OCS Study 

MMS 2004-044

FINAL REPORT 

ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS OF POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS 

OFFSHORE NORTHERN NEW JERSEY AND SOUTHERN NEW 

YORK AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF SAND 

REMOVAL FOR COASTAL AND BEACH RESTORATION

Volume I: Main Text 

 Prepared by: In Cooperation With: 

Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

 766 Falmouth Road, Suite A-1 Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. 

 Mashpee, MA 02649 Germano & Associates, Inc. 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Leasing Division 

Marine Minerals Branch 

Funded Under Contract Number 1435-01-01-CT-31118 
DISCLAIMER 

This manuscript has been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service and approved for 

publication. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report 

are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the MMS. 

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use. This report has been technically reviewed according to contractual 

specifications; however, it is exempt from further review by the MMS Technical Publication Unit. 

SUGGESTED CITATION 

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, S.W. Kelley, J.L. Baker, D.B. Snyder, T.D. Thibaut, S.A Zichichi, 

L.M. Lagera, S.T. Viada, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, and J.D. Germano, 2004. Environmental 

Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York and 

the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division, Marine Minerals 

Branch, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2004-044, Volume I: Main Text 264 pp. + Volume II: 

Appendices 194 pp. 
FINAL REPORT 

ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS OF POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS 

OFFSHORE NORTHERN NEW JERSEY AND SOUTHERN NEW 

YORK AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF SAND 

REMOVAL FOR COASTAL AND BEACH RESTORATION 

November 2004 

Mark R. Byrnes 

Physical Processes Project Manager, Co-Editor 

(Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc.) 

Richard M. Hammer 

Biological Component Project Manager, Co-Editor 

(Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.) 

With Contributions from: 

Sean W. Kelley Luis M. Lagera, Jr. 

Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

Jessica L. Baker Stephen T. Viada 

Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

David B. Snyder Barry A. Vittor 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. 

Tim D. Thibaut John S. Ramsey 

Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc.

Salvatore A. Zichichi Joseph D. Germano

Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Germano & Associates, Inc. 

Prepared by: Prepared for: 

Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. U.S. Department of the Interior 

766 Falmouth Road, Suite A-1 Minerals Management Service 

Mashpee, MA 02649 Leasing Division

Marine Minerals Branch

381 Elden Street, MS 4010 

 Herndon, VA 22070 

In Cooperation with: 

 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. 

Germano & Associates, Inc. 

Contract Number 1435-01-01-CT-31118 
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York i

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

 Numerous people contributed to the project titled Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas 

Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York and the Environmental Implications of Sand 

Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration, which was funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service (MMS), Leasing Division, Marine Minerals Branch. Mr. Barry S. Drucker 

provided assistance and direction during the project as the MMS Contracting Officer’s Technical 

Representative. Ms. Jane Carlson served as the MMS Contracting Officer. 

 Dr. Mark R. Byrnes of Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. (Applied Coastal) served as 

Project Manager; Physical Processes Component Manager; co-authored Sections 1.0 (Introduction), 2.1 

(Offshore Sedimentary Environment), 2.2 (General Circulation), 3.0 (Regional Geomorphic Change), 5.1 

(Currents and Circulation), 7.1 (Offshore Sand Resource Areas), 7.3 (Currents and Circulation), 7.4.1 

(Historical Sediment Transport Patterns), 7.7 (Potential Cumulative Effects), and 8.0 (Conclusions); and 

was Co-Editor of the report. Dr. Richard M. Hammer of Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA) served 

as Biological Component Manager; authored Sections 7.5.1 (Effects of Offshore Dredging on Benthic 

Biota) and 7.5.2 (Recolonization Periods and Success); co-authored Sections 1.0 (Introduction) and 8.0 

(Conclusions); and was Co-Editor of the report. 

 Other Applied Coastal personnel who participated in the project included Ms. Jessica L. Baker who 

was responsible for shoreline and bathymetric change data compilation and surface modeling and coauthored Sections 2.1 (Offshore Sedimentary Environment), 3.0 (Regional Geomorphic Change), and 

7.4.1 (Historical Sediment Transport Patterns). Mr. Sean W. Kelley and Mr. John S. Ramsey co-authored 

Sections 4.0 (Assessment of Wave Climate Impact by Offshore Borrow Sites), 5.2 (Offshore Sediment 

Transport), 7.2 (Wave Transformation Modeling), 7.4.2 (Sediment Transport Modeling at Potential Borrow 

Sites), and 7.4.3 (Nearshore Sediment Transport Potential). Mr. Salvatore A. Zichichi co-authored 

Sections 2.2 (General Circulation), 5.1 (Currents and Circulation), and 7.3 (Currents and Circulation). Ms. 

Elizabeth Hunt was responsible for report compilation and editorial assistance during production of the 

report. 

 Other CSA personnel who contributed to the project included Mr. David B. Snyder, who served as 

Chief Scientist for the biological field surveys; authored the sections concerning fishes and squids 

throughout the document; and incorporated sections from other authors concerning infauna, epifauna, 

and discussion into the remainder of Section 6.0 (Biological Field Surveys) that he authored. Dr. Luis M. 

Lagera, Jr. was responsible for the spatial data files and exclusionary mapping. Dr. Alan D. Hart led the 

sampling design and statistical analyses for the biological data. Mr. Stephen T. Viada wrote the sections 

on sea turtles and marine mammals. Mr. Frank R. Johnson served as Operations Manager for the field 

surveys. Mr. Frederick B. Ayer, III and Mr. Lynwood R. Powell, Jr. directed operations for the field 

surveys. Ms. Karen Stokesbury assisted in literature and data collection. Ms. Melody B. Powell provided 

editorial assistance. Ms. Deborah Raffel supervised CSA support staff during production of the report. 

 Personnel from Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. (BVA) contributing to the project included Dr. 

Barry A. Vittor, who served as Manager of BVA’s responsibilities for the field surveys and report. Mr. Tim 

D. Thibaut authored the sections regarding infauna and epifauna throughout the document. He also 

wrote Section 6.4 (Discussion) concerning the biological field surveys. Mr. Marco Cianciola served as 

Scientist during the first field survey. Mr. J. Dobbs Lee served as Scientist during the second biological 

field survey. Ms. Linda W. Sierke supervised personnel associated with taxonomic identifications. Ms. 

Robbin R. Alley served as BVA’s Data Manager. 

 Dr. Joseph D. Germano from Germano & Associates, Inc. was responsible for the sediment profile 

image aspects of the project. Mr. Dave Browning of Browning Environmental collected sediment profile 

images in the field. 

 Mr. James Nickels of Aqua Survey, Inc. provided the survey vessel, logistical support, and 

assistance at sea for the biological field surveys. Dr. Wayne C. Isphording from the University of South 

Alabama conducted the laboratory grain size analyses. 
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York ii

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

VOLUME I: MAIN TEXT 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................2

1.2 STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................................3

1.3 STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES.............................................................................3

1.4 STUDY APPROACH ..........................................................................................................4

1.4.1 Borrow Site Locations and Characteristics ..................................................................4

1.4.2 Wave Modifications......................................................................................................7

1.4.3 Sediment Transport Patterns.......................................................................................7

1.4.4 Benthic Ecological Conditions ...................................................................................10

1.4.5 Benthic Infaunal Evaluation .......................................................................................10

1.4.6 Project Scheduling Considerations............................................................................10

1.5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................10

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................11

2.1 OFFSHORE SEDIMENTARY ENVIRONMENT...............................................................18

2.1.1 Seabed Morphology...................................................................................................20

2.1.2 Surface Sediment ......................................................................................................23

2.1.3 Subsurface Deposits..................................................................................................27

2.1.4 Offshore Sand Resources .........................................................................................31

2.2 GENERAL CIRCULATION...............................................................................................38

2.2.1 Tidal Currents ............................................................................................................39

2.2.2 Density Gradients ......................................................................................................39

2.2.3 Wind Driven Currents ................................................................................................39

2.2.4 Low-Frequency Current .............................................................................................40

2.2.5 Nearshore Sediment Transport..................................................................................40

2.3 BIOLOGY .........................................................................................................................41

2.3.1 Benthic Environment..................................................................................................41

2.3.1.1 Infauna ................................................................................................................41

2.3.1.2 Epifauna..............................................................................................................45

2.3.1.3 Demersal Fishes .................................................................................................46

2.3.2 Pelagic Environment..................................................................................................47

2.3.2.1 Squids .................................................................................................................47

2.3.2.2 Fishes..................................................................................................................48

2.3.2.3 Marine Turtles .....................................................................................................50

2.3.2.4 Marine Mammals.................................................................................................52

3.0 REGIONAL GEOMORPHIC CHANGE ...............................................................................55

3.1 SHORELINE POSITION CHANGE ..................................................................................55

3.1.1 Physical Setting and Previous Studies ......................................................................56

3.1.1.1 Physical Characteristics of Southwestern Long Island .......................................57

3.1.1.2 Physical Characteristics of Northeastern New Jersey ........................................57

3.1.1.3 Physical Characteristics of the New York Bight ..................................................58

3.1.1.4 Storms.................................................................................................................60

3.1.1.5 Beach Nourishment and Structure Development................................................60

3.1.2 Shoreline Position Data Base ....................................................................................65

3.1.3 Historical Shoreline Change Trends ..........................................................................68
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York iii

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.1.3.1 Southwestern Long Island...................................................................................69

3.1.3.2 Northern New Jersey Shoreline Change.............................................................80

3.2 NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY CHANGE.........................................................................90

3.2.1 Bathymetry Data Base and Potential Errors ..............................................................90

3.2.2 Digital Surface Models...............................................................................................96

3.2.2.1 1927/37 Bathymetric Surface..............................................................................96

3.2.2.2 1927/97 Bathymetric Surface..............................................................................99

3.2.3 Shelf Sediment Transport Dynamics .........................................................................99

3.2.4 Magnitude and Direction of Change ........................................................................103

3.2.5 Net Longshore Sand Transport Rates .....................................................................103

3.3 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................104

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF WAVE CLIMATE IMPACT BY OFFSHORE BORROW SITES.........106

4.1 ANALYSIS APPROACH.................................................................................................109

4.1.1 Wave Modeling ........................................................................................................109

4.1.1.1 Input Spectra Development...............................................................................110

4.1.1.2 Grid Development .............................................................................................115

4.1.2 Sediment Transport Potential ..................................................................................117

4.2 MODEL RESULTS .........................................................................................................118

4.2.1 Wave Modeling ........................................................................................................119

4.2.1.1 Offshore Southwestern Long Island..................................................................123

4.2.1.2 Offshore Northeastern New Jersey...................................................................125

4.2.2 Sediment Transport Potential ..................................................................................128

4.2.2.1 Model Comparison with Historical Shoreline Change .......................................133

4.2.2.2 Significance of proposed dredging....................................................................135

4.3 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................138

5.0 CIRCULATION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT DYNAMICS ..........................................140

5.1 CURRENTS AND CIRCULATION..................................................................................140

5.1.1 Historical Data ..........................................................................................................140

5.1.1.1 Description and Analysis of Observed Currents ...............................................146

5.1.1.2 Tidal Currents....................................................................................................154

5.1.1.3 Summary of Flow Regimes at Offshore Borrow Sites.......................................155

5.2 OFFSHORE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT.........................................................................155

5.2.1 Determining Bottom Transport and Infilling Rates ...................................................156

5.2.2 Model Input Data .....................................................................................................158

5.2.3 Infilling Model Results..............................................................................................160

6.0 BIOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEYS.......................................................................................162

6.1 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................162

6.2 METHODS .....................................................................................................................162

6.2.1 Survey Design .........................................................................................................162

6.2.1.1 Spatial Data Files and Exclusionary Mapping...................................................166

6.2.1.2 Water Column ...................................................................................................166

6.2.1.3 Sediment and Infauna.......................................................................................166

6.2.1.4 Sediment Profile Imaging..................................................................................167

6.2.1.5 Epifauna and Demersal Fishes .........................................................................167

6.2.2 Field Methods ..........................................................................................................167
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York iv

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

6.2.2.1 Vessel ...............................................................................................................167

6.2.2.2 Navigation .........................................................................................................167

6.2.2.3 Water Column ...................................................................................................167

6.2.2.4 Sediment and Infauna.......................................................................................168

6.2.2.5 Sediment Profile Imaging..................................................................................168

6.2.2.6 Epifauna and Demersal Fishes .........................................................................168

6.2.3 Laboratory Methods.................................................................................................168

6.2.3.1 Sediment...........................................................................................................168

6.2.3.2 Sediment Profile Imaging..................................................................................169

6.2.3.3 Infauna ..............................................................................................................173

6.2.4 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................174

6.2.4.1 Water Column ...................................................................................................174

6.2.4.2 Sediment...........................................................................................................174

6.2.4.3 Infauna ..............................................................................................................174

6.2.4.4 Epifauna and Demersal Fishes .........................................................................175

6.3 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................175

6.3.1 Water Column..........................................................................................................175

6.3.2 Sediment..................................................................................................................176

6.3.3 Sediment Profile Imaging.........................................................................................178

6.3.3.1 Site H1 ..............................................................................................................179

6.3.3.2 Site H2 ..............................................................................................................182

6.3.3.3 Site 3.................................................................................................................182

6.3.3.4 Site 4.................................................................................................................182

6.3.4 Infauna.....................................................................................................................182

6.3.4.1 Juvenile Surfclam..............................................................................................188

6.3.4.2 Cluster Analysis ................................................................................................191

6.3.4.3 Canonical Discriminant Analysis .......................................................................192

6.3.5 Epifauna...................................................................................................................192

6.3.6 Demersal Fishes......................................................................................................197

6.4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................198

7.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS .....................................................................................................203

7.1 OFFSHORE SAND BORROW SITES............................................................................204

7.2 WAVE TRANSFORMATION MODELING......................................................................205

7.2.1 Offshore Southwestern Long Island.........................................................................205

7.2.2 Offshore Northeastern New Jersey..........................................................................206

7.3 CURRENTS AND CIRCULATION..................................................................................206

7.4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT..............................................................................................207

7.4.1 Historical Sediment Transport Patterns ...................................................................208

7.4.2 Sediment Transport Modeling at Potential Borrow Sites .........................................209

7.4.3 Nearshore Sediment Transport Potential.................................................................209

7.5 BENTHIC ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................210

7.5.1 Effects of Offshore Dredging on Benthic Biota ........................................................211

7.5.1.1 Sediment Removal............................................................................................211

7.5.1.2 Sediment Suspension/Dispersion .....................................................................212

7.5.1.3 Sediment Deposition.........................................................................................214

7.5.2 Recolonization Periods and Success.......................................................................215

7.5.2.1 Adaptations for Recolonization and Succession...............................................215

7.5.2.2 Successional Stages.........................................................................................215
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York v

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

7.5.2.3 Recolonization Periods .....................................................................................217

7.5.2.4 Recolonization Success and Recovery.............................................................219

7.5.3 Predictions Relative to the Borrow Sites..................................................................220

7.5.3.1 Potential Benthic Effects ...................................................................................220

7.5.3.2 Potential Recolonization Periods and Success.................................................222

7.6 PELAGIC ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................224

7.6.1 Squids......................................................................................................................224

7.6.1.1 Physical Injury...................................................................................................224

7.6.1.2 Attraction...........................................................................................................225

7.6.1.3 Project Scheduling ............................................................................................225

7.6.2 Fishes ......................................................................................................................225

7.6.2.1 Physical Injury...................................................................................................225

7.6.2.2 Attraction...........................................................................................................225

7.6.2.3 Turbidity ............................................................................................................225

7.6.2.4 Noise.................................................................................................................226

7.6.2.5 Project Scheduling ............................................................................................226

7.6.3 Marine Turtles..........................................................................................................227

7.6.3.1 Physical Injury...................................................................................................227

7.6.3.2 Habitat Modification...........................................................................................228

7.6.3.3 Turbidity ............................................................................................................228

7.6.3.4 Noise.................................................................................................................228

7.6.3.5 Project Scheduling ............................................................................................229

7.6.4 Marine Mammals .....................................................................................................229

7.6.4.1 Physical Injury...................................................................................................229

7.6.4.2 Turbidity ............................................................................................................229

7.6.4.3 Noise.................................................................................................................230

7.6.4.4 Project Scheduling ............................................................................................230

7.7 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ..........................................................................................230

7.8 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS..........................................................................237

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................238

8.1 WAVE TRANSFORMATION MODELING......................................................................238

8.2 CIRCULATION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT DYNAMICS........................................240

8.2.1 Historical Sediment Transport Patterns ...................................................................241

8.2.2 Sediment Transport Modeling at Potential Borrow Sites .........................................242

8.2.3 Nearshore Sediment Transport Potential.................................................................242

8.3 BENTHIC ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................243

8.4 PELAGIC ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................244

8.5 SYNTHESIS ...................................................................................................................245

9.0 LITERATURE CITED .........................................................................................................246
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York vi

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

VOLUME II: APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. HIGH-WATER SHORELINE POSITION CHANGE FOR NEW YORK............ A-1

APPENDIX B. HIGH-WATER SHORELINE POSITION CHANGE FOR NEW JERSEY........ B-1

APPENDIX C. WAVE TRANSFORMATIONAL NUMERICAL MODELING ........................... C-1

C1. EXISTING CONDITIONS WAVE TRANSFORMATION RESULTS............................. C-1

C2. WAVE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE PLOTS: POST-DREDGING VERSUS EXISTING 

CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... C-24

APPENDIX D. BIOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY DATA ............................................................ D-1

APPENDIX E. SPATIAL DATA FILES, EXCLUSIONARY MAPPING, AND SAMPLING 

DESIGN FOR BIOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEYS ............................................. E-1

E1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... E-2

E2. SPATIAL DATA FILES................................................................................................. E-2

E3. EXCLUSIONARY MAPPING ....................................................................................... E-3

E4. FIELD SURVEY DESIGN ............................................................................................ E-4
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York vii

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

Figure 1-1. Physical setting for the northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long 

Island study area and key geographic features.....................................................3

Figure 1-2. Identified sand borrow sites within the project study area relative to the 

Federal-State boundary.........................................................................................6

Figure 1-3. Grab samples collected during September 2001 (top) and June 2002 

(bottom) within and adjacent to Borrow Sites H1 and H2......................................8

Figure 1-4. Grab samples collected during September 2001 (top) and June 2002 

(bottom) adjacent to Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E. ................................................9

Figure 2-1. Physical setting of the New York and New Jersey coastlines. ............................12

Figure 2-2. Coastal geomorphic components of New York and New Jersey. (Adapted 

from Uptegrove et. al., 1995 and Taney, 1961)...................................................13

Figure 2-3. Geologic Units and average sediment grain size along the northern New 

Jersey coast (Geologic data from NJDEP GIS Data CD and sediment 

sample data from USACE, 1995). .......................................................................14

Figure 2-4. Narrow barrier spit seaward of the north-directed outflow channel for the 

Navesink and Shrewsbury Rivers (USGS TerraServer image, 13 March 

1995). ..................................................................................................................15

Figure 2-5. Net longshore transport rates estimated along Long Island and New 

Jersey coasts. Littoral transport rates obtained from Taney (1961) and 

Caldwell (1966). ..................................................................................................17

Figure 2-6. Middle Atlantic continental shelf illustrating dominant surface sedimentary 

facies as >75% sand sized material (adapted from Duane and 

Stubblefield, 1988; data from Emery and Uchupi, 1965; Uchupi, 1968; 

Swift, 1976). ........................................................................................................19

Figure 2-7. Middle Atlantic Province showing historical strandlines and sand ridge 

orientations on the continental shelf (adapted from Duane and 

Stubblefield, 1988). .............................................................................................20

Figure 2-8. Prominent geomorphic features of the New York Bight continental shelf............21

Figure 2-9. Continental Shelf sediment distribution in the New York Bight (adapted 

from Poppe et al., 1994)......................................................................................24

Figure 2-10. Surface sediment distribution within the inner New York Bight (adapted 

from Williams and Duane, 1974). ........................................................................26

Figure 2-11. Inner New York Bight continental shelf sediment classification based on 

backscatter imagery (adapted from Schwab et al., 2002). ..................................27

Figure 2-12. Locations of previous geologic investigations within the New York Bight 

region. .................................................................................................................28
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York viii

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 

Figure Page 

Figure 2-13. Stratigraphic characterization interpreted from seismic reflection profiles 

(from Williams, 1976). .........................................................................................30

Figure 2-14. Seismic-reflection profile showing Upper Cretaceous coastal-plain strata 

and overlying Quaternary sediments (from Schwab et al., 2002)........................31

Figure 2-15. Locations of borrow areas, vibracores, and seismic reflection profile lines 

collected as part of the Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey (1988).............................33

Figure 2-16. Borrow Areas M and N defined by Williams (1976) with vibracores used to 

delineate suitable sediment thicknesses for the areas. Borrow Area M 

was assigned a minimum potential thickness of 5.5 m and Borrow Area N 

was assigned a range of 1.8 to 3.2 m of suitable sediment. 

Interpretations of vibracores are shown in Figure 2-17. ......................................34

Figure 2-17. Lithologic interpretation of cores collected as part of the sewer outfall 

study. Core locations are shown in Figure 2-16. Depths are shown in 

feet below MSL (from Williams, 1976).................................................................35

Figure 2-18. Isopach map of modern shelf sediment, southern Long Island (from 

Foster et al., 1999). .............................................................................................36

Figure 2-19. Thickness of the Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene) sedimentary 

deposits near Borrow Site 3 (after Schwab et al., 2002). ....................................37

Figure 3-1. Geographic locations within the New York Bight.................................................56

Figure 3-2. Net littoral transport rates along beaches in the study area (Taney, 1961; 

Caldwell, 1966)....................................................................................................58

Figure 3-3. Prominent features on the New York Bight continental shelf. .............................59

Figure 3-4. Documented beach nourishment activity from Rockaway Point to 

Moriches Inlet, NY and Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ..................................61

Figure 3-5. Southwestern Long Island reaches between Rockaway Point and 

Moriches Inlet, NY. ..............................................................................................69

Figure 3-6. Westward island migration along south shore beaches of Long Island, 

1873/88 to 1933/34. ............................................................................................70

Figure 3-7. Shoreline change along south shore beaches of Long Island, 1873/88 to 

1933/34. ..............................................................................................................72

Figure 3-8. Shoreline change along south shore beaches of Long Island, 1933/34 to 

1983. ...................................................................................................................74

Figure 3-9. Incremental changes in shoreline position adjacent to the jetty at the 

western end of Rockaway Beach, 1933/34 to 1983. ...........................................75

Figure 3-10. Incremental changes in shoreline position adjacent to the jetty at the 

western end of Long Beach, 1933/34 to 1983.....................................................75

Figure 3-11. Shoreline change along south shore beaches of Long Island, 1983 to 

1991/97. ..............................................................................................................78
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York ix

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 

Figure Page 

Figure 3-12. Cumulative shoreline change for southern Long Island beaches between 

Rockaway and Moriches Inlets, 1873/88 to 1991/97...........................................80

Figure 3-13. Northern New Jersey shoreline reaches, Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, 

NJ. .......................................................................................................................82

Figure 3-14. Shoreline change along northern beaches of New Jersey, 1836/39 to 

1855/75. ..............................................................................................................83

Figure 3-15. Shoreline change along northern beaches of New Jersey, 1855/75 to 

1932/33. ..............................................................................................................84

Figure 3-16. Shoreline change along northern beaches of New Jersey, 1932/33 to 

1977. ...................................................................................................................87

Figure 3-17. Shoreline change along northern New Jersey beaches, 1836/39 to 1977..........89

Figure 3-18. Locations of 1927/37 bathymetric data used to fill gaps in the most recent 

surface.................................................................................................................92

Figure 3-19. Sandy Hook, NJ tidal benchmark elevation information......................................93

Figure 3-20. Sandy Hook, NJ sea level change, 1932 to 2002................................................93

Figure 3-21. Beach profile location for coastal New York and New Jersey. ............................94

Figure 3-22. Line pairs used to estimate potential uncertainty for the 1927/37 surface. .........95

Figure 3-23. Depths extracted along Line Pair 1 for determining potential surface 

uncertainty...........................................................................................................95

Figure 3-24. 1927/37 bathymetric surface within the New York Bight. ....................................97

Figure 3-25. Three-dimensional view of the 1927/37 bathymetric surface in the New 

York Bight region.................................................................................................98

Figure 3-26. 1927/97 bathymetric surface. ............................................................................100

Figure 3-27. Three-dimensional representation of the 1927/97 bathymetric surface. ...........101

Figure 3-28. Bathymetric change in the New York Bight between 1927/37and 1927/97.......102

Figure 4-1. Example of spatial/temporal variability method for determining 

significance of borrow site dredging impacts (Kelley et al., 2004). The 

difference plot illustrates modeled change in net transport potential (solid 

black and dotted lines) resulting from two different dredging scenarios at 

the proposed borrow site. The plot also illustrates the dredging 

significance envelope (±0.5σ) determined for this shoreline (gray-shaded 

area). The 4.5 m excavation (dotted line, 24 x 106

 m3) exceeds the 

significance envelope boundary and would be rejected. However, the 2.3 

m excavation (solid line, 12 x 106

 m3) does not exceed the natural 

variability envelope, and would be acceptable. .................................................108

Figure 4-2. Wave and current vectors used in STWAVE. Subscript a denotes values 

in the absolute frame of reference, and subscript r denotes values in the 

relative frame of reference (with currents).........................................................110
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York x

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 

Figure Page 

Figure 4-3. Shoreline of northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island with 

coarse grid limits and OCTI wave input data station locations..........................112

Figure 4-4. Wave height and period roses for OCTI hindcast data offshore 

southwestern Long Island (Station OCTI-NY) for the 20-year period 

January 1980 to December 1999. Direction indicates from where waves 

were traveling relative to true north. Length of gray tone segments 

indicates percent occurrence for each wave height and period range. 

Combined length of segments in each sector indicates percent 

occurrence of waves from that direction............................................................112

Figure 4-5. Wave height and period roses for OCTI hindcast data offshore 

northeastern New Jersey (OCTI-NJ) for the 20-year period between 

January 1980 and December 1999. Direction indicates from where 

waves were traveling relative to true north. Length of gray tone segments 

indicates percent occurrence for each wave height and period range. 

Combined length of segments in each sector indicates percent 

occurrence of waves from that direction............................................................113

Figure 4-6. STWAVE input spectrum developed using 20-year OCTI hindcast 

spectral data. Plots show a) frequency distribution of energy at peak 

direction, b) directional distribution of energy at peak frequency, and c) 

surface plot of two-dimensional energy spectrum (Hmo = 0.9 m, 

θmean = 130° grid relative). .................................................................................113

Figure 4-7. Coarse model grid (200 x 200 m spacing) used for STWAVE simulations 

offshore southwestern Long Island. Depths are relative to NAVD. Borrow 

site locations are indicated by solid black lines, and fine grid limits are 

indicated by a dashed line.................................................................................115

Figure 4-8. Color contour plot of coarse model grid (200 m x 200 m grid spacing) 

used for STWAVE model simulations of waves offshore Shark River 

Inlet, New Jersey. Depths are relative to NAVD. Borrow site locations 

are indicated by solid black lines, and fine grid limits are indicated by a 

dashed line. .......................................................................................................116

Figure 4-9. STWAVE output for the coarse grid (200 x 200 m grid cells) offshore 

Shark River Inlet in northeastern New Jersey (model case 13B; 

Hmo = 1.1 m, Tp = 7.7 sec, θpeak = 113°). Color contours indicate Hmo wave 

height. Vectors indicate mean wave direction. Seafloor contours are 

shown as black lines at a 10 m interval.............................................................119

Figure 4-10. STWAVE output for the fine grid (20 x 20 m grid cells) offshore Shark 

River Inlet in northeastern New Jersey (model case 13B; Hmo = 1.1 m, 

Tp = 7.7 sec, θpeak = 113°). Color contours indicate Hmo wave height. 

Vectors indicate mean wave direction. Seafloor contours are shown as 

black lines at a 10-m interval.............................................................................120

Figure 4-11. Wave height difference plot (Hdifference = Hpost – Hexisting) for coarse grid 

model of offshore Shark River Inlet. Seafloor contours are shown at a 

10-m interval......................................................................................................121
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xi

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 

Figure Page 

Figure 4-12. Wave height difference plot for fine grid model simulations offshore Shark 

River Inlet. Seafloor contours are shown at a 10-m interval.............................122

Figure 4-13. STWAVE model output for offshore southwestern Long Island, wave 

Case 11A (Hs = 1.3 m, Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 112°). Color contours 

indicate wave height, and vectors show mean direction of wave 

propagation. Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. ..........................123

Figure 4-14. STWAVE model output for offshore southwestern Long Island, wave 

Case 14A (Hs = 1.6 m, Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 137°). Color contours 

indicate wave height, and vectors show mean direction of wave 

propagation. Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. ..........................124

Figure 4-15. Wave height change between existing and post-dredging conditions for 

offshore southwestern Long Island, wave Case 11A (Hs = 1.3 m, Tpeak = 

9.1 sec, θpeak = 112°). Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. ............124

Figure 4-16. Wave height change between existing and post-dredging conditions for 

offshore southwestern Long Island, wave Case 14A (Hs = 1.6 m, Tpeak = 

9.1 sec, θpeak = 137°). Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. ............125

Figure 4-17. STWAVE output for offshore northeastern New Jersey, wave Case 11B 

(Hs = 1.3 m, Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 88°). Color contours indicate wave 

height, and vectors show mean direction of wave propagation. Bottom 

contours are also shown at 10-m intervals........................................................126

Figure 4-18. STWAVE output for offshore northeastern New Jersey, wave Case 16B 

(Hs = 1.3 m, Tpeak = 7.7 sec, θpeak = 158°). Color contours indicate wave 

height, and vectors show mean direction of wave propagation. Bottom 

contours are also shown at 10-m intervals........................................................127

Figure 4-19. Wave height change between existing and post-dredging conditions for 

offshore northeastern New Jersey, wave Case 11B (Hs = 1.3 m, Tpeak = 

9.1 sec, θpeak = 88°). Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. ..............128

Figure 4-20. Wave height change between existing and post-dredging conditions for 

offshore northeastern New Jersey, wave Case 16B (Hs = 1.3 m, Tpeak = 

7.7 sec, θpeak = 158°). Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. ............129

Figure 4-21. Average annual sediment transport potential (solid black line) computed 

for the shoreline landward of Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E. Net transport 

potential curves determined for 20 individual years of wave hindcast data 

are indicated by the gray shaded area. The ±0.5σ significance envelope 

(black dot-dash lines) about the mean net transport was determined using 

the 20 net potential curves. ...............................................................................130

Figure 4-22. Average net transport potential (black line) with gross westerly- and 

easterly-directed transport potential (red and blue lines, respectively) for 

the shoreline landward of Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E. ....................................131
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xii

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 

Figure Page 

Figure 4-23. Average annual sediment transport potential (solid black line) computed 

for the shoreline landward of Borrow Sites H1 and H2. Net transport 

potential curves determined for 20 individual years of wave hindcast data 

are indicated by the gray shaded area. The ±0.5σ significance envelope 

(black dot-dash lines) about the mean net transport was determined using 

the 20 net potential curves. ...............................................................................132

Figure 4-24. Average net transport potential (black line) with gross southerly- and 

northerly-directed transport potential (red and blue lines, respectively) for 

the shoreline landward of Borrow Sites H1 and H2...........................................133

Figure 4-25. Historical shoreline change and gradient of modeled transport potential 

(dQ/dy) for the modeled shoreline landward of Sites 3, 4W, and 4E 

offshore southwestern Long Island. The middle plot illustrates measured 

shoreline change for the period 1878 to 1997. The gradient in transport 

potential was determined using the total net transport computed using 

20 years of wave hindcast data.........................................................................135

Figure 4-26. Historical shoreline change and gradient of modeled transport potential 

(dQ/dy) for the modeled shoreline landward of Sites H1 and H2 offshore 

northeastern New Jersey. The middle plot illustrates measured shoreline 

change for the period 1855/75 to 1933. The gradient in transport 

potential was determined using the total net transport computed using 

20 years of wave hindcast data.........................................................................136

Figure 4-27. Transport potential difference between existing and post-dredging 

conditions, with transport significance envelope for the shoreline landward 

of Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E. Negative change indicates that the postdredging transport potential is more southerly than the computed existing 

transport potential..............................................................................................137

Figure 4-28. Transport potential difference between existing and post-dredging 

conditions, with transport significance envelope for the shoreline landward 

of Borrow Sites H1 and H2. Negative change indicates that the postdredging transport potential is more southerly than the computed existing 

transport potential..............................................................................................138

Figure 5-1. Current meter and borrow site locations in the New York Bight........................141

Figure 5-2. Location of current meter mooring Station D on the Long Island shelf to 

the east of the Hudson Shelf Valley (~26 m water depth; see Figure 5-1) 

showing the location of the tripod mooring, bottom photographs, and 

sediment grab samples. The photograph below the map illustrates 

bottom topography and sediment texture representative of the area 

surrounding the mooring tripod (from Butman et al., 2003)...............................142
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xiii

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 

Figure Page 

Figure 5-3. Location of current meter mooring Station E on the northern New Jersey 

shelf to the west of the Hudson Shelf Valley (~25 m water depth; see 

Figure 5-1) showing the location of the tripod mooring, bottom 

photographs, and sediment grab samples. The photographs below the 

map illustrate bottom topography and sediment texture representative of 

the low backscatter intensity area west of the tripod (blue) and the high 

backscatter intensity area east of the tripod (green to red) (from Butman 

et al., 2003). ......................................................................................................144

Figure 5-4. Hourly averaged bottom current speed and variability at Station D 

(December 5, 1999 to April 15, 2000 at 25 meters below the surface 

[mbs]) and Station E (December 4, 1999 to April 15, 2000 at 24.6 mbs). 

Low-passed plots exclude tidal currents (from Butman et al., 2003).................145

Figure 5-5. Speed and direction for surface currents at Station D, December 5, 1999 

to April 15, 2000. The percentage of reliable data points is provided in 

the lower left corner of each plot. Current speeds are represented by 

percent occurrence and shading in the inter-cardinal bars. The length of 

each bar represents total percent occurrence by direction (data from 

Butman et al., 2003). .........................................................................................145

Figure 5-6. Summer current flows in the New York Bight. Left panel: modeled 

currents with no wind and no river inflow. Right panel: modeled current 

flows with southwesterly wind of 28 dynes/cm2

 (~3.9 m/s) and Hudson 

River summer inflow rates (from Scheffner et al., 1994). ..................................146

Figure 5-7. Surface current speed and direction east of the Hudson Shelf Valley for 

Station D, December 5, 1999 to April 15, 2000. Current speeds are 

represented by percent occurrence and shading in the inter-cardinal bars. 

The length of each bar represents total percent occurrence by direction 

(data from Butman et al., 2003).........................................................................147

Figure 5-8. Surface current speed and direction west of the Hudson Shelf Valley for 

Station E, December 4, 1999 to April 15, 2000. Current speeds are 

represented by percent occurrence and shading in the inter-cardinal bars. 

The length of each bar represents total percent occurrence by direction 

(data from Butman et al., 2003).........................................................................148

Figure 5-9. Bottom current speed (25 mbs) and direction east of the Hudson Shelf 

Valley for Station D, December 5, 1999 to April 15, 2000. Current speeds 

are represented by percent occurrence and shading in the inter-cardinal 

bars. The length of each bar represents total percent occurrence by 

direction (data from Butman et al., 2003). .........................................................149

Figure 5-10. Bottom current speed (24.6 mbs) and direction west of the Hudson Shelf 

Valley for Station E, December 4, 1999 to April 15, 2000. Current speeds 

are represented by percent occurrence and shading in the inter-cardinal 

bars. The length of each bar represents total percent occurrence by 

direction (data from Butman et al., 2003). .........................................................150
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xiv

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 

Figure Page 

Figure 5-11. Wind speed and direction from NDBC Buoy #40255; December 1, 1999 

to April 30, 2000. Wind speeds are represented by percent occurrence 

and shading in the inter-cardinal bars. The length of each bar represents 

total percent occurrence by direction (data from Butman et al., 2003)..............151

Figure 5-12. Monthly observed mean current flow and the variability (shown as an 

ellipse centered around the tip of the mean flow arrow) for near-bottom 

current for Station D. Up is to the north and right is to the east. The 

current ellipse calculated from hour-averaged data is typically dominated 

by tidal currents, whereas low-pass filtered mean flow has tidal currents 

removed (from Butman et al., 2003)..................................................................152

Figure 5-13. Monthly observed mean current flow and the variability (shown as an 

ellipse centered around the tip of the mean flow arrow) for near-bottom 

current for Station E. Up is to the north and right is to the east. The 

current ellipse calculated from hour-averaged data is typically dominated 

by tidal currents, whereas low-pass filtered mean flow has tidal currents 

removed (from Butman et al., 2003)..................................................................152

Figure 5-14. Wind speed and direction versus surface and bottom currents, March 19 

to 31, 2000 (data from Butman et al., 2003)......................................................153

Figure 5-15. Tidal ellipses for major tidal constituents at 15 m below the surface 

(adapted from Butman et al., 2003)...................................................................154

Figure 6-1. Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York. .......163

Figure 6-2. Environmental features, area excluded, and sampling stations relative to 

Sand Borrow Site H1 offshore New Jersey. ......................................................164

Figure 6-3. Environmental features and sampling stations relative to Sand Borrow 

Site H2 offshore New Jersey.............................................................................164

Figure 6-4. Environmental features, area excluded, and sampling stations relative to 

Sand Borrow Site 3 offshore New York.............................................................165

Figure 6-5. Environmental features, area excluded, and sampling stations relative to 

Sand Borrow Site 4 offshore New York.............................................................165

Figure 6-6. The successional change in benthic community following a disturbance 

over time (top) or over distance from a source of pollution (bottom) is 

illustrated (from Rhoads and Germano, 1982, 1986). .......................................173

Figure 6-7. Temperature and salinity profiles recorded during the September 2001 

Survey 1 in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and 

New York...........................................................................................................176

Figure 6-8. Temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) profiles recorded during the 

September 2001 Survey 1 in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore 

New Jersey and New York. ...............................................................................177

Figure 6-9. Temperature and salinity profiles recorded during the June 2002 Survey 2 

in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New 

York. ..................................................................................................................177
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xv

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 

Figure Page 

Figure 6-10. Temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) profiles recorded during the 

June 2002 Survey 2 in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New 

Jersey and New York. .......................................................................................178

Figure 6-11. Sediment profile image from Site 3, Station 1 showing the pebble to 

granule-sized layer of gravel on top of poorly sorted medium to coarse 

sands. Scale: width of image = 16.8 cm............................................................180

Figure 6-12. Sediment profile image from Site H1, Station 1 showing small-scale 

ripples on the sediment surface. Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. ..................181

Figure 6-13. Sediment profile image from Site H1, Station 2 showing a clear gradation 

from fine sand to finer silt/clay particles at the bottom of the image 

(arrow). Scale: width of image = 16.8 cm. ........................................................181

Figure 6-14. Sediment profile image from Site H1, Station 1 showing one of the 

numerically dominant polychaetes (Polygordius) found in grab samples 

from this location. Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. .........................................184

Figure 6-15. Replicate sediment profile images from site H1, Station 4 showing buried 

sand dollars (Echinarachnius parma) (arrows). Note the hermit crab 

(circle) on the sediment surface in the image on the left. Scale: width of 

image = 16.7 cm................................................................................................184

Figure 6-16. Both replicate sediment profile images from Site H2, Station 3 showed a 

layer of fine detritus (arrow) on the sediment surface. Note the bisected 

edge of a partially buried sand dollar (Echinarachnius parma) on the right 

side of image (circle). Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. ...................................185

Figure 6-17. Sediment profile image from Site H2, Station 3 showing a prominent tube 

of the polychaete Diopatra projecting above the sediment-water interface. 

Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. ......................................................................185

Figure 6-18. Sediment profile image from Site 3, Station 3 showing well-sorted, 

rippled, granitic fine sands. Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm...........................186

Figure 6-19. Sediment profile image from Site 3, Station 3 showing two gammarid 

amphipods in the upper right corner swimming above the rippled fine 

sandy bottom. Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm................................................186

Figure 6-20. Sediment profile image from Site 4, Station 7 showing a sharply defined 

arcuate bedform with an active mobile surface layer (arrow). Scale: width 

of image = 16.7 cm............................................................................................187

Figure 6-21. Sediment profile image from Site 4, Station 6 showing partially buried 

sand dollars (Echinarachnius parma) found at many station in this site. 

Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. ......................................................................187

Figure 6-22. Normal cluster analysis of infaunal samples collected during the 

September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 Survey 2 in Sand Borrow Sites 

H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York.......................................193
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xvi

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 

Figure Page 

Figure 6-23. Station Groups A through C formed by normal cluster analysis of infaunal 

samples collected during the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 

Survey 2 in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and 

New York. Two outlying samples are represented by an X..............................194

Figure 6-24. Inverse cluster analysis of infaunal samples collected during the 

September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 Survey 2 in Sand Borrow Sites 

H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York.......................................195
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xvii

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

Table 1-1. Sand resource characteristics at potential borrow sites offshore 

northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island, NY...............................6

Table 2-1. Calculated versus published excavation depths determined for sand 

borrow sites offshore southwestern Long Island and northeastern New 

Jersey..................................................................................................................37

Table 3-1. Notable storm events recorded for the New York Bight region. ..........................60

Table 3-2. Documented beach nourishment events, Rockaway Inlet to Moriches 

Inlet, NY (data are in thousands of cubic meters from Kana, 1999)....................62

Table 3-3. Documented beach nourishment events, Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, 

NJ (data are in thousands of cubic meters from Valverde et al. (1999) and 

USACE, NY District)............................................................................................62

Table 3-4. Inlet management activities from Rockaway to Moriches Inlet, NY and 

Sandy Hook to Manasquan Inlet, NJ...................................................................65

Table 3-5. Long Island, NY shoreline source data characteristics........................................66

Table 3-6. Northeastern New Jersey shoreline source data characteristics.........................67

Table 3-7. Estimates of potential error associated with Long Island, NY and 

northeastern New Jersey shoreline position surveys. .........................................68

Table 3-8. Bathymetry source data characteristics...............................................................91

Table 4-1. Input wave spectra parameters used for existing and post-dredging 

STWAVE runs for modeled borrow sites offshore Jones Inlet, New York.........114

Table 4-2. Input wave spectra parameters used for existing and post-dredging 

STWAVE runs for modeled borrow sites offshore Shark River Inlet, New 

Jersey................................................................................................................114

Table 4-3. Numerical grid dimensions for offshore (coarse) and nearshore (fine) 

grids. Dimensions are given as cross-shore x along-shore..............................117

Table 4-4. Sand resource characteristics at potential borrow sites offshore 

northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island, NY...........................117

Table 5-1. Wave model input conditions used to compute offshore sediment 

transport potential for borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey. 

STWAVE model output from each modeled condition, and at each borrow 

site perimeter grid node, was used as input to the wave-current 

interaction model used to determine bottom sediment transport potential........158

Table 5-2. Wave model input conditions used to compute offshore sediment 

transport potential for borrow sites offshore southwestern Long Island. 

STWAVE model output from each modeled condition, and at each borrow 

site perimeter grid node, was used as input to the wave-current 

interaction model used to determine bottom sediment transport potential........159
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xviii

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 

Table Page 

Table 5-3. Surface currents used to compute offshore sediment transport potential 

for sites offshore northeastern New Jersey based on the analysis in 

Section 5.1. Currents were binned by four compass sectors (N, E, S and 

W) and magnitude (<10, 10 to 20, 20 to 30, and >30 cm/sec). .........................159

Table 5-4. Surface currents used to compute offshore sediment transport potential 

for sites offshore southwestern Long Island based on the analysis in 

Section 5.1. Currents were binned by four compass sectors (N, E, S and 

W) and magnitude (<10, 10 to 20, 20 to 30, and >30 cm/sec). .........................160

Table 5-5. Sand resource and bottom characteristics at potential borrow sites 

offshore northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island, NY.............160

Table 5-6. Sand resource characteristics and transport rates at potential borrow sites 

offshore northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island, NY.............161

Table 6-1. Sampling plan summary for the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 

Survey 2 offshore New Jersey and New York...................................................163

Table 6-2. Sediment type summary from grab samples for the September 2001 

Survey 1 and June 2002 Survey 2 in the sand borrow sites and adjacent 

stations offshore New Jersey and New York.....................................................179

Table 6-3. Ten most abundant taxa in grab samples from Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 

3, and 4 and Adjacent Areas NJA and NYA for the September 2001 

Survey 1 offshore New Jersey and New York...................................................183

Table 6-4. Ten most abundant taxa in grab samples from Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 

3, and 4 and Adjacent Areas NJA and NYA for the June 2002 Survey 2 

offshore New Jersey and New York. .................................................................189

Table 6-5. Summary of infaunal statistics for the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 

2002 Survey 2 in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 and Adjacent Areas 

NJA and NYA offshore New Jersey and New York...........................................190

Table 6-6. Occurrence and density of juvenile surfclam, Spisula solidissima, in grab 

samples taken in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 and Adjacent Areas 

NJA and NYA during the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 

Survey 2 offshore New Jersey and New York...................................................191

Table 6-7. Infaunal species groups resolved from inverse cluster analysis of all 

samples collected during the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 

Survey 2 in the four sand borrow sites and adjacent stations offshore New 

Jersey and New York. .......................................................................................196

Table 6-8. Epifauna and demersal fishes collected by mongoose trawl during the 

September 2001 Survey 1 of the four sand borrow sites offshore New 

Jersey and New York. .......................................................................................197

Table 6-9. Epifauna and demersal fishes collected by mongoose trawl during the 

June 2002 Survey 2 of the four sand borrow sites offshore New Jersey 

and New York....................................................................................................199 
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xix

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 

Table Page 

Table 7-1. Invertebrate species and life stages with Essential Fish Habitat identified 

in the project area (source Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 

1998a1

, b2).........................................................................................................232

Table 7-2. Coastal shark species and life stages with Essential Fish Habitat 

identified in the project area (source Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, 19991

; National Marine Fisheries Service, 19992)...............................233

Table 7-3. Coastal pelagic fish species and life stages with Essential Fish Habitat 

identified in the project area (source Reid et al., 19991

; Fahay et al., 

19992

; Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 19993). ...............................234

Table 7-4. Demersal fish species and life stages with Essential Fish Habitat 

identified in the project area (source Steimle et al., 19991

; New England 

Fishery Management Council, 20042

; Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, 1998c3

; Chang et al., 19994)................................................................235

Table 7-5. Highly migratory fish species and life stages with Essential Fish Habitat 

identified in the project area (source National Marine Fisheries Service, 

1999). ................................................................................................................236

Table 7-6. Summary matrix of impact producing factors and potential effects on 

members of managed species groups and their Essential Fish Habitat 

expected from dredging the sand borrow sites offshore of northern 

New Jersey and southern New York. ................................................................237
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xx

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

μ

ADCP 

ASTM 

BASS 

BVA 

CEQ 

CERC 

CETAP 

cm 

CO-OPS 

CSA 

CTD 

deg 

DGPS 

EA 

EFH 

EIS 

FMP 

FR 

ft 

GIS 

ICONS 

kg 

km 

LEO-15 

LPIL 

m 

MAFMC 

MAVS 

mbs 

mcm 

mg/l 

mm 

MMS 

MSL 

mt 

NAD83 

NAVD 

NDBC 

NEFMC 

NEFSC 

NEPA 

NGDC 

NJBPN 

NJDEP 

NMFS 

NOAA 

NOS 

OCS 

OCSLA 

OCTI 

ppt 

micron 

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 

American Society for Testing and Materials 

Benthic Acoustic Stress Sensor 

Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Coastal Engineering Research Center 

Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program 

centimeter 

Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

Conductivity-Temperature-Depth Sensor 

degrees 

Differential Global Positioning System 

Environmental Assessment 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Fishery Management Plan 

Federal Register 

feet 

Geographic Information System 

Inner Continental Shelf Sediment and Structure (USACE program) 

kilogram 

kilometers 

Long-term Ecosystem Observatory at 15 m water depth 

Lowest Practical Identification Level 

meter 

Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council 

Modular Acoustic Velocity Sensor 

meters below surface 

million cubic meters 

milligrams per liter 

millimeter 

Minerals Management Service 

Mean Sea Level 

metric tons 

North American Datum of 1983 

North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

National Data Buoy Center 

New England Fisheries Management Council 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

National Environmental Policy Act 

National Geophysical Data Center 

New Jersey Beach Profile Network 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Outer Continental Shelf 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

Offshore & Coastal Technologies, Inc. 

parts per thousand 
MMS Study 2004-044 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York xxi

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Continued) 

REF/DIF S 

RPD 

sec 

SOD 

SPI 

STWAVE 

SWAN 

USACE 

USC&GS 

USDOI 

USFWS 

USGS 

UTM 

WES 

WIS 

yr 

Refraction/Diffraction Model for Spectral Wave Conditions 

Redox Potential Discontinuity 

seconds 

Sediment Oxygen Demand 

Sediment Profile Imaging 

Steady-State Spectral Wave Model 

Simulation of Waves Nearshore 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Waterways Experiment Station 

Wave Information Study 

year 
 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 1

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

 The U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Minerals Management Service (MMS), has 

responsibility for managing all mineral resources on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), 

a zone that extends from three miles seaward of State coastline boundaries to 200 miles 

offshore. Although most interest in this zone relates to oil and gas resources, the potential for 

exploitation of sand resources as a source for beach and barrier island restoration has grown 

rapidly in the last several years as similar resources in State waters are being depleted or 

contaminated. Existing regulations governing offshore sand and gravel mining provide a 

framework for comprehensive environmental protection during operations. Specific 

requirements exist for evaluations and lease stipulations that include appropriate mitigation 

measures (Hammer et al., 1993; Woodworth-Lynas and Davis, 1996). Guidelines for protecting 

the environment stem from a wide variety of laws, including the OCS Lands Act (OCSLA), 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, and others. Regulations require activities to be conducted in a manner that 

prevents or minimizes the likelihood of any occurrences that may cause damage to the 

environment. The MMS takes a case-by-case approach in conducting environmental analyses, 

as required by NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. 

 Houston (1995, 2002) discussed the value of beaches and their maintenance through 

beach nourishment to America’s economy. Not only are beaches the dominant component of 

most coastal economies, but they also provide protection against high winds and waves 

associated with storms. This is particularly true in northern New Jersey and along the south 

shore of Long Island (New York) where coastal development has flourished since the early 

1900s. In fact, some of the earliest beach erosion control structures along the coast of New 

Jersey were built in the 1890s, and beach nourishment became an important component of 

coastal engineering and management for southern Long Island in the 1920s (Kana, 1999; 

Dornhelm, 2004) and along New Jersey beaches in the 1960s (Wiegel and Saville, 1996). 

Miller (1993) stresses the importance of coastal and marine tourism as the world’s largest 

industry and its continual rise over the past 50 years. As such, beaches are key elements of 

coastal tourism because they represent the leading tourist destination. 

 Coastal community master plans are being developed and revised to address concerns 

associated with population growth, storm protection, recreation, waste disposal and facilities 

management, and zoning (e.g., New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Shore 

Protection Master Plan and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] New Jersey Shore 

Protection Study; see Williams, 1992). Often, problems stemming from these issues are in 

direct conflict with natural coastal processes. Some of the more direct problems are related to 

coastal erosion and storm protection. The practice of replenishing beaches with sand from 

upland and nearshore sources as protection for community infrastructure has increased in direct 

relation to population growth. Extraction of sand resources in Federal waters may be preferred 

relative to State waters due to concerns over changes in physical and biological oceanographic
MMS Study 2004-044 Introduction 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 2

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

conditions resulting from large quantities of sediment dredged from resource areas impacted by 

waves and currents. This has generated a need for technical information to ensure that 

offshore minerals are developed with due concern for potential environmental considerations. 

1.1 BACKGROUND 

 Development of beaches for urban and recreational purposes along the coasts of New 

York and New Jersey has been occurring since the late-1800s. The quality of barrier island 

beaches, with the warm summer climate and ocean water, in addition to their proximity to 

metropolitan areas of New York City, created an environment that was initially attractive to many 

summer visitors (Quinn, 1977). As beaches became increasingly accessible by boat, wagon, 

and later rail, city sprawl began to reach some of the beaches as coastal communities began 

developing. Rockaway Beach was one of the first urbanized beaches with commuters driving or 

taking the train to downtown New York City (Kana, 1999). Most coastal communities that 

started developing in this area were initially faced with erosion problems. To accommodate 

increasing numbers of visitors and mitigate shoreline recession that dominated parts of the 

coast, extensive beach nourishment projects began taking place very early in this area (Kana, 

1999; Dornhelm, 2004). Along parts of the southern Long Island coast, the first nourishment 

projects were completed in the early 1920s, and sections of the New Jersey coast were first 

nourished in the 1950s (Kana, 1999). The 1923 beach nourishment project at Coney Island 

was the first completed in the United States (Kana, 1999; Dornhelm, 2004). Rockaway and 

Jones Beaches were not far behind, with projects beginning along these two beaches in the 

mid-1920s. 

 Uptegrove et al. (1997) documented the importance of offshore sand ridges as potential 

borrow sites offshore New Jersey for beach-quality sediment. These deposits exist in State and 

Federal waters, but potential physical environmental impacts for a specific project of set size 

and extraction requirements are expected to be minimized as distance from shore increases. 

Studies of surface and subsurface sediments found on the New York Bight continental shelf 

have concluded that large volumes of material considered suitable for beach fill activities exist 

within these areas (Williams, 1976; Williams and Meisburger, 1987; USACE 1990, 1995; Foster 

et al., 1999). The abundance of sand ridges and suitable sedimentary characteristics on the 

New York Bight continental shelf provides potential borrow sites to meet sand resource 

requirements for beach nourishment within the confines of State and Federal environmental 

regulations. 

 The degree of development within the study area varies greatly, but the maintenance of 

beaches is of vital social and economic importance to communities. The need for sand to 

replenish eroding beaches continues to be an area of concern for local, State, and Federal 

resource agencies, prompting the exploration and environmental evaluation of offshore resource 

sites for future use. Beach nourishment has been combined with structural development within 

the study area to further prevent erosion problems and stabilize Federal entrances. Piers and 

boardwalks were built, along with shoreline protection structures to combat the forces of ocean 

waves at the coastline. Between 1930 and 1960, each of the six major entrances in the study 

area along the south shore of Long Island had been reinforced with at least one jetty, and by 

1940, the three major inlets in the study area in New Jersey were all armored with jetties on 

both of their banks. Estimated volumes and locations of beach nourishment activities as well as 

the history of structural development are summarized in Section 3.1.1.5. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Introduction 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 3

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

1.2 STUDY AREA 

 The study area for this offshore sand resources environmental project encompassed OCS 

waters seaward of the Federal-State boundary offshore northeastern New Jersey and 

southwestern Long Island, New York (Figure 1-1). 

Figure 1-1. Physical setting for the northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island study area 

and key geographic features. 

1.3 STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 

 As specified by the MMS, the primary purpose of the study was to address environmental 

concerns raised by the potential for dredging OCS sand offshore northeastern New Jersey and 

southwestern Long Island, and to document the findings in a technical report. Environmental 

information was collected and compiled to assist the MMS in making future decisions relative to 

negotiated agreements (non-competitive leases), NEPA documents (Environmental 

Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements), and other regulatory requirements 

concerning Federal sand deposits offshore New Jersey and Long Island. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Introduction 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 4

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

 Primary environmental concerns focused on physical and biological components of the 

OCS environment. To this end, the MMS identified five study objectives at the beginning of the 

project: 

Physical Objectives 

• Wave Modifications: Evaluate potential modifications to waves and currents in the study 

region due to offshore dredging within potential sand resource areas. 

• Sediment Transport Patterns: Evaluate impacts of dredging in Federal waters and beach 

nourishment in terms of potential alterations in sediment transport patterns and 

sedimentary environments, and impacts to local shoreline processes. 

Biological Objectives 

• Benthic Ecological Conditions: Characterize benthic ecological conditions in and around 

potential sand resource areas identified by the MMS, NJGS, and USACE-NY District. 

• Benthic Infaunal Evaluation: Evaluate benthic infauna resident in potential sand resource 

areas and assess potential effects of offshore dredging activity on these organisms, 

including an analysis of recolonization periods and success following cessation of 

dredging activities. 

• Project Scheduling Considerations: Evaluate times for dredging in the sand resource 

areas relative to transitory pelagic species. 

1.4 STUDY APPROACH 

1.4.1 Borrow Site Locations and Characteristics 

 Five potential sand borrow sites were defined for this study based on practical water depth 

extraction, environmental impact minimization, and suitable geologic characteristics. All 

potential sand borrow sites exist on either shoreface-attached or offshore linear sand shoals 

immediately seaward of the Federal-State boundary, which have been described by Duane et 

al. (1972), Swift et al. (1972), Williams and Duane (1974), Williams (1976), Stubblefield et al. 

(1984), Duane and Stubblefield (1988), McBride and Moslow (1991), and USACE (1995) as 

providing a primary source of sand-sized sediment for potential beach nourishment activities. 

Three primary criteria were used to isolate potential borrow sites. First, water depths greater 

than 20 m were excluded as a practical limitation for sand extraction. This eliminated any 

potential site east of Fire Island Inlet because the 20 m depth contour exists at or landward of 

the Federal-State boundary. Second, sand ridges were of most interest as potential borrow 

sites to minimize the extent of excavation below the ambient continental shelf surface adjacent 

to these sites. This procedure was expected to limit potential physical environmental impacts to 

waves and currents resulting from dredging. Third, the geologic characteristics of offshore sand 

deposits, as described by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) studies, had to be compatible with beach environments 

where fill is to be placed. 

 The amount of dredging that occurs at any site is a function of Federal, State, and local 

requirements for beach replenishment. It is nearly impossible to predict the exact sand 

quantities needed in the foreseeable future, so a representative value for any given project was 

estimated based on discussions with MMS, USACE, and State personnel. Preliminary analysis 

of short-term impacts (storm and normal conditions) at specific locations along the coast 
MMS Study 2004-044 Introduction 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 5

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

landward of sand borrow sites indicates that at least 1 x 106 m3 of sand would be needed for a 

given beach replenishment event. Long-term shoreline change data sets indicate that a 

replenishment interval of about 5 to 10 years would be expected to maintain beaches. This 

interval does not consider the potential for multiple storm events impacting the coast over a 

short time interval, nor does it consider longer time intervals without destructive storm events. 

Instead, the estimate represents average change over decades that is a reasonable measure 

for coastal management applications. 

 Given the quantity of at least 1 x 106 m3

 of sand per beach replenishment event, the 

surface area covered for evaluating potential environmental impacts is a function of average 

dredging depth. Two factors should be considered when establishing dredging practice and 

depth limits for proposed extraction scenarios. First, regional shelf sediment transport patterns 

should be evaluated to determine net transport directions and rates. It is good sand resource 

management practice to dredge the leading edge of a migrating shoal because infilling of 

dredged sites occurs more rapidly at these locations (Byrnes and Groat, 1991; Van Dolah et al., 

1998). Second, shoal relief above the ambient shelf surface should be a determining factor 

controlling depth of dredging. Geologically, shoals form and migrate on top of the ambient shelf 

surface, indicating a link between fluid dynamics, sedimentology, and environmental evolution 

(Swift, 1976). As such, average shoal relief is a reasonable threshold for maintaining 

environmentally-sound sand extraction procedures. 

 Two sand borrow sites (H1 and H2) in northeastern New Jersey were identified within 

NJDEP designated Resource Area H seaward of the Federal-State boundary and between 

Manasquan and Shark River Inlets (Figure 1-2). Water depth over the ridges ranged from about 

14 to 20 m, and maximum relief above the surrounding sea floor was about 5 m. Sand borrow 

sites south of Long Island were characterized as Holocene sand and gravel ridges by the USGS 

(Foster et al., 1999). Borrow Site 3 exists south of Long Beach Island, encompassing a 

relatively broad northwest-southeast trending shoal defined by the -19 m contour. Water depth 

over the shoal ranges from about 17 to 19 m, and maximum relief above the surrounding sea 

floor was about 2 m. Borrow Sites 4W and 4E exist as two shoreface-attached shoals seaward 

of the Federal-State boundary and south of Jones Beach (Figure 1-2). Shoals in these two 

areas show increased relief and thus provide greater potential for available excavation material 

than at Site 3, with shoal depths ranging from 16 to 20 m. Maximum relief above the 

surrounding sea floor was about 4 m. 

 Potential sand excavation quantities were determined for each of the borrow sites using 

bathymetric surface data. Excavation depths were determined based on average depth of the 

ambient shelf surface adjacent to each of the shoals comprising the borrow sites. Using lowerbounding contour elevations of -19 and -20 m, shoal volumes were calculated to determine the 

availability of potential excavation material. Borrow Sites H1 and H2 provided a total volume of 

about 4.8 and 9.5 x 106 m3

 of sand, respectively (Table 1-1). Surface areas associated with the 

excavation volumes were 3.3 and 13.1 x 106 m2

, respectively. Depths associated with shoal 

features ranged from 14 to 20 m (relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD]) 

at Borrow Site H1 and 15 to 20 m (NAVD) at Borrow Site H2, with shoal depths at Borrow Site 

H1 generally shallower than those at Borrow Site H2. The majority of the H1 shoal crests were 

above the -18 m contour, whereas the shoal comprising Borrow Site H2 maintains only small 

peaks along the -18 m contour, with the majority of the shoal ranging from -18 to -20 m (NAVD). 

The average thickness of sediment comprising the total excavation volume in H1 is about 1.5 m, 

and the average sand thickness associated with the volume calculated for H2 is 0.7 m. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Introduction 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 6

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Figure 1-2. Identified sand borrow sites within the project study area relative to the Federal-State 

boundary. 

Table 1-1. Sand resource characteristics at potential borrow sites offshore northeastern 

New Jersey and southwestern Long Island, NY. 

Borrow 

Site 

Borrow Site 

Surface Area 

(x 106

 m2) 

Maximum 

Excavation 

Depth (m) 

Borrow Site 

Sand 

Volume 

(x 106

 m3) 

Shoal 

Relief (m) D10 (mm) D50 (mm) D90 (mm) 

H1 3.28 20 4.8 5 0.95 0.52 0.26 

H2 13.13 20 9.5 5 0.67 0.35 0.19 

3 9.40 19 11.2 2 1.92 1.13 0.36 

4W 12.23 20 19.8 4 0.65 0.36 0.22 

4E 9.39 20 16.6 4 1.05 0.45 0.27 

D10 = grain diameter above which 10% of the distribution is retained; D50 = median grain diameter; 

D90 = grain diameter above which 90% of the distribution is retained 
MMS Study 2004-044 Introduction 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 7

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

 For Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E south of Long Island, potential sand volumes were 

calculated at 11.2, 19.8, and 16.7 x 106 m3

, respectively. Surface areas associated with these 

volumes were 9.4, 12.2, and 9.4 x 106 m2

, which corresponds to average thicknesses 1.2, 1.6, 

and 1.8 m, respectively. Borrow Site 3 is located along the shallowest features in the study 

area, with the majority of the borrow site located in depths shallower than 18 m (NAVD). As 

discussed previously, it also is located in a different geologic unit than 4W and 4E, and as such, 

has the coarsest sediment composition. Shoals comprising Borrow Sites 4W and 4E have very 

similar depths. Based on geologic information presented by Foster et al. (1999), thicknesses of 

suitable sediment along shoals south of Fire Island tend to increase from west to east. As such, 

it is not surprising that Borrow Site 4E maintains the greatest excavation thickness. 

 Grab samples were collected at and adjacent to each of the borrow sites during surveys 

completed in September 2001 and June 2002 (see Section 6.1; Figures 1-3, 1-4). Median grain 

sizes were averaged for samples collected within each borrow site to determine average 

median grain size of surficial sediments at each site (Table 1-1). Overall, average median grain 

size for all sites ranged from medium to very coarse sand. Three of the five sites (H2, 4W, and 

4E) consisted primarily of medium-grained sand. Borrow Site 3 had the highest average 

median grain size, which was expected due to its location immediately north of Cholera Banks, 

a very coarse-grained outcrop of Cretaceous strata. Borrow Sites 4W and 4E, located to the 

east of Borrow Site 3, were comprised generally of medium-grained sand. Offshore 

northeastern New Jersey, Borrow Site H1 was classified as medium- to coarse-grained sand 

and Borrow Site H2 contained medium sand. This change in distribution is consistent with 

trends reported for sediment grain size variations along northern New Jersey beaches (grain 

size generally decreases with distance from the coastal bluffs). Overall, median grain size 

averages among the borrow sites were consistent with beach sediments sampled along 

adjacent shorelines. 

1.4.2 Wave Modifications 

 The goal of this study element was to perform wave transformation numerical modeling to 

predict the potential for adverse modification of waves resulting from sand dredging operations. 

Changes in bathymetry in sand borrow sites can cause wave energy focusing, resulting in 

substantial alterations in sediment transport at the site of dredging operations as well as along 

the shoreline landward of borrow sites. Because the purpose of dredging offshore sand from a 

specific site will be driven by the need for beach replenishment, it is critical to understand the 

impact of changing wave transformation patterns on shoreline response before potentially 

exacerbating a problem. Numerical comparisons of existing conditions and post-dredging 

impacts provided a means of documenting modifications to waves as they crossed the sand 

resource areas. 

1.4.3 Sediment Transport Patterns 

 The goal of this study element was to predict changes in sediment transport patterns 

resulting from sand dredging operations using numerical information generated from wave 

transformation modeling, combined with offshore current data. Existing current measurements 

were analyzed to document temporal variations in flow throughout the study area (detailed in 

Section 5.0). Sediment transport rates were quantified for sand borrow sites using an analytical 

approach, and transport rates at the shoreline were determined numerically using output from 

wave transformation numerical modeling. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Introduction 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 8

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Figure 1-3. Grab samples collected during September 2001 (top) and June 2002 (bottom) within and 

adjacent to Borrow Sites H1 and H2. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Introduction 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 9

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Figure 1-4. Grab samples collected during September 2001 (top) and June 2002 (bottom) adjacent to 

Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Introduction 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 10

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

 Historical shoreline and bathymetric data were compiled to document regional sediment 

transport patterns over a 60- to 70-yr time period. Net changes in sediment erosion and 

deposition on the shelf surface provided a direct method for identifying patterns of sediment 

transport and quantifying net rates of change throughout the sand resource areas. These data 

also were used to verify numerical results for direction and magnitude of sediment transport. 

1.4.4 Benthic Ecological Conditions 

 The goal of this study element was to characterize benthic ecological conditions in and 

around the sand resource areas. Existing literature and data were searched, collected, 

analyzed, and summarized to characterize the ecological environment and to form the 

foundation for biological field survey design. Biological field surveys were conducted to 

characterize infauna, soft bottom epifauna and demersal fishes, sediment, and water column 

parameters. 

1.4.5 Benthic Infaunal Evaluation 

 The goal of this study element was to assess potential effects of offshore dredging on 

benthic infauna and analyze recolonization periods and success following cessation of dredging 

activities. Existing literature and data on dredging effects were used in conjunction with 

biological field survey results to examine potential benthic effects and recolonization in the sand 

resource areas. 

1.4.6 Project Scheduling Considerations 

 The goal of this study element was to evaluate times for offshore dredging relative to 

pelagic species. Environmental windows are temporal constraints placed on dredging activities 

to protect biological resources from potentially detrimental effects (Dickerson et al., 1998). 

Existing information concerning seasonal occurrence of pelagic species and potential impacts 

from dredging was used to evaluate project scheduling considerations for pelagic fishes, sea 

turtles, and marine mammals. 

1.5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION 

This document was organized into nine major sections as follows: 

• Introduction 

• Environmental Setting 

• Regional Geomorphic Change 

• Assessment of Wave Climate Impact by Offshore Borrow Sites 

• Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

• Biological Field Surveys 

• Potential Effects 

• Conclusions 

• Literature Cited 

 In addition to the main document, appendices were prepared in support of many analyses 

presented in the report. Furthermore, an Executive Summary, a Technical Summary, and a 

Non-Technical Summary will be prepared as separate documents to provide brief study 

descriptions for audiences including managers, researchers, and the general public. 
Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 11

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

 The New Jersey-New York offshore sand resource study area is situated along the north 

Atlantic coast of New Jersey and the southwest Atlantic coast of Long Island and represents 

part of the passive, slowly subsiding eastern North American continental margin (Klitgord et al., 

1988; Smith, 1996). It includes the northernmost component of the Coastal Plain Physiographic 

Province that extends along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America from Long Island to 

Mexico and is underlain at shallow depths by Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary semiconsolidated, clastic sedimentary rocks (Williams and Duane, 1974). The southern coast of 

Long Island is approximately 190 km long and marks the southern terminus of late Pleistocene 

glacial advance in eastern North America. The outer coast of New Jersey is approximately 210 

km long and lies south of the extent of the most recent glacial advance. The two coasts are 

oriented almost perpendicular to one another, forming a wedge-shaped region within the 

northern Middle Atlantic Bight in an area known as the New York Bight. Coastal features 

include bluffs, headlands, and barrier spits and islands that are punctuated by inlets, allowing for 

the exchange of sediment and water between estuaries and the continental shelf, primarily as a 

function of tide (Figure 2-1). 

 The project site forms a rectangular area along the two outer coastlines and adjacent 

continental shelf. It encompasses about 50 km of the northernmost New Jersey coastline from 

Manasquan Inlet to Sandy Hook (74°01’03”, 40°28’37” to 74°05’48”, 39°45’43”) and about 110 

km of coastline in southwestern Long Island from Rockaway Point to Moriches Inlet (73°56’27”, 

40°32’33” to 72°45’19”, 40°45’52”; Figure 2-1). The site encompasses seven major federal 

entrances, with two of these located in northern New Jersey (Shark River and Manasquan 

Inlets) and five located in southwest Long Island (Rockaway, East Rockaway, Jones, Fire 

Island, and Moriches Inlets). Entrances along both shorelines have been armored with rock 

jetties to provide channel protection and inlet stability (outlined in Section 3). The project area 

extends offshore from the shoreline across the continental shelf to about the 30-m depth 

contour (NAVD), a distance of about 10 to 30 km. Although the offshore Federal-State 

jurisdictional boundary marks the landward limit of the study area, the ultimate use of sand 

extracted from the OCS is for beach replenishment along the New Jersey and Long Island outer 

coasts. Consequently, a description of the environmental setting from the coast to the OCS is 

pertinent for addressing the overall study purpose. 

 Topographic characteristics along southwestern Long Island and northeastern New 

Jersey differ due to the influence of the most recent Pleistocene glacial advance. Long Island 

marks the southern boundary of the Wisconsinan-Laurentide continental ice sheet, which is 

recognized as two terminal moraines that comprise the backbone of the northern half of Long 

Island and the glaciofluvial outwash plain that forms its southern flank (Taney, 1961). 

Termination of the ice sheet at Long Island has created regional topographic features that 

characterize the Long Island landscape but not the topography of northern New Jersey. As a 

result, the New York Bight is a relatively complex geologic setting as it has been influenced by 

differential subaerial erosion of near surface Coastal Plain strata and by several episodes of 

Pleistocene glaciation (Williams and Duane, 1974). Despite the contrast in geologic processes, 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 12

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-1. Physical setting of the New York and New Jersey coastlines. 

general geomorphic characteristics of the outer coastline exhibit similar coastal compartments 

and patterns of shoreline evolution. In both regions, eroding headland bluffs supply sediment 

that is transported through littoral currents to downdrift beaches. This process has contributed 

to the development and evolution of extensive chains of barrier spits and islands along both 

coasts, which have historically migrated rapidly in the direction of net longshore transport 

(Fisher, 1968). Much of this natural barrier island migration has been halted in recent years 

through extensive structural development, including construction of numerous groins and 

seawalls in addition to large rock jetties that have been placed at each entrance within the study 

area. The combination of these factors has altered the natural physiography of the outer 

coastline, influencing shoreline change patterns and affecting sediment supply to downdrift 

beaches. Beach sediment size along both coasts tends to decrease with distance from 

headland bluffs. Specific properties of shoreline composition and orientation, barrier island 

migration, and the magnitude and direction of net littoral transport vary between the southern 

Long Island and northern New Jersey coasts. As such, the physical landscape of the outer 

coast within each state is discussed separately below. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 13

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 The outer coast of northern New Jersey is a relatively straight and regular north-south 

orientation from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, south of which it trends increasingly northeastsouthwest and is more frequently interrupted by inlets. The outer coast has been classified into 

four major geomorphic compartments, including the Northern Spit Complex at Sandy Hook, the 

Headlands Section from Monmouth Beach to Mantoloking, the Southern Spit Complex from 

Mantoloking to Beach Haven/Little Egg Inlet, and the Barrier Island Complex from Beach 

Haven/Little Egg Inlet south to Cape May (Figure 2-2; USACE, 1995). Coastal bluffs of the 

Headlands Section serve as a significant source of sediment for coastal compartments to the 

north and south, where wave-generated longshore currents distribute eroding sediment into spit 

deposits and barrier islands (Caldwell, 1966; USFWS, 1997). The extent of the present study 

area in northern New Jersey includes the entire Northern Spit Complex and Headlands Section 

(Figure 2-2). 

Figure 2-2. Coastal geomorphic components of New York and New Jersey. (Adapted from Uptegrove 

et. al., 1995 and Taney, 1961). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 14

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Sediments along northern New Jersey beaches are comprised mainly of medium- to 

coarse-grained sand, composed principally of unconsolidated quartz from underlying and 

nearby formations (USACE, 1990). The outer coastline of the Northern Spit Complex is 

composed primarily of beach and estuarine deposits, while the Headlands Section contains 

primarily Tertiary sands, marls, and clays (Figure 2-3). Beaches along the northern coast of 

New Jersey consist mainly of fine-to medium-grained sands, with grain sizes from samples 

collected between Sandy Hook and Manasquan ranging from 0.17 to 0.41 mm (USACE, 1990, 

1995). Mean grain size for samples collected on beaches between Sandy Hook and Asbury 

Park averages 0.29 mm, and median grain size on beaches between Asbury Park and 

Manasquan averages 0.23 mm (USACE, 1990, 1995). Throughout this area, median grain size 

on beaches generally decreases with distance from eroding coastal bluffs of the Headlands 

Section (Uptegrove et al., 1995). 

Figure 2-3. Geologic Units and average sediment grain size along the northern New Jersey coast 

(Geologic data from NJDEP GIS Data CD and sediment sample data from USACE, 1995). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 15

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 The Northern Spit Complex is backed by Navesink and Shrewsbury Rivers and protrudes 

north into New York Harbor where it is backed by Sandy Hook Bay and protected somewhat by 

the presence of Long Island to the north. Sandy Hook is a classic example of a recurved spit 

that has prograded north toward New York Harbor from north-directed longshore drift (USACE, 

1995). The rate of sediment transport associated with this growth has been estimated at about 

382,000 m3/yr (Caldwell, 1966). The Navesink River separates Sandy Hook from the Atlantic 

Highlands region of northern New Jersey. Atlantic Highlands are the highest headlands along 

the Atlantic Coast south of Maine and are composed of a resistant Tertiary-aged ironstone 

conglomerate caprock that overlies gently seaward-dipping Cretaceous marine mudrocks 

(Stoffer, 1996). Paralleling the Navesink River to the south is the Shrewsbury River. These two 

water bodies trend in an east-northeast direction and discharge to the north into Sandy Hook 

Bay. In historic times, both rivers had direct access to the Atlantic Ocean; however the northdirected growth of Sandy Hook Spit has resulted in a diversion of their courses to the north such 

that they now empty into Sandy Hook Bay (Williams and Duane, 1974). The portion of the spit 

seaward of the area where the rivers divert north is very narrow and has experienced on-going 

erosion problems in the recent past (Figure 2-4). This area, located in the vicinity of the town of 

Sea Bright, has undergone significant beach nourishment activity since the 1950s, with 

nourishment planned for this section of coastline over the next 30 years (USACE, 2003). The 

spit terminus to the north historically has experienced significant deposition as the continuous 

supply of sediment from longshore currents and other marine currents on the continental shelf 

have caused the shoreline to prograde down-current and seaward (Stoffer, 1996). Beach 

sediment is composed principally of unconsolidated quartz from underlying and nearby 

formations. Grain size ranges from clay to small pebbles, but the sand is mainly medium to 

coarse (USACE, 1990). 

Figure 2-4. Narrow barrier spit seaward of the north-directed outflow channel for the Navesink and 

Shrewsbury Rivers (USGS TerraServer image, 13 March 1995). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 16

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 The area south of Sandy Hook from the town of Monmouth to the vicinity of Mantoloking 

has been called the headlands region by Fisher (1967) and Nordstrom et. al. (1977). The 

headlands region encompasses about 30 km of coastline and is composed of Cretaceous, 

Tertiary, and Quaternary Coastal Plain strata that are directly exposed to wave action. The 

beach in this area lies directly seaward of the bluff which rises as much as 8 m above the beach 

(Uptegrove et al., 1995). The fronting shoreline within this stretch of coastline is oriented 

primarily north-south at an angle of about 10 degrees, and is interrupted by two relatively small 

inlets located at the mouths of the Shark and Manasquan Rivers. These rivers intersect the 

project shoreline in a northeast-southwest orientation and are currently maintained as federal 

entrances with rock jetties armoring their northern and southern banks. Coastal plain sediments 

in this region are comprised of sand, marl, gravel, and clay and serve as the primary source of 

sediment for adjacent beaches (Figure 2-3; USACE, 1995). 

 Eroded materials enter the littoral system and are transported northward to form Sandy 

Hook and southward toward the barrier islands (USFWS, 1997). Net littoral drift to the north 

and south of this region is centered about a nodal point located near Manasquan. North of 

Manasquan, net littoral drift is estimated at about 382,000 m3

/yr (Caldwell, 1966); south of 

Manasquan, net drift is southerly at about 38,000 m3

/yr (Figure 2-5, Caldwell, 1966). 

 The location of Long Island as the southern terminus of the last glacial advance has 

resulted in a topographic composition that is uncharacteristic for the Atlantic Coastal Plain 

Province (Taney, 1961). The effects of glaciation are apparent in the topography of the island; 

as it is marked by two terminal moraines, the younger more northerly Harbor Hill Moraine and 

the older more southerly Ronkonkoma Moraine (Figure 2-2). The southern portion of Long 

Island is characterized by gently sloping outwash plains fronted by shallow lagoons and a lowrelief barrier island system consisting of reworked glacial sediment deposited during the last 

glacial advance (Schwab et. al., 2000a). Similar to the New Jersey coastline, the outer coast of 

Long Island is divided into two major coastal geomorphic compartments, including an eastern 

Headlands Section making up about 25 percent of the outer coast, and a western Barrier Island 

Complex comprising the remaining 75 percent (Figure 2-2, Taney, 1961). The Barrier Island 

Complex portion of the outer coast is comprised of four barrier islands, two peninsulas, and 

Coney Island, which has been joined to the mainland through fill operations (Taney, 1961). 

These are backed by shallow back-barrier bays and marshes, and are presently separated from 

each other by tidal entrances. To the east of the Barrier Island Complex are the eroding coastal 

bluffs adjacent to Montauk Point that encompass the Headlands Section. 

 The ocean beaches along southern Long Island vary in width from zero at the coastal 

bluffs to the east to over 150 m in localized areas; the average width is between 30 and 60 m 

(Taney, 1961). Landward of the beachface are sand dunes that crest between 1 and 3 m above 

mean sea level for most of the Barrier Island Complex between Jones Inlet and Southampton, 

becoming taller to the east of Southampton (Taney, 1961). Beaches in this area consist 

primarily of reworked fluvioglacial outwash characterized by sandy (medium- to coarse-grained 

sand) sediment, with coarser morainal deposits along the eastern quarter of the shoreline 

(Kana, 1999). Similar to grain size trends observed along New Jersey beaches, the median 

diameter of beach sand generally decreased with increasing distance from the Headlands 

Section (from east to west in this case) (Taney, 1961). 

 The Headlands Section of the south coast of Long Island stretches from the vicinity of 

Southampton east to Montauk Point. The shoreline within this area is characterized by coastal 

bluffs along the easternmost 6 km of coast, followed by dunes and sandy beaches west of the 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 17

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-5. Net longshore transport rates estimated along Long Island and New Jersey coasts. Littoral 

transport rates obtained from Taney (1961) and Caldwell (1966). 

bluffs. The bluffs at Montauk Point rise abruptly to about 20 m above sea level and are fronted 

by narrow beaches of coarse sand and gravel composed of morainal deposits from the 

Ronkonkoma Moraine (Taney, 1961). The western portion of the headlands region is 

characterized by long continuous sand dunes that are fronted by beaches composed of 

morainal deposits and increasingly sandy littoral material that has been transported west 

(Taney, 1961). The erosion of glacial moraine and till deposits at Montauk Point serves as the 

headland source for beach sands that comprise the Barrier Island Complex to the east. 

 Because prevailing winds in this area are from the east-southeast, long fetches from the 

Atlantic produce net longshore transport from east to west, with rates showing considerable 

variation (Figure 2-5). Eroded glacial sediments from headlands are carried west in the littoral 

current and are deposited by wave action on barrier beaches and offshore bars (USFWS, 

1997). Net littoral transport for parts of the south shore of Long Island has been estimated by 

Taney (1961) and the US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] (1971) to be between 344,000 and 

460,000 m3

/yr (Figure 2-5; Williams and Duane, 1974). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 18

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 The Barrier Island Complex of the south coast of Long Island stretches west from 

Southampton to Coney Island and is comprised primarily of barrier islands, including (from west 

to east) Long Beach, Jones Beach, Fire Island, and Westhampton Beach. The barrier beaches 

in this region are separated from the mainland by numerous interconnected tidal bays, inlets, 

marshes, and lagoons; some of the more prominent water bodies include Great South Bay and 

Moriches Bay. Each of the barriers is relatively narrow and long, with widths generally ranging 

from about 0.5 to 1 km and lengths ranging from a maximum of about 50 km at Fire Island to a 

minimum of about 7 km at Coney Island. There are six permanent tidal inlets that separate the 

barrier islands in southern Long Island, including (from west to east) Rockaway Inlet, East 

Rockaway, Jones, Fire Island, Moriches, and Shinnecock. The number of inlets has varied in 

the recent past, with Moriches Inlet closing intermittently throughout the past two centuries (see 

Section 3). As barrier beaches migrate westward due to west-directed littoral transport, rapid 

movement of large volumes of littoral sediment from east to west has resulted in a shift in inlet 

orientation at three entrances (Taney, 1961). Rockaway, East Rockaway, and Fire Island Inlets 

have experienced rapid westward migration such that their eastern banks now overlap their 

western banks (Figure 2-5). The remaining two tidal entrances (Moriches and Jones) are 

oriented north-south, indicating that these features are young relative to offset inlets. Each of 

the entrances was armored with at least one jetty on its eastern side by 1960 to control rapid 

west-directed island migration. 

 

 The beaches fronting southern Long Island have been formed by wave and littoral forces. 

Presently, the only confirmed source of sediment to beaches along southern Long Island is the 

Headlands Section to the west, which has been estimated by Taney (1961) to supply 

approximately 76,000 cubic meters of material to the littoral current system annually. Onshore 

movement of sediment has been proposed by Wolff (1982) and Schwab et al. (1999) as another 

possible source to the littoral system but volumes are presently unverified. As such, the only 

confirmed source of material contributing to the littoral drift system has been determined to be 

from the Headlands Section. 

2.1 OFFSHORE SEDIMENTARY ENVIRONMENT 

 The submerged extension of the Atlantic Coastal Plain forms the continental shelf of the 

New York Bight. It is characterized by a gentle slope that dips slightly to the southeast and is 

deeply incised by the submarine Hudson River channel which bisects the area as it connects 

with the Hudson Canyon at the Continental Shelf edge (Williams and Duane, 1974). The New 

York Bight is located in a unique geologic setting at the intersection of two major geomorphic 

provinces. Unlike other areas to the north and south, it has been influenced by several 

episodes of Pleistocene glaciation and differential subaerial erosion (Williams and Duane, 

1974). The last glacial advance of the Pleistocene and the following recent transgression of the 

sea have contributed greatly to the evolution of the modern landscape in the New York Bight. 

Seafloor topography and Holocene sediment distribution reflect this combination of processes, 

including shelf modification through ancient fluvial incision during Pleistocene regression 

followed by active reworking of the exposed shelf surface from coastal processes during 

subsequent Holocene rise in sea level (Duane and Stubblefield, 1988). Redistribution of 

sediment by waves and currents during transgression formed modern shelf deposits as 

subaerial coastal features became submerged and reworked during relative rising sea level. As 

such, much of the shelf in the New York Bight is classified as sand (Figure 2-6; Knebel, 1981). 

 Sea level rise across the New York Bight continental shelf was probably interrupted by a 

series of near stillstands followed by rapid rises during the Holocene (Duane and Stubblefield, 

1988). This process resulted in a series of shore-parallel features that have been interpreted as 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 19

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

old shorelines composed of sand (Figure 2-7; Uchupi, 1968; Swift, 1976; Knebel and Spiker, 

1977). Large sections of the continental shelf surface within the Middle Atlantic Province 

contain isolated and shoreface sand ridges oriented obliquely to the modern shoreline (Figure 

2-7; Swift et al., 1972; Stubblefield et al. 1984; McBride and Moslow, 1991). These demonstrate 

opposing ridge and swale orientations on either side of the Hudson River Channel (Figure 2-7). 

South of Long Island, prominent ridge and swale morphology with a northwest-southeast 

orientation dominates, a distinct contrast to the northeast-southwest orientation of ridges 

dominating the shelf west of the Hudson Channel. There are many interpretations of the origin 

of these features ranging from modern hydraulic processes to relict Pleistocene subaerial 

exposure. Ridges within the study area are generally spaced about 1 to 6 km apart and their 

lengths vary from about 2 to 7 km, with the exception of localized features interpreted as 

outcroppings of coastal plain strata, which are much larger and do not form oblique angles with 

the shoreline. The following sections describe these shoreface deposits and their relationship to 

presently defined sand resource areas. 

Figure 2-6. Middle Atlantic continental shelf illustrating dominant surface sedimentary facies as >75% 

sand sized material (adapted from Duane and Stubblefield, 1988; data from Emery and 

Uchupi, 1965; Uchupi, 1968; Swift, 1976). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 20

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-7. Middle Atlantic Province showing historical strandlines and sand ridge orientations on the 

continental shelf (adapted from Duane and Stubblefield, 1988). 

2.1.1 Seabed Morphology 

 The continental shelf within the New York Bight region is characterized primarily by ridge 

and swale topography, isolated and shore-attached linear sand shoals and ridges, and localized 

artificial topographic highs (Figure 2-8). The most prominent sea floor feature in this area is the 

170-km-long submarine Hudson River Channel, which extends southeasterly across the 

continental shelf offshore New York City toward the shelf break until it connects with the Hudson 

Canyon (Butman et. al, 1998; Figure 2-8). The Hudson River Valley is the drowned valley of the 

Hudson River that was formed at lower stands of sea level. It is the principal topographic 

feature of the Middle Atlantic Bight and is the best developed of any submarine channel-canyon 

system on the Atlantic shelf (Butman, 1998). The Hudson Shelf Valley is very deeply incised, 

and it was suggested by Veatch and Smith (1939) that during part of the late Wisconsin ice 

retreat, the Hudson Shelf Valley received the entire Great Lakes drainage, which may account 

for this strikingly deep incision. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 21

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-8. Prominent geomorphic features of the New York Bight continental shelf. 

 The shelf in this region is dominated by ridge and swale topography, with numerous linear 

shoals that trend oblique to regional contours and form a small acute angle with the coastline 

(Duane et al., 1972). Local topographic highs and lows include Shrewsbury Rocks, Cholera 

Banks, Diamond Hill, Castle Hill, Highland Channel, and the Christiansen Basin, with multiple 

additional anthropogenic disposal mounds (Figure 2-7). Anthropogenic disposal of various 

materials has been occurring within the New York Bight since the early 1800s, evidence of 

which is apparent in the bathymetric contours of the shelf. Dumping is visible as multiple 

topographically positive mounds in the vicinity of Christiansen Basin. Sources and quantities of 

material have been well documented in recent reports by the USGS (Butman, 1998; Schwab et 

al., 2000b) and in earlier reports by the USACE (Williams and Duane, 1974). Figure 2-7 

illustrates major disposal site designations. 

 On either side of the Hudson Channel, continental shelf features illustrate opposing 

orientations of ridge and swale morphology. Numerous hypotheses exist for the genesis of 

ridge and swale features found along the shelf in this region. Based on bathymetric analysis 

and grain size characteristics, McKinney and Friedman (1970) concluded that present shelf 

topography was relict from Pleistocene subaerial exposure during lowered sea level, and that 

the ridges and swales were the remainder of an intricate fluvial drainage system modified by 

modern coastal processes. Garrison and McMaster (1966) also interpreted the ridge and swale 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 22

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

morphology east of Long Island as primarily fluvial in origin. Emery et al. (1967), Uchupi (1970), 

McClennen and McMaster (1971), and Sanders and Kumar (1975) describe sand ridges of the 

U.S. Middle Atlantic Bight as indicative of overstepped coastlines. Swift et al. (1972), Duane et 

al (1972), and McClennen (1973) attributed this morphology to interaction of relict shelf 

sediment with modern hydraulic forces on the sea floor, suggesting a modern origin for these 

features in that they are presently being modified by sea floor currents (Williams, 1976). Knebel 

and Spiker (1977) and Stubblefield et al. (1984) argued that shelf sand ridges reflect a 

combination of degraded barrier deposits reworked by shelf currents and post-transgressive 

deposits. McBride and Moslow (1991) evaluated the geomorphology of hundreds of shoreface 

sand ridges and determined a genetic link between tidal inlet shoal deposits and sand ridges. 

They also stated that not all ridges could be explained by one ridge evolution model. Snedden 

et al. (1994) concluded that the ridge-evolution model of McBride and Moslow (1991) best 

explained the development of Peahala Ridge (New Jersey), where a combination of long-term 

transgressive and short-term hydrodynamic factors determined the morphology and internal 

structure of the ridge. Knott and Hoskins (1968) inferred that this shelf was shaped by fluvial 

and glacial processes. 

 On the shelf south of Long Island, the area offshore Rockaway Beach exhibits a gentle 

seaward slope with relatively even contour spacing and minor irregularities from the shoreface 

seaward to the head of Christiansen Basin (Figure 2-8). East of this area, the bathymetry 

surface begins to follow the northwest-southeast trend of alternating sand ridges that is 

predominant on the shelf south of Long Island (Figure 2-8). Backscatter imagery compiled by 

Schwab et al. (2002) in this area illustrates a number of north-south trending lineations which 

are interpreted as rippled scour depressions. Analysis of these depressions depicts them as 

floored with straight-crested, rippled, sandy gravel and gravelly sand with intervening areas of 

fine sand. The sandy gravel and gravelly sand is interpreted as Pleistocene glaciofluvial 

sediment exposed and reworked at the sea floor (Schwab et al., 2002). It was suggested that 

the rippled scour depressions formed due to ongoing erosion of the inner-continental shelf were 

a result of the active formation and modification of a ravinement surface (Schwab et al., 2002). 

Immediately east of these features is a prominent northeast-southwest trending shoal identified 

by the -18 m contour. This shoal encompasses the majority of Borrow Site 3, and it is situated 

immediately north of one of three prominent outcrops of Cretaceous strata within the study area. 

This outcrop has been identified by numerous studies of the inner shelf (Williams and Duane, 

1974; Foster et. al., 1999; Schwab et al., 2002) and is visible within the -24 m contour interval. 

It is referred to as Cholera Banks (Figure 2-6), and is characterized as an eastward extension of 

one or more Coastal Plain strata (Williams and Duane, 1974). It has been suggested that this 

area was an emergent headland cored by coastal plain strata during the early Holocene 

(Schwab et al., 2000b). Additional ridges along the -18 to -24 m contours located to the east of 

Cholera Banks display an increasing northwest southeast orientation along their crests 

(Figure 2-7). 

 East of Long Beach, in the vicinity of Borrow Sites 4W and 4E, seafloor morphology is 

dominated by linear shoreface-attached sand ridges. The features are visible along the -18 m 

contour and are oriented more obliquely to the shoreline than those found offshore Long Beach. 

Sites 4W and 4E are located on two of these sand shoals seaward of the Federal-State 

Boundary off Jones Beach. The sand ridges form angles of 30° to 40° with the shoreline and 

thicken to the east, from about 1 m thick south of Fire Island Inlet to about 5 m thick immediately 

west of an outcrop of Cretaceous strata offshore Watch Hill (Foster et al., 1999; Figure 2-8). 

Southward asymmetry exhibited by these shoals is attributed to the action of coast-parallel, 

southeasterly, storm-generated currents (Duane et. al., 1972). Schwab et al. (1999) attribute 

the formation of these shoals to erosion during the early Holocene of the outcrop of Cretaceous 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 23

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

strata offshore Watch Hill. Sediment transported downdrift (to the west) during marine 

transgression was reworked by oceanographic processes into a series of shoreface-attached 

ridges (Schwab et al., 1999). This shoal pattern is especially evident shoreward of the -36 m 

contour. It has been suggested that ridges present in this area are a significant source of 

sediment to the western part of Fire Island (Schwab et al., 1999). This hypothesis follows on 

work completed by Taney (1961) and Rosati et al. (1999) that suggested that additional sources 

may be contributing to total littoral drift estimates supplying sediment to Fire Island Inlet. 

 The continental shelf east of New Jersey is characterized by a steeper and narrower 

shoreface than that observed for southern Long Island, and it is marked by numerous northeastsouthwest trending linear shoals. Typically, the Federal-State boundary lies seaward of the -18 

m contour in this region, while it coincides with the -18 m contour for a majority of the shelf 

south of Long Island. Bathymetric contours north of Barnegat Inlet are primarily straight and 

parallel to -18 m, seaward of which isolated shoals reside. The sea floor in the northern section 

of coast adjacent to Sandy Hook is relatively irregular and random, unlike the more regular 

northeast-southwest trending ridge and swale topography found to the south (Figure 2-8). The 

prominent topographic high separating these two regions is a coastal plain strata outcropping 

known as Shrewsbury Rocks (Williams and Duane, 1974). Shrewsbury Rocks is a shoreattached linear shoal located east of Monmouth, NJ that extends offshore in a northeast 

direction where it is truncated by the head of the Hudson River Channel (Figure 2-8). It is the 

only shoreface-attached shoal located offshore the northern New Jersey coastline, and it varies 

from the isolated shoals found to the south in that it is wider, longer, and oriented on a more 

easterly direction (Duane et al., 1972). According to Williams and Duane (1974), Shrewsbury 

Rocks persisted as a barrier during the Pleistocene and had a definite influence on diverting the 

course of drainage of the Raritan River and possibly the Hudson River. 

 To the south, isolated linear shoals are abundant in the nearshore area between Long 

Branch and Manasquan. Characteristics of linear shoals within this portion of the continental 

shelf have been well characterized by Duane et al. (1972). Shoals in this area typically are 

separated from the coast by about 4 km, vary in length from 2 to 6 km, and have a mean width 

of about 300 m (Duane et al., 1972). All shoals have their long axis oriented east-northeast and 

have an average angle of about 30° to 85° with the shoreline. Borrow Sites H1 and H2 are 

located on two of these shoals. Investigation of northern New Jersey surface and subsurface 

shoal sediments from cores indicated that the shoals were composed of medium-grained, 

polished, well-sorted quartzose sand (Duane et al., 1972). Further offshore, the shelf becomes 

increasingly flat as it slopes toward the Hudson Valley. 

2.1.2 Surface Sediment 

 Surface sediment on the New York Bight continental shelf has been analyzed in 

numerous studies to produce a very detailed characterization of the project area. A regional 

characterization of shelf surface sediments shows the overall predominance of sand-sized 

material for a majority of the Atlantic continental shelf (Figure 2-9; Poppe et al., 1994). 

Additional characterizations of the shelf surface for areas specific to the New York Bight have 

added considerable detail to this regional view, including characterizations by Williams and 

Duane (1974), Williams (1976), and numerous reports by the USGS (Foster et al., 1999; 

Schwab et al., 2002). These depictions have been combined with recent grab sample data 

collected at and adjacent to each of the borrow sites for the present study to characterize 

surficial sediment variations. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 24

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-9. Continental Shelf sediment distribution in the New York Bight (adapted from Poppe et al., 

1994) 

 The predominant sediment type on the inner shelf within the New York Bight is fine-to 

medium-grained sand, with intervening patches of coarse sand and rounded pea gravel 

(Williams and Duane, 1974; Williams, 1976). Areas of coarse sand and gravel generally 

corresponded with regions of outcropping coastal plain strata, including Shrewsbury Rocks on 

the northern New Jersey coast, Cholera Banks south of Long Island in the vicinity of Long 

Beach, and an unnamed outcrop south of Watch Hill, Long Island (Figure 2-8). Additionally, a 

zone of silt and mud is present along parts of the Hudson River Channel and within the sewer 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 25

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

sludge and dredged-material disposal areas (Figure 2-9). Modern deposits are typically well 

sorted, originating from glacial processes and reworking of coastal plain strata (Williams and 

Duane, 1974). Major sources of modern shelf deposits are the terminal moraines of Long Island 

to the north and Coastal Plain strata underlying the shelf and comprising the New Jersey 

landscape to the west (Williams and Duane, 1974). 

 Regional classification of the Atlantic continental shelf (Poppe et al., 1994; Figure 2-9) 

provided a good overall view of its surficial sediment composition. Within the study area, this 

characterization illustrates the predominance of sand-sized material, with smaller areas of 

gravelly sands, gravels, and silts mixed throughout. A patch of coarse sand visible offshore 

Long Beach coincides with the location of Cholera Banks (Figure 2-8). This feature was 

characterized by Williams and Duane (1974) as an eastward extension of one or more Coastal 

Plain strata, and recent interpretive maps completed by Schwab et al. (2002) have identified this 

area as consisting of Tertiary/late Cretaceous outcrops. 

 North of Cholera Banks, in the vicinity of Borrow Site 3, grab samples collected by the 

USGS indicated that a majority of the sand in this region is medium- to coarse-grained, with 

some fines intermixed. Grab samples collected by the USGS immediately north of Borrow Site 

3 exhibit a large range in sediment size, from 0.14 to 1.28 mm, with an average median grain 

size of 0.45 mm (Polloni et al., 2000). This large size variation is consistent with later studies 

that have identified gravelly Pleistocene lag deposits intermixed with modern Holocene fill along 

the ridges in this region (Schwab et al., 2002). West of this area, a large zone of residual 

Coastal Plain strata is located offshore Fire Island in the vicinity of Watch Hill. The area has 

been identified as a potential sediment source for down-current sand ridges during marine 

transgression. On the shelf east of New Jersey, near Sites H1 and H2, Duane et al. (1972) 

documented surface and subsurface sediments along isolated linear shoals between Long 

Branch and Manasquan composed of medium-grained, polished, well-sorted quartzose sand. 

The unconsolidated sediment cover of these ridges has been shown to be a combination of 

Pleistocene outwash sediment from the north and material derived from land erosion to the west 

(Duane et al., 1972). South of this area, large regions of coarse sand and gravel deposits have 

been attributed to fluvial processes associated with the drowned Hudson River Valley (Schlee, 

1964; Amato, 1993; Poppe et al., 1994). 

 Williams and Duane (1974) produced a more detailed characterization of the inner portion 

of the New York Bight west of Long Beach, NY and north of Long Branch, NJ (Figure 2-10). 

The study identified additional coarse sand and gravel patches, along with coastal plain strata 

outcropping offshore Sea Bright, NJ that were associated with Shrewsbury Rocks. A large area 

of coarse sediment located northeast of Sandy Hook has been attributed to removal of overlying 

material by channel dredging and tidal currents that scour the area and leave a lag of coarser 

sediment. Williams and Duane (1974) also produced general boundaries delineating the 

different origins of shelf sediment, including a northern glacially derived component and a 

southern reworked Coastal Plain component (Figure 2-10). 

 Vibracores and seismic reflection profiles, along with relative mineral abundance, were 

used to delineate offshore sedimentary facies. Because the boundaries illustrate relative 

abundance of source materials in the region, glacially derived materials may exist further south 

than the demarcation but are insignificant compared with the volume derived from Coastal Plain 

sources (Williams and Duane, 1974). It has been proposed that the Hudson River channel may 

influence this separation between sedimentary compositions by acting as a barrier to sediment 

transport while also funneling glacial detritus farther out on the continental shelf, accounting for 

the large areal extent of outwash across the shelf south of New England (Williams and Duane, 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 26

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

1974). Overall, this characterization was consistent with the regional characterization, showing 

a predominance of fine- to medium-grained sands along the inner shelf. Williams (1976) 

characterized shelf sediment between Atlantic Beach and Montauk Point as consisting primarily 

of fine to medium quartz sand, with secondary occurrences of coarse sand and pea gravel. 

Figure 2-10. Surface sediment distribution within the inner New York Bight (adapted from Williams and 

Duane, 1974). 

 The most recent characterization of shelf sedimentary facies, completed by Schwab et al. 

(2002), includes the inner New York Bight from Raritan Bay to the west side of Jones Island and 

from Sandy Hook south to Shark River Inlet (Figure 2-11). This area includes Borrow Site 3 and 

intersects a portion of Site 4W (Figure 2-11). Schwab et al. (2002) identified eight (8) distinct 

geologic units and provided information on the geometry and structure of Cretaceous and 

Quaternary deposits in the region. South of Long Beach, the northern half of Site 3 is located in 

an area classified as Pleistocene fluvioglacial gravelly sands reworked into a series of lowamplitude, fine-sand, transverse bedforms. The southern half of Borrow Site 3 was defined as 

Early Tertiary/Late Cretaceous strata with associated reworked gravelly lag deposits. Borrow 

Site 4W lies within a zone characterized as Holocene sand ripples. Surficial sediment 

comprising the ripples were characterized as fine sand along ridge crests, with reworked 

Pleistocene gravelly sand exposed within the troughs (Schwab et al., 2002). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 27

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-11. Inner New York Bight continental shelf sediment classification based on backscatter imagery 

(adapted from Schwab et al., 2002). 

2.1.3 Subsurface Deposits 

 Numerous geologic investigations have been conducted within the study area to 

document continental shelf sedimentation processes and describe the regional character of 

shelf stratigraphy and sedimentology. Early investigations completed under the USACE Inner 

Continental Shelf Sediment and Structure (ICONS) program developed regional 

characterizations of the continental shelf within the Inner New York Bight, south of Long Island 

and east of northern New Jersey. Recent studies completed by the USGS have built upon this 

early work and provide detailed depictions of surficial and subsurface geology within the inner 

portion of the New York Bight and along the shelf south of Long Island. A number of additional 

studies documenting shelf characteristics adjacent to northern New Jersey were summarized by 

Uptegrove et al. (1995), four (4) of which fall within present study limits. An additional study 

completed by Duane et al. (1972) documents the shallow geology of nearshore and offshore 

sand ridges for determining the genesis of shoreface sand ridge deposits. General boundaries 

of previous investigations intersecting the current study area are shown in Figure 2-12. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 28

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-12. Locations of previous geologic investigations within the New York Bight region. 

 The geology and geomorphology of shelf deposits offshore northern New Jersey were 

described by Fray and Ewing (1961), Duane et al. (1972), Williams and Duane (1974), 

McClennan (1983), and Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey (1988). The area of coverage includes 

Sand Borrow Sites H1 and H2 offshore northern New Jersey (Figure 2-12). Fray and Ewing 

(1961) collected subsurface data offshore northern New Jersey between the Shrewsbury River 

and Manasquan Inlet. As part of this study, sparker survey and echo sounder data were 

collected along two transects parallel to the New Jersey shoreline, and twenty piston cores were 

drilled to a depth of about 2 m. Offshore components of the Navesink, Red Bank, Manasquan, 

and Kirkwood formations tentatively were identified on the inner continental shelf within the 

study area. Duane et al. (1972) characterized linear sand shoals along the entire New Jersey 

continental shelf, describing shoal composition and surficial sediment texture. Williams and 

Duane (1974) obtained seismic reflection profiles and 61 vibracores within the Inner New York 

Bight to characterize the geomorphology and sediments comprising the region. Two distinct 

geomorphic provinces were identified, separated by the submarine outcrop of resistant coastal 

plain sediments known as Shrewsbury Rocks. McClennan (1983) conducted a sidescan sonar 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 29

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

and seismic reflection survey seaward of the central New Jersey coast to investigate the 

shallow subsurface character of shelf deposits. Numerous active megaripples were documented 

across the shelf surface. Shallow seismic data recorded sub-bottom reflectors as deep as 42 m 

that outlined sediment-filled valleys and buried channels. Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey (1988) 

collected seismic and vibracore data to characterize offshore areas potentially suitable for sand 

borrow material. Approximately 55 million cubic yards of sand was identified on sand shoals 

immediately west of Borrow Sites H1 and H2 (described in Section 2.1.4). 

 

 The geology and geomorphology of shelf deposits south of Long Island have been well 

characterized by Williams (1976), Butman et al. (1998), Foster et al. (1999), and Schwab et al. 

(1997; 1999; 2000a, b, c; and 2002). The area covered includes Sand Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 

4E. Williams (1976) initially documented the geomorphology, shallow bottom structure, and 

sediments of the continental shelf offshore southern Long Island by collecting about 1,200 linekm of seismic profile data and 70 vibratory cores. A number additional cores and seismic 

records were available for this study from other sources as well. The study extent included the 

offshore region south of Long Island from Atlantic Beach east to Montauk Point and seaward 

about 16 km to the -32 m contour (Figure 2-12). Williams (1976) concluded that much of the 

surficial sand on the inner shelf is suitable as fill for beach restoration activities, with linear sand 

shoals representing the areas considered best suited for recovery. Sand resource areas were 

delineated along the shelf with potential volumes and thicknesses assigned within each zone. 

Total potential sand reserves within the study limits were estimated at more than 6 billion cu m. 

A thickness of about 3.5 m of suitable fill material was generally assigned to the study area. 

 Data collected within the study area by Butman et al. (1998), Foster et al. (1999), and 

Schwab et al. (1997, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, and 2002) include multibeam bathymetric and 

backscatter imagery, high-resolution sidescan-sonar imagery, seismic-reflection profiles, and 

bottom sediment samples. These studies were intended to produce detailed descriptions of 

shelf surface and subsurface characteristics to determine regional-scale sand-resource 

availability for planned beach-nourishment programs, in addition to developing an 

understanding of the role inner-shelf morphology and geologic framework play in shelf evolution. 

 

 Williams (1976) characterized the subsurface structure of the New York Bight based on 

four primary acoustic horizons. The horizons were identified using seismic reflection profiles 

and were established by correlation with cores, land borings, and surface exposures of the 

reflectors. The oldest and deepest surface identified was granitic bedrock, but the recognition of 

this horizon was limited to Gardiners Bay due to sub-bottom penetration problems. The surface 

slopes southeast and shows considerable relief where glacial ice has enlarged pre-Pleistocene 

drainage channels. Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary semi-consolidated clastic sediments overlie 

the bedrock and dip and thicken to the southeast. A truncated cuesta of coastal plain strata was 

identified extending northeast from Long Branch, NJ to Fire Island and continued under the 

Long Island mainland. The Pleistocene erosion surface comprises the third surface, which 

consists of blanket-like deposits of outwash sand and gravel. The fourth unit contains Holocene 

age deposits that were not well defined in seismic profiles collected by Williams (1976), 

probably due to limited vertical resolution. However, core samples delineated offshore Holocene 

deposits as modern marine sands deposited over organic-rich mud, interpreted by Williams 

(1976) as typical back-barrier-beach deposits. Numerous buried ancestral drainage channels 

were identified on the shelf surface that generally trend from north to south from southern Long 

Island. Figure 2-13 shows an interpretation of offshore stratigraphy developed from seismic 

reflection profiles collected between Long Beach and Jones Beach. 

 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 30

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-13. Stratigraphic characterization interpreted from seismic reflection profiles (from Williams, 

1976). 

 Subsequent studies by the USGS (Foster et. al., 1999; Schwab et al. 2002) are consistent 

with Williams (1976) original stratigraphic interpretations and have provided significantly more 

detail. Schwab et al. (2002) provided delineations of stratal thicknesses and identified two 

regional subsurface unconformities separating the top three units. The deeper of these two 

unconformities separates Upper Cretaceous to lower Tertiary coastal-plain strata from the 

overlying Quaternary sedimentary deposit and was informally designated as the coastal-plain 

unconformity (Schwab et al., 2002). The geometry of the coastal-plain unconformity limited the 

accommodation space available for subsequent deposition of Quaternary sediment. Outcrops of 

coastal-plain strata formed resistant bathymetric highs that outcrop on the sea floor and 

continue to be sites of sea bed erosion (Schwab et al., 2002). The second regional 

unconformity separates the Pleistocene sedimentary deposit from overlying Holocene 

sediments and was informally designated as the Holocene Ravinement surface. (Schwab et al. 

2002). Paleochannels previously identified by Williams (1976) also were better characterized by 

recent USGS studies, with sedimentary composition within the channels better developed. 

Schwab et al. (2002) illustrates a subsurface paleochannel filled with quaternary sediment and 

the depth to the top of the Coastal Plain Unconformity (Figure 2-14). The outcrop of coastal 

plain strata associated with Cholera Banks is visible within this depiction as well. Results from 

USGS investigations, including characterization of the composition, depths and thicknesses of 

regional stratal units in addition to the delineation of Pleistocene drainage channels and modern 

reworked sedimentary deposits are used for this study to help quantify potential sedimentary 

thicknesses for defined borrow sites. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 31

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-14. Seismic-reflection profile showing Upper Cretaceous coastal-plain strata and overlying 

Quaternary sediments (from Schwab et al., 2002). 

2.1.4 Offshore Sand Resources 

 The resource potential of offshore sand deposits within the study area was estimated 

using a combination of geologic and bathymetric data. Volume calculations were generated 

using bathymetry data within each borrow site, and potential volumes were compared with 

geologic information in Duane et al. (1972), Field and Duane (1976), Williams (1976), Alpine 

Ocean Seismic Survey (1988), Foster et al. (1999), and Schwab et al. (2002). Shoal 

characteristics and sand volume estimates for Borrow Sites H1 and H2 were developed using 

geologic information on shoal characteristics from Duane et al. (1972), in addition to vibracore 

data and seismic reflection profiles collected by the Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey (1988). 

Shoal characteristics and sand volume estimates for Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E were 

developed using geologic information on shoal characteristics from Duane et al. (1972) and 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 32

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

sediment thickness and subsurface stratigraphic information from Williams (1976) and USGS 

(Foster et al., 1999; Schwab et al. 2002). Geologic data were correlated with sediment grab 

samples and potential excavation volumes calculated using bathymetric data to estimate sand 

resource quantities. 

 Duane et al. (1972) evaluated surface and subsurface sediments along the isolated linear 

shoals between Long Branch and Manasquan and indicated that they were composed of 

medium-grained, polished, well-sorted quartzose sand. These shoals are superimposed on a 

thin veneer of coarse, poorly sorted, iron-stained and pitted quartz and glauconite, overlying a 

substrate of fine-grained sands, silts, and clays. The change in substrate occurs at the 

uppermost acoustic reflector. The unconsolidated sediment cover of these ridges is a 

combination of Pleistocene outwash sediment from the north and sediment derived from land 

erosion to the west (Duane et al., 1972). This characterization of shoals offshore New Jersey is 

consistent with results from grab samples obtained for Borrow Sites H1 and H2. The average 

median grain size of grab samples collected within these two sites characterizes them as 

medium to coarse grained sand, with averages of 0.52 and 0.35 mm, respectively. 

 Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey (1988) identified seven potential sand borrow areas within 

State and Federal waters offshore New Jersey between Shark River and Manasquan Inlets 

(Figure 2-15). While the majority of vibracore samples and seismic reflection profiles collected 

as part of this study are landward of the Federal-State Boundary, general characteristics of the 

shoals comprising Borrow Sites H1 and H2 can be obtained through extrapolation of these data, 

assuming shoal characteristics within the region are consistent. Borrow Sites H1 and H2 exist 

on shoals that were partially characterized by Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey (1988). As such, 

shoal characteristics were used as proxies for determining characteristics of the seaward 

portion of each shoal. Borrow Site H1 for this study is adjacent to Alpine’s Borrow Area BA-7. 

Three vibracores (87-17, 87-18, and 87-19) were collected within this borrow area near the -16 

and -18 m contours. The majority of the shoal encompassed by Borrow Site H1 is within this 

depth range. Core 87-17 is located on the westernmost portion of the shoal and furthest from 

Site H1. The top 4 m of the core consisted of fine to medium sand. Core 87-18, to the east of 

87-17, was characterized as fine to medium sand with traces of shell fragments in the top 3.4 m 

of the shoal. Core 87-19, located closest to Borrow Site H1 was characterized as fine to 

medium sand for the top 2.7 m of core. Of these three cores, the Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey 

study concluded that 87-17 and 87-18 were suitable as beachfill material for New Jersey 

beaches, but that 87-19 was not. Borrow Site H2 is located on a shoal south and west of the 

remaining borrow areas defined by the Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey. These six borrow areas 

are located along shoals with similar depths as those associated with Borrow Site H2. Of the 

six remaining sites, five were considered compatible with beach sediments (BA-2 through 

BA-6), with thicknesses in these sites ranging from 2 to 5 m (Figure 2-15). 

 Subsurface sediment characteristics within borrow sites south of Long Island were initially 

described by Williams (1976). Fourteen (14) potential borrow areas were identified by Williams 

(1976), of which two (2) intersect the borrow sites defined for the present study (Figure 2-16). 

These two borrow areas, designated as M and N, were analyzed using vibracore and seismic 

reflection profile data and were determined to contain potential sand thicknesses of about 5.5 m 

(Area M) and 3.2 m (Area N). Williams’ (1976) Borrow Areas M and N intersect portions of 

Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E (Figure 2-16). Borrow Area M was well-characterized by a large 

number of cores, the majority of which were collected along three shore-normal transects 

offshore Jones Beach. These transects were established by Suffolk and Nassau counties as 

part of a sewer outfall pipe study but were used by Williams (1976) to characterize the shelf in 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 33

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

this region and assign thicknesses to Borrow Area M (Figure 2-16). Graphical representations 

of lithologic units comprising these cores are shown in Figure 2-17. 

 All cores collected along transect C showed that the upper 3.6 to 9.2 m of shelf sediment 

in this region was composed of fine-to-medium sand with lesser amounts of coarse detritus. All 

cores located seaward of 15 m water depth contained 3 to 7 m of sand overlying a flat, 

featureless silt-clay horizon at about -22.3 m MSL. The horizon is continuous under the shoal, 

which is analogous with data reported by Duane et al. (1972) for similar shoal studies along the 

Atlantic inner shelf. The remaining cores used to characterize this portion of the shelf were 

collected by Williams (1976) and had minimum thickness values ranging from 0 to 4.7 m, with 

an average of about 2 m. 

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S #S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S #S

#S #S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S #S #S

-20

-18

-18

-22

-22

-24

-16

-16

-18

-20

-18

-20

-20

-16

-18

-20

-22

BA-3

BA-4

BA-2

BA-5

BA-1

BA-6

BA-7

H1

H2

Shark River 

Manasquan R.

BEACH 

SAND

BEACH 

SAND

COHANSEY 

SAND

EY 

KIRKWOOD 

SAND

87-17

87-18

87-19

74°3' 74°2' 74°1' 74° 73°59' 73°58' 73°57' 73°56' 73°55' 73°54' 73°53

40°7' 40°8' 40°9' 40°10' 40°11' 40°12' 40°13'

Alpine Ocean 

Borrow Area

Vibracore 

Location

Potential Sand 

Borrow Site

#S

Seismic 

Reflection 

Profile

N

W E

S

500 0 500 Meters

Figure 2-15. Locations of borrow areas, vibracores, and seismic reflection profile lines collected as part of 

the Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey (1988). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 34

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-16. Borrow Areas M and N defined by Williams (1976) with vibracores used to delineate suitable 

sediment thicknesses for the areas. Borrow Area M was assigned a minimum potential 

thickness of 5.5 m and Borrow Area N was assigned a range of 1.8 to 3.2 m of suitable 

sediment. Interpretations of vibracores are shown in Figure 2-17. 

 Borrow Site 4E is intersected by Borrow Area M. The four cores closest to Borrow Site 4E 

along transects A and B (cores V-23, V-24, V-11, and V-12) show minimum thicknesses ranging 

from 2.4 to 4.6 m. These four cores are located along the flank of the shoal, generally in water 

depths greater than the majority of the shoal comprising the borrow site (vibracores are located 

in depths greater than 20 m, whereas shoal depths range from 16 to 20 m, NAVD). As such, it 

is possible that thicknesses of suitable material greater than 4.6 m may be present within the 

majority of the Borrow Site 4E. A vibracore collected along the boundary of Site 4E shows a 

minimum thickness of 1.9 m at a depth of 20 m (NAVD). Subsurface interpretations developed 

from these cores indicated that a thickness range of 1.9 to 4.6 m is a suitable estimate for 

Borrow Site 4E. Foster et al. (1999) also mapped a portion of the shelf within Borrow Site 4E, 

delineating thicknesses of modern sediments and paleochannel fill areas. According to Foster 

et al. (1999), the areas between the paleochannels are Pleistocene glacial deposits and 

probably consist of coarse sediment that may be suitable for beach nourishment. These 

coarser-grained glacial deposits are the source for modern sand deposits. Modern sands have 

been reworked primarily from glacial deposits and a Cretaceous outcrop off Watch Hill. 

Reworked deposits provided well-sorted clean sand that naturally nourished southern Long 

Island beaches (Foster et al, 1999). Thicknesses of modern sand deposits within Borrow Sites 

4W and 4E range from about 0.5 to 3.5 m (Figure 2-18). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 35

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-17. Lithologic interpretation of cores collected as part of the sewer outfall study. Core locations 

are shown in Figure 2-16. Depths are shown in feet below MSL (from Williams, 1976). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 36

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-18. Isopach map of modern shelf sediment, southern Long Island (from Foster et al., 1999). 

 Borrow Site 4W is located along a shoal adjacent to Site 4E. Characteristics of this shoal 

(shoal orientation, depth, distance offshore, surface sediment grain size) are very similar to 

those observed at 4E. As such, it is reasonable to believe that subsurface characteristics for 

the two shoals may be similar, and that a thickness range similar to Site 4E would likely apply. 

Borrow Site 4W straddles Borrow Areas M and N, though it is primarily located in Area N. Area 

N was characterized by significantly less vibracore data, and shows greater stratigraphic 

variation than that observed at Area M. As a result, potential thicknesses determined for this 

area are less than that for Area M, with a minimum of 1.8 m and a potential of 3.2 m (Williams, 

1976). One vibracore was located within the boundary of Site 4W, and it indicated a minimum 

sediment thickness of 3.1 m along the crest of the shoal (Williams, 1976). Other cores located 

in the vicinity of Borrow Site 4W range from 0.6 to 2.3 m minimum thickness. 

 

 Borrow Site 3 is located in the shallowest portion of all borrow sites developed for this 

study. Depths along this shoal range from 17 to 19 m (NAVD) and the proposed excavation 

depth determined for this site was 19 m. One vibracore along the crest of the shoal indicates a 

minimum thickness of 2.3 m, which is in the middle of the range designated for Borrow Area N. 

As such, a minimum of 1.8 to 3.2 m of suitable sediment should be available within Borrow 

Site 3. Schwab et al. (2002) also characterized the subsurface of the continental shelf within 

Borrow Site 3. Contours showing the thickness of Quaternary sediments illustrate a local 

thickening of shelf sediment within Borrow Site 3. Thickness ranges within the borrow site from 

about 20 to 70 m (Figure 2-19). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 37

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 2-19. Thickness of the Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene) sedimentary deposits near Borrow 

Site 3 (after Schwab et al., 2002). 

 Total available sediment volume within borrow sites, calculated using bathymetric data, 

was about 62 million cubic meters (mcm). Average excavation depths ranged from about 0.7 to 

1.8 m across the study area. Excavation depths used for calculating sediment volumes were 

compared with previous reports describing suitable sediment thicknesses within or adjacent to 

each borrow site (Table 2-1). In general, proposed extraction depths for the present study are 

within ranges indicated by previous investigations as suitable for beach nourishment. Borrow 

Site 4W is the only site where minimum thickness values are less than the average value 

calculated for the site. However, vibracore data used to define this minimum thickness was 

collected outside the boundary of the borrow site and may not reflect available sediment within 

the limits of the site. 

Table 2-1. Calculated versus published excavation depths determined for sand borrow 

sites offshore southwestern Long Island and northeastern New Jersey. 

Site 

Calculated 

Average 

Thickness (m) 

Published 

Thickness 

Range (m) 

Source Data Used 

H1 1.5 2.7 to 4.0 Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey 

(1988) Cores 87-17 through 87-19 

H2 0.7 2.0 to 5.0 Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey 

(1988) Adjacent borrow site volumes 

3 1.2 1.8 to 3.2 Williams (1976) Vibracores collected in and 

adjacent to the borrow site 

4W 1.6 0.6 to 2.3 Williams (1976) Vibracores collected in and 

adjacent to the borrow site 

4E 1.8 1.9 to 4.6 Williams (1976) Vibracores collected adjacent 

to the borrow site 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 38

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

2.2 GENERAL CIRCULATION 

 General circulation in the New York Bight and adjacent shelf waters is directly related to 

regional atmospheric surface pressure, wind stress distributions, and the regional density field 

along and across the shelf. Regional wind climate in the northeast US is influenced by two 

dominant pressure systems, the Bermuda High and the Icelandic Low. In summer, the 

Bermuda High is located over more northerly latitudes, creating generally weak southwesterly 

winds. In winter, the Bermuda High pressure zone weakens and is depressed to the south, 

allowing the Icelandic Low to generate strong northerly and northwesterly winds out of Canada 

(Louis Berger Group, 1999). Seasonal changes in atmospheric surface pressure and winds 

significantly affect currents over the entire shelf, and they are particularly effective in winter 

when energetic low pressure storm systems create strong northeast winds on the backside of 

low pressure centers. These strong winds and pressure gradients accelerate southwest flows 

over the shelf throughout the water column (Noble et al., 1983). 

 Three major regional currents found within coastal waters offshore the eastern United 

States influence processes in the New York Bight. They include the northerly flowing Gulf 

Stream located in waters off the eastern US, southerly flowing coastal or shelf water located 

offshore northeastern states, and slope water associated with the confluence of these two 

systems at the continental slope. The Gulf Stream flows northerly, paralleling the east coast of 

the US until it heads offshore at the approximate location of Cape Hatteras (varies seasonally). 

Waters carried northward as part of the Gulf Stream are derived from the Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean regions and contribute a relatively warm source of water to the North Atlantic Ocean. 

The southerly flowing coastal or shelf water originates in Canada with a comparatively cold, 

dense, and less saline composition. The shelf water current flows southerly along the 

continental shelf, paralleling northeastern states and incorporating properties of the watershed 

from coastal rivers that intercept its flow until it converges with the Gulf Stream between 

Nantucket Shoals and Cape Hatteras. This flow convergence creates an elongated cyclonic 

gyre offshore New Jersey, encompassing most of the Middle Atlantic Bight (Louis Berger Group, 

1999). The inshore edge of this gyre flows towards the south and may also contribute average 

southwesterly flow detected in this region. Williams and Godshall (1977) measured a 5 cm/sec 

mean flow along the New Jersey coast. The position of this gyre varies with the northern edge 

of the Gulf Stream, and it may contribute to low frequency current variability on the New Jersey 

inner shelf. 

 Currents within the Middle Atlantic Bight, extending from Cape Hatteras to Montauk Point, 

were first studied by Bumpus (1973). This study encompassed a ten-year period using sea 

surface drift bottles and seabed drifters, as well as historical data (vessel logbooks, etc.) to 

determine flow rates of surface and sub-surface currents. Flow rates along the coast were 

documented at 5 cm/sec to the west-southwest and south along the coast in this region (e.g., 

Miller, 1952; Bumpus, 1973; Bishop, 1975) with a slight offshore movement along the coast of 

Long Island in winter months (Bumpus, 1973; Bishop, 1975). 

 A summary of the general circulation and other currents in the Middle Atlantic Bight was 

provided by Beardsley and Boicourt (1981). Based on long-term measurements (>1 year) of 

currents at many locations in this region, they showed that the annual mean along-shelf flow 

was toward the southwest near the surface and above the seabed. In about 12-m water depth 

offshore New Jersey, Beardsley and Boicourt (1981) found that the annual mean currents were 

toward the southwest at about 4 and 1 cm/s at 4.5- and 10-m water depths, respectively. In 

water depths <60 m, mean velocity vectors showed onshore veering with increasing depth, a 

tendency also found by Bumpus (1973). The slow mean across-shelf flow may be related to the 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 39

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

long-term wind-driven circulation (due to seasonal upwelling and downwelling conditions). More 

detailed discussion of the variability and dynamics in along-shelf flow on the continental shelf in 

this region was provided by Noble et al. (1983). This study relied on numerous long-term current 

meter moorings on the shelf to relate long-term current dynamics to wind and density forcing. 

2.2.1 Tidal Currents 

 A semi-diurnal rotary current dominates tidal currents within the Middle Atlantic Bight. The 

principal lunar semidiurnal tide (M2) accounts for a tidal period of 12.42 hours and a maximum 

amplitude of about 10 to 15 cm/sec oriented in the cross-shelf direction (Mayer, 1982; Moody et 

al., 1983). As the M2 rotates counter-clockwise in the northern Atlantic, it generates a high tide 

along northern shorelines and works its way south along the coast. This progressive wave may 

travel inshore paralleling the Hudson Shelf Valley before heading south along the coast 

(Griscom, 1968). Also included in tidal variations are the S2 (solar semidiurnal) and O1 

(diurnal) tides, which contribute less energy to the overall tide signature in the region (Louis 

Berger Group, 1999). Variations in this tidal current occur during spring and neap tides. Within 

the New York Bight region, spring tides were found to be 45 to 50% greater than neap tides 

(Griscom 1968). 

2.2.2 Density Gradients 

 Water density over the continental shelf in the New York Bight varies seasonally. In 

summer months, the water column is highly stratified due to increased surface temperature and 

higher evaporation rates. In winter months, the water column is largely homogeneous with little 

temperature and salinity differences (Bishop, 1975). According to Bishop (1975), currents in 

New York Bight area are dominated by density gradients in the summer and by wind strength 

and direction in the winter. 

2.2.3 Wind Driven Currents 

 Two major pressure systems affect wind direction in the Middle Atlantic Bight; the 

Bermuda High and the Icelandic Low. The interaction of these two pressure systems causes 

annual variations in wind velocity and direction within the region. During summer, anti-cyclonic 

rotation of winds around the Bermuda High generates southwesterly winds along the east coast 

of the United States. This pressure cell loses intensity in winter, when the Icelandic Low 

transports cold air into the region from the west and northwest. Local wind patterns are 

influenced by the interplay of these two systems over a time period on the order of two to five 

days (Louis Berger Group, 1999). Winds in the New York Bight region are predominantly from 

the northwest, except in July and August when winds shift to the south (Williams and Duane, 

1974). 

 Along-shelf currents have a predominant southwest component throughout the water 

column (Beardsley and Boicourt, 1981). This southwest flow of coastal shelf water may vary 

with seasonal changes. Strong southerly winds associated with summer weather patterns, 

coupled with a reduction in river flow rates, causes a reversal in coastal currents, resulting in a 

net northerly current flow (Bumpus, 1973; Louis Berger Group, 1999). Studies have shown that 

along-shelf currents generally lag behind along-shelf surface wind stresses by about 5 to 10 

hours (Flagg, 1977; Chuang et al., 1979; Mayer et al., 1979; Beardsley and Boicourt, 1981). 

The same correlation has not been shown to be true with cross-shelf wind stress and alongshelf currents (Csanady, 1982). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 40

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

2.2.4 Low-Frequency Current 

 Atmospheric forcing has been shown to be related to low frequency currents in the 

synoptic-scale time domain (2 to 10 days). Considerable information and analysis of currents in 

this time domain is available for the Middle Atlantic Bight. Results illustrate that long-term 

current fluctuations have a strong along-shelf component accounting for 70 to 90% of sub-tidal 

current variance in the Middle Atlantic Bight (Beardsley and Boicourt, 1981). Previous studies 

of current fluctuations in this frequency band have shown that along-shelf currents and crossshelf pressure gradients are coherent and in phase, essentially in geotropic balance. 

 In comparison, cross-shelf currents are incoherent over very short distances (<70 km) 

(Mayer, 1982), with the exception of the Hudson Shelf Valley in the New York Bight. This region 

has shown significant across-shelf flow that is coherent along the entire thalweg, (Mayer et al., 

1979) flowing at about 10 to 25 cm/s. 

2.2.5 Nearshore Sediment Transport 

 Nearshore sediment transport is the process by which sediment is moved along a beach 

through parallel (along-shore) and perpendicular (cross-shore) transport mechanisms. Net 

transport associated with these processes accounts for shoreline erosion and accretion 

patterns. The processes that govern these rates are a complex combination of the interaction of 

winds, waves, tides, and currents. Time scales of sediment movement vary drastically, from 

extratropical cyclones (northeasters) and hurricanes that can change a beachfront within hours 

and days, to geological processes forming barrier islands and shorelines over thousands of 

years. 

 Sediment characteristics also affect transport rates at the shoreline. These characteristics 

include grain size, mass, shape, and durability. In general, an inverse relationship exists 

between sediment grain size and transport rates. Larger sized sediments require a greater 

amount of energy to move and thus contribute to a lower overall transport rate, whereas smaller 

sediments require less energy for movement, and therefore allow for greater rates of transport. 

Simply put, more mass requires greater transport energy, more surface area requires less 

transport energy, and the less durable the sediment, the easer it breaks apart and the easier it 

is to suspend and transport sediment in the water column. 

 When waves break at an angle to the beach, along-shore currents are generated, capable 

of lifting and moving sediment along the coast. For example, waves approaching most of the 

New Jersey and Long Island shoreline from the east tend to move sand along-shore from northto-south and east-to-west, respectively. Superimposed on this regional pattern are the smaller 

scale reversals in longshore transport direction associated with tidal inlets. Toward the northern 

portion of New Jersey, the shoreline becomes oriented nearly north-south. In this region, the 

net sediment transport direction is controlled by mean wave conditions that tend to drive 

sediment from south-to-north (Caldwell, 1966). Eroded materials enter the littoral system and 

are transported northward to feed Sandy Hook and southward toward the barrier islands 

(USFWS, 1997). Net littoral drift to the north and south of this region is centered about a nodal 

point located near Manasquan Inlet. North of Manasquan, net littoral drift is estimated at about 

382,000 m3

/yr (Caldwell, 1966); south of Manasquan, net drift is southerly at about 38,000 

m3

/yr. While prevailing winds along the Long Island coast are southwesterly, long fetches from 

the east produce net longshore transport from east to west, with rates showing considerable 

variation. Eroded glacial sediments from headlands are carried west in the littoral current and 

are deposited by wave action on barrier beaches and offshore bars (USFWS, 1997). Net littoral 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 41

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

transport for parts of the south shore of Long Island has been estimated by Taney (1961) and 

the USACE (1971) to be between 344,000 and 460,000 m3

/yr (Williams and Duane, 1974). 

2.3 BIOLOGY 

2.3.1 Benthic Environment 

2.3.1.1 Infauna 

 Infaunal assemblages inhabiting shelf waters offshore New Jersey and New York 

resemble assemblages common within much of the Middle Atlantic shelf (Wigley and Theroux, 

1981). Organisms collected during previous investigations of the New York Bight included 

members of the major invertebrate groups commonly found in sand bottom marine ecosystems, 

primarily crustaceans, echinoderms, mollusks, and polychaetous annelids. Generally, inner 

shelf infaunal assemblages are numerically dominated by polychaetes in terms of abundance 

(Wigley and Theroux, 1981) and taxa (Reid et al., 1991). Other conspicuous members of the 

coastal infaunal community include amphipod crustaceans and bivalves. Infaunal taxa that 

inhabit soft sediments of the Bight comprise assemblages that exhibit spatial and seasonal 

variability (Steimle and Stone, 1973; Pearce et al., 1981; Wigley and Theroux, 1981; USDOI, 

MMS, 1989; Reid et al., 1991; Chang et al., 1992). 

 Large-scale investigations of the Bight identified the most common infaunal taxa inhabiting 

inner shelf waters. The USACE, New York District, sponsored a 1995 benthic invertebrate 

survey of the Bight Apex (Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., 2002). Thirty-six stations in the 

Apex survey area included inshore stations parallel to the Long Island and New Jersey 

coastlines as well as offshore stations at depths of 40 to 50 m, within an area of approximately 

3,703 km2

. The archiannelid Polygordius sp. was numerically dominant in grab samples, 

comprising 40.5% of all individuals collected. The remaining annelids (polychaetes and 

oligochaetes) were the next most dominant group at 24.9%. Bivalves and amphipods 

contributed 18.9% and 11.4% of the individual abundance, respectively. Annelids also 

accounted for the highest proportion of taxa present (127 taxa, or 52%), followed by amphipods 

(41 taxa, or 16.7%), other crustaceans (38 taxa, or 15.4%), and bivalves (22 taxa, or 8.9%). 

Twenty-one taxa accounted for 86.2% of the total assemblage abundance, and the 47 most 

abundant taxa comprised over 94.5% of the total individuals collected. 

 Chang et al. (1992) identified infaunal assemblages based on 1980 to 1982 benthic data 

and found a widespread group of infaunal taxa determined to be a basic, natural assemblage for 

the Bight. Common taxa in this widespread assemblage are predominantly polychaetes, 

including Aricidea catherinae, Goniadella gracilis, Mediomastus ambiseta, Monticellina 

dorsobranchialis, Parougia caeca, Scoletoma acicularum, S. hebes, and Tharyx acutus. Other 

taxa include the amphipods Ampelisca agassizi, Byblis serrata, Corophium crassicorne, 

Erichthonius fasciatus, Leptocheirus pinguis, and Unciola spp., the bivalve Nucula proxima, and 

the echinoid Echinarachnius parma. Pearce et al. (1981) summarized and synthesized results 

from several benthic investigations (1973 to 1976) of the Bight inner shelf. Common infaunal 

taxa censused during those investigations include the amphipods Protohaustorius wigleyi and 

Unciola irrorata, the bivalves N. proxima, surfclam Spisula solidissima, and Tellina agilis, the 

echinoid E. parma, and the polychaetes Glycera dibranchiata, G. gracilis, Nephtys bucera, 

N. picta, Pherusa affinis, Spiophanes bombyx, and T. acutus. Steimle and Stone (1973) 

reported on inner shelf benthic fauna collected during 1966 and 1967 offshore southwestern 

Long Island. Their survey found infaunal assemblages numerically dominated by the amphipod 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 42

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Protohaustorius deichmannae, bivalve N. proxima, echinoderm E. parma, and polychaete 

Nephtys incisa. 

 The Asbury Park to Manasquan Inlet Beach Erosion Control Project included monitoring 

of sand borrow and reference areas located 2 to 8 km offshore Manasquan and Belmar, New 

Jersey (Burlas et al., 2001). Overall abundance was numerically dominated by Polygordius

(lowest practical identification level [LPIL]), which accounted for 35.5% of all animals collected. 

The amphipod Pseudunciola obliquua and tanaid Tanaissus psammophilus comprised 9.6% 

and 6.0% of the total abundance, respectively. Other taxa contributing 1% or more to total 

abundance included the polychaetes Caulleriella cf. killariensis, Magelona papillicornis, and 

S. bombyx, the mollusks N. proxima, S. solidissima, and T. agilis, the amphipods 

Acanthohaustorius millsi, P. wigleyi, and Rhepoxynius hudsoni, the sand dollar E. parma, and 

non-identified oligochaetes and rhynchocoels. 

 These populations that comprise open shelf benthic communities are affected by abiotic 

environmental parameters, resulting in both seasonal and spatial variability in their distribution 

and abundance. Shallow coastal waters are characterized by a variety of environments having 

great diurnal, seasonal, and annual fluctuations in their chemical, hydrographic, and physical 

properties. Distributions and abundances of benthic invertebrates are regulated at a basic level 

by these physical environmental forces. 

 Temporal variation in population abundance may be a result of response to proximal 

environmental variability or due ultimately to the life history patterns of individual species. 

Seasonality of macrobenthic assemblages inhabiting open shelf sediments has been noted in 

numerous investigations (e.g., Frankenberg and Leiper, 1977; Flint and Holland, 1980; 

Schaffner and Boesch, 1982; Weston, 1988; Byrnes et al., 2000). Patterns of seasonal 

reproductive periodicity in marine systems apparently are related to ambient climatic conditions, 

primarily temperature, for most marine invertebrates (Sastry, 1978). Reproduction is more or 

less continuous at deeper shelf depths (Warwick, 1980), where greater environmental stability 

promotes seasonal persistence of outer shelf infauna (Schaffner and Boesch, 1982). 

 An absence of temporal patterns of abundance for some macrobenthic species in many 

cases is related to reproductive strategies. Transitional infaunal species that do not emerge 

necessarily on a seasonal basis often colonize an area because of intermittent conditions that 

are favorable for reproduction. Opportunistic species generally are tolerant to fluxes within their 

environment, but more importantly they are early and successful primary colonists due to their 

reproductive capacity and dispersal ability (Grassle and Grassle, 1974). These species often 

undergo eruptive population peaks, depending on their adaptive ability to withstand varying 

environmental conditions, and can exploit an open niche while avoiding competitive interaction 

(Boesch, 1977). Because habitat availability often is the result of random perturbations of the 

environment, such as significant riverine outflow due to flooding, the appearance of these 

opportunistic taxa often occurs in tandem with such episodes. For non-opportunistic species 

inhabiting marine soft sediments, a lack of temporal patterns of abundance may indicate simply 

that seasonal patterns of variability do not exist for these species (Pearce et al., 1976). 

 Despite yearly fluctuations in infaunal community composition, open shelf systems can 

exhibit remarkable consistency over temporal scales consisting of multiple years. Reid et al. 

(1991) found that, although absolute numbers of species decreased in many portions of the 

area between 1980 and 1885 and then increased in certain areas between 1986 and 1989, 

there was little change in species composition and numerically dominant species over a decade 

or more in the New York Bight. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 43

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 In addition to temporal differences in benthic assemblage composition, conspicuous 

spatial variability often is evident in the distributions of populations inhabiting open shelf 

sediments. Spatially variable environmental parameters such as hydrography, water depth, and 

sediment type influence benthic assemblage composition and the extent of numerical 

dominance of those assemblages by various infaunal populations. 

 Changes in infaunal assemblage composition along broad depth gradients have been 

noted in several studies of shelf ecosystems. Day et al. (1971) determined the distribution of 

infauna along a depth gradient from the beach zone to the edge of the continental shelf off Cape 

Lookout, North Carolina and found four subtidal zones delineated at increasing depth intervals. 

The turbulent zone included the inner shelf between 3- and 20-m depths, and corresponds with 

the location of the present study. The most common taxa of the turbulent zone were best 

represented at the 20-m depth station (Day et al., 1971). Tenore (1985) and Harper (1991) both 

reported a transition between inner shelf and continental slope fauna of the South Atlantic Bight 

and northern Gulf of Mexico, respectively. 

 Wigley and Theroux (1981) reported that highest infaunal densities in the New York Bight 

occurred at relatively shallow depths. With increasing water depth, abundance of each of the 

major taxonomic groups (e.g., bivalves) generally decreases, although not uniformly across 

taxonomic groups. At depths less than 24 m, polychaetous annelids are numerically dominant 

(1,120 individuals/m2

), followed by bivalves (590/m2) and amphipod crustaceans (487/m2). At 

depths from 25 to 49 m in Bight waters, amphipods (459/m2

) are the most common group, 

followed by polychaetes (137/m2

) and bivalves (51/m2) (Wigley and Theroux, 1981). Reid et al. 

(1991) and Chang et al. (1992) studied the same infaunal data for the New York Bight, and both 

found a depth-related trend where the number of species increased from inshore to offshore 

stations. 

 Certain infaunal populations are distributed in approximately equal numbers from shallow 

waters to the edge of the shelf (e.g., the polychaete S. bombyx), whereas others occur mostly 

on the inner shelf (e.g., the bivalve S. solidissima) or middle to outer shelf (e.g., the polychaete 

Scalibregma inflatum) (Pearce et al., 1981). Although there is a negative correlation between 

infaunal abundance and water depth, it is unclear whether such faunal distributions are affected 

mostly by absolute water depth, or whether depth-related factors such as hydrology, 

sedimentary regime, and seasonality override any effects of sediment particle size and type on 

infaunal assemblages. The effect of water depth on benthic assemblages may in some cases 

be defined more precisely as an effect of depth-related environmental factors, including physical 

parameters that vary with increasing depth, such as current regime, dissolved oxygen, 

sedimentary regime, and temperature. Surficial sediments tend to be well sorted at shallow 

depths, due primarily to the mixing of shelf waters by storms. Moreover, inner shelf waters 

generally are less depositional in nature than outer shelf or slope waters due to a dynamic 

current regime near the bottom, although shallow areas affected by estuarine outflow may 

experience episodic deposition of fine materials, which can influence benthic community 

structure. 

 Although some descriptions of depth-related differences in benthic assemblages have 

encompassed geographically broad areas (Day et al., 1971; Flint and Holland, 1980; Wigley and 

Theroux, 1981; Tenore, 1985), local variability in bathymetric relief can result in habitat 

heterogeneity within an area of relatively minor differences of absolute depth. Trough features, 

especially those that are bathymetrically abrupt, can dissipate current flow along the substratum 

surface, resulting in deposition of fine materials, including organic material. Presence of fine 

sediments and organics in bathymetric depressions can support benthic assemblages that are 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 44

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

distinct from nearby areas without depressions (Boesch, 1972; Lyons, 1989; Barry A. Vittor & 

Associates, Inc., 1999a; Byrnes et al., 2000). 

 Previous sampling efforts in open shelf waters have demonstrated the importance of 

sediment type in determining infaunal population densities. Coarse-grained sediments 

generally support greatest numbers of infauna, while fine-grained sediments support the fewest 

(USDOI, MMS, 1989). In a report based on over 1,000 quantitative samples of benthic fauna 

collected from Maine to northern New Jersey between 1956 and 1965, Theroux and Wigley 

(1998) summarized the relationship between sediment type and infaunal abundance. Coarsegrained sediments generally support the greatest numbers of infauna, while fine-grained 

sediments support the least. Amphipods are found in all sedimentary habitats, although 

densities are greatest in sand-gravel and sand habitats. Generally, bivalve densities are 

greatest in sand-shell sediments and decrease with increasing sediment particle size, although 

shell fragment habitats can support moderately high bivalve numbers. In general, gravel 

bottoms support the lowest densities of bivalves. Polychaetes occur in all sediment types, 

although abundances are greater in sand and gravel bottoms than in silt-clay habitats (Theroux 

and Wigley, 1998). 

 Not only do sediment particle size and type influence faunal densities, they have a strong 

effect on the species composition of benthic assemblages (Sanders, 1958; Young and Rhoads, 

1971; Pearce et al., 1981; Weston, 1988; Chang et al., 1992; Byrnes et al., 2000). Although 

many infaunal species occur across a range of sediment types, most infaunal taxa tend to 

predominate in specific sedimentary habitats. 

 Studies in and near the New York Bight have affirmed findings of numerous other studies 

that found sediment type a reliable predictor of the distribution of infaunal taxa (Steimle and 

Stone, 1973; Pearce et al., 1981; Chang et al., 1992). Distinct assemblages offshore southwest 

Long Island (Steimle and Stone, 1973) were delineated according to sedimentary habitat, where 

medium- to coarse-grained sands supported infaunal assemblages numerically dominated by 

the amphipods A. millsi, P. deichmannae, and U. irrorata, the bivalves S. solidissima and 

T. agilis, the echinoderm E. parma, and the polychaetes Sthenelais limicola and S. bombyx. 

Silty sand assemblages supported the bivalve N. proxima and polychaetes N. incisa and 

Pherusa affinis. Aggregations of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis provided habitat for certain 

motile fauna, including the scale-worm polychaetes Harmothoe extenuata, H. imbricata, and 

Lepidonotus squamatus (Steimle and Stone, 1973). In another survey of the study area, Pearce 

et al. (1981) found that the medium- to coarse-grained sand community is represented by 

E. parma, N. bucera, Protohaustorius spp., S. bombyx, S. solidissima, T. agilis, and U. irrorata. 

Sedimentary habitats with finer materials support relatively high densities of taxa such as the 

amphipods A. agassizi and U. irrorata, the bivalve N. proxima, and the polychaetes 

Mediomastus and T. acutus (Pearce et al., 1981; Chang et al., 1992). 

 Infaunal assemblages are composed of taxa that are adapted to particular sedimentary 

habitats through differences in behavioral, morphological, physiological, and reproductive 

characteristics. Feeding is one of the behavioral aspects most closely related to sedimentary 

habitat (Sanders, 1958; Rhoads, 1974). Fine-textured sediments are generally characteristic of 

depositional environments, where occluded interstitial space and accumulated organic material 

supports surface and subsurface deposit-feeding burrowers. All marine sediments are anoxic at 

some depth below the sediment-water interface, and the depth of oxygen penetration generally 

varies with sediment type. In very fine sediments, occlusion of interstitial space limits the depth 

of oxygen diffusion to a few millimeters into the sediment (Revsbech et al., 1980). 

Environments with more shallow penetration of dissolved oxygen tend to support deposit-
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 45

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

feeding taxa that are able to maintain some form of hydrologic contact with the sediment-water 

interface, via manufacture of tubes or through construction of irrigating burrows. Coarse 

sediments in high water current habitats, where organic particles are maintained in suspension 

in the water column, favor the occurrence of suspension-feeding taxa that strain food particles 

from the water column and facilitate feeding by carnivorous taxa that consume organisms 

occupying interstitial spaces (Fauchald and Jumars, 1979). In between these habitat extremes 

are a variety of habitat types that differ with respect to various combinations of sedimentary 

regime, depth, bathymetry, and hydrological factors. Different sedimentary habitats support 

particular infaunal assemblages that tend to vary with time. Because multiple interacting 

processes influence complex ecosystems, controlling mechanisms sometimes cannot 

confidently be inferred from resultant community patterns. Among the factors that most affect 

diversity in benthic communities are the heterogeneity of the physical environment, the vagaries 

of larval recruitment, and biological interaction (Johnson, 1970). 

2.3.1.2 Epifauna 

 Investigations of epifaunal communities inhabiting New York Bight waters reveal seasonal 

and spatial variations in the distribution and abundance of taxa. Many numerically dominant 

epifauna that inhabit the inner shelf may be described more precisely as epibenthic, especially 

gastropods and decapods, as these taxa routinely are collected along with infauna using grab 

samplers. Certain epifaunal taxa, such as lady crab (Ovalipes ocellatus), commonly burrow 

deeply into sediments, and adaptive behaviors of this type can complicate efforts to categorize 

such taxa into a specific, lifestyle-based, invertebrate group. In addition, many bivalves are 

effectively sampled using either a trawl or grab method. Given this dilemma of ecological 

classification, the taxa discussed below commonly are collected in trawl samplers and, for the 

sake of comparison and consistency, herein are considered epifauna. 

 Abundant epifauna of the New York Bight and adjacent waters include crustaceans such 

as Pagurus spp., Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus), and sevenspine bay shrimp (Crangon 

septemspinosa), echinoderms such as the sea star Asterias forbesi and sand dollar E. parma, 

and moon snails (Euspira heros and Nevirita duplicata) (Pearce et al., 1981; Hales et al., 1995; 

Viscido et al., 1997). 

 Epifaunal taxa were collected and described during 18 cruises from October 1991 to 

November 1992 on the inner continental shelf (water depth 8 to 16 m), offshore Great Egg Inlet, 

New Jersey (Hales et al., 1995; Viscido et al., 1997). Monthly samples were taken with a 2-m 

beam trawl at and adjacent to the Beach Haven Ridge, an offshore sand shoal. Crustaceans, 

echinoderms, and mollusks were the most abundant epifauna in trawl collections. Commonly 

sampled epifauna included the bivalve S. solidissima, echinoderms, such as the asteroid 

A. forbesi and echinoids E. parma and Arbacia punctulata (sea urchin), and the gastropods 

Busycon spp., E. heros, and N. duplicata (Hales et al., 1995). Viscido et al. (1997) reported on 

epibenthic decapods sampled during the Beach Haven Ridge investigation. The sevenspine 

bay shrimp was the most abundant decapod found in the study, followed by Atlantic rock crab, 

lady crab, and spider crab (Libinia emarginata). Together with sevenspine bay shrimp, these 

taxa comprised over 98% of all decapods collected. 

 Seasonal patterns in abundance were similar for nearly all taxa in the Beach Haven Ridge 

studies. Abundance of most epifaunal taxa was low in winter, then increased to peak densities 

in summer and declined in fall (Hales et al., 1995). Exceptions to this seasonal pattern included 

members of the Gastropoda (including the moon snails E. heros and N. duplicata), which were 

most abundant in winter or spring. Temporal variation of the numerically dominant epibenthic 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 46

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

decapods also was evident in the Viscido et al. (1997) study. Abundance of sevenspine bay 

shrimp showed two clear peaks, in spring and fall, as did spider crab. Atlantic rock crab and 

lady crab each showed a single peak in individual density of very small individuals in summer 

and appeared to use the site for settlement. The most common pattern of distribution found by 

the Beach Haven sand ridge studies was that epifauna were abundant around the shoal 

(landward and seaward) but not on the shoal (Hales et al., 1995; Viscido et al., 1997). The 

observed distribution patterns of epifauna may be attributable to a number of factors, including 

but not limited to sediment type and local hydrology. As with infaunal invertebrates, epifaunal 

populations have distributions limited by depth-related variability of temperature and 

sedimentary habitat (Cerame-Vivas and Gray, 1966; Wenner and Read, 1982). 

 Certain epifauna tend to be associated with particular sedimentary habitats (Wigley and 

Theroux, 1981). Gastropod densities generally are greatest in areas of coarse sand and gravel. 

Lyons (1989) found that some mollusk species were most abundant in an offshore trough 

feature with poorly sorted sediments, whereas other mollusks were abundant on an offshore 

shoal that had well-sorted, coarse sediments. Decapods generally are found in areas of gravel 

and shell, although species such as sevenspine bay shrimp tend to occur in areas of sand and 

Atlantic rock crab inhabits a variety of sediment types. Wenner and Read (1982) suggested that 

the combination of extremely variable sediments and temperatures may be sufficient to cause 

marked zonation between decapod assemblages on the outer shelf. Sand dollars such as 

Mellita quinquiesperforata most commonly are associated with sand habitats. Brittle stars are 

most common in silty sand, probably due to greater efficiency of burrowing in finer sediments. 

Sea stars tend to be distributed across a range of sediments, from shelly sand to silt habitats 

(Wigley and Theroux, 1981). 

2.3.1.3 Demersal Fishes 

 The ichthyofauna of the New York Bight is composed of about 180 species from 82 

families. The demersal component of this fauna consists of about 85 species represented 

mostly by skates (Rajiidae), dogfishes (Squalidae), searobins (Triglidae), hakes (Gadidae), 

sculpins (Cottidae), scup (Sparidae), wrasses (Labridae), and flounders (Paralicthyidae). The 

demersal ichthyofauna is transitory, and movements are closely related to large-scale 

temperature fluctuations. When water temperatures rise in spring, there is an influx of warm 

temperate fishes from the south, and several cold water species migrate back to the north in 

response. Following fall and winter cooling of the shelf waters, warm temperate species return 

south and offshore whereas some of the cold temperate forms move into the area (Grosslein 

and Azarovitz, 1982). Typical warm temperate forms found in the New York Bight during spring 

and summer include black sea bass (Centropristis striata), butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), 

northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), spotted hake (Urophycis 

regia), and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982; 

Colvocoresses and Musick, 1984; Mahon et al., 1998). In addition to the warm temperate 

species found during summer months, there are several expatriated tropical forms such as 

butterflyfishes that settle in nearshore waters of the area (McBride and Able, 1998). Northern or 

boreal species found in New York Bight waters during winter and spring include goosefish 

(Lophius americanus), red hake (Urophycis chuss), silver hake (Merluccius albidus), and spiny 

dogfish (Squalus acanthias) (Colvocoresses and Musick, 1984). Although there is considerable 

variation in the abundance and distribution of demersal fishes between both seasons and years, 

numerical dominants at any one time generally are represented by a relatively small group of 

fishes. Winter is a time of low abundance and diversity, as most species leave the area for 

warmer waters offshore and to the south. Species that remain in the area year-round include 

blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), dusky shark 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 47

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

(Carcharhinus obscurus), lined seahorse (Hippocampus erectus), scup, snake eel (Ophichthus 

sp.), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps), summer flounder, 

and windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus). 

 Within the temporal framework described above, species are distributed across the shelf 

in broad depth-related groups most simply characterized as inner, middle, and outer shelf 

(Sullivan et al., 2000). The spatial distribution changes with ontogeny of individual species 

(Steves et al., 1999). Many demersal fishes also use estuarine areas along the coast. During 

spring, increasing numbers of fishes are attracted to the New York Bight coast because of the 

proximity of estuaries that fishes use for adult spawning and early life stage nurseries. Some 

demersal fishes that use estuaries during their ontogeny include red hake, spot (Leiostomus 

xanthurus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), windowpane, and winter flounder 

(Pseudopleuronectes americanus) (Able and Fahay, 1998). While the aforementioned species 

utilize estuaries as nurseries, several species of demersal fishes use the open shelf as a 

nursery area. There are depth-related settlement patterns for several of the common species. 

 Feeding habits of demersal fishes of the region can be summarized by recognizing that 

several dietary guilds exist (Garrison and Link, 2000). Dietary guilds are composed of species 

exploiting similar food resources on the open shelf. These guilds include crab eaters, 

planktivores, amphipod/shrimp eaters, shrimp/small fish eaters, benthivores, and piscivores. 

Feeding guild composition depends on morphological characteristics that change with growth of 

the fish, thus many species will change guild membership as they grow. 

 The affinity of certain demersal fishes for particular sediment types often is related to the 

types of prey items supported by those sediments. Species such as butterfish, skates, and 

winter flounder predominantly are bottom feeders that consume infaunal and epibenthic 

crustaceans and polychaetes. Amphipods are known to be important in the diets of some 

demersal fishes, including Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), 

and winter flounder. Certain demersal foragers may therefore be attracted to areas of medium 

to coarse sands, where crustaceans and polychaetes are most abundant (Theroux and Wigley, 

1998). 

 Demersal fishes of the region associate with benthic habitats on a variety of spatial 

scales. At large scales (kilometers), ridges and swales provide relief and habitat complexity, but 

for juvenile fishes, structure at smaller scales (meters to centimeters) is more important (Diaz et 

al., 2003). Small-scale structure used by juvenile fishes as refuge from predation can be either 

physical (sand waves or bedforms) or biogenic (shell fragments, worm tubes, and pits) in 

nature. Diaz et al. (2003) reported high fish densities associated with higher sand wave heights 

and concentrated worm tube aggregations on the inner continental shelf. 

2.3.2 Pelagic Environment 

2.3.2.1 Squids 

 Squids (cephalopods) display patchy distributions and periodic vertical and horizontal 

migrations. Water quality, currents, and temperature principally control the occurrence of 

squids, while food and population density affect movements within suitable water masses. 

 Two squid species are common in New York Bight waters: the longfin squid, Loligo pealei, 

and the shortfin squid, Illex illecebrosus (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980). These are the squids 

most likely to occur in or near the four sand borrow sites. The longfin squid, a member of the 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 48

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

family Loliginidae, occurs primarily in shelf and shelf edge waters from Newfoundland to the 

Gulf of Venezuela. Its distribution, determined by fishery independent sampling, is influenced 

by water temperature, depth, and time of day (Brodziak and Hendrickson, 1999). A general 

seasonal migratory pattern has been observed for the Middle Atlantic Bight population. Adults 

move offshore in fall and remain there until April, when adults and young migrate back into shelf 

waters for summer (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980). Spawning reportedly occurs year-round with 

major peaks in spring (April and May) and fall (August and September). The longfin squid 

grows rapidly and lives about 1 year (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980; Brodziak and Macy, 1996). 

This species represents an important fishery in the Middle Atlantic Bight with annual landings 

averaging 18,200 metric tons (mt) (Cadrin, 1998). Commercial fishing for longfin squid takes 

place from Cape Hatteras to Georges Bank. It is caught with small-mesh trawls, pound nets, 

and traps (Cadrin, 1998). Fishing effort tracks the seasonal distribution, with offshore (i.e., shelf 

edge) fishing taking place from October to March and inshore (i.e., middle and inner shelf) 

fishing taking place from April to September. 

 The shortfin squid belongs to the family Ommastrephidae, a family consisting entirely of 

oceanic species. This species is distributed accordingly in oceanic and shelf edge waters from 

Greenland to Cape Hatteras (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980). It migrates into shallower waters 

(10 to 50 m) during summer months; in late fall it moves south and offshore in the area from 

Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980). Spawning occurs from 

December to June in offshore waters. Most individuals die following spawning. The species 

lives up to 1 year (Hendrickson, 1998). In Middle Atlantic Bight waters, commercial trawl 

fisheries are concentrated in outer shelf waters from June to September, when abundance 

peaks. The 1986 to 1996 annual catch of shortfin squid averaged 12,800 mt (Hendrickson, 

1998). Most commercial fishing is conducted in shelf edge waters with small-mesh trawls. 

2.3.2.2 Fishes 

 Common pelagic fishes inhabiting New York Bight shelf waters include herrings such as 

alewife (Alosa psuedoharengus), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), Atlantic menhaden 

(Brevoortia tyrannus), and Atlantic herring (Clupea haregus), as well as Atlantic mackerel 

(Scomber scombrus), bluefish (Pomatomas saltatrix), and butterfish. Other pelagic species 

occurring offshore New Jersey and New York but not mentioned further include anchovies 

(Anchoa hepsetus and A. mitchilli), jack crevalle (Caranx hippos), and mullets (Mugil cephalus

and M. curema). 

 All of these pelagic species form schools and migrate seasonally with peaks during 

various portions of the year. Most of these species are important to recreational and 

commercial fisheries. As with demersal fishes, most pelagic species in the New York Bight are 

transitory, originating in waters either to the north (Gulf of Maine or Georges Bank) or to the 

south (south of Cape Hatteras). Their occurrence in the New York Bight is generally a response 

to seasonal changes in water temperature, which trigger southerly or northerly movements by 

species of southern or northern origin, respectively. 

 The herring species exhibit two basic spawning patterns: the alewife and American shad 

are anadromous, migrating from the sea into freshwater rivers to spawn, whereas Atlantic 

menhaden and Atlantic herring spawn in continental shelf waters. The alewife is found along 

the coast of eastern North America from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to South Carolina (Kocik, 

1998a). During autumn, most of the population overwinters in waters near the edge of the 

continental shelf. In spring, the population moves into shelf waters throughout the region. 

Adults enter coastal rivers and migrate to freshwater to spawn during spring. The American 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 49

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

shad is another anadromous species found in shelf waters during summer and fall (Kocik, 

1998b). It moves up rivers to spawn during spring. Water temperature is the key environmental 

determinant of spawning in this species. Temperature may vary within a season, thus timing of 

the upstream migration may vary slightly from year to year. Alewife and American shad are 

important to commercial and recreational fisheries in the region. Commercial catches of alewife 

averaged about 500 mt for the Middle Atlantic Bight since 1994 (Kocik, 1998a). American shad 

catches, mostly by gill net, averaged 1,100 mt since 1980 (Kocik, 1998b). 

 Atlantic menhaden occurs in shelf waters, where it forms large schools. Atlantic 

menhaden schools in the Middle Atlantic Bight migrate northward in summer and southward in 

fall to overwinter in warmer waters. Some spawning may occur offshore New Jersey and New 

York during fall, while the fishes are migrating south. This species is not fished north of Virginia. 

Atlantic herring is most abundant in northern waters of the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. 

The Georges Bank stock overwinters in the New York Bight from December to April. Spawning 

occurs year-round with peaks in spring and fall. Adult females lay demersal eggs. Spawning 

probably does not occur offshore of New Jersey and New York (Able and Fahay, 1998). The 

primary fisheries for this species occur north of New Jersey and New York on Georges Bank 

and in the Gulf of Maine. 

 Atlantic mackerel occurs in two spawning populations in the northwest Atlantic: a northern 

population in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that spawns in June and July, and a southern population 

that spawns in the Middle Atlantic Bight during July and August (Overholtz, 1998a). In the 

Middle Atlantic Bight, it spends winter months in offshore waters near the shelf edge; in spring it 

migrates inshore and to the north. Spawning occurs during this migration in shelf waters. This 

species is sought by commercial and recreational fishers. Commercial fishing occurs primarily 

from January through May; recreational fishing occurs mostly from April to October (Overholtz, 

1998a). Landings in the Middle Atlantic Bight averaged 14,840 mt from 1987 to 1996. 

 Bluefish is a migratory species occurring in inshore, coastal, and shelf waters. It migrates 

into the Middle Atlantic Bight during spring, and south or offshore during fall. The bluefish is an 

important fishery species. Early investigations held that the bluefish spawned during two 

discrete events, one in the South Atlantic Bight and the other in the Middle Atlantic Bight. New 

evidence indicates that spawning is a continuous event beginning during spring and ending 

during late summer in South Atlantic Bight waters (Cowan et al., 1993; Smith et al., 1994). The 

bluefish spawns during midsummer months in waters south of Cape Hatteras; however, young 

fish immigrate to inshore waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight coast including Long Island Sound 

(Nyman and Conover, 1988). This species is important to commercial and recreational fisheries 

of the region. The 1994 to 1996 average commercial landings were 11,400 mt for the eastern 

U.S.; recreational landings for the Middle Atlantic Bight were 7,400 mt (Terceiro, 1998). Primary 

commercial gear for bluefish are otter trawl and gill net. 

 The Middle Atlantic Bight butterfish population migrates northward and inshore in summer. 

In winter months, the population moves southward and offshore. The butterfish spawns 

continuously from late January to at least July in the Middle Atlantic Bight (Rotunno and Cowen, 

1997). This species exhibits high natural mortality and serves as prey for many predatory 

species. It grows rapidly and reaches a maximum age of about 3 years (Rotunno and Cowen, 

1997; Overholtz, 1998b). The current Middle Atlantic Bight fishery lands an average of 3,000 mt 

annually. Otter trawl is the principal gear used in the fishery. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 50

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

2.3.2.3 Marine Turtles 

 The four marine turtle species likely to occur within inner shelf waters off New Jersey and 

New York, in frequency of occurrence, are loggerhead (Caretta caretta), leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea), Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and green (Chelonia mydas) 

(Shoop and Kenney, 1992). The hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), also found in waters off 

North America, inhabits coral reefs and other hard bottom habitats in tropical and subtropical 

latitudes, and thus is considered to be extremely rare in the study area. The seasonal window 

for presence of marine turtles in New Jersey and New York waters extends from June through 

November (National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], 1996). 

 All marine turtles are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Currently, the 

leatherback and Kemp's ridley are Federally listed as endangered species and the loggerhead 

as a threatened species. The green turtle also is Federally listed as threatened, except for the 

Florida breeding population, which is listed as endangered in the State of Florida. However, 

due to the inability to distinguish which breeding population an individual green turtle belongs to 

when away from the nesting beach, all green turtles are considered endangered wherever they 

occur in U.S. waters (NMFS, 1996). 

Loggerhead Turtle 

 The loggerhead turtle occurs throughout temperate and tropical waters of the Atlantic, 

Pacific, and Indian Oceans (Dodd, 1988). In the western Atlantic, it is found in estuarine, 

coastal, and shelf waters from South America to Newfoundland. Because it is the most 

temperate of the marine turtles in terms of nesting habits, it is the species most likely to be 

present along the Middle Atlantic coast. The loggerhead was the most abundant turtle species 

seen during Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CETAP) aerial surveys off the Middle 

Atlantic and New England coasts (Winn, 1982) and during recent aerial surveys within the study 

area (T. Cole, 2003, personal communication, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

[NEFSC]). 

 Most loggerhead sightings, strandings, and incidental captures in coastal and estuarine 

New Jersey waters are immature individuals (i.e., juveniles or subadults) that use shallow, 

coastal and inner shelf waters as developmental foraging habitat (NMFS, 1996). These animals 

are most common during spring and summer months. Immature loggerheads migrate 

northward from south of Cape Hatteras during spring, moving south again during fall (Marine 

Turtle Expert Working Group, 1996a). Loggerhead turtles may be present in New Jersey and 

New York waters from June through November (NMFS, 1996). 

 Four nesting subpopulations of loggerhead turtles have been identified (Marine Turtle 

Expert Working Group, 1996a). These are 1) the northern subpopulation, extending from North 

Carolina to northeastern Florida; 2) the south Florida subpopulation; 3) the Florida Panhandle 

subpopulation; and 4) the Yucatan subpopulation. Ninety percent of loggerhead nesting in the 

U.S. occurs in south Florida. Only minor loggerhead nesting occurs along the Atlantic coast as 

far north as New Jersey, where reported nesting activity occurs only during July (Dodd, 1988; 

Frazier, 1995). 

 After hatching, loggerheads swim offshore and begin a pelagic existence within 

Sargassum rafts, drifting in current gyres for several years (Marine Turtle Expert Working 

Group, 1996a). At approximately 40 to 60 cm carapace length, juveniles move into nearshore 

and estuarine areas, where they become benthic feeders for a decade or more prior to maturing 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 51

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

and making reproductive migrations (Carr, 1987). Loggerheads captured incidentally in New 

Jersey coastal waters are typically in this size range (NMFS, 1996). 

 Loggerhead adults and subadults are generalist carnivores feeding primarily on nearshore 

benthic crustaceans (particularly crabs) and mollusks (Dodd, 1988). Studies in New York 

waters have shown that these turtles generally feed in water depths of approximately 15 m or 

less (NMFS, 1996). All potential sand borrow sites within the study area include depths near 

15 m. 

Leatherback Turtle 

 The leatherback turtle is a circumglobal species that inhabits waters of the western 

Atlantic Ocean from Newfoundland to northern Argentina. The leatherback is the largest living 

turtle (Eckert, 1995). It is considered the most pelagic of the marine turtles (Marquez, 1990) 

because of its unique deep-diving abilities (Eckert et al., 1986) and wide-ranging migrations. 

This species was the second most abundant turtle seen off the Middle Atlantic coast during 

CETAP surveys (Winn, 1982) and during recent surveys within the study area (T. Cole, 2003, 

personal communication, NMFS NEFSC). Most sightings within this area occurred during 

summer months. 

 Leatherbacks nest on coarse-grained, high-energy beaches in tropical latitudes (Eckert, 

1995). Florida is the only location in the continental U.S. where significant leatherback nesting 

occurs. Very little is known of the pelagic distribution of hatchling and/or juvenile leatherback 

turtles. 

 Adult leatherbacks feed in the water column, primarily on cnidarians (medusae [jellyfish], 

siphonophores) and ascideans (salps, pyrosomas) (Eckert, 1995). The turtles are sometimes 

observed in association with jellyfish, but actual feeding behavior has only occasionally been 

documented. Foraging has been observed at the surface, but also is likely to occur at depth 

(Eckert, 1995). 

Kemp’s Ridley Turtle 

 The Kemp's ridley is the smallest and most endangered marine turtle. Its distribution 

extends from the Gulf of Mexico to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (Marine Turtle Expert 

Working Group, 1996b). Adult Kemp's ridleys are found almost exclusively in the Gulf of 

Mexico, primarily in shallow coastal waters less than 50 m deep (Byles, 1988). 

 Kemp’s ridleys found along the New Jersey and New York coasts are mostly juveniles that 

use shallow, Middle Atlantic coastal waters as developmental habitat (Morreale et al., 1992). 

They move northward along the coast in spring with the Gulf Stream to feed in productive, 

coastal waters between Georgia and New England (NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

[USFWS], 1992). These migrants then move southward with the onset of cool temperatures in 

late fall and winter (Morreale et al., 1992). 

 Nesting of Kemp’s ridleys occurs almost entirely at Rancho Nuevo beach, Tamaulipas, 

Mexico, where 95% of the nests are laid along 60 km of beach (NMFS and USFWS, 1992; 

Weber, 1995). In the U.S., nesting occurs infrequently on Padre and Mustang Islands in south 

Texas and in a few other locations (Marine Turtle Expert Working Group, 1996b). 

 After emerging, Kemp’s ridley hatchlings swim offshore to inhabit Sargassum mats and 

drift lines associated with convergences, eddies, and rings. Hatchlings feed at the surface and 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 52

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

are dispersed widely by Gulf and Atlantic surface currents. After reaching a size of about 20 to 

60 cm carapace length, juveniles enter shallow coastal waters and become benthic carnivores 

(Marine Turtle Expert Working Group, 1996b). This is the life stage that could be present in the 

study area. Kemp’s ridleys prefer crabs but also occasionally eat mollusks, shrimps, dead 

fishes, and marine vegetation (Mortimer, 1982; Lutcavage and Musick, 1985; Shaver, 1991; 

Burke et al., 1993; Werner and Landry, 1994). 

Green Turtle 

 The green turtle has a circumglobal distribution in tropical and subtropical waters. In the 

U.S., it occurs in Caribbean waters around the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and along 

the mainland coast from Texas to Massachusetts. Adult green turtles typically are found in 

shallow tropical and subtropical waters, particularly in association with seagrass beds (NMFS 

and USFWS, 1991). 

 Green turtles along the New Jersey and New York coasts are juveniles and subadults, 

because adults do not migrate from their preferred habitat (tropical/subtropical seagrass beds) 

except to nest. As with other turtles found in the area, juvenile and subadult green turtles may 

use shallow, coastal waters along the Middle Atlantic coast as developmental habitat. 

 Primary nesting sites in U.S. Atlantic waters are high-energy beaches along the east coast 

of Florida, with additional sites in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico (NMFS and USFWS, 

1991). Hatchlings swim out to sea and enter a pelagic stage in Sargassum mats associated 

with convergence zones. Juveniles go through an omnivorous stage of 1 to 3 years (NMFS and 

USFWS, 1991). 

 Adult green turtles commonly feed on seagrasses, algae, and associated organisms, and 

frequent reefs and rocky outcrops near seagrass beds for resting areas. Major feeding grounds 

in U.S. waters are located in Florida. In coastal New York waters, green turtles feed mainly on 

algae and the seagrass Zostera marina (Burke et al., 1992). 

2.3.2.4 Marine Mammals 

 Numerous marine mammal species may occur off the New Jersey and New York coasts 

(Winn, 1982). These include members of the taxonomic orders Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and 

porpoises) and Pinnipedia (walrus, sea lions, and true seals) (National Audubon Society, 2002). 

This discussion focuses on marine mammal species that may occur within shelf waters in and 

near the sand borrow sites. All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972. Several species also are Federally listed as endangered or threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The following subsections cover listed and 

non-listed species. 

Listed Species 

 Three species of endangered cetaceans that may occur offshore of New Jersey and New 

York are associated primarily with shelf waters (Winn, 1982; NMFS, 1996). They are the fin 

whale (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and North Atlantic 

right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). There are no "resident" populations of any of these whales in 

the study area. Fin and humpback whales may be present during any season, although most 

likely during winter and spring. North Atlantic right whales would be present only as transients 

during spring and fall migrations. The harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) occurs seasonally 

in coastal waters of the study area and has been proposed for listing as a threatened species 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 53

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

(62 Federal Register [FR] 37562). No critical habitat for listed marine mammals is located in or 

near the project area. 

 Fin Whale. Fin whales range from the Arctic to the Greater Antilles. They are among the 

largest and fastest baleen whales and commonly are found inshore of the continental shelf 

break (Winn, 1982). This species occurs widely in the Middle Atlantic throughout the year, with 

concentrations from Cape Cod north in summer and from Cape Cod south in winter. Fin whales 

are frequently found along the New England coast from spring to fall in areas of fish 

concentration (Blaylock et al., 1995). It is thought that fin whales migrate north in nearshore 

waters along the coast during spring, and south in offshore waters during winter. This species 

feeds on krill, planktonic crustaceans, and schooling fishes such as herring and capelin. 

 Humpback Whale. Humpback whales range from the Arctic to the West Indies. During 

summer, there are at least five geographically distinct feeding aggregations in the northern 

Atlantic (Blaylock et al., 1995). During fall, humpbacks migrate south to the Caribbean where 

calving and breeding occur from January to March (Blaylock et al., 1995). Aerial surveys during 

CETAP detected only a few humpback whale sightings from New Jersey southward during any 

season (Winn, 1982). However, subsequently there have been numerous sightings and 

strandings off the Middle Atlantic coast, particularly during winter and spring (Swingle et al., 

1993; Wiley et al., 1995). Most stranded animals were juveniles, suggesting that the area may 

be an important developmental habitat (Wiley et al., 1995). Humpbacks feed largely on 

euphausiids and small fishes such as capelin, herring, and sand lance, and their distribution has 

been largely correlated to prey species and abundance (Blaylock et al., 1995). They have not 

historically used New Jersey and New York waters as a major feeding ground (NMFS, 1996). 

Critical habitats have been identified in the western Gulf of Maine and the Great South Channel 

(Massachusetts). 

 North Atlantic Right Whale. North Atlantic right whales range from Iceland to eastern 

Florida, primarily in coastal waters. This is the rarest of the world's baleen whales, with a 

population of between 325 and 350 individuals (New England Aquarium, 2004). Coastal waters 

of the southeastern U.S. (off Georgia and northeast Florida) are important wintering and calving 

grounds for North Atlantic right whales, while waters around Cape Cod and Great South 

Channel are used for feeding, nursery, and mating during summer (Kraus et al., 1988; Schaeff 

et al., 1993). From June to September, most animals are found feeding north of Cape Cod. 

Southward migration occurs offshore from mid-October to early January (Kraus et al., 1993). 

Migration northward along the Middle Atlantic coast takes place during late winter and early 

spring (NMFS, 1996). Designated critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale includes 

portions of Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Bank and the Great South Channel (off 

Massachusetts) and waters adjacent to the coasts of Georgia and northeast Florida (59 FR 

28793). 

 Harbor Porpoise. Harbor porpoises are found in cool temperate and subpolar waters of 

the Northern Hemisphere (Blaylock et al., 1995). Harbor porpoises were the most common 

odontocete species sighted on the continental shelf during CETAP (Winn, 1982). However, 

they were primarily concentrated in New England waters, well to the northeast of the study area 

(Winn, 1982). As the name implies, harbor porpoises are typically found in shallow water, most 

often in bays and harbors, although they occasionally travel over deeper offshore waters 

(Jefferson et al., 1993). The Gulf of Maine population, which would include harbor porpoises 

occurring off New Jersey and New York, has been proposed for listing as a threatened species 

(62 FR 37562). During summer, these animals are concentrated in Canada and the northern 

Gulf of Maine. During fall (October to December) and spring (April to June), they are widely 
MMS Study 2004-044 Environmental Setting 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 54

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

distributed from Maine to North Carolina (Blaylock et al., 1995). Little is known of their 

distribution during winter (December through March), although it is assumed that they could 

reside in the study area during this season (T. Cole, 2003, personal communication, NMFS 

NEFSC). It is thought that harbor porpoises feed on pelagic schooling fishes such as herring 

and mackerel (Gaskin, 1992). 

 Other Listed Species. Three other endangered marine mammals occurring offshore the 

Middle Atlantic are rarely seen in near-coastal waters. These are the blue whale (B. musculus), 

sei whale (B. borealis), and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Because these large 

whales prefer deep water well offshore of the continental shelf (Winn, 1982; Roden, 1998), they 

are unlikely to occur in the study area and are not discussed here. 

Non-Listed Species 

 Numerous non-listed cetacean species may occur in waters off New Jersey and New 

York. These include one mysticete (the minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and a variety 

of odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins). The most common odontocetes in Middle 

Atlantic shelf waters are bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and common dolphin 

(Delphinus delphis), both of which may be present year-round (Winn, 1982; Kenney, 1990). 

Recent aerial survey data show that the bottlenose dolphin is the predominant marine mammal 

species within inner shelf waters of the study area (T. Cole, 2003, personal communication, 

NMFS NEFSC). Other shelf species potentially occurring in the area but generally found in 

more northern waters include Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus), whitebeaked dolphin (L. albirostris), and the previously discussed harbor porpoise. Odontocete 

species that occur off the Middle Atlantic coast but typically in deeper waters (along the shelf 

edge and beyond) include long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas), Risso's dolphin 

(Grampus griseus), northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), dwarf and pygmy 

sperm whales (Kogia simus and K. breviceps), Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), 

clymene dolphin (S. clymene), striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba), spinner dolphin 

(S. longirostris), and rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) (Winn, 1982; Blaylock et al., 

1995; Roden, 1998). Beaked whales (Mesoplodon spp. and Ziphius cavirostris) also occur off 

the Middle Atlantic but are believed to be principally deepwater (continental slope and beyond) 

species. The killer whale (Orcinus orca) may occur on both the shelf and slope (Winn, 1982) 

but is considered uncommon or rare in Middle Atlantic waters (Blaylock et al., 1995). 

 Five non-listed pinniped species may occur off the New Jersey and New York coasts 

(Reeves et al., 1992; National Audubon Society, 2002). The harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and 

gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) are most common. Harbor seals normally occur year-round in 

coastal waters of Canada and New England, moving south to winter (Blaylock et al., 1995). 

Occurrences off New Jersey and New York would be most likely from November through May. 

Gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) normally range from Labrador to New England (Blaylock et al., 

1995), with wintering individuals likely to occur in the New York Bight during November through 

May. Three "ice seals" of the northwest Atlantic, the harp seal (Phoca groenlandica), hooded 

seal (Cystophora cristata), and ringed seal (Phoca hispida), are uncommonly found in U.S. 

waters (Reeves et al., 1992; National Audubon Society, 2002). 
Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 55

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

3.0 REGIONAL GEOMORPHIC CHANGE 

 Nearshore sediment transport processes influence the evolution of shelf sedimentary 

environments to varying degrees depending on temporal and spatial response scales. Although 

micro-scale processes, such as turbulence and individual wave orbital velocities, determine the 

magnitude and direction of individual grain motion, variations in micro-scale processes are 

considered noise at regional-scale and only contribute to coastal response in an average sense. 

By definition, regional-scale geomorphic change refers to the evolution of depositional 

environments for large coastal reaches (10 km or greater) over extended time periods (decades 

or greater) (Larson and Kraus, 1995). An underlying premise for modeling long-term 

morphologic change is that a state of dynamic equilibrium is reached as a final stage of coastal 

evolution. However, the interaction between the scale of response and forces causing change 

may result in a net sediment deficit or surplus within a system, creating disequilibrium. This 

process defines the evolution of coastal depositional systems. 

 Topographic and hydrographic surveys of coastal and nearshore morphology provide a 

direct source of data for quantifying regional geomorphology and change. Historically, 

hydrographic data have been collected in conjunction with regional shoreline position surveys 

by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS); currently Office of Coast Survey of the 

National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Comparison of digital bathymetric data for the same region but different time periods provides a 

method for calculating net sediment movements into (accretion) and out of (erosion) an area of 

study. Coastal scientists, engineers, and planners often use this information for estimating the 

magnitude and direction of sediment transport, monitoring engineering modifications to a beach, 

examining geomorphic variations in the coastal zone, establishing coastal erosion setback lines, 

and verifying shoreline change numerical models. The purpose of this portion of the study is to 

document patterns of geomorphic change to quantify the magnitude and direction of net 

sediment transport over the past 110 to 140 years. These data, in combination with wave and 

current measurements and model output, provide a temporally integrated technique for 

evaluating the potential physical impacts of offshore sand mining on sediment transport 

dynamics. 

3.1 SHORELINE POSITION CHANGE 

 Creation of an accurate map is always a complex surveying and cartography task, but the 

influence of coastal processes, relative sea level, sediment source, climate, and human 

activities make shoreline mapping especially difficult. In this study, shoreline surveys are used 

to define landward boundaries for bathymetric surfaces and to document net shoreline 

movements between specified time periods. Consequently, net change results can be 

compared with wave model output and nearshore sediment transport simulations to evaluate 

cause and effect. Results integration provides a direct method of documenting potential 

environmental impacts related to sand mining on the OCS. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 56

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

3.1.1 Physical Setting and Previous Studies 

 The present study area is located along the north Atlantic coast of New Jersey and the 

southwest Atlantic coast of Long Island. The region is situated within the northern portion of the 

Middle Atlantic Bight in an area known as the New York Bight (Figure 3-1). The area of interest 

includes about 80 km of exposed coastline in northeastern New Jersey from Sandy Hook to 

Barnegat Inlet (74°01’03”, 40°28’37” to 74°05’48”, 39°45’43”) and about 110 km of coastline in 

southwestern Long Island from Rockaway Point to Moriches Inlet (73°56’27”, 40°32’33” to 

72°45’19”, 40°45’52”), encompassing an area of about 8,800 square km. The outer coast 

includes seven major federal entrances, with two of these located in northeastern New Jersey 

(Shark River and Manasquan) and five located in southwestern Long Island (Rockaway, East 

Rockaway, Jones, Fire Island, and Moriches). These entrances have been armored with rock 

jetties to provide channel protection and inlet stability (Section 3.1.1.6). 

Figure 3-1. Geographic locations within the New York Bight. 

 The New York Bight lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, which is 

underlain at shallow depths by Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary semiconsolidated, 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 57

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

clastic sedimentary rocks (Williams and Duane, 1974). The origin of present-day coastal 

features and topography of southwestern Long Island varies from that of northeastern New 

Jersey due to the influence of the most recent Pleistocene glacial advance. Long Island marks 

the southern terminus of the Wisconsinan-Laurentide continental ice sheet, which greatly 

impacted its topography. As such, visible topographic effects in the Long Island landscape from 

the most recent glacial advance are not present in the topography of northeastern New Jersey. 

Furthermore, the continental shelf within the New York Bight is a relatively complex geologic site 

as it has been influenced by differential subaerial erosion of near surface Coastal Plain strata 

and by several episodes of Pleistocene glaciation (Williams and Duane, 1974). 

3.1.1.1 Physical Characteristics of Southwestern Long Island 

 The location of Long Island along the southern terminus of the last glacial advance has 

resulted in a topographic composition that is uncharacteristic for much of the Atlantic Coastal 

Plain Province. The southern portion of Long Island is characterized by gently sloping outwash 

plains fronted by shallow lagoons and a low-relief barrier island system consisting of reworked 

glacial sediment deposited during the last glacial advance (Figure 3-2; Schwab et al., 2000a). 

The shoreline is composed of barrier island and beach complexes including Rockaway Beach, 

Long Beach, Jones Island, and Fire Island (Figure 3-1). These features are backed by shallow 

back-barrier bays and marshes. Beaches consist of reworked fluvioglacial outwash 

characterized primarily by fine- to medium-grained sand (Schwab et al., 1999). Erosion of 

glacial morainal and till deposits at Montauk Point serves as the headland source for beach 

sands that comprise the barrier island system. Eroded glacial sediments are carried westward 

from Montauk Point as littoral drift and deposited by wave action on barrier beaches and 

offshore bars (USFWS, 1997). Net littoral transport for parts of the south shore of Long Island 

has been estimated by Taney (1961) and the USACE (1971) to be about 344,000 to 460,000 

m3

/yr from east to west (Figure 3-2). According to Taney (1961), this rate exhibits considerable 

variation from one place to another along the coast, showing a larger range of about 122,000 to 

460,000 m3

/yr between Montauk Point and Rockaway Inlet (see Figure 2-5 for explicit 

variations). The southern shoreline of Long Island has been extensively developed and 

contains numerous groins, jetties, and seawalls to protect beaches and inlets. Between 1930 

and 1960, each major entrance along the south shore of Long Island was reinforced with jetties. 

Structure placement has been combined with extensive beach nourishment and restoration 

projects since the 1920s. Volumes and locations of beach nourishment projects in the study 

area are summarized in Section 3.1.1.6. 

3.1.1.2 Physical Characteristics of Northeastern New Jersey 

 The northeastern New Jersey coastline also is located along the emerged portion of the 

Atlantic Coastal Plain, but it is south of the maximum advance of the most recent Pleistocene 

glaciation that heavily influenced the geology of Long Island. The shoreline is comprised of 

three major coastal geomorphic compartments, including the northern spit complex at Sandy 

Hook, the headland region from Monmouth Beach to Mantoloking, and the southern spit 

complex from Mantoloking to Barnegat Inlet (USACE, 1995; Figure 3-2). Northern and southern 

spit complexes are backed by Sandy Hook and Barnegat Bays, respectively. Sandy Hook, at 

the northern extent of the New Jersey shoreline, is a classic recurved spit which has prograded 

north toward New York Harbor from north-directed longshore drift (USACE, 1995). Net 

northward-directed littoral drift associated with this growth has been estimated at 382,000 m3

/yr 

(Caldwell, 1966). Observations indicate that a nodal point for net littoral drift exists near 

Manasquan Inlet. South of Manasquan, the direction of net drift is southerly with an estimated 

volume of 38,000 m3

/yr passing Barnegat Inlet (Caldwell, 1966). Beaches along the northern 

New Jersey coastline are comprised primarily of medium- to coarse-grained sands, composed 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 58

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

principally of unconsolidated quartz from underlying and nearby formations (USACE, 1990). 

Coastal plain deposits of the Atlantic Highlands serve as the primary headland source of sand 

for beaches along the Atlantic coast of New Jersey. Eroded sediments from the Highlands 

enter the littoral current and are transported northward to form Sandy Hook and southward 

toward Barnegat Inlet (USFWS, 1997). Similar to the south shore of Long Island, the northern 

New Jersey shoreline has been extensively developed and altered by engineered structures 

and beach nourishment projects over the past century. By 1940, Barnegat, Manasquan, and 

Shark River Inlets were armored with stone jetties. Additionally, beach nourishment activities 

began taking place in the 1950s. Estimated volumes and locations of beach nourishment 

activities and structures are summarized in Section 3.1.1.6. 

Figure 3-2. Net littoral transport rates along beaches in the study area (Taney, 1961; Caldwell, 1966). 

3.1.1.3 Physical Characteristics of the New York Bight 

 The submerged extension of the Atlantic Coastal Plain forms the continental shelf of the 

New York Bight. It is characterized by a gentle slope that dips slightly to the southeast. The 

offshore region extends from the shoreline across the continental shelf to about the 30-m depth 

contour, a total distance of approximately 10 to 40 km. The most prominent seafloor feature is 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 59

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

the submarine Hudson River Channel, which is the submerged seaward extension of the 

ancestral Hudson River drainage system connecting the sub-aerial Hudson River Valley with the 

Hudson Canyon at the Continental Shelf edge (Williams and Duane, 1974). The continental 

shelf is dominated by ridge and swale topography, with numerous linear shoals that trend 

oblique to regional contours and form a small acute angle with the coastline (Duane et al., 1972) 

(Figure 3-3). Local topographic highs and lows include Shrewsbury Rocks, Cholera Banks, 

Diamond Hill, Castle Hill, Highland Channel, and the Christiansen Basin with multiple additional 

anthropogenic disposal mounds (Figure 3-3). Solid waste disposal of various materials has 

been occurring in the New York Bight since the 1800s. Waste disposal areas are visible as 

topographically positive mounds in the modern bathymetric contours. Sources and quantities of 

material have been well documented in recent reports by the USGS (Butman et al., 1998; 

Schwab et al., 2000b) and in earlier reports by the USACE (Williams and Duane, 1974). The 

predominant sediment type found on the inner shelf is fine-to medium-grained sand, with 

discrete patches of coarse sand and rounded pea gravels (Williams and Duane, 1974; Williams 

1976). Modern surficial sediments documented along the shelf are glacially derived and 

reworked coastal plain strata (Williams and Duane, 1974). 

Figure 3-3. Prominent features on the New York Bight continental shelf. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 60

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

3.1.1.4 Storms 

 Hurricanes and extratropical storms periodically impact the study area. Some of the most 

damaging storms include the March 4, 1931 northeaster (re-opened Moriches Inlet), the 

September 21, 1938 hurricane (the Long Island Express; storm of record for eastern Long 

Island), the March 6-8, 1962 northeaster (Ash Wednesday Storm), and the December 11, 1992 

northeaster (Kana, 1999). Other damaging hurricanes including Carol (1954), Donna (1960), 

Belle (1976), Gloria (1985), and Bob (1991), are summarized in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1. Notable storm events recorded for the New York Bight region. 

Date Name Type Comments Source 

March 1888 Blizzard of 1888 Blizzard http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/38

hurricane/

Blizzard Info 

Index 

March 4, 1931 Unnamed Northeaster Re-opened Moriches Inlet Smith et. al., 1999

September 1938 Long Island 

Express Hurricane 

Storm of record for eastern Long Island. 

Created Shinnecock Inlet and widened 

Moriches Inlet 

Kana, 1999 

September 14, 1944 Unnamed Hurricane Category 3 hurricane; caused 390 

deaths 

Morang et. al., 

1999 

November 25, 1950 Unnamed Northeaster 20 foot waves recorded at Jones Beach. Morang et. al., 

1999 

1954 Carol Hurricane Kana, 1999 

1960 Donna Hurricane Kana, 1999 

March 1962 

Ash 

Wednesday 

Storm 

Northeaster Northeaster of record for Long Island Kana, 1999 

1976 Belle Hurricane Kana, 1999 

1984 Unnamed Northeaster Inspired creation of New Jersey Beach 

Profile Network (NJBPN) NJBPN 

1985 Gloria Hurricane Kana, 1999 

August 1991 Bob Hurricane Kana, 1999 

October 31, 1991 Halloween 

Storm Northeaster Blizzard Info 

Index 

December 11, 1992 Unnamed Northeaster Kana, 1999 

January 1998 Unnamed Northeaster NJBPN 

February 1998 Unnamed Northeaster Seventh northeast storm for the season NJBPN 

Winter 1997-98 Winter Storms 

of 1997-98 

Storms/ 

Northeasters

80% of replenished sand brought into 

Sandy Hook washed away 

Blizzard Info 

Index 

3.1.1.5 Beach Nourishment and Structure Development 

 Beach nourishment activities have been taking place along parts of the coastline within 

the study area since the mid-1920s. Historical beach nourishment data documented by Kana 

(1999), Duke University (http://www.env.duke.edu /psds/nourishment.htm) and Valverde et al. 

(1999), USACE New York District (USACE, 2003), and NJDEP were the primary sources of 

information regarding beach fill activity in the study area. Data published by Kana (1999) were 

used to document historical placement events for beaches in southwestern Long Island, and 

data published by Valverde et al. (1999) and NJDEP were used for historical nourishment 

events in New Jersey. Information obtained from the New York District was used primarily for 

documenting recent (late 1990s to present) and projected beach fill activities for beaches along 

the New York and New Jersey coasts. Within the study area, data for Long Island beaches 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 61

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

document nourishment activity from 1926 to 2001 and data for New Jersey beaches document 

activity from 1943 to 2003. To summarize these data, seven reaches have been defined within 

the study area based primarily on natural geomorphic boundaries (Figure 3-4). Information on 

nourishment volumes, locations, and dates was compiled and summarized by decade for each 

reach (Tables 3-2 and 3-3). Because placement lengths were not available for each 

nourishment project, single points have been used to identify approximate fill locations, with 

placement volumes applied to the entire reach (Figure 3-4). Individual locations have been 

estimated based on textual descriptions and are considered approximate. 

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U %U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

74° 00' 73°30' 73° 00'

40° 00' 40°30'

Staten

Island 

Long Island 

Fire Island National Seashore

Moriches 

Inlet

Seaside 

Park

Mantoloking

Long 

Branch

Sea 

Bright

Ocean 

County

Monmouth 

County

Navesink 

River

Shrewsbury 

River

Rockaway Long Beach Jones Beach

Fire Island

Sandy Hook

Asbury Park

Mantoloking

Brooklyn

Queens

Suffolk

Nassau

New 

Jersey

Rockaway 

Inlet (1932)

East Rockaway Inlet

(1934)

Jones Inlet 

(1959)

Fire Island 

Inlet (1941)

Manasquan 

Inlet (1882/82)

Barnegat 

Inlet (1940)

Shark 

River 

Inlet

3 4W

4E

H1

H2

Borrow Site %U

N

W E

S

5 0 5 Kilometers

Approximate Beach Fill Location

Summary (by reach) of 

Beach Fill Activity for Shorelines 

Adjacent to New York Bight

(1926 - 2000)

Rockaway

Long Beach

Jones Beach

Fire Island

Sandy Hook

Asbury Park

Mantoloking

REACH NAME VOLUME

19,615

3,567

46,624

6,341

19,021

6,981

2,422

 (cm * 1,000)

Figure 3-4. Documented beach nourishment activity from Rockaway Point to Moriches Inlet, NY and 

Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ. 

 A comparison of data published by Kana (1999) and Valverde et al. (1999) for southern 

Long Island beaches showed very similar information for Rockaway Beach and Long Beach, but 

had fairly significant differences along Jones Beach and Fire Island. Because Kana (1999) 

drew upon information provided in Valverde et al. (1999), in addition to multiple other sources, 

the information published by Kana (1999) was considered the primary source for Long Island 

beach nourishment events. Data published by NJDEP were obtained in shapefile format, and 

included information on volumes, location, and additional notes about each event. Beach fill 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 62

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

volumes obtained from NJDEP for New Jersey beaches were compared with those provided in 

Valverde et al. (1999). In general, beach nourishment volumes were not in agreement. 

Numerous additional nourishment events were identified in the NJDEP data than those 

published by Valverde et al. (1999). In cases where discrepancies existed, published volumes 

with reliable background information were used. Because some historical beach fill activities 

have been poorly documented, nourishment events with incomplete data (missing dates and/or 

volumes) were omitted from the data set, and final volume summaries are considered 

approximate representations of beach fill activity for each time interval. Locations and quantities 

were used primarily to qualify observed shoreline change trends with respect to concurrent 

beach nourishment projects, while noting major placements and associated response. For 

nourishment events where exact dates were not available (listed by decade rather than by 

year), a best approximation was used in determining the shoreline change interval to which it 

applied. A listing of individual volumes and dates for each nourishment event is located in Kana 

(1999), Valverde et al. (1999), and on the New York District web site. 

Table 3-2. Documented beach nourishment events, Rockaway Inlet to Moriches Inlet, NY 

(data are in thousands of cubic meters from Kana, 1999).

Reach 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s TOTAL 

Rockaway 

Beach 3,976 4,282 0 956 363 5,222 4,491 326 19,615 

Long 

Beach 0 0 0 421 153 486 873 1,634 3,567 

Jones 

Beach 30,582 0 940 3,731 3,211 3,419 1,682 3,058 46,624 

Fire Island 0 0 1,018 651 2,550 144 37 1,940 6,341 

TOTAL 34,558 4,282 1,958 5,759 6,277 9,271 7,083 6,958 76,147 

Table 3-3. Documented beach nourishment events, Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ 

(data are in thousands of cubic meters from Valverde et al. (1999) and 

USACE, NY District).

Reach 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s TOTAL 

Sandy Hook 26 3,135 0 3,771 373 10,110 1,606 19,021 

Asbury Park 805 485 119 0 3,202 2,370 6,981 

Mantoloking 306 1,351 765 0 0 2,422 

TOTAL 26 4,426 1,836 4,655 373 13,312 3,976 28,631 

Southwestern Long Island Beaches 

 Reaches for Long Island are defined by the four barrier islands representing the coastline 

within the study area. These include Rockaway Beach, Long Beach, Jones Beach, and Fire 

Island (Figure 3-4). The total volume of material placed on beaches between 1926 and 1999 

was about 76 mcm. About 26% of this total was placed on Rockaway Beach between 1926 and 

1999, about 5% was placed on Long Beach between 1959 and 1999, 61% was placed on Jones 

Beach between 1927 and 1999, and 8% was placed on Fire Island between the late 1940s and 

1999. Historical placement trends for each reach vary, but for most reaches, placement 

volumes typically have been increasing in recent years (1990s to present). Nourishment activity 

began in 1926 at Rockaway Beach and Jones Beach, with two very large land reclamation 

projects that represented about 50% of the total volume placed for all years. Recently, coastal 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 63

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

monitoring and storm damage reduction projects have initiated long-term beach nourishment 

and protection activities for some reaches. 

 At Rockaway Beach, placement volumes were considerable in the 1920s and 1930s, 

decreased between the 1940s and 1960s, and increased again in the 1970s and 1980s with the 

implementation of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974. Under this agreement, 

beaches were nourished periodically in 1977, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, and 1988. In May, 1994, 

three additional beach nourishment cycles were authorized for a 6.2-mile section of Rockaway 

Beach. Beach fills were scheduled to take place at three year intervals, the first of which was 

completed in 1998, the second in March 2001, and the third is currently scheduled for 2004/05 

(USACE, 2003). Because placement volumes for these events were not published, total 

volumes calculated for Rockaway Beach do not reflect these placements. 

 Nourishment at Long Beach began in 1959/1960 with an initial placement of about 

421,000 m3

. Since the 1970s, placement has increased every decade, with volumes nearly 

doubling at each interval. Long Beach is currently in the process of approving a Storm Damage 

Reduction Project, which will provide periodic nourishment of a 7-mile segment of beach on a 

5-year cycle for the next 50 years (USACE, 2003). 

 Nourishment at Jones Beach began in 1927 with one of the largest barrier island 

reclamation projects in the world, placing of a total of about 30.6 mcm of material on the beach. 

Since the 1940s, nourishment at Jones Beach has remained relatively consistent at about 

3 mcm per decade. Most of the sediment comes from disposal of dredged material from Fire 

Island Inlet (Kana, 1999). 

 Nourishment at Fire Island did not begin until the late 1940s. Following the initial 

nourishment, placement was primarily focused at the western or eastern ends of the island, as a 

disposal area for bay or inlet sediment dredged by Suffolk County. In the 1970s, county 

dredging virtually stopped, and nourishment for the 1970s and 1980s totaled only about 

180,000 m3

. In 1992, nourishment resumed, with about 30 fills occurring in the 1990s. 

Northeastern New Jersey Beaches 

 Reaches defined for New Jersey beaches include Sandy Hook (northern tip of Sandy 

Hook to immediately north of Asbury Park), Asbury Park (town of Asbury Park to Manasquan 

Inlet), and Mantoloking (Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet). Historical information regarding 

nourishment projects along northern New Jersey beaches was more limited than that available 

for Long Island. Nourishment data for northern New Jersey beaches document significantly less 

activity than that recorded for beaches in southwestern Long Island (total volume at reaches in 

New Jersey is about 37.5% of that for reaches in New York; Tables 3-2 and 3-3). While 

historical beach nourishment records document greatly decreased levels of activity relative to 

southern Long Island beaches, recent project information indicates that the northern 34 km of 

northern New Jersey beaches currently are undergoing increased levels of nourishment and 

several additional nourishment events are planned within the next 30 years (USACE, 2003). 

 Beach nourishment volumes placed within Sandy Hook reach far exceed those 

documented for other reaches in northeastern New Jersey. With a total nourishment volume of 

just over 19 mcm, nourishment levels at Sandy Hook are at least three times as great as totals 

for other reaches (Table 3-3). According to NJDEP, nourishment commenced in the Sandy 

Hook reach in the mid-1940s, with two relatively minor fills at Long Branch in 1943 and 1945. 

Since then, it appears that beach fill activity spiked during the 1950s and 1970s. One of the 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 64

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

largest nourishment projects was completed in this reach in 1958 at beaches in Avon and 

Belmar, placing over 3 mcm of sand on the beaches. After this fill, there were no events 

recorded until the 1970s, when five fills produced a total sand volume of about 3.8 mcm. 

Nourishment essentially ceased in the 1980s, but beach fills have increased greatly since the 

early 1990s with the inception of the Beach Erosion Control Project designed for Sandy Hook to 

Barnegat Inlet. This project encompassed a 34-km stretch of shoreline from the Town of Sea 

Bright to Manasquan Inlet. It is currently the largest beachfill in the world, and the project is 

divided into two sections: Section I from Sea Bright to Ocean Township and Section II from 

Asbury Park to Manasquan. Initial placements for Section I began in 1995, with approximately 

3.5 mcm, followed by 2.9 mcm in 1996, 3.3 mcm in 1996, and 3.3 mcm in 1999. The project 

was designed to continue nourishment activities at beaches in the Sandy Hook reach by 

renourishing areas at about 2.7 mcm of fill every 6 years. Renourishment activities at Sea 

Bright and Monmouth Beach commenced in May 2002 and were completed in November 2002. 

A total of 1.6 mcm of sand was pumped to the beach from offshore as part of the initial 

renourishment effort (USACE, 2003). This level of nourishment greatly exceeds totals for all 

other decades in the Sandy Hook reach. 

 Beach nourishment information on the Asbury Park reach indicates that fill activity along 

this section of shoreline was relatively low until the 1990s. According to documentation, after 

initial nourishment efforts in the 1950s, beaches were re-nourished at relatively low levels until 

the mid-1990s. Since then, beach nourishment activity increased, primarily as the result of 

implementation of the USACE Beach Erosion and Control Project designed for Section II 

(Asbury Park to Manasquan Inlet). Initial placements of 3.1 mcm and 2.4 mcm were completed 

in August 1999 and January 2001, respectively. Projected re-nourishment schedules are 

designed to add material to this section of shoreline at a rate of about 1.7 mcm every six years. 

This level of nourishment greatly exceeds historical rates documented for this reach. 

 

 The Mantoloking reach has the lowest levels of beach nourishment in northeastern New 

Jersey. Data indicate that nourishment activity commenced in this reach in 1953. A number of 

small fills occurred within the 1960s, with seven events contributing to a total placement volume 

of 1.35 mcm. According to available documentation, fill activity was at a peak in the 1960s and 

1970s and has subsided in recent years. This section of shoreline, while included as part of the 

USACE Beach Erosion and Control Project, was not scheduled for nourishment activity as part 

of the current project design. 

 

Jetty Construction and Rehabilitation 

 Along the southwestern coast of Long Island, jetties were constructed at all entrances 

between 1932 and 1959. All entrances have a single jetty constructed on the east bank of the 

entrance, with additional reinforcements at some locations to prevent or control erosion on the 

west bank of the inlet. The first jetty constructed was at Rockaway Inlet in 1932 (Table 3-4). 

Construction took place concurrently with the initial beach nourishment project conducted at 

Rockaway Beach between 1926 and 1936. Prior to jetty construction, Rockaway Beach was a 

westward-migrating sand spit. Since jetty construction, barrier beach migration has stopped, 

and deposition adjacent to the jetty has stabilized the eastern side of the entrance. 

 The second jetty to be constructed in the study area was on the east side of East 

Rockaway Inlet in 1934. Numerous subsequent repairs have been made following initial jetty 

construction, and maintenance dredging of the inlet continues today, with much of the dredged 

material being placed downdrift at Rockaway Beach. The third inlet to be stabilized was Fire 

Island. A jetty was constructed on the east side of the inlet in 1941, and subsequent erosion of 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 65

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Oak Beach to the north and west of the inlet initiated construction of a sand dike extending 

southeast from Oak Beach in 1959 (Smith et. al., 1999). Records indicate that the jetty was 

repaired after the Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962. Dredging at Fire Island Inlet has been 

performed on an almost annual basis since 1954, with most dredged material being placed to 

the west of the inlet (Smith et. al., 1999). 

 The fourth inlet stabilized in the study area was Moriches Inlet. Present-day Moriches 

Inlet was originally formed by a powerful Northeast storm on March 4, 1931. Between 1933 and 

1938, Moriches Inlet widened and deepened as tidal currents deposited large sand deltas on 

the ocean and bay sides of the entrance. The 1938 Hurricane further widened the Inlet to over 

4,000 feet (Kassner and Black, 1982). To prevent further westerly migration of the inlet, a 

rubble-mound revetment was constructed on the western bank of the inlet in 1947/48, 1952, and 

1953, and the inlet was reopened during a storm in September 1953. Dredging has been active 

at the inlet since 1953, with the majority of dredged materials placed west and east of the inlet. 

The final jetty constructed within the study area was at Jones Inlet in 1959. A 5,200-ft-long jetty 

was constructed on the east side of the inlet to provide stabilization, and a sand barrier was 

constructed to prevent shoaling in the inlet. 

 Initial jetty construction at New Jersey entrances occurred as early as 1882/83 and 

continued until 1940 (Table 3-4). At each of the entrances, jetties were constructed on the north 

and south banks. Manasquan Inlet was first armored with timber jetties north and south of the 

entrance in 1882/83. Two rubble-mound jetties were constructed to replace the timber jetties in 

1930/31, and both jetties have been rehabilitated numerous times since then. Documentation 

for Shark River Inlet is very sparse, but shoreline data provided by the NJDEP illustrate the 

existence of structures at this entrance by at least the 1930s. 

Table 3-4. Inlet management activities from Rockaway to Moriches Inlet, NY and Sandy 

Hook to Manasquan Inlet, NJ. 

Inlet Jetty Construction Modifications 

Rockaway 1932 

East Rockaway 1934 1935; 1941; 1946; 1963 

Jones 1959 1962 

Fire Island 1941 

Moriches 1953/54 

Shark River 1930s? 

Manasquan 1882-1883 1922; 1930/31; 1946; 1955/59; 1979/82 

3.1.2 Shoreline Position Data Base 

 Two sets of high-water shoreline data were compiled to quantify historical shoreline 

change along portions of the southwestern coast of Long Island, NY and the northeastern coast 

of New Jersey. Change analyses for each state were completed using digital data obtained 

from the New York Department of State, the USACE New York District, and the NJDEP. For 

the New York data set, four outer coast shoreline surveys for the period 1873/88 to 1991/97 

were analyzed (Table 3-5). Data extend from Rockaway Point to Moriches Inlet (Figure 3-1). 

The first two shoreline surveys were conducted by the USC&GS in 1873/88 and 1933/34. The 

third and fourth surveys were developed from georeferenced aerial photography flown during 

1983 and between the years 1991 and 1997. All data were obtained in digital shape file format 

from the USACE New York District and the New York Department of State. Data sets were 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 66

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

selected from available digital data for years where contiguous shoreline coverage was 

available. Multiple additional shoreline layers exist for smaller sections of the study area. 

These additional layers, while not used for change rate calculations, were used as ancillary data 

to provide visual comparisons of observed trends with those of intervening years. 

 Data for northeastern New Jersey include four outer coast high-water shorelines between 

the years 1836/42 and 1977 (Table 3-6). Data extend along the northeastern Atlantic coastline 

from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet (Figure 3-1). The first three data sets were developed from 

USC&GS topographic sheets for the years 1836/39, 1855/75, and 1932/33. The fourth data set 

was developed from 1977 registered aerial photography. All digital shoreline data were 

obtained in shapefile format from the NJDEP GIS website. 

 All high-water shoreline data were projected into a common horizontal coordinate system 

and datum, in this case Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 18N, North American 

Datum of 1983 (NAD83). Digital shoreline files were edited at Applied Coastal to remove line 

segments representing structures such as sea walls and jetties. 

Table 3-5. Long Island, NY shoreline source data characteristics. 

Date Data Source Comments and Map Numbers 

1873/88 USC&GS 

Topographic Maps 

T-1449 (1877), 1:5,000; Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Beach. 

T-1482a (1878), 1:10,000; Rockaway Beach. 

T-1482b (1878), 1:10,000; Rockaway Beach to E. Rockaway Inlet. 

T-1471a (1879/80), 1:10,000; East Rockaway Inlet to Long Beach. 

T-1538a (1880), 1:10,000; Long Beach to Jones Inlet. 

T-1538b (1880), 1:10,000; Jones Inlet to Jones Beach. 

T-1539b (1880), 1:10,000; Jones Beach to Fire Island Inlet. 

T-1314 (1873), 1:10,000; Fire Island Inlet to Robert Moses State Park. 

T-1375a (1873/74), 1:10,000; Fire Island. 

T-1375b (1874), 1:10,000; Fire Island. 

T-1402 (1875), 1:10,000; Fire Island. 

T-1842 (1888), 1:10,000; Fire Island to Moriches Inlet. 

February to 

November 

1933/34 

USC&GS 

Topographic Maps 

T-5334 (1933/34), 1:10,000; Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Beach. 

T-5093 (1933/34), 1:10,000; Rockaway Beach to Edgemere. 

T-5336 (1933/34), 1:10,000; Edgemere to long Beach. 

T-5054 (1933/34), 1:10,000; Long Beach to Short Beach. 

T-5061 (1933/34), 1:10,000; Short Beach to Jones Beach. 

T-5060 (1933/34), 1:10,000; Jones Beach to Gilgo State Park. 

T-5059 (1933/34), 1:10,000; Gilgo State Park to Robert Moses State Park. 

T-5087 (1933/34), 1:10,000; Robert Moses State Park to Ocean Bay Park. 

T-5086 (1933/34), 1:10,000; Ocean Bay Park to Water Island. 

T-5085 (1933), 1:10,000; Water Island to Great South Beach. 

T-5084 (1933), 1:10,000; Great South Beach. 

T-5083 (1933), 1:10,000; Great South Beach to Moriches Inlet. 

April 

1983 

NY Department of 

State and USACE 

New York District 

Data developed from georeferenced aerial photography. 

1991/97 

NY Department of 

State and USACE 

New York District 

Data developed from georeferenced aerial photography. 

1997 - Rockaway Beach; April 1994 - Long Beach 

1991 - Jones Beach; April 1994, April 1995 - Fire Island to Montauk Point 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 67

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 When determining shoreline position change, all data contain inherent errors associated 

with field and laboratory compilation procedures. These errors should be quantified to gauge 

the significance of measurements used for engineering/research applications and management 

decisions. Table 3-7 summarizes estimates of potential error for shoreline data sets used in this 

study. Because individual errors represent standard deviations, root-mean-square error 

estimates were calculated as a realistic assessment of combined potential error for each data 

set. All shoreline data were developed at various agencies and institutions. As such, error 

calculations rely on standard values reported in general mapping guidelines. This can be 

problematic when assessing error for recent data sets developed from aerial photography. 

Estimates for data developed from traditional field studies and USC&GS topographic sheets are 

considered to be standard and can be used for earlier data sets developed from paper maps. 

However, error can vary widely for data sets developed from aerial photography due to large 

variation in registration. When registration error is not reported with individual data sets, it is 

difficult to obtain a suitable value that reflects registration accuracy across data sets. Due to 

lack of information regarding aerial photo registration for the New York 1983 and 1991/97 data 

and the New Jersey 1977 data, quality error estimates were not available. 

 Positional errors for each shoreline can be calculated using the information in Table 3-3; 

however, change analysis requires comparing two shorelines from the same geographic area 

but different time periods. Potential error associated with change analysis was computed for 

data sets where possible. For the New York data set, the magnitude of potential error 

associated with shoreline change between 1877/88 and 1933/34 was ±13.1 m, with a 

corresponding rate of ±0.3 m/yr. For the New Jersey data, the magnitude of error was 

calculated at ± 21.5 m between 1836/39 and 1855/75, with a corresponding rate of ±0.8 m/yr. 

The magnitude of potential error associated with the 1836/39 to 1932/33 and 1855/75 to 

1932/33 comparisons was ±17.4 m with associated rates of ±0.2 m/yr and 0.3 m/yr, 

Table 3-6. Northeastern New Jersey shoreline source data characteristics. 

Date Data Source Comments and Map Numbers 

1836/39 USC&GS 

Topographic Maps 

T-239 (1836), 1:10,000; Sandy Hook to Highlands. 

T-114 (1839), 1:10,000; Highlands to Asbury Park. 

T-115 (1839), 1:10,000; Asbury Park to Manasquan. 

T-116 (1839), 1:10,000; Manasquan to Mantoloking Shores. 

T-120 (1839), 1:20,000; Mantoloking Shores to Barnegat Inlet. 

1855/75 USC&GS 

Topographic Maps 

T-0486 (1855), 1:10,000; Sandy Hook to Highlands. 

T-1022 (1866), 1:10,000; Highlands to Asbury Park. 

T-1083 (1867), 1:10,000; Asbury Park to Manasquan. 

T-1084 (1868), 1:10,000; Manasquan to Mantoloking Shores. 

T-1371 (1874), 1:20,000; Mantoloking Shores to Seaside Heights. 

T-1407 (1875), 1:20,000; Seaside Heights to Barnegat Inlet. 

1932/33 USC&GS 

Topographic Maps 

T-5100 (1932/33), 1:10,000; Sandy Hook to Highlands. 

T-5279 (1932/33), 1:10,000; Highlands to Monmouth Beach. 

T-5281 (1932/33), 1:10,000; Monmouth Beach to Long Branch. 

T-5282 (1932/33), 1:10,000; Long Branch to Asbury Park. 

T-5283 (1932/33), 1:10,000; Asbury Park to Manasquan. 

T-5284 (1932/33), 1:10,000; Manasquan to Point Pleasant. 

T-5285 (1932/33), 1:10,000; Point Pleasant to Mantoloking Shores. 

T-5286 (1932/33), 1:10,000; Mantoloking Shores to Seaside Heights. 

T-5330 (1932/33), 1:10,000; Seaside Heights to Island Park. 

T-5097 (1932/33), 1:10,000; Island Park to Barnegat Inlet. 

1977 New Jersey 

Geological Survey Data developed from registered aerial photography. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 68

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

respectively. As expected, maximum positional errors are aligned with the oldest shorelines 

(1877/83, 1928, and 1948) at smallest scale (1:20,000), but most change estimates for the 

study area document shoreline advance or retreat greater than these values. 

Table 3-7. Estimates of potential error associated with Long Island, NY and northeastern 

New Jersey shoreline position surveys. 

Traditional Engineering Field Surveys (NY 1873/88 shoreline; NJ 1836/39 and 1855/75 shorelines ) 

Location of rodded points 

Location of plane table 

Interpretation of high-water shoreline position at rodded points 

Error due to sketching between rodded points 

±1 m 

±2 to 3 m 

±3 to 4 m 

up to ±5 m 

Historical Aerial Surveys (NY 1933/34 shoreline; NJ Map Scale 

1932/33 shoreline) 1:10,000 1:20,000 

Delineating high-water shoreline position ±5 m ±10 m 

Cartographic Errors (NY 1873/88 and 1933/34 shorelines; Map Scale 

NJ 1836/39, 1855/75, and 1932/33 shorelines) 1:10,000 1:20,000 

Inaccurate location of control points on map relative to true 

field location 

Placement of shoreline on map 

Line width for representing shoreline 

Digitizer error 

Operator error 

up to ±3 m 

±5 m 

±3 m 

±1 m 

±1 m 

up to ±6 m 

±10 m 

±6 m 

±2 m 

±2 m 

Digital Aerial Photo Surveys (NY 1983 and 1991/97 shorelines; NJ 1977 shoreline)

Delineating high-water shoreline 

Aerial photo registration error 

±5 m 

UNKNOWN 

Sources: Shalowitz, 1964; Ellis 1978; Anders and Byrnes, 1991; Crowell et al., 1991. 

3.1.3 Historical Shoreline Change Trends 

Regional change analyses provided an assessment of shoreline response for comparison 

with predicted changes in wave-energy focusing at the shoreline resulting from potential 

offshore sand dredging activities. The analysis differs from previous qualitative analyses in that 

continuous measurements of shoreline change are provided at 30-m along-shore intervals for 

the periods 1873/88 to 1991/97 (New York) and 1836/39 to 1977 (New Jersey). As such, model 

results (wave and sediment transport) at discreet intervals along the coast can be compared 

with historical change trends to develop process/response relationships for evaluating potential 

impacts. The following discussion focuses on incremental changes in shoreline response for 

the southwestern shore of Long Island, NY and northeastern New Jersey compared to net, longterm trends in each portion of the study area. Incremental change periods for New York include 

1873/88 to 1933/34, 1933/34 to 1983, and 1983 to 1991/97, and those for New Jersey include 

1836/39 to 1855/75, 1855/75 to 1932/33, and 1932/33 to 1977. Most shoreline response 

observed in this region reflects beach nourishment activity and coastal structure development. 

For each time interval, impacts from inlet construction, beach nourishment, and structure 

placement (seawalls, jetties, groins) are discussed, along with observed shoreline response 

within each reach. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 69

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

3.1.3.1 Southwestern Long Island 

 Beaches along the south shore of Long Island have experienced enormous change over 

the past 120 years. West-directed littoral transport, human-induced changes such as beach 

nourishment and jetty construction, and severe storm events have contributed to significant 

shoreline position adjustments. Relatively high rates of erosion have affected most of the coast, 

particularly when considering the volume of material placed on beaches as part of nourishment 

activities. Coastal erosion impacting the barrier islands has long been identified as a problem 

for communities in the area. General patterns of erosion and accretion have remained relatively 

consistent, with highest rates usually located adjacent to inlets, reflecting the direction of net 

littoral transport. Changes observed for each time period are compared below to document 

overall trends relative to dominant coastal processes along southwestern Long Island. 

Calculated rates of change for each time interval are listed in Appendix A. Shoreline reaches 

and geographic names used in the following discussion are shown in Figure 3-5. 

Figure 3-5. Southwestern Long Island reaches between Rockaway Point and Moriches Inlet, NY. 

1873/88 to 1933/34 

 Between 1873/88 to 1933/34, significant changes in shoreline position were recorded as 

beaches responded to natural coastal processes and human alterations. During this period, the 

two largest beach nourishment projects on record for the study area were completed at 

Rockaway Beach (7.95 mcm) and Jones Beach (31.0 mcm). Effects of these nourishment 

activities are documented as high rates of shoreline advance for much of the western half of the 

study area (Figure 3-6). Additionally, jetties were constructed at Rockaway Inlet in 1932 and at 

East Rockaway Inlet in 1934. Prior to 1932, the barrier island system was in a natural state and 

was unaffected by the numerous jetties, groins, and seawalls that heavily influence shoreline 

change results for subsequent time intervals. As such, this time period offers a chance to 

observe primarily natural trends in barrier island migration prior to structure placement. One of 

the more notable storm events impacting the study area occurred on March 4, 1931, when 

Moriches Inlet was reopened for the first time since at least the early 1800s (Smith et. al., 1999). 

Effects from the storm and subsequent inlet reopening are visible along the east side of Fire 

Island. Shoreline change observed at each of the barrier islands during this period is in the form 

of west-directed barrier beach migration, reflective of the direction of net longshore transport 

(Figure 3-6). Some of the west-directed shoreline advance may not be captured by calculated 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 70

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

change rates displayed in Figure 3-6, as the rate of change is calculated normal to shoreline 

orientation. In those cases, direct measurements have been made to quantify migration rates. 

Figure 3-6. Westward island migration along south shore beaches of Long Island, 1873/88 to 1933/34. 

 Rockaway Beach experienced substantial shoreline advance along the western 75% of 

the island and west-directed migration of about 50 to 55 m/yr between 1877/78 and 1933/34 

(Figure 3-6). Shoreline recession for this period was limited to a small section of coast on the 

eastern quarter of Rockaway Beach, adjacent to the present location of East Rockaway Inlet. 

Between 1877/78 and 1933/34, the eastern end of Rockaway Beach shifted west about 2.5 to 

3 km. Likewise, East Rockaway Inlet and Long Beach Island were positioned to the east on 

Long Beach Island, and the western edge of the island was about 3 km east of the 1933/34 

position. Two major factors influenced change trends during this period: the 1926 to 1936 

beach restoration project and the absence of a jetty at the west end of the island until 1932/33, 

which allowed Rockaway Point to migrate along-shore for most of this time interval. Prior to 

construction of the jetty on the west end of Rockaway Beach, Rockaway Beach existed as a 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 71

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

compound recurved spit, migrating west at a rate of about 50 m/yr. Once the jetty was 

constructed, migration of the spit ceased as sediment was trapped along the western edge of 

the island adjacent to the structure. Because the jetty was not in place for most of this time 

period, natural migration patterns for the spit dominated beach evolution. Timing of the 1926 to 

1936 beach nourishment at Rockaway Beach also significantly affected shoreline change 

trends. Because nourishment activities occurred immediately before and during the 1933/34 

shoreline survey, shoreline change rates at Rockaway Beach reached about 22.7 m/yr, with 

greatest change observed adjacent to Rockaway Inlet. As such, recession rates observed for 

Rockaway Beach during this period were low. Shoreline recession at Rockaway Beach was 

limited to about a 2.5 km section of shoreline on the east side of the island in the vicinity of the 

present-day location of the town of Edgemere. Erosion rates in this area ranged from about 

0.2 to about 3.4 m/yr, with maximum change located adjacent to East Rockaway Inlet. Overall, 

calculated change rates for Rockaway Beach ranged from about 22.7 to -3.4 m/yr. 

 Shoreline position at Long Beach Island also changed dramatically between 1879/80 and 

1933/34. The present barrier beach of Long Beach Island was comprised of two smaller barrier 

islands during the 1879/80 time period. East Rockaway Inlet was located about 3 km east of its 

1933/34 location, and an additional inlet (no longer in existence today) was located another 

2.5 km to the east. As west-directed littoral drift forced East Rockaway Inlet and the eastern 

end of Rockaway Beach to the west, the western margin of Long Beach Island migrated 

similarly at a rate of about 55 m/yr (Figure 3-6). Calculated rates of shoreline change at Long 

Beach during this interval show a maximum shoreline advance rate of about 10 m/yr in the 

western half of the island and a maximum recession rate of about 9.5 m/yr on the east half of 

the island. Shoreline recession along eastern Long Beach Island occurred as sediment was 

transported west in the littoral drift system, contributing to westward lateral growth of the island. 

There were no recorded beach fills at Long Beach during this time interval. 

 Patterns of shoreline change for Jones Beach between 1880 and 1933/34 are similar to 

those observed for the two western reaches, with an overall decrease in shoreline advance 

rates and a slight increase in shoreline recession. Shoreline change was influenced 

substantially by the 1927 beach fill that supplied 31.0 mcm of sand to the beach. Prior to the 

1927 fill, the entire shoreline at Jones Beach was composed of barrier hummocks and 

washovers, characterized on the 1880 shoreline map as an island complex composed of four 

discrete units (Kana, 1999). The 1927 beach fill transformed the island from a series of 

disconnected units into a contiguous barrier island. The fill not only advanced the ocean 

shoreline but also contributed to the littoral transport system feeding west-directed barrier island 

migration at a rate of about 40 m/yr. Calculated shoreline change rates at Jones Beach 

document overall patterns similar to those observed for the Rockaway and Long Beach 

reaches, producing deposition along the western portion of the island and erosion to the east. 

Maximum shoreline advance at Jones Beach was about 3.6 m/yr adjacent to Jones Inlet, and 

maximum recession of about 8.9 m/yr was documented near of Cedar Beach. 

 Shoreline change patterns for Fire Island deviate from those observed along shorelines to 

the west, documenting significantly lower rates of deposition and a much greater extent (in 

terms of total area) of shoreline recession (Figure 3-7). Similar to Rockaway Beach, Long 

Beach, and Jones Beach, the morphology of Fire Island was significantly altered during this 

time, primarily through natural events. From the early 1800s to 1931, Moriches Inlet was closed 

to the Atlantic Ocean, and the Fire Island barrier was a single spit from Fire Island Inlet east to 

Shinnecock Inlet. The northeast storm of March 4, 1931 reopened Moriches Inlet, detaching 

Fire Island from Westhampton Beach to the east. Moriches Inlet remained open intermittently 

until it was reopened by a storm in September 1953 when jetties were being constructed on 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 72

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

both banks. West-directed shoreline movement (not captured by calculations normal to the 

primary orientation of the shoreline) was greater at Fire Island than at other reaches during this 

period, with the shoreline advancing west at a rate of about 80 m/yr (Figure 3-6). Shoreline 

change rates observed along the length of Fire Island were more erosional overall than those 

observed for other reaches in the study area. Beach erosion documented along beaches at Fire 

Island was transported west as part of the littoral drift system feeding the west side of the 

migrating sand spit. The absence of beach nourishment during this time resulted in a net deficit 

in sand volume for most of the reach, as opposed to trends for other reaches where recession 

was limited primarily to the eastern half. Maximum change values recorded for this reach were 

about -5.2 m/yr adjacent to Fire Island Inlet and about 0.9 m/yr near the vicinity of the present 

location of Great South Beach. 

-10

0

10

20

Change m( /yr) 4480000

4490000

4500000

4510000

4520000

UTM - Y m( )

580000 590000 600000 610000 620000 630000 640000 650000 660000 670000 680000 690000

UTM-X (m)

1873/88 Shoreline

1933/34 Shoreline

advance

retreat

Jones

Inlet

Fire Island Inlet

Moriches Inlet

Jones Beach

East Long Beach Rockaway Inlet

Fire Island National Seashore

Rockaway Point

Rockaway Inlet

Long Island Shoreline Change: 1873/88 to 1933/34

Long Island, NY

Atlantic Ocean

Brooklyn

1879/80 Inlet

Locations

Rockaway Beach Long Beach Jones Beach Fire Island

Figure 3-7. Shoreline change along south shore beaches of Long Island, 1873/88 to 1933/34. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 73

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

1933/34 to 1983 

 Shoreline change between 1933/34 and 1983 was influenced by engineering alterations in 

the form of structure placement and beach nourishment. Over 27.5 mcm of sand was 

documented in placement records for beaches in the study area. Additionally, each of the inlets 

was armored with an eastern jetty, which transformed west-directed migration visible in the 

previous time interval into significant shoreline advance adjacent to the new structures. 

Furthermore, numerous groins and seawalls were constructed primarily along Rockaway Beach 

and Long Beach, interrupting west-directed littoral drift. In addition to these alterations, there 

were multiple major storm events recorded, including the Sept 21, 1938 Long Island Express, 

which created Shinnecock Inlet and widened Moriches Inlet, and the Ash Wednesday Storm of 

1962 (Northeaster of record for Long Island). Available records do not document any major 

storm events between 1976 (Hurricane Belle) and the 1983 shoreline survey. Overall, shoreline 

change patterns illustrated high rates of deposition along the western margin of most reaches, 

with smaller zones and lower rates of erosion located primarily along the eastern boundaries of 

the islands. 

 Shoreline change along Rockaway Beach was dominated by deposition, with zones of 

erosion in small areas. A large portion of the shoreline at the eastern side of the island (about 

4 km) was not mapped for the 1983 data set (see Figure 3-8). As such, shoreline change could 

not be calculated for this area. However, visual and calculated change comparisons for other 

time periods in this area indicate that it has been primarily depositional (about 1 m/yr between 

1962 and 1997; about 2 m/yr between 1880 and 1997). The most dramatic change between 

1933/34 and 1983 was shoreline response to construction of the jetty at Rockaway Inlet (1932). 

Initially, the new structure resulted in significant shoreline advance at a rate of about 33 m/yr 

between 1933/34 and 1962. As sediment accumulated and the zone of deposition expanded 

farther east, the rate of shoreline advance adjacent to the jetty slowed to about 12 m/yr between 

1962 and 1970, and was reduced even further to about 10 m/yr between 1970 and 1983. This 

adjustment resulted in overall advance at the shoreline immediately adjacent to the jetty of 

about 20.5 m/yr between 1933/34 and 1983 (Figure 3-9). 

 East of the deposition zone, shoreline change trends reversed, documenting recession up 

to about 0.6 m/yr. This section of shoreline historically has been erosional, and numerous 

groins have existed since 1933/34. As the depositional area continues to expand to the east, it 

is likely that the influence of the jetty may impact part of this region and some of the erosional 

area will become depositional, consistent with trends for previous time periods in this region 

(between 1962 and 1997, the depositional area resulting from the jetty expanded east about 

600 m). During this time interval, a total of about 8.1 mcm of sediment was placed on the beach 

(an increase from rates during the previous time interval at Rockaway Beach), with about 

6.5 mcm (approximately 80%) occurring between 1975 and 1982. That equates to an average 

annual placement of about 928,600 m3

 for the 7 years immediately preceding the 1983 

shoreline survey. It is likely that beach nourishment activities at Rockaway contributed 

significantly to the predominance of deposition calculated for this time interval. The second 

area of erosion is a 900 m section of shoreline located west of East Rockaway Inlet, south of the 

town of Edgemere. Shoreline recession rates in this area range from about 0.1 to 2.2 m/yr. It is 

possible that this stretch of coast is being affected by the interruption of littoral drift created by 

East Rockaway Inlet (located about 500 m east of this area). Overall, maximum recession at 

Rockaway Beach between 1933/34 and 1983 was about 2.2 m/yr and maximum shoreline 

advance was about 20.5 m/yr. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 74

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

-10

0

10

20

Change (m) 4480000

4490000

4500000

4510000

4520000

UTM - Y (m)

580000 590000 600000 610000 620000 630000 640000 650000 660000 670000 680000 690000

UTM - X (m)

1933/34 Shoreline

1983 Shoreline

advance

retreat

Jones

Inlet

Fire Island Inlet

Moriches Inlet

Jones Beach

East Long Beach Rockaway Inlet

Fire Island National Seashore

Rockaway Point

Rockaway Inlet

Long Island Shoreline Change: 1933/34 to 1983

Long Island, NY

Atlantic Ocean

Brooklyn

Rockaway Beach Long Beach Jones Beach Fire Island

Figure 3-8. Shoreline change along south shore beaches of Long Island, 1933/34 to 1983. 

 Shoreline change trends documented at Long Beach between 1933/34 and 1983 are 

similar to those documented for Rockaway Beach. Deposition dominated, with shoreline 

advance greatest in the vicinity of East Rockaway Inlet (maximum rate of about 8.3 m/yr). 

Again, deposition was influenced largely by the development of the east jetty at East Rockaway 

Inlet in 1934 (Table 3-4). From the end of jetty construction in 1934 until 1960, the shoreline 

advanced at rates ranging from about 4.0 to 15.4 m/yr. In subsequent years, shoreline advance 

diminished more than that documented at Rockaway Beach. Between 1960 and 1983, 

shoreline position remained (relatively) stable, retreating somewhat between 1960 and 1970 

and advancing somewhat between 1970 and 1983 (Figure 3-10). Reasons for the difference in 

long-term post-jetty shoreline response may include the fact that Long Beach was not nourished 

until 1959/60 (Kana, 1999), and thereafter, nourishment rates were much lower than those 

recorded for Rockaway Beach. Between 1933/34 and 1983, about 1.9 mcm of sediment was 

placed on Long Beach, with about 70% (1.3 mcm) placed during the 1970s and 1980s (Kana, 

1999, Table 3-4). Additionally, according to Kana (1999), nearly 60 groins constructed 

perpendicular to the shoreline in this region may have caused a reduction in longshore sediment 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 75

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

transport adjacent to the jetty during this time. Overall, the shoreline at Long Beach adjacent to 

the inlet advanced at rates ranging from about 2.4 to 8.3 m/yr. The shoreline west of this area 

was primarily depositional as well, with greatest shoreline advance rates in the vicinity of Lido 

Beach from about 4 to 7 m/yr between 1933/34 and 1983. Shoreline advance was consistent 

for the 1960 and 1970 shorelines. Increased deposition at this location may be from beach 

nourishment activities documented at Lido Beach in 1962. Because specific location 

information is absent for some of the beach nourishment events at Long Beach, it is possible 

that nourishment activities were located within the vicinity of Lido Beach. Additionally, it is 

possible that sediment dredged from Jones Inlet may have been placed on down-drift beaches 

during this period, which would have influenced shoreline position at Lido Beach. 

Figure 3-9. Incremental changes in shoreline position adjacent to the jetty at the western end of 

Rockaway Beach, 1933/34 to 1983. 

Figure 3-10. Incremental changes in shoreline position adjacent to the jetty at the western end of Long 

Beach, 1933/34 to 1983. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 76

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Shoreline change results at Jones Beach between 1933/34 and 1983 differ from those 

calculated for the two reaches to the west. Due to a large gap along the western half of Jones 

Beach for the 1983 shoreline data set, change calculations between 1933/34 and 1983 were 

limited to the area between Tobay Beach (west) and Cedar Beach (east). The 1947 shoreline 

survey was used to visually compare long-term trends with intervening years. The 1933/34 to 

1983 time interval at Jones Beach was marked initially by shoreline adjustment to the 1927 

reclamation project, followed by additional nourishment events throughout each of the following 

decades, and finally by construction of jetties east of the island at Fire Island Inlet in 1941 and 

on the west end of the island at Jones Inlet in 1959. Annual dredging has been performed at 

Fire Island Inlet almost continuously since 1954, with much of the sediment dredged from the 

inlet placed on the updrift end of Jones Beach (Smith et. al., 1999). Between 1933/34 and 

1983, a total of about 12.2 mcm of material was placed on beaches, with much of this beach fill 

representing disposal of sediments from Fire Island Inlet (Kana, 1999). Beach nourishment 

volumes for each decade between 1933/34 and 1983 were relatively consistent, with slightly 

less nourishment activity recorded for the 1980s (Table 3-5). Compared with Rockaway Beach 

and Long Beach, relatively few structures were constructed along the shoreline at Jones Beach 

during this time interval. Most of the shoreline at Jones Beach remains undeveloped today 

(Kana, 1999). 

 Shoreline position change at Jones Beach documented erosion from the east end of 

Tobay Beach west to about Gilgo State Park, followed by deposition in the area of Cedar 

Beach. Shoreline recession in the vicinity of Tobay and Gilgo Beaches is similar to trends 

observed relative to the 1947 shoreline survey. Deposition in the vicinity of Cedar Beach is 

most likely related to the combination of increased beach nourishment with sediments dredged 

from Fire Island Inlet and sand trapped by the sand dike known as the “Thumb” that was 

constructed at Oak Beach in 1959 (Kana, 1999). The “Thumb” was constructed after initial 

development of the jetty at Fire Island Inlet to prevent erosion at Oak Beach. It worked as 

intended, but it also prevented the return of the sand gradually being pushed across the inlet by 

the tidal currents. Instead, sand was pushed westward by littoral and ebb tidal currents, 

producing an increase in the width of Cedar Beach (Wolff and Bennington, 2000). Prior to 

construction of the “Thumb”, erosion was dominant in this area, as documented by comparison 

with the 1947 shoreline. Overall, maximum recession was documented at West Gilgo Beach at 

a rate of about 2.8 m/yr, and maximum shoreline advance was recorded adjacent to the 

“Thumb” at a rate of about 8.3 m/yr (Figure 3-8). 

 Along Fire Island, shoreline change was dominated by recession and, similar to the 

1873/88 to 1933/34 interval, was more erosional overall than other reaches in the study area. 

Jetties were constructed at the east end of Fire Island on both sides of Moriches Inlet in 1953/54 

and at the west end of the island at Fire Island Inlet in 1941. Beach fill at Fire Island began in 

the late 1940s, and since then, it has been concentrated primarily at the eastern and western 

ends, near Moriches Inlet and at Robert Moses State Park (Kana, 1999). Through the 1980s, 

about 4.4 mcm of sediment was placed on Fire Island. Records indicate that the majority of 

sediment was placed during the 1960s, when bay and inlet sediments were being disposed 

along beaches at Fire Island under the direction of Suffolk County (Kana, 1999). Nourishment 

activity through the 1970s and 1980s makes up only about 4% of total nourishment activity 

recorded for this time interval. As with Jones Beach, much of Fire Island remains undeveloped 

and has experienced less coastal structure development along the outer shoreline than at 

Rockaway Beach or Long Beach. Fire Island National Seashore was established in 1965, 

preserving about 42 km of shoreline in this reach. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 77

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 The most notable change in shoreline position along Fire Island was substantial 

deposition adjacent to the jetty at the west side of the island (Figure 3-8). Approximately 3 km 

of shoreline adjacent to the jetty were depositional between 1933/34 and 1983, with maximum 

rates of about 15.5 m/yr occurring immediately adjacent to the jetty. West of the deposition 

zone, for approximately 9.4 km, the shoreline was dominated by recession, with rates ranging 

from about 0.1 to 1.8 m/yr. This area extends from the west side of Robert Moses State Park 

across much of Great South Beach to about the location of the town of Ocean Beach. For the 

next 20 km, shoreline change alternates between recession and advance, with relatively low 

rates of each. The final 16.5 km of shoreline are again primarily erosional, with change rates in 

this region ranging from about -3.6 to 1.8 m/yr. The overall predominance of shoreline 

recession along Fire Island as opposed to beaches to the west may be due to the reduction in 

beach nourishment in this region in the 1970s and 1980s. Additionally, Kana (1999) suggested 

that sand trapping by the Westhampton groin field (built in the 1960s) had created a net sand 

deficit compared to the prior two decades. 

1983 to 1991/97 

 Shoreline change for the most recent time interval along southwestern Long Island 

beaches continued to be affected by beach nourishment activities, structure rehabilitation, and 

inlet maintenance dredging. The Atlantic Coast of New York Monitoring Program has been 

conducting monitoring work along beaches in southern Long Island since 1995. Where 

applicable, results from these efforts are compared with results observed in this data set. 

Between 1983 and 1991/97, about 15.8 mcm of sediment was placed on beaches. The most 

significant gains were located at the west end of Jones Beach, with rates of advance reaching 

about 38 m/yr (Figure 3-11). Additionally, some areas of coastline that previously were 

consistently erosional were depositional for this time. Most likely, this is due to increased beach 

nourishment activity that began in the mid-1990s. Storms during 1992 inspired resumption of 

beach nourishment along parts of the coastline. Furthermore, the smaller time interval between 

shoreline surveys (7 to 14 years as opposed to 49 and 57 years) may account for increased 

rates of change. There are eight notable storm events documented for this time period, with 

three of these documented in 1991/92. 

 Shoreline change at Rockaway Beach continued to be depositional on the western half of 

the island but experienced a larger area of shoreline recession along its eastern half 

(Figure 3-11). Although recession rates on the east side of the island were relatively low, with a 

maximum of about 2.7 m/yr, the amount of shoreline experiencing erosion increased from only a 

small section of the entire shoreline between 1933/34 and 1983 to about half of the total 

shoreline length between 1983 and 1991/97. As with the 1933/34 to 1983 comparison, the 

large gap in the east side of the 1983 data set prevented change calculations for this portion of 

the island. Between 1983 and 1991/97, beach nourishment at Rockaway Beach totaled about 

3.5 mcm. Recent beach nourishment events for this area completed as part of the Storm 

Reduction Project, were performed after the 1997 survey (1998 and 2001) and are therefore not 

included as part of the total. Rates of deposition on the west side of the island are lower than 

those recorded prior to this time interval. Whereas maximum rates of advance at Rockaway 

Point from 1878 to 1933/34 and 1933/34 to 1983 were about 22.7 and 20.5 m/yr, respectively, 

average shoreline advance was about 6.1 m/yr. Although rates of deposition are smaller for this 

time interval, the extent of deposition extends about 1.5 km east of that for the 1933/34 to 1983 

comparison. Shoreline change rates ranged from -2.7 m/yr in the vicinity of Belle Harbor to 

6.1 m/yr near Rockaway Point. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 78

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Change m( ) 4480000

4490000

4500000

4510000

4520000

UTM - Y m( )

580000 590000 600000 610000 620000 630000 640000 650000 660000 670000 680000 690000

UTM - X (m)

1983 Shoreline

1991/97 Shoreline

advance

retreat

Jones

Inlet

Fire Island Inlet

Moriches Inlet

Jones Beach

East Long Beach Rockaway Inlet

Fire Island National Seashore

Rockaway Point

Rockaway Inlet

Long Island Shoreline Change: 1983 to 1991/97

Long Island, NY

Atlantic Ocean

Brooklyn

Rockaway Beach Long Beach Jones Beach Fire Island

Figure 3-11. Shoreline change along south shore beaches of Long Island, 1983 to 1991/97. 

 Shoreline change at Long Beach was similar to historical trends, with slightly higher rates 

of deposition. Between 1983 and 1994, about 1.1 mcm of sediment was placed along beaches 

at Long Beach, with about 38% of this total deposited in 1994. Deposition was predominant 

during this time period for a majority of Long Beach, with a minor zone of erosion located at the 

east end of the island adjacent to Jones Inlet. Future beach nourishment events are scheduled 

to begin in 2004 at Long Beach as part of the Storm Damage Reduction Act. 

 Shoreline change at Jones Beach was calculated for the period 1983 and 1991. As with 

the 1933/34 to 1983 shoreline change observations, the west portion of the island is lacking 

data for comparison. Shoreline change deviates substantially from that observed for previous 

time periods in this area. Aside from a few areas of recession along portions of this reach, the 

entire length of the shoreline is dominated by deposition. Beach nourishment records indicate 

that at least 3.1 mcm of sediment were placed onto beaches during 1989 and 1991, which likely 

accounts for the seaward position of the 1991 shoreline. The area of greatest advance is 

located at Cedar Beach, with deposition rates recorded up to about 38 m/yr (Figure 3-11). 

Immediately adjacent to Fire Island Inlet, shoreline recession was dominant at rates ranging 

from about 0.5 to 16.5 m/yr. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 79

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Shoreline change at Fire Island also deviated from historical trends, showing an overall 

increase in deposition (Figure 3-11). Change rates for Fire Island were calculated for the period 

1983 and 1995. During this interval, beach fill activity increased dramatically in response to the 

effects of winter storms in 1991 and 1992. Thirty-one nourishment events were documented in 

the 1990s, for a total volume of about 1.9 mcm. Because exact dates are missing from the data 

set, the total number of fills completed prior to the 1995 shoreline survey may be less than the 

total completed for the 1990s. The increase in beach fill during the 1990s likely has contributed 

to greater amounts of deposition observed on Fire Island. Overall, shoreline change ranged 

from -7.2 to about 14.2 m/yr. 

1873/88 to 1991/97 

 Net shoreline change between 1873/88 and 1991/97 was used to document long-term 

trends for southwestern Long Island beaches within the study area. The 1873/88 data set 

provides a good baseline for evaluating shoreline change because it represents a time period 

before the introduction of major engineering activities (i.e., jetty, groin and seawall construction, 

beach nourishment, and channel dredging). The longer time interval used for this comparison 

allows for overall trends to be observed within the context of numerous engineering alterations. 

Overall, deposition along the barrier islands of the south coast of Long Island increased to the 

west, consistent with the direction of net longshore transport. Maximum deposition was about 

10.6 m/yr at Rockaway Point, consistent with trends observed for previous time periods 

(Figure 3-12). Erosion along the east side of the barrier islands increased to the east, with 

shoreline response along Fire Island almost entirely recessional. In general, rates of deposition 

exceed those of erosion within the study area, primarily the result of beach nourishment 

activities. Trends within each reach generally are similar to those observed from incremental 

time periods. 

 Along Rockaway Beach, deposition was dominant for the majority of this reach, with 

erosion confined to the eastern 2.5 km of the island. The maximum deposition rate of about 

10.6 m/yr was located at Rockaway Point. The zone of erosion along the east side of the island 

is located south of the town of Edgemere, and documents maximum recession of about 1.9 m/yr 

for this interval. 

 Shoreline change at Long Beach showed similar trends to those observed at Rockaway 

Beach. Deposition along the western half of the island ranged from about 0.5 m/yr to 5.4 m/yr 

and erosion along the eastern side of the island ranged from about 0.1 to 2.1 m/yr (Figure 3-12). 

Maximum deposition is located near the east side of Atlantic Beach (near the location of the 

historical inlet in 1879/80) and maximum recession is located at Lido Beach. 

 Shoreline change trends for Jones Beach documented more erosion over the long term 

than that observed for the previous two reaches. Maximum shoreline recession of about 

4.2 m/yr was located adjacent to the 1880 historical inlet located near the present-day location 

of Gilgo Beach. Additionally, the area along the east end of Jones Beach that has been 

predominantly depositional in recent years (due to either beach fills from Fire Island Inlet 

sediments or sediment accretion from construction of the “Thumb”) showed a reduced 

deposition rate for this time period. The maximum rate of shoreline advance was about 1.5 m/yr 

immediately adjacent to the “Thumb”. Deposition was dominant along the west side of the 

island for about 7 km of shoreline. The maximum advance rate in this area was about 5.4 m/yr, 

located at the west end of the island. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 80

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

-10

0

10

20

Change m( /yr) 4480000

4490000

4500000

4510000

4520000

UTM - Y (m)

580000 590000 600000 610000 620000 630000 640000 650000 660000 670000 680000 690000

UTM- X (m)

1873/88 Shoreline

1991/97 Shoreline

advance

retreat

Jones

Inlet

Fire Island Inlet

Moriches Inlet

Jones Beach

East Long Beach Rockaway Inlet

Fire Island National Seashore

Rockaway Point

Rockaway Inlet

Long Island Shoreline Change: 1873/88 to 1991/97

Long Island, NY

Atlantic Ocean

Brooklyn

1870/80 Inlet

Locations

Rockaway Beach Long Beach Jones Beach Fire Island

Figure 3-12. Cumulative shoreline change for southern Long Island beaches between Rockaway and 

Moriches Inlets, 1873/88 to 1991/97. 

 Shoreline change at Fire Island was dominated by erosion. Small areas of deposition 

were present along the entire shoreline, but the majority of coast illustrates long-term recession 

to about 2.6 m/yr. Although the Fire Island shoreline encompasses approximately 40% of the 

entire study area, the beach received only about 8% of the total beach nourishment for the 

region. Limited beach nourishment may be the primary cause of dominant long-term recession 

rates. The exception to this trend was illustrated between 1983 and 1991/97, where shoreline 

change recorded fairly even amounts of erosion and accretion. Increased deposition was due 

to increased nourishment activities through the 1990s (approximately 30 independent events). 

Despite the fact that erosion has been a continuing trend at Fire Island, maximum rates 

generally have been lower than those documented for other reaches. 

3.1.3.2 Northern New Jersey Shoreline Change 

 Similar to shoreline change patterns observed for Long Island beaches, a majority of the 

coastline in northeastern New Jersey has experienced persistent erosion problems, which have 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 81

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

affected many of the coastal communities over the past 140 years. General patterns of change 

in northeastern New Jersey are similar to those found on Long Island, with rapid spit growth in 

the direction of net littoral transport. Spits located at the northern and southern extents of the 

study area tend to experience greatest changes, with other rapidly changing areas located in 

the vicinity of inlets. Shoreline change patterns have also been influenced by beach 

nourishment and structure development, changing the character of beaches and sometimes 

altering change trends. Shoreline positions are compared for four time periods to identify longterm change patterns that have occurred historically along the northeastern New Jersey coast. 

Calculated rates of change for each time interval are listed in Appendix B. Reaches and place 

names referenced in the following discussion are shown in Figure 3-13. 

1836/39 to 1855/75 

 The period 1836/39 to 1855/75 documents considerable shoreline change as it responded 

to natural coastal processes. Anthropogenic alterations such as entrance jetty construction, 

groin and seawall development, and beach nourishment are absent from this interval. This 

allows observation of natural shoreline response that may be overshadowed or minimized by 

human-induced changes during subsequent time periods. 

 Shoreline change in northeastern New Jersey between Sandy Hook and Barnegat Inlet 

was dominated by recession with small zones of advance located intermittently throughout the 

area (Figure 3-14). Deposition zones are primarily located adjacent to historical or present-day 

entrances and tend to reflect the net direction of longshore transport. Change in the direction of 

net littoral drift in this region centers on a nodal point located in the vicinity of Manasquan Inlet, 

north of which net transport is to the north and south of which it is to the south. Sediment 

transported within this system has resulted in substantial shoreline progradation along the 

terminus of Sandy Hook and the sand spit on the southern boundary of Island Beach State Park 

at Barnegat Inlet. 

 Between Sandy Hook and Asbury Park, shoreline change is dominated by erosion. A 

zone of deposition located at the northern tip of Sandy Hook spit illustrates the direction of net 

littoral transport. Sandy Hook, a classic recurved spit, developed from northward directed 

longshore transport. Prior to its development, the Navesink and Shrewsbury Rivers located 

immediately south of Sandy Hook had direct access to the Atlantic Ocean. Development of a 

barrier beach over time has blocked these water bodies from entering the sea and they are now 

diverted to the north into Sandy Hook Bay (Williams and Duane, 1974). The rate of spit 

progradation to the north and northwest between 1836/39 and 1855/75 was about 5.7 m/yr 

(Figure 3-14). South of this deposition zone along the spit, erosion was dominant, ranging from 

about 0.1 to 8.3 m/yr. A second zone of deposition is located on the north side of what appears 

to be an historical inlet or breach. The existence of this feature was not documented among 

subsequent shoreline surveys; however, its position along the narrowest portion of the spit 

separating the Atlantic Ocean from Sandy Hook Bay makes it an ideal location for this type of 

breach to occur. Additionally, it is centered at the confluence of the Navesink River and Sandy 

Hook Bay, in the vicinity of the historical discharge point for the river before it was diverted 

north. As such, the existence of a breach in this location is not surprising. Deposition appears 

to have filled in the breach, with rates ranging from about 0.2 to 20.9 m/yr. South of this 

deposition zone, shoreline recession dominates throughout the reach. 

 Shoreline change trends between Asbury Park and Manasquan Inlet are dominated by 

recession, with maximum rates of change reaching about -8.4 m/yr near the north side of 

Manasquan Inlet. A small zone of deposition exists in the vicinity of the present day location of 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 82

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 3-13. Northern New Jersey shoreline reaches, Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ. 

Spring Lake, with maximum change rates of about 0.5 m/yr. Besides this small area, the rest of 

the reach is dominated by erosion (Figure 3-14). The 1836/39 and the 1855/75 shoreline 

surveys document the existence of inlets near the present-day locations of Shark River and 

Manasquan Inlets. The position of Manasquan Inlet for both surveys was about 950 m north of 

its present location, which was first armored with timber jetties in 1882/83. While shoreline 

recession is greatest in the vicinity of Manasquan Inlet for this reach, change patterns appear to 

be affected little by the existence of Shark River Inlet, with retreat rates ranging from about 

1.0 to 2.5 m/yr adjacent to the entrance. 

 From the south side of Manasquan Inlet to the north side of Barnegat Inlet, shoreline 

change trends remained primarily erosional for this time interval (Figure 3-14). A small section 

of shoreline (about 4 km) from about the vicinity of Chadwick to Seaside Heights (see Figure 

3-13) was depositional (Figure 3-14). The maximum deposition rate observed for this section of 

shoreline was about 3.4 m/yr. A 3.5 km gap in the 1836/39 shoreline south of this area 

prevented analysis of this section of coast. Thus, it is possible that the deposition zone may 

have extended farther to the south, but was cut-off due to lack of data. South of this data gap, 

the shoreline was dominated by shoreline recession south to Barnegat Inlet. A small zone of 

deposition on the northern side of Barnegat Inlet was consistent with sand transport trends 

south of Manasquan Inlet. Sediment transported along-shore by wave-induced currents created 

significant southward growth of a sand spit at a rate of about 13 m/yr. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 83

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

4405000

4410000

4415000

4420000

4425000

4430000

4435000

4440000

4445000

4450000

4455000

4460000

4465000

4470000

4475000

4480000

U

T

M - Y

m( )

-20 -10 0 10 20

Change (m)

575000 580000

UTM - X (m)

advance

retreat

1836/39 Shoreline

1855/75 Shoreline

Monmouth 

County

Ocean 

County

Barnegat Inlet

Manasquan Inlet

Sandy 

Hook Bay

Sea 

Bright

Long 

Branch

Shark River 

Inlet

Seaside 

Park

Mantoloking

Sandy 

Hook

Northern New Jersey Shoreline Change: 1836/39 to 1855/75

Sandy Hook

Asbury to 

Manasquan

Manasquan to Barnegat

Figure 3-14. Shoreline change along northern beaches of New Jersey, 1836/39 to 1855/75. 

1855/75 to 1932/33 

 Shoreline change between 1855/75 and 1932/33 continued to be dominated by erosion, 

with small areas of deposition located intermittently throughout the region (Figure 3-15). Jetties 

were constructed at Manasquan and Shark River Inlets, and various additional shoreline 

stabilization structures were built. The 1932/33 shoreline documents the existence of various 

groins, seawalls, and jetties north of Manasquan Inlet, although there is little information 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 84

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

regarding the construction of these features. Two major storms occurred during this period, 

including the Blizzard of 1888 and the Unnamed Northeaster of March 4, 1931. The 1931 

northeaster was powerful enough to re-open Moriches Inlet along southern Long Island, thus it 

is likely that the position of the 1932/33 shoreline was impacted as well. 

4405000

4410000

4415000

4420000

4425000

4430000

4435000

4440000

4445000

4450000

4455000

4460000

4465000

4470000

4475000

4480000

U

T

M - Y

m( )

-8 -4 0 4 8

Change (m)

575000 580000

UTM - X (m)

advance

retreat

1855/75 Shoreline

1932/33 Shoreline

Monmouth 

County

Ocean 

County

Barnegat Inlet

Manasquan Inlet

Sandy 

Hook Bay

Sea 

Bright

Long 

Branch

Shark River 

Inlet

Seaside 

Park

Mantoloking

Sandy 

Hook

Northern New Jersey Shoreline Change: 1855/75 to 1932/33

Sandy Hook

Asbury to 

Manasquan

Manasquan to Barnegat

Figure 3-15. Shoreline change along northern beaches of New Jersey, 1855/75 to 1932/33. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 85

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Overall, shoreline change rates were lower during this time period than the preceding 

interval. Reasons for reduced rates may include a longer period of time between surveys, 

which would potentially minimize some of the larger fluctuations in change; improved mapping 

procedures that would lead to better surveys than that for the 1836/39 data set; and the 

introduction of various shoreline stabilization features between 1855/75 and 1932/33, which 

may have reduced the magnitude of loss. Shoreline advance rates also are reduced, with a 

maximum rate of about 5 m/yr along the middle of Sandy Hook. General patterns of erosion 

and deposition are similar to those of the 1836/39 to 1855/75 time period, with the highest rates 

of deposition located along Sandy Hook and adjacent to the north side of Barnegat Inlet (Figure 

3-15). 

 The northern portion of Sandy Hook experienced significant deposition during this period, 

with growth occurring along-shore and cross-shore. The terminus of Sandy Hook also began to 

take on a more northwesterly orientation as sediment deposited on the northwest side of the 

spit. Along the southern 3 km of the spit, shoreline recession dominated with rates up to about 

3.3 m/yr. Greatest recession along the spit was located in the area of historical breaching in 

1836/39. Although the area was depositional in 1855/75, by 1932/33, significant shoreline 

recession was dramatic enough to inspire the development of numerous groins within this area. 

The 1932/33 shoreline contained numerous structures along this southernmost section of the 

spit, apparently for protection against erosion that could breach the narrowest portion of the 

feature. From the southern end of the spit to the north side of the Asbury Park - Manasquan 

Inlet reach, shoreline change remained erosional, with very small zones of deposition scattered 

throughout. 

 Shoreline change between Asbury Park and Manasquan Inlet was dominated by 

recession, similar to that experienced between 1836/39 and 1855/75. Greatest changes were 

associated with entrances. The highest rates of recession were located north of each entrance, 

with a maximum rate of 1.35 m/yr north of Shark River Inlet and 1.63 m/yr north of Manasquan 

Inlet. Both inlets were armored with jetties during this time, with rubble-mound jetties 

constructed at Manasquan in 1930/31 (replacing the original timber structures built in 1882/83) 

and jetties constructed at Shark River some time prior to 1932/33. Additionally, south-directed 

shoreline migration occurred at each of the inlets, with Shark River migrating south about 160 m 

and Manasquan migrating south about 760 m. For a small distance south of each entrance, 

shoreline change was depositional, with rates highest adjacent to the structures. 

 Shoreline change between Manasquan and Barnegat Inlets remained primarily erosional 

for this period, with lower rates than those observed during the previous interval (Figure 3-15). 

Maximum shoreline recession was located immediately north of Barnegat Inlet (3.6 m/yr), which 

continued to migrate to the south during this time at a rate of about 17.2 m/yr (about 1 km). As 

the sand spit migrated to the south, much of it also translated landward, resulting in increased 

rates of recession immediately adjacent to the north side of the entrance. Similar to the 

previous time period, the shoreline advanced along a small section (about 4.7 km) of the reach 

(Figure 3-15). The deposition zone extended south from the vicinity of Seaside Heights to 

immediately north of Island Park. Rates of advance were reduced from those observed for the 

previous time interval, with maximum advance reaching about 0.9 m/yr. Highest deposition 

rates are located at Barnegat Inlet and associated with south-directed longshore transport. 

1932/33 to 1977 

 Shoreline evolution between 1932/33 and 1977 responded to the introduction of many 

coastal engineering alterations, including increased development of shoreline structures, 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 86

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

rehabilitation of existing structures, and the commencement of beach nourishment activities. 

Change patterns along the northern New Jersey coastline for this 44-year period showed 

significantly more deposition than that observed for the two previous time periods (Figure 3-16). 

Numerous structures were placed along the shoreline, with jetties constructed on the north and 

south sides of Barnegat Inlet in 1940, and several groins and seawalls placed along various 

sections of coast. This interval also marks the first occurrence of beach fill activities, with about 

8.0 mcm placed on northern New Jersey beaches. About 62% of this total was placed on 

beaches in the Sandy Hook reach, which received about 4.98 mcm of sand between 1943 and 

1977. The remaining 38% is relatively evenly split between the two southern reaches, with 

about 1.36 mcm (about 18%) placed along beaches between Asbury Park and Manasquan Inlet 

and about 1.65 mcm (about 20%) placed between Manasquan Inlet and Barnegat Inlet. While 

these totals are significantly smaller than those documented for Long Island beaches, 

documentation is lacking for some beach fill events that occurred during this time. Eight 

significant storms impacted the beaches during this period, with two of the more significant 

events including the Ash Wednesday storm of 1962 and Hurricane Belle in 1976. The Ash 

Wednesday storm caused over $56 million in damages (USACE, 2003), and Hurricane Belle 

was especially damaging to the northern New Jersey coastline because the storm track made 

direct landfall on Long Island. Overall, the most significant changes observed during this time 

were located on Sandy Hook where erosion rates along the southern end of the spit more than 

doubled those found along the remainder of the shoreline (Figure 3-16). 

 Shoreline change patterns within Sandy Hook reach were similar to those observed for 

the previous two time periods. The northern portion of the spit continued to grow in a northnorthwesterly direction, with rates of deposition along its distal end up to about 6 m/yr (Figure 

3-16). South of a small erosional area, the spit continued to advance seaward, depositing 

sediment along a 2.3 km stretch of shoreline at an average rate of about 3 m/yr. Shoreline 

recession occurred over a larger portion of the southern half of the spit, with the northern limit of 

erosion located about 3 km farther north than during the two previous time periods. South of 

this erosional area, near the present-day location of Highlands, the narrowest portion of the spit 

experienced deposition, likely as a result of beach fill activity. Most notably among the beach 

fills in this area were three successive events occurring in 1975, 1976, and 1977, which 

amounted to about 1.5 mcm of material placed on Sandy Hook prior to the 1977 shoreline 

survey. Information is lacking regarding the specific locations of these placements, but it is 

likely that at least a portion of the material would have been placed along the narrowest and 

historically most erosional areas of the spit, resulting in increased beach widths in this area. 

South of the deposition zone, the shoreline shows minor variability as it alternates between 

relatively low rates of erosion and accretion. 

 Shoreline change between Asbury Park and Manasquan Inlet was quite different than 

those observed for the prior two time periods. For the previous two time intervals, shoreline 

change was predominantly erosional; change between 1932/33 and 1977 was almost entirely 

depositional. Very small zones of shoreline recession existed in the vicinity of Asbury Park and 

Sea Girt. Aside from these areas, the rest of the shoreline is dominated by deposition, with an 

average rate of about 0.8 m/yr (Figure 3-16). The most likely cause of this trend reversal is 

about 1.36 mcm of beach fill. Another possible factor resulting in shoreline advance may be the 

increased number of structures constructed in this area between 1932/33 and 1977. The 1977 

shoreline survey documents the existence of many additional structures than in 1932/33. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 87

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

4405000

4410000

4415000

4420000

4425000

4430000

4435000

4440000

4445000

4450000

4455000

4460000

4465000

4470000

4475000

4480000

U

T

M - Y

m( )

-8 -4 0 4 8

Change (m)

575000 580000

UTM - X (m)

advance

retreat

1932/33 Shoreline

1977 Shoreline

Monmouth 

County

Ocean 

County

Barnegat Inlet

Manasquan Inlet

Sandy 

Hook Bay

Sea 

Bright

Long 

Branch

Shark River 

Inlet

Seaside 

Park

Mantoloking

Sandy 

Hook

Northern New Jersey Shoreline Change: 1932/33 to 1977

Manasquan to Barnegat

Asbury to 

Manasquan

Sandy Hook

Figure 3-16. Shoreline change along northern beaches of New Jersey, 1932/33 to 1977. 

 Change results within the Manasquan Inlet – Barnegat Inlet reach also were different than 

those observed during the two previous two intervals. Shoreline change, particularly adjacent to 

the south side of Manasquan Inlet, was dominated by deposition for this time period. 

Apparently, beach nourishment activity has contributed significantly to beach changes. 

Although net littoral transport south of Manasquan Inlet is documented as southward, it is likely 

that jetty construction and rehabilitation at Manasquan Inlet contributed to sediment trapping 

south of the entrance. Beach fill activity in this reach was about 1.66 mcm. There was one 

nourishment event documented south of Manasquan Inlet in 1963, which contributed about 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 88

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

538,000 m3 to the beach. Immediately north of Barnegat Inlet, deposition is likely the result of 

shoreline adjustment to the north jetty that was constructed in 1940 impeding south-directed 

migration of the sand spit. Just north of this accretion zone, a 5-km stretch of shoreline 

recession was persistent but minor relative to change trends throughout the reach. Overall, this 

area experienced greatest shoreline advance rates immediately south of Manasquan Inlet and 

immediately north of Barnegat Inlet, with calculated maximum change of about 3.5 and 5.0 m/yr, 

respectively. 

1836/39 to 1977 

 Cumulative shoreline change documented long-term trends for northern New Jersey 

beaches. The 1836/39 shoreline provides a good baseline for evaluating change because it 

represents a time period before the introduction of major engineering activities (i.e., jetty, groin, 

and seawall construction; beach nourishment; and channel dredging). Comparing this shoreline 

with the most recent survey provided a good assessment of net long-term change. Although 

major engineering and nourishment events have affected overall change results, the longer time 

interval allows for overall trends to be observed within the context of numerous engineering 

alterations to the beaches. 

 In evaluating shoreline change trends between 1836/39 and 1977, a general pattern 

emerged that highlighted the extent of erosion experienced along beaches in this region (Figure 

3-17). The dominance of shoreline recession along a majority of the beaches in northeastern 

New Jersey is a problem that has been addressed by numerous Federal, State, and local 

agencies, with several studies recently undertaken to analyze and mitigate these issues. Most 

notable are the on-going beach nourishment projects by the USACE New York District along the 

Sandy Hook and Asbury Park-Manasquan Inlet reaches. Overall, cumulative change trends 

illustrated patterns of advance and retreat that were consistent with those documented between 

1836/39 and 1932/33. Shoreline recession was dominant for most of the area, and small zones 

of deposition were situated in similar locations throughout. Calculated rates of shoreline change 

were generally lower for this time period than during previous intervals, with a maximum 

recession rate of 2.5 m/yr and a maximum advance rate of 3.5 m/yr. Both of these maxima are 

located adjacent to each other along the southern end of Sandy Hook spit. This is particularly 

significant because Sandy Hook received about 85% of beach nourishment documented for the 

study area between the 1950s and the 1970s, without which even larger rates of loss may have 

occurred in the region. Additionally, direct measurements along the north side of the spit 

indicate a high rate of deposition for this area, with northwest-directed shoreline advance 

occurring at a rate of about 7.5 m/yr. The area associated with subaerial deposition along the 

terminal end of Sandy Hook was approximately 1.02 million m2

. Along the shoreline south of 

this area, smaller zones of deposition are primarily located along the lateral sides or distal ends 

of prograding spits or adjacent to the updrift sides of jetty structures. 

 Cumulative shoreline change within the Asbury Park-Manasquan Inlet reach was the least 

erosional region within the study area. Immediately south of Shark River Inlet for a distance of 

about 5 km, beach change was predominantly depositional, with an average of about 0.3 m/yr. 

Greatest advance rates in this zone (about 1.1 m/yr) were located adjacent to the south side of 

Shark River Inlet, which is consistent with north-directed longshore transport. South of the inlet, 

deposition was reduced, and trends reversed in the vicinity of the town of Sea Girt. From Sea 

Girt south to Manasquan Inlet, shoreline change is dominated by relatively high rates of 

recession, with rates generally increasing near the entrance. The average recession rate in this 

area was about 0.8 m/yr, and maximum loss was about 1.9 m/yr. Erosion along this section of 

shoreline is consistent with patterns observed for this area during incremental time periods. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 89

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Between 1836/39 and 1977, the character of Manasquan Inlet changed dramatically, evolving 

from a small, bifurcated inlet into a larger federally-maintained entrance armored on both sides 

with rock jetties. Prior to construction of jetties, the entrance migrated south about 900 m. After 

jetty construction, the adjacent shoreline north of the entrance receded. The existence of the 

inlet and associated structures at Manasquan may have contributed to erosion documented 

along the shoreline north of this area. 

4405000

4410000

4415000

4420000

4425000

4430000

4435000

4440000

4445000

4450000

4455000

4460000

4465000

4470000

4475000

4480000

U

T

M - Y

m( )

-8 -4 0 4 8

Change (m)

575000 580000

UTM - X (m)

advance

retreat

1836/39 Shoreline

1977 Shoreline

Monmouth 

County

Ocean 

County

Barnegat Inlet

Manasquan Inlet

Sandy 

Hook Bay

Sea 

Bright

Long 

Branch

Shark River 

Inlet

Seaside 

Park

Mantoloking

Sandy 

Hook

Northern New Jersey Shoreline Change: 1836/39 to 1977

Sandy Hook

Asbury to 

Manasquan

Manasquan to Barnegat

Figure 3-17. Shoreline change along northern New Jersey beaches, 1836/39 to 1977. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 90

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 The Manasquan Inlet-Barnegat Inlet reach also was dominated by erosion for this time 

interval. Three small zones of shoreline advance are illustrated on Figure 3-17, two of which 

are associated with changes at entrances. The small zone of deposition immediately south of 

Manasquan Inlet is common for all time intervals. Shoreline advance rates south of the 

entrance averaged about 0.5 m/yr, with a maximum rate of about 1.1 m/yr immediately adjacent 

to the entrance. The deposition zone extends about 750 m south of the entrance, with rates 

generally decreasing to the south. South of Manasquan Inlet for a distance of about 10 km, the 

shoreline experienced continuous erosion. Recession rates were generally low, with a 

maximum overall rate of about 0.9 m/yr. South of this area, between the towns of Chadwick 

and Seaside Heights, shoreline change has been depositional for most time intervals. Although 

cumulative rates of advance do not exceed 1 m/yr for the entire zone, this region has been 

characterized by deposition for all incremental time intervals except 1855/75 to 1932/33. South 

of this region for about the next 14 km, shoreline change is again dominated by beach erosion 

until Barnegat Inlet, where the southern margin of the shoreline was advancing to the south in 

response to south-directed littoral transport. At the north side of Barnegat Inlet, the maximum 

rate of shoreline advance was 1.5 m/yr, although southward-directed spit growth for this interval 

was on the order of 13 m/yr. 

3.2 NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY CHANGE 

3.2.1 Bathymetry Data Base and Potential Errors 

 Seafloor elevation measurements collected during historical hydrographic surveys are 

used to identify changes in nearshore bathymetry for quantifying sediment transport trends 

relative to natural processes and engineering activities. For the present study, digital 

bathymetric data were available from surveys completed by the USC&GS between 1927 and 

1997. Within this time period, three major intervals (1927-1937, 1942-1951, and 1975-1997) 

were isolated to document shelf morphology and characterize temporal bathymetric change. 

Change was evaluated qualitatively for the entire study area and quantitatively at each resource 

site between the specified intervals. Due to survey coverage, comprehensive bathymetric 

surfaces were generated for the periods 1927/37 and 1927/97. Individual hydrographic surveys 

used for each time period are summarized in Table 3-8. 

 Data coverage and survey line spacing for the 1927/37 data set was very well represented 

for surface characterization and temporal change analysis. Cross-line spacing was generally 

better than 500 m, and points along survey lines were typically collected every 100 to 200 m. 

Additionally, nearshore data collection generally extended to about 3 m water depth, providing 

reasonable data coverage on the shoreface. As such, the 1927/37 surface provided a good 

basis for characterizing shelf features and comparing against the modern time period. Recent 

bathymetric surveys (1975 to 1997) contained high quality data for surface characterization as 

well. Cross-line spacing was generally closer than 250 m for all surveys, with the most recent 

surveys containing data collected at intervals of about 100 m. Although data available were 

considered very good quality, the area of coverage left gaps across portions of the shelf. As 

such, the recent bathymetric surface contains data from 1975 to 1997 for most of the study 

area, but areas lacking coverage were populated with data from the 1927/37 era. Duplicate 

surveys can be identified in Table 3-8 and corresponding areas of overlap are displayed in 

Figure 3-18. All data sets were developed from digital USC&GS hydrographic surveys compiled 

by the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) and were registered to a common horizontal 

coordinate system and datum, in this case UTM Zone 18 North, NAD83. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 91

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Table 3-8. Bathymetry source data characteristics. 

Date Data Source Comments and Map Numbers 

1927/37 USC&GS 

Hydrographic Sheets 

1927 - H-04797 (1) 

1932 - H-05234 (1) 

1933 - H-05300 (1), H-05367 (2), H-05369 (2), H-05370 (1), H-05371 (2), 

H-05377 (1) 

1934 - H-05615 (1), H-05732 (1), H-05734 (1), H-05735 (2), H-05616 (1), 

H-05638 (1), H-05639 (2) 

1936 - H-06188 (3), H-06189 (3), H-06190 (3), H-06136 (2), H-06026 (3) 

1937 - H-06223 (3) 

1927/97 USC&GS 

Hydrographic Sheets 

1927 - H-04797 (1) 

1933 - H-05300 (1), H-05367 (2), H-05369 (2), H-05370 (1), H-05371 (2), 

H-05377 (1) 

1934 - H-05615 (1), H-05732 (1), H-05735 (2), H-05616 (1), H-05638 (1) 

1936 - H-06188 (3), H-06189 (3), H-06190 (3), H-06136 (2) 

1950 - H-07870 (2) 

1951 - H-07947 (2) 

1975 - H-09546 (3), H-09531 (3), H-09532 (4), H-09550 (3), H-09567 (3), 

H-09568 (2), H-09577 (3) 

1979 - H-09820 (1) 

1982 - H-10035 (1), H-10031 (1) 

1986 - H-10224 (2) 

1988 - H-10284 (1), H-10287 (1), H-10290 (1), H-10291 (1), FE0312 (2), 

H-10286 (1) 

1996 - H-10683 (1), H-10668 (1), H-10675 (1), H-10686 (1) 

1997 - H-10750 (1) 

(1) = 1:10,000, (2) = 1:20,000, (3) = 1:40,000, (4) = 1:80,000 

 Because seafloor elevations were temporally and spatially inconsistent for the entire data 

set, adjustments to depth measurements were made to bring all data to a common plane of 

reference. These corrections include changes in relative sea level and differences in reference 

vertical datums. Vertical adjustments were made to each data set based on the time of data 

collection and the original vertical reference datum. All vertical adjustments for this study were 

made based on vertical reference information reported at Sandy Hook, NJ tidal benchmark 

number 8531680 (Figure 3-19). Tidal benchmark data were obtained from the NOS Center for 

Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS) website http://www.coops.nos.noaa.gov/ in addition to historical information published by NOAA for the years 1932 to 

1986 (Lyles et. al., 1988). Yearly mean sea level variations were plotted between 1932 and 

2002 to obtain an average rate of sea level change (m/yr) for the study area (Figure 3-20). 

Depths for all surveys were adjusted to NAVD and were projected to average sea level for 2000 

(most recent survey date). The unit of measure for all surfaces is meters, and final values were 

rounded to decimeters before cut and fill computations were completed. 

 

 In order to produce continuous data sets extending seaward from the high water line, all 

bathymetry data were combined with temporally consistent shoreline data. A value of 2.6 m 

(NAVD) was assigned to the shoreline elevation, which was based on recent beach profile data 

obtained from the NJBPN website http://gannet.stockton.edu/njbpn/index.asp and the USACE 

New York District Coastalview application CD. Six monuments were selected from the NJBPN 

database to estimate the elevation of the berm crest from Sandy Hook Bay to Barnegat Inlet. 

Four monuments were selected from the Coastalview database to evaluate the New York 

coastline between Rockaway Point and Moriches Inlet (Figure 3-21). Profiles were selected to 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 92

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

provide a good representation of average elevation of the berm crest across the entire region. 

A plot illustrating beach profile examples for New York portrays the typical beach shape 

observed in this region with an identifiable berm crest at elevations ranging from 2.6 to 3.2 m 

NAVD (Figure 3-21). 

Figure 3-18. Locations of 1927/37 bathymetric data used to fill gaps in the most recent surface. 

 As with shoreline data, measurements of seafloor elevation contain inherent errors 

associated with data acquisition and compilation. It is important to quantify limitations in survey 

measurements and document potential systematic errors that can be eliminated during quality 

control procedures. However, most measurement errors associated with present and past 

surveys are considered random over large areas. As such, random errors cancel relative to 

change calculations derived from two surfaces. A better means of gauging limits of reliability 

associated with erosion and accretion areas is to quantify uncertainty associated with interpolating 

across bathymetric surfaces. Interpolation between measured points always includes a degree 

of uncertainty associated with terrain irregularity and data density. The density of bathymetry 

data, survey line orientation, and the magnitude and frequency of terrain irregularities are the 

most important factors influencing uncertainties in volume change calculations between two 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 93

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 3-19. Sandy Hook, NJ tidal benchmark elevation information. 

Sea Level Change 1932-2002

Sandy Hook, NJ

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

MSL (m)

Figure 3-20. Sandy Hook, NJ sea level change, 1932 to 2002. 

Sandy Hook Tidal Datum Elevations

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Elevation (meters)

NAVD88 (0.932 m)

MLW (0.061 m)

MLLW (0.00 m)
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 94

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 3-21. Beach profile location for coastal New York and New Jersey. 

bathymetric surfaces. Volume uncertainty relative to terrain irregularities and data density can 

be determined by comparing surface characteristics at adjacent survey lines. Large variations 

in depth between survey lines (i.e., few data points describing variable bathymetry) will result in 

large uncertainty calculations between lines. This computation provides the best estimate of 

uncertainty for gauging the significance of volume change estimates between two surfaces. 

 Uncertainty estimates were calculated for the 1927/37, and 1927/97 bathymetric surfaces 

using the methods outlined in Byrnes et al. (2002). Multiple sets of line pairs were compared for 

each time period to represent terrain variability across the surveyed area. Line pairs were 

chosen that would accurately reflect track line spacing for each survey and the irregularity of 

prominent geomorphic features in the region. A total of six line pairs were used to estimate 

uncertainty for each surface. Uncertainty estimates were determined for major sea floor 

features in this region, including the shoreface, across the Hudson Shelf Valley, and along 

nearshore ridges and depressions that dominate the sea floor of the inner shelf. An example of 

line pairs used for the 1927/37 surface is displayed in Figure 3-22. Line pairs were adjusted for 

each time period to overlay survey lines for that year. Bathymetry data were extracted along 

Long Island, NY Beach Profiles 

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Distance

Elevation (m, NAVD)

FI-32 Spring 1995

JI-31 Spring 1995

LB-210 Fall 1991

RK-17 Spring 1996
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 95

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 3-22. Line pairs used to estimate potential uncertainty for the 1927/37 surface. 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Distance (m)

Depth (m)

Line Pair 1A

Line Pair 1B

Figure 3-23. Depths extracted along Line Pair 1 for determining potential surface uncertainty. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 96

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

each line to calculate the variation in elevation between line pairs (Figure 3-23). Depths were 

extracted at five meter intervals along each line and the absolute values of the differences were 

averaged to calculate the potential uncertainty for each pair. Line pair uncertainty values were 

then averaged for each surface to estimate potential uncertainty associated with each data set. 

 Potential uncertainty for the 1927/37 surface was larger than that for the 1927/97 data set 

(±0.8 to 0.2 m, respectively). This was expected due to better survey coverage and track-line 

orientation for more recent data sets. Combining this information to gauge the impact of 

potential uncertainties associated with volume change calculations derived from these surfaces 

resulted in a root-mean-square variation of ±0.8 m. For all bathymetric change calculations for 

this study, a range of -0.8 to 0.8 m was used to delineate areas of no determinable change. 

3.2.2 Digital Surface Models 

 Historical bathymetry data within the study area provided geomorphic information on 

characteristic surface features that form in response to dominant coastal processes (waves and 

currents) and relative sea level change. Comparing two or more surfaces documents net 

sediment transport patterns relative to incident processes and sediment supply. The purpose of 

conducting this analysis throughout the study area was to document net sediment transport 

trends on the shelf and to quantify the magnitude of change to calibrate the significance of 

short-term wave and sediment transport numerical modeling results. Net sediment transport 

rates on the shelf were determined using historical bathymetry data sets to address potential 

infilling rates for sand resource sites. 

3.2.2.1 1927/37 Bathymetric Surface 

 Bathymetry data for the period 1927/37 were combined with the 1932/33 and 1933/34 

shoreline data sets to create a continuous surface from the shoreline seaward to about the 

-30 to -40 m (NAVD) contour. Data for the 1927/37 surface extend east from Rockaway Point to 

about 10 km west of Moriches Inlet and south from Sandy Hook to about Seaside Park. The 

most prominent sea floor feature visible in the 1927/37 bathymetric surface is the submarine 

Hudson River Channel, which extends southeast across the continental shelf from its head in 

the Christiansen Basin toward the shelf break, bisecting the New York Bight (Figures 3-24 and 

3-25). On either side of the valley, the shelf surface is dominated by numerous isolated and 

shore-attached linear sand shoals and ridges that illustrate opposing orientations along their 

crests. South of Long Island, contours outlining linear shoals document a northwest-southeast 

orientation, whereas contours along shoal features west of the Hudson Channel document a 

northeast-southwest orientation Changes in this general character of the linear shoal network 

are attributed to localized outcrops of Cretaceous strata and smaller topographic highs 

associated with anthropogenic dumping, which has been occurring in the region since the early 

1800s (Williams and Duane, 1974; Butman et al., 1998; Schwab et al., 2000b). Morphologic 

characteristics of the 1927/37 shelf surface south of Long Island are discussed first, followed by 

an examination of morphologic features on the shelf east of New Jersey. In general, the 

discussion of sea floor features follows from west to east along the shelf south of Long Island, 

and from north to south along the shelf east of New Jersey. 

 The western section of the shelf south of Long Island adjacent to Rockaway Beach 

exhibits moderately smooth contour spacing from the shoreface seaward to the head of the 

Hudson Channel. Linear sand shoals dominating the shelf east and south of this area are 

noticeably absent in this region. Minor surface irregularities are primarily the result of 

anthropogenic disposal activities, which are visible as cone-shaped mounds seaward of the 

-24 m contour. Bathymetry contours east of this area document northwest-southeast alternating 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 97

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

sand ridges characteristic of the shelf in this area. Sand ridges offshore Long Beach illustrate a 

more dominant north-south orientation than those on the remaining portion of the shelf south of 

Long Island, varying from shore-perpendicular to slightly shore-oblique. Sand ridges in this 

region have been interpreted by Schwab et al. (2000b) as rippled scour depressions. These 

lineations are located to the north and west of Borrow Site 3, which is positioned along a 

northwest-southeast trending shoal delineated by the -18 m contour. South of Borrow Site 3, a 

north-south trending topographic high known as Cholera Banks is documented on the 1927/37 

surface within the -24 m contour. This feature has been characterized by numerous studies as 

an eastward extension of one or more Coastal Plain strata (Williams and Duane, 1974; Schwab 

et al., 2002). 

Figure 3-24. 1927/37 bathymetric surface within the New York Bight. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 98

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 3-25. Three-dimensional view of the 1927/37 bathymetric surface in the New York Bight region. 

 East of Borrow Site 3, seafloor morphology is dominated by isolated and shore-attached 

sand ridges. Ridge features are visible offshore Jones Beach along the -18 m contour and are 

more oblique to the shoreline than those found off Long Beach. Borrow Sites 4W and 4E are 

located along two shoreface-attached shoals, located immediately seaward of the Federal-State 

boundary. Isolated sand ridges in this area formed as shoreface-attached sand ridges that were 

subsequently stranded during Holocene transgression (Schwab et al., 2000b). Southward 

asymmetry exhibited by these shoals is attributed to the action of coast-parallel, southeasterly, 

storm-generated currents (Duane et al., 1972). Shoreface-attached shoals are found to the east 

of this area offshore Fire Island. Schwab et al. (1999) attribute the formation of these shoals to 

erosion during the early Holocene of a broad outcrop of Cretaceous coastal plain strata offshore 

Watch Hill. According to Schwab et al (1999), sediment furnished downdrift during marine 

transgression was reworked by oceanographic processes into a series of shoreface-attached 

linear sand ridges. 

 The continental shelf east of New Jersey is similarly dominated by linear sand shoals. 

The bathymetry defining the offshore area has been divided into northern and southern 

components by Williams and Duane (1974), separated by an outcrop of Coastal Plain strata 

known as Shrewsbury Rocks. The sea floor adjacent to Sandy Hook is generally irregular and 

varied, unlike the more uniform northeast-southwest trending ridge and swale topography found 

to the south. Shrewsbury Rocks is visible in the 1927/37 surface along the -18- and -24-m 

contours extending offshore northeastern New Jersey adjacent to the Shrewsbury River. North 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 99

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

of Shrewsbury Rocks, the shoreface is relatively wide and gentle. South of Shrewsbury Rocks, 

the shoreface is noticeably steeper, much more so than that observed to the north and along 

the shelf south of Long Island. 

 South of Shrewsbury Rocks, isolated linear shoals dominate the nearshore between Long 

Branch and Manasquan Inlet, particularly along the shelf landward of the -24 m contour. Linear 

shoal characteristics illustrated on the 1927/37 surface are consistent with those documented by 

Duane et al. (1972). According to Duane et al. (1972), linear shoals in this area are separated 

from the coast by about 4 km, vary in length from 1 to 3 nm, and have a mean width of about 

450 m. All shoals have their long axis oriented east northeast and have an average angle of 

about 30° to 85° with the shoreline. Borrow Sites H1 and H2 are located along two of these 

shoals seaward of Shark River Inlet, in depths ranging from about 18 to 20 m (NAVD). South of 

Manasquan, the density of shoals decreases in the nearshore zone and the shelf becomes 

gentler as it slopes toward the Hudson Valley. 

3.2.2.2 1927/97 Bathymetric Surface 

 Bathymetry data for the period 1927/97 were combined with temporally consistent 

shoreline data and 1997 beach profile data to create a continuous surface from the shoreline 

seaward to about 55 m water depth (NAVD) (Figures 3-26 and 3-27). Data from the 1927/37 

surface were used to fill gaps in the most recent data set. General characteristics of the 

1927/97 bathymetric surface are similar to those of 1927/37 with a couple of exceptions. First, 

there was a large increase in size of the anthropogenic disposal mound located to the west of 

the Hudson River Channel. This is especially evident in the 1927/97 surface at the -24 m 

contour interval, which extends about 4 km further to the southwest than that of the 1927/37 

surface near the Historic Area Remediation Site and the Dredged Material Disposal Site (see 

Chapter 2). Second, geomorphic features are better defined on the 1927/97 surface because 

the number of data points describing the surface is larger. The shape and position of shoals is 

very consistent for both surfaces, but additional detail associated with the shoals and linear 

sand ridges on the shoreface provides a better understanding of the geomorphic characteristics 

of potential sand borrow sites. 

 Characteristics of surface and sub-surface sediments at shoals south of Long Island were 

examined as part of the 1976 ICONS investigation which rated their suitability for beach 

nourishment and developed estimates of minimum sand thicknesses. Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 

4E are adjacent to areas that were identified as having a minimum thickness potential of about 

3 to 5 m (see Chapter 2). Additionally, study of surface and subsurface shoal sediments from 

cores taken on the northern New Jersey shelf indicates that shoals are composed of mediumgrained, polished, well-sorted quartzose sand (Duane et al., 1972). Borrow Sites H1 and H2 are 

located on two of the prominent shoals found in this region. 

3.2.3 Shelf Sediment Transport Dynamics 

 Although the general characteristics of the 1927/37 and 1927/97 bathymetric surfaces 

appear similar, a digital comparison yields a difference plot that isolates areas of erosion and 

accretion for documenting sediment transport patterns and quantifying trends. The most 

significant changes occurring during this 60-yr interval were associated with deposition at 

anthropogenic disposal mounds, erosion and deposition along the margins of the Hudson River 

Valley, and deposition along the seaward extension of prograding spits (Figure 3-28). 

Bathymetric change along the shoreface and within the nearshore zone was not calculated for 

most of the region due to a lack of data for the most recent time interval. As such, bathymetry 

change in the nearshore was evaluated only along Sandy Hook spit and adjacent to the eastern 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 100

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

two-thirds of Jones Island. Based on the consistency observed in overall shoreline change 

patterns throughout the study area, it was inferred that bathymetric change trends calculated for 

these areas also would retain a consistent pattern. Overall, erosion and accretion patterns tend 

to reflect net littoral transport trends and follow shoal and ridge contour shapes. Often, updrift 

zones of erosion are associated with downdrift linear deposits, illustrating the magnitude and 

direction of sediment transport associated with shoals on the shelf surface. Polygons of erosion 

and accretion indicated shoal migration in response to dominant transport processes. 

Figure 3-26. 1927/97 bathymetric surface. 

 Fluid flow and sediment transport adjacent to shorelines in southwestern Long Island and 

northeastern New Jersey produce pronounced geomorphic changes. Littoral currents mobilize 

substantial quantities of sediment near the coastline and on the upper shoreface, resulting in 

spit growth along the downdrift margins of islands and shoal migration at and adjacent to 

entrances. This is particularly evident at Sandy Hook spit, which illustrated substantial 

deposition along its northern edge for the period of record. Spit growth represented a terminal 

point for alternating zones of erosion and accretion adjacent to the shoreline, reflecting 

sediment transport on the upper shoreface in response to a changing shoreline orientation. 

Depositional zones are found along northwest-southeast alignments, whereas erosional zones 

are found in areas of north-south orientation. Deposition along the down-drift side of spit 

features has been observed in shoreline change results for all time periods. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 101

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 3-27. Three-dimensional representation of the 1927/97 bathymetric surface. 

 Alternating zones of erosion and accretion were identified in smaller magnitudes along the 

eastern two-thirds of Jones Beach. Shoreward of the -6 m contour, the eastern portion of the 

island displayed a moderately long stretch of erosion with total elevation change of up to 4 m, 

followed by a similar zone of deposition along the down-drift side of the island. This pattern of 

updrift erosion and downdrift deposition along Jones Beach was reflective of shoreline change 

patterns observed for the barrier-island system in southwestern Long Island as a whole. As 

such, this trend could be expected to occur in the nearshore along the other three barrier 

islands as well. 

 Additional areas of erosion and accretion also are present in smaller magnitudes along 

isolated and shore-connected shoals. Polygons of erosion and deposition generally follow 

contour shapes defining shoals and troughs on the continental shelf. As expected, regions with 

lowest relief and slightest irregularities (in the offshore area south of Rockaway out to the head 

of the Hudson Channel) display the least amount of bathymetric change, whereas zones with 

increasing shore-attached and offshore sand ridges (such as offshore Shark River Inlet) tend to 

display a more actively evolving surface. The character of bathymetric change is closely 

aligned with shoal orientation off Shark River Inlet. As the density of sand shoals in the vicinity 

of the inlet begins to decrease to the east toward the Hudson River Channel, a corresponding 

reduction in bathymetric change was apparent. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 102

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 3-28. Bathymetric change in the New York Bight between 1927/37and 1927/97. 

 Bathymetric change along the Hudson Shelf Valley follows the shape of the channel and 

reflects an overall trend of sediment loss along its eastern side and into the trough, and 

sediment gain along its western bank. Sediment erosion and accretion thicknesses associated 

with this area are relatively high, ranging from about 8.5 m of deposition to about 5 m of erosion. 

Areas with significant levels of change associated with the Hudson Shelf Valley are confined 

primarily to the extent of the channel and its lateral walls. Erosion and deposition zones tend to 

complement each other and tend to alternate across the width of the channel. Offshore 

disposal mounds located at the head of the channel contain the areas of greatest change. 

Polygons delineating historical and current disposal sites were displayed on the change surface 

for reference (Figure 3-8). 

 Sand volume change calculations for zones of accretion and erosion along the shore and 

on the shelf surface are used to estimate net sand transport rates (see Sections 3.2.4 and 

3.2.5). Historical sand transport rates were used to calibrate simulations of borrow site infilling 

and nearshore sand transport (Section 5.2). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 103

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

3.2.4 Magnitude and Direction of Change 

 Patterns of seafloor erosion and accretion on the continental shelf seaward of 

southwestern New York and northeastern New Jersey document the net direction of sediment 

transport throughout the study area (Figure 3-28). Although overall trends are helpful for 

assessing potential impacts of sand extraction from the OCS, the specific purpose of the 

historical bathymetry change assessment is to quantify sediment erosion and accretion and to 

derive transport rates specifically related to potential sand extraction sites. Of the five (5) 

borrow sites defined for this study, two (2) were evaluated for potential infilling rates under 

proposed sand extraction scenarios. These two borrow sites (H1 and 4E) were used as proxies 

for evaluating conditions at the remaining three sites within the study area. These sites were 

chosen based on data coverage and sampling density. It was assumed that conditions along 

adjacent shoals were similar for other borrow sites defined within the study area. 

 Overall, calculated infilling rates were remarkably consistent across the shelf surface. For 

Borrow Sites H1 and 4E, sediment erosion zones parallel to shoreface ridges indicated that the 

potential transport rate available for infilling any proposed sand borrow site in the area was 

about 98,000 m3

/yr (over a period of 39 years). This calculation assumed that sediment eroded 

from areas nearby potential borrow sites reflected the rate at which material was available for 

infilling at the borrow sites. The dredging geometry for each potential borrow site (depth to 

width to length), as well as the type of sediment available for infilling, are controlling factors for 

determining sediment infilling (see Section 5.2). This rate was used as a potential infilling 

estimate for the remaining three borrow sites. 

3.2.5 Net Longshore Sand Transport Rates 

 Net longshore transport rates have been well documented on beaches in southwestern 

Long Island and northeastern New Jersey. In general, the direction of net littoral transport along 

beaches south of Long Island is east to west, ranging from 122,000 to 344,000 m3

/yr (Taney, 

1961; Figure 2-5). Along beaches in northern New Jersey, littoral transport rates were 

documented at about 382,000 m3

/yr to the north between Manasquan and Sandy Hook and 

about 38,000 m3

/yr to the south between Manasquan and Barnegat Inlet (Caldwell, 1966). 

Shoreline deposition patterns observed along the western ends of barrier islands in New York 

and at the northern and southern extents of Sandy Hook and Barnegat Inlets reflect these 

trends. For the present study, bathymetry and shoreline data were combined to calculate 

nearshore bathymetric change and determine sediment transport rates. These data were used 

along with rate information published by Taney (1961) and Caldwell (1966) to calculate rates of 

sediment transport along the outer coast within the study area. 

 Along the northeastern coast of New Jersey, alternating zones of erosion and accretion, 

as determined from historical bathymetry comparisons, were evaluated with respect to the net 

sediment budget to estimate longshore sand transport rates. Sediment deposition at the 

northern tip of Sandy Hook represents a terminal point for an alternating sequence of erosion 

and accretion zones located immediately adjacent to the shoreline (Figure 3-28). As such, 

volume change calculated within these zones provides a good means for evaluating the rate of 

sediment transport along this portion of the coast. Bathymetric change calculated between 

1927/37 and 1927/97 was evaluated for each zone, and a sediment budget was created using 

these data and the rate published by Caldwell (1966) for northern New Jersey (~382,000 m3

/yr 

to the north). Assuming the validity of this rate, net longshore transport rates ranged from 

223,000 to 382,000 m3

/yr along the northernmost 6 km of Sandy Hook spit. Due to a lack of 

bathymetry data for a large portion of the remaining nearshore region in the study area, valid 

estimates of net longshore transport rates were unable to be developed. However, there is 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 104

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

general agreement between observed shoreline change trends and those published by previous 

investigators. Additionally, net longshore transport rates for Sandy Hook were generally in 

agreement with those published previously. As such, values published by previous 

investigations for sections of the coast lacking data for this study are interpreted as reliable 

rates of net longshore transport, and observed change trends are used as validation of trends 

reported by others. 

3.3 SUMMARY 

 Shoreline position and nearshore bathymetry change document four important trends 

relative to study objectives. First, there are three dominant directions of longshore sand 

transport within the study area. Between Rockaway Point and Moriches Inlet, the dominant 

direction of transport is east to west. In northeastern New Jersey, between Sandy Hook and 

Manasquan, longshore transport from south to north dominates, while south of Manasquan 

Inlet, the dominant direction is to the south. Along both coasts, the dominant direction of 

transport is illustrated by barrier island migration and shoreline advance adjacent to inlet jetties. 

Barrier islands along the south coast of Long Island have historically migrated from east to west, 

and seaward shoreline advance subsequent to jetty construction has occurred along the east 

sides of entrances. In northeastern New Jersey, Sandy Hook spit historically has migrated 

rapidly to the north and, prior to structural development at Barnegat Inlet, the spit north of the 

entrance was rapidly migrating to the south. The greatest amount of shoreline change observed 

for this study was associated with beaches adjacent to inlets, most notably along the leading 

edge of prograding barrier spits. 

 Second, the most dynamic features within the study area, in terms of nearshore sediment 

transport, are migrating barrier island/spit complexes along the northeastern New Jersey and 

southwestern Long Island coasts, in addition to natural and anthropogenic change along the 

Hudson River Channel. Areas of significant erosion and accretion are documented between 

1927/37 and 1927/97 at Sandy Hook spit, reflecting wave and current dynamics that carry 

sediment northward and deposit it along the terminal edge of the spit. High rates of deposition 

also are prominent at entrances south of Sandy Hook and along the southwestern coast of Long 

Island. Shoreline and bathymetric changes associated with these features reflects morphologic 

response to wave and current dynamics and shoreline adjustment to the construction of 

engineering structures. Pronounced bathymetric change observed along the head and sides of 

the Hudson River Channel reflects natural and anthropogenic processes. Large areas showing 

significant deposition at the head of the Hudson River Channel reflect high levels of offshore 

disposal activity, and patches of erosion and accretion paralleling each other along the length of 

the channel reflect natural bathymetric changes. 

 Third, alternating bands of erosion and accretion paralleling ridge features illustrated the 

steady reworking of the shelf surface as sand ridges migrated in the direction of net sediment 

transport. The process by which this was occurring was relatively consistent across the shelf. 

At Borrow Site H1, bathymetric comparisons suggested that the borrow site in this region would 

fill with sand transported from the adjacent seafloor at rates of about 98,000 m3

/yr. Areas of 

erosion and accretion documented between 1927/37 and 1927/97 at Borrow Site 4E illustrated 

the amount of sediment available for infilling at sites south of Long Island was also about 98,000 

m3

/yr. Calculations for these two borrow sites were used as indicators of potential infilling rates 

for all borrow sites within the study area. 

 Finally, net longshore transport rates determined from seafloor changes in the littoral zone 

along Sandy Hook spit indicated maximum transport rates near the distal end of the spit, with 
MMS Study 2004-044 Regional Geomorphic Change 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 105

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

lower rates to the south. These calculations, along with data published by Caldwell (1966) 

indicate a range in net longshore transport along Sandy Hook from about 223,000 m3

/yr to 

382,000 m3

/yr. 
Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 106

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF WAVE CLIMATE IMPACT BY 

OFFSHORE BORROW SITES 

 Excavation of an offshore borrow site can affect wave heights and the direction of wave 

propagation. The existence of an excavated hole or trench on the OCS can cause waves to 

refract toward the shallow edges of a borrow site. This alteration to a wave field by a borrow 

site may change local sediment transport rates, resulting in some areas experiencing a 

reduction in longshore transport and other areas showing an increase. To determine potential 

physical impacts associated with dredging borrow sites offshore the northeastern coast of New 

Jersey and the southwestern coast of Long Island, New York, wave transformation modeling 

and sediment transport potential calculations were performed for existing and post-dredging 

bathymetric conditions. Comparison of computations between existing and post-dredging 

conditions illustrated the relative impact of borrow site excavation on wave-induced coastal 

processes. 

 The most effective means of quantifying physical environmental effects of sand dredging 

from shoals on the continental shelf is through use of wave transformation numerical modeling 

tools that recognize the random nature of incident waves as they propagate onshore. Spectral 

wave models, such as STWAVE (STeady-state spectral WAVE model), REF/DIF-S 

(REFraction/DIFfraction model for Spectral wave conditions), SWAN (Simulation of Waves 

Nearshore), and others, typically provide more realistic results than monochromatic wave 

models relative to field measurements. As such, spectral wave transformation modeling was 

applied in this study to evaluate potential impacts to coastal and nearshore sites from long-term 

dredging and significant removal of sand from offshore sand borrow sites. Although 

interpretation of wave modeling results is relatively straightforward, evaluating the significance 

of predicted changes for accepting or rejecting a borrow site is more complicated. 

As part of any offshore sand mining effort, the MMS requires an evaluation of potential 

environmental impacts associated with alterations to nearshore wave patterns. To determine 

potential physical impacts associated with borrow site excavation, the influence of borrow site 

geometry on local wave refraction patterns was evaluated. Because large natural spatial and 

temporal variability exists within the wave climate at a particular site, determination of physical 

impacts associated with sand mining must consider the influence of process variability. A 

method based on historical wave climate variability, as well as local wave climate changes 

directly attributable to borrow site excavation, has been applied to determine appropriate criteria 

for assessing impact significance. 

 To directly assess impacts to coastal processes associated with sand mining, an 

approach was utilized that considers spatial (longshore) and temporal aspects of the local wave 

climate, as described by Kelley et al. (2004). This method was applied by performing wave 

model runs using mean conditions developed from the entire 20-year Wave Information Study 

(WIS) record, and then 20 year-long blocks of the WIS record to determine annual variability of 

the wave climate along this shoreline. In this manner, temporal variations in wave climate are 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 107

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

considered relative to average annual conditions. From these wave model runs, sediment 

transport potential curves are derived for average annual conditions (based on the full 20-year 

WIS record) and each1-year period (based on the 20 1-year wave records parsed from the full 

record). Applying this information, the average and standard deviation in calculated longshore 

sediment transport potential are determined every 200 m along the shoreline. 

 Assuming the temporal component of sediment transport potential is normally distributed, 

the suggested criterion for accepting or rejecting a potential borrow site is based on a range of 

one standard deviation about the mean. As proposed, the criterion would require that if any 

portion of the sediment transport potential curve associated with a sand mining project exceeds 

one-half the standard deviation of natural temporal variability in sediment transport potential, the 

site would be rejected. Conversely, a borrow site design would be accepted as long as the 

transport potential change determined for post-dredging conditions at a site occurs within the 

range of one-half the standard deviation. 

 The natural variability envelope provides a basis for judging the impacts of a borrow site 

relative to sediment transport processes along a coastline. Because there is a greater than 

50% chance that the transport computed for a particular year will occur outside the ±0.5σ

envelope about the mean, impacts determined for a particular borrow site that occur within this 

range will be indistinguishable from observed natural variations. For this reason, sites with large 

natural variation in wave climate and associated sediment transport potential would be allowed 

to have larger impacts associated with an offshore sand mining project. 

 An application of this method is illustrated in Figure 4-1 (from Kelley et al., 2004), where 

alterations in wave climate caused by numerically excavating a proposed borrow site offshore 

St. Lucie Inlet, Florida were determined relative to natural variability in wave climate. In this 

example, dredged quantities of 12 and 24 x 106

 m3 were evaluated. The computed significance 

envelope varied between ±50,000 m3

/yr at the southern extent of the modeled domain, to 

approximately ±100,000 m3

/y at the northern limit of the study area. Impacts associated with 

the 24 x 106

 m3 plan exceeded the significance envelope, resulting in rejection of this excavation 

scenario. Alternately, the 12 x 106

 m3 plan was deemed acceptable because predicted changes 

to sediment transport potential did not exceed the limits defined by the ±0.5σ envelope about 

the mean sediment transport potential. 

 As a management tool for the MMS, this methodology provides several advantages over 

methods previously employed to assess the significance of borrow site impacts. The primary 

advantages include: 

1. Observed long-term shoreline change is compared with computed longshore change in 

sediment transport potential. Close comparison between these two curves indicates 

that longshore sediment transport potential calculations are appropriate for assessing 

long-term natural change. Therefore, this methodology has a model-independent 

component (observed shoreline change) used to ground truth model results. 

2. The method is directly related to sediment transport potential and associated shoreline 

change. Therefore, impacts associated with borrow site excavation can be directly 

related to their potential influence on observed coastal processes (annualized 

variability in shoreline position). 

3. Site-specific temporal variability in wave climate and sediment transport potential is 

calculated as part of the methodology. For sites that show little natural variability in 

inter-annual wave climate, coastal processes impacts associated with borrow site 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 108

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

dredging similarly would be limited, and vice versa. In this manner, the inter-annual 

temporal component of the natural wave climate is a major component in determining 

impact significance. 

4. Similar to methodologies incorporated in previous MMS studies, the longshore spatial 

distribution of borrow site impacts was considered. However, an acceptable limit of 

longshore sediment transport variability was computed from the temporal component of 

the analysis. Therefore, the final results of this analysis provided a spatially-varying 

envelope of natural variability in addition to the modeled impacts directly associated 

with borrow site excavation. The methodology accounts for spatial and temporal 

variability in wave climate, as well as providing a defensible means of assessing 

significance of impacts relative to site-specific conditions. 

Figure 4-1. Example of spatial/temporal variability method for determining significance of borrow site 

dredging impacts (Kelley et al., 2004). The difference plot illustrates modeled change in net 

transport potential (solid black and dotted lines) resulting from two different dredging 

scenarios at the proposed borrow site. The plot also illustrates the dredging significance 

envelope (±0.5σ) determined for this shoreline (gray-shaded area). The 4.5 m excavation 

(dotted line, 24 x 106

 m3) exceeds the significance envelope boundary and would be 

rejected. However, the 2.3 m excavation (solid line, 12 x 106

 m3) does not exceed the 

natural variability envelope, and would be acceptable. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 109

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

4.1 ANALYSIS APPROACH 

 Sediment transport rates along a coastline are dependent on local wave climate. For this 

study, nearshore wave heights and directions along the shoreline landward of proposed borrow 

sites were estimated using the USACE spectral wave model STWAVE, which was used to 

simulate the propagation of offshore waves to the shoreline. Offshore wave data, from hindcast 

model runs performed specifically for this study by Offshore & Coastal Technologies, Inc. 

(OCTI), were used to derive input wave conditions for STWAVE. 

4.1.1 Wave Modeling 

 Developed by the USACE Waterways Experiment Station (WES), STWAVE v2.0 is a 

steady state, spectral wave transformation model (Smith et al., 1999). Two-dimensional 

(frequency and direction versus energy) spectra were used as input to the model. STWAVE is 

able to simulate wave refraction and shoaling induced by changes in bathymetry and by wave 

interactions with currents. The model includes a wave breaking model based on water depth 

and wave steepness. Model output includes significant wave height (Hs), peak wave period 

(Tp), and mean wave direction (θ ). 

 STWAVE is an efficient program that requires minimal computing resources to run well. 

The model is implemented using a finite-difference scheme on a regular Cartesian grid (grid 

increments in the x and y directions are equal). During a model run, the solution is computed 

starting from the offshore open boundary and is propagated onshore in a single pass of the 

model domain. As such, STWAVE can propagate waves only in directions within the ±87.5° half 

plane. A benefit of using this single pass approach is that it uses minimal computer memory 

because the only memory-resident spectral data are for two grid columns. Accordingly, 

changing wave spectra across each grid column are computed using information solely from the 

previous grid column. 

 STWAVE is based on a form of the wave action balance equation. The wave action 

density spectrum, which includes the effects of currents, is conserved along wave rays. In the 

absence of currents, wave rays correspond to wave orthogonals, and the action density 

spectrum is equivalent to the wave energy density spectrum. A diagram showing the 

relationship of wave orthogonal, wave ray, and current directions is shown in Figure 4-2. The 

governing equation of wave transformation, using the action balance spectrum, in tensor 

notation is written as (Smith et al., 1999) 

( ) = ∑ −

∂

∂

r r

a ga

i

i ga

C C E S

x

C

ω ω

cos(μ α) (4.1) 

where 

E = E(f,θ) wave energy density spectrum, 

S = energy source and sink terms (e.g., white capping, breaking, wind input), 

α = wave orthogonal direction, 

μ = wave ray direction (direction of energy propagation), 

ωr = relative angular frequency (2πfr), 

Ca, Cga = absolute wave celerity and group celerity, respectively. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 110

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-2. Wave and current vectors used in STWAVE. Subscript a denotes values in the absolute

frame of reference, and subscript r denotes values in the relative frame of reference (with 

currents). 

The breaking model in STWAVE is based on a form of the Miche criterion as discussed by 

Battjes and Janssen (1978). It sets a maximum limit on the zero-moment wave height (Hmo), the 

wave height based on the distribution of energy in the wave spectrum. The formulation of this 

model is 

Hmo(max) = 0.1L tanh (kd) (4.2) 

where L is the wavelength, k is the wave number (k = 2π/L), and d is the depth at the point 

where the breaking limit is being evaluated. This equation is used together with a simpler 

breaking model, which was used alone in earlier versions of STWAVE, where the maximum Hmo 

wave height is always expressed as a constant ratio of water depth 

Hmo(max) = 0.64 d (4.3) 

An advantage of using Equation 4.2 over Equation 4.3 is that it accounts for increased wave 

breaking resulting from wave steepening caused by wave-current interactions. Once model 

wave heights exceed Hmo(max), STWAVE uses a simple method to reduce the energy spectrum 

to set the value of Hmo = Hmo(max). Energy at each frequency and direction is reduced by the 

same percentage. As a result, non-linear transfers of energy to high frequencies during 

breaking are not included in STWAVE. 

4.1.1.1 Input Spectra Development 

 Offshore wave conditions used as input for wave modeling can be derived from two main 

sources: measured spectral wave data from offshore buoys or hindcast simulation time series 

data. In general, buoy data are the preferred source of wave information for modeling because 

they represent actual offshore measurements rather than hindcast information derived from 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 111

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

large-scale models. However, very few sites along the U.S. east coast have directional wave 

records of sufficient length to justify their use as a source of long-term information. As an 

alternative to measured data, one publicly available hindcast data source is WIS (Hubertz et al., 

1993). WIS data recently have been updated and now cover the 20-year period from 1980 to 

1999. 

 For this study, wave input conditions for simulations offshore northeastern New Jersey 

and southwestern Long Island were developed using wave hindcast data specifically modeled 

by OCTI for this project. This site-specific wave hindcast data set has two main advantages 

over the standard WIS data source: 1) wave conditions were developed for points at the open 

boundaries of each model grid, which eliminates the need to numerically refract waves inshore 

from WIS stations farther offshore; and 2) in addition to bulk wave parameters (e.g., wave 

height, period, and direction), the complete 2-dimensional wave spectra for each individual time 

step in the wave hindcast (6-hour interval) were provided. This approach allows for a more 

detailed analysis of parameters governing the shape of various wave spectra. 

 Wave input conditions for simulations offshore northeastern New Jersey and 

southwestern Long Island were developed using the spectral OCTI hindcast data. Station 

locations are shown in Figure 4-3 with the limits of coarse computational grids. Hindcast 

records include the 20-year period from January 1980 to December 1999. Wave hindcast 

station OCTI-NJ is located approximately 13.7 km east of Shark River Inlet in approximately 

26.7 m water depth. The station offshore southwestern Long Island (OCTI-NY) is located 

approximately 12.8 km south of Jones Inlet in 24.7 m of water. Both stations are located at the 

along-shore mid-point of the open boundary for their respective grid. 

 Two wave roses showing percent occurrence of waves for the hindcast stations are 

shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. Plots for Station OCTI-NY, offshore southwestern Long Island, 

are shown in Figure 4-4. The left wave rose shows wave height distribution relative to direction. 

The majority of waves (63%) propagate between 78.75° and 191.25° (east through south 

sectors). The dominant wave direction is from the southern sector, from which 17% of waves in 

the record propagate. Mean height for all waves in the record is 0.99 m, with a standard 

deviation of 0.6 m. Mean height for waves from the dominant wave sector is 0.93 m, also with a 

standard deviation of 0.6 m. The right wave rose in Figure 4-4 illustrates the distribution of peak 

wave periods in the record. A significant number of wave events (19.5%) have peak periods 

greater than 6 sec, and the mean peak period for the entire record is 4.3 sec (compared with 5.0 

sec for WIS Station 123). 

 Plots for Station OCTI-NJ, offshore northeastern New Jersey, are shown in Figure 4-5. 

Similar to offshore Long Island, the majority of waves (64%) propagate onshore between 

78.75° and 191.25°. The dominant wave direction is from the South, from which 18% of waves 

in the record propagate. Mean height for all waves in the record is 0.96 m, with a standard 

deviation of 0.6 m. Mean height for waves from the dominant wave sector is 0.91 m, with a 

standard deviation of 0.5 m. From this record, 7.6% of the wave events have peak periods 

greater than 6 sec, and the mean peak period for the entire record is 4.2 sec (compared to 4.9 

sec for WIS Station 128). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 112

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-3. Shoreline of northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island with coarse grid limits 

and OCTI wave input data station locations. 

Figure 4-4. Wave height and period roses for OCTI hindcast data offshore southwestern Long Island 

(Station OCTI-NY) for the 20-year period January 1980 to December 1999. Direction 

indicates from where waves were traveling relative to true north. Length of gray tone 

segments indicates percent occurrence for each wave height and period range. Combined 

length of segments in each sector indicates percent occurrence of waves from that direction. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 113

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-5. Wave height and period roses for OCTI hindcast data offshore northeastern New Jersey 

(OCTI-NJ) for the 20-year period between January 1980 and December 1999. Direction 

indicates from where waves were traveling relative to true north. Length of gray tone 

segments indicates percent occurrence for each wave height and period range. Combined 

length of segments in each sector indicates percent occurrence of waves from that direction. 

 STWAVE input spectra were developed using the spectral data provided in the OCTI 

wave hindcasts. An example of an input spectrum is presented in Figure 4-6. Wave conditions 

were binned based on wave angle and peak frequency. Ten direction bins (each an 18 degree 

sector) and two period bins (greater or less than 6.5 sec) were used to sort the 29,215 sixhourly wave conditions in each hindcast data file. Wave spectra corresponding to wave 

parameters that fall within the limits of individual direction and period bins are summed, and a 

mean spectrum for all waves in each bin is computed based on the total number of wave events 

in the bin. From the 20 total bins, STWAVE model run conditions were selected based on the 

percent occurrence and percent energy for conditions in each bin. 

 Selected conditions have a percent occurrence greater than 1%, and also contain more 

than 1% of the energy of the entire wave record. Conditions selected for model runs are shown 

in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, with the significant parameters of each input spectrum. 

Figure 4-6. STWAVE input spectrum developed using 20-year OCTI hindcast spectral data. Plots show 

a) frequency distribution of energy at peak direction, b) directional distribution of energy at 

peak frequency, and c) surface plot of two-dimensional energy spectrum (Hmo = 0.9 m, 

θmean = 130° grid relative). 

a) b) c) 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 114

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Table 4-1. Input wave spectra parameters used for existing and post-dredging STWAVE 

runs for modeled borrow sites offshore Jones Inlet, New York. 

STWAVE 

Model Input 

Condition 

Percent 

Occurrence 

Hmo 

Wave Height 

(m) 

Peak Wave 

Period, Tp 

(sec) 

Peak Wave 

Direction, θp

(° true north) 

Direction Bin 

(grid relative) 

1A 4.8 0.7 4.0 92 0 to 18 

2A 6.1 0.8 4.0 112 18 to 36 

3A 6.8 0.8 4.0 112 36 to 54 

4A 7.3 0.7 4.0 137 54 to 72 

5A 9.9 0.8 4.0 157 72 to 90 

6A 13.5 0.8 4.0 162 90 to 108 

7A 9.7 1.0 4.0 182 108 to 126 

8A 4.9 1.0 4.0 202 126 to 144 

9A 3.0 0.7 4.0 227 144 to 162 

Period 

Band 1 

10A 3.1 0.7 4.0 247 162 to 180 

11A 2.1 1.3 9.1 112 18 to 36 

12A 2.7 1.4 9.1 117 36 to 54 

Period 

13A 2.2 1.4 9.1 137 54 to 72 

Band 2 

14A 1.6 1.6 9.1 137 72 to 90 

Table 4-2. Input wave spectra parameters used for existing and post-dredging STWAVE 

runs for modeled borrow sites offshore Shark River Inlet, New Jersey. 

STWAVE 

Model Input 

Condition 

Percent 

Occurrence 

Hmo 

Wave Height 

(m) 

Peak Wave 

Period, Tp

(sec) 

Peak Wave 

Direction, θp

(° true north)

Direction Bin (grid relative) 

1B 3.6 0.6 4.0 13 0 to 18 

2B 2.5 0.8 4.0 23 18 to 36 

3B 3.3 1.1 4.0 43 36 to 54 

4B 3.9 1.3 4.0 68 54 to 72 

5B 5.2 1.1 4.0 88 72 to 90 

6B 6.2 0.9 4.0 93 90 to 108 

7B 6.3 0.8 4.0 113 108 to 126 

8B 6.8 0.8 4.0 133 126 to 144 

9B 9.6 0.7 4.0 158 144 to 162 

Period 

Band 1 

10B 15.6 0.7 4.0 158 162 to 180 

11B 2.1 1.3 9.1 88 72 to 90 

12B 2.6 1.2 7.7 93 90 to 108 

13B 1.5 1.1 7.7 113 108 to 126 

14B 1.1 1.2 7.7 133 126 to 144 

15B 1.0 1.4 9.1 138 144 to 162 

Period 

Band 2 

16B 1.0 1.3 7.7 158 162 to 180 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 115

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

4.1.1.2 Grid Development 

 Input spectra and two coarse bathymetry grids were developed for each modeled area for 

simulating wave propagation over existing and post-dredging bathymetry. A fine grid, nested 

within coarse grids, was developed to obtain greater resolution of wave characteristics in the 

nearshore, landward of borrow sites. One coarse grid encompasses existing bathymetry over 

which representative wave conditions are propagated. The second coarse grid includes 

excavated depths at identified sand borrow sites over which the same representative wave 

conditions are propagated. Most recent surveys (see Section 3.0) were the primary source of 

bathymetric data for creating grids. However, these data were supplemented by more recent 

local bathymetric data and beach profiles where available. Contour plots of existing conditions 

grids for each modeled area are shown in Figures 4-7 (offshore southwestern Long Island) and 

4-8 (offshore northeastern New Jersey). 

Figure 4-7. Coarse model grid (200 x 200 m spacing) used for STWAVE simulations offshore 

southwestern Long Island. Depths are relative to NAVD. Borrow site locations are indicated 

by solid black lines, and fine grid limits are indicated by a dashed line. 

 Dimensional characteristics of each area grid are presented in Table 4-3. Geographical 

limits for each grid were chosen based on the wave conditions selected for model simulations. 

Wave conditions with relatively small angles to the shoreline require a wide grid so the area of 

potential impact does not occur within the shadow of the lateral grid boundaries. The coarse 

grid developed for offshore southwestern Long Island encompasses an area that extends 

approximately 14 km offshore and 65 km along-shore. Depths at the offshore boundary ranged 

between 19 and 32 m (NAVD) with a mean depth of approximately 26 m. The coarse grid 

developed for offshore northeastern New Jersey covers a region that extends approximately 

17 km offshore of Shark River Inlet and 53 km along-shore. Depths at the offshore boundary 

ranged between 21 and 38 m (NAVD), with a mean depth of approximately 27 m. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 116

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-8. Color contour plot of coarse model grid (200 m x 200 m grid spacing) used for STWAVE 

model simulations of waves offshore Shark River Inlet, New Jersey. Depths are relative to 

NAVD. Borrow site locations are indicated by solid black lines, and fine grid limits are 

indicated by a dashed line. 

 Post-dredging coarse grids were developed by imposing modifications to the existing 

conditions bathymetry; Table 4-4 presents the resource characteristics of modeled borrow sites. 

For each site, bathymetry was excavated to the indicated depth. Bathymetry deeper than the 

excavated depth was not modified. In addition to the coarse grids, a single fine grid was 

developed for each area to obtain greater resolution of waves in the nearshore landward of 

borrow sites. For each modeled area, the same fine grid was used for existing conditions and 

post-dredging simulations. Spatially varying boundary conditions (wave spectra) for fine grids 

were extracted from coarse grid simulations. As such, the fine grid solution was nested within 

the coarse grid solution. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 117

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Table 4-3. Numerical grid dimensions for offshore (coarse) and nearshore (fine) grids. 

Dimensions are given as cross-shore x along-shore. 

Coarse Grid 

(200-m spacing) 

Fine Grid 

Region (20-m spacing) 

Nodes Distance (km) Nodes Distance (km) 

Grid Angle 

(° true north)

Offshore Southwestern 

Long Island 85x335 17x67 221x1951 4.4x39.0 88 

Offshore Northeastern 

New Jersey 75x265 15x53 161x1601 3.2x32.0 8 

Table 4-4. Sand resource characteristics at potential borrow sites offshore northeastern 

New Jersey and southwestern Long Island, NY. 

Borrow 

Site 

Borrow Site 

Surface Area 

(x 106

 m2) 

Maximum 

Excavation 

Depth (m) 

Borrow 

Site Sand 

Volume 

(x 106

 m3)

Average 

Sediment 

Thickness 

(m) 

Shoal 

Relief (m)

D10 

(mm) 

D50 

(mm) 

D90 

(mm) 

H1 3.28 20 4.8 1.5 5 0.95 0.52 0.26 

H2 13.13 20 9.5 0.7 5 0.67 0.35 0.19 

3 9.40 19 11.2 1.2 2 1.92 1.13 0.36 

4W 12.23 20 19.8 1.6 4 0.65 0.36 0.22 

4E 9.39 20 16.6 1.8 4 1.05 0.45 0.27 

D10 = grain diameter above which 10% of the distribution is retained; D50 = median grain diameter; 

D90 = grain diameter above which 90% of the distribution is retained

4.1.2 Sediment Transport Potential 

 As a first step in evaluating sediment transport along the coastline of southwestern Long 

Island and northeastern New Jersey, calculations of sediment transport potential were 

performed to indicate the maximum quantity of sand transport possible based on a sedimentrich environment. Results from spectral wave modeling formed the basis for quantifying 

changes in sediment transport rates along the beach because wave-induced transport is a 

function of wave breaker height, wave period, and wave direction. Longshore transport 

depends on long-term fluctuations in incident wave energy and the resulting longshore current; 

therefore, annual transport rates were calculated from long-term wave statistics. 

 

 The sediment transport equation used for longshore analyses is based on the work of 

Rosati et al. (2002). In general, the longshore sediment transport rate is assumed to be 

proportional to the longshore wave energy flux at the breaker line, which is dependent on wave 

height and direction. Because the transport equation was calibrated in sediment-rich 

environments, it typically over predicts sediment transport rates. However, it provides a useful 

technique for comparing erosion/accretion trends along a shoreline of interest. 

 

 Sediment transport computations were based on wave information at breaking for each 

grid cell along the modeled coastline. This shoreline segment incorporates the influence of all 

changes to the nearshore wave climate associated with proposed dredging activities. 

Computations of sediment transport rates for each wave condition was performed and then 

weighted by the annual percentage occurrence. Sediment transport potential was computed for 

existing and post-dredging conditions. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 118

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 The volumetric longshore sand-transport rate, Ql , past a point on a shoreline is computed 

using the relationship: 

s ga

I Q − ′ = ( 1)ρ

l

l (4.4) 

where Il

 is the immersed-weight longshore sand-transport rate, s is the specific gravity of the 

sediment, a’ is the void ratio of the sediment, g is the acceleration of gravity, and ρ is the density 

of seawater. 

 For this study, Il

 was computed using two methods. The first method is commonly 

referred to as the CERC (Coastal Engineering Research Center) formula, 

KPs I l = l (4.5) 

where K is a dimensionless coefficient and Pls is the longshore-directed wave energy flux 

computed using the following relationship: 

s Hsb b

g P α

γ

ρ sin 2

16

5 / 2

3 / 2

l = (4.6) 

where Hsb is the significant wave height at breaking, γ is the coefficient for the inception of wave 

breaking (γ = Hb/hb), and αb is the breaking wave angle. A value of K = 0.4 was used for this 

study, appropriate for significant wave heights (computed by STWAVE), rather than the more 

familiar value K = 0.77, which is used with RMS wave height. 

 The second method used to compute the immersed-weight longshore sand-transport rate 

was described by Kamphuis (1990). This method is a modification to the original CERC formula 

that adds a dependency on median grain diameter of beach sand and the surf similarity 

parameter (Irabarren number), ξb, which is expressed as 

( )0.5

0 H / L

m

b

ξ b = (4.7) 

where m is the bottom slope, Hb is the wave-breaker height, and Lo is the incident deep-water 

wave length. The complete expression of Kamphuis is given by 

( ) () bT md Hs b

g I K g ξ θ

π

ρ sin 2

2

0.25 2.5 0.6

50

0.5

0.75

* −

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

l = (4.8) 

where the coefficient K* = 0.0013. 

4.2 MODEL RESULTS 

 Redistribution of wave energy and alteration of wave directions resulting from offshore 

sand excavation are expected to change longshore sediment transport patterns landward of 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 119

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

potential sand borrow sites offshore southwestern Long Island and northeastern New Jersey. 

Depending on the net direction of local sediment transport, the influence of borrow site 

conditions can either increase or decrease net littoral drift. Example model cases for each 

potential sand borrow site are discussed in the following subsections. Complete wave model 

output for the four modeled regions, showing wave heights and wave height difference plots 

between existing and post-dredging conditions for all modeled wave cases, is provided in 

Appendix C. 

4.2.1 Wave Modeling 

 From existing conditions model results, bottom features offshore northeastern New Jersey 

modified the wave field as it propagated shoreward. As an example, the shoal in the vicinity of 

Monmouth Beach, NJ (an area of approximately 10 m water depth 1.7 km offshore) refracts and 

focuses wave energy, resulting is an area of increased wave heights shoreward of the shoal 

(Figure 4-9). Wave heights landward of the shoal were about 0.2 m greater than wave heights 

seaward of the shoal. As the shoal focused wave energy and caused an increase in wave 

height in one area, there was a corresponding decrease in wave energy in adjacent areas. 

Because energy was conserved, wave focusing behind the shoal caused a reduction of energy 

at the southern edge of the shoal, which is illustrated by reduced wave heights. 

Figure 4-9. STWAVE output for the coarse grid (200 x 200 m grid cells) offshore Shark River Inlet in 

northeastern New Jersey (model case 13B; Hmo = 1.1 m, Tp = 7.7 sec, θpeak = 113°). Color 

contours indicate Hmo wave height. Vectors indicate mean wave direction. Seafloor 

contours are shown as black lines at a 10 m interval. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 120

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 In addition to the effects of bottom features far offshore, waves were refracted by straight 

and parallel bottom contours in the nearshore. In Figure 4-10, fine grid model results illustrate 

how wave directions changed as the wave field propagates shoreward. For the same eastsoutheast wave condition as in Figure 4-9, waves refracted and the mean direction of wave 

propagation near the shoreline became shore-normal (perpendicular to the shoreline). In 

addition to the change in wave direction, wave heights also were modified by nearshore 

bathymetry. Waves began to shoal (increase in height) about 200 m offshore and increased in 

height by 0.2 m before breaking began. Wave heights were reduced as energy was dissipated 

in the surf zone, which was about 60 m wide in this example. 

Figure 4-10. STWAVE output for the fine grid (20 x 20 m grid cells) offshore Shark River Inlet in 

northeastern New Jersey (model case 13B; Hmo = 1.1 m, Tp = 7.7 sec, θpeak = 113°). Color 

contours indicate Hmo wave height. Vectors indicate mean wave direction. Seafloor 

contours are shown as black lines at a 10-m interval. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 121

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Overall, post-dredging wave model output illustrated reduced wave heights landward of 

borrow sites and increased wave heights at the longshore limits of each borrow site. This effect 

was enhanced in cases with larger wave heights. As waves propagated across a borrow site 

(deeper water than the surrounding area), waves refracted away from the center of the borrow 

site and toward the shallower edges. The net effect was to create a shadow zone of reduced 

wave energy immediately landward of a borrow site and a zone of increased wave energy 

updrift and downdrift of a borrow site. 

 This shadowing effect was apparent in the wave height difference plot presented in Figure 

4-11. Color contours represent wave height differences between model results computed for 

existing and post-dredging conditions. For this particular wave case, maximum wave height 

reduction occurred landward of Site H1, where wave heights were reduced by 0.06 m. Areas of 

greatest wave height increase were identified along the northeastern edge of Site H1, where 

wave heights increased 0.02 m over existing conditions. Wave height changes at Site H2 were 

smaller, with a maximum wave height reduction of 0.03 m at the northeast extent of the site and 

a proximate area with a maximum increase of 0.01 m over existing conditions. 

Figure 4-11. Wave height difference plot (Hdifference = Hpost – Hexisting) for coarse grid model of offshore 

Shark River Inlet. Seafloor contours are shown at a 10-m interval. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 122

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Because these are spectral wave model results, and because different frequencies in the 

spectrum are refracted by varying degrees at the borrow sites, areas of increased and reduced 

wave height gradually diffuse as the wave field approaches shore. This resulted in smaller 

changes in wave heights close to the shoreline relative to those identified near the borrow sites 

(Figure 4-12). Another result of the energy diffusion process was that the length of shoreline 

affected by a borrow site (or combination of borrow sites) can be considerably longer than the 

borrow site. In Figure 4-12, the length of affected shoreline was approximately three times 

longer than the along-shore limits of the two borrow sites (i.e., the northern boundary corner of 

Site H1 and the south corner of Site H2). 

Figure 4-12. Wave height difference plot for fine grid model simulations offshore Shark River Inlet. 

Seafloor contours are shown at a 10-m interval. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 123

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

4.2.1.1 Offshore Southwestern Long Island 

 Examples of wave model output for existing conditions simulations offshore southwestern 

Long Island (seaward of Jones Inlet) for wave Cases 11A and 14A (Table 4-1) are presented in 

Figure 4-13 through 4-16. Figure 4-13 illustrates coarse grid results for wave Case 11A 

(Hs = 1.3 m, Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 112°). According to the hindcast record, waves from this 

direction occur 8.2 percent of the time. The shoals encompassed by Borrow Sites 4W and 4E 

had the greatest influence on waves in the modeled area; however, effects to waves were 

relatively small because these shoals are located in approximately 17 m water depth. Wave 

modeling results from wave Case 14A (Hs = 1.6 m, Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 137°) are illustrated in 

Figure 4-14. This case has a similar peak wave period, but a slightly greater wave height than 

Case 11A. Because the wave period is the same for both wave cases, waves refract over 

offshore shoals similarly. The primary difference between the wave cases is the offshore 

incident wave angle, which is more shore-normal in Case 14A. As a result, there is less change 

in wave direction as waves approach the shoreline. 

 Post-dredging wave height changes at Sites 3, 4W (4 west), and 4E (4 east) are 

documented in Figures 4-15 and 4-16 for Cases 11A and 14A, respectively. To simulate 

dredging at borrow sites, seafloor topography within each site was lowered to an isobathic level 

(-19 m for Site 3, and -20 m for Sites 4W and 4E). By lowering the shoal crest to a constant 

level, most material is removed near the center of the site. The difference plot in Figure 4-15 is 

computed by subtracting waves heights for existing conditions from those derived for postdredging conditions. Therefore, negative difference values indicate areas where wave heights 

decrease after dredging occurs, and positive differences indicate areas where heights increase 

after dredging. 

Figure 4-13. STWAVE model output for offshore southwestern Long Island, wave Case 11A (Hs = 1.3 m, 

Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 112°). Color contours indicate wave height, and vectors show mean 

direction of wave propagation. Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 124

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-14. STWAVE model output for offshore southwestern Long Island, wave Case 14A (Hs = 1.6 m, 

Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 137°). Color contours indicate wave height, and vectors show mean 

direction of wave propagation. Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. 

Figure 4-15. Wave height change between existing and post-dredging conditions for offshore 

southwestern Long Island, wave Case 11A (Hs = 1.3 m, Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 112°). 

Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. 

 For wave Case 11A, borrow sites have no measurable influence on waves over a long 

section of coastline (>44 km), but changes on the order of 0.01 m do occur along 20 km of coast 

in the combined shadow of the three borrow sites (Figure 4-15). At Site 4E, maximum wave 

height decrease was approximately 0.05 m, and the maximum increase was 0.10 m at the 

landward boundary of the site. At Site 4W, maximum wave height increase was 0.10 m, and 

maximum wave height decrease was 0.09 m. Seafloor excavation at Site 3 produced smallest 

wave height changes for borrow sites offshore southwestern Long Island, with a maximum 

decrease of 0.06 m and a maximum increase of 0.04 m. Minimal computed changes at Site 3 

may be due to the relatively small volume of sand excavated from this site, and because 

changes in seafloor elevation for post-dredging conditions are less (approximately 2 m change 

for Site 3, versus 4 m for Sites 4W and 4E). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 125

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-16. Wave height change between existing and post-dredging conditions for offshore 

southwestern Long Island, wave Case 14A (Hs = 1.6 m, Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 137°). 

Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. 

 For Case 14A, changes in wave field propagation resulting from dredging at the three 

offshore borrow sites were smaller than those computed for Case 11A, even though the wave 

height for this case is larger. This effect may be due to a combination of incident wave angle 

and directional orientation of shoals upon which borrow sites are located. For Case 11A, the 

wave approach angle is oriented closer to the centerline axis of the shoal ridge, which causes 

slightly more wave energy focusing than in Case 14A. The wave shadow zone from these three 

sites affects approximately 45 km of shoreline, but greatest changes are on the order of 0.01 m 

and occurs within a 4 km stretch of shoreline at the western extent of Jones Beach (Figure 

4-16). At Site 4E, maximum wave height changes range between +0.07 and -0.04 m. At Site 

4W, wave height changes are similar in magnitude (+0.07 and -0.05 m). For Borrow Site 3, 

wave height changes are equivalent to those for Case 11A, with a maximum wave height 

increase of 0.04 m and a corresponding decrease of 0.06 m. 

4.2.1.2 Offshore Northeastern New Jersey 

 Wave model output for offshore northeastern New Jersey (Borrow Sites H1 and H2) are 

shown in Figures 4-17 through 4-20. Figure 4-17 shows coarse grid results for wave case 11B, 

a 1.3 m, 9.1 sec wave propagating from the E; waves from this direction occurred about 2.1 

percent of the time. For this wave case, minimal wave focusing was illustrated landward of the 

shoal field encompassing the designated borrow site boundaries. The approximate minimum 

water depths at Sites H1 and H2 are 16 and 17 m, respectively. For the shoal at Site H1, 

maximum wave height increase was 0.13 m due to the focusing effect of the sand ridge. As 

illustrated in other areas (see Figure 4-9), bathymetric features adjacent to designated borrow 

sites may affect propagating waves. For the modeled area offshore northeastern New Jersey, a 

nearshore ridge centered offshore Monmouth Beach has a smaller impact on wave heights 

compared with the impact from ridges farther offshore. However, shoreline impacts from this 

nearshore feature are potentially more significant than the impact from offshore shoals at the 

borrow sites because it is closer to shore and its area of influence is not as diffuse along the 

shoreline. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 126

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-17. STWAVE output for offshore northeastern New Jersey, wave Case 11B (Hs = 1.3 m, 

Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 88°). Color contours indicate wave height, and vectors show mean 

direction of wave propagation. Bottom contours are also shown at 10-m intervals. 

 For wave Case 16B (a 1.3 m, 7.7 sec wave propagating from the SSE), wave height 

changes at Sites H1 and H2 are not as pronounced as those for Case 11B (Figure 4-18). The 

primary reason for this difference is that offshore bathymetry has less effect on wave focusing 

for shorter peak period incident waves. Closer to shore in shallower water, approaching waves 

eventually are influenced by the seafloor as they refract to a more shore normal angle. 

 Wave height differences resulting from numerically excavating Sites H1 and H2 are 

illustrated in Figure 4-19 for wave Case 11B. Wave height changes along the shoreline are 

relatively small and diffuse, and wave height changes at the modeled shoreline are less than 

0.01 m. At Site H1, maximum changes in wave height ranged from -0.06 to +0.04 m. At Site 

H2, maximum wave heights changes decreased by 0.05 m and increased by 0.03 m. Overall, 

wave height changes were quite small relative to natural wave height variability. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 127

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Wave height changes for Case 16B (Figure 4-20) indicate that borrow sites have an 

overlapping influence at the shoreline for waves propagating from the SSE. Similar to the 

results of Case 11B, wave height changes at the shoreline relative to potential offshore sand 

dredging are never greater than 0.01 m. Wave height changes at borrow sites are smaller than 

those for Case 11B, primarily due to a shorter wave period for Case 16B. Site H1 resides within 

the wave shadow zone for Site H2, but wave height changes remain relatively small. At Site 

H1, maximum wave height changes range from +0.04 to -0.04 m; at Site H2, maximum changes 

were half this magnitude (+0.02 to -0.02 m). 

Figure 4-18. STWAVE output for offshore northeastern New Jersey, wave Case 16B (Hs = 1.3 m, 

Tpeak = 7.7 sec, θpeak = 158°). Color contours indicate wave height, and vectors show mean 

direction of wave propagation. Bottom contours are also shown at 10-m intervals. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 128

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-19. Wave height change between existing and post-dredging conditions for offshore 

northeastern New Jersey, wave Case 11B (Hs = 1.3 m, Tpeak = 9.1 sec, θpeak = 88°). Seafloor 

contours are shown at 10-m intervals. 

4.2.2 Sediment Transport Potential 

 Comparisons of average annual sediment transport potential were performed for existing 

and post-dredging conditions to document the relative impact of dredging at borrow sites on 

longshore sediment transport processes. Sediment transport potential is a useful indicator of 

shoreline impacts caused by offshore borrow sites because the computations include the 

borrow site influence on wave height and direction. Though largest changes to the wave field 

occur at a borrow site, impacts cannot be adequately assessed without determining the 

resulting impact to coastal processes at the shoreline. As an example, a large borrow site that 

causes a large change in wave height at the site, but is far offshore, could have less shoreline 

impact than a much smaller site located closer to shore. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 129

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-20. Wave height change between existing and post-dredging conditions for offshore 

northeastern New Jersey, wave Case 16B (Hs = 1.3 m, Tpeak = 7.7 sec, θpeak = 158°). 

Seafloor contours are shown at 10-m intervals. 

 Net sediment transport potential associated with average annual conditions (Tables 4-1 

and 4-2) was computed for shorelines landward of proposed sand borrow sites. Transport 

potential was computed using fine grid model results. In addition to the average annual results, 

wave model simulations and sediment transport potential calculations were performed for 

20 individual years of the OCTI wave hindcast data to provide information necessary to develop 

a ±0.5σ significance envelope. Wave modeling for 20 individual years proceeded in a similar 

fashion to the modeling effort for average annual conditions (i.e., wave data for each separate 

year was binned according to direction and period to develop several wave cases for each 

year). For this study, more than 1200 individual wave model runs were completed to determine 

average annual conditions and associated transport significance envelopes. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 130

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Mean sediment transport potential calculated for offshore southwestern Long Island for 

the modeled 20-year period is shown with computed transport curves for the 20 individual years 

used to determine the ±0.5σ significance envelope (Figures 4-21). The beaches east of Jones 

Inlet indicated net westerly transport ranging from about 54,000 m3

/yr at Fire Island Inlet to 

170,000 m3

/yr at Jones Inlet. Along Long Beach, net westerly transport increased from about 

50,000 m3

/yr west of Jones Inlet to a maximum of about 150,000 m3/yr at the approximate midpoint of the barrier beach, before decreasing to about 88,000 m3

/yr at East Rockaway Inlet. Net 

transport was always west directed for the modeled shoreline reach, and the transport 

significance envelope for 20 individual years of wave data ranged from a maximum of about 

290,000 m3

/yr along the western end of Jones Beach and central Long Beach to about 

125,000 m3

/yr along eastern Jones Beach. For the length of the modeled shoreline, the single 

year with the least modeled net westerly transport was 1988, and the year with the greatest 

westerly transport potential was 1995. 

Figure 4-21. Average annual sediment transport potential (solid black line) computed for the shoreline 

landward of Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E. Net transport potential curves determined for 

20 individual years of wave hindcast data are indicated by the gray shaded area. The ±0.5σ

significance envelope (black dot-dash lines) about the mean net transport was determined 

using the 20 net potential curves. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 131

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Average annual transport results along the shoreline landward of Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 

4E documented gross westerly- and easterly-directed transport potential, with average net 

transport, for the 20-year modeled period (Figure 4-22). The modeled shoreline had an 

overwhelming gross westerly transport, with a maximum gross easterly transport potential of 

20,000 m3

/yr. Maximum gross easterly transport occurred about 3 km west of Jones and Fire 

Island Inlets. 

 

 Mean sediment transport potential along the northeast coast of New Jersey for the 

modeled 20-year period is shown with computed transport curves for the 20 individual years 

used to determine the ±0.5σ significance envelope (Figure 4-23). Results indicated that the 

dominant transport direction was determined to be net northerly but more bi-directional for 

shorter term annual results. There was an approximate ±55,000 m3

/yr range in annual net 

transport rates. Long-term potential transport rates reached a maximum of approximately 

30,000 m3

/yr within the modeled study area, and a minimum occurred just north of Shark River 

Inlet. Results of transport potential calculations indicated that the year with the greatest net 

southerly transport was 1987, and the year with the greatest northerly directed transport was 

1995. 

Figure 4-22. Average net transport potential (black line) with gross westerly- and easterly-directed 

transport potential (red and blue lines, respectively) for the shoreline landward of Borrow 

Sites 3, 4W, and 4E. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 132

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-23. Average annual sediment transport potential (solid black line) computed for the shoreline 

landward of Borrow Sites H1 and H2. Net transport potential curves determined for 

20 individual years of wave hindcast data are indicated by the gray shaded area. The ±0.5σ

significance envelope (black dot-dash lines) about the mean net transport was determined 

using the 20 net potential curves. 

 Average annual results for the northeast New Jersey coast show the breakdown of gross 

northerly- and southerly-directed transport potential, with average net transport, for the total 

20-year modeled period (Figure 4-24). The transport potential along this stretch of coast is 

more bi-directional than the modeled southwestern Long Island shoreline. Total gross transport 

potential along the modeled northeast New Jersey shoreline is approximately 100,000 m3

/yr, 

though average transport potential is nearly an order of magnitude smaller. 

 

 Results presented in Figures 4-23 and 4-24 indicate that this region falls within the nodal 

zone that exists along the northeastern New Jersey shoreline. Within this section of coast, 

sediment transport ranges from southerly in the south to northerly along most of the coast north 

of Manasquan Inlet. Location of the nodal zone has been described by Ashley et al. (1986) and 

others (see Section 3.0). A range of positional estimates for the nodal zone exists along the 

96 km stretch of shoreline between Beach Haven Inlet (south) and Monmouth Beach (north). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 133

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-24. Average net transport potential (black line) with gross southerly- and northerly-directed 

transport potential (red and blue lines, respectively) for the shoreline landward of Borrow 

Sites H1 and H2. 

4.2.2.1 Model Comparison with Historical Shoreline Change 

 To ensure that spectral wave modeling and associated longshore sediment transport 

potential could be used effectively to evaluate long-term alterations to the littoral system, a 

comparison of model predictions with observed shoreline change was performed. This analysis 

provided a semi-quantitative method for determining whether a) wave-induced longshore 

transport was responsible for observed shoreline change, and b) long-term shoreline change 

trends were consistent with shorter time-period (20-year) sediment transport potential analyses. 

An evaluation of model output was performed using a comparison of computed gradients in 

sediment transport to historical shoreline change data. The basis for this comparison is the 

relationship between shoreline movement and the longshore gradient in sediment transport. 

Simply expressed, this relationship is 

 t

x

y

Q

∂

∂

∝

∂

∂ (4.9) 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 134

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

where Q is sediment transport, y is along-shore distance, x is cross-shore position of the 

shoreline, and t is time. A comparison of results should illustrate similar trends in long-term 

shoreline change and transport potential computed using wave conditions that represent longterm average conditions. The gradient in sediment transport potential was not expected to 

perfectly simulate this process, but good general agreement between these two quantities 

would suggest that the transport potential model reasonably represented long-term coastal 

processes for a given area, and thus, the model’s ability to predict likely impacts that may result 

from offshore dredging. 

 The time variation in shoreline position was determined from an analysis of historical 

shoreline data for each of the study areas. Regional change analysis provided a without-project 

assessment of shoreline response for comparison with predicted changes in wave-energy 

focused at the shoreline resulting from potential offshore sand dredging activities. Because 

continuous measurements of historical shoreline change are available at 30-m along-shore 

intervals (see Section 3.0), model results (wave and sediment transport) at discrete intervals 

along the coast can be compared with historical data to develop process/response relationships 

for evaluating potential impacts. 

For southwestern Long Island beaches, long-term shoreline change data covering the 

period 1878 to 1997 were used to quantify trends (see Section 3.0). Along-shore variations in 

sediment transport were determined using computed sediment transport potential for each 

shoreline for modeled and existing conditions. Difficulties with comparisons arise with modeled 

shorelines due to long histories of extensive beach nourishments and shoreline development, 

particularly for the Jones Beach shoreline (Kana, 1999 and USACE, 2003). 

A comparison between measured shoreline change and the modeled sand transport 

gradient for the southwestern Long Island shoreline is shown in Figure 4-25. Trends in 

historical shoreline change on Long Beach generally agree with modeled transport gradients. 

Long-term shoreline change rates indicate that the beach landward of Borrow Site 3 ranges 

from erosional (approximately 2 m/yr) near Jones Inlet to accreting (approximately 5 m/yr) along 

the western end of Long Beach. The computed gradient in sediment transport potential 

illustrated greater erosion near Jones Inlet, and a gradual increase in accretion along western 

Long Beach. Along Jones Beach (i.e., the shoreline from Jones Inlet to Fire Island Inlet), a 

comparison between shoreline change data and model output of the transport gradient is more 

complicated. Difficulties arise due to large nourishment projects along this shoreline, including a 

31 x 106

 m3 nourishment in 1927 (Kana, 1999) and a series of four relic inlets that have existed 

on Jones Beach in the past 120 years (Smith and Leatherman, 2000). 

 For offshore northeastern New Jersey, shoreline change data for the period 1855/75 to 

1933 were compared with the computed gradient in sediment transport potential. Long-term 

and short-term shoreline change rates indicate that the modeled area is stable-to-erosional, with 

change rates generally less than 1 m/yr (Figure 4-26). The computed gradient in sediment 

transport potential indicates a relatively stable shoreline, with few areas of significantly different 

change rates than background. A couple of exceptions include a small erosional peak at 

Manasquan Inlet and an erosional area downdrift (north) of Shark River Inlet, which roughly 

correspond to areas of increased erosion in the shoreline change data set. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 135

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-25. Historical shoreline change and gradient of modeled transport potential (dQ/dy) for the 

modeled shoreline landward of Sites 3, 4W, and 4E offshore southwestern Long Island. The 

middle plot illustrates measured shoreline change for the period 1878 to 1997. The gradient 

in transport potential was determined using the total net transport computed using 20 years 

of wave hindcast data. 

4.2.2.2 Significance of proposed dredging 

 The significance of changes to longshore transport along the modeled shoreline resulting 

from dredging proposed borrow sites to their maximum design depths was determined using the 

method described in Kelley et al. (2004). For each modeled area, dredging impact significance 

was determined using several wave model runs in addition to the runs executed to determine 

the magnitude of borrow site impacts from existing to post-dredging conditions. Twenty 1-year 

periods were run for each area using the same directional binning as existing and post-dredging 

runs. Sediment transport potential was computed for each 1-year period. The standard 

deviation of transport potential then was computed at each grid node, providing an estimate of 

annual variability in sediment transport potential along the shoreline. As such, this method 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 136

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

incorporated the temporal and spatial variability of transport potential along the modeled 

shoreline. The criterion for determining dredging significance was one-half of a standard 

deviation (±0.5σ). For modeled borrow site impacts that exceed this limit, the borrow site would 

be rejected as designed. 

Figure 4-26. Historical shoreline change and gradient of modeled transport potential (dQ/dy) for the 

modeled shoreline landward of Sites H1 and H2 offshore northeastern New Jersey. The 

middle plot illustrates measured shoreline change for the period 1855/75 to 1933. The 

gradient in transport potential was determined using the total net transport computed using 

20 years of wave hindcast data. 

 Results of the significance analysis for borrow sites offshore southwestern Long Island 

indicated that the ±0.5σ significance envelope increased along Jones Beach from ±20,000 m3

/yr 

at Fire Island Inlet to ±40,000 m3

/yr at Jones Inlet (Figure 4-27). The significance envelope for 

Long Beach had a similar range, with a maximum value midway between Jones Inlet and East 

Rockaway Inlet. Potential dredging impacts to longshore transport rates from excavation at 

Sites 3, 4W, and 4E are well within the transport significance envelope. As such, proposed 

dredging at these sites would not result in significant modifications to coastal processes along 

this shoreline. Potential dredging impacts are computed by subtracting the transport potential 

curve computed for existing seafloor conditions from the potential computed for post-dredging 

conditions. Largest calculated differences between existing and post-dredging transport 

potential occur east of Jones Inlet, where the transport rate becomes more westerly by 

3,000 m3

/yr. The resulting change is negligible, even though offshore sand extractions are large 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 137

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-27. Transport potential difference between existing and post-dredging conditions, with transport 

significance envelope for the shoreline landward of Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E. Negative 

change indicates that the post-dredging transport potential is more southerly than the 

computed existing transport potential. 

(i.e., a total dredged volume of 48 x 106

 m3 for all three sites). Shoreline impacts are negligible 

due to the relatively deep water at potential borrow sites (19 m for Site 3 and 20 m for Sites 

4W and 4E), their distance offshore, and wave climate (dominated by relatively short-period 

waves). 

 Results of the impact significance analysis for sites offshore northeastern New Jersey 

indicated that the ±0.5σ significance envelope computed for this area was generally constant at 

±15,000 m3

/yr (Figure 4-28). Impacts from dredging Sites H1 and H2 are well within the 

significance envelope, and proposed sites would be acceptable under the simulated conditions. 

Similar to sites offshore Long Island, potential shoreline impacts were negligible due to the 

relatively deep water at potential borrow sites (20 m for Sites H1 and H2), their distance 

offshore, and wave climate (dominated by relatively short-period waves). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 138

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 4-28. Transport potential difference between existing and post-dredging conditions, with transport 

significance envelope for the shoreline landward of Borrow Sites H1 and H2. Negative 

change indicates that the post-dredging transport potential is more southerly than the 

computed existing transport potential. 

4.3 SUMMARY 

 This section documented results of wave modeling and sediment transport potential 

computations performed to assess the significance of impacts that may result from dredging 

sand at five proposed borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long 

Island. STWAVE simulated how wave fields were modified by bathymetry. Dominant wave 

conditions were developed using a 20-year wave hindcast performed specifically for this study 

at stations offshore investigated borrow sites. The same wave conditions were run for existing 

and post-dredging conditions. Wave model output was then used to determine sediment 

transport potential along the entire shoreline. Along-shore variations in the computed gradient 

of sand transport were compared to measured shoreline change to ensure that spectral wave 

modeling and associated longshore sediment transport potential could be used effectively to 

evaluate long-term alterations to the littoral system. 

 Once the change in sediment transport potential was determined for existing and postdredging conditions, the significance of these changes was evaluated by applying a criterion 
MMS Study 2004-044 Wave Climate Impact 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 139

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

developed by Kelley et al. (2004) based on the natural temporal and spatial variability of 

sediment transport along a modeled coastline. Each of the 20 years in the wave hindcast 

record were modeled individually to determine the significance criterion envelope. The standard 

deviation of sediment transport potential then was computed for each modeled area. A 

determination of dredging significance was made by comparing predicted change in transport 

potential between existing and post-dredging conditions to a significance envelope of ±0.5σ in 

natural transport variability along the shoreline. It was determined that no significant changes in 

longshore sediment transport potential would result from modeled borrow site configurations for 

any of the proposed borrow sites. 
Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 140

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

5.0 CIRCULATION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 

DYNAMICS 

 This section analyzes the dominant physical processes on the inner continental shelf 

offshore southwestern Long Island and northeastern New Jersey (New York Bight) and 

discusses circulation, wave, and sediment transport processes to evaluate potential 

environmental impacts of offshore sand mining. Current and wave processes provide physical 

mechanisms for moving sediment throughout the coastal zone. The following discussion 

documents the physical mechanisms potentially impacted by sand mining within specific 

offshore locations. 

5.1 CURRENTS AND CIRCULATION 

 Circulation patterns observed at specific locations within the study area were evaluated 

relative to potential offshore sand mining operations. The following discussion uses current 

measurements obtained during previous studies in the New York Bight to provide an 

understanding of temporal variations of inner shelf circulation (time scales ranging from hours to 

months). Analyses presented in this section describe circulation characteristics within the study 

area, including major forcing influences, time scales of variability, and the magnitude of resulting 

currents. The results from this section are used to provide estimates of sediment transport 

potential at offshore borrow sites. 

5.1.1 Historical Data 

 Available data documenting circulation patterns in the New York Bight include Acoustic 

Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) observations recorded at inlets located along the southwestern 

Long Island and northeastern New Jersey shorelines; ADCP data collected offshore Little Egg 

Inlet, NJ at the Long-term Ecosystem Observatory (LEO-15); ADCP and current meter 

measurements collected at the Hudson Shelf Valley (Butman et al., 2003); and hydrodynamic 

modeling results for the New York Bight (Scheffner et al., 1994). Data were evaluated with 

respect to borrow site proximity and appropriate geomorphic representation. Of the available 

data sets, ADCP and current meter observations by Butman et al. (2003) along the Hudson 

Shelf Valley were determined to be best suited for representing borrow site conditions. Data 

collected at inlets along the New York and New Jersey coastlines were excluded due to 

differences in flow characteristics associated with channels relative to shelf environments, and 

data from the LEO-15 site were excluded due the distance between these stations and the 

borrow sites. Of the available Hudson Shelf Valley data, measurements recorded at Stations D 

and E (Figure 5-1) were chosen based on relative bathymetric similarities and borrow site 

proximity. Current flows at Stations A, B, C, and F were influenced by the geomorphology of the 

Hudson Shelf Valley and do not reflect bathymetric characteristics of the borrow sites. Data 

selected for this analysis were obtained over a 5-month period from early December to mid-April 

and represent a high-energy environment due to the increased frequency of storm events 

typical for the winter season. Hydrodynamic modeling data were used to compare trends 

observed for the winter months with variations during summer months. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 141

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 5-1. Current meter and borrow site locations in the New York Bight. 

 Station D is located in approximately 26 m water depth on the continental shelf south of 

Long Island, approximately 16.5 km east of the Hudson Shelf Valley (40°18.01’ N, 73°35.99’ W; 

Butman et al., 2003). Current profiles at Station D were recorded with an RD Instruments 

ADCP (300 kHz Workhorse) mounted on a tripod approximately 3 m above the sea floor. Data 

from the ADCP were complied in 1-m bins, with a blanking distance of 1.8 m. Bottom currents 

were recorded with two Benthic Acoustic Stress Sensors (BASS) mounted on the tripod 0.4 and 

1.0 m above the sea floor (Butman et al., 2003). Figure 5-2 illustrates the location of the tripod 

mooring, bottom photographs, and sediment grab samples. The background image represents 

backscatter intensity from multibeam surveys, where backscatter intensity is shown as a suite of 

eight colors ranging from blue (fine-grained sediment) to red (rock outcrops and coarse-grained 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 142

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

sediment) with bathymetric contours in white. Contours illustrate shallower bathymetry west of 

the Station D and deeper bathymetry to the southeast. Surface sediment texture is documented 

with a photograph below the map. All sediment samples associated with Station D contained at 

least 99% sand, and median grain size ranged from 0.13 to 0.15 mm (fine sand). 

Figure 5-2. Location of current meter mooring Station D on the Long Island shelf to the east of the 

Hudson Shelf Valley (~26 m water depth; see Figure 5-1) showing the location of the tripod 

mooring, bottom photographs, and sediment grab samples. The photograph below the map 

illustrates bottom topography and sediment texture representative of the area surrounding 

the mooring tripod (from Butman et al., 2003). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 143

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Station E was located in approximately 25 m water depth offshore Long Branch, NJ, 

approximately 6.3 km west of the Hudson Shelf Valley (40°14.87’ N, 73°51.06’ W). Current 

profiles at Station E were recorded with an RD Instruments ADCP (300 kHz Workhorse) 

mounted on a tripod approximately 2 m above the sea floor. Data from the ADCP were 

complied in 1-m bins, with a blanking distance of about 1.8 m. Bottom currents were recorded 

with a Modular Acoustic Velocity Sensor (MAVS) mounted on the tripod 0.4 m above the sea 

floor (Butman et al., 2003). Figure 5-3 illustrates the location of the tripod mooring, bottom 

photographs, and sediment grab samples. The background image represents backscatter 

intensity from multibeam surveys, where backscatter intensity is shown as a suite of eight colors 

ranging from blue (finer-grained sediments) to red (rock outcrops and coarse-grained 

sediments) with bathymetric contours in white. Contours illustrate a north-south elongated 

bathymetric high located to the west of Station E. Variations in surface sediment texture are 

documented with photographs below the map. All sediment samples associated with the low 

backscatter area west of Station E contained at least 99% sand, and median grain size ranged 

from 0.20 to 0.27 mm (fine to medium sand). One sediment sample, located east of Station E in 

the high backscatter area in Figure 5-3, contained 44% gravel and 54% sand (bottom right 

image), resulting in a median grain size of 0.81 mm (coarse sand). 

 Hudson Shelf Valley current observations were obtained from the USGS, Woods Hole, as 

hourly averaged and low-pass filtered data. Low-pass filtered data were processed at the 

USGS to remove tidal constituents and were sub-sampled every 6 hours. Data were received 

with velocity separated into north and east components and oriented with respect to true north 

(Figure 5-4). At Applied Coastal, data were converted into degrees and separated into 22.5 

degree bins centered on the 16 inter-cardinal points (N, NNE, NE, ENE, E, etc). Data also were 

filtered to remove anomalous recordings and all velocity values were rounded to the nearest 1 

cm/s. Percent occurrence by velocity and direction was evaluated, with maximum velocity, 

corresponding direction, mean velocity, mean direction, and standard deviation calculated from 

the data. Values were plotted in rose plots (Figure 5-5), with velocity represented as grayscale 

in the inter-cardinal bars and percent occurrence represented by the length of the bar. In some 

cases, low-pass data were unreliable due to a low percentage of valid data points. The lower 

left corner of each graph displays the percentage of reliable data points used in generating the 

rose plot. 

 Scheffner et al. (1994) conducted hydrodynamic modeling of currents in the New York 

Bight based on water surface height and vertical temperature and salinity gradients for summer 

months. Hydrodynamic model results, when run with zero wind and inflows of fresh water, 

illustrated a tendency for currents to flow from northeast to southwest along the continental 

shelf. Two general exceptions to this trend included a northerly flow along the coast of New 

Jersey and a flow reversal along the Hudson Shelf Valley, where currents at the northern extent 

tend to bend northward toward the shore of Long Island and currents in the south tend to flow 

offshore down the valley (Figure 5-6). A second modeling scenario was generated with summer 

inflow from the Hudson River and included a southwesterly wind force of 28 dynes/cm2

 

(~3.9 m/s). The primary location impacted by this simulation was nearshore regions, enhancing 

northerly flow along the Long Island continental shelf. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 144

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 5-3. Location of current meter mooring Station E on the northern New Jersey shelf to the west of 

the Hudson Shelf Valley (~25 m water depth; see Figure 5-1) showing the location of the 

tripod mooring, bottom photographs, and sediment grab samples. The photographs below 

the map illustrate bottom topography and sediment texture representative of the low 

backscatter intensity area west of the tripod (blue) and the high backscatter intensity area 

east of the tripod (green to red) (from Butman et al., 2003). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 145

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Station D: Bottom Current and Variability, BASS Data 

Station E: Bottom Current and Variability, MAVS Data 

Figure 5-4. Hourly averaged bottom current speed and variability at Station D (December 5, 1999 to 

April 15, 2000 at 25 meters below the surface [mbs]) and Station E (December 4, 1999 to 

April 15, 2000 at 24.6 mbs). Low-passed plots exclude tidal currents (from Butman et al., 

2003). 

Figure 5-5. Speed and direction for surface currents at Station D, December 5, 1999 to April 15, 2000. 

The percentage of reliable data points is provided in the lower left corner of each plot. 

Current speeds are represented by percent occurrence and shading in the inter-cardinal 

bars. The length of each bar represents total percent occurrence by direction (data from 

Butman et al., 2003). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 146

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 5-6. Summer current flows in the New York Bight. Left panel: modeled currents with no wind and 

no river inflow. Right panel: modeled current flows with southwesterly wind of 28 dynes/cm2

(~3.9 m/s) and Hudson River summer inflow rates (from Scheffner et al., 1994). 

5.1.1.1 Description and Analysis of Observed Currents 

 Butman et al. (2003) measured currents at Stations D and E for the period from 

December 4, 1999 to April, 15 2000. Data analysis revealed considerable variability in current 

direction and velocity. Overall, the predominant direction of surface flow at Stations D and E 

was similar, varying from southeast (Station D; Figure 5-7) to south-southeast (Station E; Figure 

5-8). Surface current magnitudes also were consistent, showing similar maximums, means, and 

standard deviations. Bottom current measurements illustrated greater variability in direction and 

magnitude. Station D showed predominant bottom current flow varying from east-southeast to 

west, while the predominant bottom current flow at Station E varied from north to southsoutheast (Figures 5-9 and 5-10). Differences in bottom flow between stations may be 

explained by the presence of the Hudson Shelf Valley, which bisects the continental shelf in this 

region causing currents to veer to the north as they flow cross contour into the bathometric low 

from northeast to southwest. Strong northerly flow within the valley prevents currents south and 

west of this area from flowing to the east-northeast. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 147

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 5-7. Surface current speed and direction east of the Hudson Shelf Valley for Station D, 

December 5, 1999 to April 15, 2000. Current speeds are represented by percent occurrence 

and shading in the inter-cardinal bars. The length of each bar represents total percent 

occurrence by direction (data from Butman et al., 2003). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 148

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 

Figure 5-8. Surface current speed and direction west of the Hudson Shelf Valley for Station E, 

December 4, 1999 to April 15, 2000. Current speeds are represented by percent occurrence 

and shading in the inter-cardinal bars. The length of each bar represents total percent 

occurrence by direction (data from Butman et al., 2003). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 149

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 5-9. Bottom current speed (25 mbs) and direction east of the Hudson Shelf Valley for Station D, 

December 5, 1999 to April 15, 2000. Current speeds are represented by percent occurrence 

and shading in the inter-cardinal bars. The length of each bar represents total percent 

occurrence by direction (data from Butman et al., 2003). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 150

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 5-10. Bottom current speed (24.6 mbs) and direction west of the Hudson Shelf Valley for Station 

E, December 4, 1999 to April 15, 2000. Current speeds are represented by percent 

occurrence and shading in the inter-cardinal bars. The length of each bar represents total 

percent occurrence by direction (data from Butman et al., 2003). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 151

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Predominant surface flows recorded between December 5 and April 15 at Station D were 

to the southeast (13% of total), while bottom currents measured 25 mbs predominately flowed 

east-southeast (11% of total). Surface flow recorded at Station E between December 4 and April 

15 was predominantly south-southeast (12% of total) and bottom currents (24.6 mbs) were 

dominated by north-northwest flow (19% of total). Wind data collected by the National Data 

Buoy Center (NDBC) at Buoy #40255 recorded predominant wind direction for same time 

interval to the east-southeast (12% of total) (Figure 5-11). 

Figure 5-11. Wind speed and direction from NDBC Buoy #40255; December 1, 1999 to April 30, 2000. 

Wind speeds are represented by percent occurrence and shading in the inter-cardinal bars. 

The length of each bar represents total percent occurrence by direction (data from Butman 

et al., 2003). 

 Maximum surface current velocity at Station D was 135 cm/s to the southeast, with a 

mean speed of 67 cm/s (±23 cm/s) in the same direction. After filtering tidal currents (low-pass 

filtered), maximum current speed was reduced to 95 cm/s to the southwest, with a mean speed 

of 59 cm/s (±17 cm/s) to the southeast. Maximum bottom current speed at 25 m below the 

surface at Station D was 35 cm/s flowing east, with a mean speed of 8 cm/s (±5 cm/s) flowing 

southeast (see Figure 5-4). Low-pass filtering of these data produced a minimal reduction in 

maximum current speed to 21 cm/s to the southeast; the mean current was 6 cm/s (±4 cm/s) to 

the south-southeast. Furthermore, monthly variations in mean flow indicate only minor changes 

in current direction when tidal currents are filtered from the record (Figure 5-12). These 

observations suggest that wind-driven currents dominate the total current signal at Station D. 

 Maximum surface current velocity at Station E was 138 cm/s flowing south, with a mean 

velocity of 65 cm/s (±22 cm/s) flowing southeast. Low-pass filtering of tide-induced currents 

resulted in a reduction in maximum surface current speed to 84 cm/s to the north, with a mean 

speed of 55 cm/s (±16 cm/s) to the southeast. The maximum bottom current velocity at 24.6 m 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 152

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

below the surface at Station E was 26 cm/s flowing north, with a mean velocity of 6 cm/sec 

(±4 cm/s) flowing north (see Figure 5-4). After applying a low-pass filter, maximum bottom 

current speed was reduced to 20 cm/s to the north, and mean current speed was 5 cm/s 

(±4 cm/s) to the south-southeast. In addition, monthly variations in mean flow illustrated 

insignificant changes in current direction when tidal currents were filtered from the record 

(Figure 5-13). These observations again suggest that wind-driven currents dominate the total 

current signal at Station E. 

Hourly-Averaged Mean Flow at Station D 

Low-Pass Filtered Mean Flow at Station D 

Figure 5-12. Monthly observed mean current flow and the variability (shown as an ellipse centered 

around the tip of the mean flow arrow) for near-bottom current for Station D. Up is to the 

north and right is to the east. The current ellipse calculated from hour-averaged data is 

typically dominated by tidal currents, whereas low-pass filtered mean flow has tidal currents 

removed (from Butman et al., 2003). 

Hourly-Averaged Mean Flow at Station E 

Low-Pass Filtered Mean Flow at Station E 

Figure 5-13. Monthly observed mean current flow and the variability (shown as an ellipse centered 

around the tip of the mean flow arrow) for near-bottom current for Station E. Up is to the 

north and right is to the east. The current ellipse calculated from hour-averaged data is 

typically dominated by tidal currents, whereas low-pass filtered mean flow has tidal currents 

removed (from Butman et al., 2003). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 153

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Strongest surface currents at Station D were observed flowing toward the bathymetric low 

to the southeast of the station. Within 4 hours, the current shifted position over 160 degrees to 

the north-northwest. This was accompanied by a reduction of maximum current speed 

(135 cm/s) by 80 cm/s. The strongest surface current flow recorded at Station E was in the 

along-shelf direction followed by a current shift of over 158 degrees to the north-northwest, 

accompanied by a reduction in the maximum current (138 cm/s) of 94 cm/s. Other flow 

reversals were frequently noted. When compared to the wind record, a link between current 

velocities and wind shifts is apparent. Sharp changes in current speed and direction occurred 

shortly after a rapid changes in wind speed and direction. 

 Further observation of currents revealed a relationship between sustained wind direction 

and current speeds (Figure 5-14). Because much of the low-pass filtered data contained large 

gaps, a full comparison of complete data sets was not possible. However, plotting small 

sections of low-passed current data (on the order of 7 days) with wind data from NDBC 

Buoy #40255 illustrated a relationship between sustained wind direction and current speed, 

fluctuating with wind speed. 

Figure 5-14. Wind speed and direction versus surface and bottom currents, March 19 to 31, 2000 (data 

from Butman et al., 2003). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 154

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

5.1.1.2 Tidal Currents 

 Butman et al. (2003) computed the amplitude and phase of tidal constituents using the 

tidal analysis program T_TIDE (Pawlowicz et al., 2002). Because tides in the New York Bight 

are semi-diurnal, the principal tidal constituents are K1, O1, M2, N2, and S2. Butman et al. 

(2003) analyzed tidal constituents for a depth of 15 m below the surface for each station. Tidal 

ellipses were plotted and the results showed M2 to be the most significant tidal constituent. The 

M2 tidal constitute is oriented northwest to southeast. This elongated ellipse explains frequently 

noted changes in current direction and magnitude with the variance from a full reciprocal vector 

caused by wind driven velocities and lesser tidal constituents. N2 and S1 are oriented in the 

same relative direction as M2. Deviations from this trend include K1, oriented north-northwest 

to south-southeast at Stations D and E, and O2 oriented north-northeast to south-southwest at 

Station D. This alteration in trend causes a more radial tidal signature, most notably at Station D 

(Figure 5-15). In Figure 5-15, the size of the current ellipse is proportional to current magnitude. 

The M2 tidal ellipse is scaled to 10 times the distance a water molecule would travel in one tidal 

cycle at map scale. The tidal ellipse for the remaining tidal constituents is 40 times the distance 

a water molecule would travel in one tidal cycle at map scale (Butman et al., 2003). 

Figure 5-15. Tidal ellipses for major tidal constituents at 15 m below the surface (adapted from Butman et 

al., 2003). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 155

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

5.1.1.3 Summary of Flow Regimes at Offshore Borrow Sites 

 The analysis presented above documents speed and direction related to current and wind 

patterns recorded between December 4, 1999 and April 15, 2000. Data evaluated are 

considered to be a good representation for borrow site conditions because of proximity to the 

borrow sites and similarities in bathymetric characteristics. The high-energy environment 

associated with winter storm events is capable of suspending and transporting sediment and is 

well suited for determining maximum sediment transport rates for the region. Data analyzed by 

Butman et al. (2003) agrees with the overall trend Scheffner et al. (1994) modeled; bottom 

currents in the vicinity of offshore borrow sites are driven primarily by winds and influenced by 

tidal flows. 

 The controlling factor for current velocities on the New York Bight is wind direction and 

intensity, and local bathometric features control current direction. Currents tend to flow parallel 

to contours causing currents to diverge around localized bathymetric highs and converge near 

bathymetric lows. A localized bathometric high is located west of the Station D and a 

bathometric trough is located to the southeast running east west (Figure 5-2). This geomorphic 

configuration causes currents to flow from west to east around the bathymetric high and toward 

the bathymetric low. Figure 5-3 documents an elongated (north to south) bathymetric high to 

the west of the Station E. This shoal causes current flows to be channeled north and south at 

Station E between bathymetric contours and the north-northwest and south-southeast flow 

associated with the Hudson Shelf Valley. Bathymetric relief to the east is consistent moving 

offshore the New Jersey coastline. Current analyses conducted at points south of the study 

area along the New Jersey shoreline showed similar directional flow (Byrnes et al., 2004). 

 In general, bottom flows at the borrow sites offshore New York and New Jersey are driven 

primarily by wind speed and direction. At Station D, bottom currents generally flow eastsoutheast or east and west with deviations caused by wind direction. At Station E, bottom 

currents generally flow north and south along bathymetric contours. Bottom current speeds at 

both sites primarily are controlled by wind speeds, and the direction of flow is controlled by local 

bathymetry. 

 The above information infers some general trends about the borrow sites located offshore 

New York and New Jersey. At borrow sites south of Long Island, along-contour flow can be 

expected, flowing predominantly east-northeast or west-southwest with little variation to the 

north (onshore flow). At borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey, flow was 

predominantly north-northeast or south-southwest with little variation to the west (onshore flow) 

due to localized bathymetric control and the channeling affect of the Hudson Shelf Valley. 

5.2 OFFSHORE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 

 Infilling rates for potential offshore borrow sites were computed based on a method 

outlined in Madsen (1987), which relies on earlier work described by Grant and Madsen (1986) 

for wave-current interaction in the bottom boundary layer outside the surf zone. 

 On the continental shelf, currents are driven by a combination of forces resulting from 

winds, tides, and atmospheric pressure gradients. Surface waves also create currents on the 

sea bottom. These wave-induced currents are oscillatory and fluctuate with the passing of each 

wave. In Grant and Madsen (1986), the interaction of wave-induced currents (high-frequency) 

and background currents with longer time scales (low frequency) was modeled. This analysis 

provided a method for estimating the combined wave-current friction factor (fcw), which is 

necessary for computing sediment transport at a borrow site. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 156

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

5.2.1 Determining Bottom Transport and Infilling Rates 

 As outlined in Madsen (1987), the net transport qnet at the sea bottom in the presence of 

waves is computed as the averaged instantaneous transport q(t) over the cycle of a wave period 

T, 

( ) ∫ = T

net qs t dt

T q

0

1 (5.1) 

The instantaneous value of sediment transport is computed using a formula given by Madsen 

(1987) which is based on an earlier empirical relationship known as the Einstein-Brown formula 

(Brown, 1950) for bottom sediment transport in steady unidirectional flow. The Einstein-Brown 

relationship gives the dimensionless transport rate φ as a function of the Shields parameter Ψ, 

3 φ = 40Ψ (5.2) 

The Shields parameter is used as an indicator of incipient sediment motion, and is the ratio of 

the shear force τ acting on bottom sediment to the submerged weight of grains. The Shields 

parameter is expressed as 

s ρgd

τ

( −1)

Ψ = (5.3) 

where s is the sediment specific gravity, ρ is the density of water, g is the acceleration of gravity, 

and d is the sediment grain diameter. The shear stress is a function of the bottom friction factor, 

f, and the magnitude of the fluid velocity U at the sediment bed. It is expressed as 

2

2

1

τ = fρU (5.4) 

A critical value for the Shields parameter is determined using the Shields diagram, which 

defines the point of incipient sediment motion based on the boundary Reynolds number. For 

instantaneous values of the Shields parameter that are less than the critical value, no sediment 

motion will occur. 

 Therefore, during portions of the wave period that sediment motion does occur, the 

instantaneous dimensional sediment transport rate, expressed in a similar form as equation 

(5.2) is 

( ) [ () ()] 3 2 2

( 1)

0.5

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧

−

+ = s gdf u t v t

q t c wd cw

q ρ

ρ (5.5) 

where w is the fall velocity of sediment, cq is a constant, fcw is the combined wave-current friction 

factor, and u and v are the velocity components that result from the combination of highfrequency (wave driven) and low-frequency (atmospheric and tide driven) currents. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 157

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

A method for computing fcw is given by Madsen (1987), which is essentially an iterative method 

that modifies the bottom boundary layer based on interaction with waves. Initially, the wave 

friction factor, fwc, for waves in the presence of currents is determined by using the equation 

log 0.17

4 /

1 log 4 /1

+ = − ω

μ

μ μ s

b

wc wc k

C u

f C f C

 (5.6) 

where ks is a characteristic bottom roughness, ω is the wave radian frequency (2π/T), ub is the 

magnitude of the velocity under the wave (in linear wave theory ub(t)=sin[kx – σt]), and the 

coefficient Cμ is described as 

( )

1/ 2 2 Cμ = 1+ 2μ cosθ c + μ (5.7) 

where 

2

*

*

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ =

wm

c

u

u

μ (5.8) 

and θc is the angle between the wave approach and the current direction, u*c is the current shear 

velocity, and u*wm is the magnitude of the maximum wave shear velocity in the presence of 

currents. In this procedure, an initial guess for the value of μ must be made, because u*wm is 

initially not known. 

 The final value of fcw is computed using the equation 

2

* 2 ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ =

r

c

cw u

u f (5.9) 

where u*c is the current shear velocity, and ur is the magnitude of the measured current, 

measured at a particular height above bottom, zr. The current shear velocity is determined by 

the equation 

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = +

* 0

* * ln ln

κ u z

u z u

u cw

m

c

cw

c r

r

δ

δ ; for zr > δ cw (5.10) 

which is quadratic in u*c, and 

2 2

* 2

1 wm wcub u = f , (5.11) 

2

*

2

*m wm u C u = μ , (5.12) 

ω

δ m

cw

uκ * = , (5.13) 

where, 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 158

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

u*wm = magnitude of the maximum wave shear velocity in the presence of currents, 

fwc = wave friction factor, for waves in the presence of currents, 

u*m = combined wave-current shear velocity, 

δcw = wave bottom boundary layer thickness, 

u*m = combined wave-current shear velocity, and 

κ = von Karman’s constant (=0.4). 

 A computer program was developed using the relationships of Grant and Madsen (1986) 

for the purpose of computing infilling rates at a borrow site. This program uses wave model 

output (Section 4.0) with current data to determine bottom sediment transport potential at the 

perimeter of the borrow site and a resulting annualized volume rate of sediment that will enter 

the borrow site. 

5.2.2 Model Input Data 

 Wave data from STWAVE model runs provided input conditions for determining borrow 

site infilling rates. Wave data were extracted from the existing condition model runs at the 

perimeter nodes of each proposed borrow site. These are the same STWAVE model runs used 

to determine sediment transport potential at the coastline (see Section 4.0). Wave model input 

conditions used for each resource area are listed in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. Surface current speeds 

used to determine infilling rates are given in Tables 5-3 and 5-4. These currents are based on 

analyses presented in Section 5.1. Currents were applied in the model based on their percent 

occurrence. Ambient current directions were set as alongshore and based on the direction of 

wave propagation for each modeled wave case. 

Table 5-1. Wave model input conditions used to compute offshore sediment transport 

potential for borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey. STWAVE model 

output from each modeled condition, and at each borrow site perimeter grid 

node, was used as input to the wave-current interaction model used to 

determine bottom sediment transport potential. 

Wave Period Band Peak Wave 

Direction, θp 

Hmo 

Wave Height 

Mean Wave 

Period, Tp % Occurrence 

 deg true north m sec 

13 0.6 4.0 3.6 

23 0.8 4.0 2.5 

43 1.1 4.0 3.3 

68 1.3 4.0 3.9 

88 1.1 4.0 5.2 

93 0.9 4.0 6.2 

113 0.8 4.0 6.3 

133 0.8 4.0 6.8 

158 0.7 4.0 9.6 

Band 1 

158 0.7 4.0 15.6 

88 1.3 9.1 2.1 

93 1.2 7.7 2.6 

113 1.1 7.7 1.5 

133 1.2 7.7 1.1 

138 1.4 9.1 1.0 

Band 2 

158 1.3 7.7 1.0 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 159

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 In addition to wave and current inputs, other data and parameters were specified for each 

bottom transport potential model run performed for each borrow site. Depths at each perimeter 

node were taken from the wave model grid. Bottom sediment characteristic grain sizes (d90 and 

d50) also were specified individually for each site. Parameters used for the model runs at each 

borrow site are listed in Table 5-5. 

Table 5-2. Wave model input conditions used to compute offshore sediment transport 

potential for borrow sites offshore southwestern Long Island. STWAVE model 

output from each modeled condition, and at each borrow site perimeter grid 

node, was used as input to the wave-current interaction model used to 

determine bottom sediment transport potential. 

Wave Period 

Band 

Peak Wave 

Direction, θp 

Hmo 

Wave Height 

Mean Wave 

Period, Tp %Occurrence 

 deg true north m sec 

92 0.7 4.0 4.8 

112 0.8 4.0 6.1 

112 0.8 4.0 6.8 

137 0.7 4.0 7.3 

157 0.8 4.0 9.9 

162 0.8 4.0 13.5 

182 1.0 4.0 9.7 

202 1.0 4.0 4.9 

227 0.7 4.0 3.0 

Band 1 

247 0.7 4.0 3.1 

112 1.3 9.1 2.1 

117 1.4 9.1 2.7 

137 1.4 9.1 2.2 

Band 2 

137 1.6 9.1 1.6 

Table 5-3. Surface currents used to compute offshore sediment transport potential for 

sites offshore northeastern New Jersey based on the analysis in Section 5.1. 

Currents were binned by four compass sectors (N, E, S and W) and magnitude 

(<10, 10 to 20, 20 to 30, and >30 cm/sec). 

Sector Current Direction 

(deg) 

Current Magnitude 

(cm/sec) 

Occurrence 

(%) 

359 7 31.5 

356 17 10.2 

354 29 0.6 

N sector 

4 41 <0.1 

88 4 12.1 E sector 

66 15 0.1 

171 7 25.8 

S sector 178 16 3.8 

187 28 <0.1 

279 6 12.3 W sector 

290 15 0.8 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 160

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Table 5-4. Surface currents used to compute offshore sediment transport potential for 

sites offshore southwestern Long Island based on the analysis in Section 5.1. 

Currents were binned by four compass sectors (N, E, S and W) and magnitude 

(<10, 10 to 20, 20 to 30, and >30 cm/sec). 

Sector Current Direction 

(deg) 

Current 

Magnitude 

(cm/sec) 

Occurrence 

(%) 

354 7 11.8 

N sector 13 18 2.4 

29 27 0.1 

101 8 19.9 

97 18 12.6 

100 30 1.3 

E sector 

100 43 0.1 

171 8 17.9 

S sector 167 17 6.2 

158 31 0.3 

273 8 21.0 

259 17 7.0 

243 29 0.4 

W sector 

241 42 <0.1 

Table 5-5. Sand resource and bottom characteristics at potential borrow sites offshore 

northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island, NY. 

Borrow Site Average Bottom Depth (m) Sediment Size, d10 (mm) Sediment Size, d50 (mm) 

H1 20.1 0.95 0.52 

H2 21.0 0.67 0.35 

3 18.2 1.92 1.13 

4W 18.8 0.65 0.36 

4E 19.9 1.05 0.45 

D10 = grain diameter above which 10% of the distribution is retained; D50 = median grain diameter 

5.2.3 Infilling Model Results 

 Infilling rates computed for each of the five borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey 

and southwestern Long Island represented the total potential sediment transport into each of the 

sites from the combined influence of wave-induced and ambient bottom currents (Table 5-6). 

These results likely represent average, non-storm conditions for sediment transport at each site. 

For the five modeled borrow sites, computed transport rates were extremely low, with infilling 

rates ranging from 0.13 m3

/yr to approximately 580 m3/yr. A number of factors contributed to 

the low transport rates, including water depth (typically 20 m, which reduced the impact of waveinduced currents), relatively short period waves dominating the regional wave climate, absence 

of storm events in the wave and current data sets that drive sediment transport in this area, 

coarse grain size of in situ materials, and relatively weak ambient shelf currents. Furthermore, 

potential borrow site excavations consisted of dredging an existing shoal to the same elevation 

as the surrounding seafloor. Therefore, potential borrow site excavation would primarily flatten 

the shoal and not create a seafloor depression. Based on extremely low potential transport 
MMS Study 2004-044 Circulation and Sediment Transport Dynamics 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 161

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

rates of in situ sediment and the geomorphic character of dredged deposits, it is unlikely that 

any of these borrow sites will reform as shoal deposits in the near future. 

Table 5-6. Sand resource characteristics and transport rates at potential borrow sites 

offshore northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island, NY. 

Borrow Site Borrow Site Surface 

Area (x 106

 m2) 

Borrow Site Sand 

Volume (x 106 m3) 

Average Bottom 

Depth (m) 

Computed Transport 

Rate (m3/yr) 

H1 3.28 4.8 20.1 0.13 

H2 13.13 9.5 21.0 0.14 

3 9.40 11.2 18.2 551 

4W 12.23 19.8 18.8 575 

4E 9.39 16.6 19.9 583 
 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 162

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

6.0 BIOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEYS 

6.1 BACKGROUND 

 Two field surveys for biological characterization provided environmental data in and near 

the four sand borrow sites offshore northern New Jersey (Borrow Sites H1 and H2) and 

southern New York (Borrow Sites 3 and 4). The surveys were conducted in September 2001 

(Survey 1) and June 2002 (Survey 2). Data were collected concerning water column 

parameters, sediment grain size, infauna, epifauna, and demersal fishes. The following 

sections provide the methods, results, and discussion for the biological field surveys. 

6.2 METHODS 

6.2.1 Survey Design 

 The primary objective of the biological field surveys was to characterize benthic ecological 

conditions (i.e., sediment, infauna, epifauna, and demersal fishes) in the four sand borrow sites 

off New Jersey and New York (Figure 6-1). Supporting data collected in the borrow sites 

consisted of water column profiles. A secondary objective was to obtain descriptive data on 

sediment and infauna in adjacent areas. The following discussion describes the design of the 

surveys to meet these objectives. 

 The total numbers of samples by type that originally were proposed for Surveys 1 and 2 

were as follows: 

SAMPLE TYPE SURVEY 1 (Sept 2001) SURVEY 2 (June 2002) 

Water Column 

Sea-Bird Conductivity, 

Temperature, Depth (CTD) 

Sensor 

6 Stations 6 Stations 

Sediment and Infauna 

Smith-McIntyre Grab 

30 Stations 

1 grab/station 

30 Stations 

1 grab/station 

Sediment Profile Imaging Camera

 

12 Stations 

2 images/station 

Epifauna/Demersal Fishes 

Mongoose Trawl 6 Transects 6 Transects 

 The sampling plan for Surveys 1 and 2 is summarized in Table 6-1. This table lists the 

sand borrow sites and adjacent stations along with corresponding water depths and sample 

types. Sampling locations are illustrated in Figures 6-2 through 6-5 and provided in Appendix D, 

Table D-1. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 163

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 6-1. Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York. 

Table 6-1. Sampling plan summary for the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 

Survey 2 offshore New Jersey and New York. 

Sample Type 

Sea-Bird Water 

Column Profile 

Stations 

Sediment 

Profile 

Imaging 

Stations 

Smith-McIntyre 

Sediment Grain Size 

and Infaunal Stations 

Epifaunal and Fish 

Trawl Transects 

Sand 

Borrow Site 

(H1,H2,3,4) 

or 

Adjacent 

Station 

(NJ-1, 

NY-1, etc.) 

Water 

Depth (m) 

Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2

H1 16-24 2 2 3 6 6 2 2 

H2 14-20 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 

3 16-18 1 1 2 4 4 1 1 

4 16-20 2 2 6 10 10 2 2 

NJ-1 1 1 

NJ-2 1 1 

NJ-3 1 1 

NY-1 1 1 

NY-2 1 1 

NY-3 1 1 

Total Number of 

Stations 6 6 12 24 + 6 = 

30 

24 + 6 

= 30 6 6 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 164

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 6-2. Environmental features, area excluded, and sampling stations relative to Sand Borrow Site 

H1 offshore New Jersey. 

Figure 6-3. Environmental features and sampling stations relative to Sand Borrow Site H2 offshore New 

Jersey. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 165

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 6-4. Environmental features, area excluded, and sampling stations relative to Sand Borrow Site 3 

offshore New York. 

Figure 6-5. Environmental features, area excluded, and sampling stations relative to Sand Borrow Site 4 

offshore New York. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 166

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

6.2.1.1 Spatial Data Files and Exclusionary Mapping 

 Spatial data files of environmental features (e.g., sand borrow sites, artificial reefs, 

shipwrecks, submarine cables, etc.) and exclusionary mapping were used to design the field 

surveys as discussed in detail in Appendix E. The purpose of exclusionary mapping was to 

ensure that sampling would include areas in Federal waters shallower than 21 m and exclude 

areas that were unlikely to be dredged due to the presence of environmental features. Spatial 

data and exclusionary mapping files were analyzed in ArcView to determine locations for 

sampling (see Appendix E). 

6.2.1.2 Water Column 

 Six water column profiles were made during each survey at locations illustrated in Figures 

6-2 through 6-5. A water column profile was made at the beginning point of each trawl transect 

prior to actual trawling (see Section 6.2.1.5 for the rationale used for selecting trawl locations). 

6.2.1.3 Sediment and Infauna 

 Of the 30 stations originally proposed for samples that would be analyzed for both 

sediment and infauna for each survey, 6 stations were positioned adjacent to but outside of the 

sand borrow sites, leaving 24 stations to be located within the four borrow sites. Four of the 

24 stations to be sampled within the four borrow sites were allocated for discretionary sample 

locations, so that areas of interest such as topographic highs that were not included in the 

random sampling would be sampled. 

 The six adjacent stations were randomly located near the sand borrow sites as illustrated 

in Figures 6-2 to 6-5. For Sand Borrow Sites H1 and H2 off northern New Jersey (NJ), a 

rectangular area encompassing the two borrow sites was created as a polygon within ArcView, 

and the borrow sites within were excluded from selection. The remaining area was divided into 

three approximately equal cells, and a station then was randomly selected within each cell. 

These three adjacent (A) stations were labeled NJ-1, NJ-2, and NJ-3. This same process was 

repeated for Sites 3 and 4 off southern New York (NY), and the adjacent (A) stations were 

labeled NY-1, NY-2, and NY-3. 

 To determine the number of samples to collect in each sand borrow site during each 

survey for sediment and infaunal analyses, the surface area and percent of the total surface 

area for each of the sand borrow sites were calculated after exclusionary mapping was 

completed (see Appendix E). The percent of the total surface area remaining after exclusionary 

mapping for each of the sand borrow sites then was multiplied by 20 stations. This yielded 

5 stations for Site H1, 2 stations for Site H2, 3 stations for Site 3, and 10 stations for Site 4 (see 

Appendix E). To allow for a minimum of three samples per borrow site, one sample was 

deducted from Site 4 and added to Site H2 so that there would be nine and three stations in 

each of these sand borrow sites, respectively. 

 Attention then was directed to selecting locations for the sediment and infaunal samples. 

The goal in placement of the stations was to provide broad spatial and depth coverage within 

the sand borrow sites and, at the same time, ensure that the samples would be independent of 

one another to satisfy statistical assumptions. To accomplish this goal, a sampling approach 

was used to provide broad spatial and depth coverage of the target populations. Each sand 

borrow site was divided into smaller cells of approximately equal areas. The number of cells 

depended on the number of samples allocated for the sand borrow site. One sampling station 

then was randomly placed within each cell of each sand borrow site. Randomizing within grid 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 167

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

cells eliminated biases that could be introduced by unknown spatial periodicities in a sampling 

area. This sampling approach resulted in designation of 20 sediment and infaunal sample 

locations within the four borrow sites. 

 The 20 locations for collecting samples that would be analyzed for sediment and infauna 

then were examined to determine where best to place the 4 discretionary stations. Because the 

20 locations were randomly located, there were cases where isobaths indicated that high points 

of shoals would not be sampled. Therefore, the remaining four discretionary stations were 

located on the tops of shoals in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 (Figures 6-2 to 6-5). 

6.2.1.4 Sediment Profile Imaging 

 Twelve sediment profile imaging (SPI) stations were available for data collection during 

Survey 1. Two photographs were planned for each station. Based on percent of the total 

surface area of each sand borrow site remaining after exclusionary mapping, the SPI camera 

stations were assigned to the sand borrow sites as follows: three stations in Site H1, one station 

in Site H2, two stations in Site 3, and six stations in Site 4 (see Appendix E). For comparative 

purposes, the SPI camera stations were located at the same positions as some of the 

sediment/infaunal stations (there were no SPI camera stations that were not associated with 

sediment/infaunal stations). The allocated SPI stations were selected randomly from the 

previously located sediment/infaunal stations using a random number generator within a 

spreadsheet (Figures 6-2 to 6-5). 

6.2.1.5 Epifauna and Demersal Fishes 

 Six trawl transects for epifauna and demersal fishes were originally proposed for each 

survey. Two trawl transects were assigned to both Sand Borrow Sites H1 and 4, and one trawl 

transect was allotted to both Sand Borrow Sites H2 and 3, for a total of six trawls per survey. 

Transect locations were manually assigned to attempt to cross isobaths and maximize 

characterization of existing assemblages with respect to water depth (Figures 6-2 to 6-5). 

6.2.2 Field Methods 

6.2.2.1 Vessel 

 Both field surveys were conducted aboard the M/V SAMANTHA MILLER. Survey 1 was 

mobilized on 5 September 2001, conducted from 6 to 8 September, and demobilized on 

9 September. Survey 2 was mobilized on 24 June 2002 conducted from 25 to 27 June, and 

demobilized on 27 June. 

6.2.2.2 Navigation 

 A differential global positioning system (DGPS) was used to navigate the survey vessel to 

all sampling stations. The DGPS was connected to an on-board computer equipped with 

Hypack Navigation Software Version 6.4 (Coastal Oceanographics, 1996). With this system, 

the ship’s position was displayed in real-time on a monitor affixed to a countertop in the 

wheelhouse. All sampling stations were pre-plotted and stored in the Hypack program. While in 

the field, the actual positions of all samples collected were recorded and stored by the program. 

6.2.2.3 Water Column 

 Conductivity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen were measured throughout the water 

column with a Sea-Bird electronic conductivity, temperature, depth (CTD) unit. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 168

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

6.2.2.4 Sediment and Infauna 

 Sediment and infaunal samples were taken with a Smith-McIntyre grab. Once a sample 

was deemed acceptable (i.e., adequate sample quantity), a subsample of sediment was 

removed with a 5-cm diameter acrylic core tube and placed in a labeled plastic bag for grain 

size analyses. This sediment sample was stored at 4o

C (i.e., on ice). The remainder of the 

grab sample was sieved through 0.5-mm sieve for infaunal analyses. The infaunal sample was 

placed in a container and preserved in 10% formalin with rose bengal stain. 

6.2.2.5 Sediment Profile Imaging 

 Five replicate images were taken at each pre-plotted station to ensure acquisition of at 

least two suitable images for analysis; each SPI replicate is identified by the time recorded on 

the film and on disk along with vessel position. Even though multiple images were taken at 

each location, each image was assigned a unique frame number by the data logger and crosschecked with the time stamp in the navigational system’s computer data file. Redundant 

sample logs were kept by the field crew. At the beginning of each survey day, the time on the 

camera's data logger was calibrated with the internal clock on the computerized navigation 

system being used to conduct the survey. 

 Test exposures were fired on deck at the beginning and end of each roll of film to verify 

that all internal electronic systems were working to design specifications and to provide a color 

standard against which final film emulsion could be checked for proper color balance. After 

deployment of the camera at each station, the frame counter was checked to make sure that the 

requisite number of replicates had been taken. In addition, a prism penetration depth indicator 

on the camera frame was checked to verify that the optical prism had actually penetrated the 

bottom to a sufficient depth to acquire an image. If images were missed (frame counter 

indicator), additional replicates were taken. Because of the paucity of fine-grained sediments in 

the study area, all available prism weights (total of 114 kg) were kept in the camera for the 

entire survey to maximize the camera’s prism penetration. 

6.2.2.6 Epifauna and Demersal Fishes 

 A 7.6-m mongoose trawl was towed for 10 minutes (bottom time) along transect lines. 

The tow path of each trawl tow was logged into the Hypack navigation system. Once the trawl 

was on deck, the contents of the catch bag were sorted and identified to the lowest practical 

identification level (LPIL), then returned to the sea. 

6.2.3 Laboratory Methods 

6.2.3.1 Sediment 

 Sediment analyses were conducted using combined sieve and hydrometer analyses 

according to recommended American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures. 

Grain size samples were washed in demineralized water, dried, and weighed. Coarse and fine 

fractions (sand/silt) were separated by sieving through a U.S. Standard Sieve Mesh No. 230 

(62.5 μm). Sediment texture of the coarse fraction was determined at half-phi intervals by 

passing the sediment through nested sieves. The weight of the materials collected in each 

particle size class was recorded. Boyocouse hydrometer analyses were used to analyze the 

fine fraction (<62.5 μm). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 169

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

6.2.3.2 Sediment Profile Imaging 

 After the color slides were developed, the images were digitized using a Nikon Coolscan®

film scanner and stored electronically in .jpg format. All digital images were analyzed using 

Sigma-scan Pro® (Aspire Software International) image analysis software. Calibration 

information was determined by measuring 1-cm graduations from the Kodak Color Separation 

Guide. This calibration information was applied to all images analyzed. Linear and area 

measurements were recorded as number of pixels and converted to scientific units using the 

calibration information. Measured parameters were recorded on an electronic spreadsheet. All 

data were subsequently checked as an independent quality assurance/quality control review of 

the measurements before final interpretation was performed. 

Parameters measured from SPI images included the following: 

• Sediment type (grain size major mode and range); 

• Camera prism penetration depth; 

• Small-scale surface boundary roughness; 

• Thickness of depositional layers; 

• Mud clasts (presence and diameter); 

• Apparent redox potential discontinuity (RPD) depth; and 

• Infaunal successional stage. 

 A detailed explanation of how these measurements were performed and their 

interpretation is provided below. 

Sediment Type 

 Sediment grain size major mode and range were estimated visually from the photographs 

by overlaying a grain size comparator that was at the same scale. This comparator was 

prepared by photographing a series of Udden-Wentworth size classes (equal to or less than 

coarse silt up to granule and larger sizes) with the SPI camera. Seven grain size classes were 

on this comparator: 4 phi, 4 to 3 phi, 3 to 2 phi, 2 to 1 phi, 1 to 0 phi, 0 to -1 phi, and < -1 phi. 

The lower limit of optical resolution of the photographic system was about 62 μm, allowing 

recognition of grain sizes equal to or greater than coarse silt (> 4 phi). The accuracy of this 

method has been documented by comparing SPI estimates with grain size statistics determined 

from laboratory sieve analyses. 

 The comparison of the images with Udden-Wentworth sediment standards photographed 

through the SPI optical system also was used to map near-surface stratigraphy such as sandover-mud and mud-over-sand. When mapped on a local scale near facies boundaries, this 

stratigraphy can provide information on transport directions. 

Camera Prism Penetration Depth 

 The SPI camera prism penetration depth was measured from the bottom of the image to 

the sediment-water interface. Average penetration depth was determined by digitizing the entire 

cross-sectional area of sediment and dividing this result by the calibrated image width. Linear 

maximum and minimum depths of penetration also were measured. Maximum, minimum, and 

average penetration depths were recorded in the data file. 

 Prism penetration is potentially a noteworthy parameter; because the number of weights 

used in the camera was held constant throughout this survey, the camera functioned as a static-
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 170

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

load penetrometer. Comparative penetration values from stations with similar grain size give an 

indication of the relative water content of the sediment. Highly bioturbated sediments and 

rapidly accumulating sediments tend to have the highest water contents and greatest prism 

penetration depths. 

 The depth of the camera's penetration into the bottom also reflects the bearing capacity 

and shear strength of local sediments. Over-consolidated or relic sediments and shell-bearing 

sands resist camera penetration. Highly bioturbated, sulfitic, or methanogenic muds are the 

least consolidated, and deep penetration is typical. Seasonal changes in camera prism 

penetration are typically observed at the same station and are related to the control of sediment 

geotechnical properties by bioturbation (Rhoads and Boyer, 1982). The effect of water 

temperature on bioturbation rates appears to be important in controlling both biogenic surface 

relief and prism penetration depth (Rhoads and Germano, 1982). 

Small-Scale Surface Boundary Roughness 

 Surface boundary roughness was determined by measuring the vertical distance (parallel 

to the film border) between the highest and lowest points of the sediment-water interface. 

Surface boundary roughness (sediment surface relief) measured over a horizontal distance of 

15 cm typically ranges from 0.02 to 3.8 cm and may be related to either physical structures 

(ripples, rip-up structures, mud clasts) or biogenic features (burrow openings, fecal mounds, 

foraging depressions). Biogenic roughness typically changes seasonally and is related to the 

interaction of bottom turbulence and bioturbational activities. 

 The camera must be level in order to take accurate boundary roughness measurements. 

In sandy sediments, boundary roughness can be a measure of sand wave height. On silt/clay 

bottoms, boundary roughness values often reflect biogenic features such as fecal mounds or 

surface burrows. 

Mud Clasts 

 When fine-grained, cohesive sediments are disturbed, either by physical bottom scour or 

faunal activity (e.g., decapod foraging), intact clumps of sediment often are scattered about the 

seafloor. These mud clasts can be seen at the sediment-water interface in the images. During 

analyses, the numbers of clasts were counted, the diameters of typical clasts were measured, 

and their oxidation states were assessed. The abundance, distribution, oxidation state, and 

angularity of mud clasts can be used to make inferences about the recent pattern of seafloor 

disturbance in an area. 

 Depending on their place of origin and the depth of disturbance of the sediment column, 

mud clasts can be reduced or oxidized (in the images, the oxidation state is apparent from the 

reflectance value; see the following subsection titled Apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity 

Depth). Also, once at the sediment-water interface, these mud clasts are subject to bottomwater oxygen levels and currents. Based on laboratory microcosm observations of reduced 

sediments placed within an aerobic environment, oxidation of reduced surface layers by 

diffusion alone is quite rapid, occurring within 6 to 12 hours (Germano, 1983). Consequently, 

the detection of reduced mud clasts in an obviously aerobic setting suggests a recent origin. 

The size and shape of the mud clasts also are revealing. Mud clasts may be moved and broken 

by bottom currents and animals (macro- or meiofauna; Germano, 1983). Over time, large 

angular clasts become small and rounded. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 171

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity Depth 

 Aerobic near-surface marine sediments typically have higher reflectance values relative to 

underlying hypoxic or anoxic sediments. Surface sands washed free of mud also have higher 

optical reflectance than underlying muddy sands. These differences in optical reflectance are 

readily apparent in the images; oxidized surface sediment contains particles coated with ferric 

hydroxide (an olive or tan color when associated with particles), while reduced and muddy 

sediments below this oxygenated layer are darker, generally grey to black. The boundary 

between the colored ferric hydroxide surface sediment and underlying grey to black sediment is 

called the apparent RPD. 

 The depth of the apparent RPD in the sediment column is an important time-integrator of 

dissolved oxygen conditions within sediment porewaters. In the absence of bioturbating 

organisms, this high reflectance layer (in muds) typically will reach a thickness of 2 mm 

(Rhoads, 1974). This depth is related to the supply rate of molecular oxygen by diffusion into 

the bottom and the consumption of that oxygen by the sediment and associated microbiota. In 

sediments that have very high sediment oxygen demand (SOD), the sediment may lack a high 

reflectance layer even when the overlying water column is aerobic. 

 In the presence of bioturbating macrofauna, the thickness of the high reflectance layer 

may be several centimeters. The relationship between the thickness of this high reflectance 

layer and the presence or absence of free molecular oxygen in the associated porewaters must 

be assumed with caution. The actual RPD is the boundary (or horizon) that separates the 

positive Eh region of the sediment column from the underlying negative Eh region. The exact 

location of this Eh = 0 potential can be determined accurately only with microelectrodes; hence, 

the relationship between the change in optical reflectance, as imaged with the SPI camera, and 

the actual RPD can be determined only by making the appropriate in situ Eh measurements. 

For this reason, the optical reflectance boundary, as imaged, was described in this study as the 

"apparent" RPD and it was recorded as a mean value. In general, the depth of the actual Eh = 

0 horizon will be either equal to or slightly shallower than the depth of the optical reflectance 

boundary. This is because bioturbating organisms can mix ferric hydroxide-coated particles 

downward into the bottom below the Eh = 0 horizon. As a result, the apparent mean RPD depth 

can be used as an estimate of the depth of porewater exchange, usually through porewater 

irrigation (bioturbation). Biogenic particle mixing depths can be estimated by measuring the 

maximum and minimum depths of imaged feeding voids in the sediment column. This 

parameter represents the particle mixing depths of head-down feeders (mainly polychaetes). 

 Apparent mean RPD depth also can be affected by local erosion. Peaks of disposal 

mounds commonly are scoured by divergent flow over mounds. This scouring can wash away 

fines and shell or gravel lag deposits and can result in a very thin apparent RPD depth. During 

storm periods, erosion may completely remove any evidence of the apparent RPD (Fredette et 

al., 1988). 

 Another important characteristic of the apparent RPD is the contrast in reflectance values 

at this boundary. This contrast is related to the interactions among the degree of organic 

loading, the bioturbational activity in the sediment, and the levels of bottom-water dissolved 

oxygen in an area. High inputs of labile organic material increase SOD and, subsequently, 

sulfate reduction rates (and the abundance of sulfide end products). This results in more highly 

reduced (lower-reflectance) sediments at depth and higher RPD contrasts. In a region of 

generally low RPD contrasts, images with high RPD contrasts indicate localized sites of 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 172

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

relatively high past inputs of organic-rich material such as organic or phytoplankton detritus, 

dredged material, and sewage sludge. 

Infaunal Successional Stage 

 Information concerning infaunal successional stages in fine-grained sediments may be 

collected with SPI technology. These stages are recognized in the images by the presence of 

dense assemblages of near-surface polychaetes and/or subsurface feeding voids; both may be 

present in the same image. The concept of successional stages is based on the theory that 

organism-sediment interactions follow a predictable sequence after a major seafloor 

perturbation. This theory states that primary succession results in "the predictable appearance 

of macrobenthic invertebrates belonging to specific functional types following a benthic 

disturbance. These invertebrates interact with sediment in specific ways. Because functional 

types are the biological units of interest ... our definition does not demand a sequential 

appearance of particular invertebrate species or genera" (Rhoads and Boyer, 1982). This 

theory is formally developed in Rhoads and Germano (1982) and Rhoads and Boyer (1982). 

 This continuum of change in animal communities after a disturbance (primary succession) 

has been divided arbitrarily into three stages: Stage I is the initial community of tiny, densely 

populated polychaete assemblages; Stage II is the start of the transition to head-down deposit 

feeders; and Stage III is the mature community of deep-dwelling, head-down deposit feeders 

(Figure 6-6). 

 After an area of bottom is disturbed (whether from natural or anthropogenic events), the 

first invertebrate assemblage (Stage I) appears within days after the disturbance. Stage I 

consists of dense assemblages of tiny tube-dwelling marine polychaetes that reach population 

densities of 104

 to 106 individuals per m2. These animals feed at or near the sediment-water 

interface and physically stabilize or bind the sediment surface by producing a mucous "glue" 

that they use to build their tubes. Sometimes deposited dredged material layers contain Stage I 

tubes still attached to mud clasts from their location of origin; these transported individuals are 

considered as part of the in situ fauna in the assignment of successional stages. 

 If there are no repeated disturbances to the newly colonized area, then these initial tubedwelling suspension or surface-deposit feeding taxa are followed by burrowing, head-down 

deposit-feeders that rework the sediment deeper over time and mix oxygen from the overlying 

water into the sediment. Animals in these later-appearing communities (Stage II or III) are 

larger, have lower overall population densities (10 to 102

 individuals per m2), and can rework 

sediments to depths of 3 to 20 cm or more. These animals "loosen" the sedimentary fabric, 

increase the water content in the sediment (thereby lowering the sediment shear strength), and 

actively recycle nutrients because of the high exchange rate with the overlying waters resulting 

from their burrowing and feeding activities. 

 While the successional dynamics of invertebrate communities in fine-grained sediments 

have been well-documented, the successional dynamics of invertebrate communities in sand 

and coarser sediments are not well-known. Subsequently, the insights gained from SPI 

technology regarding biological community structure and dynamics in sandy and coarse-grained 

bottoms are fairly limited. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 173

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 6-6. The successional change in benthic community following a disturbance over time (top) or 

over distance from a source of pollution (bottom) is illustrated (from Rhoads and Germano, 

1982, 1986). 

6.2.3.3 Infauna 

 Formalin-preserved infaunal samples were rinsed on a U.S. Standard No. 30 (0.59-mm) 

sieve and transferred to 70% isopropanol. Before sorting, samples were passed through a 

series of sieves (0.3, 0.5, 0.6, 1, and 2 mm) to separate the organisms into size classes. 

Samples were sorted by hand under dissecting microscopes. All sediment in each sample was 

examined by a technician who removed all infauna observed. Organisms were identified to the 

LPIL and counted. A minimum of 10% of all samples were resorted by different technicians as a 

quality control measure. Voucher specimens of each taxon were archived at the Barry A. Vittor 

& Associates, Inc. laboratory. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 174

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

6.2.4 Data Analysis 

6.2.4.1 Water Column 

 Conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and depth values were entered into an 

electronic spreadsheet and tabulated. Depth profiles were plotted for salinity, temperature, and 

dissolved oxygen. 

6.2.4.2 Sediment 

 A computer algorithm was used to determine size distribution and provide summary 

statistics for each sediment sample using Folk inclusive graphic measures and Method of 

Moment calculations. For each sample, the following parameters were recorded: sample 

weight; percentages of gravel, sand, silt, and clay; Folk’s classification; median size; moment 

measures (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis); and Folk inclusive graphic 

measures (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis). 

6.2.4.3 Infauna 

 Summary statistics including number of taxa, number of individuals, density, diversity (H’), 

evenness (J’), and species richness (D) were calculated for each sampling station. Diversity 

(H’), also known as Shannon’s index (Pielou, 1966), was calculated as follows: 

H = - pi ln( pi) i=1

S

′ ∑

where S is the number of taxa in the sample, i is the ith taxa in the sample, and Pi is the number 

of individuals of the ith taxa divided by (N) the total number of individuals in the sample. 

 

 Evenness (J’) was calculated with Pielou’s (1966) index of evenness: 

( ) S

Η J = ln

′ ′

where H’ is Shannon’s index as calculated above and S is the total number of taxa in a sample. 

 Species richness (D) was calculated by Margalef’s index: 

(N)

(S - 1) D = ln

where S is the total number of sample taxa and N is the number of individuals in the sample. 

 Spatial and temporal patterns in infaunal assemblages were examined with cluster 

analysis. Cluster analyses were performed on similarity matrices constructed from raw data 

matrices consisting of taxa and samples (station – survey). Only species-level taxa, with the 

exception of two species complexes that can be reliably identified only to genus, were included 

in the analyses. Of these taxa, only those contributing at least 0.1% of the total abundance of 

species level taxa were included. Raw counts of each individual infaunal taxon in a sample (n) 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 175

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

were transformed with the log10(n+1) transformation prior to similarity analysis. Both normal 

(stations) and inverse (taxa) similarity matrices were generated using the Bray-Curtis index that 

was calculated using the following formula: 

∑

∑

+ =

i

ij ik

i

ij ik

jk x x

x x

B

( )

2 min( , )

where Bjk (for normal analysis) is the similarity between samples j and k; xij and xik are the 

abundances of species i in samples j and k. B ranges from 0.0 when two samples have no 

species in common to 1.0 when the distribution of individuals among species is identical 

between samples. For inverse analysis, the Bjk is the similarity between species j and k; xij and 

xik are the abundances of species j and k in sample i. Normal and inverse similarity matrices 

were clustered using the group averaging method of clustering (Boesch, 1973). 

 The extent to which sample groups formed by normal cluster analysis of the entire data 

set could be explained by environmental variables such as sedimentary parameters was 

examined by canonical discriminant analysis (SAS Institute Inc., 1989). Canonical discriminant 

analysis identifies the degree of separation among predefined groups of variables in multivariate 

space. This analysis examined the relationships among the environmental variables and the 

station groups as indicated by the normal cluster analysis. Environmental variables used in the 

analysis were water depth (meters), survey (1 or 2), northing (x), easting (y), % gravel, % sand, 

and % fines. 

6.2.4.4 Epifauna and Demersal Fishes 

 Raw counts of individual epifaunal and demersal fish taxa were tabulated by sand borrow 

site for both field surveys. 

6.3 RESULTS 

6.3.1 Water Column 

 Depth profiles of temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen for the September 2001 

Survey 1 are depicted in Figures 6-7 and 6-8. Two profiles were made in Sand Borrow Sites H1 

and 4 and one profile each in Sites H2 and 3. These profiles indicated, with the exception of the 

near bottom portion, that the water column was well mixed in the sand borrow sites during the 

September survey. Temperature recorded at the surface ranged from 21.3°C at Station 4-2 to 

22.9°C at Stations H1-1 and H2. Bottom temperatures ranged from 17.0°C at Station H1-1 to 

21.1°C at Station H1-2. Salinity profiles were fairly uniform from surface to bottom at all sites 

(Figure 6-7). Surface and bottom salinity varied little during the September survey; overall 

values ranged from 31.8 ppt at the bottom at Station H1-1 to 30.9 ppt at the surface at 

Station H2. Dissolved oxygen profiles in Sites 3 and 4 were uniform in the upper 10 m of the 

water column, decreased within the 10 to 15 m depth interval, then stabilized and were uniform 

to the bottom (Figure 6-8). Surface values for dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.3 mg/l at Station 

3 to 6.6 mg/l at Station H1-1, and bottom dissolved oxygen values ranged from 4.1 mg/l at 

Station H2 to 7.0 at Station H1-2. 

 Depth profiles of temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen for the June 2002 Survey 2 

are shown in Figures 6-9 to 6-10. Profiles recorded during this survey indicated that 

temperature and dissolved oxygen decreased continuously with depth across all sand borrow 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 176

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

sites. Surface temperatures ranged from 21.9°C in Site 4 to 19.7°C at Station H1-1. Bottom 

temperatures ranged from 14.8°C in Site 4 (Station 4-1) to 12.2°C at Station H1-1. Salinity 

profiles were generally uniform from surface to bottom during June. Surface salinity 

measurements varied from 30.9 ppt at Station H1-1 to 29.2 ppt at Station 4, and bottom values 

ranged from 32.2 ppt at Station H1 to 31.6 ppt at Station 4. Dissolved oxygen in surface waters 

ranged from 11.4 mg/l at Station 4 to 8.1 mg/l at Station 3. Bottom values ranged from 6.7 mg/l 

at Station H1-1 to 5.8 mg/l at Station H2-1. 

Temperature Salinity

Station H1-1

Station H1-2 Station H2

Station 3

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Station 4-1

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Station 4-2

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Figure 6-7. Temperature and salinity profiles recorded during the September 2001 Survey 1 in Sand 

Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York. 

6.3.2 Sediment 

 Results of the sediment analyses of grab samples from borrow sites and adjacent stations 

are provided in Appendix D, Table D-2. Sedimentary characteristics of grab samples consisted 

of various proportions of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. These proportions were used to assign 

Folk’s classification (Folk, 1974) to individual samples that provide a general qualitative 

description of sediments found in each sand borrow site. Table 6-2 shows that most samples 

(30 samples; 50%) were sand, followed by slightly gravelly sand (19 samples; 32%), gravelly 

sand (9 samples, 15%), and sandy gravel (2 samples; 3%). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 177

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 6-8. Temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) profiles recorded during the September 2001 

Survey 1 in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York. 

Temperature Salinity

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Salinity (ppt)

25 30 35

Station H1-1 Station H1-2 Station H2

Station 3 Station 4-1 Station 4-2

Figure 6-9. Temperature and salinity profiles recorded during the June 2002 Survey 2 in Sand Borrow 

Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York. 

Temperature DO

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

DO (mg/L)

4 6 8 10

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

DO (mg/L)

4 6 8 10

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

DO (mg/L)

4 6 8 10

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

DO (mg/L)

4 6 8 10

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

DO (mg/L)

4 6 8 10

Temperature (°C)

15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

DO (mg/L)

4 6 8 10

Station H1-1 Station H1-2 Station H2

Station 3 Station 4-1 Station 4-2
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 178

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Temperature DO

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

DO (mg/L)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

DO (mg/L)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

DO (mg/L)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

DO (mg/L)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

DO (mg/L)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Temperature (°C)

10 15 20 25

Water Depth (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

DO (mg/L)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Station H1-1 Station H1-2 Station H2

Station 3 Station 4-1 Station 4-2

Figure 6-10. Temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) profiles recorded during the June 2002 Survey 2 in 

Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York. 

 Grab samples from offshore New Jersey (Borrow Sites H1 and H2, Adjacent Stations NJA1, NJ-A2, and NJ-A3) were generally similar in sedimentary composition to those from offshore 

southern New York (Borrow Sites 3 and 4, Adjacent Stations NY-A1, NY-A2, and NY-A3). Most 

samples (4 of 6) collected during September in Site H1 were classified as sand with the 

remainder slightly gravelly sand and gravelly sand. In Site H2, most samples collected in 

September (3 of 4) were slightly gravelly sand with only one classified as sand. Samples 

collected in Site 3 during the September survey yielded only gravelly sand (2 of 4), slightly 

gravelly sand (1 of 4), and sandy gravel (1 of 4). Samples collected in September from Site 4 

were half (5 of 10) sand and half (5 of 10) slightly gravelly sand. 

 During June, most grab samples (3 of 6) from Site H1 were slightly gravelly sand followed 

by sand (2 of 6 samples) and gravelly sand (1 of 6 samples). In Site H2, all four samples 

collected in June were sand. Samples collected from Site 3 consisted of gravelly sand (3 of 4) 

and sandy gravel (1 of 4), and all 10 samples taken from Site 4 were classified as sand. 

6.3.3 Sediment Profile Imaging 

 A minimal number of sediment profile stations (12) were sampled during the September 

survey only. While the small data set does not allow for a thorough discussion of individual 

sedimentary characteristics or biological community trends by site, the images do provide some 

detailed context for interpretation of the grab sampling results. The complete image analysis 

results from all 24 images are presented in Appendix D, Table D-3. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 179

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Table 6-2. Sediment type summary from grab samples for the September 2001 Survey 1 

and June 2002 Survey 2 in the sand borrow sites and adjacent stations 

offshore New Jersey and New York. 

No. of Samples with Particular Sediment Types 

Based on Folk’s Classifications 

Sand Borrow Site 

(H1, H2, 3, 4) 

or 

Adjacent Station 

(NJ-1, NY-1, etc.) 

Survey 

Total No. of 

Samples 

Collected Sandy 

Gravel 

Gravelly 

Sand 

Slightly 

Gravelly 

Sand 

Sand 

1 6 1 1 4 H1 

2 6 1 3 2 

1 4 3 1 H2 

2 4 4 

1 4 1 2 1 3 

2 4 1 3 

1 10 5 5 4 

2 10 10 

1 1 1 NJ-1 

2 1 1 

1 1 1 NJ-2 

2 1 1 

1 1 1 NJ-3 

2 1 1 

1 1 1 NY-1 

2 1 1 

1 1 1 NY-2 

2 1 1 

1 1 1 NY-3 

2 1 1 

Total No. of Samples 60 2 9 19 30 

 Similar to previous investigations of sand resource areas performed in 1998 off the New 

Jersey coast (Byrnes et al., 2000), the areas surveyed with SPI technology in September 2001 

were dominated at the decimeter scale by wave-generated bedforms. Sediments primarily were 

very fine to medium sands, with some stations coarsening toward the gravel end of the scale. 

Despite having all the lead weights on the camera system, prism penetration was limited, 

ranging from approximately 3.5 cm to a little over 7 cm (less than 1/3 of the vertical distance of 

the camera’s faceplate; see Appendix D, Table D-3) because of the sandy sediments found at 

all stations sampled. While minor fractions of silt/clay size particles were present at all stations, 

the sediment grain size major mode was in the very fine or fine sand categories at most stations 

sampled (Appendix D, Table D-3); the one notable exception was Station 1 at Site 3 (Figure 

6-11), where the sediment grain size major mode was in the granule to pebble range in the 

Wentworth size classification (Folk, 1974). 

6.3.3.1 Site H1 

 Three stations (Stations 1, 2, and 4) were surveyed with the profile camera at Site H-1 

(Figure 6-2). Sediment grain sizes from the grab samples (Appendix D, Table D-2) for these 

three stations were gravelly sand (Station 1) or sand (Stations 2 and 4), with over 90% of the 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 180

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

sediments in the sand size fraction. While SPI results for sediment grain size major mode 

agreed with the conventional grab results, the images showed a somewhat finer discrimination 

of the sediment major mode in this broad “sand” category from Appendix D, Table D-2, with the 

sediment grain size major mode in the medium sand interval for Station 1 (2-3 phi), very fine 

sand for Station 2 (4-3 phi), and fine sand for Station 3 (3-2 phi). The slight shift in sediment 

grain size major mode most likely reflects the difference in near-bed energy regime at these 

three stations within the site. Stronger bottom currents are more likely prevalent at Station 1, 

where finer grains have been winnowed away and small-scale ripples can be seen on the 

sediment surface (Figure 6-12). 

 The one major discrepancy between the sediment grain size data from the grab and the 

profile images among all samples collected occurs at Station 2 in Site H1 (Appendix D, Tables 

D-2 and D-3). Grab results showed no detectable sediment in the silt/clay size fraction (100% 

of the sediment was in the sand size interval; Appendix D, Table D-2), while sediment profile 

images from this station clearly show fine-grained muds mixed in with the fine sand (Figure 

6-13). In fact, it was precisely because of the presence of fine-grained muds at this station that 

sufficient organic material was present to actually be able to measure the thickness of the 

apparent RPD; this was the only station of the 12 sampled (Appendix D, Table D-3) where an 

RPD depth could be measured during image analysis of the digital files. These differences 

between co-located grab/SPI results are an excellent illustration of the small-scale 

heterogeneity of ridge and swale topography (Schaffner and Boesch, 1982) that can exist in 

such a dynamic kinetic regime. 

Figure 6-11. Sediment profile image from Site 3, Station 1 showing the pebble to granule-sized layer of 

gravel on top of poorly sorted medium to coarse sands. Scale: width of image = 16.8 cm. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 181

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 6-12. Sediment profile image from Site H1, Station 1 showing small-scale ripples on the sediment 

surface. Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. 

Figure 6-13. Sediment profile image from Site H1, Station 2 showing a clear gradation from fine sand to 

finer silt/clay particles at the bottom of the image (arrow). Scale: width of image = 16.8 cm. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 182

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Biological information from sediment profile images in sandy bottoms is typically very 

restricted due to the shallow prism penetration, and images from the September 2001 survey 

were no exception. However, evidence of two of the numerically dominant taxa (Polygordius

and Echinarachnius) noted in the grab results (Table 6-3) was seen in images from Station 1 

(Figure 6-14) and Station 4 (Figure 6-15). 

6.3.3.2 Site H2 

 One station (Station 3; Figure 6-3) was sampled in Site H2. Both images had shallow 

penetration and showed poorly-sorted, silty sand with a layer of fine detritus on the sediment 

surface (Figure 6-16). E. parma (Figure 6-16) and Diopatra (Figure 6-17) were evident at this 

location. 

6.3.3.3 Site 3 

 The two stations (Stations 1 and 3, Figure 6-4) surveyed in Site 3 had substantially 

different sediment types. Station 1 (Appendix D, Table D-2, Figure 6-11) was located in a high 

kinetic regime and had almost equal proportions of sand and gravel. Station 3 was located in 

an area with a rippled bottom and primarily fine sand (Figure 6-18). The numerically dominant 

organism at this site based on grab results (Table 6-3) was a gammarid amphipod. These 

crustaceans are free-swimming and forage at the sediment surface, and they would not usually 

be expected to be seen in sediment profile images. However, densities were sufficiently high 

that two of the animals were photographed in one of the replicates from this station (Figure 

6-19). 

6.3.3.4 Site 4 

 Six stations were surveyed at Site 4 (Stations 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8; Figure 6-5). The 

sediment grain size major modes at these six stations were very similar, alternating between 

very fine sand (4-3 phi) and fine sand (3-2 phi; Appendix D, Table D-3). All six stations showed 

evidence of rippled bottoms, indicating relatively high kinetic energy on the bottom. Some 

stations showed recent evidence of bedform mobility (Figure 6-20). While no evidence of the 

numerically dominant polychaete Polygordius (based on grab results; Table 6-3) could be seen 

in any of the images, evidence of another one of the numerically dominant taxa, E. parma, could 

be seen in images from four of the six stations surveyed (Figure 6-21). 

6.3.4 Infauna 

 A taxonomic listing of infauna collected in bottom grabs during the September and June 

surveys is presented in Appendix D, Table D-4. Over both surveys, a total of 19,334 individuals 

was collected, representing 150 taxa in 9 separate phyla. Most taxa collected were polychaetes 

(77 taxa), followed by crustaceans (38), and bivalve (14) and gastropod (8) mollusks. Overall 

abundance was similar across surveys. Grab samples yielded 10,107 individuals in September 

and 9,227 in June. Seventy-four taxa (51% of total) were common to both surveys. There were 

39 taxa restricted to the June survey, and the September survey included 33 taxa not found in 

June samples. 

 The archiannelid Polygordius was numerically dominant in the grabs, representing 31% of 

all infauna censused over both surveys. Other than Polygordius, taxa that were among the top 

10 numerical dominants during both the September and June surveys included the echinoid 

Echinarachnius parma, polychaetes of the genus Aricidea, the tanaid Tanaissus psammophilus, 

and non-identified tubificid oligochaetes. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 183

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Table 6-3. Ten most abundant taxa in grab samples from Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, 

and 4 and Adjacent Areas NJA and NYA for the September 2001 Survey 1 

offshore New Jersey and New York. 

Site Taxonomic Name Count Site Taxonomic Name Count 

Polygordius (LPIL) 710 Polygordius (LPIL) 1,208 

Tanaissus psammophilus 198 Echinarachnius parma 144 

Pseudunciola obliquua 180 Cirrophorus ilvana 97 

Echinarachnius parma 135 Pellucistoma (LPIL) 57 

Pellucistoma (LPIL) 79 Hemipodus roseus 56 

Spisula solidissima 75 Lumbrinerides dayi 46 

Cirrophorus ilvana 58 Nephtys picta 35 

Aricidea catherinae 51 Pseudunciola obliquua 32 

Glycera capitata 36 Enchytraeidae (LPIL) 31 

H1 

Unciola irrorata 32 

NJA 

Aricidea cerrutii 31 

Polygordius (LPIL) 225 Tubificidae (LPIL) 138 

Tanaissus psammophilus 74 Echinarachnius parma 121 

Echinarachnius parma 61 Spisula solidissima 100 

Pseudunciola obliquua 51 Exogone hebes 71 

Rhynchocoela (LPIL) 14 Aricidea catherinae 64 

Parahaustorius attenuatus 10 Polygordius (LPIL) 49 

Spisula solidissima 10 Pseudunciola obliquua 48 

Nephtys picta 9 Tellina agilis 46 

Pellucistoma (LPIL) 9 Rhepoxynius hudsoni 27 

H2 

Caulleriella sp. J 8 

NYA 

Nucula proxima 25 

Gammarus annulatus 560 Polygordius (LPIL) 3,521 

Polygordius (LPIL) 349 Gammarus annulatus 851 

Aricidea (LPIL) 74 Echinarachnius parma 708 

Lumbrinerides dayi 67 Pseudunciola obliquua 656 

Tanaissus psammophilus 66 Tanaissus psammophilus 465 

Oligochaeta (LPIL) 54 Spisula solidissima 316 

Aricidea catherinae 52 Cirrophorus ilvana 258 

Aricidea cerrutii 44 Aricidea catherinae 194 

Crenella glandula 34 Tubificidae (LPIL) 180 

3 

Astarte castanea 33 

ALL 

Pellucistoma (LPIL) 180 

Polygordius (LPIL) 980 

Pseudunciola obliquua 345 

Gammarus annulatus 291 

Echinarachnius parma 237 

Protohaustorius wigleyi 124 

Spisula solidissima 108 

Tanaissus psammophilus 96 

Cirrophorus ilvana 79 

Acanthohaustorius millsi 61 

4 

Rhepoxynius hudsoni 45 

LPIL = Lowest practical identification level.
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 184

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 6-14. Sediment profile image from Site H1, Station 1 showing one of the numerically dominant 

polychaetes (Polygordius) found in grab samples from this location. Scale: width of image = 

16.7 cm. 

Figure 6-15. Replicate sediment profile images from site H1, Station 4 showing buried sand dollars 

(Echinarachnius parma) (arrows). Note the hermit crab (circle) on the sediment surface in 

the image on the left. Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 185

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 6-16. Both replicate sediment profile images from Site H2, Station 3 showed a layer of fine detritus 

(arrow) on the sediment surface. Note the bisected edge of a partially buried sand dollar 

(Echinarachnius parma) on the right side of image (circle). Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. 

Figure 6-17. Sediment profile image from Site H2, Station 3 showing a prominent tube of the polychaete 

Diopatra projecting above the sediment-water interface. Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 186

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 6-18. Sediment profile image from Site 3, Station 3 showing well-sorted, rippled, granitic fine 

sands. Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. 

Figure 6-19. Sediment profile image from Site 3, Station 3 showing two gammarid amphipods in the 

upper right corner swimming above the rippled fine sandy bottom. Scale: width of image = 

16.7 cm. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 187

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Figure 6-20. Sediment profile image from Site 4, Station 7 showing a sharply defined arcuate bedform 

with an active mobile surface layer (arrow). Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. 

Figure 6-21. Sediment profile image from Site 4, Station 6 showing partially buried sand dollars 

(Echinarachnius parma) found at many station in this site. Scale: width of image = 16.7 cm. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 188

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Table 6-3 lists the numerically dominant infaunal taxa sampled from each of the sand 

borrow sites and overall for the September survey. The numerically dominant taxa collected 

during the September survey were Polygordius (35% of all individuals collected), the amphipod 

Gammarus annulatus (8.4%), the echinoid E. parma (7%), the amphipod Pseudunciola obliquua

(6.5%), and the tanaid T. psammophilus (4.6%). Together, these taxa comprised 61% of 

infaunal individuals collected in September. Surfclam Spisula solidissima was among the top 10 

numerically dominant taxa in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, and 4 and NY adjacent stations (NYA) 

during September (Table 6-3). 

 The numerically dominant taxa sampled during the June survey included Polygordius

(27% of all individuals collected), echinoid E. parma (9.3%), polychaetes Aricidea catherinae

and A. cerrutii (8%), tanaid T. psammophilus (4.1%), and tubificid oligochaetes (3.3%) 

(Table 6-4). Together, these taxa comprised 52% of infaunal individuals collected in June. 

During the June survey, surfclam S. solidissima was not among the top 10 numerically dominant 

taxa in any sand borrow site. 

 Table 6-5 presents summary statistics for each of the sand borrow sites for the September 

and June surveys. Values are provided for number of taxa, number of individuals, density, 

species diversity, evenness, and richness. 

 The highest mean number of infaunal taxa per station occurred in Site 3 (35 taxa) and NJ 

adjacent stations (NJA) (34) during September and in Site 3 (37) in June. Site H2 yielded the 

lowest mean number of taxa per station during both September and June (20 and 26, 

respectively). Highest infaunal densities were from NJA (station average = 6,980 

individuals/m2

) in September and Site 3 (5,620/m2) during June. Lowest mean densities were 

from Site H2 in both September (1,390/m2

) and June (1,005/m2). 

 Mean values of species diversity (F = 17.1, p<0.0001), evenness (X2

= 3.98, p<0.046), and 

richness (F = 15.78, p<0.0002) were greater in June than September. During September, 

highest mean values of species diversity (H’) were in Sites H1 and 3 (station mean = 2.13) and 

in Site H2 during June (2.62). Highest mean values of species richness (D) were found in Site 3 

during September (5.76) and June (5.92). NJA had the lowest mean values of species diversity 

during September (1.80) and June (2.27). Lowest mean values of species richness were 

recorded during September from Site H2 (3.97) and NYA (3.98). Site H2 and NJA yielded the 

lowest mean values of richness (5.31 and 5.34, respectively) during June. Site H2 had the 

highest mean evenness (J’) during June (0.82), and NJA had the lowest evenness during 

September (0.51) and June (0.65). Otherwise, evenness values between sand borrow sites and 

adjacent stations were similar within surveys. 

6.3.4.1 Juvenile Surfclam 

 All sand borrow sites yielded surfclam (S. solidissima) during both surveys. Table 6-6 

presents mean values of surfclam abundance from each of the sand borrow sites and adjacent 

stations. Surfclam abundance was greater during September than June. Mean surfclam 

densities in September ranged from 333 clams/m2

 at NYA stations to 8 clams/m2 in Site 3. 

Mean surfclam densities in June ranged from 8 clams/m2

 at Site H1 stations to 0 clams/m2 in 

NJA and NYA. Over both surveys, NYA stations yielded the highest average abundance of 

surfclams (167 clams/m2

), and Site 3 yielded the lowest mean density (5 clams/m2) over both 

surveys. Surfclams were collected from stations with sand, slightly gravelly sand, and gravelly 

sand but were not predominantly associated with any particular sedimentary habitat. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 189

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Table 6-4. Ten most abundant taxa in grab samples from Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, 

and 4 and Adjacent Areas NJA and NYA for the June 2002 Survey 2 offshore 

New Jersey and New York. 

Site Taxonomic Name Count Site Taxonomic Name Count 

Polygordius (LPIL) 464 Polygordius (LPIL) 388 

Echinarachnius parma 179 Echinarachnius parma 80 

Tanaissus psammophilus 93 Cirrophorus ilvana 50 

Pseudoleptocuma minor 70 Aricidea cerrutii 38 

Cirrophorus ilvana 61 Tubificidae (LPIL) 35 

Hemipodus roseus 57 Cirratulidae (LPIL) 31 

Nephtys picta 55 Nephtys picta 31 

Caulleriella sp. J 46 Tanaissus psammophilus 30 

Sigalion arenicola 32 Hemipodus roseus 29 

H1 

Podocopida (LPIL) 32 

NJA 

Pseudoleptocuma minor 25 

Echinarachnius parma 78 Echinarachnius parma 215 

Pseudoleptocuma minor 55 Polygordius (LPIL) 198 

Protohaustorius wigleyi 27 Tubificidae (LPIL) 67 

Tubificidae (LPIL) 21 Spiophanes bombyx 60 

Nephtys picta 21 Nucula proxima 60 

Politolana polita 15 Nephtys picta 54 

Pseudunciola obliquua 14 Tellinidae (LPIL) 37 

Tanaissus psammophilus 13 Podocopida (LPIL) 35 

Caulleriella sp. J 12 Aricidea catherinae 34 

H2 

Acanthohaustorius millsi 12 

NYA 

Aricidea (LPIL) 31 

Polygordius (LPIL) 589 Polygordius (LPIL) 2,536 

Aricidea catherinae 303 Echinarachnius parma 854 

Aricidea cerrutii 290 Aricidea catherinae 399 

Lumbrinerides dayi 134 Tanaissus psammophilus 374 

Tubificidae (LPIL) 88 Aricidea cerrutii 337 

Rhynchocoela (LPIL) 85 Tubificidae (LPIL) 300 

Cirrophorus ilvana 83 Pseudoleptocuma minor 287 

Cirratulidae (LPIL) 71 Cirrophorus ilvana 242 

Brania wellfleetensis 50 Nephtys picta 229 

3 

Parapionosyllis longicirrata 46 

ALL 

Cirratulidae (LPIL) 215 

Polygordius (LPIL) 894 

Echinarachnius parma 301 

Tanaissus psammophilus 196 

Pseudunciola obliquua 163 

Protohaustorius wigleyi 141 

Pseudoleptocuma minor 113 

Rhepoxynius hudsoni 85 

Exogone hebes 76 

Spiophanes bombyx 74 

4 

Goniadella gracilis 71 

LPIL = Lowest practical identification level. 
Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 190

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Table 6-5. Summary of infaunal statistics for the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 Survey 2 in Sa

H2, 3, and 4 and Adjacent Areas NJA and NYA offshore New Jersey and New York. No. of Taxa No. of Individuals Density (Individuals/m2) H' Diversity J' Evenness 

Site 

or 

Area 

No. of 

Stations 

(n) 

Mean 

Per 

Station 

Standard 

Deviation 

Mean 

Per 

Station 

Standard

Deviation

Mean 

Per 

Station 

Standard

Deviation

Mean 

Per 

Station 

Standard

Deviation

Mean 

Per 

Station 

Standar

Deviatio

September 2001 Survey 1 

H1 6 27 7.99 328 315.30 3,275 3,153.00 2.13 0.33 0.66 0.12 H2 4 20 9.95 139 140.59 1,390 1,405.94 1.84 0.51 0.67 0.19 

NJA 3 34 8.62 698 394.58 6,980 3,945.77 1.80 0.71 0.51 0.20 

3 4 35 5.06 422 225.59 4,215 2,255.87 2.13 0.23 0.60 0.08 4 10 24 8.86 295 368.44 2,949 3,684.42 2.07 0.34 0.67 0.12 

NYA 3 24 10.60 286 71.45 2,857 714.52 2.04 0.47 0.65 0.06 

June 2002 Survey 2 

H1 6 31 8.80 260 148.09 2,598 1,480.94 2.43 0.45 0.72 0.12 H2 4 26 6.19 101 26.50 1,005 265.02 2.62 0.32 0.82 0.05 

NJA 3 32 5.29 330 42.22 3,303 422.18 2.27 0.47 0.65 0.10 

3 4 37 7.55 562 491.81 5,620 4,918.11 2.44 0.35 0.69 0.12 4 10 33 2.21 302 91.83 3,016 918.31 2.45 0.32 0.70 0.08 

NYA 3 32 6.11 337 125.69 3,370 1,256.94 2.40 0.76 0.69 0.19 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 191

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Table 6-6. Occurrence and density of juvenile surfclam, Spisula solidissima, in grab 

samples taken in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 and Adjacent Areas NJA 

and NYA during the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 Survey 2 

offshore New Jersey and New York. 

September 2001 

Site or Area Number of Samples Mean Density 

(clams/m2

) Standard Deviation 

H1 6 125 84.56 

H2 4 25 36.97 

NJA 3 67 38.59 

3 4 8 11.73 

4 10 108 336.04 

NYA 3 333 568.71 

June 2002 

Site or Area Number of Samples Mean Density 

(clams/m2

) Standard Deviation 

H1 6 8 20.41 

H2 4 5 10.00 

NJA 3 0 0.00 

3 4 3 6.12 

4 10 4 16.73 

NYA 3 0 0.00 

6.3.4.2 Cluster Analysis 

 Patterns of infaunal similarity among stations were examined with cluster analysis. 

Cluster analysis excluded those taxa that were redundant (i.e., had an LPIL designation), except 

for Polygordius (LPIL). When examined over both surveys, normal cluster analysis produced 

three groups (Groups A through C) of stations (samples) that were similar with respect to 

species composition and relative abundance. Two depauperate September samples from 

Site H2 were placed in an outlier Group X. Normal cluster analysis of samples is shown in 

Figure 6-22. Figure 6-23 shows the geographic distribution of infaunal stations grouped by 

normal analysis. 

 Station Group A was represented by just two stations sampled during September. The 

two stations comprising Group A were distinguished from other stations primarily by yielding low 

numbers and few of the ubiquitous taxa from the surveys. Group A was characterized by the 

polychaete Nephtys picta and bivalves Nucula proxima, S. solidissima, and Tellina agilis. 

Sediments at Group A stations were sand or slightly gravelly sand. 

 Groups B (14 stations) and C (42 stations) included samples collected during both 

surveys, and together these included most of the project samples. Group B mostly included 

stations with relatively high gravel content. Ten stations had gravelly sand and two stations had 

sandy gravel. Stations in Group B were characterized most prominently by the amphipod 

Unciola irrorata and polychaetes Aricidea catherinae, A. cerrutii, Cirrophorus ilvana, Goniadella 

gracilis, Hemipodus roseus, Lumbrinerides dayi, Pisione remota, and Scoletoma acicularum. 

The 14 stations in Group B were composed of the same 7 stations during both surveys, 

primarily from Site 3 (4 stations), 1 station each in Sites 4 and H1, and a single NJA station. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 192

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

 Group C stations, which yielded fewer of those taxa that were abundant in Group B 

stations, had sand (26 stations) or slightly gravelly sand (16 stations) bottoms. Site 3 was not 

represented, but otherwise Group C stations were distributed across all other borrow sites and 

both surveys. All but one Site 4 station was included in Group C. Stations in Group C were 

characterized most prominently by relatively high numbers of the amphipods Protohaustorius 

wigleyi and Pseudunciola obliquua, the decapod Crangon septemspinosa, the echinoid 

Echinarachnius parma, the polychaetes Exogone hebes, Caulleriella sp. J, and Sigalion 

arenicola, and the tanaid Tanaissus psammophilus. Group B stations were largely depauperate 

with respect to some of these taxa, particularly E. hebes, E. parma, and P. wigleyi. 

 The inverse cluster analysis examining both the September and June surveys resulted in 

three groups of taxa (Groups 1 through 3) that reflected their co-occurrence in the samples 

(Table 6-7; Figure 6-24). Many infauna included in the cluster analysis were relatively rare and 

heterogeneously distributed; these taxa were not included in the three groups defined by the 

inverse analysis. Species Group 1 included the most homogeneously distributed and many of 

the most abundant taxa collected during the study, both among the various sand borrow sites 

and among surveys. Ubiquitous taxa from Group 1 included Polygordius, polychaetes Nephtys

picta and Sigalion arenicola, and tanaid T. psammophilus. Species Group 1 taxa were 

particularly associated with Station Group D, which tended to have sediments with sand or 

relatively low gravel content, and in addition to the ubiquitous taxa included the amphipods 

P. obliquua and P. wigleyi, decapods Cancer irroratus and C. septemspinosa, the echinoid E.

parma, and polychaetes Aricidea wassi, Caulleriella sp. J, E. hebes, and Spiophanes bombyx. 

Taxa in Group 2 generally were distributed across surveys and borrow sites but at lower 

densities than ubiquitous taxa in Group 1. Members of Group 2 generally were associated with 

sandy and gravelly sediments and included the bivalves Nucula proxima, Spisula solidissima, 

and Tellina agilis, gastropod Ilyanassa trivittata, and polychaetes Aricidea catherinae and 

Scoletoma acicularum. Group 3 taxa were associated primarily with Station Group C, which 

had sediments with measurable gravel. Most members of Group 3 were polychaetes, including 

Aricidea cerrutii, Cirrophorus ilvana, Goniadella gracilis, Hemipodus roseus, Lumbrinerides dayi, 

Monticellina dorsobranchialis, Parapionosyllis sp. D, and Pisione remota, in addition to the 

amphipod Unciola irrorata and bivalve Astarte castanea. 

6.3.4.3 Canonical Discriminant Analysis 

 Data collected during the two surveys were analyzed using canonical discriminant 

analysis to determine which environmental factors most affected the distribution of infaunal 

assemblages. The first two canonical discriminant variates were used to analyze variability 

among those station groups identified by normal cluster analysis as being similar with respect to 

species composition and relative abundance. The first canonical variate (CAN1) correlated best 

with percent gravel (0.792167) and percent sand (-0.792538). The second canonical variate 

(CAN2) best correlated with survey (0.541434), albeit weakly. 

6.3.5 Epifauna 

 Trawlable epifauna (invertebrates) of the area included crustaceans, mollusks and 

echinoderms common to the New York Bight region. Crustaceans were represented by Atlantic 

rock crab (Cancer irroratus), longnose spider crab (Libinia dubia), swimming crab Ovalipes 

ocellatus, and hermit crabs Pagurus longicarpus and P. pollicaris. Mollusks included 

gastropods Euspira heros and Nassarius trivittatus and squid Loligo sp. Echinoderms such as 

the sand dollar Echinarachnius parma and the Forbes sea star (Asterias forbesi) were abundant 

in the trawl collections. 
Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 193

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

B

100

80604020

0

Similarity

S1-H2-04

S1-H2-03

S1-H1-02

S1-NY-01

S1-04-07

S1-03-01

S2-03-1

S1-03-02

S2-03-2

S1-03-03

S1-03-04

S2-03-3

S2-03-4

S2-04-7

S1-H1-01

S2-H1-01

S1-NJ-03

S2-NJ-03

S2-H1-02

S2-NY-1

S2-H2-03

S1-04-02

S2-04-2

S1-04-04

S1-04-08

S1-04-01

S2-H2-02

S2-H2-04

S2-H1-05

S2-04-8

S2-H2-01

S1-H1-06

S1-NJ-01

S1-NY-03

S2-NJ-02

S2-NJ-01

S2-NY-2

S2-H1-03

S2-04-9

S2-04-4

S2-04-6

S2-04-1

S2-NY-3

S2-H1-06

S1-04-10

S2-04-10

S2-04-3

S2-04-5

S1-04-05

S1-H1-04

S2-H1-04

S1-H2-01

A

C

Figure 6-22. Normal cluster analysis of infaunal samples collected during the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 S

Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 194

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

September 2001

580000 590000 600000 610000 620000 630000 640000

4430000

4440000

4450000

4460000

4470000

4480000

4490000

4500000

B BBB

C C C C C

C C B CC

BAC

C C

C

CCXX

C

C

B

A C

C

June 2002

UTM Easting

580000 590000 600000 610000 620000 630000 640000

UTM Northing

4430000

4440000

4450000

4460000

4470000

4480000

4490000

4500000

C BBB

B C C C C

CCC BC

CB C

C C

C

CCCC

C

C

C

B C

C

UTM Easting

UTM Northing

Figure 6-23. Station Groups A through C formed by normal cluster analysis of infaunal samples collected 

during the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 Survey 2 in Sand Borrow Sites H1, H2, 

3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York. Two outlying samples are represented by an 

X. 
Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 195

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 10080604020

0

Similarity

Synelmis albini

Idotea metallica Periploma leanum Mediomastus ambiseta Streblospio benedicti Magelona sp. GG Orbinia swani Americhelidium americanum Oxyurostylis smithi Parahaustorius attenuatus Neverita duplicata Synelmis sp. H

Gammarus tigrinus

Scolelepis squamata

Siliqua costata

Lyonsia hyalina Circulus multistriatus

Hesionura elongata Unciola serrata Aeginina longicornis

Monocorophium tuberculatum Notomastus hemipodus

Dissodactylus mellitae

Monoculodes sp. D

Lumbrinerides acuta Scoletoma verrilli

Nephtys bucera Ampharete acutifrons

Galathowenia oculata Liljeborgia sp. A

Nereis succinea Leptocheirus pinguis Nereis acuminata Scalibregma inflatum Nereiphylla fragilis

Notocirrus spiniferus

Dispio uncinata Parametopella cypris

Carazziella hobsonae Glycera capitata Ensis directus

Spio filicornis Litocorsa antennata Asterias forbesi

Calappa sulcata

Dipolydora socialis

Pherusa plumosa Harmothoe imbricata

Phoxocephalus holbolli Drilonereis longa

Sabellaria vulgaris Mulinia lateralis Apoprionospio pygmaea Eusarsiella texana Spiochaetopterus oculatus

Ampelisca verrilli

Capitella jonesi

Tharyx acutus Axiothella mucosa Lepidonotus sublevis

Pettiboneia duofurca Travisia parva Glycera americana

Turbonilla interrupta Pitar morrhuanus

Sthenelais limicola

Pandora gouldiana

Glycera dibranchiata

Exogone dispar Leitoscoloplos robustus

Cerastoderma pinnulatum

Fimbriosthenelais sp. A

Crepidula plana

Edotea triloba Pagurus longicarpus Cyathura polita

Syllides longocirrata Acanthohaustorius intermedius Asabellides oculata Hippomedon serratus Monticellina dorsobranchialis Parapionosyllis sp. D Unciola irrorata

Pisione remota Goniadella gracilis

Cirrophorus ilvana

Hemipodus roseus

Astarte castanea

Aricidea cerrutii Lumbrinerides dayi

Crenella glandula Parapionosyllis longicirrata Brania wellfleetensis Protodorvillea kefersteini Marphysa bellii

Ancistrosyllis groenlandica

Sphaerosyllis piriferopsis Gammarus annulatus Tectonatica pusilla

Politolana polita Acanthohaustorius millsi Streptosyllis varians

Aricidea catherinae Nucula proxima 

3

Figure 6-24. Inverse cluster analysis of infaunal samples collected during the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 S

Sites H1, H2, 3, and 4 offshore New Jersey and New York. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 196

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Table 6-7. Infaunal species groups resolved from inverse cluster analysis of all samples 

collected during the September 2001 Survey 1 and June 2002 Survey 2 in the 

four sand borrow sites and adjacent stations offshore New Jersey and 

New York. 

GROUP 1 

Protohaustorius wigleyi – A 

Pseudunciola obliquua – A 

Polygordius (LPIL) – Ar 

Pseudoleptocuma minor – Cu 

Cancer irroratus – D 

Crangon septemspinosa – D 

Echinarachnius parma – E 

Chiridotea tuftsi – I 

Aricidea wassi – P 

Caulleriella sp. J – P 

Exogone hebes – P 

Magelona papillicornis – P

Nephtys picta – P 

Sigalion arenicola – P 

Spiophanes bombyx – P 

Tanaissus psammophilus – Ta 

GROUP 2 

Nucula proxima – B 

Spisula solidissima – B 

Tellina agilis – B 

Ilyanassa trivittata – G 

Aricidea catherinae – P 

Scoletoma acicularum – P 

GROUP 3 

Unciola irrorata – A 

Aricidea cerrutii – P 

Astarte castanea – P 

Cirrophorus ilvana – P 

Goniadella gracilis – P 

Hemipodus roseus – P 

Lumbrinerides dayi – P 

Monticellina dorsobranchialis – P 

Parapionosyllis sp. D – P 

Pisione remota – P

Key: A = amphipod; Ar = archiannelid; B = bivalve; Cu = cumacean; D = decapod; E = echinoderm; 

 G = gastropod; I = isopod; P = polychaete; Ta = tanaid. 

LPIL = Lowest practical identification level.

 During September, a total of 3,103 individuals in 8 invertebrate taxa was collected in 6 

trawls at the borrow sites (Table 6-8). An extremely large catch of the sand dollar E. parma

from Trawl Transect H1-B contributed 2,475 individuals to this total. Epifauna excluding the 

sand dollar contributed 7 taxa and 127 specimens to the trawl catches. The squid Loligo sp., 

Forbes sea star (A. forbesi), longnose spider crab (Libinia dubia), and Atlantic rock crab 

(C. irroratus) were the top ranking species in terms of abundance. Total catches during 

September varied among sand borrow sites, ranging from 23 individuals in Sand Borrow Site 3 

(Trawl Transect 3-A) to 2,511 individuals in Site H1 (Trawl Transect H1-B). The average catch 

per haul was 517.2 individuals. 

 During June, trawl samples produced 11 invertebrate taxa represented by 

1,806 individuals (Table 6-9). As with the September survey, the most abundant species was 

sand dollar E. parma represented by 1,492 individuals. Other abundant invertebrates included 

sea star (A. forbesi), flatclaw hermit crab (Pagurus pollicaris) and Atlantic rock crab 

(C. irroratus). Epifaunal catches during June ranged from 35 individuals in Site H1 (Trawl 

Transect H1-A) to 590 individuals in Site 4 (Trawl Transect 4-A). Trawl catches averaged 301.0 

epifaunal individuals per haul. The highest number of total taxa collected during June (8) came 

from Site 3 (Trawl Transect 3-A) (Table 6-9). Site H1 (Trawl Transect H1-B) yielded the fewest 

total taxa (3) in a single trawl. On average, the total number of taxa per haul was 5.7. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 197

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Table 6-8. Epifauna and demersal fishes collected by mongoose trawl during the 

September 2001 Survey 1 of the four sand borrow sites offshore New Jersey 

and New York. 

Trawl Transect Taxa 

H1-A H1-B H2-A 3-A 4-A 4-B Total 

INVERTEBRATES 

Echinarachnius parma 314 2,475 151 25 11 2,976 

Loligo sp. 11 26 16 11 5 69 

Asterias forbesi 1 1 1 9 7 19 

Libinia dubia 1 6 3 3 1 1 15 

Cancer irroratus 1 6 2 9 

Pagurus pollicaris 3 1 2 1 7 

Euspira heros 1 5 6 

Ovalipes ocellatus 2 2 

FISHES 

Stenotomus chrysops 10 11 25 32 78 

Prionotus carolinus 4 4 1 2 2 2 15 

Paralichthys oblongus 6 3 1 10 

Paralichthys dentatus 8 1 9 

Peprilus triacanthus 2 7 9 

Raja eglanteria 1 2 2 1 6 

Citharichthys sp. 3 3 

Urophycis regia 1 1 

Hippocampus erectus 1 1 

Centropristis striatus 1 1 

Tautoga onitis 1 1 

INVERTEBRATE TOTALS 

Total Individuals 327 2,511 172 23 37 33 3,103 

Total Taxa 4 5 5 5 5 7 8 

FISH TOTALS 

Total Individuals 15 25 39 14 4 37 134 

Total Taxa 3 5 5 6 2 5 11 

FISH AND INVERTEBRATE TOTALS 

Grand Total Individuals 342 2,536 211 37 41 70 3,237 

Grand Total Taxa 7 10 10 11 7 12 19 

6.3.6 Demersal Fishes 

 Demersal fishes collected by trawl included common representatives of the regional fauna 

such as clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria), searobins Prionotus carolinus and P. evolans, porgy 

(Stenotomus chrysops), and lefteye flounders Paralichthys dentatus, P. oblongus, and 

Scopthalmus aquosus. 

 Numbers of individuals in hauls from the September survey totaled 134 (Table 6-8). The 

most abundant species caught in September was scup (S. chrysops), which were present as 

small juveniles during that survey. The total number of fish species collected in September was 

11. Numbers of fish species collected during September ranged from 4 at Site H1 (Trawl 

Transect H1-A) to 7 species from Site 4 (Trawl Transect 4-B). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 198

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

 The total number of individuals collected in June was 51 (Table 6-9). The most abundant 

species collected in June were summer flounder (P. dentatus) and clearnose skate (Raja 

eglanteria). June trawl hauls yielded nine species over all sampling stations. Numbers of 

species collected during June ranged from none in Trawl Transect H1-A to 5 in Trawl Transects 

H2-A and 4-A. 

6.4 DISCUSSION 

 Benthic assemblages surveyed from the New Jersey and New York sand borrow sites 

consisted of members of the major invertebrate and vertebrate groups commonly found in the 

region of the New York Bight. Numerically dominant infaunal groups included numerous 

crustaceans, echinoderms, mollusks, and polychaetes, while epifaunal taxa consisted primarily 

of decapods, sand dollars, gastropods, and squids, all typical components of benthic 

assemblages in the study area. Similarly, the numerically dominant demersal fishes collected in 

trawls within the borrow sites revealed consistency with previous surveys. Fishes such as 

clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria), northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus), scup (Stenotomus

chrysops), and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) were numerical dominants during the 

surveys, and these species consistently are among the most ubiquitous and abundant demersal 

taxa in the Bight region (Able and Hagen, 1995; Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., 1999b). 

 Results of this investigation support the findings of other studies that found strong 

associations of infaunal taxa with particular sedimentary habitats (Steimle and Stone, 1973; 

Pearce et al., 1981; Chang et al., 1992; Theroux and Wigley, 1998). Discriminant analysis 

indicated that the composition of benthic assemblages was affected primarily by relative 

percentages of gravel and sand at survey stations. Infaunal assemblage distributions therefore 

reflected sediment type distributions to a large degree. In the Bight, differences in water depth, 

presence of bathymetric features, and proximity to the Hudson/Raritan estuary plume are 

important in structuring infaunal assemblages, along with sediment characteristics (Barry A. 

Vittor & Associates, 2002). 

 Most resource stations in this study had sand or slightly gravelly sand bottoms. These 

stations were characterized most prominently by relatively high numbers of the amphipods 

Protohaustorius wigleyi and Pseudunciola obliquua, the decapod Crangon septemspinosa, 

echinoid Echinarachnius parma, and polychaetes Exogone hebes and Caulleriella sp. J, 

agreeing with numerous prior surveys in the study area that detected these taxa as components 

of a sand habitat community (e.g., Pearce et al., 1981; Reid et al., 1991; Chang et al., 1992). 

Gravel stations were largely depauperate with respect to sand taxa, particularly the polychaete 

E. hebes, sand dollar E. parma, and amphipod P. wigleyi. Likewise, sand stations tended to 

yield relatively few taxa that were abundant at stations with sandy gravel or gravelly sand 

stations. Ubiquitous taxa collected from both sand and gravel areas included the archiannelid 

Polygordius, polychaetes Aricidea catherinae, Nephtys picta, and Sigalion arenicola, and tanaid 

Tanaissus psammophilus. Polygordius is usually found in its highest abundance associated 

with low organic, coarse sand sediments (Caracciolo and Steimle, 1983; Battelle Ocean 

Sciences, 1996) and was by far the numerically dominant taxon in this study. 

 Juvenile surfclams (Spisula solidissima) were collected from stations with sand, slightly 

gravelly sand, and gravelly sand but were not predominantly associated with any particular 

sedimentary habitat in the borrow sites. Prior investigations of Middle Atlantic shelf waters 

(Parker, 1967; Parker and Fahlen, 1968) found that offshore areas with gravel bottoms tended 

to yield greater abundance than sites with high percentages of sand. Juvenile surfclams in this 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 199

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

study also were common in sand habitats, as has been observed by other investigations in the 

Bight (Pearce et al., 1981; Caracciolo and Steimle, 1983). 

Table 6-9. Epifauna and demersal fishes collected by mongoose trawl during the 

June 2002 Survey 2 of the four sand borrow sites offshore New Jersey and 

New York. 

Trawl Transect 

Taxa 

H1-A H1-B H2-A 3-A 4-A 4-B Total 

INVERTEBRATES 

Echinarachnius parma 33 500 23 17 569 350 1,492 

Asterias forbesi 3 179 32 2 5 221 

Pagurus pollicaris 14 5 4 23 

Cancer irroratus 1 17 1 19 

Euspira heros 2 1 7 5 15 

Loligo sp. 8 2 2 12 

Pagurus longicarpus 2 6 8 

Nassarius trivittatus 1 4 2 7 

Nudibranch 4 4 

Ovalipes ocellatus 1 2 3 

Libinia dubia 1 1 2 

FISHES 

Raja eglanteria 3 8 2 13 

Paralichthys dentatus 3 7 2 12 

Prionotus carolinus 5 1 1 7 

Stenotomus chrysops 5 5 

Urophycis regia 2 1 1 4 

Scophthalmus aquosus 4 4 

Prionotus evolans 3 3 

Paralichthys oblongus 1 1 2 

Peprilus triacanthus 1 1 

INVERTEBRATE TOTALS 

Total Individuals 35 514 205 93 590 369 1,806 

Total Taxa 3 5 4 8 7 7 11 

FISH TOTALS 

Total Individuals 11 23 2 10 5 51 

Total Taxa 3 5 1 5 4 9 

FISH AND INVERTEBRATE TOTALS 

Total Individuals 35 525 228 95 600 374 1,857 

Total Taxa 3 8 9 9 12 11 24 

 Station depth did not account for any differences in assemblage composition during the 

study because depths were similar across the study area. Reid et al. (1991) and Steimle and 

Stone (1973) both found that the number of species increased from inshore to offshore stations 

in relation to Bight water depth, and Wigley and Theroux (1981) reported that highest infaunal 

densities in the Bight occurred at relatively shallow depths. In addition to absolute depth, 

bathymetric features such as inter-shoal troughs have been found to support distinct 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 200

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

assemblages in the region (Byrnes et al., 2000), however no stations were located in a trough, 

and this likely also contributed to a lack of depth-related variability. 

 In addition to sediment-based spatial variability, there were significant temporal 

differences in the composition of infaunal assemblages. Just half of all collected taxa were 

common to both surveys. There were 39 taxa restricted to the June survey, and the September 

survey included 33 taxa not included in June samples. Whereas overall abundance was similar 

across surveys, with grab samples containing 337 individuals per sample in September and 308 

per sample in June, mean values of species diversity, evenness, and richness all were 

significantly greater in June compared to the September survey. 

 A recent open shelf survey offshore the southern portion of New Jersey (Byrnes et al., 

2000) found the opposite pattern from this survey, when greater taxa richness was found in 

September 1998 compared to May 1998. In general, it is expected that species richness would 

increase after spring and toward fall months because reproduction of benthic invertebrates is 

largely tied to increased temperatures (Sastry, 1978). However, there are data indicating that 

climatic conditions during the surveys was abnormal compared to historic trends. According to 

the National Climatic Data Center (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002), 

preliminary data indicate that the northeastern U.S. had its warmest winter on record during 

2001-2002, during which the Bight region had "much above normal" temperatures for most of 

the first 6 months of 2002. The apparently anomalous climatic environment potentially may 

have affected normal reproductive periodicity in the Bight region. 

 Temporal variation occurring on multiple scales has long been noted in shallow marine 

benthic communities. Many of the numerically dominant infauna inhabiting the study area are 

known to exhibit either year-round or late winter-early spring periods of recruitment, however, 

there often is highly variable recruitment from year to year due to the harshness of larval life in 

the plankton (Thorson, 1966), together with frequently intense predation soon after settlement. 

These processes can result in wide and unpredictable fluctuations in infaunal numbers 

(Warwick, 1980). 

 The four faunal indices examined (density, diversity, evenness, and richness) are 

interrelated. Species diversity is dependent on both the number of taxa present (species 

richness) and the distribution of all individuals among those species (evenness). Diversity and 

evenness indices reflect the equitability of the total number of organisms among species. The 

diversity, evenness, and richness indices employed in this study all are determined by the 

number of taxa and individuals in the samples. Greater species evenness during June, as 

compared to September, indicated more equitable distribution of individuals among the various 

taxa during the second survey. The 10 most abundant taxa during September comprised 79% 

of all collected infauna, whereas the 10 numerically dominant taxa collected in June comprised 

57% of all individuals. Much of this difference was due to the most abundant taxon, 

Polygordius, which comprised 38% of all individuals collected during September and 25% of all 

individuals yielded by grab samples in June. The less even distribution of abundance across 

taxa in the September survey was partly responsible for lower measures of diversity and 

species richness compared to June. Numbers of taxa per grab (including adjacent stations) 

averaged 27 taxa in September and 32 taxa in June, and this also contributed to the significant 

increase in community indices during the second survey. 

 Juvenile surfclam (Spisula solidissima) abundance was greater during September than 

June. This temporal distribution pattern would be expected given this species’ reproductive 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 201

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

characteristics. Surfclam spawning has been described both as a single event and as multiple 

events from July to early November (Weinberg, 1998). 

 In a previous open shelf study offshore New Jersey, abundance of most epifaunal taxa 

was low in winter, then increased to peak densities in summer and declined in fall (Hales et al., 

1995). While this was true overall for the project, with 3,103 individuals in September and 1,806 

individuals in June trawls, most of this difference was due to abundance of the sand dollar 

Echinarachnius parma. During both surveys, trawls were numerically dominated by E. parma, a 

common invertebrate in the Bight (Steimle and Stone, 1973; Pearce et al., 1981; Chang et al., 

1992), which contributed 96% and 83% of total invertebrate abundance in September and June, 

respectively. In September, invertebrates excluding E. parma contributed 127 individuals to the 

trawls, whereas invertebrates other than E. parma numbered 314 individuals in June. Most of 

the non-sand dollar collection in June was composed of the sea star Asterias forbesi, 

particularly in Site H2. Individual abundance therefore was similar across surveys when 

considering taxa other than sand dollars and sea stars. 

 There were few apparent differences in epifaunal species composition between surveys. 

Invertebrates contributed 8 taxa to the trawl catches in September and 11 taxa during June. 

Threeline mud snails (Nassarius trivittatus), longwrist hermit crab (Pagurus longicarpus), and 

nudibranchs were present in June trawls but not September trawls; otherwise, all other collected 

invertebrate taxa were present during both surveys. 

 There were some apparent between-survey differences in abundance for certain epifauna. 

Sea stars were more abundant during June. There usually is only one sea star breeding 

season per year, which occurs in spring in temperate waters (Barnes, 1980), although it is 

unknown whether project trawls contained relatively recent recruits or mature breeding adults. 

Longfin squid (Loligo sp.) were collected in greater numbers during September. Squids were 

collected in 5 of 6 trawl hauls and averaged 12 individuals per haul in September, whereas in 

June they were collected in just 3 of 6 trawl hauls and averaged 2 individuals per haul. There is 

a general seasonal migratory pattern for the Middle Atlantic Bight Loligo population, in which 

adults move offshore in fall and remain there until April, when adults and young migrate back 

into shelf waters for summer (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980). Relative paucity of squids in June 

samples compared to September therefore may have reflected densities prior to completion of 

summer migration into shelf waters. 

 Within surveys, overall taxa composition in the trawls was similar, except for one of the 

June trawls in Site H1 (Trawl Transect H1-A), in which just three invertebrates were collected in 

relatively low numbers and no fishes were taken. On average, the total number of combined 

taxa per haul during the June survey was 8.67. The second trawl haul in Site H1 (Trawl 

Transect H1-B) yielded abundance and numbers of individuals similar to June trawls in the other 

sand borrow sites. Reasons for the paucity of taxa and individuals in Trawl Transect H1-A are 

not apparent and may simply be due to natural variability. Hydrologic parameters, including 

dissolved oxygen levels, were similar across sand borrow sites during the June survey. 

 Offshore New Jersey, there is considerable variation in the abundance and distribution of 

demersal taxa, both spatially and seasonally (Able and Hagen, 1995; Barry A. Vittor & 

Associates, Inc., 1999b). September trawls yielded 134 individuals in 11 fish taxa and were 

numerically dominated by scup (Stenotomus chrysops), which comprised 58% of collected 

individuals. The most abundant fish species during the June survey were clearnose skate (Raja 

eglanteria) and southern flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). All demersal taxa collected during 
MMS Study 2004-044 Biological Field Studies 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 202

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

the surveys are typical components of benthic assemblages in the study area (Able and Hagen, 

1995; Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., 1999b). 

 Compared to September, fishes were less abundant overall in June, when trawl samples 

yielded 51 individuals in nine taxa. This abundance pattern agrees with the results of previous 

long-term sampling efforts that found peak fish abundance occurs in shelf waters offshore New 

Jersey during the months September through November (Able and Hagen, 1995). Scup was 

much less abundant in the June survey compared to September. This species tends to 

aggregate along the shelf break during winter and occurs at all depths on the shelf during 

summer months (Grosslein, 1976). 

 Some variability among sites was apparent in the composition of trawls. In particular, 

during the June survey, in Trawl Transect H1-A, no fishes were collected. Reasons for this 

distributional variability are not apparent, and the depauperate contents of this trawl may be due 

to natural spatial variability, which is often prominent. Epifaunal abundance also was very low in 

Trawl Transect H1-A in June, possibly causing fishes to forage in other areas with greater prey 

abundance. Fish abundance and species richness was more comparable among borrow sites 

during the September survey. 

 The results of the sand borrow site surveys agree well with previous descriptions of 

benthic assemblages residing in shallow shelf waters offshore New Jersey and New York. 

Overall, discriminant analysis indicated that sedimentary regime most affected the composition 

of infaunal assemblages. Other physical environmental characteristics that normally affect 

infaunal population distributions, such as water depth, were similar across the study area and 

therefore did not differentially affect abundance and distribution patterns. Temporal patterns of 

infaunal community indices did not meet expected patterns, potentially due to abnormally high 

temperatures in the region during the first half of 2002. Despite inherent spatial and temporal 

heterogeneity in the distribution and abundance of demersal taxa, results of the 2001-2002 

surveys of the New Jersey and New York sand borrow sites generally are consistent with 

historical demersal survey results in the region. 
Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 203

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

7.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS 

 One of the primary purposes of this project was to provide site-specific information for 

decisions on requests for non-competitive sand leases from local, State, and Federal agencies. 

The information may be used to determine whether or not stipulations need to be applied to a 

lease. The information also may be incorporated into an Environmental Assessment (EA) or 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), if so required. 

 Environmental impact analyses of mining operations should be based on 

commodity-specific, technology-specific, and site-specific information, whenever possible 

(Hammer et al., 1993). First, the specific mineral of interest and the technological operations for 

a specific mining operation need to be defined because these two parameters determine the 

impact producing factors that need to be considered. Once the impact producing factors are 

known, this information can be translated into statements concerning the impacts that might 

occur to the full suite of potentially affected environmental resources that may need to be 

addressed, including geology, chemical and physical oceanography, air quality, biology, and 

socioeconomics. Then, decisions can be made regarding the type of mitigation necessary to 

determine the preferred alternative for a specific marine mining operation to acquire project 

approval. 

 This section focuses on providing information on potential impacts related to physical 

processes and biological considerations of sand mining for beach nourishment from five sand 

borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island. Two primary 

dredging technologies are available for offshore sand mining operations, depending on distance 

from source to project site, the quantity of sand being dredged, and the depth to which sand is 

extracted at a site (Herbich, 1992). They are: 1) cutterhead suction dredge, where excavated 

sand is transported through a direct pipeline to shore, and 2) hopper dredge, where sand is 

pumped to the hopper, transported close to the replenishment site, and pumped to the site 

through a pipeline from the hopper or from a temporary offshore disposal area close to the 

beach fill site. As a general rule, cutterhead suction dredging is most effective for projects 

where the sand resource is close to shore (within 8 km), the dredging volumes are large 

(>8 x 106

 m3 ), and the excavation depth is on the order of 2.5 to 4 m (A. Taylor, 1999, personal 

communication). Hopper dredging becomes a more efficient procedure when the sand resource 

areas are greater than 8 km from shore, dredging volumes are relatively small (<2 x 106

 m3), 

and the excavation depth at the sand resource area is less than 2 m (A. Taylor, 1999, personal 

communication). Ultimately, a combination of these factors will be evaluated by dredgers to 

determine the most cost effective method of sand extraction and beach replenishment for a 

given project. Availability of dredging equipment also may be a factor for determining the 

technique to be used; however, the number of cutterhead suction and hopper dredges in 

operation is about equal in the industry today (A. Taylor, 1999, personal communication). As 

such, both technologies will be evaluated for potential biological effects. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 204

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

7.1 OFFSHORE SAND BORROW SITES 

 Five potential sand borrow sites were defined for this study based on practical water depth 

extraction, environmental impact minimization, and suitable geologic characteristics. Most sand 

borrow sites are geologically similar (coarse-to-medium sand with maximum relief of about 3 to 

5 m and resource volumes of at least 5 x 106 m3

) and exist on either shoreface-attached or 

offshore linear sand shoals immediately seaward of the Federal-State boundary. The lone 

exception to this trend is the westernmost borrow site offshore Long Island (Site 3) that contains 

very coarse sand and has relatively low relief (~2 m). Three primary criteria were used to 

isolate potential borrow sites. First, water depths greater than 20 m were excluded as a 

practical limitation for sand extraction. This eliminated any potential site east of Fire Island Inlet 

because the 20 m depth contour exists at or landward of the Federal-State boundary. Second, 

we were most interested in sand ridges as potential borrow sites to minimize the extent of 

excavation below the ambient continental shelf surface adjacent to these sites. It is expected 

that this procedure will limit potential physical environmental impacts to waves and currents 

resulting from dredging. Third, the geologic characteristics of offshore sand deposits had to be 

compatible with beach environments where fill is to be placed. Although these five potential 

sand borrow sites were designated as ones with greatest potential, it is possible that sand could 

be dredged from intervening offshore areas because consistency of shoal deposits is 

widespread seaward of the northern New Jersey and southern Long Island coast. 

 The amount of dredging that occurs at any site is a function of Federal, State, and local 

requirements for beach replenishment. It is nearly impossible to predict the exact sand 

quantities needed in the foreseeable future, so a representative value for any given project was 

estimated based on discussions with MMS, USACE, and State personnel. Preliminary analysis 

of short-term impacts (storm and normal conditions) at specific locations along the coast 

landward of sand borrow sites indicates that at least 1 x 106 m3

 of sand would be needed for a 

given beach replenishment event. Long-term shoreline change data sets indicate that a 

replenishment interval of about 5 to 10 years would be expected to maintain beaches. This 

does not consider the potential for multiple storm events impacting the coast over a short time 

interval, nor does it consider longer time intervals without destructive storm events. Instead, the 

estimate represents average change over decades that is a reasonable measure for coastal 

management applications. 

 Given the quantity of at least 1 x 106 m3

 of sand per beach replenishment event, the 

surface area covered for evaluating potential environmental impacts is a function of average 

dredging depth. Two factors should be considered when establishing dredging practice and 

depth limits for proposed extraction scenarios. First, regional shelf sediment transport patterns 

should be evaluated to determine net transport directions and rates. It is good sand resource 

management practice to dredge the leading edge of a migrating shoal because infilling of 

dredged sites occurs more rapidly at these locations (Byrnes and Groat, 1991; Van Dolah et al., 

1998). Second, shoal relief above the ambient shelf surface should be a determining factor 

controlling depth of dredging. Geologically, shoals form and migrate on top of the ambient shelf 

surface, indicating a link between fluid dynamics, sedimentology, and environmental evolution 

(Swift et al., 1976). As such, average shoal relief is a reasonable threshold for maintaining 

environmentally-sound sand extraction procedures. 

 A primary question addressed by modeling efforts relates to sediment transport and 

infilling estimates at potential borrow sites and the impact of dredging operations on these 

estimates. Combined wave-current interaction (waves mobilize the seabed and currents 

transport the sediment) at offshore borrow sites results in a net direction of transport into and 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 205

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

out of potential sand resource sites. Historical sediment transport dynamics suggest that the net 

direction of sediment movement is from east to west along the Long Island shelf and north to 

south along the New Jersey shelf, and the rate at which sand moves on the shelf varies. 

7.2 WAVE TRANSFORMATION MODELING 

 Excavation of borrow sites in the nearshore can affect offshore wave heights and the 

direction of wave propagation. The existence of offshore topographic relief can cause waves to 

refract toward the shallow edges of borrow sites. This alteration to the wave field by a borrow 

site may change local sediment transport rates, where some areas may experience a reduction 

in transport, while other areas may show an increase. To determine the potential physical 

impacts associated with dredging borrow sites offshore southwestern Long Island and 

northeastern New Jersey, wave transformation modeling and sediment transport potential 

calculations were performed for existing and post-dredging bathymetric conditions. Comparison 

of results for existing and post-dredging conditions illustrated the relative impact of borrow site 

excavation on wave-induced coastal processes. Although the interpretation of wave modeling 

results was relatively straightforward, evaluating the significance of predicted changes for 

accepting or rejecting a borrow site was more complex (see Section 4.0 for details). 

7.2.1 Offshore Southwestern Long Island 

 Linear offshore sand shoals, oriented obliquely to the shoreline in a northwest-southeast 

direction, are the primary geomorphic features influencing wave propagation offshore 

southwestern Long Island beaches. Two relatively long-period wave cases were selected to 

simulate the impact of dredging on wave transformation across borrow sites. For 1.3 m, 9.1 sec 

waves propagating from the east-southeast (Case 11A), shoals encompassed by Borrow Sites 

3, 4W, and 4E had the greatest influence on waves in the modeled area; however, effects to 

waves were relatively small because these shoals are located in approximately 17 to 20 m 

water depth. For 1.6 m, 9.1 sec waves propagating from the southeast (Case 14A), propagation 

over offshore shoals is similar to Case 11A. The primary difference between wave cases is the 

offshore incident wave angle, which is more shore-normal for Case 14A. As a result, there is 

less change in wave direction as waves approach the shoreline. 

 Post-dredging wave height changes at Sites 3, 4W, and 4E illustrate the impact of sand 

extraction at borrow sites, where seafloor topography within each site was lowered to a level not 

exceeding water depths at the base of the shoals (approximately -20 m). For wave Case 11A, 

borrow site dredging had no measurable influence on waves over a long section of coastline 

(>44 km), but changes on the order of 0.01 m do occur along 20 km of coast in the combined 

shadow of the three borrow sites. At Site 4E, maximum wave height decrease was 

approximately 0.05 m, and the maximum increase was 0.10 m at the landward boundary of the 

site. At Site 4W, maximum wave height increase was 0.10 m, and maximum wave height 

decrease was 0.09 m. Seafloor excavation at Site 3 produced smallest wave height changes 

for borrow sites offshore southwestern Long Island, with a maximum decrease of 0.06 m and a 

maximum increase of 0.04 m. Minimal computed changes at Site 3 may be due to the relatively 

small volume of sand excavated from this site, and because changes in seafloor elevation for 

post-dredging conditions were less (approximately 2 m change for Site 3, versus 4 m for Sites 

4W and 4E). 

 For wave Case 14A, changes in wave field propagation resulting from dredging at the 

three offshore borrow sites were smaller than those computed for Case 11A, even though the 

wave height for this case is larger. This effect may be due to a combination of incident wave 

angle and directional orientation of shoals upon which borrow sites are located. For Case 11A, 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 206

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

the wave approach angle is oriented closer to the centerline axis of the shoal ridge, which 

causes slightly more wave energy focusing than in Case 14A. The wave shadow zone from 

these three sites affects approximately 45 km of shoreline, but greatest changes are on the 

order of 0.01 m and occur within a 4 km stretch of shoreline at the western end of Jones Beach. 

At Site 4E, maximum wave height changes range between +0.07 and -0.04 m. At Site 4W, 

wave height changes are similar in magnitude (+0.07 and -0.05 m). For Borrow Site 3, wave 

height changes are equivalent to those for Case 11A, with a maximum wave height increase of 

0.04 m and a corresponding decrease of 0.06 m. 

7.2.2 Offshore Northeastern New Jersey 

 Potential sand borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey are oriented obliquely to the 

shoreline in a northeast-southwest direction and have minimal influence on wave propagation to 

the shoreline. Two relatively long-period wave cases were selected to simulate the impact of 

dredging on wave transformation across borrow sites. For 1.3 m, 9.1 sec waves propagating 

from the east (Case 11B), shoals encompassed by Borrow Sites H1 and H2 exhibited minimal 

wave focusing. The approximate minimum water depths at Sites H1 and H2 are 16 and 17 m, 

respectively. For the shoal at Site H1, maximum wave height increase was 0.13 m due to the 

focusing effect of the sand ridge. For 1.3 m, 7.7 sec waves propagating from the southsoutheast (Case 16B), wave height changes at Sites H1 and H2 are not as pronounced as 

those for Case 11B. The primary reason for this difference is that offshore bathymetry has less 

effect on wave focusing for shorter peak period incident waves. Closer to shore in shallower 

water, approaching waves eventually are influenced by the seafloor as they refract to a more 

shore normal angle. 

 Post-dredging wave height changes at Sites H1 and H2 simulate the impact of sand 

extraction at borrow sites, where seafloor topography within each site was lowered to a level not 

exceeding water depths at the base of the shoals (approximately -20 m). Wave height 

differences for wave Case 11B resulting from numerically excavating Sites H1 and H2 are 

relatively small and diffuse, and wave height changes at the modeled shoreline are less than 

0.01 m. At Site H1, maximum changes in wave height ranged from -0.06 to +0.04 m. At Site 

H2, maximum wave height changes decreased by 0.05 m and increased is 0.03 m. 

 For Case 16B, wave height changes indicated that borrow sites have an overlapping 

influence at the shoreline for waves propagating from the SSE. Similar to the results of 

Case 11B, wave height changes at the shoreline relative to potential offshore sand dredging 

were never greater than 0.01 m. Wave height changes at borrow sites are smaller than those 

for Case 11B, primarily due to a shorter wave period for Case 16B. Site H1 exists within the 

wave shadow zone for Site H2, but wave height changes remain relatively small. At Site H1, 

maximum wave height changes ranged from +0.04 to -0.04 m; at Site H2, maximum changes 

were half this magnitude (+0.02 to -0.02 m). Overall, wave height differences between existing 

and post-dredging conditions were quite small relative to natural wave height variability. 

7.3 CURRENTS AND CIRCULATION 

 Circulation patterns on either side of the Hudson Shelf Valley near potential offshore sand 

borrow sites documented speed and direction related to current and wind patterns recorded 

between December 4, 1999 and April 15, 2000. The high-energy environment associated with 

winter storm events is capable of suspending and transporting sediment and is well suited for 

determining maximum sediment transport rates for the region. Current meter data analyzed by 

Butman et al. (2003) agrees with the overall trend Scheffner et al. (1994) modeled; bottom 

currents in the vicinity of offshore borrow sites are driven primarily by winds and influenced by 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 207

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

tidal flows. Overall, the predominant direction of surface flow within the study area varied from 

southeast (west of Hudson Shelf Valley) to south-southeast (east of the Hudson Shelf Valley). 

Surface current magnitudes also were consistent, showing similar maximums, means, and 

standard deviations. Bottom current measurements illustrated greater variability in direction and 

magnitude. Offshore northeastern New Jersey, predominant bottom current flow varied from 

east-southeast to west, while the predominant bottom current flow east of the Hudson Shelf 

Valley varied from north to south-southeast. Differences in bottom flow may be explained by the 

presence of the Hudson Shelf Valley, which bisects the continental shelf in this region causing 

currents to veer to the north as they flow cross contour into the bathometric low from northeast 

to southwest. Strong northerly flow within the valley prevents currents south and west of this 

area from flowing to the east-northeast. 

 The controlling factor for bottom current velocities in the vicinity of proposed sand borrow 

sites was wind direction and intensity, and local bathometric features controlled current 

direction. Bottom currents tended to flow parallel to contours causing currents to diverge 

around localized bathymetric highs and converge near bathymetric lows. In general, bottom 

flows at the borrow sites offshore southwestern Long Island flowed east-southeast or east and 

west with deviations caused by wind direction. Maximum bottom current speed was about 

35 cm/s flowing east, with a mean speed of 8 cm/s (±5 cm/s) flowing southeast. Offshore 

northeastern New Jersey, bottom currents generally flow north and south along bathymetric 

contours. Maximum bottom current speed for this area was about 26 cm/s flowing north, with a 

mean velocity of 6 cm/sec (±4 cm/s) flowing north. Bottom current speeds at both sites primarily 

were controlled by wind speeds, and the direction of flow was controlled by local bathymetry. 

 The above information infers some general trends about the borrow sites located offshore 

southwestern Long Island and northeastern New Jersey. At borrow sites offshore Long Island, 

along-contour flow can be expected, flowing predominantly east-northeast or west-southwest 

with little variation to the north (onshore flow). At borrow sites offshore northeastern New 

Jersey, flow was predominantly north-northeast or south-southwest with little variation to the 

west (onshore flow) due to localized bathymetric control and the channeling affect of the 

Hudson Shelf Valley. 

7.4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 

 Current measurements and analyses, and wave transformation modeling, provided 

baseline information on incident processes impacting coastal environments under existing 

conditions and with respect to proposed sand mining activities for beach replenishment. 

Ultimately, the most important information for understanding physical processes impacts from 

offshore sand extraction is changes in sediment transport dynamics resulting from potential 

sand extraction scenarios relative to existing conditions. 

 Three independent sediment transport analyses were completed to evaluate physical 

environmental impacts due to sand mining. First, historical sediment transport trends were 

quantified to document regional, long-term sediment movement throughout the study area using 

historical bathymetric data sets. Erosion and accretion patterns were documented, and 

sediment transport rates in the littoral zone and at offshore borrow sites were evaluated to 

assess potential changes due to offshore sand dredging activities. Second, sediment transport 

patterns at proposed offshore borrow sites were evaluated using wave modeling results and 

current measurements. Post-dredging wave model results were integrated with regional current 

measurements to estimate sediment transport trends for predicting borrow site infilling rates. 

Third, potential longshore sediment transport was computed using wave modeling output to 

estimate potential impacts along the coast (beach erosion and accretion). All three methods 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 208

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

were compared for documenting consistency of measurements relative to predictions, and 

potential physical environmental impacts were identified. 

7.4.1 Historical Sediment Transport Patterns 

 Regional geomorphic changes between 1873/88 and 1991/97 (southwestern Long Island) 

and 1836/39 and 1977 (northeastern New Jersey) were analyzed for assessing long-term, net 

coastal sediment transport dynamics. Although these data did not provide information on 

potential impacts of sand dredging from proposed borrow sites, they did provide a means of 

verifying predictive sediment transport models relative to infilling rates at borrow sites and 

longshore sand transport. 

 Shoreline position and nearshore bathymetry change documented four important trends 

relative to study objectives. First, there were three dominant directions of longshore sand 

transport within the study area. Between Rockaway Point and Moriches Inlet, the dominant 

direction of transport was east to west. In northern New Jersey, between Sandy Hook and 

Manasquan, longshore transport from south to north dominated, while south of Manasquan 

Inlet, the dominant direction was to the south. Along both coasts, the dominant direction of 

transport was illustrated by barrier island migration and shoreline advance adjacent to inlet 

jetties. Barrier islands along the south coast of Long Island have historically migrated from east 

to west, and seaward shoreline advance subsequent to jetty construction has occurred along 

the east sides of entrances. In northern New Jersey, Sandy Hook spit historically has migrated 

rapidly to the north, and prior to structural development at Barnegat Inlet, the spit north of the 

entrance was rapidly migrating to the south. The greatest amount of shoreline change observed 

for this study was associated with beaches adjacent to entrances, most notably along the 

leading edge of prograding barrier spits. 

 Second, the most dynamic features within the study area, in terms of nearshore sediment 

transport, are migrating barrier island/spit complexes along the northeastern New Jersey and 

southwestern Long Island coasts, in addition to natural and anthropogenic change along the 

Hudson River Channel. Areas of significant erosion and accretion are documented between 

1927/37 and 1927/97 at Sandy Hook spit, reflecting wave and current dynamics that carry 

sediment northward and deposit it along the terminal edge of the spit. High rates of deposition 

also were prominent at entrances south of Sandy Hook and along the southwestern coast of 

Long Island. Shoreline and bathymetric changes associated with these features reflect 

morphologic response to wave and current dynamics and shoreline adjustment to placement of 

engineering structures. Pronounced bathymetric change observed along the head and sides of 

the Hudson River Channel reflects natural and anthropogenic processes. Large areas showing 

significant deposition at the head of the Hudson River Channel reflect high levels of offshore 

disposal activity, and patches of erosion and accretion paralleling each other along the length of 

the channel reflect natural bathymetric changes. 

 Third, alternating bands of erosion and accretion paralleling ridge features illustrated the 

steady reworking of the shelf surface as sand ridges migrated in the direction of net sediment 

transport. The process by which this was occurring was relatively consistent across the shelf. 

At Borrow Site H1, bathymetric comparisons suggested that the borrow site in this region would 

fill with sand transported from the adjacent seafloor at rates of about 98,000 m3

/yr. Areas of 

erosion and accretion documented between 1927/37 and 1927/97 at Borrow Site 4E illustrated 

the amount of sediment available for infilling at sites south of Long Island was also about 98,000 

m3

/yr. Calculations for these two borrow sites were used as indicators of potential infilling rates 

for all borrow sites within the study area. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 209

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Finally, net longshore transport rates determined from seafloor changes in the littoral zone 

along Sandy Hook spit indicated maximum transport rates near the distal end of the spit, with 

lower rates to the south. These calculations, along with data published by Caldwell (1966) 

indicate a range in net longshore transport along Sandy Hook from about 223,000 m3

/yr to 

382,000 m3

/yr. According to Taney (1961), the direction of net littoral drift along southwestern 

Long Island beaches is east to west, ranging from 122,000 to 344,000 m3

/yr. 

7.4.2 Sediment Transport Modeling at Potential Borrow Sites 

 In addition to predicted modifications to the wave field, potential sand mining at offshore 

borrow sites resulted in minor changes in sediment transport pathways in and around potential 

dredging sites. Modifications to bathymetry caused by sand mining only influenced local 

hydrodynamic and sediment transport processes in the offshore area. Wave height changes at 

and adjacent to dredged borrow sites experienced minor changes in wave or sediment transport 

characteristics. 

 For water depths at the proposed borrow sites, minimal impacts to waves, currents, and 

regional sediment transport are expected during infilling. Infilling rates computed for each of the 

five borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long Island represented 

the total potential sediment transport at each of the sites from the combined influence of waveinduced and ambient bottom currents. These results likely represent average, non-storm 

conditions for sediment transport at each site. For the five modeled borrow sites, computed 

transport rates were extremely low, with infilling rates ranging from 0.13 m3

/yr to approximately 

580 m3

/yr. A number of factors contributed to the low transport rates, including water depth 

(typically 20 m, which reduced the impact of wave-induced currents), relatively short period 

waves dominating the regional wave climate, absence of storm events in the wave and current 

data sets that drive sediment transport in this area, coarse grain size of in situ materials, and 

relatively weak ambient shelf currents. Furthermore, potential borrow site excavations 

consisted of dredging an existing shoal to the same elevation as the surrounding seafloor. 

Therefore, potential borrow site excavation would primarily flatten the shoal and not create a 

seafloor depression. Based on extremely low potential transport rates of in situ sediment and 

the geomorphic character of dredged deposits, it is unlikely that any of these borrow sites will 

reform as shoal deposits in the near future. 

7.4.3 Nearshore Sediment Transport Potential 

 Comparisons of average annual sediment transport potential were performed for existing 

and post-dredging conditions to indicate the relative impact of dredging to longshore sediment 

transport processes. Mean sediment transport potential calculated for beaches east of Jones 

Inlet indicated net westerly transport ranging from about 54,000 m3

/yr at Fire Island Inlet to 

170,000 m3

/yr at Jones Inlet. Along Long Beach, net westerly transport increased from about 

50,000 m3

/yr west of Jones Inlet to a maximum of about 150,000 m3/yr at the approximate midpoint of the barrier beach, before decreasing to about 88,000 m3

/yr at East Rockaway Inlet. 

 Mean sediment transport potential along the northeast coast of New Jersey for the 

modeled 20-year period indicated that dominant transport was net northerly but more bidirectional for shorter term annual results. There was an approximate ±55,000 m3

/yr range in 

annual net transport rates. Long-term potential transport rates reached a maximum of 

approximately 30,000 m3

/yr within the modeled study area, and a minimum occurred just north 

of Shark River Inlet. Results of transport potential calculations indicated that the year with the 

greatest net southerly transport was 1987, and the year with the greatest northerly directed 

transport was 1995. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 210

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 The significance of changes to longshore transport along the modeled shoreline resulting 

from dredging proposed borrow sites to their maximum design depths was determined using the 

method described in Kelley et al. (2004). Results of the significance analysis for borrow sites 

offshore southwestern Long Island indicated that the ±0.5σ significance envelope increased 

along Jones Beach from ±20,000 m3

/yr at Fire Island Inlet to ±40,000 m3/yr at Jones Inlet. The 

significance envelope for Long Beach had a similar range, with a maximum value midway 

between Jones Inlet and East Rockaway Inlet. Potential dredging impacts to longshore 

transport rates from excavation at Sites 3, 4W, and 4E are well within the transport significance 

envelope. As such, proposed dredging at these sites would not result in significant 

modifications to costal processes along this shoreline. Largest calculated differences between 

existing and post-dredging transport potential occur east of Jones Inlet, where the transport rate 

becomes more westerly by 3,000 m3

/yr. The resulting change is negligible, even though 

offshore sand extractions are large (i.e., a total dredged volume of 48 x 106

 m3 for all three 

sites). Shoreline impacts are negligible due to the relatively deep water at potential borrow sites 

(19 m for Site 3 and 20 m for Sites 4W and 4E), their distance offshore, and wave climate 

(dominated by relatively short-period waves). 

 Results of the impact significance analysis for sites offshore northeastern New Jersey 

indicated that the ±0.5σ significance envelope computed for this area was generally constant at 

±15,000 m3

/yr. Impacts from dredging Sites H1 and H2 are well within the significance 

envelope, and proposed sites would be acceptable under the simulated conditions. Similar to 

sites offshore Long Island, potential shoreline impacts were negligible due to the relatively deep 

water at potential borrow sites (20 m for Sites H1 and H2), their distance offshore, and wave 

climate (dominated by relatively short-period waves). 

7.5 BENTHIC ENVIRONMENT 

 The purpose of this section is to address potential effects of offshore sand dredging on 

benthic organisms, including analyses of recolonization periods and success following cessation 

of dredging activities. This section is divided into three parts. The first two parts provide 

reviews of information from existing literature on effects and recolonization. The first part 

(Section 7.5.1) summarizes potential impacts to benthic organisms from physical disturbance of 

dredging, which causes removal, suspension/dispersion, and deposition of sediments. The 

second part (Section 7.5.2) is a synthesis of information concerning recolonization periods and 

success. The third part (Section 7.5.3) provides predictions of impacts and recolonization 

relative to the four sand borrow sites off New Jersey and New York. 

 Ecological effects of marine mining and beach nourishment operations have been 

reviewed by numerous authors (Thompson, 1973; Naqvi and Pullen, 1982; Nelson, 1985; 

Cruickshank et al., 1987; Goldberg, 1989; Grober, 1992; Hammer et al., 1993; National 

Research Council, 1995). Effects vary from detrimental to beneficial, short to long term, and 

direct to indirect (National Research Council, 1995). 

 Most reviews on the effects of beach nourishment operations have focused on potential 

impacts at the beach. Comprehensive assessments of effects on biological resources at open 

ocean sand borrow sites have been limited (National Research Council, 1995). Alterations to 

biological resources in offshore sand borrow sites are generally of longer duration, and the 

consequences of those changes have not been well-defined (National Research Council, 1995). 

The remainder of this section focuses on potential impacts of dredging operations at offshore 

sand resource areas. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 211

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

7.5.1 Effects of Offshore Dredging on Benthic Biota 

 The primary impact producing factor relative to dredging offshore sand borrow sites is 

mechanical disturbance of the seabed. This physical disruption includes removal, 

suspension/dispersion, and deposition of dredged material, which may make the benthic 

environment less suitable for some species and better for other biota. The following 

subsections focus on potential effects of these physical processes on benthic biota. 

7.5.1.1 Sediment Removal 

 Physical removal of sediments from a borrow site removes benthic habitat along with 

infauna and epibiota that are incapable of avoiding the dredge, resulting in drastic reductions in 

number of individuals, number of species, and biomass. Extraction of habitat and biological 

resources may in turn disrupt the functioning of existing communities. Removal of benthic 

resources is of concern because the resources are important in the food web for commercially 

and recreationally important fishes and invertebrates, and contribute to the biodiversity of the 

pelagic environment through benthic-pelagic coupling mechanisms. These mechanisms include 

larval transport and diurnal migrations of organisms, which may have substantial impact on food 

availability, feeding strategies, and behavioral patterns of other members of the assemblage 

(Hammer and Zimmerman, 1979; Hammer, 1981). 

 The influence of sediment composition on benthic community composition has been 

recognized since the pioneer studies of Peterson (1913), Jones (1950), Thorson (1957), and 

Sanders (1958). However, more recent reviews suggest that precise relationships between 

benthic assemblages and specific sediment characteristics are poorly understood (Gray, 1974; 

Snelgrove and Butman, 1994; Newell et al., 1998). Sediment grain size, chemistry, and organic 

content may influence recolonization of benthic organisms (McNulty et al., 1962; Thorson, 1966; 

Snelgrove and Butman, 1994), although the effects of sediment composition on recolonization 

patterns of various species are not always significant (Zajac and Whitlatch, 1982). Because the 

complexity of soft sediment communities may defy any simple paradigm relating to any single 

factor, Hall (1994) and Snelgrove and Butman (1994) proposed a shift in focus towards 

understanding relationships between organism distributions and the dynamic sedimentary and 

hydrodynamic environments. It is likely that the composition of benthic assemblages is 

controlled by a wide array of physical, chemical, and biological factors that interact in complex 

ways and are variable with time. 

 Removal of sand resources can expose underlying sediments and change the sediment 

structure and composition of a borrow site, consequently altering its suitability for burrowing, 

feeding, or larval settlement of some benthic organisms. Many studies show decreases in 

mean grain size, and in some cases, increases in silt and clay in borrow sites following dredging 

(National Research Council, 1995). Changes in sediment composition could potentially prevent 

recovery to an assemblage similar to that which occurred in the borrow site prior to dredging 

and could by implication affect the nature and abundance of food organisms for commercial and 

recreational fishery stocks (Coastline Surveys Limited, 1998; Newell et al., 1998). In some 

cases, dredging borrow sites may create new and different habitats from surrounding 

substrates, which could result in beneficial impacts in terms of increased habitat complexity, 

biomass, and biodiversity of an area. 

 Removal of sediments from borrow sites can alter seabed topography, creating pits that 

may refill rapidly or cause detrimental impacts for extended periods of time. The term "borrow 

site" can be misleading because often material is returned only by natural sediment transport 

processes. Nearly 12 years may be required for some offshore borrow sites to refill to pre-
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 212

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

dredge profiles (Wright, 1977), and other borrow sites have been known to remain well-defined 

8 years after dredging (Marsh and Turbeville, 1981; Turbeville and Marsh, 1982). Intentionally 

locating borrow sites in highly depositional areas may dramatically reduce the time for refilling 

(Van Dolah et al., 1998). In general, shallow dredging over large areas causes less harm than 

small but deep pits, particularly pits opening into a different substrate surface (Thompson, 1973; 

Applied Biology, Inc., 1979). Deep pits also can hamper commercial trawling activities and 

harm level-bottom communities (Thompson, 1973). If borrow pits are deep, current velocity is 

reduced at the bottom, which can lead to deposition of fine particulate matter and in turn a 

biological assemblage much different in composition than the original. Increasing water depths 

and turbidity from dredging may reduce the photic zone for benthic primary producers. 

Recovery of the physical environment and benthic assemblages to pre-dredging conditions will 

probably take decades for a deep pit dredged 3.6 km offshore Coney Island (Barry A Vittor & 

Associates, Inc., 1999a). Deep holes may decrease dissolved oxygen to hypoxic or anoxic 

levels and increase hydrogen sulfide levels (Murawski, 1969; Saloman, 1974; National 

Research Council, 1995). Not all impacts from dredge pits are detrimental. Borrow pits are 

known to attract numerous fishes (Gustafson, 1972; Michals, 1997; Weakley, 2001), even to the 

extent that some dredge holes have been referred to as "reefs in reverse" (Weakley, 2001). 

Borrow pits also provide resting places for loggerhead sea turtles (Michals, 1997). 

 Seabed topography and benthic communities can be altered when sediment is removed 

by dredging bathymetric peaks such as ridges or shoals rather than level sea bottoms or 

depressions. Little information exists regarding the relationship between biological 

assemblages and removal of shoals by dredging. Numerous benthic organisms and fishes 

inhabit offshore shoal areas, but specifics regarding species, assemblages, and ecological 

interrelationships between the topographic features and associated biota are not well known. 

Potential long-term physical and biological impacts could occur if dredging significantly changes 

the physiography of shoals. The MMS has funded several studies to address environmental 

questions concerning use of shoals by fishes and mobile invertebrates, potential impacts to 

these species from offshore sand dredging, and ways to preclude or minimize long-term 

impacts. Burlas et al. (2001) monitored borrow sites with bathymetric high points off northern 

New Jersey and found that essentially all infaunal assemblage patterns recovered within 1 year 

after dredging disturbance except recovery of average sand dollar weight and biomass 

composition, which required 2.5 years. 

7.5.1.2 Sediment Suspension/Dispersion 

 Dredging causes suspension of sediments, which increases turbidity over the bottom. 

This turbidity undergoes dispersion in a plume that drifts with the water currents. The extent of 

suspension/dispersion depends on a multitude of factors, including the type of dredging 

equipment, techniques for operating the equipment, amount of dredging, thickness of the 

dredged layer, sediment composition, and sediment transport processes. Although turbidity 

plumes associated with dredging often are short lived and affect relatively small areas (Cronin et 

al., 1970; Nichols et al., 1990), resuspension and redispersion of dredged sediments by 

subsequent currents and waves can propagate dredge-related turbidity for extended periods 

after dredging ends (Onuf, 1994). Biological responses to turbidity depend on all of these 

physical factors coupled with the type of organism, geographic location, and time of year. 

 Herbich and Brahme (1991) and Herbich (1992) reviewed sediment suspension caused 

by existing dredging equipment and discussed potential technologies and techniques to reduce 

suspension and the associated environmental impacts. In general, cutterhead suction dredges 

produce less turbidity than hopper dredges. A cutterhead suction dredge consists of a rotating 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 213

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

cutterhead, positioned at the end of a ladder, that excavates the bottom sediment. The 

cutterhead is swung in a wide arc from side to side as the dredge is stepped forward on pivoting 

spuds, and excavated material is lifted from the bottom by a suction pipe and transferred by 

pipeline as a slurry (Hrabovsky, 1990; LaSalle et al., 1991). Sediment suspension is caused by 

the rotating action of the cutterhead and the swinging action of the ladder (Herbich, 1992). Well 

designed and properly operated cutterhead dredges can limit sediment suspension to the lower 

portion of the water column (Herbich and Brahme, 1991; Herbich, 1992). Turbidity can be 

reduced by selecting an appropriate cutterhead for a given sediment, determining the best 

relationship between cutterhead rotational speed and hydraulic suction magnitude, establishing 

a suitable swing rate for the cutterhead, and using hooded intakes, although these conditions 

are rarely achieved (Herbich, 1992). Measurements around properly operated cutterhead 

dredges show that suspended sediments can be confined to the immediate vicinity of the 

cutterhead and dissipate rapidly with little turbidity reaching surface waters (Herbich and 

Brahme, 1991; LaSalle et al., 1991; Herbich, 1992). Maximum suspended sediment 

concentrations typically occur within 3 m above the cutterhead and decline exponentially to the 

sea surface (LaSalle et al., 1991). Suspended sediments in near-bottom waters may occur 

several hundred meters laterally from the cutterhead location (LaSalle et al., 1991). 

 A hopper dredge consists of one, two, or more dragarms and attached dragheads 

mounted on a ship-type hull or barge with hoppers to hold the material dredged from the bottom 

(Herbich and Brahme, 1991). As the hopper dredge moves forward, sediments are hydraulically 

lifted through the dragarm and stored in hopper bins on the dredge (Taylor, 1990; LaSalle et al., 

1991). Hopper dredging operations produce turbidity as the dragheads are pulled through 

bottom sediments. However, the main source of turbidity during hopper dredging operations is 

sediment release during hopper overflow (Herbich and Brahme, 1991; LaSalle et al., 1991; 

Herbich, 1992). A plume may occasionally be visible at distances of 1,200 m or more (LaSalle 

et al., 1991). 

 Much attention has been given to turbidity effects from dredging, although most reviews 

have concerned estuaries, embayments, and enclosed waters (e.g., Sherk and Cronin, 1970; 

Sherk, 1971; Sherk et al., 1975; Moore, 1977; Peddicord and McFarland, 1978; Stern and 

Stickle, 1978; Herbich and Brahme, 1991; LaSalle et al., 1991; Kerr, 1995; Newcombe and 

Jensen, 1996; Wilber and Clarke, 2001). Turbidity effects may be less important in unprotected 

offshore areas for several reasons. Offshore sands tend to be coarser with less clay and silt 

than inshore areas. The open ocean environment also provides more dynamic physical 

oceanographic conditions, which minimize settling effects. In addition, offshore organisms are 

adapted to sediment transport processes, which create scouring, natural turbidity, and 

sedimentation effects under normal conditions. Impacts should be evaluated in light of natural 

variability as well as high level disturbances associated with such events as storms, trawling, 

floods, hypoxia/anoxia, etc. (Sosnowski, 1984; Herbich, 1992). Physical disturbance of the 

bottom and resulting biological impacts from dredging are similar to those of storms and trawling 

but at a much smaller spatial scale. The following suggestions from Hughes and Connell (1999) 

also are instructive regarding the complexities of analyzing effects of multiple stressors (broadly 

defined as natural or man-made disturbances). Long-term approaches are necessary to 

understand biological responses to multiple stressors because studying single events in 

isolation can be misleading. The effects of a particular disturbance often depend critically on 

impacts from previous perturbations. Consequently, even the same type of recurrent stressor 

can have different effects at different times, depending on history. Accordingly, when the added 

dimension of time is considered, the distinction between single and multiple stressors becomes 

blurred (Hughes and Connell, 1999). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 214

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Turbidity from dredging can elicit a variety of benthic responses primarily because 

attributes of the physical environment are affected (Wilber and Clarke, 2001). Large quantities 

of bottom material placed in suspension decrease light penetration and change the proportion of 

wavelengths of light reaching the bottom, leading to decreases in photosynthesis and primary 

productivity of benthic organisms (Phinney, 1959; Courtenay et al., 1972; Owen, 1977; Onuf, 

1994). Light has long been known as an ecological factor affecting dispersal and settlement of 

marine invertebrate larvae (Thorson, 1964). Suspended materials can prevent growth of 

benthic organisms that provide habitat complexity and biological structures used by many other 

species for shelter and egg attachment (Phinney, 1959; Cronin et al., 1969; Owen, 1977; 

Nelson, 1989; Connell, 1997). 

 Turbidity can affect food availability for benthic organisms. Changes in light penetration 

and wavelengths due to turbidity can affect visibility and may be detrimental or beneficial, 

depending on whether an organism is predator or prey. Suspension and dispersion processes 

uncover and displace benthic organisms, temporarily providing extra food for bottom feeding 

species (Centre for Cold Ocean Resources Engineering, 1995). Turbidity can interfere with 

food gathering processes of filter feeders and organisms that feed by sight by inundation with 

nonnutritive particles. In addition to altered feeding rates, other biological responses to turbidity 

include reduced hatching success, slowed growth, abnormal development, tissue abrasion, and 

increased mortality (Wilber and Clarke, 2001). In general, egg and larval stages are more 

sensitive to turbidity effects than older life history stages. Although a considerable amount of 

information is available on the effects of sediment suspension and dispersion to some benthic 

organisms, little or no information exists for many other species, particularly those associated 

with hard bottom (Dodge and Vaisnys, 1977; Bak, 1978; Nelson, 1989; Rogers, 1990; Kerr, 

1995; Renaud et al., 1996, 1997). 

 Suspension and dispersion of sediments may cause changes in sediment and water 

chemistry as nutrients and other substances are released from the substratum and dissolved 

during dredging. For aggregate mining operations using hopper dredges, the far-field visible 

plume contains an organic mixture of fats, lipids, and carbohydrates from organisms entrained 

and fragmented during the dredging process and discharged with the overflow (Coastline 

Surveys Limited, 1998; Newell et al., 1999). Dredging may produce localized hypoxia or anoxia 

in the water column due to oxygen consumption of suspended sediments (LaSalle et al., 1991). 

Flocculation of suspended sediments can mechanically trap inorganic and organic particles and 

plankton and carry them to the bottom (Bartsch, 1960 as cited in Levin, 1970). 

7.5.1.3 Sediment Deposition 

 Suspended sediments settle and are deposited nearby or some distance from dredged 

sites. The extent of deposition and the boundaries of biological impact are dependent on type 

and amount of suspended sediments and physical oceanographic characteristics of the area. 

 Dredging effects are not necessarily limited to the borrow site alone. Far-field impacts 

from suspension, dispersion, and deposition of sediments during dredging can be detrimental or 

beneficial. Deposition of sediments can suffocate and bury benthic fauna, although some 

organisms are able to migrate vertically to the new surface (Maurer et al., 1986; Nelson, 1988). 

Johnson and Nelson (1985) found decreases in infaunal abundances and numbers of taxa at 

nondredged stations, although these decreases were not as extreme as those observed in the 

borrow site. McCaully et al. (1977; as cited by Johnson and Nelson, 1985) also observed that 

dredging effects can extend to other nearby areas, and noted decreases in infaunal abundances 

ranging from 34% to 70% at undredged stations within 100 m of a dredged area. Conversely, 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 215

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

benthos may show increased biodiversity downstream from dredged sites (Centre for Cold 

Ocean Resources Engineering, 1995). In some areas, population density and species 

composition of benthic invertebrates increased rapidly outside dredged sites, with the level of 

enhancement decreasing with increasing distance from the dredged site up to a distance of 

2 km (Stephenson et al., 1978; Jones and Candy, 1981; Poiner and Kennedy, 1984). The 

enhancement was ascribed to release of organic nutrients from the dredge plume, a process 

known from other studies (Ingle, 1952; Biggs, 1968; Sherk, 1972; Oviatt et al., 1982; Coastline 

Surveys Limited, 1998; Newell et al., 1998, 1999). This suggestion was supported by records of 

nutrient releases from benthic areas during intermittent, wind-driven bottom resuspension 

events (Walker and O’Donnell, 1981), significant increases in water column nutrients from 

simulated storm events in the laboratory (Oviatt et al., 1982), and review of the literature 

indicating a major restructuring force in infaunal communities is the response of species to 

resources released from the sediments by periodic disturbance (Thistle, 1981). Fishing may 

improve temporarily down current of the dredging area and continue for some months (Centre 

for Cold Ocean Resources Engineering, 1995). Additional far-field impacts can occur by 

resuspension, redispersion, and redeposition of fine dredged materials by wave and current 

actions long after dredging has been completed. 

7.5.2 Recolonization Periods and Success 

7.5.2.1 Adaptations for Recolonization and Succession 

 In dynamic areas that undergo frequent perturbations, benthic invertebrates tend to be 

small bodied, short lived, and adapted for maximum rate of population increase with high 

fecundity, efficient dispersal mechanisms, dense settlement, and rapid growth rates. In 

contrast, organisms in stable areas tend to be relatively larger and longer lived with low 

fecundity, poor dispersal mechanisms, slow growth rates, and adaptations for non-reproductive 

processes such as competition and predator avoidance. Recolonization of a disturbed area 

often is initiated by organisms that have adaptive characteristics for rapid invasion and 

colonization of habitats where space is available due to some natural or man-induced 

disturbance. These early colonizers frequently are replaced during the course of succession 

through competition by other organisms, unless the habitat is unstable or frequently perturbed 

(MacArthur, 1960; MacArthur and Wilson, 1967; Odum, 1969; Pianka, 1970; Grassle and 

Grassle, 1974). 

 Although the distinction between the adaptive strategies is somewhat arbitrary and is 

blurred in habitats that are subject to only mild disturbance, the lifestyle differences are 

fundamentally important because they help explain variations in succession and recolonization 

rate and success following disturbance (Coastline Surveys Limited, 1998; Newell et al., 1998). 

Knowledge of faunal component lifestyles allows some predictions of dredging impacts and 

subsequent recolonization and recovery of community composition (Coastline Surveys Limited, 

1998; Newell et al., 1998). 

7.5.2.2 Successional Stages 

 When discussing succession in soft bottom habitats, it is important to point out that most 

past studies have concerned silt-clay bottoms rather than sand habitats. Little is known about 

succession in sand bottoms of offshore borrow areas. 

 Successional theory states that organism-sediment interactions result in a predictable 

sequence of benthic invertebrates belonging to specific functional types following a major 

seafloor disturbance (Rhoads and Germano, 1982, 1986). Because functional types are the 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 216

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

biological units of interest, the succession definition does not rely on the sequential appearance 

of particular species or genera (Rhoads and Boyer, 1982). This continuum of change in benthic 

communities has been divided arbitrarily into three stages (Rhoads et al., 1978; Rhoads and 

Boyer, 1982; Rhoads and Germano, 1982): 

Stage I is the initial pioneering community of tiny, densely populated organisms 

that appears within days of a natural or anthropogenic disturbance. 

Stage I communities are composed of opportunistic species that have 

high tolerance for and can indicate disturbance by physical disruption, 

organic enrichment, and chemical contamination of sediments. The 

organisms have high rates of recruitment and ontogenetic growth. 

Stage I communities tend to physically bind sediments, making them less 

susceptible to resuspension and transport. For example, Stage I 

communities often include tube-dwelling polychaetes or oligochaetes that 

produce mucous to build their tubes, which stabilizes the sediment 

surface. Stage I communities include suspension or surface depositfeeding animals that feed at or near the sediment-water interface. The 

Stage I initial community may reach population densities of 104

 to 106

individuals per m2

; 

Stage II is the beginning of the transition to burrowing, head-down deposit feeders 

that rework the sediment deeper with time and mix oxygen from the 

overlying water into the sediment. Stage II animals may include 

tubiculous amphipods, polychaetes, and mollusks. These animals are 

larger and have very low population densities compared to Stage I 

animals; and 

Stage III is the mature and stable community of deep-dwelling, head-down deposit 

feeders. In contrast to Stage I organisms, these animals rework the 

sediments to depths of 3 to 20 cm or more, loosening the sedimentary 

fabric and increasing the water content of the sediment. They also 

actively recycle nutrients because of the high exchange rate with the 

overlying water resulting from their burrowing and feeding activities. The 

presence of Stage III taxa can be a good indication that the sediment 

surrounding these organisms has not been severely disturbed recently, 

resulting in high benthic stability and health. Loss of Stage III species 

results in the loss of sediment stirring and aeration and may be followed 

by a build-up of organic matter (eutrophication) of the sediment. Because 

Stage III species tend to have relatively low rates of recruitment and 

ontogenetic growth, they may not reappear for several years once they 

are excluded from an area. These inferences are based on past work, 

primarily in temperate latitudes, showing that Stage III species are 

relatively intolerant to physical disturbance, organic enrichment, and 

chemical contamination of sediments. Population densities are low (10 to 

102

 individuals per m2) compared to Stage I. 

 The general pattern of succession of benthic species in a marine sediment following 

cessation of dredging or other environmental disturbance begins with initial recolonization. 

Initial recolonization occurs relatively rapidly by small opportunistic species that may reach peak 

population densities within months of a new habitat becoming available after catastrophic 

mortality of the previous assemblage. As the disturbed area is invaded by additional larger 

species, the population density of initial colonizers declines. This transitional period and 

assemblage with higher species diversity and a wide range of functional types may last for 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 217

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

years, depending on numerous environmental factors. Provided environmental conditions 

remain stable, some members of the transitional assemblage are eliminated by competition, and 

the species assemblage forms a recovered community composed of larger, long-lived, and slow 

growing species with complex biological interactions with one another. 

7.5.2.3 Recolonization Periods 

 The rate of recolonization is dependent on numerous physical and biological factors and 

their interactions. Physical factors include time of year, dredging technologies and techniques, 

borrow site dimensions, water currents, water quality, sediment composition, bedload transport, 

temperature, salinity, natural energy levels in the area, frequency of disturbance, latitude, etc. 

Recovery times may be shorter in warmer waters at lower latitudes as compared to colder 

waters at higher latitudes (Coastline Surveys Limited, 1998; Newell et al., 1998). Spatial and 

temporal variability in physical conditions may in some cases exert more influence on initial 

stages of recolonization than biological responses of species considered to be opportunists 

(Zajac and Whitlatch, 1982). 

 Biological factors influencing the rate of recolonization include the size of the pool of 

available colonists (Bonsdorff, 1983; Hall, 1994) and life history characteristics of colonizing 

species (Whitlatch et al., 1998). Recolonization of borrow sites may occur by transport of eggs, 

larvae, juveniles, and adults from neighboring populations by currents, immigration of motile 

species from adjacent areas, organisms contained in sediment slumping from the sides of pits, 

or return of undamaged organisms from the dredge plume. Other biological factors such as 

competition and predation also determine the rate of recolonization and the composition of 

resulting benthic communities. Timing of dredging is important because many benthic species 

have distinct peak periods of reproduction and recruitment. Because larval recruitment and 

adult migration are the primary recolonization mechanisms, biological recovery from physical 

impacts generally should be most rapid if dredging is completed before seasonal increases in 

larval abundance and adult activity (Herbich, 1992). Recovery of a community disturbed after 

peak recruitment, therefore, will be slower than one disturbed prior to peak recruitment (LaSalle 

et al., 1991). 

 Benthic recolonization and succession have been reviewed to varying extents for a wide 

variety of habitats throughout the world (e.g., Thistle, 1981; Thayer, 1983; Hall, 1994; Coastline 

Surveys Limited, 1998; Newell et al., 1998). Recolonization is highly variable, depending on the 

habitat type and other physical and biological factors. Focusing on dredging, Coastline Surveys 

Limited (1998) and Newell et al. (1998) suggested that, in general, recovery times of 6 to 8 

months are characteristic for many estuarine muds, 2 to 3 years for sand and gravel, and 5 to 

10 years as the deposits become coarser. 

 The Centre for Cold Ocean Resources Engineering (1995) estimated times for recovery of 

a reasonable biodiversity (number of species and number of individuals) based on sediment 

type. In this study, recovery was defined as attaining a successional community of opportunistic 

species providing evidence of progression towards a community equivalent to that previously 

present or at non-impacted sites. Fine-grained sediments may need only 1 year before 

achieving a recovery level biodiversity, medium-grained deposits 1 to 3 years, and coarsegrained deposits 5 or more years. For a hypothetical borrow site dredging scenario off Ocean 

City, Maryland, the Centre for Cold Ocean Resources Engineering (1995) stated that virtually all 

benthic species would be lost, but there may be temporary improvement of fishing due to 

release of nutrients. Recolonization would start within weeks of closure, and moderate 

biodiversity would occur within 1 year. The borrow site would be colonized initially by a very 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 218

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

different species complex than originally present. An estimate of 2 to 3 years was given for the 

community to begin to show succession to pre-impact sand habitat species. 

 Recolonization of a borrow site was studied 3 km offshore of Great Egg Harbor Inlet near 

Ocean City, New Jersey (Scott and Kelley, 1998). Macrobenthic organisms were able to 

colonize the borrow site rapidly. Approximately 2 years after the last dredging, the number of 

taxa, diversity, and abundance in the borrow site recovered to conditions that existed in other 

borrow sites and undisturbed areas before dredging. The community composition within the 

borrow site may have changed, although the community change was described as not 

significant and not a result of dredging because the community composition of the borrow site 

was similar to the composition observed at the adjacent stations. Good juvenile surfclam 

recruitment occurred in the borrow site, but the population may not have reached size levels in 

nearby undisturbed sites 2 years after the last dredging. Although biomass and size of 

surfclams appeared diminished, there was no indication that the population would not stabilize 

given additional time. As dredging events were conducted in all seasons and no apparent effect 

was detected, no changes in the timing of dredging appeared to be necessary (Scott and Kelley, 

1998).

 Recolonization also was studied by Burlas et al. (2001) at borrow areas near Sites H1 and 

H2. Similar to the present study, their borrow areas were bathymetric high points on the 

seascape with strong currents and sand movement. Burlas et al. (2001) summarized their 

results by stating that abundance, biomass, richness, and the average size of the biomass 

dominant, which was the sand dollar Echinarachnius parma, declined immediately after 

dredging. Abundance, biomass, and richness recovered quickly after the first dredging 

operation with no detectable difference between dredged and undisturbed areas by the 

following spring. Abundance also recovered quickly after a second dredging operation, but 

biomass and richness were still reduced the next spring. Species and biomass composition 

were altered in similar manners by each operation. Immediately after dredging, the relative 

contribution of echinoderm biomass declined and the abundance of the spionid polychaete 

Spiophanes bombyx increased. Changes in biomass composition were longer lasting with the 

assemblage taking 1.5 to 2.5 years to return to undredged conditions. 

 Studies of recolonization listed and discussed by Grober (1992) and the National 

Research Council (1995) indicate that recolonization of offshore borrow sites is highly variable. 

This variability is not surprising considering differences among studies in geographic locations, 

oceanographic conditions, sampling methods and times, etc. Part of the problem in determining 

recolonization patterns is seasonal and year to year fluctuations in benthic community 

characteristics and composition. Without adequate seasonal and yearly data prior to dredging, 

it is difficult to determine whether differences in community characteristics and composition are 

due to temporal changes or dredging disturbance. 

 Results and conclusions from these offshore borrow site studies indicate that 

recolonization usually begins soon after dredging ends. Recolonization periods range in 

duration from a few months (Saloman et al., 1982; Jutte et al., 2002) for shallow dredging to 

possibly decades for deep pits (Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., 1999a). Although abundance 

and diversity of benthic infauna within borrow sites often returned to levels comparable to predredging or reference conditions within less than 1 year, several studies documented changes 

in benthic species composition that lasted much longer, particularly where sediment 

composition was altered (e.g., Saloman, 1974; Wright, 1977; Johnson and Nelson, 1985; 

Bowen and Marsh, 1988; Van Dolah et al., 1992, 1993; Wilber and Stern, 1992; Barry A. Vittor 

& Associates, Inc., 1999a). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 219

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Most recolonization studies of borrow sites concentrated on three main features of 

infaunal communities, namely the number of individuals (population density), number of species 

(diversity), and weight (biomass as an index of growth). Dredging is usually accompanied by an 

immediate and significant decrease in the number of individuals, species, and biomass of 

benthic infauna. Using biological community parameters (e.g., total taxa, total number of 

individuals, species diversity, evenness, richness, etc.), previous studies tend to indicate that 

recovery of borrow sites occurs in approximately 1 year after dredging. However, these 

parameters do not necessarily reflect the complex changes in community structure and 

composition that occur during the recovery process. Major changes in species assemblages 

and community composition usually occur shortly after dredging such that a different type of 

community exists. Although the number of individuals, species, and biomass of benthic infauna 

may approach pre-dredging levels within a relatively short time after dredging, recovery of 

community composition may take longer. 

7.5.2.4 Recolonization Success and Recovery 

 Assessing impacts of dredging and recolonization and recovery of borrow sites is difficult 

because most biological communities are complex associations of species that often undergo 

major changes in population densities and community composition, even in areas that are far 

removed and unaffected by dredging and other disturbances. Recolonization success and 

recovery do not necessarily mean that communities should be expected to return to the predredged species composition. To gauge recovery, it is important to compare the community 

composition of dredged areas with control areas during the same seasons because community 

composition changes with time. 

 When long-term alterations in sediment structure and composition occur as a result of 

dredging, long-term differences in the composition of benthic assemblages inhabiting those 

sites may occur as well. The recovery time of benthic assemblages after dredging can depend 

in large measure on the degree and duration of sediment alteration from sand borrowing (Van 

Dolah, 1996). Recolonization success and recovery also are controlled by compaction and 

stabilization processes involving complex interactions between particle size, water currents, 

waves, and biological activities of the benthos following sediment deposition (Oakwood 

Environmental Ltd., 1999). While the abundance and diversity of infaunal assemblages may 

recover relatively rapidly in dredged areas, it may take years to recover in terms of sediment 

and species composition. 

 One conclusion commonly held is that perturbations to infaunal communities in borrow 

sites are negligible because organisms recolonize rapidly (Wilber and Stern, 1992). This 

conclusion often is based on measures including densities, species diversity/evenness indices, 

relative distribution of classes or phyla, and species-level dendrograms. For example, many 

researchers have recognized that borrow and reference area infaunal communities can differ 

considerably at the species level, although these differences usually are considered insignificant 

because species diversity is high. According to Wilber and Stern (1992), reliance on these 

studies may lead to a premature conclusion that impacts to borrow site infauna are minimal 

because these measures are relatively superficial and ambiguous characteristics of infaunal 

communities. Wilber and Stern (1992) reexamined infaunal data from four borrow site projects 

by grouping species into functional groups called ecological guilds based on similarities in 

feeding mode, locomotory ability, and sediment depth occurrence. Their analyses showed that 

infaunal communities in borrow and control areas can differ in several ways and that these 

differences can last several years. Polychaetes and amphipods that recolonize borrow sites are 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 220

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

small-bodied and confine their movement and feeding to the surface sediment or the interface 

between the sediment and water column. In contrast, control areas have well-developed 

infaunal communities commonly consisting of large-bodied organisms that move and feed deep 

in the sediment (Wilber and Stern, 1992). They concluded that the infaunal communities 

recolonizing borrow sites may remain in an early successional stage for 2 to 3 years or longer 

as opposed to being completely recovered in shorter time frames. 

 The conclusions of Wilber and Stern (1992) coincide with the model of succession 

discussed previously. The model states pioneering or opportunistic species are the first to 

colonize an area after a physical disturbance to the bottom (e.g., dredging borrow sites). 

Pioneering species tend to share several ecological traits, including a tendency to confine 

activities to the sediment-water interface, possibly because subsurface conditions cannot 

support a significant number of organisms. The subsurface environment changes with time 

after the disturbance, possibly by actions of early colonizers, and becomes suitable for deposit 

feeders and mid-depth burrowers. The relative absence of deposit feeders and mid-depth 

burrowers is interpreted to mean an area is still in the state of recovery. 

 Although most of the literature on recolonization rate and success in borrow sites 

concerns infauna, some information exists for soft bottom epifauna. The numbers of taxa and 

individuals collected by trawls in a borrow site off Duval County, Florida greatly exceeded the 

control area numbers 4 months after dredging and were generally higher 7 and 13 months after 

dredging (Applied Biology, Inc., 1979). There were no detectable differences between predredging and post-dredging (8 and 16 months) epifaunal communities in a borrow site surveyed 

by otter trawl and video camera off Egmont Key, Florida (Blake et al., 1995). 

7.5.3 Predictions Relative to the Borrow Sites 

 Based on the commodity-specific, technology-specific, and site-specific information 

provided previously, the following predictions can be made regarding the potential effects of 

offshore dredging on benthic organisms (Section 7.5.3.1) and the recolonization rate and 

success (Section 7.5.3.2) relative to the four sand borrow sites off New Jersey and New York. 

7.5.3.1 Potential Benthic Effects 

Sediment Removal 

 The immediate impact of excavating upper sediments of a sand borrow site would be 

removal of portions of the benthic invertebrate populations that inhabit surficial shelf sediments. 

Lost individuals would be those with slow-moving or sessile lifestyles, primarily those comprising 

infaunal populations. Surveys within and adjacent to each of the candidate borrow sites, as well 

as benthic investigations of nearby waters, reveal that infaunal assemblages of inner shelf 

waters of the study area predominantly are invertebrates, including crustaceans, echinoderms, 

mollusks, and polychaetous annelids. 

 The expected loss of benthic fauna due to sediment excavation from the sand borrow 

sites could be considered to represent a negligible impact on the ecosystem when evaluating 

the impact on a broad spatial scale. Use of any of the sand borrow sites does not entail 

complete excavation of those areas. Impacts most likely would be localized and short-term. 

Specific locations within borrow sites that are to be dredged will be selected based on particular 

sedimentary and bathymetric characteristics, leaving a significant extent of non-dredged areas 

surrounding and interspersed throughout the impacted areas. These undisturbed areas would 

be a primary source of colonizing fauna for the excavated sites (Van Dolah et al., 1984) and 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 221

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

would complement colonization of altered substrata via larval recruitment. Preservation of nondredged areas throughout an offshore borrow site, through avoidance by the dredge, has been 

cited as a factor contributing to more rapid community recovery after dredging (Jutte et al., 

2002). The great densities and fecundity of invertebrate populations, along with the relatively 

small areas of impact proposed, likely would preclude significant long-term negative effects on 

benthic populations. 

 Correlation between sediment composition and the composition of infaunal assemblages 

has been demonstrated in numerous environmental surveys, including the 2001-2002 surveys 

of the New Jersey and New York sand borrow sites. Invertebrate populations inhabiting marine 

soft bottoms of the Bight exhibit heterogeneous distributions that largely are the result of local 

sedimentary regime. Modification of surficial sediments and local bathymetry could result in an 

alteration of the areal extent and relative distribution of assemblage types, by altering the 

distribution of sediment types capable of supporting those assemblages. 

 It is possible that a change in the composition of surficial sediments within excavated 

areas could become a long-term result of dredging. Several factors could contribute to such an 

outcome, primarily the type of sediments exposed by dredging and the degree of fine sediment 

deposition into dredged areas. These factors would depend primarily on the depth of 

excavation, which would be determined by the vertical relief of the sand shoal to be excavated, 

the vertical extent of those sediments suitable for coastal nourishment projects, and the volume 

of sand required. 

 Because the inner shelf ecosystem of the Bight exhibits some heterogeneity in sediment 

types and their associated assemblages, those transitional infaunal assemblages that initially 

colonize dredged areas likely would be similar to some naturally occurring assemblages that 

inhabit nearby non-dredged areas, especially fine sediment areas within inter-ridge troughs. 

When viewed within a context of scale, removal of sediments from portions of the inner 

continental shelf would at most minimally alter the existing spatial balance of habitat (sediment) 

types. Moreover, those habitats that have relatively high levels of finer sediments are not 

uninhabitable or necessarily less functional in an ecological sense when compared to sand or 

gravel substrata. Various sediment habitat types merely differ in their level of suitability for 

certain types of infaunal taxa. Localized changes in habitat suitability that result from sand 

removal likely will be ephemeral and inconsequential in the shelf ecosystem, a system where 

both infaunal assemblage types and sedimentary parameters are dynamic and spatially 

variable. 

 Motile populations, including non-migratory foragers, would be less stressed by sediment 

removal than infauna or sessile epifauna. Most macroepifaunal and demersal fish populations 

would have a low probability of being adversely impacted directly by the dredging of surficial 

sediments. Slow-moving or burrowing sessile epifauna inhabiting the project area include 

echinoderm and decapod taxa, and local populations of these types of benthic organisms would 

most likely experience a reduction in density due to sediment removal. Motile epifauna 

generally are migratory and are not endemic to the sand borrow sites. Most demersal 

populations exhibit naturally dynamic distributions, moving between areas within the Middle 

Atlantic Bight on a seasonal basis (Able and Hagen, 1995). 

 Any impacts of sediment removal on epifaunal and demersal taxa likely would be indirect 

in nature, through habitat alteration. A reduction of infaunal biomass resulting from sediment 

removal could have an indirect effect on the distribution of certain demersal fishes and other 

epibenthic predators by interrupting established energy pathways to the higher trophic levels 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 222

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

represented by these foraging taxa. Reductions in densities of the preferred prey of bottomfeeding taxa could induce migration of foragers to unimpacted areas. However, a relatively 

small percentage of infaunal prey items that typically are consumed by demersal taxa would be 

rendered unavailable for consumption as a result of prey removal along with surficial sediments. 

Benthic predators simply would select alternative areas in which to forage. The loss of infaunal 

biomass due to sediment excavation, therefore, is unlikely to adversely affect normal energy 

flow through New Jersey and New York inner shelf sand bottoms. 

 In addition to widely documented spatial variation, the location and extent of inner shelfinhabiting infaunal and demersal populations vary seasonally in the study area. Seasonal 

variability should be considered when evaluating potential impacts due to sand removal. The 

timing of sand removal would seem to be less critical for minimizing the impact on infauna than 

for other faunal categories of concern (e.g., key pelagic species), due to the great abundance 

and reproductive potential of infaunal populations. Many numerically dominant infaunal taxa 

inhabiting the study area are known to exhibit either year-round or late winter-early spring 

periods of recruitment. Because of these patterns of recruitment and lower winter densities, 

removal of sand between late fall and early spring might result in less stress on benthic 

populations. 

Sediment Suspension/Dispersion 

 Whether cutterhead suction dredging or hopper dredging ultimately is utilized for sand 

mining, the amount of sediment suspension that results from these excavation methods is not 

anticipated to be of a scale that would cause significant negative impacts to the benthic 

community. New Jersey and New York sand borrow sites are characterized by a relatively 

limited volume of fine sediments, indicating that the shelf encompassing the areas currently is 

not a depositional environment but is hydrologically dynamic. In general, benthic assemblages 

of the Bight inner shelf probably are adapted to periodic reworking of surficial sediments caused 

by storm events. Impacts of dredging-induced elevations in turbidity (associated mainly with 

hopper dredging) would be short-term and localized. Demersal fishes and other motile taxa 

could avoid turbid areas. 

Sediment Deposition 

 Of the various faunal categories, infaunal and burrowing epifaunal populations would be 

most negatively affected by significant deposition of sediments; however, efficient methods of 

sediment excavation would preclude all but a relatively minor amount of sediment deposition. 

Suspension and transport of sediments away from dredged sites should be minimal, and any 

subsequent deposition would be insignificant in degree. In the unlikely event that significant 

dredging-related deposition of fine-grained sediments were to occur, the deposited sediments 

likely would not persist on the seafloor because of the high-energy inner shelf environment. 

However, some low or depressional areas of the seafloor could exhibit a substantial deposition 

of fine sediments under this scenario. Given the relatively small amount of sediment 

suspension anticipated to occur during dredging, the degree of burial should be substantially 

less than would be required to impact negatively on the infaunal community. Consequently, 

indirect impacts to bottom feeding fishes would be minimal. 

7.5.3.2 Potential Recolonization Periods and Success 

 The rate of post-dredging recovery of benthic assemblages within an excavated borrow 

site will depend primarily on the depth of sand excavation. While surface area of impact could 

be minimized by excavating a shoal to a greater depth, deep excavation likely would extend the 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 223

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

time for complete recovery of infaunal assemblages within the impacted area. The creation of a 

bathymetrically abrupt pit has potential to inhibit water current flow through such a feature, 

possibly resulting in a "dead zone" characterized by deposition of fine particles and hypoxia or 

anoxia. This scenario would extend the duration of ecological impact beyond that which would 

occur with a more shallow cut over a much larger area. 

 Recent results of long-term environmental monitoring of a borrow site located 3.6 km 

offshore Coney Island have demonstrated potential consequences of dredging an abrupt pit 

feature (Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., 1999a). A nearby reference area also was sampled 

before (1992) and after dredging (1995 through 1998). Prior to dredging, average water depths 

were approximately 3 to 4 m at the Coney Island borrow site and in the reference area. After 

the last dredging in 1995 and until the last monitoring event (1998), depths of borrow site 

stations varied from 6 to 15 m, while the average depth of reference area stations did not 

change during the study period. Prior to dredging, sediments at the borrow site were 55% 

medium to coarse sands but by 1995 were fine to medium sands (<20% medium to coarse 

sand). By 1998, the silt/clay fraction (>20%) of borrow site sediments was significantly higher 

than in reference area sediments (4%). During each year following the last dredging event, 

infaunal assemblage composition at the borrow site was numerically dominated by 

deposit-feeding polychaetes (Spio setosa and Streblospio benedicti) and mollusks (primarily 

Tellina agilis); none of these species were ever sampled from the reference area. Although 

hypoxic conditions were never detected at the Coney Island borrow site, bathymetric alteration 

and subsequent deposition of fine sediments resulted in persistent alteration of the natural 

assemblage composition. 

 While the initial impact to benthic assemblages would increase with increasing surface 

area of sand removal, the persistence of ecological impact that would occur with a relatively 

shallow excavation would be less than that of a deep pit because a more smoothly-graded, 

trough-like feature would allow greater bottom current flow than would an abrupt pit. The inner 

continental shelf in the study area has natural inter-ridge trough features. These bathymetric 

depressions can be depositional areas for finer sediments, and they often support benthic 

assemblages that are different from nearby assemblages inhabiting gravel and sand (Byrnes et 

al., 2000). 

 The length of time required for reestablishment of infaunal assemblages within excavated 

areas partly depends on the length of time required for refilling of those mined areas. The 

relatively shallow water benthic habitats of the New Jersey and New York inner shelf are 

strongly influenced by factors such as tidal currents and circulation, and storms (Stubblefield et 

al., 1975). These same forces would tend to modify impacted areas in the direction of predredging conditions. The rate of reestablishment of the natural benthic conditions at dredged 

sites may depend especially on the extent of storm-induced sediment transport, which can be 

substantial at relatively shallow depths such as those in the region of the sand borrow sites. 

 The process of sediment refilling and reworking at excavated sites would be accomplished 

mainly by storm-induced sorting and, to a lesser degree, longshore sediment drift. Parker 

(1996) indicated that movement of shelf sediments in offshore New Jersey waters occurs 

primarily as a result of the high winds and waves that characterize intense storms, while 

transport of New Jersey shelf sediments due to sand shoal migration appears to be relatively 

minimal. Tropical and extra-tropical storms impact the offshore Bight region on an annual basis, 

and these events would tend to modify seafloor depressions formed by dredging. The rate of 

the sand shoal reformation process will depend on the frequency and intensity of storms. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 224

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Assuming that the depth of sand excavation will not be so great as to substantially alter 

local hydrological characteristics, removal of benthic organisms along with sediments would 

quickly be followed by initial recolonization of the dredged areas by opportunistic infaunal taxa. 

Early-stage succession will begin within days of sediment removal, through settlement of larval 

recruits, primarily annelids and bivalves. Initial larval recruits likely would be dominated by 

populations of deposit feeding, opportunistic taxa (e.g., the polychaete Asabellides oculata and 

bivalves Nucula proxima and Tellina agilis). These species are well adapted to environmental 

stress and exploit suitable habitat when it becomes available. Later successional stages of 

benthic recolonization will be more gradual, and involve taxa that generally are less 

opportunistic and longer lived. Immigration of motile annelids, crustaceans, and echinoderms 

into impacted areas also would begin soon after excavation. 

 The length of time required for reestablishment of infaunal assemblages depends in large 

measure on sediment composition after dredging. Shoal sediments consist of well-sorted sands 

and gravel and also appear to be vertically uniform in sedimentary regime. In addition, New 

Jersey and New York sand borrow sites are characterized by a limited amount of fine 

sediments, indicating that they are not depositional in nature. It may be predicted that 

recolonization of dredged areas in sand borrow sites by later colonizing taxa likely will occur in a 

timely manner and without persistent inhabitation by initial transitional assemblages, not unlike 

the process that has been documented in comparable regional habitats (Kropp, 1995; Scott and 

Kelley, 1998). 

 Because the sedimentary regime of shoals is vertically uniform within the New Jersey and 

New York sand borrow sites, recolonization of surficial sediments by later successional stages 

likely will proceed even if dredged shoals are not completely reestablished. Furthermore, 

dredging of only a small portion of the area within each of the borrow sites will ensure that a 

supply of non-transitional, motile taxa will be available for rapid migration into dredged areas. 

While community composition may differ for a period of time after the last dredging, the infaunal 

assemblage type that exists in mined areas will be similar to naturally occurring assemblages in 

the study area, particularly those assemblages inhabiting inter-ridge troughs. Based on 

previous observations of infaunal reestablishment in dredged areas, the infaunal community in 

dredged sites within sand borrow sites most likely will become reestablished within 2 years, 

exhibiting levels of infaunal abundance, diversity, and composition comparable to nearby 

non-dredged areas. 

7.6 PELAGIC ENVIRONMENT 

7.6.1 Squids 

7.6.1.1 Physical Injury 

 No information exists regarding impacts of hydraulic dredging on squids. Nevertheless, 

squids could be entrained if they encountered the suction field of a hydraulic dredge. Some 

general aspects of squid behavior increase the chance of encountering the bottom-oriented 

dredge suction field. Adult squids are generally demersal by day and enter the water column at 

night to feed on zooplankton (Fischer, 1978). In addition, squids lay their eggs in large clusters 

on the seafloor (Vecchione, 1981). 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 225

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

7.6.1.2 Attraction 

 Because some squid species are attracted to lights at night (Fischer, 1978), it is likely that 

squids could be attracted to lights of a working dredge. This could draw them into the suction 

field and increase the chance of entrainment. 

7.6.1.3 Project Scheduling 

 With no information on local squid populations available, reasonable predictions of 

demographic effects are difficult to make. As with the other pelagic organisms, dredging is 

unlikely to significantly impact squid populations in the vicinity of the sand borrow sites. This 

precludes the need for an environmental window or specific project scheduling to protect squid 

resources. 

7.6.2 Fishes 

 Potential impact producing factors from dredging operations in the sand borrow sites that 

may affect pelagic fishes offshore New Jersey and New York include physical injury, attraction, 

turbidity, and noise. These factors along with potential impacts are described in following 

subsections. Project scheduling considerations and essential fish habitat (EFH) also are 

discussed in separate subsections. 

7.6.2.1 Physical Injury 

 Physical injury through entrainment of adult fishes by hydraulic dredging has been 

reported for several projects (Larson and Moehl, 1988; McGraw and Armstrong, 1988; Reine et 

al., 1998). The most comprehensive study of fish entrainment took place in Grays Harbor, 

Washington during a 10-year period when 27 fish taxa were entrained (McGraw and Armstrong, 

1988). Most entrained fishes were demersal species such as flatfishes, sand lance, and 

sculpin; however, three pelagic species (anchovy, herring, and smelt) were recorded. 

Entrainment rates for the pelagic species were very low, ranging from 1 to 18 fishes/1,000 cy 

(McGraw and Armstrong, 1988). Comparisons between relative numbers of entrained fishes 

with numbers captured by trawling showed that some pelagic species were avoiding the dredge. 

Another entrainment study conducted near the mouth of the Columbia River, Washington 

reported 14 fish taxa entrained at an average rate of 0.008 to 0.341 fishes/cy (Larson and 

Moehl, 1988). Few of the pelagic fishes occurring offshore of New Jersey and New York should 

become entrained because the dredge’s suction field exists near the bottom and many pelagic 

species have sufficient mobility to avoid the suction field. 

7.6.2.2 Attraction 

 Even though dredges are temporary structures, they can still attract roving pelagic fishes. 

This attraction would be similar to an artificial reef effect, where both small and large coastal 

pelagic fishes become associated with fixed structures. This may temporarily disrupt migratory 

routes for some members of the stock, but it is unlikely that there would be an appreciable 

negative effect. 

7.6.2.3 Turbidity 

 Turbidity can cause feeding impairment, avoidance and attraction movements, and 

physiological changes in adult pelagic fishes. As discussed for larval fishes, pelagic species are 

primarily visual feeders, and when turbidity reduces light penetration, the fishes reactive 

distance decreases (Vinyard and O’ Brien, 1976). Light scattering caused by suspended 

sediment also can affect a visual predator’s ability to perceive and capture prey (Benfield and 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 226

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Minello, 1996). Some fishes have demonstrated the ability to capture prey at various turbidity 

levels, but the density of prey and light penetration are important factors (Grecay and Targett, 

1996). 

 Some species will actively avoid or be attracted to turbid water. Experiments with pelagic 

kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) demonstrated that these 

species would actively avoid experimental turbidity clouds but also would swim directly through 

them during some trials (Barry, 1978). Turbidity plumes emanating from coastal rivers may 

retard or affect movements of some pelagic species. 

 Gill cavities can be abraded and clogged by suspended sediment, preventing normal 

respiration and mechanically affecting food gathering in planktivorous species (Bruton, 1985). 

High suspended sediment levels generated by storms have contributed to the death of 

nearshore and offshore fishes by clogging gill cavities and eroding gill lamellae (Robins, 1957). 

High concentrations of fine sediments can coat respiratory surfaces of the gills, preventing gas 

exchange (Wilber and Clarke, 2001). 

 Understanding and predicting effects of suspended sediments on fishes requires some 

information on the range and variation of turbidity levels found at a project site prior to dredging 

(Wilber and Clarke, 2001). The spatial and temporal extents of turbidity plumes from either 

cutterhead or hopper dredges are expected to be limited. Therefore, there should be negligible 

impact on adult pelagic fishes. However, removal of coarse sediment from borrow sites could 

promote chronic turbidity if finer underlying sedimentary layers are exposed and resuspended. 

7.6.2.4 Noise 

 Noise associated with all aspects of the dredging process may affect organisms in several 

ways. Some reef fish larvae have been shown to respond to sound stimuli as a sensory que to 

settlement sites (Stobutzki and Bellwood, 1998; Tolimieri et al., 2000). Alterations of 

background noise could impair the ability of newly settled fishes to locate preferred substrate. 

Changes in noise levels also may affect feeding or reproductive activities of reef fishes that 

depend on sound for these activities (Myrberg and Fuiman, 2002). Continental Shelf 

Associates, Inc. (2004) reviewed effects of noise on fishes. This report stated that all fish 

species investigated can hear, with varying degrees of sensitivity, within the frequency range of 

sound produced by cutterhead dredges, hopper dredges, and clamshell excavators. These 

sounds can mask the sounds normally used by fishes in their normal acoustic behaviors at 

levels as low as 60 to 80 dB (just above detection thresholds for many species). Levels as high 

as 160 dB may cause receiving fish to change their behaviors and movements that may 

temporarily affect the usual distribution of animals and commercial fishing. Continuous, longterm exposure to levels above 180 dB has been shown to cause damage to the hair cells of the 

ears of some fishes under some circumstances. These effects may not be permanent because 

damaged hair cells are repaired and/or regenerated in fishes. None of the dredge types 

proposed for this project produce continuous sounds above 120 dB (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Due to the short duration of most dredging projects, the effects of underwater noise on fish 

populations should be minimal. 

7.6.2.5 Project Scheduling 

 When data are inadequate to accurately predict the magnitude of dredging effects, 

environmental windows have been required to provide a conservative approach and lessen 

potential effects on key species. However, LaSalle et al. (1991) and Reine et al. (1998) have 

stressed the need to base future environmental windows on sound evidence and have argued 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 227

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

against subjectively selected environmental windows. Environmental windows delay projects 

and greatly increase costs (Dickerson et al., 1998), and their use should not be driven by 

subjective or overly conservative approaches. There is not enough evidence from which to 

base an environmental window for the sand borrow sites. Excluding summer and fall months 

could be considered to avoid dredging when fish juveniles and larvae are most prevalent, but 

only if additional data become available to determine the extent of impacts and justify the 

restriction. These months may be more sensitive to disruption of benthic-pelagic coupling. 

Dredging-related turbidity could preclude phytoplankton production, thereby affecting organic 

input to the sediments. Additional information on the strength of benthic-pelagic coupling over 

the shelf would be needed to further evaluate these statements. Progress toward 

understanding the real need for environmental windows can only be achieved by reducing the 

degree of uncertainty surrounding impacts and the means to avoid them (Dickerson et al., 

1998). 

7.6.3 Marine Turtles 

 Major impact producing factors to marine turtles resulting from activities associated with 

the proposed action are entrainment by suction and/or the cutting action of the dredge head, 

modification of feeding habitat(s) within borrow sites, water column turbidity within the dredge 

plume, and noise produced by dredge vessels and dredge support vessels. Each impact 

producing factor and its effect on marine turtles within the study area is discussed below. 

7.6.3.1 Physical Injury 

 The main potential effect of dredging on marine turtles is physical injury or death caused 

by the suction and/or cutting action of the dredge head and subsequent entrainment of turtles 

that may be resting on the bottom within the path of the dredge head or those venturing too 

close to the head during operation. Numerous marine turtle injuries and mortalities have been 

documented during dredging projects, particularly along Florida’s east coast (Studt, 1987; 

Dickerson et al., 1992; Slay, 1995). Impacts typically have been minimized by some 

combination of project scheduling (see Section 7.6.3.5) and equipment selection, accompanied 

if necessary by turtle removal and/or monitoring. Several turtles have been taken during 

dredging operations in New Jersey and Delaware (NMFS, 1996). However, dredging has not 

been implicated as a major cause of death or injury to marine turtles in the region (NMFS, 

1996). 

 Of the four turtle species that typically occur off New Jersey and New York, three 

(loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley) are considered to be at risk from dredging activities 

because of their benthic feeding habits (Dickerson et al., 1992). Loggerheads are the most 

abundant turtles in the study area and historically have been the species most frequently 

entrained during hopper dredging, possibly accounting for up to 86% of the total (Reine and 

Clarke, 1998). Green and Kemp’s ridley turtles historically have accounted for much smaller 

portions of the total number of entrained turtles. Leatherbacks, which also occur in New Jersey 

and New York waters, are unlikely to be affected by dredging because they feed in the water 

column rather than on the bottom (NMFS, 1996). 

 Physical impact can occur when a turtle feeding or resting on the seafloor is contacted by 

the dredge head. Two types of dredges may be used on the proposed project. Cutterhead 

suction dredges are considered unlikely to kill or injure turtles, perhaps because the cutterhead 

encounters a smaller area of seafloor per unit time, allowing more opportunity for turtles to 

escape (Palermo, 1990). Hopper dredges are believed to pose the greatest risk to sea turtles 

(Dickerson, 1990; NMFS, 1997). There has been considerable research into designing modified 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 228

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

hopper dredges with turtle deflectors that reduce the likelihood of entraining sea turtles (Studt, 

1987; Berry, 1990; Dickerson et al., 1992; Banks and Alexander, 1994; USACE, 1999). If a 

hopper dredge is used during the turtle season of June through November, the NMFS may 

require visual surveys for turtles or removal of turtles prior to dredge activities via trawling, and 

the use of a turtle-deflecting draghead (NMFS, 1996). 

 Previous bathymetric surveys indicate that water depths approximately range from 14 to 

24 m in the sand borrow sites. Studies in New York waters have shown that chelonid sea 

turtles (i.e., those other than leatherbacks) feed primarily in depths of 15 m or less (NMFS, 

1996). The risk of physical impacts to turtles would appear to be greatest in these shallow 

water depths. However, there also is risk in deeper water because when turtles feed there, they 

tend to stay on the bottom longer (NMFS, 1996). 

7.6.3.2 Habitat Modification 

 Juvenile and subadult loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley turtles use northeastern U.S. 

coastal waters as developmental habit, foraging primarily on benthic invertebrates and plants 

(see Section 2.3.2.3). When borrow sites have significant concentrations of benthic resources, 

dredging can reduce food availability to these turtles by removing potential food items and 

altering the benthic habitats (NMFS, 1996). These effects would be temporary, as benthic 

populations would be expected to recover over a period of months to years, depending on the 

resource and the alteration of the habitats (see Section 7.5.3). In addition, borrow sites 

represent only a small portion of shallow benthic habitats available off northern New Jersey and 

southern New York. Trawl sampling in support of this document showed that potential turtle 

food items such as various benthic crustaceans, mollusks, and echinoderms were present in the 

borrow sites (see Section 6.3.5). 

7.6.3.3 Turbidity 

 Marine turtles in and near the study area may encounter turbid water within the 

suspended sediment plume generated during dredging operations. This turbid water could 

temporarily interfere with feeding. However, due to the limited areal extent and transient 

occurrence of the dredge plume, turbidity is considered unlikely to significantly affect turtle 

behavior or survival. 

7.6.3.4 Noise 

 Dredging is one of many human activities in the marine environment that produce 

underwater noise. Marine turtles seem to have limited hearing ability (Ridgway et al., 1969; 

Lenhardt, 1994; Bartol et al., 1999), and the role of hearing in their life cycle and behavior is 

poorly known. It is believed that marine turtles do not rely on sound to any significant degree for 

communication or food location, although it has been suggested that reception of low frequency 

sounds may be involved in natal beach homing behavior (Dodd, 1988). The latter would not be 

a consideration in this case because the study area is not near any significant nesting beach. 

 There are indications that underwater noise is unlikely to significantly affect turtles. First, 

studies in the Gulf of Mexico have shown some evidence for positive association of sea turtles 

with offshore oil and gas platforms (Rosman et al., 1987; Lohoefener et al., 1990), despite the 

industrial noise associated with these structures. Second, experiments testing the use of 

seismic airguns to repel turtles from dredging activities have found that even loud noises cause 

turtle avoidance only at very close range (i.e., 100 m or less) (Zawila, 1994). Furthermore, 

turtles observed during these experiments became habituated to the airgun noise after repeated 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 229

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

exposure (Moein et al., 1994). Therefore, if noise does have any impact on turtles, it would 

most likely be positive by encouraging avoidance of the dredge head. 

7.6.3.5 Project Scheduling 

 Project scheduling is one way to avoid or minimize impacts to turtles during dredging 

(Studt, 1987; Arnold, 1992). If a cutterhead suction dredge is used, seasonal or other 

restrictions are considered unnecessary because there is little likelihood of killing or injuring 

marine turtles. If a hopper dredge is used, then it would be best to avoid the June through 

November turtle season. However, the NMFS (1996) has recognized that the vagaries of winter 

weather off northern New Jersey and southern New York make it infeasible to prohibit dredging 

during these months. If use of a hopper dredge during this season cannot be avoided, then 

other mitigation and monitoring requirements are likely to be imposed, such as turtle monitoring 

and use of a turtle-deflecting draghead (NMFS, 1996). 

7.6.4 Marine Mammals 

 Major impact producing factors to marine mammals resulting from activities associated 

with the proposed action are physical injury to endangered cetaceans resulting from collisions 

with dredge and dredge support vessels, water column turbidity within the dredge plume, and 

noise produced by dredge vessels. Each impact producing factor and how it may affect marine 

mammals within the study area is discussed below. 

7.6.4.1 Physical Injury 

 Unlike marine turtles, most marine mammals are unlikely to be physically injured by 

dredging per se because they generally do not rest on the bottom and they can easily avoid 

contact with dredging vessels and equipment. Odontocete (toothed) marine mammals most 

likely to be found on the continental shelf off northern New Jersey and New York, such as 

bottlenose dolphin and common dolphin, are agile swimmers that are presumed capable of 

avoiding physical injury during dredging operations. 

 However, physical injury from vessel strikes is a serious concern for three endangered 

species of mysticetes (baleen whales): North Atlantic right whale, fin whale, and humpback 

whale. Recovery plans for these three species identify vessel strikes as a contributing factor 

impeding their recovery (NMFS, 1991a,b; Reeves et al., 1998). Vessel strikes are an especially 

serious concern for right whales. NMFS published regulations in February 1997 restricting 

vessel approaches of right whales. These regulations prohibit all approaches within 460 m of 

any right whale, whether by vessel, aircraft, or other means (NMFS, 1998). It is likely that 

measures to minimize the potential for vessel strikes of endangered whales would be part of 

any Biological Opinion issued by the NMFS for dredging off New Jersey and New York (e.g., 

NMFS, 1996). 

 The harbor porpoise, an odontocete marine mammal that has been proposed for listing as 

a threatened species, is, as a result of its agility, unlikely to be injured by dredging vessels or 

equipment. The major threat to the recovery of this species is gillnetting (NMFS, 1998). The 

NMFS has indicated that interactions of this species with dredging are unlikely (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). 

7.6.4.2 Turbidity 

 Marine mammals in and near the study area may encounter turbid water within the 

suspended sediment plume generated during dredging operations. This turbidity could 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 230

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

temporarily interfere with feeding or other activities; however, these animals could easily swim 

out of the turbid sediment plume area. Due to the limited extent and transient occurrence of the 

sediment plume, turbidity is considered unlikely to significantly affect marine mammal behavior 

or survival. 

7.6.4.3 Noise 

 Dredging can be a significant source of continuous underwater noise in nearshore areas, 

particularly in low frequencies (<1,000 Hz) (Richardson et al., 1995). This noise typically 

diminishes to background levels within about 20 to 25 km of the source (Richardson et al., 

1995). Noise levels are not sufficient to cause hearing loss or other auditory damage to marine 

mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). However, some observations of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of dredging operations and other industrial activities have documented avoidance 

behavior, while in other cases, animals seem to develop a tolerance for the industrial noise 

(Malme et al., 1983; Richardson et al., 1995). Due to the frequency range of their hearing, 

mysticetes (baleen whales) are more likely to be affected by low frequency noise associated 

with dredging operations than are odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins). Consequently, it 

is possible that dredging noise could cause avoidance by humpback whales and North Atlantic 

right whales during their seasonal migrations. 

7.6.4.4 Project Scheduling 

 Common marine mammal species of the continental shelf, such as bottlenose dolphin, 

may be present year-round and, as noted above, are unlikely to be adversely affected by 

dredging. Harbor porpoise occurrence is more seasonal, but the likelihood of impact is so low 

that it does not warrant seasonal restrictions on dredging. 

 Fin and humpback whales would be most likely to occur during winter or spring, and right 

whales as transients during spring and fall. There is no "resident" population of endangered 

whales in the study area; rather, they would be temporary inhabitants, or would be transiting the 

area during seasonal migrations. Generally, the probability of encountering these species in the 

project area would be lowest during summer. However, due to the low likelihood of impact, 

seasonal restrictions on dredging probably are not warranted. Instead, measures to minimize 

possible vessel interactions with these endangered species during dredging operations are 

likely to be required by the NMFS. 

7.7 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 

 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 United States 

Code [U.S.C.] §1801-1882) established regional Fishery Management Councils and mandated 

that Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) be developed to responsibly manage exploited fish and 

invertebrate species in U.S. Federal waters. When Congress reauthorized this act in 1996 as 

the Sustainable Fisheries Act, several reforms were made. One change was to charge the 

NMFS with designating and conserving EFH for species managed under existing FMPs. This is 

intended to minimize, to the extent practicable, any adverse effects on habitat caused by fishing 

or non-fishing activities and to identify other actions to encourage the conservation and 

enhancement of such habitat. 

 EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 

feeding or growth to maturity" (16 U.S.C. §1801[10]). The EFH interim final rule summarizing 

EFH regulations (62 FR 66531-66559) outlines additional interpretation of the EFH definition. 

Waters, as defined previously, include "aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 231

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

and biological properties that are used by fish, and may include aquatic areas historically used 

by fish where appropriate." Substrate includes "sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying 

the waters, and associated biological communities." Necessary is defined as "the habitat 

required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy 

ecosystem." “Fish” includes "finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine 

animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds," whereas "spawning, breeding, 

feeding or growth to maturity" cover the complete life cycle of those species of interest. 

 The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) has produced several FMPs for 

single and mixed groups of species including those for Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog; 

Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish; summer flounder, scup, and black seabass; bluefish; 

and spiny dogfish. Each of these FMPs was amended to include EFH designations (MAFMC, 

1998a, b, c, d, 1999). Because of the transitory nature of the fish fauna of the region, some 

migratory species managed by other entities were included in the table. Other management 

entities include the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and New England Fisheries 

Management Council. 

 Broadly defined EFH for managed species (including specific life stages) of the area 

encompassed by the sand borrow sites are given in Tables 7-1 to 7-5. These tables cover 

invertebrates, sharks, coastal pelagic fishes, and highly migratory fishes. The species include 

fishes and invertebrates managed by various regional councils and highly migratory species 

(sharks, tunas, and swordfish) managed by the NMFS. Table 7-6 presents a summary matrix of 

EFH species groups by impact producing factors. The nature of effects on EFH for these 

species would be similar to those discussed generally for squids (Section 7.6.1) and fishes 

(Section 7.6.2). In addition, impacts to infaunal assemblages during dredging projects would 

certainly affect the prey base for benthic foraging fishes. Projected recolonization and recovery 

of infauna impacted by dredging in the sand borrow sites was discussed above in 

Section 7.5.2.4. Although many aspects of offshore marine mining in the sand borrow sites can 

impact EFH, the limited spatial and temporal extent of these dredging activities suggests that 

impacts will not adversely affect EFH on a broad scale. 
Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 232

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration Table 7-1. Invertebrate species and life stages with Essential Fish Habitat identified in the project area 

Fishery Management Council, 1998a1, b2). Species Eggs Larvae Juveniles 

Ocean quahog Arctica islandica1 Insufficient information Insufficient information Throughout the sedimentary substrate to a depth of 1 m in Federal waters from the eastern edge of Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine throughout the Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to Cape Hatteras, NC. Water depths from 8 to 244 m. Throug

substrain Fedeeastern Bank athrougto CapWater 244 m

Surfclam Spisula solidissima1 Insufficient information Pelagic shelf waters from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, NC. Water temperatures from 14 to 30°C. Throughout the sedimentary substrate to a depth of 1 m in Federal waters from the eastern edge of Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine throughout the Atlantic EEZ. From the beach zone out to about 65 m water depths. Throug

substrain Fedeeastern Bank athrougFrom tabout 6

Longfin squid Loligo pealei2 Attached to rocks, boulders, or submerged vegetation in continental shelf waters less than 50 m deep. Pelagic waters of the continental shelf from the Gulf of Maine through Cape Hatteras, NC from shore to 213 m water depths. Water temperatures between 3.8 to 27°C. Pelagic waters of the continental shelf from the Gulf of Maine through Cape Hatteras, NC from shore to 305 m water depths in temperatures ranging between 3.8 to 27°C. Pelagic 

contineGulf of Hattera305 m temperbetwee

Shortfin squid Illex illecebrosus2

Insufficient information Insufficient information 

Pelagic waters of the continental shelf from the Gulf of Maine through Cape Hatteras, NC from shore to 183 m water depths. Water in temperatures between 2.2 to 22.8°C. 

Pelagic contineGulf of Hattera183 m temper3.8 to 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 233

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Table 7-2. Coastal shark species and life stages with Essential Fish Habitat identified in the 

project area (source Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 19991

; National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 19992

). 

Species Neonate/Early Juveniles Late juveniles/subadults Adults 

Spiny dogfish 

Squalus acanthias1

Continental shelf waters from 

the Gulf of Maine to Cape 

Hatteras, NC. Generally in 

water depths from 10 to 

390 m and temperatures 

from 2.8 to 27.8°C. 

Continental shelf waters from 

the Gulf of Maine to Cape 

Hatteras, NC. Generally in 

water depths from 10 to 

390 m and temperatures 

from 2.8 to 27.8°C. 

Continental shelf waters from 

the Gulf of Maine to Cape 

Hatteras, NC. Generally in 

water depths from 10 to 

450 m and temperatures 

from 2.8 to 27.8°C. 

Sand tiger shark 

Carcharias taurus2

Shallow coastal waters less 

than 25 m deep from 

Barnegat Inlet, NJ to Cape 

Canaveral, FL (27.5°N). 

Insufficient information. 

Shallow coastal waters less 

than 25 m from Barnegat 

Inlet, NJ to Cape Canaveral, 

FL (27.5°N). 

Thresher shark 

Alopias vulpinus2

Offshore Long Island, NY 

and southern New England 

in the northeastern United 

States, in pelagic waters 

deeper than 50 m, between 

70°W and 73.5°W, south to 

40°N. 

Offshore Long Island, NY 

and southern New England 

in the northeastern United 

States, in pelagic waters 

deeper than 50 m, between 

70°W and 73.5°W, south to 

40°N. 

Offshore Long Island, NY 

and southern New England 

in the northeastern United 

States, in pelagic waters 

deeper than 50 m, between 

70°W and 73.5°W, south to 

40°N. 

Basking shark 

Cetorhinus 

maximus2 Insufficient information. 

Offshore the Mid-Atlantic 

United States south of 

Nantucket Shoals at 70°W to 

the northern edge of Cape 

Hatteras, NC at 35.5°N in 

waters from 50 to 200 m 

deep. 

Offshore southern New 

England, west of Nantucket 

Shoals at 70°W to Montauk, 

Long Island, NY (72°W) in 

waters from 50 to 200 deep. 

White shark 

Carcharodon 

carcharias2 Insufficient information. 

Offshore southern New 

Jersey and Long Island, NY 

in pelagic waters from the 25 

to the 100 m isobaths in the 

New York Bight Area, 

bounded to the east at 

71.5°W and to the south at 

39.5°N. 

Insufficient information. 

Shortfin mako 

Isurus oxyrinchus2

Between the 50 and 2,000 m 

isobaths from Cape Lookout, 

NC (35°N) north to just east 

of Georges Bank (42°N and 

66°W) to the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) 

boundary, and between the 

25 and 50 m isobaths from 

the V/NC border to 

southwest of Georges Bank. 

Between the 25 and 2,000 m 

isobaths from offshore 

Onslow Bay, NC north to 

Cape Cod, MA and 

extending west between 

38°N and 41.5°N to the EEZ 

boundary. 

Between the 25 and 2,000 m 

isobaths from offshore Cape 

Lookout, NC north to Long 

Island, NY, and extending 

west between 38.5°N and 

41.5°N to the EEZ boundary. 

Dusky shark 

Carcharhinus 

obscurus2

Shallow coastal waters, 

inlets, and estuaries in 

waters less than 25 m deep. 

Shallow coastal waters, 

inlets, and estuaries in 

waters less than 25 m deep. 

Not in project area. 

Sandbar shark 

Carcharhinus 

plumbeus2

Shallow coastal waters, 

inlets, and estuaries in 

waters less than 25 m deep 

from Montauk, NY to Cape 

Canaveral, FL (27.5°N). 

Shallow coastal waters, 

inlets, and estuaries in 

waters less than 25 m deep 

from Montauk, NY to Cape 

Canaveral, FL (27.5°N). 

Shallow coastal areas from 

the shore to the 50 m isobath 

from Nantucket, MA south to 

Miami, FL. 

Tiger shark 

Gaelocerdo cuvier2

Shallow coastal waters to the 

200 m isobath from Cape 

Canaveral, FL (27.5°N) to 

Montauk, NY. 

North of the mouth of 

Chesapeake Bay to offshore 

Montauk, NY between the 25 

and 100 m isobaths. 

Not in project area. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 234

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Table 7-3. Coastal pelagic fish species and life stages with Essential Fish Habitat identified 

in the project area (source Reid et al., 19991

; Fahay et al., 19992; Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, 19993

). 

Species Eggs and Larvae Juveniles Adults 

Atlantic herring 

Clupea harengus1 Not in project area. 

Pelagic continental shelf 

waters from the Gulf of 

Maine through the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight (Cape 

Hatteras, NC). 

Pelagic continental shelf 

waters from the Gulf of 

Maine through the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight (Cape 

Hatteras, NC). 

Bluefish 

Pomatomus 

saltatrix 2

Pelagic waters of the 

continental shelf from 

southern New England to 

Cape Hatteras in water 

temperatures 18 to 24°C. 

Estuaries, bays, and 

coastal ocean from Long 

Island Sound to south of 

North Carolina. 

Open ocean, large 

embayments, and 

estuaries throughout their 

range in water 

temperatures exceeding 

14°C. 

Atlantic mackerel 

Scomber 

scomber3

Pelagic continental shelf 

waters from the Gulf of 

Maine through Cape 

Hatteras, NC. Inshore 

areas include high salinity 

portions of estuaries on 

the Atlantic Coast from 

Passamoquaddy Bay, ME 

to James River, VA. 

Water depths from shore 

to 1,828 m. 

Pelagic continental shelf 

waters from the Gulf of 

Maine through Cape 

Hatteras, NC. Inshore 

areas include high salinity 

portions of estuaries on 

the Atlantic Coast from 

Passamoquaddy Bay, ME 

to James River, VA. 

Water depths from shore 

to 1,828 m. 

Pelagic continental shelf 

waters from the Gulf of 

Maine through Cape 

Hatteras, NC. Inshore 

areas include high salinity 

portions of estuaries on 

the Atlantic Coast from 

Passamoquaddy Bay, ME 

to James River, VA. 

Water depths from shore 

to 1,828 m. 

Butterfish 

Peprilus 

triacanthus3

Pelagic continental shelf 

waters from the Gulf of 

Maine through Cape 

Hatteras, NC. Inshore 

areas include high salinity 

portions of estuaries on 

the Atlantic Coast from 

Passamoquaddy Bay, ME 

to James River, VA. 

Water depths from shore 

to 1,828 m. 

Pelagic continental shelf 

waters from the Gulf of 

Maine through Cape 

Hatteras, NC. Inshore 

areas include high salinity 

portions of estuaries on 

the Atlantic Coast from 

Passamoquaddy Bay, ME 

to James River, VA. 

Water depths from 10 to 

366 m. 

Pelagic continental shelf 

waters from the Gulf of 

Maine through Cape 

Hatteras, NC. Inshore 

areas include high salinity 

portions of estuaries on 

the Atlantic Coast from 

Passamoquaddy Bay, ME 

to James River, VA. 

Water depths from 10 to 

366 m. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 235

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Table 7-4. Demersal fish species and life stages with Essential Fish Habitat identified in the 

project area (source Steimle et al., 19991

; New England Fishery Management 

Council, 20042; Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1998c3; Chang et al., 

19994

). 

Species Eggs and Larvae Juveniles Adults 

Red hake 

Urophycis chuss1

Pelagic continental shelf 

waters from the Gulf of 

Maine through the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight (to 

Cape Hatteras, NC) in 

temperatures from 8 to 

23°C and water depths of 

10 to 200 m. 

Demersal continental 

shelf waters from the Gulf 

of Maine through the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight in water 

temperatures from 2 to 

20°C and depths of 5 to 

200 m. 

Demersal continental 

shelf waters from the Gulf 

of Maine through the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight in water 

temperatures from 2 to 

22°C and depths of 5 to 

300 m. 

Monkfish 

Lophius 

americanus2

Pelagic continental shelf 

waters from the Gulf of 

Maine through the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight in 

temperatures below 15°C 

and water depths of 15 to 

1,000 m. 

Demersal continental 

shelf waters from Gulf of 

Maine through the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight in water 

temperatures below 13°C 

and depths of 25 to 

200 m. 

Demersal continental 

shelf waters from Gulf of 

Maine through the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight in water 

temperatures below 13°C 

and depths of 25 to 

200 m. 

Black seabass 

Centropristis 

striata3

Pelagic waters over 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine. High 

salinity segments of 

regional estuaries from 

Virginia to New York. 

Demersal waters over the 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine. Estuaries 

from Virginia to 

Massachusetts where 

salinity exceeds 18 ppt 

and temperature exceeds 

6.0°C. Structured habitat 

(artificial or natural) 

preferred. 

Demersal waters over the 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine. Structured 

habitat (artificial or 

natural) preferred. 

Scup 

Stenotomus 

chrysops3

Estuaries of the region 

where salinity exceeds 

15 ppt and water 

temperature ranges from 

13 to 23°C. 

Demersal waters over the 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine. Estuaries 

from Virginia to 

Massachusetts where 

salinity exceeds 15 ppt 

and temperature exceeds 

7.2°C. 

Demersal waters over the 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine. Estuaries 

from Virginia to 

Massachusetts where 

salinity exceeds 15 ppt 

and temperature exceeds 

7.2°C. 

Summer flounder 

Paralichthys 

dentatus3

Pelagic waters over the 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine. Eggs in 

water depths of 10 to 

120 m; larvae in 10 to 

80 m. 

Demersal waters over the 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine. Estuaries 

where salinity ranges 

from 10 to 30 ppt. 

Demersal waters over the 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine to water 

depths of 152 m. 

Estuaries where salinity 

ranges from 10 to 30 ppt. 

Windowpane 

Scophthalmus 

aquosus4

Pelagic waters over the 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine in water 

depths less than 70 m. 

Demersal waters over the 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine. Estuaries 

where salinity ranges 

from 15 to 33 ppt. 

Demersal waters over the 

continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras, NC to the 

Gulf of Maine. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 236

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Table 7-5. Highly migratory fish species and life stages with Essential Fish Habitat 

identified in the project area (source National Marine Fisheries Service, 1999). 

Species Spawning, Eggs, 

and Larvae Juveniles/Subadults Adults 

Yellowfin tuna 

Thunnus 

albacares

Not in project area. 

Pelagic waters from the 

surface to 100 m deep 

between 18 and 31°C 

from offshore Cape Cod, 

MA (70°W) southward to 

Jekyll Island, GA (31°N) 

between 200 and 

2,000 m. 

Pelagic waters from the 

surface to 100 m deep 

between 18 and 31°C 

from offshore Cape Cod, 

MA (70°W) southward to 

Jekyll Island, GA (31°N) 

between 200 and 

2,000 m. 

Albacore 

Thunnus alalunga Not in project area. 

In offshore surface waters 

with temperatures 

between 15.6 and 19.4°C 

in the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

from the 50 to 2,000 m 

isobaths with 71°W as the 

northeast boundary and 

38°N as the southwest 

boundary. 

Not in project area. 

Bluefin tuna 

Thunnus thynnus Not in project area. 

All inshore and surface 

waters warmer than 12°C 

from Cape Ann, MA 

(42.75°N) east to 

69.75°W, continuing 

south to and including 

Nantucket Shoals at 

70.5°W to off Cape 

Hatteras, NC (35.5°N). 

All inshore and surface 

waters warmer than 12°C 

from Cape Ann, MA 

(42.75°N) east to 

69.75°W, continuing 

south to and including 

Nantucket Shoals at 

70.5°W to off Cape 

Hatteras, NC (35.5°N). 

Skipjack tuna 

Katsowonus 

pelamis

Not in project area. Not in project area. 

Pelagic surface waters 

from 20 to 31°C in the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight from 

the 25 to 200 m isobaths. 

Swordfish 

Xiphias gladius Not in project area. 

Pelagic waters warmer 

than 18°C from the 

surface to a depth of 

500 m, from Manasquan 

Inlet, NJ at 40°N, east to 

73°W, south to Georgia at 

31.5°N. 

Not in project area. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Potential Effects 

Environmental Surveys Of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey And Southern New York 237

And The Environmental Implications Of Sand Removal For Coastal And Beach Restoration 

Table 7-6. Summary matrix of impact producing factors and potential effects on 

members of managed species groups and their Essential Fish Habitat 

expected from dredging the sand borrow sites offshore of northern 

New Jersey and southern New York. 

Species Group Seafloor 

Disturbance Entrainment Turbidity Noise 

Invertebrates 

(Atlantic surf 

clam and 

Quahog)

Direct habitat 

loss; burial or 

direct damage to 

organisms. 

All stages. 

Mortality/feeding 

impairment of 

early life stages. 

None expected. 

Invertebrates 

(Squid)

Removal and 

burial of 

demersal eggs. 

All stages. 

Mortality/feeding 

impairment of all 

life stages. 

None expected. 

Sharks

Loss of feeding 

areas for benthic 

feeding life 

stages. 

Entrainment 

of 

neonate/earl

y juveniles. 

None expected. 

Temporary 

alteration of 

acoustic 

environment. 

Coastal 

pelagic fishes None expected. None 

expected. 

Mortality/feeding 

impairment of 

early life stages. 

Temporary 

alteration of 

acoustic 

environment. 

Demersal 

fishes 

Adult and 

juvenile habitat 

loss. 

Displacement of 

feeding areas. 

Entrainment 

of adults and 

juveniles. 

Mortality/feeding 

impairment of 

early life stages. 

Temporary 

alteration of 

acoustic 

environment. 

Highly 

migratory 

fishes

None expected. None 

expected. 

Mortality/feeding 

impairment of 

juveniles and 

adults. 

Temporary 

alteration of 

acoustic 

environment. 

7.8 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

 Cumulative physical environmental impacts from multiple sand extraction scenarios at one 

or all sand borrow sites within the study area were evaluated to assess long-term effects at 

potential borrow sites and along the coastline. Results presented above for wave and sediment 

transport processes reflect the impact of large extraction scenarios from one or multiple offshore 

sites that are expected to be within the cumulative sand resource needs for the next 10 years. It 

was determined that no significant changes to longshore sediment transport will result from the 

modeled borrow site configurations offshore northeastern New Jersey (H1 and H2) and 

southwestern Long Island (3, 4W, and 4E). 

 Given that the expected beach replenishment interval is on the order of 5 to 10 years, and 

that the expected recovery time of the affected benthic community after sand removal is 

anticipated to be much less than that (within 2 years), the potential for significant cumulative 

benthic impacts is remote. No cumulative impacts to the pelagic environment, including squids, 

fishes, sea turtles, and marine mammals, are expected from multiple sand mining operations 

within a sand borrow site. 
Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 238

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

8.0 CONCLUSIONS 

 The primary purpose of this study was to address environmental concerns raised by the 

potential for dredging sand from the OCS offshore northeastern New Jersey and southwestern 

Long Island for beach replenishment. Primary concerns focused on physical and biological 

components of the environment at five proposed sand resource areas. Physical processes and 

biological characterization data were analyzed to assess the potential impacts of offshore 

dredging activities within the study area to minimize or preclude long-term adverse 

environmental impacts at potential borrow sites and along the coastline landward of resource 

sites. The following summary documents conclusions regarding the potential environmental 

effects of sand mining on the OCS for replenishing sand to eroding beaches. Because benthic 

and pelagic biological characteristics are in part determined by spatially varying physical 

processes throughout the study area, physical processes analyses are summarized first. 

8.1 WAVE TRANSFORMATION MODELING 

 Excavation of an offshore borrow site can alter incoming wave heights and the direction of 

wave propagation. Offshore topographic relief causes waves to refract toward the shallow 

edges of borrow sites. Changes in the wave field caused by borrow site geometry may change 

local sediment transport rates, where some areas may experience a reduction in longshore 

transport and other areas may show an increase. The most effective means of quantifying 

physical environmental effects of sand dredging from shoals on the continental shelf is by 

applying wave transformation numerical modeling tools that recognize the random nature of 

incident waves as they propagate onshore. To determine the potential physical impacts 

associated with dredging at borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey and southwestern 

Long Island, spectral wave transformation modeling (STWAVE) was performed for existing and 

post-dredging bathymetric conditions. Comparison of computations for existing and postdredging conditions illustrated the relative impact of borrow site excavation on wave-induced 

coastal processes. 

 As part of any offshore sand mining effort, the MMS requires an evaluation of potential 

environmental impacts associated with alterations to nearshore wave patterns. To determine 

potential physical impacts associated with borrow site excavation, the influence of borrow site 

geometry on local wave refraction patterns was evaluated. Because large natural spatial and 

temporal variability exists within the wave climate at a particular site, determination of physical 

impacts associated with sand mining must consider the influence of process variability. A 

method based on historical wave climate variability, as well as local wave climate changes 

directly attributable to borrow site excavation, has been applied to determine appropriate criteria 

for assessing impact significance. 

 To directly assess impacts to coastal processes associated with sand mining, an 

approach was utilized that considers spatial (longshore) and temporal aspects of the local wave 

climate, as described by Kelley et al. (2004). This method was applied by performing wave 

model runs using mean conditions developed from the entire 20-year WIS record, and then 
MMS Study 2004-044 Conclusions 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 239

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

20 year-long blocks of the WIS record to determine annual variability of the wave climate along 

this shoreline. In this manner, temporal variations in wave climate are considered relative to 

average annual conditions. From these wave model runs, sediment transport potential curves 

are derived for average annual conditions (based on the full 20-year WIS record) and each 

1-year period (based on the 20 1-year wave records parsed from the full record). Applying this 

information, the average and standard deviation in calculated longshore sediment transport 

potential are determined every 200 m along the shoreline. 

 Linear offshore sand ridges, oriented obliquely to the shoreline in a northwest-southeast 

direction, are the primary geomorphic features influencing wave propagation offshore 

southwestern Long Island beaches. For 1.3 m, 9.1 sec waves propagating from the eastsoutheast, shoals encompassed by Borrow Sites 3, 4W, and 4E had the greatest influence on 

waves in the modeled area; however, effects to waves were relatively small because these 

shoals are located in approximately 17 to 20 m water depth. Post-dredging wave height 

changes at the borrow sites illustrated the impact of sand extraction at borrow sites, where 

seafloor topography within each site was lowered to a level not exceeding water depths at the 

base of the shoals (approximately -20 m). For the 1.3 m, 9.1 sec wave condition, borrow site 

dredging had no measurable influence on waves over a long section of coastline (>44 km), but 

changes on the order of 0.01 m did occur along 20 km of coast in the combined shadow of the 

three borrow sites. At Site 4E, maximum wave height decrease was approximately 0.05 m, and 

the maximum increase was 0.10 m at the landward boundary of the site. At Site 4W, maximum 

wave height increase was 0.10 m, and maximum wave height decrease was 0.09 m. Seafloor 

excavation at Site 3 produced smallest wave height changes for borrow sites offshore 

southwestern Long Island, with a maximum decrease of 0.06 m and a maximum increase of 

0.04 m. Minimal computed changes at Site 3 may be due to the relatively small volume of sand 

excavated from this site, and because changes in seafloor elevation for post-dredging 

conditions were less (approximately 2 m change for Site 3, versus 4 m for Sites 4W and 4E). 

 For a 1.6 m, 9.1 sec wave from the southeast, changes in wave field propagation resulting 

from dredging at the three offshore borrow sites were smaller than those computed for the wave 

condition above, even though the wave height for this case is larger. This effect may be due to 

a combination of incident wave angle and directional orientation of shoals upon which borrow 

sites are located. The wave shadow zone from these three sites affected approximately 45 km 

of shoreline, but greatest changes were on the order of 0.01 m and occurred within a 4 km 

stretch of shoreline at the western end of Jones Beach. 

 Potential sand borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey are oriented obliquely to the 

shoreline in a northeast-southwest direction and have minimal influence on wave propagation to 

the shoreline. For 1.3 m, 9.1 sec waves propagating from the east, shoals encompassed by 

Borrow Sites H1 and H2 exhibited minimal wave focusing. The approximate minimum water 

depths at Sites H1 and H2 are 16 and 17 m, respectively. For the shoal at Site H1, maximum 

wave height increase was 0.13 m due to the focusing effect of the sand ridge. Post-dredging 

wave height changes at Sites H1 and H2 simulated the impact of sand extraction at borrow 

sites, where seafloor topography within each site was lowered to a level not exceeding water 

depths at the base of the shoals (approximately -20 m). Wave height differences resulting from 

numerically excavating Sites H1 and H2 are relatively small and diffuse, and wave height 

changes at the modeled shoreline are less than 0.01 m. At Site H1, maximum changes in wave 

height ranged from -0.06 to +0.04 m. At Site H2, maximum wave height changes decreased by 

0.05 m and increased by 0.03 m. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Conclusions 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 240

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 For 1.3 m, 7.7 sec waves propagating from the south-southeast, wave height changes 

were not as pronounced as those for the previous wave case. The primary reason for this 

difference is that offshore bathymetry has less effect on wave focusing for shorter peak period 

incident waves. Wave height changes indicated that borrow sites had an overlapping influence 

at the shoreline for waves propagating from the SSE. Similar to the previous wave case, wave 

height changes at the shoreline relative to potential offshore sand dredging were never greater 

than 0.01 m. Site H1 exists within the wave shadow zone for Site H2, but wave height changes 

remain relatively small. At Site H1, maximum wave height changes ranged from +0.04 to -0.04 

m; at Site H2, maximum changes were half this magnitude (+0.02 to -0.02 m). Overall, wave 

height differences between existing and post-dredging conditions were quite small relative to 

natural wave height variability. 

8.2 CIRCULATION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT DYNAMICS 

 Circulation patterns on either side of the Hudson Shelf Valley near potential offshore sand 

borrow sites documented speed and direction related to current and wind patterns recorded 

between December 4, 1999 and April 15, 2000. Overall, the predominant direction of surface 

flow within the study area varied from southeast (west of Hudson Shelf Valley) to southsoutheast (east of the Hudson Shelf Valley). Surface current magnitudes also were consistent, 

showing similar maximums, means, and standard deviations. Bottom current measurements 

illustrated greater variability in direction and magnitude. Offshore northeastern New Jersey 

predominant bottom current flow varied from east-southeast to west, while the predominant 

bottom current flow east of the Hudson Shelf Valley varied from north to south-southeast. 

Differences in bottom flow may be explained by the presence of the Hudson Shelf Valley, which 

bisects the continental shelf in this region causing currents to veer to the north as they flow 

cross contour into the bathometric low from northeast to southwest. Strong northerly flow within 

the valley prevents currents south and west of this area from flowing to the east-northeast. 

 The controlling factor for bottom current velocities in the vicinity of proposed sand borrow 

sites was wind direction and intensity, and local bathometric features controlled current 

direction. Bottom currents tended to flow parallel to contours causing currents to diverge 

around localized bathymetric highs and converge near bathymetric lows. In general, bottom 

flows at the borrow sites offshore southwestern Long Island flowed east-southeast or east and 

west with deviations caused by wind direction. Maximum bottom current speed was about 

35 cm/s flowing east, with a mean speed of 8 cm/s (±5 cm/s) flowing southeast. Offshore 

northeastern New Jersey, bottom currents generally flow north and south along bathymetric 

contours. Maximum bottom current speed for this area was about 26 cm/s flowing north, with a 

mean velocity of 6 cm/sec (±4 cm/s) flowing north. Bottom current speeds at both sites primarily 

were controlled by wind speeds, and the direction of flow was controlled by local bathymetry. 

 Three independent sediment transport analyses were completed to evaluate physical 

environmental impacts due to sand mining. First, historical sediment transport trends were 

quantified to document regional, long-term sediment movement throughout the study area using 

historical bathymetric data sets. Erosion and accretion patterns were documented, and 

sediment transport rates in the littoral zone and at offshore borrow sites were evaluated to 

assess potential changes due to offshore sand dredging activities. Second, sediment transport 

patterns at proposed offshore borrow sites were evaluated using wave modeling results and 

current measurements. Post-dredging wave model results were integrated with regional current 

measurements to estimate sediment transport trends for predicting borrow site infilling rates. 

Third, potential longshore sediment transport was computed using wave modeling output to 

estimate potential impacts along the coast (beach erosion and accretion). All three methods 
MMS Study 2004-044 Conclusions 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 241

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

were compared for documenting consistency of measurements relative to predictions, and 

potential physical environmental impacts were identified. 

8.2.1 Historical Sediment Transport Patterns 

 Regional geomorphic changes between 1873/88 and 1991/97 (southwestern Long Island) 

and 1836/39 and 1977 (northeastern New Jersey) were analyzed for assessing long-term, net 

coastal sediment transport dynamics. Although these data did not provide information on 

potential impacts of sand dredging from proposed borrow sites, they did provide a means of 

verifying predictive sediment transport models relative to infilling rates at borrow sites and 

longshore sand transport. 

 Shoreline position and nearshore bathymetry change documented four important trends 

relative to study objectives. First, there were three dominant directions of longshore sand 

transport within the study area. Between Rockaway Point and Moriches Inlet, the dominant 

direction of transport was east to west. In northern New Jersey, between Sandy Hook and 

Manasquan, longshore transport from south to north dominated, while south of Manasquan 

Inlet, the dominant direction was to the south. Along both coasts, the dominant direction of 

transport was illustrated by barrier island migration and shoreline advance adjacent to inlet 

jetties. Barrier islands along the south coast of Long Island have historically migrated from east 

to west, and seaward shoreline advance subsequent to jetty construction has occurred along 

the east sides of entrances. In northern New Jersey, Sandy Hook spit historically has migrated 

rapidly to the north, and prior to structural development at Barnegat Inlet, the spit north of the 

entrance was rapidly migrating to the south. The greatest amount of shoreline change observed 

for this study was associated with beaches adjacent to entrances, most notably along the 

leading edge of prograding barrier spits. 

 Second, the most dynamic features within the study area, in terms of nearshore sediment 

transport, are migrating barrier island/spit complexes along the northeastern New Jersey and 

southwestern Long Island coasts, in addition to natural and anthropogenic change along the 

Hudson River Channel. Areas of significant erosion and accretion are documented between 

1927/37 and 1927/97 at Sandy Hook spit, reflecting wave and current dynamics that carry 

sediment northward and deposit it along the terminal edge of the spit. High rates of deposition 

also were prominent at entrances south of Sandy Hook and along the southwestern coast of 

Long Island. Shoreline and bathymetric changes associated with these features reflect 

morphologic response to wave and current dynamics and shoreline adjustment to placement of 

engineering structures. Pronounced bathymetric change observed along the head and sides of 

the Hudson River Channel reflects natural and anthropogenic processes. Large areas showing 

significant deposition at the head of the Hudson River Channel reflect high levels of offshore 

disposal activity, and patches of erosion and accretion paralleling each other along the length of 

the channel reflect natural bathymetric changes. 

 Third, alternating bands of erosion and accretion paralleling ridge features illustrated the 

steady reworking of the shelf surface as sand ridges migrated in the direction of net sediment 

transport. The process by which this was occurring was relatively consistent across the shelf. 

At Borrow Site H1, bathymetric comparisons suggested that the borrow site in this region would 

fill with sand transported from the adjacent seafloor at rates of about 98,000 m3

/yr. Areas of 

erosion and accretion documented between 1927/37 and 1927/97 at Borrow Site 4E illustrated 

the amount of sediment available for infilling at sites south of Long Island was also about 

98,000 m3

/yr. Calculations for these two borrow sites were used as indicators of potential 

infilling rates for all borrow sites within the study area. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Conclusions 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 242

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Finally, net longshore transport rates determined from seafloor changes in the littoral zone 

along Sandy Hook spit indicated maximum transport rates near the distal end of the spit, with 

lower rates to the south. These calculations, along with data published by Caldwell (1966) 

indicate a range in net longshore transport along Sandy Hook from about 223,000 m3

/yr to 

382,000 m3

/yr. According to Taney (1961), the direction of net littoral drift along southwestern 

Long Island beaches is east to west, ranging from 122,000 to 344,000 m3

/yr. 

8.2.2 Sediment Transport Modeling at Potential Borrow Sites 

 In addition to predicted modifications to the wave field, potential sand mining at offshore 

borrow sites resulted in minor changes in sediment transport pathways in and around potential 

dredging sites. For water depths at the proposed borrow sites, minimal impacts to waves, 

currents, and regional sediment transport are expected during infilling. Infilling rates computed 

for each of the five borrow sites offshore northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Long 

Island represented the total potential sediment transport at each of the sites from the combined 

influence of wave-induced and ambient bottom currents. These results likely represent 

average, non-storm conditions for sediment transport at each site. For the five modeled borrow 

sites, computed transport rates were extremely low, with potential transport rates ranging from 

0.13 m3

/yr to approximately 580 m3/yr. A number of factors contributed to the low transport 

rates, including water depth (typically 20 m, which reduced the impact of wave-induced 

currents), relatively short period waves dominating the regional wave climate, absence of 

significant storm events in the wave and current data sets that drive sediment transport in this 

area, coarse grain size of in situ materials, and relatively weak ambient shelf currents. 

Furthermore, potential borrow site excavations consisted of dredging an existing shoal to the 

same elevation as the surrounding seafloor. Therefore, potential borrow site excavation would 

primarily flatten the shoal and not create a seafloor depression. Based on extremely low 

potential transport rates of in situ sediment and the geomorphic character of dredged deposits, it 

is unlikely that any of these borrow sites will reform as shoal deposits in the near future. 

8.2.3 Nearshore Sediment Transport Potential 

 Comparisons of average annual sediment transport potential were performed for existing 

and post-dredging conditions to indicate the relative impact of dredging to longshore sediment 

transport processes. Mean sediment transport potential calculated for beaches east of Jones 

Inlet indicated net westerly transport ranging from about 54,000 m3

/yr at Fire Island Inlet to 

170,000 m3

/yr at Jones Inlet. Along Long Beach, net westerly transport increased from about 

50,000 m3

/yr west of Jones Inlet to a maximum of about 150,000 m3/yr at the approximate midpoint of the barrier beach, before decreasing to about 88,000 m3

/yr at East Rockaway Inlet. The 

impact significance envelope for longshore transport, relative to offshore borrow site dredging, 

increased along Jones Beach from ±20,000 m3

/yr at Fire Island Inlet to ±40,000 m3/yr at Jones 

Inlet. The significance envelope for Long Beach had a similar range, with a maximum value 

midway between Jones Inlet and East Rockaway Inlet. Potential dredging impacts to longshore 

transport rates from excavation at Sites 3, 4W, and 4E are well within the transport significance 

envelope. As such, proposed dredging at these sites are not expected to result in significant 

modifications to costal processes along this shoreline. Shoreline impacts are negligible due to 

the relatively deep water at potential borrow sites (19 m for Site 3 and 20 m for Sites 4W and 

4E), their distance offshore, and wave climate (dominated by relatively short-period waves). 

 Mean sediment transport potential along the northeast coast of New Jersey for the 

modeled 20-year period indicated that dominant transport was net northerly but more bidirectional for shorter term annual results. There was an approximate ±55,000 m3

/yr range in 

annual net transport rates. Long-term potential transport rates reached a maximum of 
MMS Study 2004-044 Conclusions 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 243

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

approximately 30,000 m3/yr within the modeled study area, and a minimum occurred just north 

of Shark River Inlet. Results of transport potential calculations indicated that the year with the 

greatest net southerly transport was 1987, and the year with the greatest northerly directed 

transport was 1995. The dredging impact significance envelope computed for this area was 

generally constant at ±15,000 m3

/yr. Impacts from dredging Sites H1 and H2 are well within the 

significance envelope, and proposed sites would be acceptable under the simulated conditions. 

Similar to sites offshore Long Island, potential shoreline impacts were negligible due to the 

relatively deep water at potential borrow sites (20 m for Sites H1 and H2), their distance 

offshore, and wave climate (dominated by relatively short-period waves). 

8.3 BENTHIC ENVIRONMENT 

 Benthic assemblages surveyed from the New Jersey and New York sand borrow sites 

consisted of members of the major invertebrate and vertebrate groups commonly found in the 

region of the New York Bight. Numerically dominant infaunal groups included crustaceans, 

echinoderms, mollusks, and polychaetes, while epifaunal taxa consisted primarily of decapods, 

sand dollars, gastropods, and squids, all typical components of benthic assemblages in the 

study area. Similarly, the numerically dominant demersal fishes collected in trawls within the 

borrow sites revealed consistency with previous surveys. Fishes such as clearnose skate (Raja 

eglanteria), northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), and summer 

flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) were numerical dominants during the surveys, and these 

species consistently are among the most ubiquitous and abundant demersal taxa in the Bight 

region. 

 Field surveys indicated that infaunal distribution and abundance was correlated broadly 

with sediment grain size. Groups of organisms characterized samples from different sediment 

types (e.g., sand and gravel). Juvenile surfclams (Spisula solidissima) were collected from 

stations with sand, slightly gravelly sand, and gravelly sand but were not predominantly 

associated with any particular sedimentary habitat in the borrow sites. Other physical 

environmental characteristics that normally affect infaunal population distributions, such as 

water depth, were similar across the study area and therefore did not differentially affect 

abundance and distribution patterns. In addition to sediment-based spatial variability, there 

were significant temporal differences in the composition of infaunal assemblages. Just half of 

all collected taxa were common to both surveys. Temporal patterns of infaunal community 

indices did not meet expected patterns, possibly due to abnormally high temperatures in the 

region during the first half of 2002. Despite inherent spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the 

distribution and abundance of demersal taxa, results of the 2001-2002 surveys of the New 

Jersey and New York sand borrow sites generally are consistent with historical demersal survey 

results in the region. 

 Infaunal assemblages in the sand borrow sites will be completely destroyed within areas 

excavated by dredges; however, these assemblages are expected to recover. The rate of postdredging recovery of benthic assemblages within an excavated borrow site will depend primarily 

on the depth of sand excavation. Although an excavation with a large surface area would 

initially impact a greater number of infaunal organisms, the recovery process within such an 

excavation would be quicker than it would be for a smaller, deeper pit. Creation of a steepsided pit may inhibit water flow through such a feature, possibly resulting in a "dead zone" 

characterized by deposition of fine particles and hypoxia or anoxia. This scenario would extend 

the duration of ecological impact beyond that which would occur with a more shallow cut over a 

much larger area. 
MMS Study 2004-044 Conclusions 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 244

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

 Impacts to infauna are expected to be limited in spatial extent relative to the broad shelf 

area of the New York Bight. Recovery time for any impacts to the benthic environment will vary 

depending on the organisms affected, seasonal timing of dredging, and type of excavation. 

Impacts to infauna will affect benthic feeding fishes and epifauna. Based on previous 

observations of infaunal reestablishment in dredged areas, the infaunal community in dredged 

sites within sand borrow sites most likely will become reestablished within 2 years, exhibiting 

levels of infaunal abundance, diversity, and composition comparable to nearby non-dredged 

areas. 

8.4 PELAGIC ENVIRONMENT 

 Pelagic invertebrates and fishes were not sampled during the biological field surveys, but 

their consideration was based on a concern of water column effects related to dredging. The 

most important pelagic invertebrates in the study area are squids, represented by two species, 

shortfin and longfin squids. These species occur in the area and were collected in bottom trawls 

taken during the biological field surveys. Squids could be entrained if they encountered the 

suction field of a hydraulic dredge. In addition, squid eggs are laid in large clusters on the 

seafloor and could be removed with sediments. Dredging is unlikely to significantly impact 

squid populations in the vicinity of the sand borrow sites. This precludes the need for an 

environmental window or specific project scheduling to protect squid resources. 

 Pelagic fishes in the area include highly migratory species, coastal pelagic species, and 

anadromous species. Members of all of these groups are managed by Federal or State 

agencies. Dredging should not present a significant problem for pelagic fishes offshore of New 

Jersey and New York. Factors related to offshore sand dredging that could be detrimental to 

pelagic fishes are physical injury (entrainment), attraction, turbidity, and noise. If an 

environmental window is sought to protect pelagic fishes from dredging impacts, the spring to 

fall period would encompass the peak seasons for the economically important species. 

Quantitative data are lacking to support the use of an environmental window to lessen effects on 

pelagic fishes. 

 EFH for several fish species (and life stages) overlap the sand borrow sites, but the area 

encompassed by the sites is very small relative to the known EFH. For this reason, the effect of 

dredging on EFH for the managed species is expected to be minimal. 

 The main potential effect of dredging on sea turtles is physical injury or death caused by 

the suction and/or cutting action of the dredge head. No significant effects on turtles are 

expected from turbidity or noise. Three sea turtle species that typically occur off New Jersey 

(loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley) are considered to be at risk because of their benthic 

feeding habits. Loggerheads are the most abundant turtles in the project area, and historically, 

they have been the species most frequently entrained during hopper dredging. If a hopper 

dredge is used, then it would be best to avoid the June through November turtle season. 

However, the vagaries of winter weather off New Jersey make it infeasible to prohibit dredging 

during these months. If use of a hopper dredge during this season cannot be avoided, then 

other mitigation and monitoring requirements may be appropriate, such as turtle monitoring and 

use of a turtle-deflecting draghead. If a cutterhead suction dredge is used, seasonal or other 

restrictions are considered unnecessary because there is little likelihood of killing or injuring sea 

turtles. 

 Marine mammal species occurring commonly on the shelf, such as bottlenose dolphin and 

common dolphin, may be present year-round but are unlikely to be adversely affected by 
MMS Study 2004-044 Conclusions 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 245

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

dredging due to their agility. Harbor porpoise occurrence is more seasonal, but the likelihood of 

impact is so low that it does not warrant seasonal restrictions on dredging. Fin and humpback 

whales would be most likely to occur during winter or spring, and right whales as transients 

during spring and fall. There is no "resident" population of any of these whales in the study 

area; rather, they would be temporary inhabitants, or would be transiting the area during 

seasonal migrations. Generally, the probability of encountering these species in the project 

area would be lowest during summer. However, due to the low likelihood of impact, seasonal 

restrictions on dredging probably are not warranted. Instead, measures to minimize possible 

vessel interactions with these endangered species may be appropriate. 

8.5 SYNTHESIS 

 The data collected, analyses performed, and simulations conducted for this study indicate 

that proposed sand dredging at sites evaluated on the OCS offshore northeastern New Jersey 

and southwestern Long Island are expected to have minimal environmental impact on fluid and 

sediment dynamics and biological communities. Short-term impacts to benthic communities are 

expected due to the physical removal of borrow material, but the potential for significant 

cumulative benthic impacts is remote. Additionally, no cumulative effects to any of the pelagic 

groups are expected from potential sand mining operations. 

 Minimal physical environmental impacts due to potential sand dredging operations have 

been identified through wave and sediment transport simulations. The significance of changes 

to longshore transport along the modeled shoreline, resulting from dredging proposed borrow 

sites to their maximum design depths, was determined by comparing predicted change in 

transport potential between existing and post-dredging conditions to a transport significance 

envelope of one-half the standard deviation (±0.5σ) of the variability in annual transport along 

the shoreline. Under representative wave conditions for each of the model grids, it was 

determined that no significant changes in longshore sediment transport potential would result 

from modeled borrow site configurations due to the relatively deep water at potential borrow 

sites (approximately -17 to -20 m), their distance offshore, and wave climate (dominated by 

relatively short-period waves). However, because minor impacts to wave and sediment 

transport dynamics and biology at borrow sites may occur under conditions similar to those 

imposed in the present study, additional data collection and analysis may be required for a 

specific sand extraction scenario to determine the extent of impacts. 
Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 246

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

9.0 LITERATURE CITED 

Able, K.W. and M.P. Fahay, 1998. The First Year in the Life of Estuarine Fishes in the Middle Atlantic Bight. Rutgers 

University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 343 pp. 

Able, K.W. and S.M. Hagen, 1995. Fishes in the Vicinity of Beach Haven Ridge: Annual and Seasonal Patterns of 

Abundance During the Early 1970s. Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, NJ, 

Technical Report #95-24, 36 pp. 

Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, 1988. Identification and Delineation of Potential Borrow Areas for the Atlantic Coast of 

New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan: Detailed Investigation of the Sea Bright Sand Borrow Areas. Final 

Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract #DACW51-87-C-0011, New York District, NY. 

Amato, R.V., 1994. Sand and Gravel Maps of the Atlantic Continental Shelf with Explanatory Text. U.S. Minerals 

Management Service, OCS Monograph, MMS 93-0037, 35 pp. + 4 maps. 

Anders, F.J. and M.R. Byrnes, 1991. Accuracy of shoreline change rates as determined from maps and aerial 

photographs. Shore and Beach, 59(1): 17-26. 

Applied Biology, Inc., 1979. Biological Studies Concerning Dredging and Beach Nourishment at Duval County, 

Florida with a Review of Pertinent Literature. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, 

Jacksonville, FL. 

Arnold, D.W., 1992. The scientific rationale for restricting coastal construction activities during the marine turtle 

nesting season. In: L.S. Tait (compiler), New Directions in Beach Management. Proceedings of the 5th 

Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, St. Petersburg, FL, pp. 374-380. 

Ashley, G.M., S.D. Halsey, and C.B. Buteux, 1986. New Jersey’s longshore current pattern. Journal of Coastal 

Research, 2(4): 453-463. 

ASMFC, 1998. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon. Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Atlantic Sturgeon Plan Development Team, Fishery Management 

Report No. 31, 60 pp. 

Bak, R.P.M., 1978. Lethal and sublethal effects of dredging on reef coral. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 9(1): 14-16. 

Banks, G.E. and M.P. Alexander, 1994. Development and Evaluation of a Sea Turtle-Deflecting Hopper Dredge 

Draghead. Miscellaneous Paper HL-94-5, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

MS. 

Barnes, R.D., 1980. Invertebrate Zoology, Fourth Edition. Saunders College, Philadelphia, PA. 

Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., 1999a. Pre- and Post-Dredging Monitoring of Macroinvertebrate Assemblages at a 

Borrow Area Located Offshore of Coney Island, New York: 1992-1998 Data Synthesis. Prepared for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, 10 pp. + app. 

Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., 1999b. Post-Construction Monitoring, Borrow Area Finfish Sampling (BAFS) 

Summary Report, Section II, Asbury Park to Manasquan, New Jersey. Beach Erosion Control Project 

Biological Monitoring Program. Prepared for the U.S. Corps of Engineers, New York District. 

Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., 2002. Characterization of Benthic Assemblages in the Vicinity of the New York 

Bight Apex. Prepared for the U.S. Corps of Engineers, New York District. 

Barry, M., 1978. Behavioral Response of Yellowfin Tuna, Thunnus albacares, and Kawakawa, Euthynnus affinis, to 

Turbidity. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental 

Research Laboratories, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA. Deep Ocean Mining 

Environmental Study (DOMES), Unpublished Manuscript Number 31. National Technical Information Service 

No. PB-297, 106 pp. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 247

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Bartol, S.M, J. Musick, and M.L. Lenhardt, 1999. Auditory evoked potentials of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta 

caretta). Copeia, 1999(3): 836-840. 

Bartsch, A.F., 1960. Settleable solids, turbidity, and light penetration as factors affecting water quality. In: C. 

Tarzwell (ed.), Biological Problems in Water Pollution. U.S. Public Health Service Publication Number W60-3, 

pp. 118-127. 

Battelle Ocean Sciences, 1996. Sediment Survey at the Mud Dump Site and Environs. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Report, Region II, New York, NY. 

Battjes, J.A. and J.P. Janssen, 1978. Energy loss and set-up due to breaking of random waves. Proc. 23rd

International Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, pp. 569-587. 

Beardsley, R.C. and W.C. Boicourt, 1981. On estuarine and continental shelf circulation in the Middle Atlantic Bight. 

In: B.A. Warren and C. Wunsch (editors), Evolution of Physical Oceanography, MIT Press, pp.198-233. 

Benfield, M.C. and T.J. Minello, 1996. Relative effects of turbidity and light intensity on reactive distance and feeding 

of an estuarine fish. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 46: 211-216. 

Berry, S.A., 1990. Canaveral Harbor entrance channel operational measures to protect sea turtles. In: D.D. 

Dickerson and D.A. Nelson (compilers), Proceedings of the National Workshop on Methods to Minimize 

Dredging Impacts on Sea Turtles, Jacksonville, Florida. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 

Environmental Effects Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, Miscellaneous Paper EL-90-5, pp. 49-52. 

Biggs, R.B., 1968. Environmental effects of overboard spoil disposal. Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division, 

Proceeding Paper 5979, 94(SA3): 477-478. 

Bishop, J.M., 1975. An Analytical Sea Current Model for Coastal Regions With Application to the New York Bight. 

Oceanographic Unit Technical Report 75-2, U.S. Coast Guard, 27 pp. 

Blake, N.J., L.J. Doyle, and J.J. Culter, 1995. Impacts and Direct Effects of Sand Dredging for Beach Renourishment 

on the Benthic Organisms and Geology of the West Florida Shelf. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Office of International Activities and Marine Minerals, Herndon, VA. Executive 

Summary, OCS Report MMS 95-0004, 23 pp. Final Report, OCS Report MMS 95-0005, 109 pp. 

Appendices, OCS Report MMS 95-0005. 

Blaylock, R.A., J.W. Hain, L.J. Hansen, D.L. Palka, and G.T. Waring, 1995. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-363, 211 pp. 

Boesch, D.F., 1972. Species diversity of marine macrobenthos in the Virginia area. Chesapeake Science, 13(3): 

206-211. 

Boesch, D.F., 1973. Classification and community structure of macrobenthos in the Hampton Roads area, Virginia. 

Marine Biology, 21: 226-244. 

Boesch, D.F., 1977. A new look at the zonation of benthos along the estuarine gradient. In: B.C. Coull (editor), 

Ecology of Marine Benthos. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp. 245-266. 

Bonsdorff, E., 1983. Recovery potential of macrozoobenthos from dredging in shallow brackish waters. In: L. 

Cabioch et al. (editors), Fluctuations and Succession in Marine Ecosystems, Proceedings of the 17th 

European Symposium on Marine Biology, Oceanologica Acta, pp. 27-32. 

Bowen, P.R. and G.A. Marsh, 1988. Benthic Faunal Colonization of an Offshore Borrow Pit in Southeastern Florida. 

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Miscellaneous Paper D-88-5. 

Brodziak, J. and L. Hendrickson, 1999. An analysis of environmental effects on survey catches of squids Loligo 

pealei and Illex illecebrosus in the northwest Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin, 97: 9-24. 

Brodziak, J.K.T. and W.K. Macy III, 1996. Growth of longfinned squid, Loligo pealei, in the northwest Atlantic. 

Fishery Bulletin, 94: 212-236. 

Brown, C.B., 1950. Sediment Transportation. In: H. Rouse (editor), Engineering Hydraulics, John Wiley and Sons, 

NY, 1,039 pp. 

Bruton, M.N., 1985. The effects of suspensoids on fish. Hydrobiologia, 125: 221-241. 

Bumpus, D.F., 1973. A description of the circulation on the continental shelf of the east coast of the United States. 

Progress in Oceanography, 6: 111-157. 

Burke, V.J., S.J. Morreale, P. Logan, and E.A. Standora, 1992. Diet of Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the waters 

of Long Island, New York. In: M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (editors), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 248

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-302, 

pp. 140-142. 

Burke, V.J., E.A. Standora, and S.J. Morreale, 1993. Diet of juvenile Kemp's Ridley and Loggerhead sea turtles from 

Long Island, New York. Copeia, 1993: 1,176-1,180. 

Burlas, M., G.L. Ray, and D. Clarke, 2001. The New York District’s Biological Monitoring Program for the Atlantic 

Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan Section Beach Erosion Control Project. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, New York District, and Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, MS. (http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/business/prjlinks/coastal/asbury/index.htm) 

Butman, B., W. Danforth, W. Schwab, and M. Buchholtz ten Brink, 1998. Multibeam Bathymetric and Backscatter 

Maps of the Upper Hudson Shelf Valley and Adjacent Shelf, Offshore of New York. USGS Open File Report 

98-616, U.D. Department of the Interior. 

Butman, B., P.S. Alexander, C.K. Harris, P.A. Traykovski, M.B. ten Brink, F.S. Lightsom, and M.A. Martini, 2003. 

Oceanographic Observations in the Hudson Shelf Valley, December 1999 – April 2000: Data Report. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open File Report 02-217 (DVD-ROM), U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Byles, R.A., 1988. Satellite Telemetry of Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Report to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 40 pp. 

Byrnes, M.R. and C.G. Groat, 1991. Characterization of the Development Potential of Ship Shoal Sand for Beach 

Replenishment of Isles Dernieres. Final Report, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Office of International Activities and Marine Minerals, Herndon, VA, 164 pp. 

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, D.B. Snyder, J.D. Wood, K.F. Bosma, T.D. Thibaut, and N.W. 

Phillips, 2000. Environmental Survey of Potential Sand Resource Sites: Offshore New Jersey. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals 

Division (INTERMAR), Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2000-052, Volume I: Main Text, 380 pp. + Volume II: 

Appendices, 291 pp. 

Byrnes, M.R., J.L. Baker, and F. Li, 2002. Quantifying Potential Measurement Errors and Uncertainties Associated 

with Bathymetric Change Analysis. Coastal and Hydraulics Engineering Technical Note IV-50, U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. 

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, and T.D. Thibaut, 2004. Effects of sand mining on physical processes and biological 

communities offshore New Jersey. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(1): 25-43. 

Cadrin, S.X., 1998. Longfin inshore squid. In: S.H. Clark (editor), Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern 

United States for 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-115, 

pp. 118-119. 

Caldwell, J.M., 1966. Coastal Processes and Beach Erosion. Journal of the Society of Civil Engineers, 53(2): 

142-157. 

Caracciolo, J. and F.W. Steimle, Jr., 1983. An Atlas of the Distribution and Abundance of Dominate Benthic 

Invertebrates in the New York Bight Apex, with Reviews of Their Life Histories. NOAA Technical Report 

NMFS SSRF-776. 

Carr, A., 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Conservation Biology, 1: 103-121. 

Centre for Cold Ocean Resources Engineering (C-CORE), 1995. Proposed Marine Mining Technologies and 

Mitigation Techniques: A Detailed Analysis With Respect to the Mining of Specific Offshore Mineral 

Commodities. Contract report for U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, OCS 

Report MMS 95-0003, C-CORE Publication 96-C15, 280 pp. + appendices. 

Cerame-Vivas, M.J. and I.E. Gray, 1966. The distribution pattern of benthic invertebrates of the continental shelf off 

North Carolina. Ecology, 47: 260-270. 

Chang, S., F.W. Steimle, Jr., R.N. Reid, S.A. Fromm, V.S. Zdanowicz, and R.A. Pikanowski, 1992. Association of 

benthic macrofauna with habitat types and quality in the New York Bight. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

89: 237-251. 

Chang, S., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse, 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: 

Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-137. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 249

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Chuang, W.S., D.P. Wang, and W.C. Boicourt, 1979. Low-frequency current variability on the southern Mid-Atlantic 

Bight. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 9: 1,144-1,154. 

Coastal Oceanographics, 1996. Hypack Navigation Software Version 6.4. 

Coastline Surveys Limited, 1998. Marine Aggregate Mining Benthic and Surface Plume Study. Final report to the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service and Plume Research Group, Report 

98/555/03, 168 pp. 

Colvocoresses, J.A. and J.A. Musick, 1984. Species associations and community composition of the Middle Atlantic 

Bight continental shelf demersal fishes. Fishery Bulletin, 82(4): 295-314. 

Connell, J.H., 1997. Disturbance and Recovery of Coral Assemblages. In: H.A. Lessios, I.G. Macintyre, and M. 

McGee (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium Panama, 1: 9-22. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004. Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources on the Gulf 

of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf – Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2004-054, Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Courtenay, W.R., Jr., D.J. Herrema, M.J. Thompson, W.P. Azzinaro, and J. van Montfrans, 1972. Ecological 

monitoring of two beach nourishment projects in Broward County, Florida. Shore and Beach, 40(2): 8-13. 

Cowen, R.K., J.A. Hare, and M.P. Fahay, 1993. Beyond hydrography: can physical processes explain larval fish 

assemblages within the Middle Atlantic Bight? Bulletin of Marine Science, 53(2): 567-587. 

Cronin, E.L., G. Gunter, and S.H. Hopkins, 1969. Effects of Engineering Activities on Coastal Ecology. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Office of Chief of Engineers, Interim Report. 

Cronin, E.L., R.B. Biggs, D.A. Flemer, G.T. Pfitzmeyer, F. Goodwin, Jr., W.L. Dovel, and D.E. Richie, Jr., 1970. 

Gross Physical and Biological Effects of Overboard Spoil Disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay. University of 

Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Natural Resources Institute Special Report Number 3, 66 pp. 

Crowell, M., S.P. Leatherman, and M.K. Buckley, 1991. Historical shoreline change: Error analysis and mapping 

accuracy. Journal of Coastal Research, 7(3): 839-852. 

Cruickshank, M.J., J.P. Flanagan, B. Holt, and J.W. Padan, 1987. Marine Mining on the Outer Continental Shelf: 

Environmental Effects Overview. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, OCS Report 

87-0035, 66 pp. 

Csanady, G.T., 1982. Circulation in the Coastal Ocean. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 279 pp. 

Day, J.H., J.G. Field, and M.P. Montgomery, 1971. The use of numerical methods to determine the distribution of the 

benthic fauna across the continental shelf of North Carolina. Journal of Animal Ecology, 40: 93-125. 

Diaz, R.J., G.R. Cutter, Jr., and K. W. Able, 2003. The importance of physical and biogenic structure to juvenile 

fishes on the shallow inner continental shelf. Estuaries, 26(1): 12-20. 

Dickerson, D.D., 1990. Workgroup 1 Summary. In: D.D. Dickerson and D.A. Nelson (compilers), Proceedings of the 

National Workshop on Methods to Minimize Dredging Impacts on Sea Turtles. U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Miscellaneous Paper EL-90-5, 89 pp. 

Dickerson, D.D., D.A. Nelson, M. Wolff, and L. Manners, 1992. Summary of dredging impacts on sea turtles: Kings 

Bay, Georgia and Cape Canaveral, Florida. In: M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (compilers), Proceedings of the 

Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Jekyll Island, GA. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302, pp. 148-151. 

Dickerson, D.D., K.J. Reine, and D.G. Clarke, 1998. Economic Impacts of Environmental Windows Associated with 

Dredging Operations. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, DOER 

Technical Note TN DOER-E3. 

Dodd, C.K., Jr., 1988. Synopsis of the Biological Data on the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 

1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(4), 110 pp. 

Dodge, R.E. and J.R. Vaisnys, 1977. Coral populations and growth patterns: responses to sedimentation and 

turbidity associated with dredging. Journal of Marine Research, 35(4): 715-730. 

Dornhelm, R., 2004. Beach master. Invention and Technology, 20(1): 42-48. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 250

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Duane, D.B. and W.L. Stubblefield, 1988. Sand and gravel resources: U.S. Atlantic Continental Shelf. In: R.E. 

Sheridan and J.A. Grow (editors), The Atlantic Continental Margin: U.S., Volume I-2, The Geology of North 

America, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, pp. 481-500. 

Duane, D.B., M.E. Field, E.P. Meisburger, D.J.P. Swift, and S.J. Williams, 1972. Linear shoals on the Atlantic inner 

continental shelf, Florida to Long Island. In: D.J.P. Swift, D.B Duane, and O.H. Pilkey (editors), Shelf 

Sediment Transport: Process and Pattern. Dowden Hutchinson, and Ross. Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 447-498. 

Eckert, K.L., 1995. Leatherback Sea Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. In: P.T. Plotkin (editor), National Marine 

Fisheries Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status Reviews for Sea Turtles Listed Under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, Silver Spring, MD. 

Eckert, S.A., D.W. Nellis, K.L. Eckert, and G.L. Kooyman, 1986. Diving patterns of two leatherback sea turtles 

(Dermochelys coriacea) during internesting intervals at Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Herpetologica, 42(3): 381-388. 

Ellis, M.Y., 1978. Coastal Mapping Handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, National Ocean Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 199 pp. 

Emery, K.O. and E. Uchupi, 1965. Structure of Georges Bank. Marine Geology, 3: 349-358. 

Emery, K.O., R.L. Wigley, A.S. Barlett, M. Rubin, and E.S. Barghoorn, 1967. Freshwater peat on the continental 

shelf. Science, 158: 1301-1307. 

Fahay, M.P., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse, 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Bluefish, 

Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NE-144. 

Fauchald, K. and P. Jumars, 1979. The diet of worms: a study of polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanography and 

Marine Biology Annual Review, 17: 193-284. 

Field, M.E. and D.B Duane, 1976. Post-Pleistocene history of the United States inner continental shelf: significance 

to the origin of barrier islands. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 87: 691-702. 

Fischer, W. (editor), 1978. FAO Species Identification Sheets for Fishery Purposes, Western Central Atlantic (Fishing 

Area 31), Volume VI. 

Fisher, J., 1967. Origin of barrier chain shorelines, Middle Atlantic States. Geological Society of America Special 

Paper 115, pp. 66-67. 

Fisher, J., 1968. Barrier island formation – discussion. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 79: 1421-1426. 

Flagg, C.N., 1977. The Kinematics and Dynamics of the New England Continental Shelf and Shelf/Slope Front. 

Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, WHOI Ref. 

77-67, 207 pp. 

Flint, R.W. and J.S. Holland, 1980. Benthic Infaunal Variability on a Transect in the Gulf of Mexico. University of 

Texas Marine Science Institute, Contribution No. 328, Academic Press, London. 

Folk, R.L., 1974. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Company, Austin, TX. 

Foster D.S., B.A. Swift, and W.C. Schwab 1999. Stratigraphic Framework Maps of the Nearshore Area of Southern 

Long Island from Fire Island to Montauk Point, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99-559. 

Frankenberg, D. and A.S. Leiper, 1977. Seasonal cycles in benthic communities of the Georgia continental shelf. In: 

B.C. Coull (ed.), Ecology of Marine Benthos. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp. 383-397. 

Fray, C.T. and J. Ewing, 1961. Project 555 – Monmouth County Offshore Borings. Report No. 1, New Jersey 

Department of Conservation and Economic Development. 

Frazier, N.B., 1995. Loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta. In: P.T. Plotkin (editor), National Marine Fisheries 

Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status Reviews for Sea Turtles Listed under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. Silver Spring, MD. 

Fredette, T.J., W.F. Bohlen, D.C. Rhoads, and R.W. Morton, 1988. Erosion and resuspension effects of Hurricane 

Gloria at Long Island Sound dredged material disposal sites. In: Proceedings of the Water Quality ‘88 

Seminar, Charleston, South Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis, 

CA. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 251

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Garrison, L.E. and R.L. McMaster, 1966. Sediments and geomorphology of the continental shelf off southern New 

England. Marine Geology, 4: 273-289. 

Garrison, L.P. and J.S. Link, 2000. Dietary structure of the fish community in the northeast United States continental 

shelf ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 202: 231-240. 

Gaskin, D.E, 1992. The status of the harbour porpoise. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 106: 36-54. 

Germano, J.D., 1983. Infaunal Succession in Long Island Sound: Animal-Sediment Interactions and the Effects of 

Predation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 206 pp. 

Goldberg, W.M., 1989. Biological effects of beach nourishment in South Florida: the good, the bad, and the ugly. 

Proceedings of Beach Preservation Technology Conference, Shore and Beach Preservation Association, 

Tallahassee, FL. 

Grant, W.D. and O.S. Madsen, 1986. The continental shelf bottom boundary layer. Annual Review Fluid Mechanics, 

18: 265-305. 

Grassle, J.F. and J.P. Grassle, 1974. Opportunistic life histories and genetic systems in marine benthic polychaetes. 

Journal of Marine Research, 32: 253-284. 

Gray, J.S., 1974. Animal-sediment relationships. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, 12: 223-261. 

Grecay, P.A. and T.E. Targett, 1996. Spatial patterns in conditions and feeding of juvenile weakfish in Delaware Bay. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 125(5): 803-805. 

Griscom, C.A., 1968. An Analysis of Subsurface Currents and Temperatures at a Site on the Continental Shelf of the 

Northeast United States. Office of Naval Research Technical Report U413-68-109, 60 pp. 

Grober, L.E., 1992. The Ecological Effects of Beach Replenishment. M.S. Thesis, Duke University, School of the 

Environment, NC, 109 pp. 

Grosslein, M.D., 1976. Some results of fish surveys in the mid-Atlantic: important for assessing environmental 

impacts. In: G. Gross (editor), Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and the New York Bight, Proceedings of the 

Symposium, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 1975, American Society of Limnology and 

Oceanography, Inc., Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, KS, pp. 312-328. 

Grosslein, M.D. and T.R. Azarovitz, 1982. Fish distribution, MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 15. New York 

Sea Grant Institute, 182 pp. 

Gustafson, J.F., 1972. Ecological effects of dredged borrow pits. World Dredging and Marine Construction, 8(10): 

44-48. 

Hales, L.S., Jr., R.S. McBride, E.A. Bender, R.L. Hoden, and K.W. Able, 1995. Characterization of Non-Target 

Invertebrates and Substrates from Trawl Collections During 1991-92 at Beach Haven Ridge (LEO-15) and 

Adjacent Sites in Great Bay and on the Inner Continental Shelf Off New Jersey. Institute of Marine and 

Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, Contribution No. 95-09, 34 pp. 

Hall, S.J., 1994. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: life in unconsolidated sediments. 

Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, 32: 179-239. 

Hammer, R.M., 1981. Day-night differences in the emergence of demersal zooplankton from a sand substrate in a 

kelp forest. Marine Biology, 62: 275-280. 

Hammer, R.M. and R.C. Zimmerman, 1979. Species of demersal zooplankton inhabiting a kelp forest ecosystem off 

Santa Catalina Island, California. Bulletin of Southern California Academy of Sciences, 78(3): 199-206. 

Hammer, R.M., B.J. Balcom, M.J. Cruickshank, and C.L. Morgan, 1993. Synthesis and Analysis of Existing 

Information Regarding Environmental Effects of Marine Mining. Final report by Continental Shelf Associates, 

Inc. for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Office of International Activities 

and Marine Minerals, Herndon, VA, OCS Study MMS 93-0006, 392 pp. 

Harper, D.E., Jr., 1991. Macroinfauna and macroepifauna. In: J.M. Brooks and C.P. Giamonna (eds.), MississippiAlabama Continental Shelf Ecosystem Study Data Summary and Synthesis, Volume II: Technical Narrative. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 14-12-0001-30346, OCS Study 

MMS 91-0063. 

Hendrickson, L., 1998. Northern Shortfin Squid. In: S.H. Clark (editor), Status of Fishery Resources Off the 

Northeastern United States for 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSNE-115, pp. 116-117. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 252

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Herbich, J.B., 1992. Handbook of Dredging Engineering. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 740 pp. 

Herbich, J.B. and S.B. Brahme, 1991. Literature Review and Technical Evaluation of Sediment Resuspension During 

Dredging. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS., Contract Report HL-91-1. 

Houston, J.R., 1995. Beach nourishment. Shore and Beach, 63(1): 21-24. 

Houston, J.R., 2002. The economic value of beaches – a 2002 update. Shore and Beach, 70(1): 9-12. 

Hrabovsky, L., 1990. Hydraulic cutterhead pipeline dredging. In: D.D. Dickerson and D.A. Nelson (compilers), 

Proceedings of the National Workshop on Methods to Minimize Dredging Impacts on Sea Turtles, 

Jacksonville, FL. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Miscellaneous Paper 

EL-90-5, pp. 56-58. 

Hubertz, J.M., R.M. Brooks, W.A. Brandon, and B.A. Tracy, 1993. Hindcast Wave Information for the U.S. Atlantic 

Coast. WIS Report 30, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research 

Center, Wave Information Study, Vicksburg, MS. 

Hughes, T.P. and J.H. Connell, 1999. Multiple stressors on coral reefs: a long-term perspective. Limnology and 

Oceanography, 44(3, Part 2): 932-940. 

Ingle, R.M., 1952. Studies on the Effect of Dredging Operations Upon Fish and Shellfish. Florida State Board of 

Conservation, Technical Series 5, 26 pp. 

Jefferson, T.A., S. Leatherwood, and M.A. Webber, 1993. FAO Species Identification Guide. Marine Mammals of 

the World. Rome, FAO, 320 pp. 

Johnson, R.G., 1970. Variations in diversity within benthic marine communities. The American Naturalist, 104: 285-

300. 

Johnson, R.O. and W.G. Nelson, 1985. Biological effects of dredging in an offshore borrow area. Florida Scientist, 

48: 166-188. 

Jones, G. and S. Candy, 1981. Effects of dredging on the macrobenthic infauna of Botany Bay. Australian Journal of 

Marine and Freshwater Research, 32: 379-399. 

Jones, N.S., 1950. Marine bottom communities. Biological Review, 25: 283-313. 

Jutte, P.C., R.F. Van Dolah, and P.T. Gayes, 2002. Recovery of benthic communities following offshore dredging, 

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Shore & Beach, 70: 25-30. 

Kamphuis, J.W., 1990. Alongshore sediment transport rate. Proc. 22nd Coastal Engineering Conference, Delft, 

Netherlands. 

Kana, T.W., 1999. Long Island’s south shore beaches, a century of dynamic sediment management. In: N.C. Kraus 

and W.G. McDougal (editors), Coastal Sediments '99, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 

1584-1596. 

Kassner, J. and J.A. Black, 1982. Efforts to stabilize a coastal inlet: a case study of Moriches Inlet, NY. Shore and 

Beach, 51(2): 22-26. 

Kelley, S.W., J.S. Ramsey, and M.R. Byrnes, 2004. Evaluating the physical effects of offshore sand dredging for 

beach nourishment. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(1): 89-100. 

Kenney, R.D., 1990. Bottlenose dolphins off the northeastern United States. In: S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves 

(editors), The Bottlenose Dolphin. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 369-386. 

Kerr, S.J., 1995. Silt, Turbidity, and Suspended Sediments in the Aquatic Environment: An Annotated Bibliography 

and Literature Review. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region Science and Technology 

Transfer Unit, Technical Report TR-008, 277 pp. 

Klitgord, K.D., D.R. Hutchinson, and H. Schouten, 1988. U.S. Atlantic continental margin: structural and tectonic 

framework. In: R.E. Sheridan and J.A. Grow (editors), The Atlantic Continental Margin: U.S., Volume I-2, The 

Geology of North America, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, pp. 19-55. 

Knebel, H.J., 1981. Processes controlling the characteristics of the surficial sand sheet, U.S. Atlantic outer 

continental shelf. Marine Geology, 42: 349-368. 

Knebel, H.J. and E.C. Spiker, 1977. Thickness and age of surficial sand sheet, Baltimore Canyon Trough area. 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 61: 861-871. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 253

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Knott, S.T., and H. Hoskins, 1968. Evidence of Pleistocene events in the structure of the continental shelf off the 

northeastern US. Marine Geology, 6: 5-43. 

Kocik, J., 1998a. River Herring. In: S.H. Clark (editor), Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United 

States for 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-115, pp. 134-135. 

Kocik, J., 1998b. American Shad. In: S.H. Clark (editor), Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United 

States for 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-115, pp. 136-137. 

Kraus, S.D., A.R. Knowlton, and J.H. Prescott, 1988. Surveys for Wintering Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 

Along the Southeastern United States, 1984-1988. Final Report to the Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Branch of Environmental Studies, Washington, DC, 19 pp. + app. 

Kraus, S.D., R.D. Kenney, A.R. Knowlton, and J.N. Ciano, 1993. Endangered Right Whales of the Southwestern 

North Atlantic. Final report to the Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Atlantic OCS 

Region, Herndon, VA, 69 pp. 

Kropp, R.K., 1995. Environmental Post-Dredge Monitoring, Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, Ocean City, 

New Jersey. Final Report to the Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, PA, 44 pp. + app. 

Lange, A.M.T. and M.P. Sissenwine, 1980. Biological considerations relevant to the management of squid (Loligo 

pealei and Illex illecebrosus) of the northwest Atlantic. Marine Fishery Review, 42(7-8): 23-38. 

Larson, K.W. and C.E. Moehl, 1988. Entrainment of anadromous fish by hopper dredge at the mouth of the Columbia 

River. In: C.A. Simenstad (editor), Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes, Workshop 

Proceedings, University of Washington Sea Grant, pp. 102-112. 

Larson, M. and N.C. Kraus, 1995. Prediction of cross-shore sediment transport at different spatial and temporal 

scales. In: J.H. List and J.H.J. Terwindt (editors), Large-Scale Coastal Behavior, Marine Geology Special 

Issue, 126(1/4): 111-128. 

LaSalle, M.W., D.G. Clarke, J. Homziak, J.D. Lunz, and T.J. Fredette, 1991. A Framework for Assessing the Need 

for Seasonal Restrictions on Dredging and Disposal Operations. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report D-91-1, 74 pp. 

Lenhardt, M.L., 1994. Seismic and very low frequency sound induced behaviors in captive Loggerhead marine turtles 

(Caretta caretta). In: K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers), Proceedings of 

the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Hilton Head, SC, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL. 

Levin, J., 1970. A Literature Review of the Effects of Sand Removal on a Coral Reef Community. University of 

Hawaii Sea Grant Program, UNIHI-SEA GRANT-TR-71-01, 78 pp. 

Lohoefener, R., W. Hoggard, K. Mullin, C. Roden, and C. Rogers, 1990. Association of Sea Turtles with Petroleum 

Platforms in the North-central Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA, OCS Study MMS 90-0025, 90 pp. 

Louis Berger Group, 1999. Use of Federal Offshore Sand Resources for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New 

Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management, OCS Study 

MMS 99-0036, 355 pp. 

Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick, 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia, 1985(2): 449-456. 

Lyles, S.D., L.E. Hickman, H.A. Debaugh, 1988. Sea Level Variations for the United States, 1855-1986. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 

Rockville, MD, 182 pp. 

Lyons, W.G., 1989. Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974. XI. Mollusks. Florida 

Marine Research Publication 47. 

MacArthur, R.H., 1960. On the relative abundance of species. American Naturalist, 94: 25-36. 

MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson, 1967. Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 

203 pp. 

Madsen, O.S., 1987. Mechanics of Sediment Transport in the Wave-Dominated Environment. ASCE Short Course 

Notes, Coastal Sediments ’87, New Orleans, LA, 94 p. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 254

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Mahon, R., S.K. Brown, K.C.T. Zwanenburg, D.B. Atkinson, K.R. Buja, L. Claflin, G.D. Howell, M.E. Monaco, R.N. 

O’Boyle, and M. Sinclair, 1998. Assemblages and biogeography of demersal fishes of the east coast of North 

America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55: 1,704-1,738. 

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird, 1983. Investigations of the Potential Effects of 

Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Migrating Gray Whale Behavior. Report by Bolt, 

Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA, for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Anchorage, AK, BBN Rep. 5366. 

Marine Turtle Expert Working Group, 1996a. Status of the Loggerhead Turtle Population (Caretta caretta) in the 

Western North Atlantic. 50 pp. 

Marine Turtle Expert Working Group, 1996b. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Status Report. 49 pp. 

Marquez, R.M., 1990. Sea Turtles of the World. FAO Species Catalogue, Volume 11. FAO, Rome, 81 pp. 

Marsh, G.A. and D.B. Turbeville, 1981. The environmental impact of beach nourishment: two studies in southeastern 

Florida. Shore and Beach, 49(3): 40-44. 

Maurer, D., R.T. Keck, J.C. Tinsman, W.A. Leathem, C. Wethe, C. Lord, and T.M. Church, 1986. Vertical migration 

and mortality of marine benthos in dredged material: a synthesis. Internationale Revue der Gesamten 

Hydrobiologie, 71: 49-63. 

Mayer, D.A., 1982. The structure of circulation: MESA physical oceanographic studies in New York Bight. Journal 

Geophysical Research, 87: 9579-9588. 

Mayer, D.A., D.V. Hansen, and D.A. Ortman, 1979. Long-term current and temperature observations on the Middle 

Atlantic shelf. Journal Geophysical Research, 84: 1776-1792. 

McBride, R.A. and Moslow, T.F., 1991. Origin, evolution, and distribution of shoreface sand ridges, Atlantic inner 

shelf, U.S.A. Marine Geology, 97: 57-85. 

McBride, R.S. and K.W. Able, 1998. Ecology and fate of butterflyfishes, Chaetodon spp., in the temperate, western 

North Atlantic. Bulletin of Marine Science, 63(2): 401-416. 

McCaully, J.E., R.A. Parr, and D.R. Hancock, 1977. Benthic infauna and maintenance dredging: a case study. 

Water Research, 11: 233-242. 

McClennen, C.E., 1973. New Jersey continental shelf near bottom current meter records and recent sediment 

activity. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 43(2): 371-380. 

McClennen, C.E., 1983. Middle Atlantic Nearshore Seismic Survey and Sidescan Sonar Survey: Potential Geologic 

Hazards off the New Jersey Coastline. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 83-824, Reston, VA, 30 p. 

McClennen, C.E. and R.L. McMaster, 1971. Probable Holocene transgressive effects on the geomorphic features of 

the continental shelf off New Jersey, United States. Maritime Sediment, 7: 69-72. 

McGraw, K.A. and D.A. Armstrong, 1988. Fish entrainment by dredges in Grays Harbor, Washington. In: C.A. 

Simenstad (editor), Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes, Workshop Proceedings, 

University of Washington Sea Grant, pp. 113-131. 

McKinney, T.F. and G.M. Friedman, 1970. Continental shelf sediments of Long Island, New York. Journal of 

Sedimentary Petrology, 40: 213-248. 

McNulty, J.K., R.C. Work, and H.B. Moore, 1962. Some relationships between the infauna of the level bottom and 

the sediment in South Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science in the Gulf and Caribbean, 12: 322-332. 

Michals, R., 1997. There’s a hole in the bottom of the sea. Florida Sportsman, 29(1): 21-28. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1998a. Amendment 12 to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog 

Fishery Management Plan. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover, DE, 249 pp. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1998b. Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish 

Fishery Management Plan. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover, DE, 351 pp. + apps. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1998c. Amendment 12 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea 

Bass Fishery Management Plan. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover, DE, 398 pp. + apps. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1998d. Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan. MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council, 2 Vols., Dover, DE, 341 pp. + apps. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 255

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1999. The Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan. Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 292 pp. + apps. 

Miller, A.R., 1952. Pattern of Surface Coastal Circulation Inferred from Surface-Temperature Data and Drift Bottle 

Recoveries. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Ref. No. 52-28. 

Miller, M.L., 1993. The rise of coastal marine tourism. Ocean and Coastal Management, 20: 181-199. 

Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, M.L. Lenhardt, and R. George, 1994. Evaluation of Seismic 

Sources for Repelling Sea Turtles from Hopper Dredges. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of 

William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, final contract report to U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station. As excerpted in: Sea Turtle Research Program Summary Report. Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS for U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Atlanta, GA 

and U.S. Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA, Technical Report CHL-97-31, NTIS ADA332588, 147 pp. 

Moody, J.A., B. Butman, R.C. Beardsley, W.S. Brown, P. Daifuku, J.D. Irish, D.A. Mayer, H.O. Mofjeld, B. Petrie, S. 

Ramp, P. Smith, and W.R. Wright, 1983. Atlas of Tidal Elevation and Current Observations on the Northeast 

American Continental Shelf and Slope. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin Survey Bulletin 1611, 122 pp. 

Moore, P.G., 1977. Inorganic particulate suspensions in the sea and their effects on marine animals. Oceanography 

and Marine Biology Annual Review, 15: 225-363. 

Morang, A., D.S. Rahoy, and W.G. Grosskopf, 1999. Regional geologic characteristics along the south shore of Long 

Island, New York. In: N.C. Kraus and W.G. McDougal (editors), Coastal Sediments '99, American Society of 

Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 1568 – 1583. 

Morreale, S., A. Meylan, S. Sadove, and E. Standora, 1992. Annual occurrence and winter mortality of marine turtles 

in New York waters. Journal of Herpetology, 26(3): 301-308. 

Mortimer, J.A., 1982. Feeding ecology of sea turtles. In: K.A. Bjorndal (editor), Biology and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 103-109. 

Murawski, W.S., 1969. A Study of Submerged Dredge Holes in New Jersey Estuaries with Respect to their Fitness 

as Finfish Habitat. New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Fish and 

Game, Miscellaneous Report No. 2M, 32 pp. 

Myrberg, A.A., Jr. and L.A. Fuiman, 2002. The sensory world of coral reef fishes. In: P.F. Sale (ed.), Coral Reef 

Fishes: Dynamics and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp.123-148. 

Naqvi, S. and E. Pullen, 1982. Effects of Beach Nourishment and Borrowing on Marine Organisms. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, Miscellaneous Report No. 82-14. 

National Audubon Society, 2002. National Audubon Society Guide to the Marine Mammals of the World. A. Knopf, 

NY, 527 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1991a. Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). 

Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

MD, 105 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1991b. Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). 

Prepared by the Right Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, 

86 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1996. Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion 

Concerning Dredging Activities Within the Philadelphia District of the U.S. Department of the Army. Prepared 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, 43 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1997. Regional Biological Opinion for Hopper Dredging of Channels and Beach 

Nourishment Activities in the Southeastern United States from North Carolina through Florida East Coast. 

October 1997. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report, January 1, 1997 to 

December 31, 1997. Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1999. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, 

Volume II. National Marine Fisheries Service Division of Highly Migratory Species, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD, 302 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of 

Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC, 52 pp. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 256

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley 

Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL, 40 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, 2002. Climate of 2002 - 

Preliminary Annual Review, U.S. Summary. 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2002/ann/ann02.html. 

National Research Council, 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. National Academy Press, 334 pp. 

Nelson, W.G., 1985. Physical and Biological Guidelines for Beach Restoration Projects. Part 1. Biological 

Guidelines. Florida Sea Grant College Program, Report No. 76. 

Nelson, W.G., 1988. An overview of the effects of beach nourishment on the sand beach fauna. In: Proceedings of 

the 1988 National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation 

Association, Tallahassee, FL, pp. 295-310. 

Nelson, W.G., 1989. Beach nourishment and hard bottom habitats: the case for caution. In: Proceedings of the 1989 

National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, 

Tallahassee, FL, pp. 109-116. 

New England Aquarium, 2004. Right Whale Research. http:www.neaq.org/scilearn/research/rtwhale.html. 

New England Fishery Management Council, 1998. Amendment 11 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan, Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan, Amendment 1 to the 

Monkfish Fishery Management Plan, Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Salmon Fishery Management Plan, 

Components of the Proposed Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan for Essential Fish Habitat, Volume 1. 

Prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, MA. 

New England Fishery Management Council, 2004. Draft Amendment 2 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan 

Including a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), Preliminary Regulatory Economic 

Evaluation, and Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for the 2002 Fishing Year. 

Prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Newcombe, C.P. and J.O.T. Jensen, 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative 

assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16(4): 693-727. 

Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, and D.R. Hitchcock, 1998. The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: A review of 

the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the seabed. Oceanography 

and Marine Biology Annual Review, 36: 127-178. 

Newell, R.C., D.R. Hitchcock, and L.J. Seiderer, 1999. Organic enrichment associated with outwash from marine 

aggregates dredging: A probable explanation for surface sheens and enhanced benthic production in the 

vicinity of dredging operations. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 38(9): 809-818. 

Nichols, M., R.J. Diaz, and L.C. Shaffner, 1990. Effects of hopper dredging and sediment dispersion, Chesapeake 

Bay. Environmental Geology and Water Science, 15: 31-43. 

Noble, M., B. Butman, and E. Williams, 1983. On the longshelf structure and dynamics of subtidal currents on the 

eastern United States Continental Shelf. Journal Physical Oceanography, 13(12): 2125-2147. 

Nordstrom, K.F., S.F. Fisher, M.A. Burr, E.L. Frankel, T.C. Buckalew, and G.A. Kucma, 1977. The Coastal 

Geomorphology of New Jersey. Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies Technical Report NJ/RUOCZM-TR 1-200-12/77, 129 pp. 

Nyman, R.M. and D.O. Conover, 1988. The relation between spawning season and the recruitment of young-of-theyear bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, to New York. Fishery Bulletin, 86(2): 237-250. 

Oakwood Environmental Ltd., 1999. Strategic Cumulative Effects of Marine Aggregates Dredging (SCEMAD). 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 175 pp. 

Odum, E.P., 1969. The strategies of ecosystem development. Science, 16: 262-270. 

Onuf, C.P., 1994. Seagrasses, dredging, and light in Laguna Madre, Texas, U.S.A. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science, 39: 75-91. 

Overholtz, W., 1998a. Atlantic Mackerel. In: S.H. Clark (editor), Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern 

United States for 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-115, 

pp. 106-107. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 257

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Overholtz, W., 1998b. Butterfish. In: S.H. Clark (editor), Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United 

States for 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-115, pp. 108-109. 

Oviatt, C.A., C.D. Hunt, G.A. Vargo, and K.W. Kopchynski, 1982. Simulation of a storm event in a marine microcosm. 

Journal of Marine Research, 39: 605-618. 

Owen, R.M., 1977. An assessment of the environmental impact of mining on the continental shelf. Marine Mining, 

1(1/2): 85-102. 

Palermo, M.R., 1990. Workgroup 2 Summary. In: D.D. Dickerson and D.A. Nelson (compilers), Proceedings of the 

National Workshop on Methods to Minimize Dredging Impacts on Sea Turtles, Jacksonville, FL. U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Miscellaneous Paper EL-90-5, pp. 76-80. 

Parker, P., 1967. Clam survey, Ocean City, Maryland to Cape Charles, Virginia. Commercial Fisheries Review, 

29(5): 53-77. 

Parker, P. and L. Fahlen, 1968. Clam survey off Virginia (Cape Charles to False Cape). Commercial Fisheries 

Review, 30(1): 25-36. 

Parker, P.C., 1996. Nearshore Ridges and Underlying Upper Pleistocene Sediments on the Inner Continental Shelf 

of New Jersey. Masters Thesis, Rutgers University, NJ, 157 pp. 

Pawlowicz, R., Beardsley, B., and Lentz, S., 2002. Classical tidal harmonic analysis including error estimates in 

MATLAB using T_TIDE. Computers and Geosciences, 28(8): 929-937.

Pearce, J.B., J.V. Caracciolo, M.B. Halsey, and L.H. Rogers, 1976. Temporal and spatial distributions of benthic 

macroinvertebrates in the New York Bight. In: G. Gross (ed.), Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and the New 

York Bight, Proceedings of the Symposium, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 1975. 

American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Inc., Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, KS, pp. 394-403. 

Pearce, J.B., D.J. Radosh, J.V. Caracciolo, and F.W. Steimle, Jr., 1981. Benthic Fauna: Marine EcoSystems 

Analysis (MESA) Program, MESA New York Bight Project. MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 14, New 

York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY, 79 pp. 

Peddicord, R.K. and V.A. McFarland, 1978. Effects of Suspended Dredged Material on Aquatic Animals. U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report D-78-29, 102 pp. + app. 

Peterson, C.G.J., 1913. Valuation of the Sea. II. The Animal Communities of the Sea-Bottom and Their Importance 

for Marine Zoogeography. Report of the Danish Biological Station to the Board of Agriculture, 21: 1-44. 

Phinney, H.K., 1959. Turbidity, Sedimentation, and Photosynthesis. Proceedings of the Symposium on Siltation, Its 

Effects on the Aquatic Environment (Portland). U.S. Public Health Service, pp. 4-12. 

Pianka, E.R., 1970. On R- and K-selection. American Naturalist, 104: 592-597. 

Pielou, E.C., 1966. Species-diversity and pattern-diversity in the study of ecological succession. Journal of 

Theoretical Biology, 10: 370-383. 

Poiner, I.R. and R. Kennedy, 1984. Complex pattern of change in the macrobenthos of a large sandbank following 

dredging. I. community analysis. Marine Biology, 78: 335-352. 

Polloni C., L.J. Poppe, M.E. Hastings, and K. Joy, 2000. Chapter 3: Visualizing Sediment Data Layers Using 

Geographic Mapping Tools USGS East-Coast Sediment Analysis: Procedures, Database, and 

Georeferenced Displays, USGS Open-File Report 00-358. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of00-358/text/chapter3.htm#DATA%20LAYERS

Poppe, L.J., J.S. Schlee, and H.J. Knebel, 1994. Map Showing Distribution of Surficial Sediment on the Mid-Atlantic 

Continental Margin, Cape Cod to Ablemarle Sound. U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series, Map I-1987-D. 

Quinn, M.L., 1977. The History of the Beach Erosion Board. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering 

Research Center, Miscellaneous Report 77-9, Vicksburg, MS, 181 pp. 

Reeves, R., B. Stewart, and S. Leatherwood, 1992. The Sierra Club Handbook of Seals and Sirenians. Sierra Club 

Books, San Francisco, 359 pp. 

Reeves, R.R., G.K. Silber, and P.M. Payne, 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale, Balaenoptera physalus 

and Sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis. Prepared for the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, 65 pp. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 258

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Reid, R.N., D.J. Radosh, A.B. Frame, and S.A. Fromm, 1991. Benthic Macrofauna of the New York Bight. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 103, 50 pp. 

Reid, R.N., L.M. Cargnelli, S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, D.L. Johnson, C.A. Zetlin, W.W. Morse, and P.L. Berrien, 

1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-126. 

Reine, K.J. and D.G. Clarke, 1998. Entrainment by Hydraulic Dredges - A Review of Potential Impacts. U.S. Army 

Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, Dredging Operations and Environmental 

Research Technical Notes Collection, TN DOER-E1. 

Reine, K.J., D.D. Dickerson, and D.G. Clarke, 1998. Environmental Windows Associated with Dredging Operations. 

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, DOER Technical Note TN DOER-E2. 

Renaud, P.E., W.G. Ambrose, S.R. Riggs, and D.A. Syster, 1996. Multi-level effects of severe storms on an offshore 

temperate hard-bottom system: benthic sediments, macroalgae, and implications for fisheries. Marine 

Ecology, 17: 383-398. 

Renaud, P.E., S.R. Riggs, W.G. Ambrose, Jr., K.A. Schmid, and S.W. Snyder, 1997. Biological-geological 

interactions: storm effects on microalgal communities mediated by sediment characteristics and distribution. 

Continental Shelf Research, 17(1): 37-56. 

Revsbech, N.P., J. Sørensen, and T.H. Blackburn, 1980. Distribution of oxygen in marine sediments measured with 

microelectrodes. Limnology and Oceanography, 25: 403-411. 

Rhoads, D.C., 1974. Organism-sediment relations on the muddy seafloor. Oceanography and Marine Biological 

Annual Review, 12: 263-300. 

Rhoads, D.C. and L.F. Boyer, 1982. The effects of marine benthos on physical properties of sediments: a 

successional perspective. In: P.L. McCall and M.J.S. Tevesz (editors), Animal-Sediment Relations, The 

Biogenic Alteration of Sediments. Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-52. 

Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano, 1982. Characterization of organism-sediment relations using sediment profile 

imaging: An efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the seafloor (REMOTSTM System). Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 8: 115-128. 

Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano, 1986. Interpreting long-term changes in benthic community structure: a new 

protocol. Hydrobiologia, 142: 291-308. 

Rhoads, D.C., P.L. McCall, and J.Y. Yingst, 1978. Disturbance and production on the estuarine seafloor. American 

Science, 66: 577-586. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson, 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic 

Press, San Diego, 576 pp. 

Ridgway, S.H., E.G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and J.H. Anderson, 1969. Hearing in the giant sea turtle, 

Chelonia mydas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 64(3): 884-890. 

Robins, C.R., 1957. Effects of storms on the shallow-water fish fauna of southern Florida with records of fishes from 

Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science in the Gulf and Caribbean, 7(3): 266-275. 

Roden, C., 1998. Cruise Results: Summer Atlantic Marine Mammal Survey, NOAA Ship Relentless Cruise RS 

98-01(3). National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Mississippi Laboratories, 

Pascagoula Facility, Pascagoula, MS. 

Rogers, C.S., 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 62: 185-202. 

Rosati, J.D., M.B. Gravens, W.G. Smith, 1999. Regional sediment budget for Fire Island to Montauk Point, New 

York, USA. In: N.C. Kraus and W.G. McDougal (editors), Coastal Sediments '99, American Society of Civil 

Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 802-817. 

Rosati, J.D., T.L. Walton, and K. Bodge, 2002. Longshore Sediment Transport. In: Walton, T.L. (editor), Coastal 

Engineering Manual, Part III, Coastal Sediment Processes, Chapter III-2, Engineer Manual 1110-2-1100, U.S 

Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. 

Rosman, I., G.S. Boland, L. Martin, and C. Chandler, 1987. Underwater Sightings of Sea Turtles in the Northern Gulf 

of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA, OCS Study MMS 87-0107, 37 pp. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 259

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Rotunno, T. and R.K. Cowen, 1997. Temporal and spatial spawning patterns of the Atlantic butterfish, Peprilus 

triacanthus, in the South and Middle Atlantic Bights. Fishery Bulletin, 95(4): 785-799. 

Saloman, C.H., 1974. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics of Nearshore Zone of Sand Key, Florida, 

Prior to Beach Restoration. National Marine Fisheries Service, Gulf Coastal Fisheries Center, Panama City 

Laboratory, Panama City, FL. 

Saloman, C.H., S.P. Naughton, and J.L. Taylor, 1982. Benthic Community Response to Dredging Borrow Pits, 

Panama City Beach, Florida. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort 

Belvoir, VA, Miscellaneous Report No. 82-3, 138 pp. 

Sanders, H.L., 1958. Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay: animal-sediment relationships. Limnology and Oceanography, 

3: 245-258. 

Sanders, J.E. and N. Kumar, 1975. Holocene shoestring sand on the inner continental shelf off Long Island, New 

York. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 59: 997-1,009. 

SAS Institute Inc., 1989. SAS/STAT Users Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition, Volume 1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 

943 pp. 

Sastry, A.N., 1978. Physiology and ecology of reproduction in marine invertebrates. In: F.J. Vernberg (ed.), 

Physiological Ecology of Estuarine Organisms. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp. 

279-299. 

Schaeff, C.M., S.D. Kraus, M.W. Brown, and B.N. White, 1993. Assessment of the population structure of western 

North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) based on sighting and mtDNA data. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology, 71(2): 339-345. 

Schaffner L.C. and D.F. Boesch, 1982. Spatial and temporal resource use by dominant benthic Amphipoda 

(Ampeliscidae and Corophiidae) on the Middle Atlantic Bight outer continental shelf. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 9: 231-243. 

Scheffner, N.W., S.R. Vemulakonda, D.J. Mark, H.L. Butler, and K.W. Kim, 1994. New York Bight Study Report 1: 

Hydrodynamic Modeling. Technical Report CERC-94-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 150 pp. + Appendices. 

Schlee, J.S., 1964. New Jersey offshore gravel deposit. Pit and Quarry, 57: 80-81. 

Schwab, W.C., M.A. Allison, W. Corso, L.L. Lotto, B. Butman, M. Buchholtz ten Brink, J.F. Denny, W.W. Danforth, 

and D.S. Foster, 1997. Initial results of high-resolution sea-floor mapping offshore of the New York-New 

Jersey metropolitan area using sidescan sonar. Northeastern Geology and Environmental Sciences, 19(4): 

243-267. 

Schwab, W.C., R.T. Thieler, J.S. Allen, D.S. Foster, A.S. Swift, J.F. Denny, and W.W. Danforth, 1999. Geologic 

mapping of the nearshore area offshore Fire Island, NY. In: N.C. Kraus and W.G. McDougal (editors), Coastal 

Sediments '99, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 1552-1567. 

Schwab, W.C., E.R. Thieler, J.F. Denny, W.W. Danforth, and J.C. Hill, 2000a. Seafloor Sediment Distribution Off 

Southern Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 00-243. 

Schwab, W.C., J.F. Denny, B. Butman, W.W. Danforth, D.S. Foster, B.A. Swift, L.L. Lotto, M.A. Allison, E.R. Thieler, 

and J.C. Hill, 2000b. Seafloor Characterization Offshore of the NewYork-New Jersey Metropolitan Area Using 

Sidescan-Sonar. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 00-295. 

Schwab, W.C., E.R. Thieler, J.R. Allen, D.S. Foster, B.A. Swift, J.F. Denny, 2000c. Influence of inner-continental shelf 

framework on the evolution and behavior of the barrier-island system between Fire Island Inlet and 

Shinnecock Inlet, Long Island, New York. Journal of Coastal Research, 16(2): 408-422. 

Schwab, W.C., J.F. Denny, D.S. Foster, L.L. Lotto, M.A. Allison, E. Uchupi, W.W. Danforth, B.A. Swift, E.R. Thieler, 

and B. Butman, 2002. High-Resolution Quaternary Seismic Stratigraphy of the New York Bight Continental 

Shelf. USGS Open-File Report 02-152. 

Scott, L.C. and F.S. Kelley, 1998. An Evaluation and Comparison of Benthic Community Assemblages and Surf 

Clam Populations Within the Offshore Sand Borrow Site for the Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, 

Ocean City, New Jersey Project. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, 

Philadelphia, PA by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD, 36 pp. + app. 

Shalowitz, A.L., 1964. Shoreline and Sea Boundaries, Volume 2. U.S. Department of Commerce Publication 10-1, 

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 420 pp. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 260

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Shaver, D.J., 1991. Feeding ecology of wild and headstarted Kemp's Ridley sea turtles in south Texas waters. 

Journal of Herpetology, 25(3): 327-334. 

Sherk, J.A., Jr., 1971. The Effects of Suspended and Deposited Sediment on Estuarine Organisms: Literature 

Summary and Research Needs. University of Maryland, Natural Resources Institute, Chesapeake Biological 

Laboratory Contribution No. 43, 73 pp. 

Sherk, J.A., Jr., 1972. Current status of the knowledge of the biological effects of suspended and deposited 

sediments in Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Science, 13 (Supplement): S137-S144. 

Sherk, J.A., Jr. and L.E. Cronin, 1970. The Effects of Suspended and Deposited Sediments on Estuarine Organisms, 

an Annotated Bibliography of Selected References. University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological 

Laboratory, Natural Resources Institute, Reference No. 70-19, 62 pp. 

Sherk, J.A., J.M. O'Connor, and D.A. Newman, 1975. Effects of suspended and deposited sediments on estuarine 

environments. In: L.F. Cronin (editor), Estuarine Research Volume 2. Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 

541-558. 

Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney, 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundances of loggerhead and leatherback sea 

turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetological Monographs, 6: 43-67. 

Slay, C.K., 1995. Sea turtle mortality related to dredging activities in the southeastern U.S.: 1991. In: J.I. Richardson 

and T.H. Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation, Jekyll Island, GA, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-361, pp. 132-133. 

Smith, P.C., 1996. Nearshore Ridges and Underlying Upper Pleistocene Sediments on the Inner Continental Shelf of 

New Jersey. Masters Thesis, Rutgers University, Geological Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ, 157pp. 

Smith, J.J. and S.P. Leatherman, 2000. Erosion anomaly on eastern Jones Beach Island, New York: genesis and 

management implications. Shore and Beach, 68(3): 29-32. 

Smith, W., P. Berrien, and T. Potthoff, 1994. Spawning patterns of bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, in the northeast 

continental shelf ecosystem. Bulletin of Marine Science, 54(1): 8-15. 

Smith, W.G, K. Watson, D. Rahoy, C. Rasmussen, and J.R. Headland, 1999. Historic geomorphology and dynamics 

of Fire Island, Moriches, and Shinnecock Inlets, New York. In: N.C. Kraus and W.G. McDougal (editors), 

Coastal Sediments '99, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 1597-1612. 

Snedden, J.W., R.W. Tillman, R.D. Kreisa, W.J. Schweller, S.J. Culver, and R.D. Winn, 1994. Stratigraphy and 

genesis of a modern shoreface-attached sand ridge, Peahala Ridge, New Jersey. Journal of Sedimentary 

Research, Section B: Stratigraphy and Global Studies, B64(4): 560-581. 

Snelgrove, P.V.R. and C.A. Butman, 1994. Animal-sediment relationships revisited: cause versus effect. 

Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, 32: 111-177. 

Sosnowski, R.A., 1984. Sediment resuspension due to dredging and storms: an analogous pair. In: R.L. 

Montgomery and J.W. Leach (eds.), Conference Proceedings, Dredging ’84, Dredging and Dredged Material 

Disposal, 14-16 November 1984, Clearwater Beach, FL, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 609-618. 

Steimle, F.W., Jr. and R.B. Stone, 1973. Abundance and Distribution of Inshore Benthic Fauna off Southwestern 

Long Island, N.Y. NOAA Technical Report SSRF-673, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 

Steimle, F.W., W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, and D.L. Johnson, 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Red 

Hake, Urophycis chuss, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NE-133. 

Stephenson, W.W.T., S.D. Cook, and S.J. Newland, 1978. The macrobenthos of the Middle Banks of Moreton Bay. 

Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 18: 95-118. 

Stern, E.M. and W.B. Stickle, 1978. Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Material in Aquatic Environments: Literature 

Review. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report D-78-21, 117 

pp. 

Steves, B.P., R.K. Cowen, and M.H. Malchoff. 1999. Settlement and nursery habitats for demersal fishes on the 

continental shelf of the New York Bight. Fishery Bulletin, 98: 167-188. 

Stobutzki, I.C. and D.R. Bellwood, 1998. Nocturnal orientation to reefs by late pelagic stage coral reef fishes. Coral 

Reefs, 17: 103-110. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 261

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Stoffer, P. and P. Messina, 1996. Geology and Geography of New York Bight Beaches. 

http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/bight/index.html

Stubblefield, W.L., J.W. Lavelle, D.J.P. Swift, and T.F. McKinney, 1975. Sediment response to the present hydraulic 

regime on the central New Jersey shelf. Journal of Sediment Petrology, 45: 337-358. 

Stubblefield, W.L., D.W. McGrail, and D.G. Kersey, 1984. Recognition of transgressive and post-transgressive sand 

ridges on the New Jersey continental shelf. In: R.W. Tillman and C.T. Siemers (editors), Siliclastic Shelf 

Sediments, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication 34: 1-23. 

Studt, J.F., 1987. Amelioration of maintenance dredging impacts on sea turtles, Canaveral Harbor, Florida. In: W. 

Witzell (editor), Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles. Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle 

Workshop, Miami, FL, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 53, pp. 55-58. 

Sullivan, M.C., R.K. Cowen, K.W. Able, and M.P. Fahay, 2000. Spatial scaling of recruitment in four continental shelf 

fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 207: 141-154. 

Swift, D.J.P., 1976. Continental shelf sedimentation. In: D.J. Stanley and D.J.P. Swift (editors), Marine Sediment 

Transport and Environmental Management. Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 311-350. 

Swift, D.J.P., J.W. Kofoed, F.P. Salsbury, and P. Sears, 1972. Holocene evolution of the shelf surface, central and 

southern Atlantic shelf of North America. In: D.J.P. Swift, D.B Duane, and O.H. Pilkey (editors), Shelf 

Sediment Transport: Process and Pattern. Dowden Hutchinson, and Ross. Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 499-575. 

Swingle, W.M., S.G. Barco, T.D. Pitchford, W.A. McLellan, and D.A. Pabst, 1993. Appearance of juvenile humpback 

whales feeding in the nearshore waters of Virginia. Marine Mammal Science, 9(3): 309-315. 

Taney, N.E., 1961. Geomorphology of the South Shore of Long Island, New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Beach Erosion Board, Washington DC, TM No. 128. 

Taylor, A.S., 1990. The Hopper Dredge. In: D.D. Dickerson and D.A. Nelson (compilers), Proceedings of the National 

Workshop on Methods to Minimize Dredging Impacts on Sea Turtles, Jacksonville, FL, U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Miscellaneous Paper EL-90-5, pp. 59-63. 

Tenore, K.R., 1985. Seasonal changes in soft bottom macrofauna of the U.S. South Atlantic Bight. In: L.P. Atkinson, 

D.W. Menzel, and K.A. Bush (eds.), Oceanography of the Southeastern U.S. Continental Shelf. American 

Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 130-140. 

Terciero, M. 1998. Bluefish. In: S.H. Clark (editor), Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States 

for 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-115, pp. 110-111. 

Thayer, C.W., 1983. Sediment-mediated biological disturbance and the evolution of marine benthos. In: M.J.S. 

Tevesz and P.L. McCall (editors), Biotic Interactions in Recent and Fossil Benthic Communities. Plenum 

Press, NY, pp. 479-625. 

Theroux, R.B. and R.L. Wigley, 1998. Quantitative Composition and Distribution of the Macrobenthic Invertebrate 

Fauna of the Continental Shelf Ecosystems of the Northeastern United States. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 140, 240 pp. 

Thistle, D., 1981. Natural physical disturbances and communities of marine soft bottoms. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 6: 223-228. 

Thompson, J.R., 1973. Ecological Effects of Offshore Dredging and Beach Nourishment: A Review. U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station MP 1-73, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering 

Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, Report 1-73. 

Thorson, G., 1957. Bottom communities (sublittoral or shallow shelf). Geological Society of America Memoir, 67: 

461-534. 

Thorson, G., 1964. Light as an ecological factor in the dispersal and settlement of larvae of marine bottom 

invertebrates. Ophelia, 1(1): 167-208. 

Thorson, G., 1966. Some factors influencing the recruitment and establishment of marine benthic communities. 

Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 3(2): 267-293. 

Tolimieri, N., A. Jeffs, and J. Montgomery, 2000. Ambient sound as a cue for navigation by the pelagic larvae of reef 

fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 207: 219-224. 

Turbeville, D.B. and G.A. Marsh, 1982. Benthic Fauna of an Offshore Borrow Area in Broward County, Florida. U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Report 82-1, 43 pp. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 262

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Uchupi, E., 1968. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United States – Physiography. U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 529-C, 30 p. 

Uchupi, E., 1970. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United States – Shallow Structure. Professional Paper 

529-1, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington DC, 1970. 

Uptegrove, J., L.G. Mullikin, J.S. Waldner, G. Ashley, R.E. Sheridan, D.W. Hall, J.T. Gilroy, and S.C. Farrell, 1995. 

Characterization of Offshore Sediments in Federal Waters as Potential Sources of Beach Replenishment 

Sand – Phase I. New Jersey Geological Survey Open File Report 95-1, New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection Division of Science and Research Geological Survey, Trenton, NJ. 

Uptegrove, J., J.S. Waldner, D.W. Hall, P.C. Smith, G.M. Ashley, R.E. Sheridan, Z. Allen-Lafayette, M.C. Goss, F.L. 

Muller, and E. Keller, 1997. Characterization of Offshore Sediments in Federal Waters as Potential Sources 

of Beach Replenishment Sand – Phase II. Final Report to U.S. Minerals Management Service, Cooperative 

#14-35-0001-30751, New Jersey Geological Survey, Trenton, NJ, 28 p. 

USACE, 1971. National Shoreline Study Report. Washington, DC. 

USACE, 1990. Sea Bright to Ocean Township General Design Memorandum; Appendix C: Borrow Area 

Investigations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York. 

USACE, 1995. Asbury Park to Manasquan General Design Memorandum; Appendix C: Borrow Area. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York. 

USACE, 1999. Hopper Dredge Sea Turtle Deflector Draghead and Operational Requirements. Online at 

http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/pd/turtle.htm. 

USACE, 2003. Project Fact Sheets, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. 

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/business/prjlinks/coastal/eastrock/index.htm

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/business/prjlinks/coastal/longbeac/index.htm

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/business/prjlinks/coastal/sandyhok/index.htm

USDOI, MMS, 1989. In: S.A. Abernathy (ed.), Description of the Mid-Atlantic Environment. Atlantic OCS Region, 

MMS 89-0064. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement on the New York 

Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation for the Designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) 

in the New York Bight Apex. Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, NY 

with the assistance of Battelle, Duxbury, MA. 

USFWS, 1997. Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Southern New England - New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program Charlestown, Rhode Island.

http://training.fws.gov/library/pubs5/begin.htm

Valverde, H.R., A.C. Trembanis, and O.H. Pilkey, 1999. Summary of beach nourishment episodes on the U.S. east 

coast barrier islands. Journal of Coastal Research, 15(4): 1100-1118. 

Van Dolah, R.F., 1996. Impacts of beach nourishment on the benthos: what have we learned? Proceedings of the 

Twenty-fourth Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Columbia, SC, p. 82. 

Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, and D.M. Knott, 1984. Effects of dredging and open-water disposal on benthic 

macroinvertebrates in a South Carolina estuary. Estuaries, 7: 28-37. 

Van Dolah, R.F., P.H. Wendt, R.M. Martore, M.V. Levisen, and W.A. Roumillat, 1992. A Physical and Biological 

Monitoring Study of the Hilton Head Beach Nourishment Project. Final Report submitted to the Town of Hilton 

Head Island and South Carolina Coastal Council by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources 

Department, Marine Resource Research Institute, 159 pp. 

Van Dolah, R.F., R.M. Martore, and M.V. Levisen, 1993. Supplemental Report for the Physical and Biological 

Monitoring Study of the Hilton Head Beach Nourishment Project. Prepared by the South Carolina Marine 

Resources Division, Marine Resources Research Institute for the for the Town of Hilton Head Island, SC. 

Van Dolah, R.F., B.J. Digre, P.T. Gayes, P. Donovan-Ealy, and M.W. Dowd, 1998. An Evaluation of Physical 

Recovery Rates in Sand Borrow Sites Used for Beach Nourishment Projects in South Carolina. Final report to 

the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Office of International Activities and 

Marine Minerals by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Research 

Institute, 76 pp. + app. 

Veatch, A.C. and P.A. Smith, 1939. Atlantic Submarine Valleys of the United States and the Congo Submarine 

Valley. Geological Society of America Special Paper No. 7, 101 p., 17 plates. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 263

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Vecchione, M., 1981. Aspects of the early life history of Loligo pealei (Cephalopoda; Myopsida). Journal of Shellfish 

Research, 1: 171-180. 

Vinyard, G.L. and J.W. O’Brien, 1976. Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distance of bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochirus). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 33: 2,845-2,849. 

Viscido, S.V., D.E. Stearns, and K.W. Able, 1997. Seasonal and spatial patterns of an epibenthic crustacean 

assemblage in northwest Atlantic continental shelf waters. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science, 45: 377-

392. 

Walker, T.A. and G. O'Donnell, 1981. Observations on nitrate, phosphate, and silicate in Cleveland Bay, Northern 

Queensland. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 32: 877-887. 

Warwick, R.M., 1980. Population dynamics and secondary production of benthos. In: K.R. Tenore and B.C. Coull 

(eds.), Marine Benthic Dynamics. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp. 1-24. 

Weakley, J., 2001. Reefs in reverse. Florida Sportsman, 33(6): 75-80. 

Weber, M., 1995. Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii. In: P.T. Plotkin (editor), National Marine Fisheries 

Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status Reviews for Sea Turtles Listed under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. Silver Spring, MD. 

Weinberg, J.R., 1998. Atlantic Surfclam. In: S.H. Clark (ed.), Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United 

States for 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-115, pp. 125-127. 

Wenner, E.L. and T.H. Read, 1982. Seasonal composition and abundance of decapod crustacean assemblages 

from the South Atlantic Bight, USA. Bulletin of Marine Science, 32(1): 181-206. 

Werner, S.A. and A.M. Landry, Jr., 1994. Feeding ecology of wild and head started Kemp's Ridley sea turtles 

(Lepidochelys kempii). In: K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers), Proceedings 

of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSSEFSC-351, U.S. Department of Commerce, Miami, FL, pp. 163. 

Weston, D.P., 1988. Macrobenthos-sediment relationships on the continental shelf off Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina. Continental Shelf Research, 8(3): 267-286. 

Whitlatch, R.B., A.M. Lohrer, S.F. Thrush, R.D. Pridmore, J.E. Hewitt, V.J. Cummings, and R.N. Zajac, 1998. Scaledependent benthic recolonization dynamics: life stage-based dispersal and demographic consequences. 

Hydrobiologia, 375/376: 217-226. 

Wiegel, R.L. and T. Saville, 1996. History of coastal engineering in the USA. In: N.C. Kraus (editor), History and 

Heritage of Coastal Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, p. 513-600. 

Wigley, R.L. and R.B. Theroux, 1981. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United States-Macrobenthic 

Invertebrate Fauna of the Middle Atlantic Bight Region-Faunal Composition and Quantitative Distribution. 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 529-N, 198 pp. 

Wilber, D.H. and D.G. Clarke, 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: a review of suspended sediment 

impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management, 21: 855-875. 

Wilber, P. and M. Stern, 1992. A re-examination of infaunal studies that accompany beach nourishment projects. In: 

New Directions in Beach Management: Proceedings of the 5th Annual National Conference on Beach 

Preservation Technology, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, FL, pp. 242-257. 

Wiley, D.N., R.A. Asmutis, T.D. Pitchford, and D.P. Gannon, 1995. Stranding and mortality of humpback whales, 

Megaptera novaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United States, 1985-1992. Fishery Bulletin, 93: 

196-205. 

Williams, R.G., and F.A. Godshall, 1977. Summarization and interpretation of historical physical oceanographic and 

meteorological information for the mid-Atlantic region. Interagency Agreement AA550-IA6-12. Prepared by 

NOAA for the Bureau of Land Management. 295 pp. 

Williams, S.J., 1976. Geomorphology, Shallow Sub-bottom Structure, and Sediments of the Atlantic Inner 

Continental Shelf Off long Island, New York. U.S. Army Engineer Coastal Engineering Research Center, 

Technical Paper No. 76-2, Fort Belvoir, VA,. 

Williams, S.J., 1992. Coasts in Crisis. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1075, 32 pp. 
MMS Study 2004-044 References 

Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York 264

and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration 

Williams, S.J. and D.B. Duane, 1974. Geomorphology and Sediments of the Inner New York Bight Continental Shelf. 

U.S. Army Engineer Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Memorandum No. 76-2, Fort Belvoir, 

VA. 

Williams, S.J. and E.P. Meisburger, 1987. Sand sources for the transgressive barrier coast of Long Island, New 

York: evidence for landward transport of sediments. In: N.C. Kraus (editor), Coastal Sediments '87, American 

Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 1517 – 1532. 

Winn, H.E. (editor), 1982. A Characterization of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the Mid- and North Atlantic Areas of 

the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Final report of the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program. University of 

Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC, Available through National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, PB83-215855. 

Wolff, M.P., 1982. Evidence of onshore sand transfer along the south shore of Long Island, New York and its 

implications against the Bruun Rule. Northeast Geology, 4:10-16. 

Wolff, M. and J.B. Bennington, 2000. A Comparison of Changes Between Natural and Re-Nourished Beaches - The 

1997-2000 Interval Between Sand Replenishment at Eastern Jones Beach Island and Western Fire Island, 

New York. Geology Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York. 

http://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts_00/wollf/wolffabstract.html

Woodworth-Lynas, C. and L. Davis, 1996. Proposed Marine Mining Technologies and Mitigation Techniques: A 

Detailed Analysis with Respect to the Mining of Specific Offshore Mineral Commodities. Final Report. 

Prepared by the Centre for Cold Ocean Resources Engineering for the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service. Contract No. 14-35-0001-30723, OCS Report MMS 95-0003, 279 pp. + 6 

Appendices. 

Wright, D.G., 1977. Artificial Islands in the Beaufort Sea: A Review of Potential Impacts. Department of Fisheries 

and Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 38 pp. 

Young, D.K. and D.C. Rhoads, 1971. Animal-sediment relations in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts: a transect study. 

Marine Biology, 11: 242-254. 

Zajac, R.N. and R.B. Whitlatch, 1982. Responses of estuarine infauna to disturbance. I. Spatial and temporal 

variation of initial recolonization. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 10: 1-14. 

Zawila, J.S., 1994. Analysis of a Seismic Air Gun Acoustic Dispersal Technique at the Fort Pierce Sea Turtle Trial 

Site. Contract report to U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, as excerpted in: Sea Turtle 

Research Program Summary Report. Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS for U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Atlanta, GA and U.S. Naval Submarine Base, 

Kings Bay, GA, Technical Report CHL-97-31, NTIS ADA332588, 147 pp.