Long Island, the intense use and development of the coast offset these lower rates and focus the impact of smaller scale changes. This phenomenon is particularly evident along the more intensely developed coastal segments west of New Haven. Historically, structural stabilization (groins, seawalls, breakwaters, etc.) has accompanied recreational, residential, commercial and industrial uses of the shoreline, almost as a corollary. As a result, structural stabilization plays a major role in the erosion-sedimentation process affecting our shore. Revetments (sloping seawalls) and seawalls have been used to stabilize many of the sediment sources which naturally supplied materials to beaches and dunes through wave and tidal current-induced erosion and transport. Groins and jetties which are utilized to protect beaches and retard longshore transport of material have worked, but often at the expense of originating erosion on adjoining parcels. In addition, figures compiled as part of the LISRS (Table 7) indicate that total erosion damages (estimated in 1970 dollars) of $1.8 million are experienced along our coast annually. Of that total approximately 20 percent is attribu- table to the cost of reparing existing erosion control structures. Allowing for inflation and variations in annual climatic conditions, the cost of annual damages in 1979 dollars could easily be three times as great. In short, structural methods used to prevent erosion are not only costly but have commonly been utilized without adequate attention to natural processes, or without the benefit of a clearer understanding of coastal processes which exist today. Further, lack of necessary annual maintenance or erosion control structures has resulted in structural failure and in near critical structural conditions at many locations. -65- ESTIMATED AINNUAL COASTAL EROSION DAMAGES (in 1,000's of 1970 dollars) 1970 damages Projected future damages Sub-Coastline 1 Land loss To erosion Damage Total region length Acres/yr. Ave. Total structures to 1970 1990 2020 (see map below) value and grounds facilities 1 1.0 100 100 80 40 220 330 900 2 3.0 60 180 120 50 350 530 2250 3 2.0 100 200 130 70 400 600 1140 4 3.5 70 230 150 80 460 690 450 5 2.5 90 230 150 80 460 690 450 Total 1.2.0 420 1140 630 320 1890 2840 5190 r- C 0 N N E C T -A C u T 4 400P TABLE 7 (Source: New England River Basins Commission, 1975) Clearly the erosion "problem" is a manifestation of the interaction of a number 6f variables. However, it may be briefly characterized as a storm-induced beach erosion problem which has been intensified by the high use demands for recreational beach in the state, by the intense use of all shorefront areas for recreational, commercial, residential and industrial purposes, and by the high degree of structural shoreline stabilization. In terms of its spatial occurrence most significant erosion'is limited to two general segments of the shoreline. The first segment lies west of New Haven and includes shorefront in the towns of Westport, Fairfield, Bridgeport, Stratford, Milford and West Haven. The second segment en- compasses the shoreline area between Guilford and Old Lyme. Geographically these two segments correspond with shoreline districts B,C and E which were discussed in the prededing section. Their composition is largely glacial drift (primarily outwash) and beaches. Damages arising from erosion in these areas account for nearly 65 percent of the total annual damages experienced as a result of erosion. EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES Many techniques may be applied to shorelines in an attempt to control or mitigate the effects of erosion. In general, they fall into two cat- egories. structural alternatives are those involving the construction of a concrete, timber, sheet steel or rock structure which diverts erosive forces or contains the shoreline which is eroding. Non-structural alter- natives are those which involve no structures at all, such as placement of sand fill, dune building or restoration, and control of land use in such a manner as to allow erosion to continue without affecting buildings or facilities. Over the long term neither structural nor non-s -tructural techniques will halt shoreline recession. Rising sea level in conjunction with storms, winds, waves and tidal currents will continue, on a geologic time scale, to rearrange and submerge Connecticut's shoreline. With this in mind, the approach to be used in dealing with eroding shoreline will depend on the economic value and use of the shoreline for which protection is considered, and the monies available for implementation of protection. Appendix D contains a listing of shoreline protection works constructed with state and federal funds, their costs, locations and descriptions. Structural Techniques Seawalls, Revetments, Bulkheads As a group, these erosion control structures are wall-type retaining works built immediately adjacent and parallel to shore. Seawalls are the largest and most massive of the three. They are normally constructed of steel-reinforced cement and are designed to physically withstand the direct force of storm surge and waves. As a rule their configuration is that of a vertical wall although some sloping and curved-face seawall types are used. Because of their size and design purpose seawalls are the most expensive wall-type structures. -67- Bulkheads (Figure 14) are similar in appearance to seawalls. They may be constructed of piles and timber, sheet steel and masonary or cement. Their purpose, however, is decidedly different from seawalls. They are erected to perform tow functions. First, to contain material which is placed in the filling and grading of.a shorefront parcel and, second, to protect the shoreline and fill material from erosion. Bulk- heads are somewhat less substantial and massive than seawalls and, hence, are used to protect and stabilize areas which are not exposed to larger, more powerful waves. Since Long Island Sound, as a whole, is sheltered from the open ocean, bulkheads are used to protect shorefront throughout the area and are perhaps the most common type of shore protection. They are less expensive than seawalls to construct and thus are more economi- cally attractive to shoreline land owners. A third type of wall-like protection is the revetment. Several types of revetments are in common use along Connecticut's coast. Most prevalent are the dumped rubble mound (Figure 13), and keyed and placed types. Both are constructed of large blocks of granite or other durable quarried stone. The keyed and placed type is, as the name implies, constructed of stone which is cut in such a way as to form an interlocking, sloping surface. The dumped rubble mound revetment consists of stone which is dumped to form a sloping mound in front of the shore to be protected. Both types of revetments are constructed on a gravel base which prevents soil from being washed out from behind the structure. The sloping configuration of revetments is most ideal for absorbing wave energy since it allows waves to run up on the structure and,. hence, absorbs their energy rather than reflecting it as do bulkheads and seawalls. Revetments are less commonly used as shore protection than bulkheads, but they have been used most effectively to protect several major exposed headlands such as Pond Point in Milford and Oyster River Point in West Haven. The costs of revetments vary depending on their height and linear extent, but generally material for their construction costs from 20 to 30 dollars per cubic yard. All three wall-type structures can and have provided effective control of erosion along Connecticut's coast provided that they are properly con- structed and maintained. Annual and post storm maintenance-is critical to the effectiveness of all erosion protection works. In many instances lack of maintenance results in reversion to conditions which existed before the installation of protective works. In some cases, loans incurred for construction of public protection works of this type have not been com- pletely paid off before a structure needs additional and substantial maintenance. None of the structures noted provide effective protection for beaches in and of themselves. They are not designed to contain and hold beach materials but are best used to protect structures such as houses, roads and parking lots which are in close proximity to shore. Seawalls and bulkheads may actually induce erosion at their bases because of scouring by waves which are reflected from their vertical faces. Often this induced scouring ex- poses the wall or bulkhead foundation and results in structural failure. Revetments, on the'other hand, are less subject to this phenomenon since they are sloping surfaces. As such, they can provide excellent protection -68- FIGURE 13 4'-6" Rounding Topsoil and Seed 1'- 6" min. v. 9.00, Elev. 8.75' ----1 4.. 1'-0" min. Stone Rip-Rop 2 Ft. Thick (25% > 300 lbs., 25 %- 301b @Poured Concrete 50% wt. - 150 lbs.) 2 (Contraction it.every 10') Existing Beach Gravel Blanket I Ft. Thick (200 Sieve to 3 ", 50 % -1-1/2 ,r- Elev. 0.00' M.S.L. ---4 Over Regraded Bank E I e v. -1.001 TYPICAL REVETMENT FIGURE 14 TOP Elevation of Bulhheod - Average Height a IF 11 Highest Year y Starlit Tides Plus wow Runup. Tie Rod, Ile Pile Pde I Riprop Sheeting Wave, Level Anchor Pile SECTION ELEVATION Wo Ille Pile -A g .711;@ :11.1 MAS. Sheelin U `)k NOTE: Tie Rod 01-c-3-0-s 0 Details To Be Date, ""' it By Particular site Conditions. Wale fAnchm F"Ies PLAN TYPICAL BULKHEAD U Ele (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975) -69- for the bases of seawalls and bulkheads and are perhaps the most effect- ive alternative for direct shoreline.protection Sound-wide. The primary drawback to the use of seawalls, bulkheads and revetments is that they are often used to stabilize erodible deposits which form important sources of material for adjoining beaches, thereby aggravating erosion. Typical designs of a rip-rap revetment and pile and timber bulkhead are shown in Figures 13 and 14. Depending on availability of materials and site conditions, such as topography, depth of water in the shoreli.ne area to be protected, and the degree of exposure to waves and storm surge, costs of these alternatives are: Estimated cost per linear foot of protection2 Steel Bulkhead $350-500 Timber Bulkhead $250 (average) Stone Revetment $150-400 Groins, Jetties Groins are constructed perpendicular to shore and usually consist of stone, piles and timber or sheet steel pilings. They are used to divert materials which are transported along shore by waves and tidal currents or to hold beach material which is placed between them. Jetties may also be used to perform the same function as groins. The difference between the two is that jetties are used to stabilize navigation channels and inlets. Both types of structures are very common along all of the shoreline but they are particularly abundant where beaches occur naturally. Since the availability of materials which may be eroded to form beaches is low along the coast, due to the presence of stabilization works and the occurrence of bedrock, groins constructed without sand fill provide little additional protection and are normally ineffective in trapping and holding beach material. When used with sand fill, groins temporarily provide pro- tection but inevitably additional fill must be placed to replenish lost material. Groins are completely ineffective in the prevention of onshore and offshore transport which move material perpendicular to shore., @s a result, they cannot mitigate storm overwash and erosion and transportation of material from the beach and nearshore to the offshore. In addition, short term beach realignment is invariably associated with the construction of groins. This realignment is caused by croin-initiated erosion of the beach on the downdrift side and accretion on the updrift side. Groins are undoubtedly the most prevalent form of erosion protection in Connecticut. Their profuse occurrence has divided the shoreline into a number of artificial segments which have largely altered the natural process of erosion and sedimentation. 2Based on discussions with local marine contractors -70- Figures 15, 16 and 17 show typical section and elevation views of stone, timber and steel, and timber groins. Cost of construction are highly site dependent. Estimated cost per liY ear foot of protection Sheet Steel groin $300-350 Pile and Timber gr6in $250-300 Stone groin $250-500 Breakwaters .Breakwaters are structures erected for the purposes of protecting harbors, anchorages and port facilities from wave forces by providing a surface against which waves break. Breakwaters may be constructed of stone, piles and timber or concrete. Two types of breakwaters are com- mon, those which are connected to shore and those which are not connected to shore. Offshore breakwaters are generally of the rubble mound (stone) type construction while breakwaters which are not exposed to open waters may be constructed of less durable pile and timber. Floating breakwaters have been used for protection in areas outside Long Island Sound, but they require intensive maintenance since they are more easily pulled apart by wave forces. Breakwaters are the most expensive type of shore protection. Primarily because they must be placed in deeper water and must be able to absorb larger wave forces. Breakwaters provide shore erosion protection in two ways: by providing wave sheltered areas where littoral materials may be deposited, and by ihterupting longshore transport and trapping littoral materials when they are connected to shore. The latter effect is similar to that of groins and jetties. The former effect is more dif- ficult to qualify but erosion protection in this case arises from reduction of wave energies experienced in the sheltered area. This reduction of wave energies limits the ability of waves to transport materials which occur within,or are naturally or artificially supplied to, the protected area. Breakwaters occur along numerous portions of the coast, but 1he larger, more notable structures are found in the state's urban harbors such as Bridgeport, New Haven and Stamford. The development of Sandy Point and the wider beaches occurring along the eastern portion of the shore in West Haven may be attributable to the large offshore breakwaters which protect New Haven Harbor. Breakwaters can provide one of the most effective forms of erosion protection but they are extremely expensive and their design and orientation require detailed study of local conditions. Typical construction of a rubble mound breakwater such as those protect- ing New Haven Harbor is shown in Figure 18. 2Based on discussions with local marine contracters -71- FIGURE 15 Variable Water Level Datum PROFILE NOTE: Dimensions and details to be Varies determined by particular site conditions Armor Stone Core Stone (Quarry Run) CROSS-SECTION TYPICAL STONE GROIN FIGURE 16 TIMMER VARIABLE VARIABLE VARIABLE - - G, I SMT WATER LEVEL OATUM STRAIGHT WEB PILE STEEL HEET ,L`777@ PILES > ARCH WEB PILE PROFILE SECTION G I SOLT ,10IOUND PILES G I OLT t. WALE V L 4JIFT PILING L -KP WAt t NOTE d0olls to be DbTortsksin ord dittotadned by Wkukv 0114 Z PILIt PLAN TYPICAL SHEET STEEL GROIN (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975) H.RIABLE V.TARIA8 S EE L S P. 'E -72- FI'GURE 17 Plo,,:,.d 0 6 1. boll Variable Vor kablit Variable 'ClIel It-el dat.m Water Level Datum Timber -ale Timber Shoot Piling- -Timber sheet piling > 00, NOTE 5.0 Dimensions and details to be PROFILE VIEW-AA determined by particular site conditions Round G I boll Clinched no-Is Clinched nods &/ A -Vole Plank, ,-,1 2 "ll 2" .5loggit,ld A I be, wole Woshc,*( SHIPLAP TONGUE AND GROOVE WAKEFIELD PLAN TYPICAL PILE AND TIMBER GROIN FIGURE 18 HARBOR SIDE + 22' OCEAN SIDE 1. 2 5'_ 10' 10' LLI-+12 +81 f.5, I _LW _L LOW El 0.0 z -:@, 6_0 -to' "A-4" Stone 12 -13' B. 10, A - 2 10 -21' 22, Stone C" Stone Stone "B" Stone 29'! A" Stone - 16 tons or greater "A - I Stone - 13 tons or greater. "A - 2" Stone - 8 tons or greater. "A-3" Stone - 6 tons or greater "A-4" Stone - 500 lbs to 8 tons "B" Stone - Core stone varies from quorry-run stone to pieces of I ton to 4 tons "C" Stone - Core stone varies from quarry-waste to pieces of 1,500 lbs to 4 Ions. TYPICAL STONE BREAKWATER 1 1 (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975) -73- Non-Structural Techniques Sand Fill The placement of sand fill along a portion of shorefront is a non- structural erosion control technique which is utilized for the protection of beach areas or for the creation of protective beaches in areas where none occur. Sand fill may be used in two ways. It may be placed directly onto the shore to be protected or developed as beach, or it may be placed in an area adjacent to and updrift of the area to be protected. That is, it may be directly placed or placed to form a feeder beach which is de- signed to be eroded by waves and tidal currents and transported via longshore transport to the area to be protected. In Connecticut sand fill has been used nearly exclusively in conjunction with groins and jetties. In this case sand is placed between the groins or groins and jetties filling them to capacity. When the groins are filled to capacity they are less likely to impact or trap littoral materials since theoretically no additional storage capacity is available. Sand fill may also be utilized in conjunc- tion with the development of dunes and dune management (see following section). McCabe (1970) has presented a complete basic analysis of the behavior of beach fill placed in conjunction with 39 erosion control projects at various locations along Connecticut's coast. Some of his conclusions are: 1. Under wave conditions of the north shore of Long Island Sound beaches generally assume a natural face slope of one in ten (one foot increase in,evelation over a distance of 10 horizontal feet) between mean low water and a point 5 feet above mean high water. 2. Beach profiles in the area apparently stabilize when waves are broken by bars or benches located about 200 feet from the beach toe at depths near mean low water. Sometimes extra sand needs to be placed to establish such bars or benches. 3. Alongshore sand movement is minimized when the beach is facing the predominant direction from which waves approach. Beaches at a skew to this position are unstable and in the absence of an unlimited sand supply the beach will erode unless there is an artificial or natural barribr at its downdrift end. (Note: An adequate barrier at the downdrift location can accumulate sand causing the beach to reoHent to a more stable alignment.) 4. Groin construction does not cause recession on adjacent beaches if the beach was already in a stable orientation with respect to -dominant direction of wave approach. In order for sand fill to provide effective mitigation to erosion a source of sand must be readily and economically available to provide initial fill material and to facilitate annual replacement of eroded fill. The fill must also have grain size and distribution characteristics that are compatible with the area into which it is to be placed. Fill may be obtained from two sources. Either from a land based sand and gravel mining facility or from dredging of offshore sand deposits. Depending on the location and transportation required, sand fill may cost from four to eight -74- dollars per cubic yard. In Connecticut sand fill has generally been obtained by hydraulic dredging of offshore sand deposits. Offshore sources have proven more economical because of the low availability of land sources in proximity to shore areas, the high degree of development in proximity to the shoreline,which makes land transport difficult, and the costs of upland excavation and transportation. Removal of sand from offshore areas and its use as beach fill involve several problems. First, excavation of offshore sand deposits in too close proximity to shore may change the way in which waves normally approach the shore and break. This change in wave patterns can result from refraction, or bending, of waves induced by creation of deeper water areas through excavation (see section on waves). Such alteration may result in the occurrence of more erosive waves along a portion of shorefront than were previously experienced. Secondly, sand fill must be constantly replenished. Fill material placed along any shoreline to create beach is, at best, tempo- rary. Waves generated by storms and hurricanes,and higher velocity tidal currents continuously remove and rearrange the fill material. As a result, the need for a dependable and econ,omic source of material for maintenance is critical to beach fill techniques. Finally, dredging of offshore sand sources which are not relatively free of silt, decaying vegetable matter and pollutants which may be associated with the silt and clay can produce temporary, local water quality and biological impacts. It may also induce changes in the nature of naturally occuring bottom sediments and habitats depending on the depth of the dredged area. The latter impacts on bottom character may be reduced by limiting the depths of dredged areas such that they do not create pronounced isolated holes. The optimum method for obtain- ing material to be used as beach fill is to utilize sand dredged from navigation channels, provided the sand is relatively free of organic matter, silt and pollutants and that grain sizes are compatible with existing beach sands in the location to be filled. This technique is not always practical but it does provide a solution to two problems: the disposal of dredged sand from the navigation project and location of a beach borrow area. In addition, it is most cost effective since the dredged sand may be obtained at no or a very low cost. The major advantage of using sand fill alone as erosion protection is that it precludes the use of structures which can induce erosion such as groins and jetties. Ho,wever, in many instances, sand fill may be removed so rapidly that stabilization works must be constructed to retain the fill or tubstantial volumes of sand must be replaced at a considerable cost. Dune Management The construction of dunes and the stabilization of existing or artificial dunes with vegetation, particularly American Beach Grass(Ammophila breviligulata), is a second type of non-structural erosion mitigation. Under this technique dunes are constructed or enhanced by the placement of sand fill and by the planting of stabilizing vegetation. Snow fences may also be used to physically retain initial sand fill until vegetative cover is adequate or to control access points so as to prevent the destruction of dune grasses. Dunes are constructed parallel to and behind the beach proper and serve to trap and absorb sand which is transported onshore by wind and storm overwash. Care must be taken in the development of dunes to insure that maximum dune -75- elevations do not prevent natural storm overwash. The process of over- wash provides sand to sand flats behind dune areas and is important to dune stability and function. Basic unit costs and construction methods are the same as those for beach fill (see preceding section) with the exception of the additional expense of obtaining and planting beach grasses. Dune maintenance and/or construction can provide a most effective means of alleviating shoreline erosion. Since dunes act as a dynamic sand reservior and flood barrier they are able to adjust to varying wave and wind conditions and rising sea level in contrast to static structures such as seawalls and groins. Dune management has been limited in use as an approach to shoreline erosion in Connecticut. Only one such management effort has been under- taken at Hammonasset State Park in Madison. The effort was initiated in 1973. Utilization of dune management and construction does have several draw- backs. Existing uninterrupted dunes are not common along the shoreline and in many areas construction has taken place in such close proximity to the beach proper that creation of a dune line would also require massive beach fill. Even so, dune management is probably the most viable approach to imanaging barrier beaches where necessary. Use Controls Controlling the use of shoreline areas in order to avoid the creation of erosion hazards and to prevent endangerment of development is another method of non-structural mitigation. Under this approach shoreline areas may be designated as no construction areas, or special structural design may be required within them. Alternatively, setbacks for building may also be established. These setbacks should be based on a thorough consideration and analysis of the following factors: 1. Elevation of historical storm and hurricane tides 2. Maximum wave run up. 3. Beach or shoreli,ne contours and the bathymetry of the nearshore bottom. 4. Erosion trends. 5. Existing dune or shoreline vegetation. 6. Configuration of dune or bluff lines. 7. Existing coastal development. However, if an average erosion rate is available application of a setback line, based on the rate and the expected life of structures,is a prudent alternative. Both methods require the identification of some justifiable and equitable parameter for delineation of boundaries or setbacks and entail complex eng- ineering and geologic evaluation. An example of the former approach, which is bein applied in Connecticut, is the Department of Housing and Urban Development's ?HUD) Flood Insurance -76- Program (FIP). HUD-FIP has identified several zones within the coastal area on the basis of the 500 year (B zone) and 100 year (A zone) coastal floods and the occurrence of areas exposed to storm waves (V zones). These zones have been designated primarily for flood management purposes. However, they are also effective for use in erosion management since most erosion is storm induced. Within each established zone new reside- ntial structures must meet certain storm proofing requirements and residences which are destroyed must also conform to the criteria when, and if, they are rebuilt. The sanctions are applied at the municipal level. In return, communities are eligible for federally (HUD) sub- sidized flood insurance. The setback method of management is somewhat different. This technique requires that annual erosion trends and other conditions, listed above, be determined in hazard areas. After these conditions have been estab- lished a fixed linear distance setback from a reference point such as mean high water or a bluff line may be delineated. Construction of dwellings seaward of the setback line would then be allowed only by special permit. Both methods are best applied to property which is undeveloped. Establishment of a setback line after an area is developed provides no protection for development nor does it preclude the need to construct protective works. In addition, the setback method requires an accurate and enforceable determination of erosion trends and lines. Unfortunately, annual erosion rates which are accurate and area specific are not presently available for Connecticut's coast. In addition, the intensity of existing development on Connecticut's coast limits the value of applying setback lines. Final establishment of HUD-rIP hazard zones has not been completed in all coastal municipalities but preliminary-boudaries and associated crit- eria have been implemented coast-wide. Al tern a ti ves Each structural and non-structural alternative has unique character- istics which make it the most desirable approach to erosion mitigation in a particular situation. For example, non-structural protection of a devel- oped bluff area is more difficult to achieve than structural protection simply because of topographic and use considerations. Setbacks and building restrictions would prove useless to protect existing development and the placement of beach fill or dunes is not always compatible with the shoreline characteristics. Hence, structural controls, such as a revetment, would need to be implemented in order to provide protection. In addition to site and development considerations, costs of construction and maintenance needs play a significant role in the selection of erosion control alter- natives. In the case of Connecticut's shoreline these considerations take on an added complexity. The varied use and development of the shoreline coupled with its extremely variable and diverse composition and config- uration preclude the application of one type of alternative (structural or non-structural) coast-wide. Several observations serve to provide a basis for the establishment of priorities for the use of control techniques. General evaluation of -77- structural alternatives implemented in the state indicate that: I. Repayment periods on state loans which have been incurred by local interests (towns and private associations) to implement erosion control works have often exceeded the effective life of protection projects. 2. The cost of annual maintenance of structures and sand fill have resulted in neglect of maintenance,and reduced project lives. Further, lack of regular main- tenance can lead to catastrophic structural failure. 3. Structural means of erosion control such as seawalls and groins have often aggravated erosion inadjacent areas, or in the case of vertical seawalls, induced erosion on site. 4. Structural stabilization which has historically occurred along the coast has depleted or limited sediment sources necessary for the natural development of protective beaches, and has significantly altered shoreline behavior and the way in which the shore naturally copes with erosion. In contrast to wholly structural measures, non-structural alternatives provide several distinct advantages. Sand fill, beach development and dune construction serve to enhance and expand recreational resources and, therefore, provide recreational benefits in addition to mitigating shore erosion. These types of erosion protection also function more effectively with the natural system as opposed to structural measures which seek to limit or alter completely erosional processes. Because they augment nat- ural erosion and flood control mechanisms, non-structural managerial techniques are often more easily maintained. In recognition of the advantages and drawbacks of both structural and non-structural erosion control techniques, Connecticut's approach to deter- mining the most effective means of mitigating erosion should be predicated on site specific conditions. In general, however, it should be the state's policy to implement controls on the following priority basis: First priority: non-structural control Second priority: combination structural and non-structural control Third priority: structural control Fourth priority: no control -78- R E C 0 M M E N D E D M A N A G E M E N T A P P R 0 A C H In order to provide continued planning for and management of the effects of shoreline erosion the state should implement a three phased approach to the problem. Under this approach three inter-related as- pects of shoreline erosion management should be addressed utilizing existing state municipal and federal authorities. The basic elements of the management approach are: 1. Funding for design, construction and management of structural and nonstructural control techniques through existing Flood Control and Beach Erosion Authorities. 2. Provision of technical assistance to individuals and mun- icipaliti@es in the planning and implementation of non-state and non-federally funded erosion control techniques under the provisions of the Connecticut Coastal Area Management Act and through the existing State Flood control and Beach Erosion Program. 3. Regulation of activities affecting and affected by shoreline erosion under: a. Municipal authorities for Coastal Site Plan Review as provided for by the Connecticut Coastal Area Management Act. b. Municipal authorities for the implementation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development-Flood Insurance Program. c. State authorities governing the erection of structures in tidal, coastal or navigable waters. d. State authorities governing the removal of materials from coastal or navigable waters. Utilizing these authorities state and municipal officials entrusted with the management of coastal resources will be able to develop plans for the protection of existing facilities which are endangered by erosion, and to guide new coastal development in such a way as to minimize the impacts of shoreline erosion on future land use. A majority of the listed authorities are currently in place and operat- ional. Implementation of municipal efforts under Coastal Site Plan Review are pending passage of the Coastal Area Management Act. Authorities Flood Control and Beach Erosion Program Authority for cooperative funding, design and construction of erosion control works is derived from sections 25-69 through 25-98 of the Connecticut General Statutes. These sections provide for the organization of municipal flood and erosion control boards. They empower the Department of Environ- mental Protection (DEP) to cooperate with such boards and the federal government in the construction of and payment for flood and erosion control systems. An initial sum of four million dollars was allocated to pay for -79- the costs of state participation in the development of beach erosion control systems under the following cost sharing formulae: P E R C E N T C.0 N T R I B U T 1 0 N Property Ownership State Municipal public (municipal) 66.6 33.3 public (state) 100% ---- private 33.3% 66.6% State funded loans are also available to local authorities for the initial payment of the local contribution on projects. In the event that protection works are constructed for the benefit of private owners, the municipal Flood and Erosion Control Board is authorized to levy assessments or taxes on the protected property for the purpose of paying costs in- curred by local interests. As a rule, when public property is considered for the purposes of erosion protection the participation of the federal government in the project can be justified pursuant to section 103 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C., 426 et seq.). In such cases 50 percent of the cost of construction of economically-feasible beach erosion control projects involving public shorefront can be paid by the federal government. In certain special cases involving park or conservation areas up to 70 percent of the cost of protection may be paid. The maximum amount of federal contributions cannot exceed 1,000,000 dollars without additional congress- ional authorization. During the period between 1955 and 1971 a total of fifty erosion control projects were completed at a cost of 7.5 million dollars (Appendix D). Nineteen of the projects involved the participation of the federal government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 103 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. Sections 426e to 426i). The Corps' involvement consisted of contribution of 50 percent of the cost of the construction of protection works which benefited public property. More recently, in 1978, the State Legislature allocated an additional 3 million dollars for the continuation of the beach erosion control program. Utilizing these and other specially allocated funds, studies have been initiated for the protection of shoreline areas in Milford, East Haven and Westport. It is fully anticipated that erosion management under exist- ing programswill continue to improve contingent upon funding availabilities at municipal and federal levels. In order to provide for a fair and equitable allocation of public funds for the :mitigation of shoreline erosion and to provide for the greatest public benefit from expenditures, it should be the state's policy to pro- vide erosion control funds on the following basis: 1. State owned public shorefront 2. Municipally owned public shorefront. 3. Quasi-public recreational shorefront where public access is provided. 4. Privately owned recreational shorefront where public access is provided. _80- 5. Privately owned recreational shorefront. This policy is not intended to exclude privately owned shorefront from rec6iving the financial benefit of state-funded protection when such protection is justified and economically feasible. Rather it is designed to prioritize expenditures when projects involving several different types of shorefront are competing for limited state and federal funds. In order to most effectively utilize the monies allocated for erosion control projects the state should develop, in conjunction with municipal Flood and Erosion Control Boards, a listing of priority areas for erosion protection. This listing should be developed from the inventory of "areas of significant erosion" listed in Appendix C. Coastal Site Plan Review Connecticut's proposed Coastal Area management Act (Raised Committee Bill 7878) requires municipalities to initiate a site plan review for the following activities when they occur within the coastal boundary: 1. Buildings, uses or structures subject to zoning regulations (Section 8-3 of the Connecticut General Statutes (C-G-S)). 2. Subdivisions of land (C.G.S. Section 8-25). 3. Planned unit developments (C.G.S. Section 8-13f). 4. Variances (C.G.S. Section 8-7). 5. Requests for special exceptions or special zoning permits (C.G.S. Section 8-2). 6. Municipal improvements (C.G.S. Section 8-24). Under the provisions of the site review procedure any person or mun- icipal board undertaking an activity which is regulated under the sections of the general statutes listed above must submit a coastal site plan to the municipal planning or zoning commissions for review. As part of the review process, and in addition to the criteria provided for by municipal regulations, the board or commission responsible for coastal site plan review must consider three criteria in the evaluation of a coastal site plan: 1. The characteristics of the site, including the location and condition of any coastal resources defined by the Coastal Area Management Act. 2. The potential adverse and/or beneficial effects of the pro- posed activity on coastal resources and future water dependent development opportunities. 3. The goals and policies contained in the Coastal Area Management Act. Based on consideration of these three criteria the municipal board or commission responsible for coastal site plan review may approve, deny or modify permits issued for development within the coastal area. Certain minor activities may be exempted from the review process by local regulation. To aid municipal decision makers in the evaluation of erosion hazards, resource factor maps depicting shoreline composition, areas of significant erosion (listed in Appendix C) and historic shoreline changes are being de- veloped by the Coastal Area Management Program. Sample maps are contained in Appendix B. _81- National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128) provides low cost insurance against flood damages in designated hazard areas (see section on use controls). In return, communities must apply a set of established regulations to the evaluation of any development involving hazard areas. Part of the regulations which are applied involve the evaluation of erosion hazards. Sections 1910.5 (a) (1), (2) and (3) of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations apply in all of Connecti- cut's coastal communities. Under these authorities a permit is required for development in flood hazard areas including areas of flood-related erosion as they are known to the community. In the evaluation of permit applications a determination is made regarding the safety of site im- provements from flood-related erosion and the likelihood that the proposed improvements will induce erosion. In the event a proposed improvement is found to be in the path of flood-related erosion, or likely to induce flood-related erosion, protective measures may be required. Factor maps depicting areas of significant erosion are being developed by the CAM Program for use in the identification of hazard areas (Appendix B). Coastal Structures Regulatory Program Sections 25-7b through 25-7f of the Connecticut General Statutes authorize the Commissioner of Environmental Protection to regulate the erection of structures and the placement of fill in the tidal, coastal, and navigable waters of the state. Under this regulatory program, all construction and filling waterward of the mean high water line in the state's tidally-influenced waters must be conducted in accordance with a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). All permits issued under these authorities are, by law, evaluated with re- spect to "the prevention or alleviation of shore erosion" (Section 25-7b). Provision is also made under these sections for the removal of nuisance structures and the levying of fines for violations. Coastal Dredging Regul atory Program The authority to regulate the removal of sand, gravel, or other material from beyond the mean high water mark is vested in the Department of Envir- onmental Protection by Sections 25-10 through 25-18 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Prior to the initiation of any dredging or excavation within the state's coastal waters a permit must be obtained from the Com- missioner of Environmental Protection. Only previously permitted maintenance dredging of navigation channels, berths, basins, moorings and waterfront facilities are exempt from regulation. As part of its review of dredging and excavation applications, the Department of Environmental Protection must evaluate the impact of the activity on shore erosion. Section 25-18 provides penalties for violations. Recommended Policies In order to provide overall guidance for the administration of federal, state and municipal authorities involving shoreline erosion the following general and specific policies lare recommended to guide the -82- operation of the regulatory and managerial efforts noted above. The recommended policies should apply to state and municipal regulatory review of shoreline activities, and to the institution of cooperative state- federal-municipal erosion control projects. Particular emphasis should be given to the policies listed below: 1. Erosion and Sedimentation Definition: The removal of sediments from a particular location (erosion) and their transportation to and deposition (sedimentation) at another location as caused by natural forces whether naturally occurring or man induced. a. General Policy: To minimize the adverse impacts of coastal erosion and sedimentation through the use of non-structural methods where practicable. b. Specific Policy: To maintain the natural relation- ship between eroding and depositional coastal landforms and to minimize the adverse impacts of erosion and sedimentation on coastal land uses through the pro- motion of non-structural mitigation measures. Structural solutions are permissible when necessary and unavoid- able for the protection of infrastructural facilities, water dependent uses, or existing inhabited-structures, and where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where all possible mitigation measures and techniques have been provided to minimize adverse environmental impacts. c. Specific Policy: To implement erosion control projects on the following general priority basis in accordance with policy b above, and as appropriate to the specific site conditions: First Priority: Non-structural control Second Priority: Combination structural and non- structural control Third Priority: Structural control Fourth Priority: No control IMPLEMENTATION--Policies a, b and c should be implemented at the state level by the Department of Environmental Protec- tion under the regulatory authority for the coastal struc- tures and dredging programs and under the funding authority for flood and erosion control projects. At the local level, these policies should be implemented by municipalities under planning and development authorities for flood and erosion control projects and under the authorities contained in the proposed amendments to the Coastal Management Act which enable municipalities to review coastal site plans. 2. Coastal Structures (tidal, intertidal and navigable waters) a. General Policy: To discourage the filling of intertidal lands and to rpquire that coastal structures be built so as to minimize interference with neighboring properties and to minimize adverse impacts on coastal resources. -33- b.. Specific Policy: To require that structures in tidal wetlands and coastal waters be designed, constructed and maintained so that they minimize impacts on coastal resources, circulation and sedimentation patterns, water quality, and flooding and erosion, and so that they reduce to the maximum extent practicable the use of fill and reduce conflicts with the riparian rights of adjoining and adjacent landowners. c. Specific Policy: To disallow any filling of tidal wet- lands and nearshore, offshore and intertidal waters for the purpose of creating new land from existing wetlands and coastal waters which would otherwise be undevelopable, unless it is found that there is no feasible alternative and the adverse impacts on coastal resources are minimal. IMPLEMENTATION- -Po 1 i ci es a, b,and c, should be implemented by the Department of Environemtnal Protection under the -coastal structures regulatory program. 3. Coastal Hazard Areas Definition: Those land areas inundated during normal or extreme coastal storm events or subject to erosion induced by such events (all flood and erosion hazard areas identified by HUD-FIP mapping under the emergency and regular program phases). a. General Policy: To prevent development on coastal hazard areas that endangers public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of the HUD Flood Insurance Program. b. Specific Policy: To manage coastal hazard areas so as to in- sure that development proceeds in such a manner that hazards to life and property are minimized; and to promote non- structural solutions to flood and erosion problems except in those instances where structural alternatives prove un- avoidable and necessary to protect existing inhabited structures, infrastructural facilities, or water-dependent uses. IMPLEMENTATION--Policies a, and b, should be implemented by municipalities under the authorities contained in the proposed amendments to the Coastal Management Act which enable municipalities to undertake coastal site plan reviews. At the state level, these policiesishould be implemented by the Department of Environmental Protection through the regulatory authority for the coastal structures and dredging programs. 4. Coastal Bluffs and Escarpments Definition: Naturally eroding shorelands marked by dynamic escarpments or sea cliffs with slope angles which constitute an intricate adjustment between erosion, substrate composition, drainage and degree of plant cover. -84- a. General Policy: To maintain, where feasible, the function of coastal bluffs and.escarpments as natural sources of sediment supply for adjacent shoreline features. b. Specific Policy: To manage coastal bluffs and escarpments so as to preserve their slope and toe; to discourage uses which do not permit continued natural rates of erosion; and to disapprove uses that accelerate slope erosion and alter essential patterns and supply of sediments to the littoral transport system. IMPLEMENTATION--Policies a and b should be implemented at the local level by municipalities under the authorities contained in the proposed amendments to the Coastal Management Act which enable coastal municipalities to undertake coastal site plan reviews and to prepare municipal coastal programs. At the state level , these policies should be implemented by the Department of Environmental Protection under the re- gulatory authority for the coastal structures program. 5. Beaches and Dunes Definition: Beach systems including barrier beach spits and tombolos, barrier beaches, pocket beaches, land contact (fringing) beaches, and related dunes and sandflats. a. General Policy: To preserve the form and function of natural beaches aRd dunes and to encourage the restoration or en- hancement of disturbed or modified beaches and dunes. b. Specific Policy: To preserve the dynamic form and integrity of natural beach systems in order to provide critical wild- life habitats, a reservoir for sand supply, a buffer for coastal flooding and erosion, and valuable recreational opportunities; to insure that coastal uses are compatible with the capabilities of the system and do not unduly interfere with natural processes of erosion and sedimentation; and to encourage-the restoration and enhancement of disturbed or modified beach systems. IMPLEMENTATION--Policies a and bshould be implemented at the local level by municipalities under the authorities contained in proposed amendments to the Coastal Management Act which enable municipalities to undertake coastal site plan reviews and to prepare municipal coastal programs. At the state level, these policies should be implemented by the Department of Environmental Protection under the requlatory authorities for the coastal structuresand dredging programs and under DEP funding authority for flood and erosion control projects. 6. Intertidal Flats Definition: Very gently sloping or flat areas located between high and low tides composed of muddy, silty and fine sandy sediments and generally devoid of vegetation. -85- a General Policy: To encourage the preservation of i 'nter- tidal flats as shellfish and finfish habitats and wildlife feeding areas. b. Specific Policy: To manage intertidal flats so as to pre- serve their value as a nutrient source and reservoir, a healthy shellfish habitat, valuable feeding areas for invertebrates, fish and shorebirds; to encourage the restoration and enhancement of degraded intertidal flats; to allow coastal uses that minimize change in the natural current flows, depth, slope, sedimentation, and nutrient storage functions; and to disallow uses that substantially accelerate erosion -6-r-lead to significant despoilation of tidal flats. IMPLEMENTATION--Policies a and b should be implemented by the Department of Environmental Protection under the regulatory authority for the coastal structures and dredging programs. Funding for Acquisition of Erosion Prone Areas Perhaps the most effective means of dealing with shoreline erosion is direct acquisition of affected shoreline areas. However, due to the intense development of the Connecticut shoreline and the rapidly increasing value of already extremely expensive shoreline parcels, this erosion mitigation alternative is somewhat impractical. In addition, the availability of funds provided through various state and federal programs has not been sufficient in the past to facilitate acquisition of erosion prone areas. Future impro- vement insuch funding availabilities is not foreseen. None the less several federal and state programs have made provisions for the possibility of acquir- ing shorefront areas for the purposes for flood and erosion protection and recreation. Acquisition of property for recreational purposes provides erosion and flood protection when such parcels are flood or erosion prone and attrac- tive recreationa] resources. Beach areas are an excellent example of this situation. If fund levels were sufficient the following programs may prove useful means of acquiring erosion prone areas: Federal Programs The Department of Interior's Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) is responsible for administering the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fund can provide financial assistance to states for the planning, acquis- ition and development of recreation facilities and lands. Funding is allocated on a 60 percent cost sharing basis to both states and municipalities. These funds could be used to acquire beach areas which are susceptible to erosion. However, at this juncture the state has no plans to acquire new beach areas. A second federal program which could provide funding for acquisition of erosion prone areas is the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Flood Insurance Program. Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, empowers the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to purchase property which: -86- 1. was located in any flood-risk area as determined by the secretary 2. was covered by flood insurance under the flood insurance program and 3. was damaged substantially beyond repair by flood while covered by flood insurance. Prior to purchase, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development must find that the public interest is served by such acquisition. Property purchased under these authorities may be sold, donated or leased to State or local agencies for uses consistent with sound land use management in flood hazard areas. Although the intent of section 1362 is to provide for the alleviation of flood or erosion hazards through purchase, no funding has been provided for such action to date. State Programs The Commissioner of Environmental Protection is empowered by the Con- necticut General Statutes to acquire lands, for natural area preserves (C.G.S. 23-5h) and for open space recreation (C.G.S. 23-8). Historically these authorities have been used to acquire some shorefront parcels such as the state park facilities at Sherwood Island, Westport; Silver Sands Beach, Milford; Hammonasset Beach, Madison; and the natural area preserve at Bluff Point in Groton. Each of these areas is an example of shorefront having high recrea- tional, natural and aesthetic values. They are also subject to significant shoreline erosion. Their acquisition has reduced the,potential of damage to dwellings and other private facilities which might have occurred if they were left open to private development. More recently as part of the State's Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) two key recommendations were made. The first was to: "Acquire new coastal beaches through State action when large, privately-owned beaches, providing ample space for parking and ancillary facilities, are available for purchase. Areas frequently flooded or storm damaged should be considered for condemnation and/or acquisition." The second recommendation was to: Establish a special project acquisition fund to acquire special, large-scale projects, which are beyond the fiscal capability of the regular state action program and whose preservation may require prompt action by the state. Such major emergency acquisitions may include storm-dam- aged shoreline areas, key sites with significant recre- ation potential, and large, unique tracts of land with conservation district potential. While both these recommendations would favorably affect the acquisition of shorefront recreational parcels also subject to erosion damages, a study of coastal recreation conducted by the Coastal Area Management Program con- cluded: -87- "'little progress has been made towards realizing the goals and recommendations of SCORP, particularly those involving shorefront access, due to the current financial and admin- istrative contraints. New acquisitions, while not being ruled out, are not being encouraged due to state budgetary constraints. Increasing emphasis is being placed on the management efficiency of acquisitions or gifts. The number of land parcelswhich constitute "manageable Units" along the coast are very limited due to ownership and development patterns." It is therefore likely that neither state nor federally funded programs will provide sufficient impetus for the acquisition of parcels for recrea- tion and erosion mitigation. However, this alternative should not be com- pletely ruled out when, and if, sufficient funds become available. Recommended Additional Investigations Establishment of a firm and adequate geophysical baseline is of para- mount importance to the solution of shoreline erosion prbblems in Connecticut. It is as vital to the regulation of coastal structures and dredging,as it is to the design and implementation of erosion mitigation projects and the plan-', ning and construction of recreational, residential, industrial and commercial facilities along the coast. In order to provide the necessary scientific basis for long term manage- ment of shoreline erosion in Connecticut a more complete and current evaluation of the dynamics of the erosion process is needed. Much of the information on erosion rates and processes presented in this report is generalized from various studies which are outdated. In a larger sense, problem areas can be easily identified along the shoreline, and factors contributing to the problems may also be generally quantified. However, prior to the initiation of struc- tural and non-structural solutions, and for the purposes of effective land use planning, more detailed information on the mechanics and effects of erosion must be developed. Two approaches may be taken to the development of detailed information on erosion. Managers may either wait until the problem becomes of sufficient magnitude to warrant the development of specific plans of action for each individual problem area, or a system of long term monitoring may be instituted in order to aid in the avoidance of, or reduce the need for, remedial action. Although economics may dictate the former alternative, wise planning is pre- dicated on the latter. At present no comprehensive system of shoreline erosion monitoring is in effect in Connecticut. Recent monitoring and investigation of processes and patterns of shoreline erosion have been few and far between. The last compre- hensive, site-specific evaluation of the nature and occurrence of shore erosion in the state was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engin- eers during the period between 1949 and 1958. Even the most recent of these reports is more than 20 years old. In addition, although the reports arising from the study were quite detailed, the state elected not to collect wave data as part of the study, and only one series of shoreline profil,es were established by survey. These two shortcomings are critical to an analysis of present and future erosion trends. -88- Waves are the prime cause of erosion on Long Island Sound's shoreline. Incomplete information on the observed characteristics (height, length, etc . of waves at various locations in the Sound has resulted in a limited know- ledge of their short and long term influences on the shoreline. Little is known about the volumetrics of wave induced littoral transport along most of the coast. Almost no information is available concerning the absence or presence of cycles of erosion and accretion on beaches. The irregular con- figuration of the shoreline has further complicated the evaluation of wave induced erosion. Data available for one location,such as that presented for Stratford Point,may not necessarily be applied to another location because of differences in shoreline orientation. In addition,mathematical modeling and determination of wave characteristics often yield incorrect data because of the depth and fetch limited nature of Long Island Sound. The absence of field data obtained from surveyed measurements along Con- necticut's beaches and bluffs is disturbing. Lack of continued annual or semi-annual measurements of the position of mean high water and erosion.rates whilch can be determined therefrom make shoreline erosion planning difficult. Because the geologic composition of the coast varies, both along and perpen- dicular to shore, the behavior of the shoreline in response to erosion- inducing waves and tidal currents also varies. Utilization of annual aerial photography or other forms of remote sensing are of limited value in detecting changes other than those of relatively large magnitude. Average erosion rates such as those estimated for Connecticut's coast (1-1.5 feet per year) may well be obscured by the accuracy of such measurement. Further, past aerial photo- graphic records are inconsistent in scale, incomplete, in terms of their cov- erage of the coast, and contain gaps for, which no photographs are available. In addition, it is not possible to accurately locate the mean high water line or photographs taken during unknown tidal conditions. Consequently, the need for field observation is apparent. Data collected as part of a monitoring program can provide an effective analytical tool for the following day-to-day functions and responsibilities of various municipal, state, and federal agencies in the following areas: 1. Planning of shoreline development and land use. 2. Design and implementation of erosion control measures. 3. Regulation of the erection of coastal structures and dredging. 4. Provision of technical assistance to local boards and shorefront property owners in regard to shore erosion problems. 5. Collection and dissemination of scientific and technical data. 6. Designation of flood-related erosion hazard areas. 7. Planning and development of shoreline recreation facilities. Important agencies having one or more of the noted responsibilities include (numbers in parentheses refer to the above noted responsibilities): 1. Municipal Flood and Erosion Control Borads (2,3) 2. Municipal Planning and Zoning Commissions (1) -89- 2. Water Resources Unit of the Department of Environmental Protection D.E.P. (2,3,4) 3. Natural Resources Unit, D.E.P. @5) 4. Parks and Recreation Unit, D.E.P. (7) 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development-Flood Insurance Administration (6) 6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England Division. (2,3,4,) 7. Coastal Area Management Program, D.E.P. (4,5,6) With these planning, technical assistance, and regulatory needs in mind, it is recommended that the state institute, in cooperation with interested federal and municipal agencies, a continued shoreline monitoring program. The program should be implemented through the University of Connecticut's Marine Science Institute in order to achieve the most effective use of funding. Several sources of monies are feasible, including: 1. Specially allocated state funds 2. Funding, on a cost sharing basis provided through the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Sea Grant Program 3. Funding provided on a cooperative basis through interested and affected state, federal and municipal agencies. The monitoring program should include the following basic elements and should be tailored to meet the specific needs of those agencies listed above: 1. Establishment of a system of permanent benchmarks and transects, Utilizing where possible historical benchmarks and transects established by the Corps of Engineers in preparing the Beach Erosion Control Reports,and those established during the con- struction and monitoring of state beach erosion control projects. All sites should be resurveyed semi-annually. 2. Collection of measured wave data including wave height, length, period and direction of approach forat least three locations in Long Island Sound's eastern, central and western segments. 3. Collection of appropriate information on the contributions of winds and tidal currents and sea level fluctuations as they are important to the erosion process. 4. Based on analysis of the information outlined in items 1 through 3 above, compilation of site specific information on: a. The relative contributions of winds, waves and tidal currents to erosion. b. The character, direction and volume of littoral transport of material both along, on and offshore. _90- c. The.annual rate of erosion being experienced at transect locations. d Important local sources of shoreline material naturally available to the littoral system. e. Documentation of shoreline behavior in response to littoral forces (winds, waves,tidal currents) and sea level rise at established monitoring locat ions. Should the economic feasibility of such an effort prove undesirable, contingency planning for more limited field monitoring or use of aerial photography should be considered. Failure to initiate either form of investigation will s.everely handicap the management effort. -91- G L 0 S S A R Y 0 F T E R M S U. S E D AEOLIAN - Wind-blown; used in reference to wind-blown sand deposits, or dunes. BARRIER BEACH - A strip of beach running parallel to the shore but separated from it (at least for the most part) by a body of water or marsh. The term includes features such as spit , baymouth barrier, and tombolo. BAYMOUTH BARRIER A barrier beach feature extending partly across the mouth of a bay or riverine embayment. BEDROCK - Solid rock which underlies surface sediments or which is exposed at the surface as an outcrop. BOULDER LAG - A deposit of rocks greater than ten inches in diameter created by the removal kerosion) of surrounding finer sediments which leaves the larger rocks behind. DEPTH OF CLOSURE The depth beyond which waves causing onshore transport of materials fail to induce transport. DOWNDRIFT In the direction of predominant movement of littoral materials. DRUMLIN Glacially sculpted, elongate, streamlined hills. DRUMLINOID Drumlin-like; used interchangeably with the term drumlin. DURATION The period of time for which an event lasts; used in reference to the length of time for which the wind blows from a particular direction. EBB To recede from the flood stage; used in reference to a fall- ing or out-going tide or tidal current. FETCH The horizontal distance over which a wind generates waves on the surface of a water body. FLOOD To rise from the ebb stage used in reference to a rising or incoming tide or tidal current. GEOLOGIC Of or relating to the composition of the earth and its materials and the study there of. GEOPHYSICAL Of or relating to the physics of the earth; used in refer- ence to the interaction of the earth, its geologic materials and winds, waves, tides or weather. -92- GEOMORPHOLOGY - Literally earth form; used in reference to the des- cription of the relief and configuration of land masses or geographic areas. GLACIAL DRIFT - All glacially deposited materials including: till, moraines, outwash, etc. GNEISS A coarse-grained metamorphic rock consisting of alternating layers of different minerals and having a banded appearance. HEADLAND A high,steep-faced promontory extending seaward. ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT Deposits of sand, gravel, silt and clay deposited in streams and lakes which-occurred in close relation to melting glacial ice. IGNEOUS Having a fiery origin; used in reference to rocks formed by volcanic action or intense heat,at or below the earth's surface. ISOSTATIC SEA LEVEL RISE A relative change in the elevation of sea level, with respect to land mass, which results from the rising of the land mass in response to the removal of glacial ice which originally depressed it. KNOT A rate of speed equal to one nautical mile per hour. One knot is approximately equal to 1.15 statute miles per hour. One nautical mile is approximately equal to 6076 feet. LEE A sheltered area occurring on the side of an object or land form which is away from the wind or waves. LITTORAL Of or pertaining to a shore or shoreline especially of the ocean. LITTORAL TRANSPORT - The movement of littoral materials by waves and currents. The term includes movement parallel to shore and perpend- icular to shore. LONGSHORL TRANSPORT - The movement of littoral materials by waves and currents parallel to shore. METAMORPHIC Characterized by a change in composition; used in reference to rocks whose composition, structure or texture have changed in response to pressure, heat or chemical activity. MORAINE A mass of rocks, gravel, sand,clay, etc. carried and de- posited by a glacier along its side (lateral moraine), lower end (end moraine), or beneath the ice (ground moraine). MORPHOLOGY The form and structure of a region or land area; used in reference to shoreline form. -93- NEARSHORE An indefinite zone extending seaward from the shoreline well beyond the area of active wave breaking to a depth of 30 feet. OFFSHORE The zone extending from a depth of approximately 30 feet (the seaward end of the nearshore zone) seaward. Also used to indicate a direction of movement off, or seaward from, the shoreline. ONSHORE A directioft landward from the sea; used in reference to the movement of littoral materials. ORTHOGONALS A line drawn perpendicular to wave crests on a wave refraction diagram (see Figure 6 in the text). OUTWASH Sediments deposited by streams formed from melting glacial ice. REFRACTION The process by which the direction of travel of a wave moving in shallow water is changed. The part of the wave crest in shallower water travels more slowly than the por- tion in deeper water causing a bending of the wave crest. RELICT - A geologic or physical feature or structure remaining after other components have been altered, eroded or wasted away. SEDIMENTARY Containing material deposited by wind or water; used in reference to rocks formed from materials deposited by wind or water. SPIT - A narrow strip of beach projecting into a body of water from the shoreline. TIDAL CO-OSCILLATION A tidal oscillation produced when the ocean tide serves as a forcing agent inducing a tidal oscillation within a basin such as Long Island Sound. TIDAL RANGE - The difference in height between consecutive high and low water levels. TILL - Unstratified, unsorted,glacial material consisting of clay, sand, silt, boulders and gravel. TOMBOLO A narrow strip of beach connecting two islands or an island and the mainland. UPDRIFT The direction opposite to predominant movement of littoral materials; normally used in reference to longshore transport. WAVE PERIOD The time required for two successive wave crests to pass a fixed point. -94- S E L E C T E D R E F E R E N C E S 1. B 1 oom, A. L. 1967. Coastal igeomorphology of Connecticut. Office of Naval Research, Geography-Branch, Final Report Contract Nonr-401(45), 72 p. 2. Bloom, A.L. 1972. Geologic aspects of coastal planning and development in Connecticut. (Personal communication-J.W. Peoples). 3. Bloom, A.L. and Ellis, C.W., Jr. 1965. Post-glacial statigraphy and morphology of coastal Connecticut. Connecticut Geologic and Natural History Survey, Guidebook No. 1, 10 p. 4. Bloom, A.L. and Stuiver, M. 1963. Submergence of the Connecticut Coast. Science, vol. 139, p. 332-334. 5. Brumbach, J.C. 1965. The climate of Connecticut. Connecticut Geologic and Natural History Survey, @ul I . No. 99, 215 p. 6. Davies, D.S., Axelrod, E.W., and J.S. O'Conner, 1973.- Erosion of the north shore of Long Island.. Marine Science Research Center of State Universi@y of New York Technical Reprint Series #18, 101 p. 7. Curray, J.R. 1965. Latequaternary history of the continental shelves of the U.S. in Quaternaary of the United States. edited by H.E. Wright and D.G. Frey, Princeton Univ. Press, p.723-735. 8. Dean, R.G. 1976. Beach erosion: causes, processes and remedial measures. Coastal Research Center-Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, Vol. 6, Issue 3. 9. Demico, Robert V. 1977. A Geomorphic Study of the Geologic History, Recent History and Sedimentary Environments of Griswold Point, Connecticut. Masters Thesis, Weslyan University, Deot. of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 103 p. 10. Ellis, C.W. 1962. Marine sedimentary environments in the vicihity of the Norwalk Islands Connecticut. Conn. Geology and Natural History Survey Bull.. No. 94, 89 p. 11. Farrar, Michael J.D. 1977. Processes and Paterns of Sedimentation at Hammo- nassett Beach, Madison, Connecticut. Masters Thesis, Weslyan University Dept. of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 104 p. 12. Flint, R.F. 1930. The glacial geologyof Connecticut. Conn. Geology and Natural History S-jrvey, Bull. No. 49, 294 p. -95- 13. Flint, R.F. 1963. Altitude, lithology and the fall zone in Connecticut. Journal of Geology, Vol. 71, No. 6, p. 683-696. 14. Flint, R.F. 1964. The surficial geology of the Branford quadrangle. Conn. Geol. and Natural History Survey, Quadrangle Report, No. 14. 15. Flint, R.F. 1965. The surficial geology of the New Haven and Woodmont quadrangles. Conn. Ge6l and Natural History Survey, Quadrangle Report..,No.18. 16. Flint, R.F. 1968. The surficial geology of the Ansonia and Milford quad- rangles. Conn. Geol. and Natural History Survey, Quadrangle-Report No. 23. 17. Flint, R.F. 1971. The surficial geology of the Guilford and C',linton quad- rangles. Conn. Geol. and Natural History Survey, Quadrangle Report No. 28. 18. Flint, R.F. 1975. The surficial geology of the Essex and Old Lyme quad- rangles. Conn. Geol. and Natural History Survey. Quadrangle Report No. 31 19. Flint, R.F. and Gebert, J.A., 1976. Latest Laurentide ice sheet: new evid' ence from S.E. New England. Geol. Soc. Awer. Bull, Vol. 87, p 182-188. 20. Gaines, A.G., Jr. 1973. Connecticut shoreline survey-New Haven to Watch Hill. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Final Report, Contract NO. DACW33-73-M-0245, 69 p. 21. Gold3.mith, R. 1962. The surficial geology of the New London quadrangle. United States Geologic Survey, Washington D.C., Geologic Quadrangle Map 176. 22. Goldsmith, R. 1964. The surficial geology of the Niantic quadrangle. United States Geologic Survey, Washington D.C., Geologic Quadrangle Map 329. 23. Gordon, Robert B., Rhoads, Donald C., and Karl K. Turekian, 1972. The envir- onmental consequences of dredge spoil disposal in central Long Island Sound: I.New Haven spoil ground and New Haven Harbor. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SR-7. 1 1. 24. Hardy, C.D. 1971. Movement and quality of Long Island Sound waters. Marine Science Research Ceqter-State University of New York Technical Report Series no. 17. 25. Harris, D.L. 1963. Characteristics of hurricane storm surge. U.S. Weather .Bureau Technical Paper No. 48, Washington D.C., 139 pp. 26. Haskell, Ncrman L. 1977. Long Sand Shoal. Phd. Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics. 27. Hayes, M.O. and Boothroyd, J.C., 1969. Storms as modifying agents in the coastal environment, University of Massachusetts Coastal Research Group field Trip Guidebook for Northeast Massachusetts and New Hampshire. SEPM- Eastern Section. 28. Helle, J. 1958. Surf statistics for the coast of the U.S. United.States Army Corp of Eh@ineers; Beach Erosion Board-Technical Memo 108. -96- 29. Hicks, S.D., and Crosby, J.E. 1974. Trends and variability fn mean sea level 1893-1972. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memo no. 13, National Oceanic Survey, Rockville, Maryland, 14pp. 30. LeLacheur, E.A. 1931. Tidal phenomena in Long Island Sound. Washington Academy of Science Journal, Vol. 21, no. 11, p 239-242. 31. LeLacheur, E.A. and Sammons, J.C. 1932. Tides and currents in Long Island and Block Island Sound. U.S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey Special Pub- lication Vol. 174:p 110-1-15 and p 132-134. 32. McCabe, Robert A. 1970. Beach behavior-north shore, Long Island Sound. Journal of Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 16, no. ww 4. 33. Malde, H.E. 1968. The surficial geology of the Norwalk South quadrangle. Connecticut Geologic and National History Survey, Geologic Quadrangle 718. 34. Mather, J.R., et al. 1965. Coastal storms of the eastern United States. Journal of Applied Metereology, Vol. 3, p 693-706. 35. Mather, J.R. , Field, R.T. , and G.A. Ydshioka,, 1967. Storm damage hazard along the east coast of the United States. Journal of Applied Meteo- rology, Vol 6, no. 1, p 20-30. 36. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1965-1978. Storm Data for the United States. Environmental Data Service, National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C. 37. National Ocean Survey, 1979. Tide Tables for the East Coast of North and South America Including Greenland. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Rockville, Md. 38. National Ocean Survey, 1977. Block Island Sound and Long Island Sound Tidal Current Charts. Sixth Edition, U.S. Dept. of Commerce; NOAA, Rockville,Md. 39. New England River Basins Commission, 1975. People and the Sound: Long Island Sound Regional Study jrosion and Sedimentation, 64 p. 40. Rodgers, J., Gates, R.M. and J.L. Rosenfeld. 1959. Explanatory text for preliminary geological map of Connecticut. Conn. Geol. and flat. History Survey.Bull. 84. 41. Redfield, A.C. 1950. The Analysis of tidal phenomena in narrow embayments. Papers in Physical Oceanographical Meteorology Vol. 3, No. 2, p.1-36. 42. Redfield, A.C. 1977. The tide in coastal waters. Journal of Marine Research, Sears Foundation for Marine Research, Yale University, Vol. 36,No. -2-. 43. Sanders, J.E. and Ellis, C.W. 1961. Geologic and economic aspect .s of beach erosion along the Cbnnecticut coast. Ct. Geol. and Natural History._@u@rey, Report of Inyestigations, No. 1. 44. Schafer, J.P. 1965. The surficial geology of the Watch Hill quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., Geologic Quadrangle Map 410. -97- 45. Schafer, J.P. and Hartshorn, J.H., 1965. The quaternary of New England in Quaternary of the United States, edited by H.E. Wright and D.G. Frey., Princeton University Press, p. 113-127. 46. Sharp, M.S. 1929. Physical history of the Connecticut shoreline. Ct. Geol. and Natural History Survey, Bull. No. 46. 47. Simpson, R.H. and Lawrence, M.B. 1971. Atlantic hurricane frequencies along the U.S. coastline. NOAA Tech. Mem. NWS. SR-58. 15 p. 48. Stuiver, M. Deeney, E.S. Jr. and I Rouse 1963. Yale natural radiocarbon measurements VIII. Radiocarbon, Vol. 5, p 312-341. 4,9. Swanson, R.L. 1976. Tides. MESA, New York Bight Atlas. Monogrpah 4, N.Y. Sea Grant Inst.,Albany N.Y. 50. Upson, J.F. 1971. The surficial geology of the Mystic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Geologic Quadrangle Map 940. 51. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division 1949. Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of Connecticut; Area One Ash Creek to Saugatuck River, House,Doc. 454, 81st Cong.,2nd Session. 52. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1949. Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of ConnectiCu-t; Area 2, Hammonasset River to East River. House Doc. 474, 81st Cong.,2nd Session. 53. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1952. Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of Connecticut; Area 4, Connecticut River to Hammonasset River. House Doc. 514, 82nd Cong., 2nd Session. 54. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1952. 'Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperati-ve Study of Connecticut; Area 7, Housatonic River to Ash Creek. House Doc. 248, 83rd Cong., 2nd Session. 55. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,1952. Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative study of Connecticut; Area 6,Niantic Bay to Connecticut River. House Doc. 84, 83rd Congress, 1st Session. 56. U.S. Army Corps of Ehgineers, 1952. Beach Erosion Cbntrol Report on- Cooperative Study of Connecticut; Area 5,Pawcatuck River to Thames River. House Doc. 31, 83rd Cong.,1st Session. 57. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1953. Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of_Connecticut; Area 3,New Haven Harbor to Housatonic River. House Doc. 203, 83rd Congress, 1st Session. 58. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1955. Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of Connectic@u-t: Area 9, East River to New Haven Harbor. 'House Doc. 395, 84th Congress, 2nd Session. 59. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1956. Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of Connecticut: Areas 8 and 11,Saugatuck River to Byram River. House Doc. -98- 60. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1957. Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of Connecticut: Summary of Reports. 61. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1958. Beach Erosion Control Report on_ Cooperative Study of Connecticut: Area 10 Thames River to Niantic Bay. House Doc. 334, 85th Congress, 2nd Session. 62. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973. Long Island Sound, tidal hydrology. Interim Memo No. COE 2. 15 p. 63. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974. Beach Erosion Control Study of Sherwood Island State Park, Westport, Connecticut. Dept. of the Army, New England Division, Corps of Engineers. Waltham, Mass. 64. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1975. Shore Protection Manual . Vols. I, II, and III, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 65. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center 1976. Connecticut Coastline_@tudy: Effects of Coastal Storms. 66. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1973. -National Shoreline Study Volumes I and I II, House Doc. 93-121, 93rd Congress, 1st Session. 67. Vesper, W.H.,1961. Behavior of beach fill and borrow area at Prospect Beach, West Haven, Connecticut. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion Board, Tech. Memo No. 127. 68. Vesper, W.H. 1967. Behavior of beach fill and borrow area at Sherwood Island State Park Westport, Connecticut. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coastal Eng. Research Center Tech Memo. No. 20. 69. Wibberly, J.T. 1972. Connecticut shore survey: Milford,Connecticut to the New York State Line. Department of the Army New England Division Corps of Engineers, Contract DACW 33-73-M-0245, Final Report. -99- I i I I I I I I APPENDIX A I REQUIREMENTS OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT I AND REGULATIONS I I I I I I I I i Section 923.25 Shoreline erosion/mitigation planning. (a) Statutory Citation, Section 305(b)(9): The i@anagement progran, for each coastal state shall include A planning process for (A) assessing the effects of shoreline erosion (however caused), and (B) studying and evaluating ways to control, or lessen the impact of, such erosion, and to restore areas adversely affected by such erosion. (b) The basic purpose i,n developing this planning process is to give special attention to erosion issues. This special management attention may be achieved by designating erosion areas as areas of particular concern pursuant to Section 923.21 or as areas for pre- servation or restoration pursuant to Section 923.22. (c) Requirements. (1) The management program must include a method for assessing the effects of shoreline erosion and evaluat- ing techniques for mitigating, controlling or restoring areas adversely affected by erosion. /-Comment. In developing assessment and evaluation techniques, states @_hould consider:@ M losslof land along the shoreline of estuarine banks; 00 whether the loss resulted from natural or man induced iforces; (iii) whether the erosion is regularly occurring, cyclical, or a one time event; Ov) impacts of the erosion on adjacent shorelines, and land and water uses; (v) probable impacts of mitigation on adjacent shorelines, land and water uses, littoral drift and other natural processes such as accretion; and (vi) probable impacts of re-establishment of pre-erosion shoreline or rebuilding on wetlands and natural habitat, particularly as the re-establishment or rebuilding might relate to the Executive Orders on Wetlands and Floodplains (see Section 923.3(b)(2)(ii)). 7- (2) There must be an identification and description of enforceable policies, legal authorities, funding techniques and other techniques that will be used to manage the effects of erosion as the State's planning process indicates is necessary. /-Comment. In developing a process to manage the effects of erosion, _@tates should consider: A-1 0) the extent and location of erosion problems; Oi) the necessity for control versus non-control of erosion; (iii) whether structural (e.g., groins) or nonstructural controls (e.g., land use setbacks) are appropriate; Ov) costs of alternative solutions (including operation and maintenance costs); and (v) the National Flood Insurance Program (24 CFR 1909 et seq.) and regulations of the Federal Insurance Administration on flood- related erosion-prone ardas (24 CFR 910.5)7- /Comment. Due to restrictions on the use of section 306 funds (see �ection 923.94), not all means of restoration proposed by States may be eligible for funding under section 306 or other sections of the Act. Accordingly, particular attention should be given to coordination of shoreline erosion management objectives with funding programs pursuant to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion Control Program (33 U.S.C. 426 et seq.), the Hurricane Protection Prog@am (33 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) and other programs as may be appropriate./ A-2 I I I I I I I APPENDIX B I SAMPLE RESOURCE FACTOR I MAPS I I I I I I I I I I SHORELINE CHANGE MAP LEGEND The pupose of this map is to depict historical changes in the configuration of the state's 278 miles of Long Island Sound fronting coast. The-map is presented at a scale of approximately 1:24,000 so that it may be compared to current shorelines shown on U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps. SHORELINE AND 12 FOOT DEPTH LEGEND DATE SHORELINE 12 FOOT DEPTH 1949 1937 1883 1851 1838 NOTES Shorelines prior to 1949 and offshore contours traced from drawings prepared by the Beach Erosion Board Washington,, D.C., from U.S.C. 8 G.S. Data. Depths ore referred to the plane of Mean Low Water. The 1949 shoreline is the Mean High Water line located for this study. Source: Beach Erosion Control Report- Cooperative Study of Connecticut, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1952 B-1 'Vt Cl@ SMITHS G REAT NECK ISLAND -A w CID -41 a. "s w z 2 A 0 \,POVERTY 4 P T. TE SAND BEACH 4,-::k - o G -- R'SWOLDS p T. SOUTH COVE ......... ............ LYNDE PT.* X.. ........... ............. ...... "o SAYBROO-K' + JETTIES GUARD HOUSE Ar % x x 00 YNDE GUARD HO p T. T LITTORAL SEDIMENT SYSTEMS AND SURFICAL GEOLOGY LEGEND Artificial fill Bedrock Dominant direction of along- Individual exposures in dark color; light shore sediments transport which color denotes areas with complex patterns of is induced by waves and tidal bare rock and rock thinly covered with residu- currents. um small patches of till, and scattered slide- rock. Swamp sediments Sill, sand, and clay mixed with organic mat- ter in poorly drained areas, both fresh-water and tidal. Geologic contact Dashed where located only approximately, Gr Wind-blown sand + Narrow, thin patches of Band adjacent to Erratic boulder 10 feet or more in greatest beaches. diameter. Letters denote lithology: Gr : granitic rock. Gn: gneissic rock. Pgm: pegmatite; Reach rand and gravel No letter: not identified. Denotes an area where ero- sion presents a significant Includes some wind-blown sand. problem because the rate of Glacial striations and/or grooves. erosion, considered in con- junction with economic,in- dustrial, recreational, agri- cultural, navigational, demo- Aluvium Pit (operating) in sand and gravel or till. graphic, environmental, and Sand, silt, and gravel occurring as thin covers other relevant factors in- on some valley floors. Locally includes collu- Hachures denote pit faces. dicate that action to miti- vium and bodies of clay. gate such erosion may be justified. Artifical pond not shown on topographic Sources: Surficial geology base map. reproduced from U.S.G.S. and Connecticut Geology and Natural Outwash sediments History Survey maps. Sand and gravel, mainly with cut-and-fill stratification, grading up-valley into ice-contact stratified drift. Artificial pond not shown on topographic base map Ice-contact stratified drift Sand gravel,silt,and clay, in many places poorly sorted, with abrupt changes in grain size, and deformed. Deposited in streams and local ephemeral lakes in close relation to melt- ing glacier ice. Many bodies grade into out- wash sediments. End moraine Ridges and mounds of till and stratified drift, elongate NE-SW. Concentrations of boulders locally conspicuous. Till Compact, nonsorted sediment deposited by glacier ice. Includes small bodies of strati- fied sediment. B-2 af 17 t ()W . "'Y " t f 0 ow 20 e 211af af z UW OiN% f t OW 2 is St Ar& i-ow Ch 0 iq A, T, + 13 p t ;119 V@ --------- laf vie,, af G + 7 a 4164 North Cove 116 t w*#^zHigh \6 Ow" at-. af a 34 6 7;dal 'Aa t gaybrook lp()h-@@ f C s Savbfcok rm 22 ...... . . Ad Pt Pc)vprfy -q af 3 I nds., Povert, IFI.r-td% z h S WS /af Pt WS 3 bs af South Cove 3 @) a%f/ bs S Gn n s Fen*.ick bs' 2 bS S Z!, af P, Id 1.9 3 n em yb,!, 7 n 'Ok WS hNouse d, IZ S bs 2 W b Breakwater 0 f I 0 10 0 13 Breakwater SG se L ghthouse to 17 @aybr @es Ol ZZ A 1.9 G13 L 0 f 0 area c 13 significant er 26 40 af 0 /7 OW t 0". 64 t.7 ;@t @ L t f 40 - w aj - : .0: x --- k a af 20 z *a Op Ow f Black a A ;t Anir, Iit @T_.ow ell OW Iq - al + p 13 t A de te, af tn + North Cove =High kow@ at- - af \6 a .34 ;dal S Saybrook 'P@h@t - : -, Cem sa yt,,f ook. t@.. -.22 pt 2 f P, 3 S and Poverty I.I.,,d%' beac@. 15 S WS Wn /a f 3 bs f 4 3 South C 0 v e af/ S n GrfjLnpS Fen*.ick bs X bs S ""I af 2 n Id @I F1, 19 em; y4rik :+ n WS G S bs 2 INS Breakwate! If 0 0 T_ 0 Breakwater 13 SG Se Lighthouse to 17 ies aybr A 1.9 AW G13 20 0 f eLC 27 L 0 Grea c 0 1.3 significant er 26 30 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C I AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT EROSION I I - I I I I I I I I NAME OF SITE: Greenwich Point TOWN: Greenwich COU14TY: Fairfield QUADRANGLE: Stamford APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Flat Neck Point to Greenwich LENGTH: 0.8 miles (1.3 km) OWNERSHIP: Municipal LA14D USE: Municipal park and beach TYPE OF FEATURE: Low lying bluff composed of glacial outwash with narrow fringing beaches comprised of coarser materials (cobbles and pebbles). HISTORY OF CHANGE: 1885-1933 erosion up to 150 feet, averaging approx. 100 feet 1933-1953 small, variable accretion HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Sections of revetment constructed by municipality at Greenwich Point and along road east of Flat Neck Point. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Important municipal recreational facility with roadways and beaches subject to potential damage by storm induced erosion. C-1 NAME OF SITE: Shippan Point TOWN: Stamford COUNTY: Fairfield QUADRANGLE: Stamford APPROXIMATE LIMITS:Shore Point opposite Rhode Island Rocks to entrance Channel to Cummings Park boat basin. LENGTH: 2.7 miles (4.3 km) OWNERSHIP: Predominantly private with some municipal public beach (West Beach). LA14D USE: Primarily urban low-density residential, public recreational beach. TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beaches fronting deposits of glacial till. HISTORY OF CHANGE: 1835-1885: recession along west shore of up to 100 feet 1885-1933: little notable change 1933-1953: recession of up to 100 feet in area immediately to the west of Cummings Park channel. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Major groin field at southern end of segment. Many private seawalls and groins also present. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Shoreline area is heavily stabilized, fringing beaches, in area are subject to continual loss of material which cannot be naturally replenished. Many residences occur in close proximity to shore- line and are subject to potential catastrophic damage from storm erosion. C-2 NAME OF SITE: Calf Pasture Beach TOWN: Norwal k COUNTY: Fairfield QUADRANGLE: Norwalk South APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Calf Pasture Point to Canfield Island LENGTH: 0.4 miles (0.6 km) OWNERSHIP: Municipal LAND USE: Municipal park and beach TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beach fronting glacial outwash deposit. HISTORY OF CHANGE: 1835-1933: variable, accretion of up to 100 feet 1933-1953: erosion 50-75 feet HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Two groins constructed by the municipality prior to 1958. Existing groins lengthened and 94,000 cubic yards of sand fill placed on beach in 1958. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Important municipal recreation facility requiring periodic maintenance and replacement of eroded beach material. C-3 NAME OF SITE: Compo Beach to Old Mill Beach TOWN: Westport COUNTY: Fairfield QUADRANGLE: Sherwood Point APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Compo Yacht Basin to Sherwood Mill Pond LENGTH: 1.3 miles (2.1 km) OWNERSHIP: Municipal LA14D USE: Municipal park and beach. TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beach fronting deposits of artificial fill glacial outwash and till. HISTORY OF CHANGE: Variable erosion throughout the site ranging from 0 to 5.0 feet. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1957: Two stone groins constructed at Compo Beach and 260,000 cubic yards of sand placed between groins. Other protective works consist of municipally constructed revetment at Hills Point and a groin west of the entrance to Sherwood Mill Pond (con- struction dates unknown). JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Important recreational faciliti es requiring periodic and repeated maintenance and replenish- ment of eroded beach materials. C-4 NAME OF SITE: Sherwood Island State Park,.,, Compo Mill Beach TOWN: Westport COUNTY: Fairfield QUADRANGLE: Sherwood Point APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Sherwood Mill Pond to Greens Farms Brook LENGTH: 1.4 miles (2.2 km) OWNERSHIP: State, private residental LAND USE: Public recreational beach, residential low-density (estate) TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beach at Sherwood Point. Barrier beaches extending east and west from point. Central portion of "island" is outwash with till hill on western flank. HISTORY OF CHANGE: Sherwood Point: erosion (hightide shoreline) 250ft. 1957-1971 erosion (lowtide shoreline) 125ft. 1957-1971 East Beach: erosion (hightide shoreline) 25ft. 1957-1971 (low tide shoreline) 200ft., 1957-1971 West Beach: (high tide shoreline) 15ft., 1957-1971 (low tide shoreline) variable changes) HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1957 - Sherwood Island State Park, 3Burial Hill Creek Stabilized with training walls, 1,070,000 yd. of sand fill placed, groin constructed at west-end of western beach. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Recent history of significant erosion. Large important recreational resource maintained only by artificial beach fill C-5 NAM[ 01 Sill,: Southport and Sasco Hill Beaches TOWN: Fairfield COUNTY: Fairfield QUADRANGLE.: Westport/ Sherwood Point APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Sasco Brook to Kensie Point LENGTH: 1.6 miles (2.6 km) OWNERSHIP: Municipal and private LA14D USE: Municipal beach (Southport and Sasco Hi I I residential estates (very low density). TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beaches at Sasco Hill and Southport lying in front of outwash deposits. Low lying bluff composed of glacial till at Kensie Point. HISTORY OF CHA14GE: 1885-1943: Minor accretion Present observation indicates beach realignment induced by groi;ns has caused localized erosion particularly at Sasco Hill Beach. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1957: Groin constructed at Southport Beach east of Sasco Brook, 22,000 cubic yards of sand fill placed on Southport Beach. 1958: Jetty constructed at Sasco Hill Beach east of Mill River, 20,000 cubic yards of sand fill placed on Sasco Hill Beach. Other protection works consist of municipally constructed revetments and private seawalls. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Important recreational facilities at Sasco Hill and Southport Beaches require annual maintenance and replenishment of eroded beach material. Erosion at Sasco Hill Beach is encroaching onto golf course behind the beach. Some recent failures of private seawalls noted on west side of Kensie Point. C-6 NAME OF SITE: Kensie Point to Ash Creek TOWN: Fairfield COUNTY: Fairfield QUADRANGLE: Bridgeport/Westport/Sherwood Point APPROXIMATE LIMITS:Kensie Point to Ash Creek LENGTH: 3.0 miles (4.8 km'.@) OWNERSHIP: Predominantly private; Municipal ownership with public access at Jennings Beach. LAND USE: Private recreational beach, urban low-density residential use and municipal recreational beach. TYPE OF FEATURE: Land contact beach (east end of site). Barrier beach between Pine Creek and Shoal Point. Bluff and escarpement Kensie Point and Pine Creek. HISTORY OF CHANGE: Fairfield Beach: Minor changes Shoal Point: accretion, 50 ft., 1933-1933 accretion, 50 ft., 1933-1948 erosion, 200 ft., 1943-1970 West Fairfield Beach: 1300 ft. truncated from end of barrier beach 1948-1960 East of Kensie Point: erosion 100 ft. 1835-1909 minor erosion 1909-1948 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1959-Fairfield Beach, 140,000 yd3. of sand fill placed, two groins constructed. 1964-West Fairfield Beach, 165,000 yds. of fill placed, 7 groins constructed. 1951-800 foot long jetty constructed at east end of Jennings Beach. Other protective works consist of private seawalls and groins and a municipally constructed revetment at Kensie Point. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Erosion poses seriou@ threat to urban high-density residential area. Pine Creek Spit is a migratory barrier beach. High intensity development and stabilization renders barrier beach unable to adjust to rising sea level. C-7 NAME OF SITE: Seaside Park TOWN: Bridgeport COUNTY: Fairfield QUADRANGLE: Bridgeport APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Fayerweather Island to west harbor breakwater. LENGTH: 2.0 miles (3.2 km). OWNERSHIP: Municipal LA14D USE: Park and recreational beach TYPE OF FEATURE: fringing beach fronting artificial fill HISTORY OF CHA14GE: 1837-1950 minor erosional changes in shoreline. Major changes resulted from artificial filling and construction. 1959-1962 variable erosion 0 to 50 ft. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1914-1918-1200 feet of seawall constrb@cted between Breezy Point and Fayerweather Island 1957-550,000 cubic yards of sand fill placed on beach between Breezy Point and Fayerweather Island. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Important municipal recreation facility requiring periodic maintenence and replenishment of eroded beach sands and repair of storm damages to seawal.l. C-8 NAME OF SITE: Point No Point/Long Beach/Pleasure Beach ToWf4: Stratford/Bridgeport COUNTY: Fairfield QUADRANGLE: Bridgeport APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Bridgeport Harbor to a position 0.5 miles east of Point No Point LENGTH: 2.8 miles (4.5 Km); Bridgeport - .4 miles (.6 Km) Stratford - 2.4 miles (3.9 Km) OWNERSHIP: Predominantly municipal, @ome private residential LAND USE: Public receational beach, residential urban high and low-density. TYPE OF FEATURE: Point No Point - land contact beach Long Beach/Pleasure Beach - barrier beach HISTORY OF CHANGE: Point No Point: minor changes - erosion on east end accretion on west end. Long Beach: migration, 200 - 300 ft., 1883 - 1933 migrati,on, 150 ft., 1933 - 1950 breached by storm, 700 ft. wide, 1950 breach artificially closed.11960 Pleasure Beach: accretion up to 400 ft., 1883 - 1933 accretion up to 250 ft., 1933 - 1950 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: little change, 1969 - 1970 1966 - Long Beach: 600,000 yds. of sand fill placed, 7 groins constructed. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Proximity of residential structures to shoreline at Point No Point. Long Beach/Pleasure Beach is a barrier beach subject to breaching and landward migration. 'C-9 NAML OF S1*1L: Short Beach TOWN: Stratford COUNTY:New Haven QUADRANGLE: Milford APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Stratford Point north to marine basin LENGTH: 0.75 miles (1.2 km). OWNERSHIP: Muni@ipal LAND USE: Public Beach TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beach fronting glacial outwash and artificial fill deposits. HISTORY OF CHANGE: 1837-1933 - accretion of 200 ft. along northerly shore erosion of 0-600 ft. along southerly shore 1933-1950-erosion varying between 0 and 75 feet. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1955 - beach fill placed along beach-during dredging of navigation chanel in Housationic River. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Important municipal recreational facility requiring periodic maintenance and replenishment of eroded beach sand. C-10 NAME OF SITE: Silver Sands Beach to Milford Point TOWN: Milford, COUNTY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: Milford APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Milford Point to Silver Beach LENGTH: 4.0 miles (6.4 km). OWNERSHIP: State (Silver Sands Beach), remainder privately owned by individuals or beach associations. Some public access points occur within private sectors. LAND USE: Public Recreational Beach, urban low-density residential and urban high- density residential uses. TYPE OF FEATURE: Silver, Myrtle and Cedar Beaches and Milford Point are barrier beaches backed by marsh and much artificial fill. Walnut, Wildermere and Laurel Beaches are fringing beaches fronting glacial outwash deposits. HISTORY OF CHA14GE: Myrtle to Cedar Beaches - erosion, 50-100 ft., 1933-1949 Cedar Beach - accretion, 50 ft., 1933-1949 Milford Point - minor migration northward lateral growth, 100 ft., 1910-1933 lateral growth, 100 ft, 1933 - 1949 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1960 - Silver, Meadows End and Myrtle Beaches 223,000 yds. of sand fill placed. 1965 - Laurel Beach 70,000 yds of sand fill placed, 2 groins constructed. many other private seawalls, groins and revetments constructed on indeterminant dates. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Public and private beaches maintained solely by filling. Residential structures in eminent danger. Milford Point is a migratory barrier beach. IC-11 NAME OF SITE: Gulf Beach TOWN: Milford COU14TY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: Milford APPROXIMATL LIMITS: Milford Harbor entrance to Welches Point LENGTH: 0.5 miles (0.8 Km) OW14ERSHIP: Public (Town of Milford), private residental (approximately equal portions) LAND USE: Public recreational beach, residential .TYPE OF FEATURE: Land contact beach fronting till. HISTORY OF CHANGE: Erosion, southerly section, 50 ft..1933 - 1949 accretion, at jetty on northerly end, 150 ft. 1933 1949 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1957- 55,000 yds 3 of sand fill placed 1966- 15,000 yds:3 of sand fill placed 1967- jetty extended and raised JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Public recreational beach maintained only through regular nourishment. C-12 NAME OF SITE: Point Beach to Bayview Beach TOWN: Milford COUNTY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: Milford APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Welches Point to Pond Point LENGTH: 1.2 miles (2.0 Km.) OW14ERSHIP: Private with some public access points LANU USE: Private recreational beaches fronting urban low-density residential areas. TYPE OF FEATURE:' Land contact beach with small barrier beach between two outwash headlands HISTORY OF CHANGE: Point Beach - minor erosion 1.933-1939 Bayview Beach - relatively stable HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Private stabilization in the form of revetments, seawalls and groins JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Residential structures in eminent danger of damage from erosion of any magnitude. C-13 NAME OF SITE: Woodmont TOWN: Milford COUNTY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: Woodmont APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Merwin Point to Oyster River LENGTH: 0.8 miles (1.3 Km) OWNERSHIP: Public, private (approximately equal portions) LAND USE: Private recreational beach with some public access points, public recreational beach, both backed by residential suburban high and low density. TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beach fronting glacial till deposits HISTORY OF CHANGE: Minor changes erosion 50 ft., 1838-1949 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1959 - 5 groins constructed, 170,000 yds. 3 of sand fill placed between Oyster River and erwin Point 1964 - 5 groins repaired, 63,000 yds. of sand fill placed. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Recreational beach experiencing continual erosion. Beach facility maintained only through repeated nourishment. C-14 NAME OF SITE: Prospect and Savin Rock Beaches TOWN: West Haven COUNTY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: New Haven/Woodmont APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Oyster River to Sandy Point LENGTH: 4.6 mi I es (7. 4 Km. OWNERSHIP: Principally public (town of West Haven) some private residential and beach associations. LAND USE: Public recreational beach with some public access points. TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beach, fr6nting 'deposits of'glaci,al outwash, between Oyster River and Morse Point.' Sandy IPoint and Morse Point spits are barrier beaches. HISTORY OF CHANGE: Sandy Point - migration (north) 800 ft., 1884-1971 lateral growth (east) 2300 ft., 1884-1.971 Morse Point - lateralgrowth (east) 1300 ft., 1949-1971 SAvin Rock Beach - accretion (along entire length) 50 - 100 ft., 1933 - 1949 Savin Rock Beach - erosion (along entire length) 50-100 ft., 1949-1971 (Prospect Beach - accretion along entire length 50 - 100 ft., 1949-1971) 3 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1957 - 440,000 yds. of sand filllplaced on Prospect Beach 1973 - 6 groins built 25,000 yds' of sand fill placed, 2 groins built on Prospect Beach JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Recreational beach with a history of large scale maintenance and filling. Sandy point, Morse Point are migratory barrier features. C-15 NAME OF SITE: Morris Cove TOWN: New Haven COU14TY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: New Haven APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Lighthouse Point to Forbes Bluff LENGTH: 0. 7 mi I es ( 1. 1 km) . I OWNERSHIP: Approximately equal portions of private and municipal properties. LAND USE: Municipal Park and surban high density residential. TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beach fronting glacial outwash and artificial fill deposits. HISTORY OF CHA14GE: 1838-1933 variable erosion. Recession of 150 ft. near Fort Hale Park diminishing to 25 ft. of recession north of Lighthouse Point Park. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Area is protected predominantly by pr4vately constructed bulk- heads and seawalls which have deterioriated. Municipal park area is protected by municipally constructed seawall and groin. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Recent significant loss of beach material from in front of seawalls coupled with deteriorating condition of walls has produced a potentially dangerous situation along the resedentially developed portions of shore. C-16 NAME OF SITE: Lighthouse Point TOWN: New Haven COUNTY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: Woodmont APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Lighthouse Point to Morris Creek LENGTH: 0.25 miles (0.4 Km) OW14ERSHIP: Municipal LAND USE: Public recreational beach TYPE OF FEATURE: Land contact beach fronting artificial fill HISTORY OF CHANGE: erosion - 50 ft., 1952 - 1955 accretion - 100 - 200 ft., 1960-1970 (possible fill) HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1958 groin constSucted at west end of beach 1949 168,000 yds of fill placed on beach JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Public recreational beach requiring significant beach nourishment for maintenance. Erosion constitutes large impact on public use. Q- 17 NAME OF SITE: Momauguin and Silver Sands Beaches IOWN: East Haven COUNTY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: Bran f ord/Woodmont APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Caroline Creek to Mansfield Point LENGTH: .95 miles (1.5 Km) OWNERSHIP: Private with one small section of public beach LAND USE: Residential (suburban high - density), recreational beach. TYPE OF FEATURE: Eastern end, fringing beach fronting- artificial fill. West end, barrier beach. HISTORY OF CHANGE: Momauguin - erosion 100 ft., 1885-1952 Silver Sands erosion (west end) 100 ft.,-1933-1952 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Caroline Creek structurally relocated and channelized Channelization has failed private seawalls and groins along beaches. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Residential structures presently standing in water during normal tide conditions as a result of erosion of beach area. C-18 NAME OF SITE: Chaffinch Isl-and TOW14: Guilford COU14TY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: Guilford APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Tuttles Point to West River LENGTH: 0.46 miles (0.75 Km) OWNERSHIP: Public, private residential LAND USE: Open space - vacant land public portions utilized for recreational purposes. TYPE OF FEATURE: Two arcuate marsh coves punctuated by three bedrock headlands. Minor deposits of beach material present in coves HISTORY OF CHANGE: erosion - (entire segment) 200 300 ft., 1385 1933 erosion - (entire se ment) 150 200 ft.,-1933 1948 erosion - (west cove@ 100 ft., 1948 - 1970 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: No structures, undeveloped JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Largest magnitude of recent change on Connecticut coast. 6-19 NAME OF SITE: Circle Beach - Grass Island, TOWN: Madi son/oui 1 ford COUNTY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: Guilford APPROXIMATE LIMITS: West end of Grass Island to Hogshead Point LENGTH: 0.9 miles (1.5 Km) Guilford 0.8 miles (1.3 Km) Madison 0.1 miles (0.2 Km) OW14ERSHIP: Circle Beach - Predominantly private Grass Island - municipal LAND USE: Public rec reational beach, private recreational beach fronting open space and residental suburban low - density. TYPE OF FEATURE: Minor'barrier feature backed by tidal marsh. HISTORY OF CHANGE: Circle Beach - erosion 50 ft., 1883 - 1948 Grass Island - erosion(south shore) 200 ft.., 1838 1933 Grass Island - erosion(west shore) 100 ft., 1838 1933' HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Private groins and seawalls JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Circle Beach - proximity of houses to water. Houses directly on beach. Grass Island - large magnitude of change combined with presence of residences in immediate proximity to shoreline. -C-20 NAME 01: SITE-. West Wharf, Middle and Seaview Beaches TOWN: Madison COUNTY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: Clinton APPROXIMATE LIMITS: West Wharf to Webster Point LENGTH: 2.0 miles @3.2 km). OWNERSHIP: Predominantly private with small segments of municipal ownership at East Wharf, West Wharf and along Middle Beach. LA14D USE: Private recreational beach, with two smal I municipally owned public beaches (East Wharf, West Wharf) and areas of low density residential use. TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beach fronting deposits of glacial outwash at East and West Wharves and Seaview Beach. Low bluff composed of glacial outwash and protected by revetment at Middle Beach. HISTORY OF CHANGE: 1838-1933 variable erosion 50-100 feet throughout the area. Erosion in excess of 100 feet noted at Middle Beach. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1957-stone revetment constructed at Mtddle Beach. Other protective works consist of private and municipally constructed seawalls and groins. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Important municipal recreational facilities affected by loss of beach material. Residential development in close proximity to shore and roadway located at shoreline. C-21 NAME OF SITE: Hammonasset Beach TIWI: Madison COUNTY: New Haven QUADRANGLE: Clinton APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Webster Point to Hammonasset Point LENGTH: 1.9 miles (3.0 Km) OW14ERSHIP: State LAND USE: Public Recreational beach TYPE OF FEATURE: Fringing beach 'with small barrier feature at eastern end connecting the central outwash deposit with eas-tern till deposits. HISTORY OF CHANGE: erosion west end) 150 ft., 1883 - 1949 accretion (east end) 100 ft.2 1883 - 1949 of shorel'ine changes between 1883 and 1949 indicate rotation clockwise about central point. 1976-1977, 14,000 cubic yards of material lost from beach area. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1955 - Toms Creek inlet channelized by trainigg walls, groin constructed at Hammonasset Point2 3802000 yds of sand fill placed on beach. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Major state shoreline recreational facility subject to regular erosion. C 22 NAME OF SITE: Grove Beach, Clinton Beach TOWN: Westbrook/Clinton COUNTY: Middlesex QUADkANGLE: Essex/Clinton APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Kelsey Point to Grove Beach Point LENGTH: 2.3 miles (3.7 Km) Westbrook - 1.1 miles 0.8 Km) Clinton - 1.2 miles (1.9 Km) OW14ERSHIP: Private LAOD USE: Private recreational beach fronting residential urban low-density. TYPE OF FEATURE:' 'Fringi.ng beach fronting end mo.ra.ine. Flanked on east-and West @y barrier beaches fronting salt marsh. Artificial fill present in marsh behind Grove Beach. HISTORY OF CHANGE: Grove Beach - erosion, 300 - 500 ft., 1883-1970 (major changes at east end) , Clinton Beach - erosion, 50 - 150 ft., 1883 - 1970 (regular erosion between Kelsey Point and a position 1.7 miles east of Point) HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Groin field at Clinton Beach privately constructed. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Proximity of residential structures to shoreline in shoreline in combination with historical erosional changes. C-23 NAME OF SITE: West Beach TOWN: Westbrook COUNTY: Middlesex QUADRANGLE: Essex APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Groin at east end of beach to a poi,nt 0.25 miles (0.4 Km) west LE14GTH: 0.25 miles (0.4 Km) OWNERSHIP: Private and municipal LAND USE: Public recreational beach fronting urban low density residental TYPE OF FEATURE: Barrier beach extending west from morainal deposits, fronting tidal marsh HISTORY OF CHANGE: erosion 100 ft., 1933 - 1949 erosion 50 ft., 1949 - 1970 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENI: Large groin at east end of segment constructed on unknown date JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Recent erosional changes adversely impacting land use at municipal beach. C-24 NAME PF SITE: Chapman Beach, Chalker Beach TOWN: Old Saybrook COUNTY: Middlesex QUADRANGLE: Essex APPROXIMATE LIMITS: old I(elsey Point east to Chapman Point LENGTH: 0.9 miles (1.4 Km) OWNERSHIP: Private LAND USE: Private recreational beach fronting urban low-density residential TYPE OF FEATURE:' Fringing beach and barrier beach backed by substantial artificial fill.on contiguous wetland. HISTORY OF CHANGE: Minor changes over period of record, most resulting from erosion and accretion around groins. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 1961 - 9700 yds. 3 of sand fill placed on Chalker beach, private groins. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Any erosion will result in adverse impact on residential structures located on beach. C-25 NAME OF SITE: Plum Bank, Great Hammock BeaQh TOWN: Old Saybrook COUNTY: Middlesex QUADRANGLE: Essex APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Indiantown Harbor to Cornfield Point LENGTH: 1.1 miles (1.8 KA) OWNERSHIP: Private, one small segment of municipal beach LAND USE: Private recreational beach fronting urban low-density residential. TYPE OF FEATURE:- barrier beaches fronting substantial artificial fill projecting north from morainal deposit at Cornfield Point. HISTORY OF CHANGE: No documented changes over the period of record. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Many private seawalls, revetments, groins. JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Location of residential development on beach. Any erosion will produce serious effects on land use. C-26 111VIL- OF SITL: Griswold Point 11WA: Old Lyme COUNTY: New London OUADRANGLE: Old Lyme APPROXIMATE. LIMITS: Griswold Point to White Sands Beach Lk 14GTH: 0.9 miles 0.5 Km) OWNERSHIP: non-profit private organization (Nature Conservancy) and private. LA11D USE: Undeveloped, open space; residential estate TYPE OF FEATURE:" Barrier spit extending from morainal deposits on east into Connecticut River. HfSTORY OF CHANGE: Northern migration 200 ft. 1883 - 1949 lateral westerly growth 1000 ft. 1883 - 1949 northern migration 100 - 200 ft. 1949 - 1970 lateral westerly growth 400 ft. 1949 - 1970 Recent investigati:on indicates erosion rates on the order of 3 feet per year. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENI: no structural or non-structural management JUS TIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Large scale migratory feature subject to major migration and lateral growth. -C-27 11,'VIL OF SITL: White Sands Beach to Hatchett Point TOW[@: Old Lyme COU14TY: New London QUADRANGLE: Old Lyme APPROXIMATE LIMITS: White Sands Beach to Hatchett Point L@NGTH: 2.6 miles (4.2 Km) 01-111ERSIIIP: Predominantly private, - 0.7 miles in public ownership. LAIID USE: Residential urban high and low-density with private recreational beach, some public beach, undeveloped wetland and open space. TYPE OF FEATU@E: Fringing beach fronting -till, outwash and end-moraine deposits with minor barrier-beaches between. HISTORY OF CHANGE: erosion - average,-%/ 50 - 100 ft., 1883 - 1949 White Sands Beach , erosion - 200 ft., 1883. - 1949 Recent investigations indicate erosion rates on the orde@ of 3 feet per year in the vicinity of White Sands Beach. III @TORY OF MANAGEMEN I : 1957 - 2 groins constructed at White Sands Beach in addition to existing groin. 3 1966 - 37,000 yds. of sand fill placed at White Sands Beach. Large private groin field maintained at Hawks Nest Beach by beach association. J V) TIFICATIO14 FOR DESfG[JATION: Residential structures in area constructed on beach in close proximity to water. Any erosion will result in major impact on use. C-28 NIVIL OF SITL: Oak Grove Beach, Pond Point T')WN: East Lyme COUNTY: New London QUADRANGLE: Niantic APPROXIMATE LIMITS: 0.25 miles north and south of Pond Point LENGTH: 0.5 miles (0.8 Km) OUNERSHIP: Private L&W USE: Residential, urban low-density with private recreational beach. TYPE OF FEATURE:- Small barrier and fringing beaches fronting Indian Pond. Bedrock exposed in foreshore. HISTORY OF CHANGE: erosion: (south of point) - 150 ft., 1882 - 1949 erosion: (south of point) - 200 ft., 1949 - 1970 HISTORY OF MANAGEMEN'1: No control structures in evidence JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Large magnitude of change south of Pond Point. Proximity of residences to water north of Pond Point. G-29- NAME OF SITE: Jordan Cove Spit TOWN: Waterford COUNTY: New London QUADRANGLE: Niantic APPROXIMATE LIMITS: North end of Jordan Cove Spit to north end of Pleasure Beach. LENGTH: 0.5 miles (0.8 Km) 0WNERSHIP: Private LAND USE: Open space (regulated tidal wetland) TYPE OF FEATURE: Barrier spit fronting salt marsh HISTORY OF CHANGE- Lateral growth (westerly) 1300 ft. 1883 - 1949 Lateral growth (northerly) ----------400 ft. 1949 - 1970 Landward migration - 50 - 100 ft. 1949 - 1970 erosion (southwest point) 100 ft. 1949 - 1970 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: 2 bulkheads constructed privately on landward side of spit prior to 1949 JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Medium scale barrier feature subject to major historical migration and lateral growth. C-30 NAME OF SITE: Goshen Point, Ocean Beach TOWN: Waterford, New London COUNTY: New London QUADRANGLE: New London APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Goshen Point to Long Rock LENGTH: 1.2 0.75.miles (.1.2 km) Waterford 0.45 miles (0.72 km) New London OWNERSHIP: State and Municipal LAND USE: State and municipal parks with recreational beach TYPE OF FEATURE: Barrier beach fronting wetland HISTORY OF CHANGE: General accretion, 50-100 ft., 1839-1883 General erosion, 25-50 ft., 1883-1955 Migration of Alewife Cove inlet 100 ft. southward, 1839-1955 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Beach fill, unknown volume, 1940. JUSTIFICATIO14 FOR DESIGNATION: Important public recreational beach facility located on small scale migratory barrier beach. C-31 NAME OF SITE: Bluff Point - Bushy Point Beach TOWN: Groton COUNTY: New London QUADRANGLE : New London APPROXIMATE LIMITS: West end of Bushy Point Beach to Mumford Point LENGTH: 1.2 mile ( I.9 Km) 0WNERSHIP: State LAND USE: Coastal* Reserve TYPE OF FEATURE: Bedrock core drumlin (Bluff Point) with associated barrier spit (Bushy Point Beach) HISTORY OF CHANGE: Bushy Point Beach originally formed as a tombolo through reworking and transport of till from Bluff Point, Bushy Point and the till platform on which it rests. Tombolo was breached in 1938, by hurricane, forming spit. Landward recession of 150 ft., 1846 - 1949. HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT: Undeveloped, no control structures JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATION: Large scale migratory feature exhibiting significant change,breaching. C-32 HAt-IL OF SITL: Sandy Point ToWN: Stonington COUNTY: New London QUADRANGLE: Mystic APPROXIMATE LIMITS: Distal end of Sandy Point to Connecticut/Rhode Island Border. LE14GTH: 0.3 miles (0.48 Km) OUNERSHIP: Private LAND USE: Private recreational beach TYPE OF FEATURE:' Barrier spit HISTORY OF CHANGE: Lateral growth (northerly) from Napatree Point, breached in 1938 by hurricane. Recent migration to north occurring,in conjunction with counter clockwise rotation of barrier island. HISTORY OF MANAGEMEN-1: Undeveloped, no control structures JUSTIFICATIO14 FOR DESIGNATION: Large scale barrier island subject to major migratory change and breaching. C-33 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D I EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS I I I I I I I I I LOCATION (CONSTRUCTION DATE) D@-SCRIPTION COST TO COST TO @OCAL 'ECT NUMBER STATE TOTAL FED. GOVI@ COST BRANFORD 25 *Branford Point Park (1963) 11,000 yd3 of sand fill placed along 300' of beach widening it 18237.00 9119.00 27356.00 to 100' BI-FC-50 Town Total 27356.00 BRIDGEPORT Grover Hill (1968) 2 12 2320' of stone revetment 133395.00 66697.00 200092.00 Constructed Parallel to Grover Ave. BI-FC-63 *Seaside Pa5k (1957) 550,000 yd of sand fill placed along 8800' of beach widening it to 125' between Breezy Point and Fayerwether Island. 150000.00 169947.00 159973.00 479920.00 Town Total 680012.00 CLINTON 4 29 *Clinton Tor Beach (1964) 21,000 yd of sand fill placed on beach 29885.00 14942.00 44827.00 BI-FC-33 Town Total 44827.00 EAST HAVEN 5 24 West Silver Sands (1958) 1 200' groin constructed, 170,000 yd3 of sand fill placed along 2550' of beach widening it to 100' 78714.00 15 742 8.00 2 37142. 00 BI-FC-11 A&B Town Total W142.00 D-1 ZD LOCATION (CONSTRUCTION DATE) OESCRIPTION COST TO COST TO LOCAL PROJECT NUMBER FED. GOVT STATE COST TOTAL EAST LYME 6 33 Giants Neck (1975) 23966.00 47933.00 91899-00 2sections :)f Stone revetment constructed-300' and 550' long parallel to Giants Neck Road and Patagansett Road +20000.00 7 34 *McCook Point (1974) 300' of stone revetment constructed east side of Point. One groin, 150' long constructed east of point 86090.00 86090.00 BI-FC-69 Town Total 177989.00 FAIRFIELD 8 11 *Jennings Beach (1951) 800' long jetty constructed west of mouth of Ash Creek 14401.00 14799.00 13941.00 43141-00 BI-FC-14 BI-FC-5 A 9 10 Fairfield Biach 0959) 140,000 yd of sand fill placed alonq 4400' ofbeach, two 325' longgrains constructed between Shoal Point and Jennings Beach. 80269.00 160538.00 240807.00 BI-FC-18 A&B 10 8 *Sasco Hill Beach (1958) 20,000 yd 3of sand fill placed along 900' of beach widening it to 100' , one 400' jetty constructed east of entrance to Southport Harbor 23759.00 23759.00 23758.00 71276.00 BI-FC-5A BI-FC-14 D-2 LOCATIJN (CONSTRUCTION DATE) DESCRIPTION COST TO COST TO LOCAL CD PROJECT NUMBER FED. GOVT STATE COST TOT 2 FAIRFIELD (Con't) 11 7 *Southport Beach (1957-58) 22,000 yd 3of sand fill placed along 700' of beach widening i t 700' to .100' , 400' 1 ong groi n constructed east of moutn of Sasco Brook. 17631.00 17632.00 17631.00 52894.00 BI-FC-5A BI-FC-14 12 9 West Fairfield Beach (1964) 121792.00 243576.00 365368.00 165,000 yd3 of fill placed along 5600' of beach, 7 groins constructed (2 by town) between Pine Creek Pt. and Shoal Point. BI-FC-39 A&B Town Total 773486.00 GROTON 13 38 *Esker Poin@ Park (1969) 14,500 yd Jof material excavated, 7,403 yd 3 of sand fill placed. 88569.00 44284..00 132853.00 BI-FC-55 14 37 *Avery Poin@, UConn (1971) 12,000 ft.f- of seawall repaired east side of Avery Point 45793.00 45793.00 BI-FC-74 Town Total 178646.00 D-3 LU J LOCATIJN (CONSTRUCTION DATE) 01-I'SCRIPTION LCOST TO COST TO LOCAL COST P, JECT NUMBER FED. GOVT STATE TOTAL GUILFORD 15 26 *Guilford Point Beach (1957) 300' long groin constructed at east end of beach. 15620.00 15920.00 15321.00 46861.00 BI-FC-8 16 26 *Guilford @oint Beach (1959) 13,000 yd .-of sand fill placed along 400' of shore- line west of groin, 14,585 yd3 of mud removed. 28186.00 14094.00 42280.00 BI-FC-16 Town Total 89141.00 MADISON 17 28 *Hammonasset Park (1955) Two training(sheet steel) walls constructed at mouth of Tom's Creek-320' long and 400' long, one 800' long groin constructed at Meigs Point, 380,000 yd3 of sand fill placed between Tom's Creek and Meigs Point. 163188.00 326366.00 4UO954-9.00 BI-T-23 *Hammonasset Park (1966) Stone groin repaired 21062.00 21062.00 BI-FC-61 19 27 *Middle Beach (1957) 700' of stone revetment constructed along Middle Beach Road. 8810.00 8810.00 8810.00 26430.00 BI-FC-10 Town Total 537041.00 D-4 LOCATION (CONSTRUCTION DAI-E) DESCRIPTION COST TO CCST TO LOCAL CD -P-ROJECT NUMBER FED. GOVT STATE COST TOTAL MILFORD 20 18 *Gulf Beach 3 (1957) 55,000 yd of sand fill placed along 1200' of beach widening it to 1001. 21303.00 21303.00 21303.00 63909.00 BI-FC-4 21 18 *Gulf Beac@ (1966) 15,000 yd of sand fill placed along 800' of beach. 22650.00 22650.00 BI-FC-43 22 18 *Gulf Beach (1967) 350' of existing jetty raised and a spur groin added. 27191.00 13595.00 40786.00 BI-FC-56 23 173 Laurel Beach (1965) 2 groins reconstucted, one new groin constructed, 70,000 yd3 of sand placed along 2800' of shore between Ist and 7th Avenues. 60698.00 121394.00 182092.00 BI-FC-49 A&B 24 19 Morningside Beach (1963) 1500' of stone revetment constructed along Morningside Drive between Crest Place and Beacher Road. 52559.00 26280-00 78839.00 BI-FC-47 D-5 _UCATION (CONSTRUCTION DATE) DESCRIPTION COST TO, COST TO LOCAL PROJECT NUMBER FED. GOVT STATE COST TOTAL MILFORD (con't) 24 19 Morningside Beach (1965) 1000' of stone revetment constructed adjacent to existing revetment (above) 47690.00 22346.00 70036..00 B-I-FC-57 26 16 Silver To Cedar Beaches (1955) Fill placed along 8500' cost breakdown unavailable 333255.00 of shore 27 16 Silver Meadows End and Myrtle Beaches (1960) 223,000 yd3of sand fill placed along 5300' of shorefront parallel to East Broadway between Cedar and Pearl Streets. cost breakdown unavailable 301507-00 BI-FC-19B 28 17 Silver Sands State Park 105600.00 105600.00 29 20 Woodmont Shore (1959) 5 stone groins qonstructed and 170,000 yd J of sand fill placed between Oyster River and Merwin Point. 53838.00 46442.00 65237.00 '165517.00 BI-FC-17 A&B 30 20 Woodmont Shore (1964) 5 groins r@paried, 63,000 yd J of sand fill placed. 42160.00 81840.00 124000.00 BI-FC-46 A&B Town Total 1488191.00 D-6 I.D. NUMBER LOCATON NUMBER LOCATION (CONSTRUCTION DATE) Local DESCRIPTION COST TO COST TO PROJECT NUMBER FED. GOVT STATE COST TOTAL NEW HAVEN 31 23 Lighthouse Point Park (1958) 380 long stone groin constructed west side of 4556.00 3843.00 11789.00 beach. 3390.00 BI-FC-21 Town Total 11789.00 NEW LONDON 32 36 Neptune Park (1964) 63,000 yd . of sand fill placed along 800' of shore. 68499.00 65901.00 134400.00 BI-FC-26 Town Total 134400.00 NORWALK 33 3 Calf Pasture Beach (1958) Two existing groins lenthened,94,000 yd of sand fill placed. 56386.00 56164.00 54005.00 166555.00 BI-FC-22 A&B Town Total 166555.00 OLD LYME 34 32 Point Woods (1965) 600' of revetment con- structed along Champion Road, 24,000 32yd 3 of sand fill placed along 950' of shore, training wall modified. 39398.00 78795.00 118193.00 BI-FC.-52 D-7 LOCATION (CONSTRUCTION DATE) 'HSCRIPTION COST TO COST TO LOCAL PROJECT NUMBER FED. GOV'T STATE --COST _____T0_TAL OLD LYME (Con't) 35 31 White Sands Beach (1957) Stone groin constructed at west end of beach, 51,000 yd'3 of sand fill placed. 247Z3.00 47990.,00@ 72713.00 BI-FC-9 A&B 36 31 White Sands Beach (1966) 2 stone groins constructed 19403.00 30994.00. 50397.00 BI-FC-32 37 31. White Sand@ Beach (1967) 37,000 yd of sand fill placed between 3 existing groins. 65028.00 65028.00 BI-FC-44 Town Total 306331.00 OLD SAYBROOK 38 30 Chalker Beach (1961) 97,00 yd 3 of sand fill placed along 1600' of shore. 33542.00 65890.00 99432.00 BI-FC-15 Town Total 99432.00 STAMFORD 39 2 .'Cove Island (1958) 4001 stone jetty con- structed at eastern rd of Island.61,000 yd . of sand fill placed along 1300' of shore. 47131.00 47584.00 46668.00 14138 3. 00 BI-FC-23 D-8 LOCATION (CONSTRUCTION DATE) DESCRIPTION COST TO COST TO LOCAL CD -AL -1 PROJE"CT NUMBER FED. GOVT STATE COST T07; STAMFORD (Con't) n 40 1 .'ummings Park (1960) Existing jetty raised and existing groin lengthened, 45,000' yd 3 of sand fill placed between structures. 26886.00 40708.00 20354.00 87948.00 BI-FC-30 Town Total 229331.00 STRATFORD 41 14 Long Beach (1966) 7 stone groins constructed, 600,000 yd 3 of sand fill placed between groins. 276708.00 138354.00 415062.00 BI-FC-41 42 15 Short Beach (1955) Sand fill placed along 3500' of shore between Sniffen and Stratford Points. No cost fill from Fed. Navig. project Housatonic River Town Total 415062.00 WATERFORD 43 35 Seaside Regional Center (1967) 3 stone groins rebuilt,810' of revetmeq constructed, 15,615 yd. of sand fill placed between grions. 118593.00 118593.00 BI-FC-59 Town Total 118593.00 D-9 LIJ ::D LOCAT-ON (CONSTRUCTION DATE) CD DESCRIPTION COST TO COST TO LOCAL sDROJ',7CT NUMBER FED. GQVT STATE COST TOTAL WEST HAVEN 44 20 Aimes Point (1965) 1600' of revetment constructed along Ocean Avenue between Baldwin and Hurbut Streets in front of existing seawall.. 35800.00 57188.00 92988.00 BI-FC-60 45 21 Prospect Beach (1957) 6 stone groins con- strrted and 440,000 yd of sand fill placed along Ocean Avenue between South and Ivy Streets. 104573.00 139540.00 114394.00 358507.00 BI-FC-12 46 21 Prospect Beach (1973) 6 existing groins repaired, 2 additional groins constructed, 25,000 yd 3 of sand fill placea. 110667.00 55333.00 166000.00 BI-FC-71 Town Total 617495.00 WESTPORT 47 6 Burial Hil Beach (1957) 17,000 yd of sand fill placed along 500' of shore east of Burial Hill Creek. 5810.00 5810.00 5810.00 17430.00 BI-FC-7 D-10 I.D. NUMBER LOCATION NUMBER LOCATION (CONSTRUCTION DATE) COST TO COST TO LOCAL DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER FED. GOVT STATE COST TOTAL WESTPORT 48 4 Compo Beach (1957) 2 stone groins con- structed east and west of Cedir Point 260,000 yd . of sand fill placed between groins. 84544.00 71333.00 133667.00 28954-4.00 BI-FC-13 BI-FC-2 49 5 Sherwood Island, State Park (1957) 2 training walls constructed at the mouth of Burial Hill Creek, one groin con- structed at west end of beach, 1 070, 000 yd 3 of sand fill placed along 6,000 of shore. 186830.00 581002.00 767832.00 BI-FC-l 50 5 Sherwood Island State Park Existing training walls repiared. 19262.00 19262.00 BI-FC-48 Town Total 1,094,068.00 GRAND TOTAL 7425337.00 D-11 .1 i I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I 1111811110110 3 6668 14109 1290 1