[brief] In addition to the burdens and harms that the trial court’s decision caused to private property rights, this case also involves an issue of significant public and private importance with far-reaching implications concerning preservation of beach dunes constructed at huge public expense to protect our beaches and coastal communities.  [...] and its predecessors-in-title previously permitted plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title to access the mean high-water line (“MHWL”) of the Atlantic Ocean by walking directly from their property across the [...] property as an alternative to the nearby common access paths used by the rest of the community.  That changed after Hurricane Sandy struck in October 2012 and demonstrated the devastating damage that ocean storms can cause to coastal communities.  The United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), the State of New Jersey, and many municipalities spent hundreds of millions of dollars to construct sand dunes along the Jersey Shore as a storm-damage reduction measure.  The dunes constructed on and over [...] property are essential to protecting [...] and other coastal communities, and required [...] to take appropriate and critical steps to preserve them.  Consistent with the USACE design plans and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (“NJDEP”) Coastal Zone Management Rules (“CZM Rules”), [...] determined that to avoid damage to and degradation of the protective dunes it could no longer allow its beachfront property owners, such as plaintiffs, to breach the dunes to access the MHWL.  Instead, [...] would limit intrusions across the dunes to the eight street ends, which are no further than 150 feet from any beachfront property owner.  In fact, most beachfront owners, including plaintiffs, are only about 50 feet from the nearest beach access point.  [...] was and is fully within its private property rights to limit beach access to these common access points, as this is exactly what the original developers of [...] intended.  The foundational 1925 Map shows that the original owners and sellers of the plaintiffs’ property planned to construct a boardwalk, which would have been a physical barrier to east-west crossing, along the beach with common access points; no private access points are shown.  Further, neither the chain of title to plaintiffs’ property nor the chain of title to [...]’s property contains a reference to any such easement.  Rather, the express language in the chain of title to plaintiffs’ property defines the eastern boundary as ending “two feet west” of a reservation for the planned boardwalk on [...]’s property, which [...]’s predecessor-in-title specifically withheld for itself.  Nevertheless, unconcerned with preserving the dunes or protecting the broader community from the next super storm or hurricane, and instead indignant over a 50-foot walk, plaintiffs filed suit to force [...] to allow them to walk across the federally funded and environmentally protected dunes.  Plaintiffs’ claim for an implied easement is essentially built on a single premise: that because their property is in close proximity to the beach, conveyance instruments, boundaries, borders, regulations, and case law does not apply to them.