U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

98–961 WASHINGTON : 2016

114th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–107 

HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET NEW JERSEY 

SHORE PROTECTION STUDY 

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 

CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

TRANSMITTING

THE DEPARTMENT’S HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET 

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT AND INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT DATED APRIL 28, 2014 

FEBRUARY 25, 2016.—Referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure and ordered to be printed 

02:52 Mar 08 2016 Jkt 098961 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\HD107PL XXX HD107PL

(iii)

Honorable Paul Ryan 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

CIVIL WORKS 

108 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON DC 20310-0108 

r:J - 1 201s 

Speaker of the House of Representatives 

U.S. Capitol Building, Room H-232 

Washington, DC 20515-0001 

Dear Mr. Speaker: 

In response to a resolution by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

of the United States House of Representatives, adopted December 1987 and by the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works. of the United States Senate dated 

December 1987, and in response to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 

Public Law (P.L.) 113-2, the Secretary of the Army recommends a coastal storm 

damage reduction project for Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey. Initial 

construction will be undertaken under the authority of, and using funds provided in, 

PL 113-2. The proposal described in the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 

January 23, 2015, recommends authorization of periodic nourishment and any initial 

construction that will not be completed using PL 113-2 funding. The Secretary of the 

Army plans to implement periodic nourishment at the appropriate time, considering 

National priorities and the availability of funds. 

The project study was conducted to analyze and formulate plans for reducing 

coastal storm damages in the coastal communities located between Hereford Inlet and 

Cape May Inlet, Cape May County, New Jersey, resulting from Super Storm Sandy. 

The recommended plan is the National Economic Development plan. 

The plan consists of dune and berm construction using sand obtained from an onshore beach borrow source located at the southern end of Five Mile Island (the 

Wildwoods). It extends approximately 4.5 miles from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

and will encompass the towns of North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and 

Lower Township. The plan includes the planting of approximately 64 acres of dune 

grass, 28,000 linear feet of sand fence, 44 extended crossovers, seven new pedestrian 

crossovers, seven extended handicap crossovers, six new handicap crossovers, eight 

existing vehicle crossover extensions and five new vehicular crossovers. The sand will 

be pumped from the southern borrow area using mobile back-passing technology to 

hydraulically pump sand from the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest borrow source to the 

placement area. Initial construction for the project will remove approximately 1,527,000 

cubic yards (cy) of sand from the approved borrow zone, which includes a design 

quantity of 1,136,000 cy and advanced nourishment of 391,000 cy. Periodic 

nourishment is included in project design to maintain the integrity of the design beach 

template over the project period of analysis. Nourishment requirements were 

determined by considering losses resulting from diffusion of the design beach fill 
iv

planform and natural background erosion. Following the initial construction, 

approximately 391,000 cy of material will be back-passed every four years throughout 

the 50-year period of analysis for the periodic nourishment of the selected plan. The 

material will be placed in the same borrow area as used in the initial construction. Since 

the project would not have any significant adverse effects, no mitigation measures 

(beyond management practices and avoidance) or compensation measures would be 

required. 

Based on October 2015, (FY 2016) price levels, the total nourishment cost is 

estimated at $107,505,000 composed of the first cost of initial construction estimated 

$22,321,000 and a total of 12 periodic nourishments estimated at $85,184,000. The 

cost of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged or excavated material 

disposal (LERRD) is estimated at $1,350,000. The total estimated project cost includes 

monitoring costs estimated to average about $143,000 over the 50-year period for a 

total of $7,150,000. The operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement 

(OMRR&R) costs of the project after construction are estimated at about $155,000 per 

year. 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is the nonFederal cost sharing sponsor for all features. Cost sharing is applied in accordance 

with the provisions of section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 

1986, as amended by section 215 ofWRDA 1999, and is apportioned as follows: 1) 

Initial construction of the shore protection features are cost-shared at a rate of 65 

percent Federal (or $14,509,000) and 35 percent non-Federal (or $7,812,000), which 

includes LERRD costs; 2). Periodic nourishment is cost shared 50 percent Federal and 

50 percent non-Federal. Periodic nourishment costs are expected to be $6,204,000 for 

year 4 and 8, and $6,454,000 every four years thereafter, except in year 24, which 

assumes major nourishment is required at a cost of $8,257,000. In addition, 

nourishment activities include monitoring costs estimated to average about $143,000 

over the 50-year period for a total of $7,150,000; 3) The NJDEP would be responsible 

for all OMRR&R of the project after construction, with an average annual cost currently 

estimated at $155,000 over the 50-year period of analysis. The non-Federal sponsor 

will receive credit for the costs of LERRD toward the non-Federal share. 

Based on FY 2016 price levels, a 3.125 percent discount rate, and a 50-year period 

of analysis, the total equivalent average annual costs of the project are estimated to be 

$2,758,000, including monitoring and OMRR&R. The equivalent average annual 

benefits are estimated to be $6,461,000 with net average annual benefits of $3,703,000. 

The benefit-to-cost ratio is approximately 2.3 to 1. The project would reduce overall 

average annual coastal storm damages by about 41 % and average annual damages 

attributed to wave attack and rapid erosion, by about 69%. 

An Environmental AssesslT)ent (EA) was prepared in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The recommended plan has been identified as the 

environmentally preferred plan. Adverse environmental impacts have been avoided and 

minimized where practicable. The EA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact to 

-2-
 v

the environment, therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not 

required. No compensatory mitigation is required. 

The Independent External Peer Review was completed by Battelle Memorial 

Institute. The review comments resulted in expanded narratives throughout the report 

to support the decision-making process and justify the recommended plan. All 

comments from the above referenced reviews have been addressed and incorporated 

into the final documents. 

The Office of Management and Budget (0MB) advises that there is no objection to 

the submission of the report to Congress, but that the project would need to compete 

with other proposed investments for funding in future budgets. A copy of OM B's letter 

dated January 21, 2016, is enclosed. I am providing a copy of this transmittal and the 

0MB letter to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Water Development of the House Committee on Appropriations. I am also providing an 

identical letter to the President of the Senate. 

Very truly yours, 

\~ 

Ellen Darcy 

Assi ecretary of the :i:\rmy 

Enclosures 

{Civil Works) _) 

-3-
 vi 

8 Enclosures 

1. 0MB Clearance letter, dated January 21, 2016 

2. Finding of No Significant Impact, signed January 25, 2016 

3. Chiefs Report, January 23, 2015 

4. Letter from Department of the Interior, Nov 17, 2014 

5. Letter from the Environmental Protection Agency, Nov 13, 2014 

6. Sponsor Letter of Intent, April 9, 2014 

7. Project Slides 

8. Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report and Integrated 

Environmental Assessment, April 2014 (CD) 

-5-
 vii

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

WASHINGTON, D.C 20503 

January21,2016 

The Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 

I 08 Army Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20310-0 I 08 

Dear Ms. Darcy: 

As required by Executive Order 12322, the Office of Management and Budget has 

reviewed an April 2014 Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) feasibility study of the Hereford Inlet 

to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey, with a first cost of$21,794,000 (October 2014 price level) and a 

total cost of$104,966,000 (October 2014 price level). According to the Corps' report, the 

recommended project addresses wave and inundation damage, as well as erosion and municipal 

drainage issues, which are not part of the Corps' primary mission areas. 

Based on an analysis of costs and benefits, the Corps estimated that the benefit-cost ratio 

for the project is 2.30 to I at a discount rate of3.375 percent, which is the discount rate that the 

Corps is required to use for FY 2014 under section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1974 to evaluate and formulate its proposed water resources projects. According to the Corps, 

the equivalent benefit-cost ratio is 1.90 to I at a seven percent discount rate. The coastal storm 

damage reduction portion of the project has a BCR of l .58 to 1 at the seven percent discount 

rate. This is the discount rate that the Administration uses in the Budget to measure the 

performance of Corps construction projects whose primary purpose is to provide an economic 

return to the Nation. 

The Office of Management and Budget does not object to you sending this report to the 

Congress. When you do so, please advise the Congress that this project, like all civil works 

projects, will need to compete with other proposed investments for funding in future budgets. 

~e~u~'. 

~~ Associate Director 

Energy, Science, and Water 
 viii

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) 

FOR HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET 

STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, 

CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, (Corps) has 

conducted an environmental analysis of the construction of the Hereford Inlet to Cape 

May Inlet Storm Damage Reduction Project in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The Corps assessed the effects of the 

recommended plan in the Final Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental 

Assessment, dated 28 April 2014, which is incorporated herein by reference: 

• Construct a dune and berm extending approximately 4.5 miles from Hereford Inlet 

to Cape May Inlet using sand obtained from an onshore beach borrow source 

located at the southern end of Five Mile Island (the Wildwoods). The dune and 

berm will encompass the towns of North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest 

and Lower Township; 

• Plant approximately 64 acres of dune grass; 

• Construct 28,000 linear feet of sand fence, 44 extended crossovers, seven new 

pedestrian crossovers, seven extended handicap crossovers, six new handicap 

crossovers, eight existing vehicle crossover extensions and five new vehicular 

crossovers; 

• Pump sand from the southern borrow area using mobile back-passing technology 

to hydraulically pump sand from the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest borrow source 

to the placement area; 

• Remove approximately 1,527,250 cubic yards (cy) of sand from the approved 

borrow zone as part of initial construction, which includes a design quantity of 

1,136,000 cy and advanced nourishment of 391,000 cy; 

• Periodically nourish the beach to maintain the integrity of the design beach 

template over the project period of analysis. Nourishment requirements were 

determined by considering losses resulting from diffusion of the design beach fill 

planform and natural background erosion; 

• Back-pass approximately 391,000 cy of material every four years after initial 

construction throughout the 50-year period of analysis for the periodic 

nourishment of the selected plan. The material will be taken from the same borrow 

area and placed in the same location as the initial construction; 

The recommended plan was identified as the National Economic Development 

(NED) plan and is the environmentally-preferred alternative. All practicable means to 

avoid and minimize adverse environmental effects have been incorporated into the 

recommended plan. No compensatory mitigation is required. 
 ix

Consistent with the programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) in December 2005, the hydraulic back-passing of sand from 

Wildwood and Wildwood Crest for beach nourishment and restoration activities in 

North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township would not likely 

jeopardize the continued existence of any species or the critical habitat of any fish, 

wildlife, or plant, which is designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended by P.L. 96-159. As required by the 

Biological Opinion, the Corps will undergo individual (Tier 2) consultation with USFWS 

prior to initial construction and each periodic nourishment cycle. 

Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a 401 Water Quality Certificate 

was obtained from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 

Based on the information developed during preparation of the EA, it was determined in 

accordance with Section 307 (C) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 that the 

plan complies with and can be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the 

approved Coastal Zone Management Program of New Jersey. A Federal Consistency 

Determination and Water Quality Certificate were received from NJDEP on 7 March 

2014. 

There are no known properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National 

Register of Historic Places that would be affected by the proposed activity. The plan 

has been designed to avoid archaeologically sensitive areas, and is therefore not 

expected to impact any cultural resources. The New Jersey State Historic Preservation 

Office concurred with this determination in a letter dated 26 December 2013. 

General Conformity under the Clean Air Act, Section 176 has been evaluated for 

the project according to the requirements of 40 CFR 93, Subpart B. The requirements 

of this rule are not applicable to this project because the total emissions from the 

project are below the conformity threshold values established at 40 CFR 93.153(b) for 

ozone (NOx and VOCs) in a marginal nonattainment area (100 tons of NOx and 50 

tons of voes per year). 

Technical and economic criteria used in the formulation of alternative plans were 

those specified in the Water Resource Council's 1983 Economic and Environmental 

Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. All applicable 

laws, executive orders, regulations, and local government plans were considered in the 

evaluation of the alternatives. It is my determination that the recommended plan does 

not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the human 

environment; therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not 

required. 

ljvfi ,,,, Date Michael A. Bliss, PE 

Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of 

Engineers District Commander 
 x

DAEN (1105-2-!0a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

2600 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, DC 20310-2600 

JAN 2 3 2015 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

THE SECRETARY Of< THE ARMY 

1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on the study of hurricane and sto1m damage 

reduction for coastal communities located between Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet, Cape 

May County, New Jersey. It is accompanied by the report of the district and division engineers. 

This repott is an interim response to a resolution hy the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, adopted December 1987 and by the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United States Senate dated December 1987 

and an interim response to PL 113-2, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. The resolutions 

requested the Secretary of the Army to review existing reports of the Chief of Engineers for the 

entire coast of New Jersey with a view to study, in cooperation with the State of New Jersey, its 

political subdivisions and ageneies and instrumentalities thereof, the changing coastal processes 

along the coast of New Jersey. Preconstruction engineering and design activities for the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey, project will continue under the study authority 

cited above. The Corps of Engineers intends to undertake initial construction of the project 

under the authority of, and using funds provided in, PL 113-2. I am recommending that the 

Congress authorize periodic nourishment and any initial construction of the project that will not 

be completed using PL 113-2 funds. 

2. The rcpmting oHicers recommend authorization of the National Economic Development Plan 

that consists of a dune and berm construction using sand obtained from an onshore beach bmrnw 

source located at the southern end of Five Mile Island (the Wildwoods). The reconu11cnded plan 

extends approximately 4.5 miles from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and will encompass the 

towns ofN01th Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. Dimensions of 

the project are a +16-foot Nmth American Verlical Datum 1988 (NAVD88) dune, with a 25-foot 

wide dune crest on a 75- foot wide berm that is +6.5-foot NA VD88 in elevation within N01th 

Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. Side slopes for the dune will be 

1 V:5H and slopes for the he1111 will he 1 V:30H. The plan includes approximately 64 acres of 

dune grass, 28,000 linear feet of sand fence, 44 extended crossovers, seven new pedestrian 

crossovers, seven extended handicap crossovers, six new handicap crossovers, eight existing 

vehicle crossover extensions and five new vehicular crossovers. The sand wHI be pumped from 

the southern b01rnw area using mobile back-passing technology to hydraulically pump sand from 

the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest bonow source to the placement area. Initial construction for 

the project will remove approximately 1,527,250 cubic yards (cy) of sand from the approved 

borrow zone, which includes a design quantity of 1,136,000 cy and advanced nourishment of 

391,000 cy. Periodic nourishment is included in project design to maintain the integrity of the 

design beach template over the project period of analysis. Nourishment requirements were 
 xi

DAEN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

determined by considering losses resulting from diffusion of the design beach fill planfotm and 

natural background erosion. Following the initial construction, approximately 391,000 cy of 

material will be back-passed every four years throughout the 50-year period of analysis for the 

periodic nourishment of the selected plan. Since the recommended plan would not have any 

significant adverse effects, no mitigation measures (beyond management practices and 

avoidance) or compensation measures would be required. 

3. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is the non-federal cost 

sharing sponsor for all features. Based on a March 2014 price level, the estimated total 

nourishment cost is $104,030,000, which includes the project first cost of initial construction of 

$21,600,000 and a total of 12 periodic nourishments at a total cost of$82,430,000. Cost sharing 

is applied in accordance with the provisions of Section l 03 of the Water Resources Development 

Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended by Section 215 of WRDA 1999, as follows: 

a. Shore protection features are cost-shared at a rate of 65 percent federal and 35 percent 

non-federal for the initial construction. Thus the federal share of the project first cost is 

$14,040,000 and the non-federal share is estimated at $7,560,000 which includes the costs of 

land, easements, rights-of~way, relocations, and dredged or excavated material disposal areas 

(LERRD). LERRD costs arc estimated at about $1,270,000. The non-federal sponsor will 

receive credit for the costs of LERRD toward the mm-federal share. 

b. Periodic nourishment will be cost shared 50 percent federal and 50 percent nonfederal. It is expected to have costs of $5,950,000 for year 4 and 8, and $6, 190,000 every four 

years thcreaner, except in year 24, which assumes major nourishment is required at a cost of 

$7,920,000. In addition, nourishment activities include monitoring costs estimated to average 

about $138,000 over the 50-ycar period for a total of$6,900,000. 

c. The NJDEP would be responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, 

and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the project after construction, an average annual cost currently 

estimated at $150,000 over the 50-ycar period of analysis. 

4. Based on a 3.375-pcrcent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent 

average annual costs of the project arc estimated lo be $2,669,000, including monitoring and 

OMRR&R. All project costs arc allocated to the authorized purpose of shoreline protection. The 

recommended plan has average annual benefits of$6,252,000. The net national economic 

development (NED) benefits of the project arc $3,583,000 and the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) is 

2.3. In addition to providing protection from coastal storms, the dunes and berm create habitat 

for bird nesting and coastal plant species. The 64 acres of Cape American Beach Grass has the 

potential to develop into a more diverse plant community in a stable dune system. This project 

should benefit the piping plover habitat in the North Wildwood by stabilizing the beaches 

through regular periodic nourishment and improve the overall quality of the beach habitat. 

2 
 xii

DAEN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

5. Risk and uncetiainty has been explicitly factored into the economic analysis of this project. 

Chapter 6 of ER 1105-2-100, entitled "Risk Based Analysis for Evaluation of 

Hydrology/Hydraulics and Economics in Shore Protection Studies" specifics the analysis 

requirements for shore protection projects, the fundamental requirement being that all shore 

protection analyses adopt a life cycle approach. A risk and uncertainty analysis that incorporated 

key economic, hydraulic and sea level change parameters was preformed for the feasibility 

study. This risk and uncetiainty plan was peer reviewed by the Jacksonville District of the A1my 

Corps of Engineers and approved by North Atlantic Division. The project is not intended to, nor 

will it, reduce risk to loss of life during major storm events. Loss of life can only be prevented 

by residents and visitors following the local evacuation plans that are already in place. These 

residual risks have been cmrununicated to the NJDEP. 

6. In accordance with the Corps of Engineering Circular (EC 1165-2-212) on sea level change, 

the study performed a sensitivity analysis to look at the effecis that different rates of accelerated 

sea level rise could have on the recommended plan. The plan was fo1mulatcd using a historical 

or low rate of sea level rise of0.013 feet/year. The sensitivity analysis used additional 

accelerated rates, which includes what the EC defines as intermediate and high rates of0.023 

feet/year and 0.056 feet/year, respectively. The analysis found that the influence of current sea 

level rise on the project is relatively low as compared to other factors causing erosion (waves, 

currents, winds and storms). The magnitude of the short-term storm induced erosion during 

hurricane events have a much greater effect along the New Jersey coastline than those indicated 

by the natural long term shoreline trends. Adaptive management will be used including 

monitoring and adding additional volume of sand during periodic nourishments to compensate 

for significant accelerated sea level rise beyond the ctment observed rate should it become 

necessary. 

7. In accordance with the Corps of Engineers Circular (EC 1165-2-214) on the review of 

decision documents, all technical, engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic 

and rigorous review process to ensure technical quality. This includes a District Quality Control 

review, an Agency Technical Review (A TR), an Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) 

(Type 1), and a Corps Headquarters policy and legal review. The IEPR was completed by 

Battelle Memorial Institute. All comments from the above referenced reviews have been 

addressed and incorporated into the final documents. Overall, the reviews resulted in 

improvements to the technical quality of the report. 

8. Washington level review indicates that the project recommended by the rcp01iing officers is 

technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and economically justified. The plan 

complies with all essential clements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and 

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land related resources implementation 

studies and complies with other administrative and legislative policies and guidelines. Also, the 

views of interested patiies, including federal, state and local agencies have been considered. 

During the State and Agency (S&A) review, comments were received from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Other 

3 
 xiii

DAEN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May lnlct, New Jersey 

agencies indicated they either had no comments or provided none. The EPA reiterated a 

comment on the draft report concerning the potential for erosion at dune cross over locations due 

to their alignment. The Corps responded that the final report had addressed the concern, and the 

seaward side of all of the vehicular and pedestrian crossovers would be constructed at an angle to 

the dune, not perpendicular, in order to enhance dune resiliency. The DOI commented on the 

consideration given to borrow from the inlet area and the potential listing of the Red Knot as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The Corps responded that the 

recommended plan has no borrow from the Hereford Inlet. The Corps has been engaged in 

Endangered Species Act consullation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding 

the red knot, which was listed as a tll!'catcncd species following receipt of the DOI S&A 

comments. The district will coordinate any potential impacts related to this coastal project with 

the FWS and incorporate protection measures into the project plan as the design phase continues. 

9. I generally concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, [ recommend that the periodic nourishment associated with the project to reduce 

hurricane and storm damages for Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey and any initial 

construction of the project that will not be completed with PL 113-2 funds be authorized in 

accordance with the reporting officers' recommended plan, with such modifications as in the 

discretion of the Chief of Engineers may he advisable. The estimated cost of the project is 

$ I 04,030,000, which includes an estimated total cost for periodic nourishment of $82,430,000 

for 12 cycles of periodic nourishment and an estimated total cost of $21,600,000 for initial 

construction that would be reduced by any initial construction undertaken using PL 113-2 funds. 

My reconunendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applicable requirements of 

federal laws and policies, including Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act 

(WRDA) of 1986, as amended by Section 215 of WRDA 1999. This recommendation is 

subject to the non-federal sponsor agreeing to comply with alt applicable federal laws and 

policies, including that it will: 

a. Provide a minimum of 35 percent of initial project costs assigned to coastal storm 

damage reduction, plus I 00 percent of initial project costs assigned to protecting undeveloped 

private lands and other private shores which do not provide public benefits, and 50 percent of 

periodic nourishment costs assigned to coastal storm damage reduction, plus I 00 percent of 

periodic nourishment costs assigned to protecting undeveloped private lands and other private 

shores which clo provide public benefits, and as forthcr defined below: 

l) Provide alt lands, casements, and rights-of-way, including suitable bonow 

areas, and perform or ensure performance of all relocations determined by the federal 

government to be necessary for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and 

maintenance of the project; 

2) Provide during construction any additional amounts necessary to make its 

total contribution equal to 35 percent of initial project costs assigned to hurricane and storm 

4 
 xiv

DAEN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

damage reduction plus 100 percent of initial project costs assigned to protecting 

undeveloped private [ands and other private shores which do not provide public benefits; 

b. Operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the completed project, or 

functional portion of the project, at no cost to the federal government, in a maimer 

compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable federal 

and state laws and regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the federal 

government; 

c. Give the federal government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a 

reasonable manner, upon property that the non-federal sponsor, now or hereafter, owns or 

controls for access to the project for the purpose of inspection, and, if necessary, after 

failure, to perform by the non-federal sponsor, for the purpose of completing, operating, 

maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the project. No completion, operation, 

maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation by the federal government shall relieve 

the non-federal sponsor of responsibility to meet the non-federal sponsor's obligations, or 

to preclude the federal government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to 

ensure faithful performance; 

d. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the initial 

constrnction, periodic nourislunent, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 

rehabilitation of the project, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United 

States or its contractors; 

e. Perform, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances 

that are detennincd necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous 

substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, that may 

exist in, on, or under lands, casements, or rights-of-way that the federal government 

determines to be required for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and 

maintenance of the project. However, for lands that the federal government determines to 

be subject to the navigation servitude, only the federal government shall perform such 

investigations unless the federal govemmcnt provides the non-federal sponsor with prior 

specific written direction, in which case the non-federal sponsor shall perform such 

investigations in accordance with such written direction; 

f. Assume complete financial responsibility, as between the federal government and 

the non-federal sponsor for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA 

regulated materials located in, on, or under lands, casements, or rights-of-way that the federal 

government determines to be necessary for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, 

operation, or maintenance of the pr~ject; 

5 
 xv

D/\EN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

g. Agree that the non-federal sponsor shall be considered the operator of the project 

for the purpose of CERCLA liability, and to the maximum extent practicable, operate, 

maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the project in a manner that will not cause liability 

to arise under CERCLA 

h. Participate in and comply with applicable federal Ooodplain management and flood 

insurance programs. 

i. Not use federal funds to meet the non-federal sponsor's share of total project costs 

unless the federal granting agency verifies in writing that the use of such funds for the project is 

authorized; 

j. Prevent obstructions of or encroachment on the project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) which might reduce the 

level of protection it affords, hinder operation and maintenance or future periodic nourishment, 

or interfere with its proper function, such as any new developments on project lands or the 

addition of facilities which would degrade the benefits of the project; 

k. Not less than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of protection 

atforded by the project; 

I. Publicize floodplain information in the area concerned and provide this information 

to zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development 

in the floodplain, and in adopting such regulations as may be necessary to prevent unwise 

future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the 

project; 

m. For so Jong as the project remains authorized, ensure continued conditions of 

public ownership and use of the shore upon which the amount of federal participation is 

based; 

n. Provide and maintain necessary access roads, parking areas, and other puhlic use 

facilities, open and available to all on equal tenns; and 

o. At least twice allllually and after storm events, perform surveillance of the beach to 

determine losses of nourishment material from the project design section and provide the results 

of such surveillance to the Jcderal government. 

l 0. The recommendation contained herein rcOects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing the formulation of individual projects. It docs not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to Congress as a 

6 
 xvi

DAEN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the sponsor, the state, interested federal agencies, and other pmiies will be advised of 

any significant modifications and will be afforded an oppo1iunity to comment further. 

7 

~£o41/( 

Lieutenant General, USA 

Chief of Engineers 
 xvii

United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY 

ER 14/683 

Mr. Theodore A. Brown, P.E. 

Chief, Pl~nning and Policy Division 

Directorate of Civil Works 

lJ.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CECW-P(SA) 

770 I Telegraph Road 

Alexandria, VA 22315-3860 

Washington, DC 20240 

NOV 1 7 2014 

9043.l 

PEP/NRM 

RE: Proposed Chief of Engineers and the Report of the District Engineer on the 

New Jersey Shore Protection Project 

Dear Mr. Brown: 

The U.S. Department ol'!he Interior (Department) has reviewed the U.S. Army Corps or 

Engineers (Corps), Chief of Engineers Report and District Engineers Report to include the Final 

Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment for the New Jersey Shore Protection Project, 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet. 

General Comments 

The Corps is authorized under the Water Rcsomces Development Act 1986 (PL 99-662) and 

other Federal authorities to provide storm damage reduction, beach restoration, and water quality 

improvements from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, Cape May County, New Jersey (study 

area). Although the study area extends from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, no activities will 

be conducted on Hereford Inlet beaches north of lhc terminal jetty, al the Cape May Inlet, on the 

Cape May National Wildlifo Refuge Two-Mile Beach, or at the U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN 

facility. 

The project area exhibits several clifforcnt coastal issues. The North Wildwood pottion of the 

project area is prone to moderate to severe erosion, leaving the surrounding community 

vulnerable to storm damages. The beaches of Wildwood and Wildwood Crest have been 

accrcting large quantities of sand, resulting in human health and water quality concerns due to 

clogged outfall pipes on the beach. The selected plan being proposed for the project includes 

"back-passing" sand, using mobile hydraulic dredges located in the surf zones from Wildwood to 
 xviii

2 

"back-passing'' sand, using mobile hydraulic dredges located in the smf zones from Wildwood to 

North Wildwood and changing the beach configuration in Wildwood by increasing berm height 

and adding a dune. 

Specific Comments 

The Hereford Inlet is listed as a potential borrow area (sub-areas H-1, H-2, H-3, and H-4) for the 

initial cycle of beach re-nourishment within the study area. Using Federal funds, the inlet sand 

was also used by the Corps to 1-e-nourish nearby beaches in Stone Harbor as recently as 2013 and 

was extensively studied by the Corps with vibracore technology from 1994 to 2007. The Coastal 

Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) (16 U.S.C. § 3594(a)) specifically prohibits federal expenditures 

and financial assistance for the following activities within units of the Coastal Barrier Resource 

System (CBRS): "the construction or purchase of any structure, appurtenance, facility, or related 

infrastructure", "the construction or purchase of any road, airport, boat-landing facility, or other 

facility on, or bridge or causeway to, any System unit", and ''the carrying out of any project to 

prevent the erosion of, or to otherwise stabilize, any inlet, shoreline, or inshore area with limited 

exceptions." 

According to the official CBRS map for the area (Stone Harbor Unit NJ-09/NJ-09P dated 

July 12, 1996), the proposed sand borrow sub-areas of Hereford Inlet are located within System 

Unit NJ-09 of the CBRS. Therefore, it is necessaiy to clarify the issue offederally fonded 

vibracore studies and beach nourishment activities and in relation to CBRA, specifically the 

assessment and removal of sand resources from within a unit of the CBRS for placement outside 

of the CBRS for beach re-nourishment. According to a previous clarification (enclosed) from the 

Department's Office of the Solicitor and by then U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Deputy 

Director Richard N. Smith, federal expenditures are prohibited in such cases (i.e., when the 

shoreline stabilization project falls outside the CBRS unit). 

Additional information is provided in the enclosed memorandum signed by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and the Corps in Januaiy 2013 outlining the Federal 

Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force's (FlFM Task Force) Consensus 

Recommendations and Actions from a Federal Floodplain Management Policy Analysis. Please 

note that the FIFM Task Force identified enhancing CBRA compliance across all Federal 

agencies as a recommended action on page 2 of the memorandum. We recommend that the 

Corps request a dete1mination pursuant to the CBRA for any proposed activity involving the use 

of federal funds within Unit NJ-09 of the CBRS (Hereford Inlet). 

The FWS developed an online mapper that depicts the approximate boundaries of the CBRS to 

assist Federal agencies in complying with the provisions ofCBRA. The CBRS mapper and 

additional information on the CBRA consistency consultations process for proposed projects can 

be found on the FWS's CBRA website at: h!.!p://www.fws.gov/cbra. 
 xix

3 

In the subject report (page 308, Volume I), the Corps refers to the red knot (Calidris canutus 

rufa) as a "Federally listed Candidate" that "will be present during construction activities ... and 

will easily be able to move away from the constnlction activities to another portion of the beach 

where they will not be disturbed." We note that a proposed rule to list the n{(a subspecies as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was published on September 30, 2013. The FWS will make a final decision 

on the 2013 proposal to list the n{(a subspecies as threatened under the ESA by November 28, 

2014. Therefore, the proposed activities by the Corps will occur within docmnented foraging and 

roosting habitat of the red knot and may result in harassment of a federally listed species. 

Federal regulation pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA, prohibit the take of endangered and 

threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such 

conduct. Harm is further defined by the FWS to include significant habitat modification or 

degradation that results in the death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential 

behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the FWS as 

intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an 

extent as to significantly disrupt n01mal behavior patterns, which include, but are not limited to, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 

Pursuant to Section 7(a)(l) of the ESA, all Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with 

the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the 

purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and 

threatened species. 

For any questions regarding these comments, and for fi1rther coordination related to the CBRA, 

fish and wildlife resources, or federally-listed threatened or endangered species, please contact 

Mr. Carlo Popolizio, FWS, New Jersey Field Office, (609) 383-3938, ext. 32; or email 

carlo popolizio@fws.gov. 

Enclosures 

Sincerely, 

/Yia,t:f ;w, (dw~ 

Willie R:. Taylor 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy 

and Compliance 
 xx

In Reply R!fer To: 

FWS/DHC/BCldR 

Memor;;ndum 

To: R~gionzl Director, Regions 2, 

Fro~Oirector 

Subject: Interpretation of S~ction 5 of the Cnastzl 8;rrier lrnμrov:mcnt 

f..ct of lS:?O 

A recent consu1tationis.ubuiiit::d to the S;rv\c; from th:: U.5. P.:rmy Corps of 

Engine2;s pursuant to %?ct ion 6 cf t~:= Co1st1l s~rri::r R:"~oerc::s .t:.ct, (Ac:t) 

has r;uuire.d clarification fr.::··:U th;: [1!:?crtr.1:::r:t of th:: lnt~riGr' s: Of fie:: cf 

the Soiicitor re~arding Faderally fu~ded beach nc~t·ish~~nt activiti~s 

(Attachii"ient). More sp::cific~11y, th~ iSH!~ invo1 1n:s r2;:-,o•dng s~nd 

~ateri;ls from within a unit cf th~ Coastal aarr\~r R~scurc~s System 

(Syste:h) for p1c.C':::ile!1t outsid~ oft~:: 1Jriit for eros1c;1 ccntrJI r.:~c.sur~s. 

Section 5 of the Act sets forth s2v~r2l exc~?tions tot~~ s~~eral 

prchihition in sacticn S against Fed~ra1 ex?~~ditur;s ~ffs~ti~g the Sys~e~. 

The sxception in section 6(a){;J(G) is for 1'H0nstructural projects fer 

shoreline stab\l\zation that ~re ~;si;nEd to ~i~ic, enf;l~c~ 1 or rester~, 

natural st~bilization syst~~s" and that ar~ als~ c:~s\s~2fit with ths 

purpos~s of the Act. The o~~artmsn:'s Cffic~ of the Sa11citor has 

c2refully,reviawed this issu~ ~nd h2s 2dvissd ~s t~at s~ctlc~ 6(2)(E)(~) 

a~pli~s only to prcjects far sta~~1i1ing th~ shorelin~ cf i unit cf th~ 

Syst~~; it do~s net ~pply to proj~rts to st:~illz~ ~hcr~l\n~ oetsid~ th~ 

System regardless of whether th2 proj~ct might be consistEnt w~th th~ 

p1JrpoS,?.S of.th~ fa.ct. Th~r::::for21 ?.G'J pro?·Js::d F~d::r::1 c·:tiJi1 dssi;n=d to 

nourish be2ch2s located o~tside th~ Syste~ csing b~~ch matEri~l taken rrcm within the Systsm dces not ra~Et the criteria for a section 6(a)(E)(G) 

exception. 

If you have any questions rEg~rding this ~atter pl~;se cant~ct Lind; K!1sey 

of my staff ~t (703) 353-220!. 

Attachm~nt 

cc: 3012-HIB-FYS/Directorate KE~G1~~ ~ila 

301Z-MlB-FWS/CCU 

3012-KlB-FWS/AEA Fi1es 

3024-MiB-FWS/AES Files 

~00-i'..KLSQ-F'l'IS/DHC Fi 12 s 

412-ARLSQ-FWS/OHC/SC~K rii~s 

RICHARD N. SMITH 

FilS/OHC/3C\/R/LKe l s2y: bg: 05/20/S~: ( 703) 3 53-?. ?0 l 

Q: \DHC\KELSEY\SECT E. MEM 
 xxi

United States Department of the Interior 

ADDR£5S O~t.\''1116 tHR&CTOR, fl~lf r\H'l.>WJU>l.!r&R"..R\"l{X In Reply Refer To: 

FWS/DHC/BCWR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVJCE 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Major General Stanley G. Genega Directorate of Civil Works 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.\>/. Washington, D.C. 20314·1000 

Dear General Genega: 

JUNO 2 1994 

It has come to rny attention that some c1arification is necessary on the 

issue of Federally funded beach nourishment activities in relation to the 

requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Act), More 

specifically, the issue involves removing sand materia·is from within a unit 

of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (System) for placement outs·ide of 

the unit for erosion control measures. 

Section 6 of the Act sets forth several except.ions to the general prohibition in section 5 against Federal expenditures affecting the System. The exception in section 6(a)(6) (G) is for "Nonstructural projects for 

shoreline stabll ization that are designed to mimic, enhance, or restore, 

natural stabilization systems" and that are also consistent with the 

purposes of the Act. The Department of the Interior's Office of the 

Solicitor has carefully reviewed this issue and has advised us that sect·ion 

6(a)(6)(G) applies only to projects for stabilizing the shoreline of a unit 

of the System; it does not apply to projects to stabilize shoreline outside 

the System regardless of whether the project might be consistent with the 

purposes of the Act. Therefore, any Corps' proposed action designed to 

nourish beaches located outside the System using beach material taken from 

within 1:he System does not rneet the criter'ia for a section 6{a)(6)(G) exception. The Department's Office of the Solicitor has reviewed this 

issue and this specific correspondence and fully concurs with our position on this matter. 

A specific example of where this issue has arisen is relative to the Corps of Engineers proposed act ion for the use of a sand borrow area (Borrow Area 

113) within Unit NOl, Uttle Tybee Island, of the Coastal Barrier Resou1'ces 

System for a beach nourishment project outside of Unit NOL The U.S. fish 

and Wildlife Service's Atlanta Reg i ona'I Di l'ector wrote to your agency on April 5, 1994, expressing support for the formal opinion provided to the 

Corps of Engineers on August 2, 1993, by our Brunswick Field Office 

regarding your consultation request under the Act. The Atlanta Regional Director also supports the comments provided to your agency on the Joint 

Public Notice, dated February 14, 1994, and the Draft Environmental 

Assessment for the Tybee.Island, Georgia Beach Erosion Control Project 
 xxii

Section 934 Revaluation Report. This proposed action does not meet the 

criteria for a section 6{a)(6}(G) exception. 

Moreover, the Service believes the proposed project 1t1011ld not be consistent 

with the purposes of the Act. These purposes are to minimize the loss of 

human.life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and damage to fish, 

w11dl 1fe, and other natural resources associated with units of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System. Use. of this site would cause damage to the fish, 

wildlife, and other natural resources associated with Unit NDl, little 

Tybee Island. 

Taking sand from Borrow·Area #3 is likely to cause.erosion to the beaches 

of little Tybee Is'land. This area has been identified as important habitat 

for migratory birds and the federally protected loggerhead sea turtle and 

piping plover. In addition, the nearshore tidal portions of this site are 

important spawning, nursery and habitat areas for estuarine larvae, shellfish, and juvenile fish, including Georgia's number one sportfish, the 

spotted seatrout. Negative impacts to these species include increased 

turbidity, physical changes in tidal currents or channel locations that 

could affect migration of these organ·lsms. Furthermore 1 Little Tybee Island has been designated as a Natural Heritage Preserve to protect the 

natural, historical, and cultural values for the benefit of the public. 

Relative to the Little Tybee Island proposed project, I support the 

position of our Field and Regional Offices. I strongly reconrnend that the 

Corps find an alternative borrow site. The Service has previously stated 

that Borrow Areas Ill and #2, which are located outside the Sy.stem and ,~hich 

the Corps identified as possible alternative sites, would be acceptable to 

the Service, provided adequate testing is done to ensure that these areas 

contain suitable beach material. 

With respect to this issue in general, please clarify this issue for your Divisions and Districts. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. 

~e»~tJD IR ECTOR 

IDENTICAL LETTER SENT TO: 

Co 1 one l Wayne W. Boy, Savannah District 
 xxiii

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works) 

TO: Federal Interagcncy Floodplain Management Task Force Member Agencies 

SUBJECT: F!FM Task Force Consensus Recommendations and Actions from a Federal Floodplain 

Mnnagement Policy Analysis 

1l1c Federal lnteragency Floodplain Management (F!FM) Task Force was formed to promote, support, nnd 

encourage Federal agencies to formulate nnd implement progrnms and policies that: I) reduce the loss oflife 

and property caused by floods; and 2) protect and restore natural resources and functions of floodplains. It 

does this primarily through improving coordination, collaboration, and transparency among the federal 

agencies in floodplain management efforts; conducting studies of floodplain mnnagement activities; and 

improving alignment of federal programs. 

The Task Force has already made progress in canying out this mission. Specifically, it has: 

Convened a listening session with key stakeholders to identify and refine floodplain management 

issues and priorities. 

Developed guidance for Federal agencies on unwise use of floodplains. 

Conducted research on policies and programs that promote or interfere with good lloodplain 

management practices. 

Made numerous presentations at floodplain and flood risk management events to exchange 

infonnation relevant to the work of the Task Force. 

The Task Force has also provided a fornm for enhanced coordination and action on the part of individual 

member agencies, For example; 

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have 

jointly resolved several policy conflicts, including accounting for the National Flood Insurance 

Program requirements of 44 CFR 65.12 during Corps evaluation of flood risk management projects in 

the floodplain. Guidance has been distributed to the field offices of both agencies through jointly 

signed memorandums. 

The Corps has coordinated its Flood Risk Management and Silver Jackets Programs with FEMA 's 

Community Rating System Program to encourage and ussist communities in taking responsible steps 

to better manage their flood risk. 

FEMA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have updated an existing lnteragency 

Agreement to place Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) boundaries on Flood Insurance Rate 

Maps (FIRMs) and established n new !ntcragcncy Agreement to foe ilitate a digital conversion of the 

official CBRS maps and make changes that arc necessary as a result of erosion and accretion. 

At its meeting on July 27, 2012, the FIFM Task Force identified several opportunities and activities to 

enhance floodplain management effo11s at various levels of government and to help agencies become better 

stewards of public resources. 111cse activities were developed collaboratively by the Working Group of the 

Task Force, an interagency group with 19 representatives from the following agencies: 
 xxiv

Page2 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Depmiment of Agriculture 

Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Department of Defense 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

General Services Administration 

White House Council on Environmental 

Quality (Advisor} 

Some of these activities are recommendations to one or more federal agencies. Others describe actions that 

the Task Force will take and incorporate into its overall work plan to be carried out over the next 3-4 years. 

Some activities will involve further action by numerous federal agencies, while others are informational in 

nature. These opportunities and activities are categorized into four areas and are described below. 

Compliancf! . 

• Enbi:i:ri.c~.Co11,5tal Bi!rner Resources Act (CBRA) Compliance. Federal agencies operati!]g under 

CBRA, (16 U_;s.C. 3501.et seq\ are required to comply with its provisions, which are desigried to 

restrict federaJ¢x,penditures and financial assistance in the. development of coastal baJ'.riers l;lesignated 

as parfo(the C:i;!Rs: Section 3506(b)of CBRA also requires that each federal agency affec,ted l:>y 

CBRA. report.and certiJyarmually to the Department of the Interior (DOI) that the agency isjn 

coropilaoce ·v/ith the'.Jaw; Federal. agencies have not issued such certifications in recent yea~s. DOI 

williss.ue: a: meni!:iral\dl)m to federal agencies to remind them of iheir obligations under CBRA and 

requestthatthey proyide;I)Qlwith an annual letter certifying their compliance with the law\ as 

appropriate. 'rheJ'a~k.Force iecommends that federal agencies respond to D0l's request tci help raise 

awarene~s about,CDRA r\!quJrements.and ensure that sufficient policies and prot~ols are iri place to 

prevent the inapp(Opr,iate provision of federal financial assistance within the CBRS. 

As.sess and Enhance Executive Order (EO) 11988 Compliance. A recent study conducted by the 

Task Force indicated that implementation of facc111ive Order J /988: Floodplain Management may 

not be consistent across the federal government. Effective and consistent implementation of the EO 

will save lives and property, reduce the economic and environmental impacts of flooding in 

communities, and reduce costs to taxpayers across the country. Given the impacts of more extreme 

precipitation events anticipated as a result of climate change, flood losses will likely increase, thus 

further highlighting the impor!Mce of EO l 1988. To address this issue, the Task Force will drnft a 

memorandum for CEQ's consideration and issuance, requesting federal agencies that have adopted 

regulations and implementing guidance to assess their EO compliance and effectiveness of 

compliance and to take appropriate action where necessary. The Task Force will work with CEQ to 

assess responses. 

Toolsffechnology!Data 

Modernize Coastal Burrier Resource System (CBRS) Mnps. Many of the maps that delineate 

CBRS boundaries require updates in light of natural changes to the system that occur over time and to 

be consistent with current technology. Digitizing nnd modernizing these maps will help all federal 

agencies responsible for CBRA compliance as well as developers, surveyors, planners, floodplain 

managers, realtors and other stakeholders who need to know the ex net location of the CBRS unit 

boundaries. Homeowners, in particular, will hal'e a clearer understanding of whether their property is 

located within the CBRS, so they can more accurately determine whether they are eligible for federal 

financial assistance, including flood insurance - avoiding the discovery and cancellation of invalid 

flood insurance policies after claims are made. The Task Force recognizes the value of the 

modernization efforts already underway and recommends that !hey be continued and expanded, 
 xxv

Page3 

Enhance Technical Assistance to Communities in Coastal Areas. Coastal areas are home to over 

160 million people, support 66 million jobs and contribute $8.3 trillion to the U.S. economy. These 

areas are also prone to a number of natural hazards. As a result, it is critical that we provide coastal 

communities with the resources they need to make better decisions that reduce nood hazards. 111e 

Task Force will be exploring broader use of the Community Rating System as an incentive 

mechanism for coastal communities to make better floodplain management decisions. In addition, the 

Task Force plans to assess floodplain management-related technical assistance available to coastal 

communities and identify gaps that may need to be filled. 

Enhance Collaboration nnd Research on Mapping to Support Floodplain Management. Maps 

are powerful tools in noodplain management. TI1c Task Force will be working to assess and enhance 

data collection, distribution, collaboration and research relmed to mapping to support floodplain 

management. It will place special emphasis on identifying, quantifying or mapping the natural areas 

of floodplains and their beneficial uses and values. 

Improve the Link Between Agencies and Available Floodplain-related Research Capabilities. 

There are potential disconnects between agencies responsible for establishing and implementing 

policies that impact flood risk or floodplains and those agencies involved in scientific research and 

data collection. The Task Force will evaluate disconnects and establish a more fonnal mechanism for 

coordination so the available research becomes more broadly available and research needs are aligned 

with future research plans. 

Assess Federal Use of Flood Loss Data and Identify Potential Improvements in Collection, 

Dissemination and Use. Federal agencies are often asked to report on flood-related losses. This 

information is importa!ll for understanding the impacts of policies and programs in and around 

floodplains. Federal agencies collect and use nood loss data differently based on their missions and 

the needs of their stakeholders. The Task Force will convene key federal agencies to discuss what 

flood loss data they have, how they calculate flood losses, and how they use these data (e.g., policy 

questions they try to answer). The Task Force will compile this feedback to create a more 

comprehensive view of how flood loss data is collected, calculated and used within federal agencies 

and key, high-level similarities and differences. Based on this feedback, the Task Force will identify 

approaches for improving the collection, dissemination and/or use of flood loss data to enhance future 

policy decisions. 

Study the Benefits of Proteeting Natural and Beneficial Functions. Floodplains provide more 

value, or services, per acre than any other hind type. However, floodplains continue to be degraded 

by development and other aclivities that often cause hidden losses, both economic and environmental, 

for communities and the nation. The Task Force will conduct a review of existing infonnation to 

nsscss our current state of knowledge about valuing the natural resources and functions of floodplains. 

Based on this assessment, the Task Force wit! identify opportunities to quantify and/or qualitnlively 

describe the benefits that floodplains provide. 

Partners/tips 

Improve Silver Jackets Awareness and Participation. Silver Jackets intcragency teams promote 

valuable collaboration among federal and state agencies with respect to flood risk management. They 

focus on a common set of priorities and nre capable of more easily leveraging resources to solve 

problems. Involvement by federal agencies other Urnn FEMA and the Corps, however, has been 

inconsistent. Having stronger support for Silver Jackets teams from all agencies involved in flood 

risk and floodplain management will provide more resources and opportunities for collaboration to 

the Silver Jackets teams and promote more innovative and effective approaches to flood risk 

management. The Task Poree will prepare a memorandum to its member agencies and other 
 xxvi

Page 4 

interested agencies recommending that they designate a point of contact to coordinate their 

involvement in the Silver Jackets program. 

Coordinate Under Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PP0/18) Initiatives. PPD #8 provides an 

opportunity to improve floodplain management by providing a partnership venue to ensure assistance 

is available to integrate mitigation and floodplain management into recovery, mitigation and response 

policies, plans, programs, nnd decision making. TI1e FJFM Task Force is developing processes to 

ensure that it is coordinating closely with the leadership structure of the National Disaster Recovery, 

Mitigation, and Response Frameworks as developed under PPD 118, specifically as it relates to 

floodplain management. 

Comm1mlcatlo11 

Promote the Task Force Role in ResoMag Intcrngency Conflicts. One reason the Task Force was 

fonned wus to identify and address policy or programmatic conflicts among federal agencies that may 

be resulting in poor floodplain management decisions. The Tnsk Force will more actively promote its 

role in addressing these issues and oppo1tunities so other members of the floodplain management 

community are aware of the potential resource the Task Force can offer. 

As noted previously, many of the above recommendations will be merged into the Task Force's work plan. 

Participation by all federal agencies in support of Task Force efforts is encouraged. Please contact any 

member of the Task Force for further infom1ation on the work of the Tnsk force or its current activities. 

Dd~~$~U~·' 

Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administration 

Co-Chair, FIFM-TF 

Date: ~d-¢~--

J -l llen Darcy --

As stant Secretary of the Anny (Civil Works) 

C Chair, FfFM-TF 
 xxvii

UNITEt> STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 2 

NOY 1 3 2014 

Peter R. Blum, P.E. 

Chief, Planning Division 

290 BROADWAY 

NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866 

Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers 

Wanamaker Building, JOO Pe1m Square East 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-3391 

Dear Mr. Blum: 

This letter is in response to the New Jersey Shore Protection Study, Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet, Final Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment (EA). The document 

addressed hurricane and stonn damage reduction alternatives for the coastal communities located 

between Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet, in Cape May County, New Jersey. 

The selected storm damage reduction plan will entail backpassing sand obtained from the 

beaches of Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township to create a dune and benn. These 

locations are experiencing beach accumulation that is impacting municipal outfall systems that 

drain stonn water to the ocean. The excess sand will be used to form a continuous dune and 

berm within North Wildwood, which is experiencing beach erosion, as well as Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. The sand for the dune and berm will be transported 

using a mobile back-passing technology to hydraulically pump the sand from within the 

intertidal zone. The plan includes periodic nourishment every four years. The sand for 

nourishment efforts will be sourced from the approved borrow zone. 

In our review, we did not notice whether our comment regarding the orientation of entry 

points/access paths along the dune was addressed so we are reiterating our recommendation. 

Access paths are often created perpendicular to the shore, resulting in significant dune erosion 

dudng intense Storms and greater inland impacts. High force waves gain power as they push 

through the narrow passages causing increased erosion and flooding. Reduced flooding was seen 

after Super Storm Sandy behind dunes that had paths at a 45 degree angle rather than 

perpendicular to the shoreline. EPA continues to maintain that this modification could enhance 

the resiliency of the beaches and we recommend the inclusion of this infonnation in the decision 

document for the project. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Racyclod/Recyclable • Printed with Vogatable Oil Based Inks on Reeyol&d Papor (Minimum 60% Pootconsumor content) 
 xxviii

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions concerning this letter 

please feel free to contact Stephanie Lamster ofmy staff at 212-637-3465. 

Sincerely, 

Grace Musumeci, Chief 

Environmental Review Section 
 xxix

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

Planning and Policy Division 

Ms. Grace Musumeci 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

441 G STREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20314-1000 

DEC 2 2 2014 

Chief, Environmental Review Section 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 2 

290 Broadway 

New York, NY 10007-1866 

Dear Ms. Musumeci: 

This letter is in response to your comments on the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Shore 

Protection Project provided in a letter dated November 13, 2014. We value and appreciate your 

commentary on the proposed project. 

In regards to the orientation of the proposed entry points/access paths along the dune, we 

apologize if the response contained in our report was unclear. The plans contained in the report 

show the seaward side of all of the vehicular and pedestrian crossovers would be constructed at 

an angle to the dune, not perpendicular in order to enhance dune resiliency during storm events. 

The information is specifically contained in Volume 3, Appendix G-2, page 16 of the repo1t. 

Again, we thank you for the commentary that you have provided. If you would like to 

discuss these issues fmthcr, please contact the review manager, Lee Ware, at (202) 761-0523. 

Sincerely, 

,--Jl-&tNJ/ [J,_0\AJ-J''0 

Theodore A. Brown, P.H. 

Chiet: Planning and Policy Division 

Directorate of Civil Works 

Pririled on (i) Recycted Paper 
 xxx

CHRIS CHRISTIE 

Governor 

KlM GUADAGNO 

Lt. Governor 

John C. Becking, P.E. 

jibd:.e of ~.efn J.erstij 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVJRONMh'NTAL PROTECTION 

NA11JRAL & Hl8TOR!C RESOURCES 

Office of Engineering and Constructions 

50 l East State Street 

Mail Code 501-0lA 

P. 0. Box420 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 

TeL 609-292-9236 FAX 609-984-1908 

April 9, 2014 

Lieutenant Colonel, US Army Corps ofEngineers 

Philadelphia District 

Wanamaker Building 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Reference: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Dear Colonel Becking: 

BOB MARTIN 

Commissioner 

The purpose of this letter is to confirm the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection's (Department) support of the US Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) reconunended 

plan contained in the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study. The Department is 

committed to partnering with the USACE Philadelphia District and will continue to provide the 

staffing and support needed to complete the project. 

Sincerely, 

( 

Dave Rosenblatt 

Administrator 


d iti I d 

11111 
 xxxiv
1. 
 xxxvi
 xxxvii
 xxxviii

-
• Use of natural dune elevations, berm elevations, side slopes 

• Consideratio
Non•strucft.1rat 

Alternatives 

NoAotion Berm & Dune1Restoratibrt1:1sing 

Regulatton of future development . Berm & Dune ~estoratioii fr~mia

Permanent evacuation Groins 

Excc1vat~ ;5a~d from in Front of 

Extend Outfalls 

CoitlbirteC]utfalls' / // , / /,'', 

Bulkhead around Piers 

;" ,; ''.'"'i ,' "', ', ,/, :, ", ,> 'h 

Hereford. ln[etCllannel'Maintena

.. Giot~ifile ft1bes 
Reco 

5 
 xlii
20 

15 

10 

-10-

-15 

DESIGN SAND FILL 

ONSHORE VOLUME 

DESIGN BEACHFILL 

OFFSHORE VOLUME 

-

SEAWARD EDGE 

OF BERM 

TOP OF BERM +6.5 

MHW +1.35 

ADVANCED 

NOURISHMENT 

PORTION OF DESIGN 

OFFSHORE VOLUME 

PLACED ONSHORE 

TOP OF DUNE ELEV. + 16 

DU

-zoo--....-...... -9-:-":,oo:-+--+--+-_~eoo..,.,...,.._..,___,__~7~00,......_,..__, __ ~600..,.,...,..._...,__,__~~~o,......_,.__, ___ 400..,.,.._,_

DISTANCE FROM SURVE.Y S\SEUNE (f'EET) 

HEREFO

lYPICH.. B

EL
Wildwoo

DESIGN SAND FILL 

ONSHORE VOLUME 

BORROW 

AREA 

VOLUME 

NOTES: 

MHW +1.35 

MLW -2.75 

EXISTING BEACH PROFILE (VARIES)~ TOP OF DUNE ELEV 

SLOPE VARIES TOP OF DESIGN 

BERM +6 5 

,.--1 _J7

--1 VARIES 300' TO 11 oo· 

DISTANCE FROM SURVEY BASELINE 

I. EXACT LIMITS OF BORROW AREA MAY VARY FROM THAT SHOWN HERE, BASED ON EXISTING 

BEACH CONDITIONS AND DREDGING EQUIPMENT SELECTED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 

2. CENTERLINE OF NEW DUNE IS LOCATED ALONG THE SEAWARD EDGE OF THE EXISTING DUNES 

IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE SAND VOLUME REQUIRED 

3. NEW DUNE VEGETATION IS NOT SHOWN. 

HEREF

TYPICAL 

B£A
2 

:111 

; 1 

DESIGN SAND FILL 

l.:..:.:.:..:.! ONSHORE VOLUME 

25' 

TOP OF DUNE ELEV. + 16 

EXISTING BEACH PROFILE (VARIES)~ TOP OF DESIGN 

---..._ BERM +65 

___J 75' 

DU

MHW +1.35 

.MLW...:::2.75-

_ 

-15'-~-.t,.,....-.l,,.;;,-.-rl,,s.--,t,.,....-.t1<1<~rl-l<..--~,.,....--':m1...--rl0<1<"~~~'"1!1,:..-~

DISTANCE FROM 8'SEUNE {FEET) 

NOTES: 

1. CENTERLINE OF NEW DUNE IS LOCATED ALONG THE SEAWARD EDGE OF THE EXISTING DUNES IN ORDER TO 

2. NEW DUNE VEGETATION IS NOT SHOWN. 
• 

I 

!Ill 

Ill 

11111 

1111 

• I 

Ill 

• I 
• 

I 

1111 

Ill 

1111 

Ill 

Ill 

1111 

1111 
$1. 

$ 
 xlix

w 

0 

·-'+-' 

co 

s..,_ 

Q.) 

-0 

·-(/') 

C 

0 

() -

co 

+""' 

C 

(]) 

0 

s..,_ 

·-

lllll 
Ii 
I I 

1111 

16 

-15 
1 
(1)

US Arm:,.· Corps 

of En~ineers 

Philadelphia District 

NEW JERSEY 

SHORE PROTECTION STUDY 

New Jersey Department 

ofEnYironmental 

Protection 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet 

Final Feasibility Report and Integrated 

Environmental Assessment 

Volume 1 Final Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment 

4/28/20]4 
2

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Final Feasibility Report 

And Integrated Enrironmental Assessment 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page2 
3

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Final Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment 

ABSTRACT: This Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (EA) presents the 

findings of a study to determine a hurricane and storm damage reduction plan for coastal 

communities located between Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet, Cape May County, NJ. The 

report describes the engineering, economic, social, and environmental analyses that were 

conducted to develop a selected plan of action. Potential impacts to cultural and environmental 

resources are evaluated herein in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and Section l06 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

NOTE TO READER: To provide full and convenient access to the environmental, economic, 

and engineering documentation prepared for the study, the EA for this project has been 

integrated into this feasibility report in accordance with Engineering Regulation I 105-2-100. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 3 
4

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Final Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Final Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment (EA) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Proposed Action: Dune and berm construction through the backpassing of sand from a beach 

borrow source in Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township for all 

of the oceanfront communities between Hereford Inlet and Cape May, 

New Jersey. 

Location of Action: Municipalities of North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and 

Lower Township. 

Type of Statement: Final Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment (EA). 

Lead Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District 

More Information: For further information please contact: 

Pete Blum, Chief, Planning Division 

Attn: Beth Brandreth, Environmental Resources Branch 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia 

Wanamaker Building, JOO Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

Telephone: (215) 656-6555 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page4 
5

Executive Summary 

This report presents the results of a feasibility study to determine a solution and the extent of 

Federal participation for a project that provides hurricane and storm damage reduction for 

communities located on the Atlantic coast of New Jersey between Hereford Inlet and Cape May 

Inlet (Figure ES-I). The plan will include backpassing sand from the beach in Wildwood 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township into a dune and berm in North Wildwood, Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township (Figures ES-2, ES-3 and ES-4). The lead agency for this 

study is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District The study was authorized by 

resolutions by the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate in December 1987. 

This report was prepared based on recommendations of the reconnaissance study completed in 

2001 that identified potential solutions to sand accretion, erosion and storm damage problems 

within the study area. The reconnaissance study detennined that a solution was in the Federal 

interest and identified the non-Federal sponsor as the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP) and proceeded to the more detailed Feasibility phase. 

The feasibility study was cost shared between the Federal Government and the State of New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) under provisions of the Feasibility 

Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) executed, 30 September 2002 and supplemental guidance from 

Public Law (P.L) I 13-2, the Hurricane and Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, signed on 29 

January 2013. Public Law 113-2 instructed the Corps to fund the remainder of the feasibility 

study at a I 00% Federal cost 

The feasibility study evaluated various alternative plans to provide hutTicane and storm damage 

reduction benefits. The study area is vulnerable to storm erosion, wave, and inundation damage 

produced by hurricanes and northeasters. It has also experienced a period of excessive beach 

growth that is causing problems with municipal drainage and safety. Severe storms in recent 

years have continued to erode the beaches and have exposed communities to the potential for 

catastrophic coastal erosion and flooding. 

The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Study Area is unique to other projects in the New Jersey 

Shore Protection Study. It has two distinct problems; erosion at the n011hern portion of the 

island and the accretion of sand at the southern portion of the island. The northern portion of the 

island has experienced erosion over the past IO years that has exposed property to storn1 damage. 

The southern portion of the project area is accreting sand rapidly. This accretion is clogging 

municipal outfalls that drain stmm water from the interior portions of the island to the sea. Our 

investigations have evaluated adjusting this beach to address both the erosion and accretion 

problem. A Section 404(b) ( l) evaluation has been prepared and is included in this Feasibility 

Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment This evaluation concludes that the proposed 

action would not result in any significant environmental impacts relative to the areas of concern 

under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. 

The selected plan has primaty benefits based on hurricane and storm damage reduction. The 

plan provides average annual net benefits of$3,565,000 (March 2014 P.L.) and a benefit-to-cost 

ratio of2.3. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 5 
6

The total initial project construction cost is estimated at $21,605,000 (March 2014 PL) Lands, 

Easements, Rights-of Ways, Relocations, and Dredged Material Disposal Areas (LERRD) costs 

are estimated at $1,273,511 and will be credited towards the non-Federal Sponsor's cash 

contribution. 

Periodic nourishment is scheduled to occur at 4-year intervals subsequent to completion of initial 

construction (year 0). Over 50 years, total periodic nourishment cost is estimated at $82,428,000 

(March 2014 P.L) and includes PE&D monitoring during construction. 

Figure ES-1- Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Project Area 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 6 
7

Table ES-I Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Description of the Selected Plan 

·. 

J3rnn Ekvation 

Ikrm\Vidth 

Scmrnrd Benn Slope 

Dunc Elcrntion 

Dunc Width at Crest 

Dunc Side Skpc,~ 

Dune Offs.;,t for :\laintenancc ofExi~ting 

Structures 

J,en,thofPro·cct 

luilial SandOuantit, 

Periodic ?\oun~hment ()uanti!'\ 

:\fajorRc, lac,c,mc,ntOuantitv 

TancrS<..'ct!on 

BoJTo\, Source I.o..:ation 

Duns:Gra,s 

PedestrianDun.:Crosso,,m, 

75foct 

25foct 

1.5 

30foet 

25.000fed 

L527,250 

391,{){)() 

5-t4.250 

".\Jorthcm tan.:r- 200 fed 

Bca.:h !l1 Wildv.ood. Wildwood Crest and 

LO\\c,rTO\\!lship. 

64 acrc8 

7cxisti110. 6nc\\ 

44cxistm0 • 7new 

8 e~islin . 5 !l\O\\ 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

•··.·. Remarlls 

:-Jonh \\'iklwood. Wild\,ood. \\1ild\\Ood 

Cr.:cstandl..-0\\crl\mnship 

Benn width measured from seaward base of 

dunctobcnncrcst 

Same as av.:cragc existing condition 

Similartosurroundin re ionalbca.::hcs 

Standtm!Cakh\ell section 

Standard Caldwell ~cct1on 

Rcquirs.,d dtm>.' offsets an: rdkctcd in 

sc!ectd plan layout 

Project extend~ from ;-;011h \\'ildwood to 

rnuthcmti ofDiamondlkach 

Include~ a<lvam.:cd nourishment with o\·crfi!l 

Includc~owrfi!! 

Indudsl,~ pcnod1.: nounshm.:n1 with overfill: 

as 

.,nd 

,.,~ .. ;"""" "' <1.,, l 'SV\\: nro .:rtv. 

Overfiltfactorofl.5forboJTO\\ m,1tcrial 

\Ion<> base of dune and at cro8sovers 

Indudc,~ handica a.:~·.:ss rnmns 

Page 7 
8

Figure ES-2 North Wildwood 

Figure ES-3 Wildwood aud Wildwood Crest 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 8 
9

Figure ES-4 Lower Township. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

TYl'ICAl~CROSSSlTIION 

SlATIOlt240+001{)31#03 

Page 9 
10

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT(FONSI) FOR HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET 

STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, CAPE MAY COUNTY NEW JERSEY 

The United States Anny Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, has evaluated the potential 

environmental impacts associated with the construction of the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Stonn Damage Reduction Project, and prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). The 

selected plan involves backpassing sand obtained from the beaches of Wildwood, Wildwood 

Crest and Lower Township to construct a berm and dune for the purpose of storm damage 

reduction. Backpassing will be accomplished through the use of hydraulic backpassing 

techniques within the intertidal zone. Excess sand from Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower 

Township will be used to fonn a continuous dune and a benn within North Wildwood, 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. The selected plan includes a dune at 

elevation +16 NAVD88 with a crest width of25' and a 75' wide berm with an elevation of 

+6.5' Slopes for the dune will be I V:5H and 1 :30 for the seaward slope of the berm. The plan 

includes the installation of approximately 64 acres of dune grass, 28,000 linear feet of sand 

fence, 44 extended crossovers, 7 new pedestrian crossovers, 7 extended handicap crossovers, 6 

new handicap crossovers, 8 existing vehicle crossover extensions and 5 new vehicular 

crossovers. To maintain the design template, this plan also included periodic nourishment every 

four years. Initial construction for the project will remove approximately 1,527,250 cubic yards 

(cy) of sand from the approved borrow zone, which includes a design quantity of 1,136,250 cy 

and advanced nourishment of391,000 cy. Following the initial construction, approximately 

391,000 cy of material will be backpassed every four years for periodic nourishment of the 

selected plan. 

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and CEQ 

regulations, the Philadelphia District has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to 

document the potential impacts associated with the proposed plan. The EA for the project was 

forwarded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), and all other known interested 

parties for comment. 

The EA has determined that the hydraulic back-passing of sand from Wildwood and Wildwood 

Crest for beach nourishment and restoration activities in North Wildwood, Wildwood, 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township would not likely jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species or the critical habitat of any fish, wildlife, or plant, which is designated 

as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended by 

PL 96-159. 

The EA has concluded that the project can be conducted in a manner which should not violate 

New Jersey's Water Quality Standards. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a 401 

Water Quality Certificate was obtained from the NJDEP during the review of the Draft EA. 

Based on the information developed during preparation of the EA, it was determined in 

accordance with Section 307 (C) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 that the plan 

complies with and can be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved Coastal 

Zone Management Program of New Jersey. A Federal Consistency Detennination and Water 

Quality Certificate were received from NJDEP on 7 March 2014 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 10 
11

There are no known properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of 

Historic Places that would be affected by the proposed activity. The plan has been designed to 

avoid archaeologically sensitive areas, and is therefore not expected to impact any cultural 

resources. The NJSPO agreed witb this determination in a letter dated 20 December 2013. 

In accordance with the Clean Air Act, this project will comply with the General Conformity 

(GC) requirement (40CFR§90.153) through the following options that have been coordinated 

with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP); statutory exemption, 

emission reduction opportunities, use of the Joint Base McGuire/Lakehurst GC State 

Implementation Plan budget, and/or the purchase of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) ozone season oxides of nitrogen (NOx) allowances. This 

project is not de minimis under 40CFR§90. I 53, therefore one or a combination of these options 

will be used to meet the GC requirements. The project specific option(s) for meeting GC are 

detailed in the Statement of Conformity (SOC), which is required under 40CFR§90. J 58. 

Because the EA concludes that the proposed project does not constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the human environment, I have determined that an Environmental Impact 

Statement is not required. 

Date 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

Michael A. Bliss, PE 

Lieutenant Colonel, 

Corps of Engineers 

District Commander 

Page 11 
12

Environmental Operating Principles 

The United States Anny Corps of Engineers Environmental Operating Principles were developed 

to ensure that Corps of Engineers missions include integrated and sustainable environmental 

practices. The Piinciples provided corporate direction to ensure the workforce recognized the 

Corps of Engineers role in, and responsibility for, sustainable use, stewardship, and restoration of 

natural resources across the Nation and, through the international reach of its support missions. 

Since the Environmental Operating Principles were introduced in 2002 they have instilled 

environmental stewardship across business practices from recycling and reduced energy use at 

Corps and customer facilities to a fuller consideration of the environmental impacts of Corps 

actions and meaningful collaboration within the larger environmental community. The concepts 

embedded in the original Principles remain vital to the success of the Corps and its missions. 

However, as the Nation's resource challenges and priorities have evolved, the Corps has 

responded by close examination and refinement of work processes and operating practices. This 

self-examination includes how the Corps considers environmental issues in all aspects of the 

corporate enterprise. In particular, the strong emphasis on sustainability must be translated into 

everyday actions that have an effect on the environmental conditions of today, as well as the 

uncertainties and risks of the future. These challenges are complex, ranging from global trends 

such as increasing and competing demands for water and energy, climate and sea level change, 

and declining biodiversity; to localized manifestations of these issues in extreme weather events, 

the spread of invasive species, and demographic shifts. Accordingly, the Corps of Engineers is 

re-invigorating commitment to the Environmental Operating Principles in light of this changing 

context The Environmental Operating Principles relate to the human environment and apply to 

all aspects of business and operations. They apply across Military Programs, Civil Works, 

Research and Development, and across the Corps. The Principles require a recognition and 

acceptance of individual responsibility from senior leaders to the newest team members. Recommitting to these principles and environmental stewardship will lead to more efficient and 

effective solutions, and will enable the Corps of Engineers to further leverage resources through 

collaboration. This is essential for successful integrated resources management, restoration of the 

environment and sustainable and energy efficient approaches to all Corps of Engineers mission 

areas. It is also an essential component of the Corps ofEngineers1 risk management approach in 

decision making, allowing the organization to offset uncertainty by building flexibility into the 

management and construction of infrastructure. The Corps included integrated environmental 

practice by; 

Environmental Operating Principles. The HerefiJrd Inlet to Cape May Shore Protection Study, 

Feasibility Report and loA was conducted in a manner consistent with the intent of the USACE's 

Environmental Operating Principles, that is, to ensure its commitment to the environmental 

quality of the Hereford Inlet to Cape May area in balance with the economy of the region. This 

integrated feasibility study complies with the Environmental Operating Principles as 

follows: 

1. Foster sustainability as a way of life thro11ffho11t the organization This integrated feasibility 

report/EA uses an approach that considers the sustainability of the project in order to maintain 

a healthy, diverse and sustainable condition needed to support life. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 12 
13

2. Proactively consider environmental consequences cf all Cmps activities and act accordint((}I. 

This integrated feasibility report/EA includes an analysis of the environmental consequences of 

the project on all resources within the Hereford to Cape May area, including socioeconomic 

resources, interdependently with shoreline protection plan formulation and project 

recommendations_ 

3. Create mutual(v supportint( economic and environmentally sustainable solutions. The 

Herejrwd Inlet lo Cape May Shore Protection Study Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and EA 

has been conducted in a multi agency, regional planning context to ensure that land use, 

residential, and commercial development patterns and economic considerations are incorporated 

into the development of sustainable and synergistic shoreline protection solutions. BMPs or 

restoration initiatives have been identified in a manner that achieves a balance between economic 

development and the environmental stewardship. 

-I. Continue to meet our corporate responsibility and accountability under the law f<Jr activitie5; 

undertaken by the Cmps, which may impact human and natural environments. Effective 

coordination between the project delivery team and the resources agencies, through 

stakeholder meetings, public meetings and day-t(}-day correspondence, has ensured that the 

Corps has met all of its responsibilities under law. The components of the tentatively selected 

Shoreline protection plan have been formulated to ensure that no significant adverse impacts 

to human health and welfare will result from project implementation. 

5. Consider the environment in employing a risk management and .systems approach throughout 

the life cycles of projects and programs. A detailed monitoring and adaptive management plan 

were developed for the Hereford Inlet to Cape May shoreline protection study as a strategy to 

manage the future risk of the project A systems-based approach that considers all elements of 

the shoreline environment was applied to confirm that effects from project implementation on 

the environment are beneficial, as the project purpose is shoreline protection_ 

6. Leverage ,<,.·cientific, economic and social knmf!ledge to understand the environmental context 

and e.ffects ofCotps actions in a collaborative manner. Effective coordination between the 

project delivery team, the project's steering comprised ofa variety of basin stakeholders, public 

meetings and communication with the appropriate partnering agencies ensured that the project 

benefited from a range of diverse perspectives and ideas. This integrated knowledge base 

enhances the petformance and sustainability of project features, through incorporation ofa 

greater understanding of the Hereford Inlet to Cape May shoreline area. 

7. Employ an open, transparent process that respects vieivs qfindividuals and groups interested 

in Corps activities. The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Shore Protection Study Draji [ntegrated 

Feasibility Report and EA has benefitted from incorporating a range of diverse perspectives 

and regional technical expertise. Interagency collaboration has been fostered through the 

efforts of a steering committee and project delivery team meetings held regularly. By 

implementing a multiagency collaboration and public involvement strategy, a range of 

technical input was incorporated into the study analyses from multiple disciplines. This 

approach built trust and positive relationships, supporting innovative "win-win'' solutions to 

identified shoreline protection issues. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 13 
14

Contributions to the USACE Campaign Plan 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is moving fonvard with a Campaign Plan to transfo1m the 

way we do business. The Corps will grow stronger and become a great organization by 

delivering superior performance, setting the standard for our profession, making a positive 

impact on the Nation and other nations, and building to last, as evidenced by the strength of our 

team - educated, trained, experienced, and certified professionals. Our intent is for the Corps to 

be one disciplined team in thought, word, and action -- and to meet our commitments by 

saying what we will do, and doing what we say. 

The USACE campaign plan is comprised of four separate goals; 1- Supporting the Warfighter, 2-

Transforrning Civil Works, 3- Reducing Disaster Risks, and 4- Preparing for Tomorrow. 

Transfonning Civil works will enable the Corps to deliver essential water resource solutions 

using effective transformation strategies through a systems based watershed approach. The 

Hereford project contributes to watershed sustainability by re- using excess sand in a way that 

will reduce hurricane and stonn damages, reduce impacts to benthic resources and improve 

storm drainage. 

Reducing Disaster Risk will be achieved through the reduction in stonn risk offered by tbe 

protective dune and berm allowing the municipalities within the island to withstand the impacts 

from coastal storms, be more resilient in their recovery from storms and be more robust in the 

face of future sea level rise. 

Preparing for Tomorrow contributions are through tbe employment of new technologies to 

regionally distribute sand resources through the use of mobile sediment backpassing technology 

to achieve Regional Sediment Management (RSM) goals, maintain a commitment to the project 

area through periodic nourishment and life cycle adaptive management while mitigating for 

increases in water levels and stom1 frequency. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 14 
15

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Feasibility report and Integrated Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents 

Volume I 

1.0 Introduction .... .. ........................................................ .25 

1.1 Study Background .. 

1.2 Study Auth01ization .. 

...25 

. ... 26 

1.3 Study Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................... 27 

1.4 Study Area 

1.5 The non -Federal Sponsor ...................................................................................................... 39 

1.6 Prior Studies, Reports, Projects -Federal ............................................................................ .40 

1.7 Prior Studies, Reports and Projects-State.. .. .................................................... .44 

1.8 Prior Studies, Reports, Projects- Municipal.. . .. ..... .45 

1.9 Project Area Photos... .. ..... 47 

2.0 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 51 

2.1.I Socioeconomic Resources. .. .......................................................................... 51 

2.1.2 Population and Land Use .............................................................................................. 51 

2.1.3 Employment and Income ................................................................................................ 53 

2. l .4 Regional Economy and Development... . .... 55 

2.1.5 Cape May County Toll Volumes.. .. ..... 58 

2.2 Environmental Resources. .. ....... 59 

2.2. l Environmental Setting.. .. ... 59 

2.2.2 Air Quality.. . ................ 60 

2.2.3 Natural Forces ......................................................................................................... 61 

2.2.4 Temperature and Salinity.. .. ............. 62 

2.2.5 Water Quality Parameters.. . .................. 63 

2.2.6 Wetland Habitats.. .. .. 65 

2.2.7 Dune Habitat.. ... 66 

2.2.8 Upper Beach Habitat.... .. .................................. 67 

2.2.9 Intertidal Zone Habitat ............................................................................................. 67 

2.2. l O Benthos of Intertidal and Subtidal Zone ........................................................................... 67 

2.2. l l Nearshore and Offshore Zones .......................................................................................... 68 

2.2. l2 Benthos ofNearshore and Offshore Zones .. 

2.2.13 Plankton and Marine Macroalgae .. 

2.2.14 Finfish .. 

2.2.15 Shellfish. 

··················· ........................... 69 

. ................ 69 

. ................. 70 

. .................................... ~I 

2.2.16 Essential Fish Habitat. .. .. 72 

2.2.17 Birds ............................................................................................................................. 75 

2.2.18 Mammals, Amphibians, Reptiles ..................................................................................... 75 

2.2.19 Threatened and Endangered Species. . ................................................................... 76 

2.2.20 Recreation... .. ........ 78 

2.2.21 Visual and Aesthetic Values... .. ........ 78 

2.2.22 Noise ............ 78 

2.3 Cultural Resources.. .. ...................... 79 

2.3.1 Historic Background ....................................................................................................... 79 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final FeasibJllty Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 15 
16

2.3 .2 Cultural Environment .. . .. 85 

2.3.3 The Battle of Turtle Gut Inlet ... . ................ 86 

2.3.4 "Doo Wop" Architecture. .. .... 88 

2.4 Geotechnical Analysis .......................................................................................................... 89 

2.4. I Geomorphology. .. ...................... 89 

2.4.2 Physiography.. ...91 

2.4.3 Drainage of the Coastal Plain.. .. .................... 91 

2.4.4 Geologic Conditions ............................................................ 91 

2.4.5 Surface Deposits. .. ............. 92 

2.4.6 Subsurface Geoloe,'Y (Principal Stratigraphy and Aquifers) ............................................... 93 

2.4.8 Native Beach and Borrow Source Data Collection ......................................................... 98 

2.4.9 Acoustic Sub-bottom Profiles.. .. .. 99 

2.4.10 Investigation of Potential Borrow Areas.... . ......................... 99 

2.4.11 Native Beach Characteristics.. . .. .................. 100 

2.4.12 Borrow Area Suitability Analysis... . ......... 103 

2.4.13 Potential Borrow Areas ................................................................................................. 105 

2.4. [5 Approximate Perimeter Coordinates of Potential Borrow Areas .................................. 110 

2.4.16 Details of Borrow Area Design Analyses.. .. ................ 111 

2.4.17 Hereford Inlet Borrow Area- Subareas H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4 and Total Area "I-f' ......... 111 

2.4.18 Wildwood - Wildwood Crest -Area "WW/WC" (Formerly Area "D").. . ............. 113 

2.4.19 Offshore Borrow Areas. .. ... 114 

2.4.20 Supplemental Investigations .................................................................................... 116 

2.5 Structure Inventory ........................................................................................................ 116 

2.5.1 Shore Protection Structure Inventory.. ..117 

2.5.2 Municipal Outfall Inventory. .. ... 118 

2.5.3 Pier lnventoty... .. ..................................... 119 

2.6 Coastal Processes.... . ............ 119 

2.6.l Waves ........................................................................................................................... 119 

2.6.2 Winds .............................................. 127 

2.6.3 Tides. . ......................................................... 129 

2.6.4 Sea Level Rise.. . ............. 129 

2.6.5 Storms ....... 131 

2.6.6 Ocean Stage Frequency.. .. ............ 139 

2.6.7 Longshore Sediment Transport.. .. ........................................................... 140 

2.6.8 Beach Profile Characteristics ..................................................................................... 142 

2.6.9 Bathymetry.. . ......... 149 

2.6.10 Inlet Sediment Bypassing. .. ......... 156 

2.6.12 Section 111-Shore Damage Attributable to Federal Navigation Projects.. .... 158 

2.7 Summary of Historic Shoreline Conditions.. .. ....... 161 

2.7.1 Prior Shoreline Change Studies .................................................................................. 161 

2.7.2 Historic Aerial Photography 1933-2012.. .. .............................................. 162 

2.7.3 Analysis of Beach Profile Data, 1955-2003, 2012 ............................................................ 171 

2.8.1 Sediment Budget... ......... 183 

2.8.2 Analysis Procedures.. .......... 184 

2.8.3 Sediment Budget Uncertainty.... .. ....... 185 

2.8.4 Sediment Budget Balancing.. .. ................................................................... 186 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 16 
17

2.8.5 Sediment Budget Results.. . ..... 186 

3. 0 Without Proj eel Analysis.. . .... l 90 

3.1 Hydraulic Analysis... . ................................................. 190 

3.1.1 Stonn Erosion, Inundation and Wave Attack Analyses .................................................. 190 

3.1.2 Factors Influencing Storm Effects.. . ............. 190 

3.1.3 Modeling Storm-induced Erosion.. . ... 191 

3.1.4 Overview of SBEACH Methodology.. . ........ 191 

3.1.5 SBEACH Calibration.. . .................... 192 

3. J .6 Development of Input Data for Storm Erosion Modeling .......................................... 195 

3.1.7 Profile Data.. . ................................................................ 195 

3.1.8 Model Parameters. . ........................................ .20] 

3. J .9 Water Elevation. . .............. 201 

3.1.10 Wave Height, Period, and Angle. ..201 

3. l.11 Stonn Parameters... . ... 201 

3. I.l2 Stonn Erosion Simulations.. . ........... .202 

3. l.l3 Analysis of Erosion Model Results. . .. 213 

3.1.14 Stonn Inundation and Wave Attack Evaluation. . ....................... 214 

3.1. J 5 Inundation/Wave Attack Methodology.. . ......... 214 

3.1.16 Back Bay Flooding. . ...... 215 

3.l.170ther Parameters.. . ........................................ 215 

3.1.!8 Without Project Inundation and Wave Attack Results. . ................................. 215 

3.2 Economic Analysis. . ... 215 

3.2.1 Recent Storms.. . ................................................ 216 

3.2.2 Structure Inventory. . . ...................................... 2 J 8 

3.2.3 Stonn Damage Methodology.... . ............. .220 

3.2.4 Erosion Damages.. .. .......... ....... 221 

3.2.5 Wave-Inundation Damages... . ...... 222 

3.2.6 Emergency Clean-Up Infom1ation.. . .................................. 223 

3.2.7 Damage Zone Structures.. . ................... . -223 

3.2.8 Structure Damages... . ......................... 225 

3.2.9 Infrastructure and Improved Property Damages.... . ....... 225 

3.2.10 Summary of Damages.. . ..... 226 

3.2.11 Emergency/Clean-Up Costs.. . ................................ 226 

3.2.12 Back Bay Flooding ...................................................................................................... 227 

3.2.13 Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township .................................................... 227 

3.2.14 Accreted Area Damage Summary. . . ........ 227 

3.2.15 Amusement Piers Damages. . ...... 228 

3.2.16 Estimated Total Damages. . ........... 228 

3.2.17 Beach Maintenance.. . . .. 229 

3.3 Future Without Project Conditions.. . .................... 231 

3.3.1 Future Without Project Hydraulic Conditions .............................................................. 232 

3.3.2 Future Without Project Economic Conditions... . ....................................... 233 

3.3.2.1 Additional Study Efforts as a Result of Hurricane Sandy.. . ......... 233 

3.3.2.2 FEMA, the Community Rating System, and the Hazard Mitigation Program .............. 234 

3.3.2.3 Community Rating System (CRS).... . ....... 234 

3.3.2.4 The Hazard Mitigation Program (HMP) ................................................................... 235 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 17 
18

3.3.2.5 Increased Cost of Compliance Grant.... . ....... 235 

3.3.2.6 Impacts ofFEMA grants and Floodplain Maps on Structure Database. . ...... 235 

4.0 With Project Analysis... . ............................ 238 

4. l General ........................................................................................................................... 238 

4.2 Planning Objectives ........................................................................................................ 238 

43CMm~u.. .~9 

4.3 .1 Planning Constraints.. ..239 

4.3.2 Technical Constraints.... . .............................. 239 

4.3.3 Economic Constraints.. . ................. 239 

4.3.4 Environmental Constraints .............................................................................................. 240 

4.3.5 Institutional Constraints .............................................................................................. .240 

4.3.6 Regional and Social Constraints.. . .. 241 

4.4 Problems Within the Study Area.. . .... .241 

4.5 Cycle l - Initial Screening of Solutions.. . .................. .242 

4.6 Cycle-2 ........... .251 

4. 7 Cycle-3 ............................................................................................................................. 262 

4. 7.1 Beachfill Design Parameters ....................................................................................... 262 

4.7.2 Berm and Dune Heights for Previously Authorized Federal Projects.... . ............. 264 

4. 7.3 Pier Protection Measures... . ..... . .269 

4.7.4 Storm Damage Reduction Benefits.. . .... 272 

4.7.5 Optimization.. ..273 

4.8 Summary of Optimized Plan ........................................................................................... .278 

4.9 Resiliency, Risk Reduction and Sustainability .............................................................. 278 

4.9.1 

4. 9 .4 Sustainability.. . ............ 28 l 

5.0 Selected Plan ..................................................................................................................... 283 

5.1 Identification of the Selected Plan ................................................................................ 283 

5.1.1 Description of the Selected Plan.. . ...................................... 283 

5.1.2 Periodic Nourishment Requirements... . .... 284 

5. l.3 Borrow Area Infilling Analysis. . ........ 288 

5.1.4 Project Construction Template. . ............. .289 

5. l .5 Backpass Methodolo,,,y .............................................................................................. .298 

5.1.6 Existing Backpass Systems.. . ................................................ 298 

5. l .7 Sediment Backpassing Technology .................................................................................. 298 

5. l .8 Pumps ............. 300 

5.1.9 Major Replacement Requirements.. . .......................... 303 

5.1.10 Project Transitions and Tapers.... ..303 

5.2 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................... 304 

5.2. l Physical Environment ......................................................................................... .304 

5.2.2 Water Quality... . ....... 304 

5.23 Biological Environment... . ...... 305 

5.2.3.1 Terrestrial... . ............ 305 

5.2.4 Aquatic . . ......... .305 

5.2.4.1 Effects on Benthos ..................................................................................................... 305 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 18 
19

5.2.5. Impacts on Fisheries. 

5.2.5.l Finfish .. 

..306 

. ......... 306 

5.2.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat. . ............ 306 

5.2.7 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 309 

5.2.8 Impacts on Air and Noise Quality. . ........................................... 310 

5.2.9 Environmental Justice.. . ......... 311 

5.2.10 Cumulative Impacts.. . ............................ 311 

5.2. l l Coordination. . ......... 314 

5.2.12 Compliance with Environmental Statutes.. . .......................... 315 

5.3 Project Cost Estimate ....................................................................................................... 316 

5.3.l Cost Contingencies .................................................................................... ,. ............. .316 

5 .3 .2 Initial Construction Costs . . . .317 

5.3.2.1 Real Estate. . ...... 317 

5.3.2.2 Public Access.. . .......... .318 

5.3.3 Periodic Nourishment and Major Replacement Costs.. . .................... 318 

5.3.4 Construction Management (S&A) ................................................................................... 320 

5.3.5 Planning Engineering and Design ............................................................................. 320 

5.3.6 Project Monitoring... ..320 

5.3.6.1 Project Performance Monitoring.... . ...... 321 

5.3.6.2 Environmental Monitoring.. . ......... 322 

5.3.6.3 Total Monitoring Costs... . .......... 323 

5.3.7 Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) ............. 323 

5.3 .8 Construction and Funding Schedule.. . ..................................... 323 

5.3 .9 Interest During Construction.. . .............. .323 

5.4 Project Benefits.. . .......... 324 

5.4. l National Economic Development Benefits.... . ........ 324 

5.4.2 Local Costs Forgone... . ..................... 324 

5.4.3 Incidental Benefits ......................................................................................................... 325 

5.4.3 .1 Recreation Benefits .................................................................................................... 325 

5.4.3 .2 Benefits During Construction.. . ............... 327 

5.4.4 Benefit-Cost Summary.. . ....... 328 

5.5 Risk and Uncertainty Associated with Coastal Projects.... . ........ 329 

5.5.1 Risk and Uncertainty Coordination. . ....... 329 

5.5.2 Risk Analysis.. . ................................... 329 

5.5.3 Risk and Uncertainty Methodology ..................................................................... 330 

5.5.4 H&H Risk and Uncertainty methodology.. . . .................................... 330 

5.5.5 Economic Risk and Uncertainty Methodology.. . ...... 333 

5.5.6 Risk and Uncertainty Results.. . ......... 335 

5.6 Cost Sharing and Local Cooperation.. . ....... 338 

5.6.1 Sponsor Cooperation and Financial Capability .......................................................... 339 

5.6.2 Project Partnership Agreement.. . .............................................. 341 

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 345 

6.1 Conclusions.. . . ..... 345 

6.1. l Study Continuation: Needs and Requirements.. . ..... 345 

6.1.2 Additional Tasks... . .... 345 

6.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 347 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 19 
20

7.0 List 

8.0 Public Involvement 

9.0 Clean Air Act Statement of Conformity ........................................................................ 353 

10.0 District Legal Certification .................................................................................................. 354 

I LO Evaluation of 404 (B) (I) Guidelines ............................................................................ 355 

12.0 References .. 

13.0 Index 

14.0 Glossary of Terms .. 

List of Fij?;U res 

. ......... 364 

.......... 372 

. ........................................ 373 

Figure 1 ............................................................................... 28 

Figure 2 

Figure 3 North Wildwood ....... ------··· ..................... ·········--··--··· ......... ··--·--·--· ................................................ 30 

Figure 4 North Wild'>\·ood ........................................................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 5 North Wildwood and Wildwood.. . .. 32 

Figure G Wild\'rnod and Wild\vood Crest.. . ................................................................................ 33 

Figure 7 Wildwood and Wildwood Crest (Fishing Pier)... . ...... 34 

Figure 8 Wildwood Crest ........................................................................................................................................... 35 

Figure 9 Wild\vood Crest Diamond Beach... . .......................................................................................... 36 

Figure IO Lower Township. 7'/us area contains the US Fish and Wild!(fe Property ..................... ,. .......................... 37 

Figure 11 Cape May Inlet This area contains the 

Figure 12 Nm1h Wildwood, Hereford Inlet and 

Figure l3 North Wildwood (date unknown).... . ....... n Figure l-4NorthWild,vood 1991... . ................................................................................................. 48 

Figure 15 North Wildwood 2(K)..J. .............................................................................................................................. .48 

Figure 16 Clogged Outfall in Wild·wood .. . ........................................ .49 

Figure 17 Clogged Outfall in Wild,vood. looking sem:rard ....................................................................................... ...1-9 

Figure 18 Wildwood Crest Fishing Pier, 1990s ................................................................................................ 50 

Figure 19 Wildwood Crest Fishing Pier_ 2003 .... . ..... 50 

Fi!:,rure 20 Winter and Summer Population.... . ........ 52 

Figure 21 Historic Population... . ..................................................................................................................... 53 

Figure 22 Value of O,rncr Occupied Housing Units ............................................................................ 57 

Figure 23 Beach Intertidal and Nearshore Zones ..................... .. 

Figure 2-l Turtle Gut lnleL.. . ................... 86 

Figure 25 Turtle Gut Inlet Locality Sketch from the War Department ....................................................................... 87 

Figure 26 Physiographic Provinces.... . ..... 89 

Figure 27 Coastal Plain Aquifers .............................................................................................................................. 9-t. 

Figure 28 Stratigraphic Cross Section.. . ............................................................. 97 

Figure 29 Soil Classification ,p,ten>. ......................................... .. 

Figure 30 Wildwood Borra\\ .. 106 

Figure JI Hereford Inlet Borrow Arca ....................................................................................................... 107 

Figure 32 Wildwood and Wildwood Crest Borrow Arca.. . ................... 108 

Figure 33 Offshore Borrow Area... .109 

Figure 34 Waye Hindcast Stations ............................................................................................................................ 122 

Figure 35 Percent Occurrence rn,,ugrnu>. ..................................... .. 

Figure 36 Wave Rose of Station 

Figure 17 Wave Rose of Station 147 ... . ........................ 126 

Figure 38 Waye Rose of Station l-l-7 ................................................................................................................... 126 

Figure 39 Sea Level Trends Atlantic City. . ........................................ 130 

Figure 40 Hurricane Sandy Track ......................... , ................................................................................................... 133 

Figure .i l North Wildwood 2nd Avenue pre and post Sandy Surveys ......................................................... 134 

Figure .t2 10th Avenue in Wildwood pre and post Sandy Surveys ........................................................................... 134 

Figure -t.3 26th Avenue in North Wildwood/Wildwood pre and post Sandy Profiles.... . .................... 135 

Figure .i.t Baker Avenue in Wild,vood pre and post Sandy Surveys ...................................................................... 135 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 20 
21

Figure 45 Wildwood Crest Fem Road pre and post Sandy Surveys .................................................................. 136 

Figure 46 Wildwood Crest Trenton AYe pre and post Sandy SmYC)'S .............................................................. 136 

Figure 47 Bulkhead O\'ertopping at 2nd A\'cnuc in North Wild,vood During Sandy ............................................... 137 

Figure 48 Bulkhead Overtopping During Hurricane Sandy North Wildwood.. . ...... J 37 

Figure 49 Wild\,ood Post Stonn ............................................................................................................................ lJS 

Figure 50 Wildwood Crest Post Stonn .. . .......... 138 

Figure 5 l Beach Profile Locations.. .. ..................................... 1-J.7 

Figure 52 Wildwoods Bathymetry 1937-19--J.O ....................................................................................................... '" 150 

Figure 53 Wildwoods Bathymetry 1970-1977 

Figure 54 Wildwoods Bathymctry 1999-2004 .. . ......... 152 

Figure 55 Hereford Inlet Bathymetry 1994 .. . ...................... 153 

Figure 56 Hereford Inlet Bathymctry· 1999 ... . ............................... 154 

Figure 57 Hereford Inlet Bathymetry2002 ... . ........................... 155 

Figure 58 inlet Sediment Bypassing ................................................................................................................ J 57 

Fit,rure 59 Historic Shoreline Yearly Accretion Rates in Segments 12.JA .. . . .................. 159 

Figure 60 1920 

Figure 61 1933 

Figure 62 Aerials l 920 .. . ........................................................................ 163 

Fib1Ure 63 Aerials 1933 

Figure 64 Aerial 1944.. . .............................................. 165 

Figure 65 Aerials 1962 

Figure 66 Aerialsl970 .. ..167 

Figure 67 Aerials 2003 ..................................................................................................................................... 168 

Figure 68 Aerials 2006 ... . ......................... 169 

Figure 69 Aerials 2012 

Figure 70 1955. 2003 and 2012 Profile comparison in Wildwood ........................................................................... 172 

Figure 71 North Wildwood Shoreline Positions 1899-200.1.. . .............................. l 74 

Figure 72 North Wildwood and Wildwood Shoreline Positions [899-2003 ... . .......... 175 

Figure 73 Wildwood and Wild\vood Crest Shoreline Positions 1899-2003 .. . ............. 176 

Figure 74 Wildwood Crest Shoreline Positions I 899-2003 ............................................................................. 177 

Figure 75 Wildwood Crest and Lower Township Shoreline Positions 1899-2003.... . ........................ 178 

Figure 76 Lov,:crTmrnship Shoreline Position 1899-200.1 ..................................................................................... 179 

Figure 77 Sediment Budget.. ..... 188 

Figure 78 Sediment Budget... . ............................................................... 188 

Figure 79 Ocean City NJ 1992 SBEACH calibration Plots-138 ............................................................................... 194 

Figure 80 Ocean City, NJ 1992 SBEACH Calibration Plot-223 ...................................................................... 194 

Figure 81 Cell I Without Project Profile.. . ................................................................ 196 

Figure 82 Cell 2 Without Project Profile.. ..196 

Figure 83 Cell 3 Without Project Profile ........................................................................................................ l 97 

Figure 84 Cell 4 Without Project Profile... . .......... 197 

Figure 85 Cell 5 Without Project Profile.. . .......................... 198 

Figure 86 Cell 6 Without Project Profile .................................................................................................................. 198 

Figure 87 Cell 7 Without Project Profile.. . .................................... 199 

Figure 88 Cells l-7 LO)Olll: ............................. . 

Figure 89 5 

Figure 90 Stonn Conditions 

Figure 91 Stonn Conditions 20 Year Event... . ............ 203 

Figure 92 Stonn Conditions 50 Year Event ............................................................................................................ 204 

Figure 93 Stonn Conditions 100 Y car Eycnt... . .... 204 

Figure 94 Storm Conditions 200 Year Event.. ........... 205 

Figure 95 Stonn Conditions 500 Year EYent .......................................................................................................... 205 

Figure 96 Pre and Post --50 yr" Storm Event Beach Profiles for Cell l ............................................................ 206 

Figure 97 Pre and Post "50 yr·' Storm Event Beach Profiles for Cell 2.. . ............................ .,207 

Fib'llfC 98 Pre and Post "'50 yr"' Storm Event Beach Profiles for Cell 3 ........................................................ 208 

Figure 99 Pre and Post "50 yr·· Storm Eyent Beach Profiles for Cell -I- .................................................................... 209 

Figure JOO Pre nnd Post ·'50 yr" StonnE\'ent Beach Profiles for Cell 5.. . ........................ 210 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 21 
22

Figure 101 Pre and Post "50 yr" Stonn EYent Beach Profiles for Cell 6 .............................................................. 21 l 

Figure 102 Pre and Post "'50 yr .. Stonn Event Beach Profiles for Cell 7.. . ...................... 2 l2 

Figure 103 Map and Photo of Structure lnYentory ................................................................................................... 220 

Figure 104 Pile and Slab Foundation Erosion.. . . ................. 221 

Figure l 05 Without Project Structures and Total Datnagc in North Wild,vood ................................................... 225 

Figure 106 Ccll l in North Wildwood.. . ...... 267 

Figure 107 Cell 2 in North Wildwood . . ................................................. 267 

Figure 108 Pier Protection Plan Vic\\ ..................................................................................................................... 27 l 

Figure 109 Pier Protection Cross Section ............................................................................................................... 271 

Figure l lO North Wildwood Structure Damage.. .. .................... 273 

Figure l 11 Benefits Optimization for North Wildwood ....................................................................................... 275 

Figure 112 The Three Pillars of Sustainability, World Summit on Social Development ......................................... 282 

Figure 113 North Wildwood Cross Section... .. ...... 290 

Figure 114 Wild,Yood at1d Wild,vood Crest Cross Section ............................................................................. 290 

Figure l 15 Lower Township Cross Section., . . .............. ., ...... 29 l 

Figure 116 North Wild,vood Plan Vie,v ............................................................................................................. 292 

Figure 117 North WildwoodJWild,rnod Plan Vie,, ................................................................................................ 293 

Figure 118 Wildwood Plan View.. . .......................................................................................... 294 

Figure l 19 Wildwood Crest Plan View (2) .............................................................................................................. 295 

Figure 120 Wild,vood Crest Plan View ........................................................................................................ 296 

Figure 121 Wildv,:ood Crest and Lower Tm.rnship Plan View .................................................................................. 297 

Figure 122 Schematic of H~·draulic Backpassing System courtesy ofERDC .... . ................ 299 

Figure 123 Side View of Crawler Crane and Crater ...................................................................................... 299 

Figure 124 Sandy Recovery Projects. NJ and DE.. . ........................ 313 

Figure 125 Empirical Simulation Technique (EST) 90% confidence curve for water lcYeL. . ....... 332 

List of Tables 

Table l Year Round Population in the Study Arca (2010).. . ....... 52 

Table 2 Employment Comparison (2012) ..................................... . 

Table 3 Study Arca Employment Comparison (2012) ................................................................................................ 54 

Table 4 Income Comparison (2010) ...................................................................................................................... 55 

Table 5 Proposed Residential Site PlalL<s ... . 

Table 6 Housing Units by Usage 

Table 7 Dcyclopmcnt Projects in the w uaw,ooos ........................ . 

Table 8 Major non-residential 

Table 9 Cape May Toll 

Table 10 Essential 

Table l 1 Habitat Utili7.ation of EFH Species ............................... . 

Table 12 Beach and SuIYey Sampling Locations ....................................................................................................... 98 

Table 13 North Wildwood Composite Values ............................................................................................... 104 

Table 14 Barto\\ Area Coordinates... . ...... 110 

Table 15 0Yerfil1 and Rcnourishment Factors for Hereford Inlet Borrow Areas.. . ...... 112 

Table 16 Overfill and Renourishment Factors for WW /WWC ............................................................................... 114 

Table I 7 Qycrfill and Re nourishment Factors for Borrow Arca OS-l .. . ............................... 1 l 5 

Table 18 °'·erfill and Renourishment Factors for Borrow Arca OS-2 .................................................................... 115 

Table 19 Overfill and Renourishmcnt Factors for Borrow Arca OS-3 ... . ...... 116 

Table 20 Shore Protection Stmcturc InYcntory- .......................... . 

Table 21 Local Beachfills .. 

Table 22 

Table 23 

. ................................................................ 118 

Table 24 Percent Occurrence ofWaYe Height by Month WJS-J.-1-7.. . .............. 123 

Table 25 Percent Occurrence of Peak Petiod by Month WIS -147 ........................................................................... 123 

Table 26 Percent Occurrence of Mean Direction by Month WIS - 147.. . ...... 124 

Table 27 SummarJ of Mean Wave Height by Ycar-1980-1999.. .. ....... 12-1, 

Table 28 Percent Occurrence of Wind Speed by Month.. . .............................. 128 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 22 
23

Table 29 Percent Occum:nce of Winds Speed by Direction .................... ----·· ..................................................... 128 

Table 30 Wild\vood Crest Station Datum Elevations Summary for 8535835 .............................................. 129 

Table 3 l The 10 Highest Observed Stages at Atlantic City. NJ 1912-2012 ........................................................... 132 

Table 32 SBEACH Volume Losses Compared to Sandy profiles... . .. 139 

Table 33 Ocean Stage Frequency Data .............................................................................................................. 140 

Table 34 Potential Longshore Sediment Transport Rates..... . ........ 14 l 

Table 35 Area Profiles.. . ............................................... 144 

Table 36 

Table 37 Contour Locations.. . ......................... 146 

Table 38 1955, 2003.2012 Volume Comparisons ................................................................................................... 172 

Table 39 Historic Shoreline Analysis Segments ................................................................................................... 173 

Table 40 Shoreline Change Rates. Segment 1.. . ........................ 180 

Table 41 Shoreline Change Rates for Wildwood Segment 2... . .................... 181 

Table 42 Shoreline Change Rates for Wildwood Crest, Segment 3 .................................................................... 182 

Table 43 Shoreline Change Rates for Luwer Tmvnship. Segment 4 .. . .... 183 

Table 44 Sediment Budget Uncertainty.. . ........................................................................... 185 

Table 45 Sediment Budget Results ........................................................................................................................... 189 

Table 46 Hurricane Sandy vs. SBEACH Volume Loss Table.. . .................................................... 193 

Table 47 Profiles Used in Hydraulic Analysis... . ................................................................................................... 195 

Table 48 Post Stonn Erosion Distances... . ..................................................... 213 

Table 49 North Wildwood Storm Damages ............................................................................................................. 217 

Table 50 Summary of Depreciated Replacement Cost Values... . ........................................................... 219 

Table 51 Beginning Damage fa·ent ................................................................................................................. 223 

Table 52 Without Project Damages by Frequency (In $000. June 2007 p.L) ... . . ........................ 224 

Table 53 North Wild\.rnod Average Annual Stmctural (Dollars in thousands)... . . ............................. 225 

Table 5.J. N011h Wildwood Without Project Conditions InfrJstructurc Damages .................................................... 226 

Table 55 North Wildv;ood Without Project AYcrage Annual Infrastmcturc and Improved Property Damages 

(Dollars in thousands).. . ................................. 226 

Table 56 Average Annual Damages (Dollars in thousands).. . .. 226 

Table 57 North Wild,vood Without Project Damages. Emergency Cleanup Costs ................................................ 227 

Table 58 Wildwood. Wildwood Crest Lower To,vnship Without Project Average Ammal Damages (Dollars in 

thousands) .............................................................................................................................................................. 228 

Table 59 North Wildwood & Wildwood Pier Dam.ages (Dollars in thousands).... . ....... 228 

Table 60 Without Project Average Annual Damages. Total (Dollars in thousands).. . ..... 229 

Table 61 Drainage Issue Options.. .. .............................................................................................. 230 

Table 62 Wilct,rnod Crest Outfall Extensions ............................................................................................ 230 

Table 63 NFIP and SBA claims after Hurricane 

Table 6.J. Problems. Opportunities and Objectives Study Area.... . ............. 242 

Table 65 Study Measures Measured Against the Four Planning Criteria ............................................................... 2.J.7 

Table 66 Study Measures Measured Against the Objccth:es... . . ................................................... 248 

Table 67 Combined Five P::irt Evaluation with the -l- Planning Criteria and ObjectiYes Scoring ............................ 249 

Table 68 System of Accounts .................................................................................................................................. 252 

Table 69 Cost Estimates for a Groin field .................... ,. .................................................................................. 260 

Table 70 PreYiously Authorized Project Dimensions ............................................................................................. 265 

Table 7 l Dunc and Benn Configurations .............................................................................................. 266 

Table 72 Initial Formulation Quantities ................................................................................................................... 269 

Table 73 North Wildwood Storm Damage Reduction Benefits by Measure.. . .................................................. 272 

Table 74 AAB/ A AC/Net Benefits for Back pass Alternative ................................................................................. 274 

Table 75 Wildwood and Wild\\ood Crest and Lower Tmrnship AAB, AAC. Net Benefits .............................. 276 

Table 76 North Wildwood and Wild,-vood Piers AAB. AAC. Net Benefits & BCR bv Plan ................................. 277 

Table 77 Risk Reduction for Wilhout Project and With Project by Cell ................... ." ............................................. 281 

Table 78 Planfonn Evolution Model Inputs ................................................................................................ 285 

Table 79 Description of the Selected Plan .............. ., ............................................................................................... 287 

Table 80 Potential Longshore Transport Rates ....................................................................................... 288 

Table 81 Sediment Backpassing Production, 300 cyh .............................................................................................. 301 

Table 82 Sediment Backpassing Production. -l-50 cyh... . ................................................................. 302 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 23 
24

Table 83 Major Replacement Volumes .......................... ·····----· ........... ···························--·········--··--············ ...... 303 

Table 8-1- Compliance with Em·iromnental Statutes ...................................................................................... 316 

Table 85 Initial Constmction Cost Summary ............................... . 

Table 86 Public Access by 

Table 87 Periodic Nourisl~nent Costs 

Table 88 Periodic Nourisluncnt Costs remaining 8-50 .... . ...... 319 

Table 

Table 

Tablc91 

Table 92 Cost Sharing for the 

Table 93 Estimated Schedule of Federal and non Fcdernl Expenditures .......................................................... 3-1-0 

Appendix A. Engineering and Teclmical Appendix 

Appendix B. Economic Analysis 

Appendix C. Enyironmental Analysis 

Appendix D. US Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Appendix E. Cultural Resources 

Appendix F. Real Estate Plan 

Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 

Appendix G-2. Comments and Responses 

Appendix H. Public Access Plan 

Volume 2 

Volume 3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 24 
25

l.0 Introduction 

l. l Study Background 

This analysis is part of the New Jersey Shore Protection Study authorized by Congress in 1987. 

It authorizes the Corps of Engineers to examine erosion, storm damage reduction and 

environmental problems from the ocean and back bays of coastal New Jersey. 

The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility study is an examination of the specific water 

resource and shore protection needs for North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and 

Lower Township, NJ (Figure I) with a goal to reduce stonn damage, maintain existing coastal 

recreation and provide information to planners, engineers, and scientists. The two primary 

problems within the study area are beach erosion in North Wildwood and the accumulation of 

sand in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. The erosion in North Wildwood leaves the area 

vulnerable to stonn damage, and the sand accumulation, in its present configuration, leaves 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township vulnerable to storm damage and clogs the 

municipal outfall systems that drain storm water to the ocean. 

The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet General Investigation was undertaken by authority of The 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study, by resolutions adopted within the Committee on Public 

Works and Transportation of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works of the U.S. Senate in December 1987. 

This 1987 authorization culminated in the September 1990 Report of Limited Reconnaissance 

and supported investigative studies along the New Jersey coast. Problems between the Hereford 

Inlet and Cape May lnlet were not critical at the time of that report. As a result, 

recommendations were made for studies in other areas along the New Jersey coastline that 

required immediate attention. However, conditions Vvithin the study area worsened in the early 

l990's and renewed investigative studies were recommended by non-Federal interests. 

By the mid l 990's a number of shoreline problems developed within the Hereford Inlet and Cape 

May Inlet study area including erosion and the excessive accumulation of sand along the study 

area's southern beaches. A January 2002 letter from the non- Federal sponsor, the NJDEP, 

recognized that the most urgent needs of the New Jersey coastline had been addressed but" The 

situation in the Wilc.hvood'i has worsened and nmv requires being addressed immediately'' 

(Appendix G.). In response, the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Preliminary Financial 

Analysis (Reconnaissance Study) was initiated by the Philadelphia District. The District's 

Preliminary Financial Analysis was completed in January of 2002. The intent of this Analysis 

was to determine if Federal interest existed and to examine the erosion, stonn damage 

vulnerability and public health issues that were not an imminent and critical threat at the time of 

the 1990 Report. The Preliminary Financial Analysis determined that Federal interest existed. 

In a letter dated 28 January 2002 North Atlantic Division approved the District's Preliminary 

Financial Analysis and directed the District to proceed into the Feasibility phase (Appendix G.). 

A Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement was signed between the District and the non-Federal 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 25 
26

Sponsor, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), on 30 September 

2002. 

1.2 Study Authorization 

The New Jersey Shore Protection Study was authorized under resolutions adopted by the 

Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the U.S. House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Environmental and Public Works of the U.S. Senate in December of 1987. The 

Senate Resolution adopted on December 17th 1987 by the Committee on Environmental and 

Public Works states: 

That the Board (f Fngincers jOr Rivers and Harbors. created under Section 3 of 

the Rivers and Harbors Act, approved June 1 J 1902, be. and is 

reports of the Chiefofk"ngincersfOr the entire coast 

;n cooperation ·with the State ofNc111 Jersey, 

the changing coastal processes along the 

Jersey. included in this stucf..,v be the development ofa physical, env'iro.on1<mlc1/. 

and engineering database on coastal area changes and processes, including appropriate 

monitoring. as the basis fOr actions and programs to prevent the harmfiJ/ ejfi?cts of 

shoreline erosion and storm damage; and. in cooperation with the Environmental 

Protection Agency and other Federal agencies as appropriate. develop recommendations 

for actwns and solutions needed to preclude ji1rther water quali(V degradation and 

coastal pollution from and anticipated uses£~( coastal waters ,?ffecting the New 

Jersey coast. Site spec!fic heach erosion control, hurricane protection. and 

should be undertaken in arens ident(fied as having potential fhr a 

actwn, or response. 

Supplemental Authority 

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 was passed by Congress and signed into law by 

the President on January 29. 2013 as Public Law J 13-2 (Act). The legislation provides 

supplemental appropriations to address damages caused by Hurricane Sandy and to reduce future 

flood risk in ways that will support the long-tenn sustainability of the coastal ecosystem and 

communities, and reduce the economic costs and risks associated with large-scale flood and 

storm events. The legislation provides funds to expedite and complete ongoing flood and storm 

damage protection (i.e., beach nourishment & other similar types of projects) impacted by 

Hurricane Sandy within the boundaries of the North Atlantic Division. Ongoing feasibility 

studies for shore protection projects that are already underway and that are located (a) in areas 

impacted by Sandy that (b) are within the North Atlantic Division of the Corps are eligible to be 

considered for initial construction funding under this provision. Periodic nourishment would not 

be authorized under PL 113-2, and a separate authorization would be required to carry out 

periodic nourishment activities for this project. If PL 113-2 funding is not available for initial 

construction then a separate authority would be pursued to authorize initial construction and 

periodic nourishment. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 26 
27

1.3 Study Purpose and Scope 

The 2002 Reconnaissance effort (Preliminary Financial Analysis) identified the area as a 

candidate for Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction feasibility study due to the severe erosion 

and related environmental issues. This Preliminary Financial Analysis identified problems, 

opportunities, a conceptual plan, benefits, environmental impacts; and outlined the costs for the 

more detailed Feasibility study. The problems identified within the feasibility study include: 

Damages due to erosion 

Damages due to flooding 

Damages due to waves 

Costs associated with clogged oceanfront storm-water outfalls 

Water quality issues associated with ponded water above the high tide line 

The study area was recommended for a more detailed feasibility analysis after the Preliminary 

Financial Analysis was completed. This feasibility study is documented herein, and represents 

the plan formulation, environmental assessment, cost estimate and the selected plan. 

1.4 Study Area 

The study area is a barrier island bordered to the north by Hereford Inlet and to the south by 

Cape May Inlet (formerly Cold Spring Inlet). Municipalities on the island include; North 

Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. A natural area managed by the 

US Fish and Wildlife Service and a US Coast Guard Electronics Center is located at the southern 

boundary of the study area within Lower Township. The study area is shown in Figure l 

through Figure 11. The island is separated from the mainland by three back- bay areas; Grassy 

Sound, Richardson Sound and Jarvis Sound. These are wide, shallow bays surrounded by marsh 

islands and thoroughfares connected to Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet. 

Three roads connect the study area to the mainland and one road connects it to an adjacent 

barrier island. Route 147 connects the northern portion of the island to the mainland of Cape 

May County in the Anglesea section of North Wildwood, Route 47 connects Wildwood with the 

mainland at Rio Grande Avenue, and Ocean Drive connects the southern portion of the Island to 

the mainland near Cape May City. The island is also connected to Stone Harbor via the Grassy 

Sound Bridge which connects with Route 14 7 before entering North Wildwood. 

The study area is located between two existing Federal shore protection projects. The 

Townsend's Inlet to Cape May Inlet shore protection project borders the study area to the north, 

and the Cape May Inlet to Lower Township project borders it to the south. Both projects are in 

partnership with the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and arose 

from investigations conducted by the New Jersey Shore Protection Authority. Initial construction 

has been completed on both projects, and they are currently in their periodic nourishment phase. 

The Wildwood Boardwalk is located within the study area and receives hundreds of thousands of 

visitors per year. The first of the 70,000 planks that make up the Boardwalk were laid in 1900 

along a 150 yard span between Oak and Maple Avenue in Wildwood City. Expansion of the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 27 
28

boardwalk was soon to follow and by the first decade of the 20th century the boardwalk stretched 

from Cresse Avenue in Wildwood to 2nd Avenue in North Wildwood. The current boardwalk 

stretches from 15th street in North Wildwood to the border of Wildwood Crest and Wildwood at 

Cresse Avenue, a distance of approximately 1 3

'

4 miles_ 

Figure l Study Area 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 28 
29

Figure 2 Hereford Inlet 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 29 
30

Figure 3 North Wildwood 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 30 
31

Figure 4 North Wildwood 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 31 
32

Figure 5 North Wildwood and Wildwood 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 32 
33

Figure 6 Wildwood and Wildwood Crest 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 33 
34

Figure 7 Wildwood and Wildwood Crest (Fishing Pier) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 34 
35

Figure 8 Wildwood Crest 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 35 
36

Figure 9 Wildwood Crest Diamond Beach 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 36 
37

Figure lO Lower Towuship. This area conlains the US hsh and Wildlife Property. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 37 
38

Figure l l Cape May Inlet This area contains the USFW Property. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 38 
39

The study area is located near multiple tourist thoroughfares. lt is approximately 3 miles from 

the Garden State Parkway, 6 miles from the Cape May Ferry, 30 miles from the Atlantic City 

Expressway, 60 miles from the Delaware Memorial Bridge, Interstate 295 and Interstate 95 and 

approximately 70-75 miles from the Ben Franklin and Walt Whitman Bridges in Philadelphia. 

The problems within the study area are illustrated in Figure 12- 19 at the end of this section. 

Figure 12 shows the historic extent of Stone Harbor Point within Hereford Inlet. This point goes 

through cycles of erosion and accretion that are thought to contribute to the sand deposition cycle 

in the study area. Figure 14 and 15 show the rapid erosion of the shoreline in North Wildwood 

between 1991 and 2004. Figure 16 and 17 show the clogged outfalls in Wildwood as a result of 

the excess sand at the southern portion of the island. Figure 18 and 19 show the Wildwood 

Crest Fishing Pier reaching the ocean in the l970's, and eventually consumed by sand in 2003. 

1.5 The non -Federal Sponsor 

The non-Federal sponsor for this study is the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP). The agent for the NJDEP is the Bureau of Coastal Engineering (BCE), 

within the NJDEP. The BCE is under the Office of Engineering and Construction which is 

within the Natural and Historic Resources Department. The NJDEP, through the BCE, 

administers the New Jersey Shore Protection Program in order to preserve, protect and maintain 

coastal communities within the state of NJ. They often partner with the Philadelphia and New 

Yark Districts of the Corp of Engineers on beach nourishment projects and studies with their 

Shore Protection Program funds. 

New Jersey's Shore Protection Program was created to provide for the protection of life and 

property along the 127 mile ocean coast of New Jersey and the 83 miles along the coast of 

Delaware Bay and Raritan Bay, and to preserve the vital coastal resources of New Jersey and 

maintain safe and navigable waterways. It was created after a series of severe storms hit the 

coast of New Jersey in the early 1990's. Historically, the State had tasked the DEP to repair and 

construct all necessary structures for shore protection in the early 1940s under N.J.S.A 12:6A-l, 

based on yearly appropriations. 

After the Halloween Storm of 1991 devastated New Jersey's shoreline, $25,000,000 was 

appropriated as an amendment to the State's Economic Recovery Fund for Shore Protection. 

Soon after, the January 1992 storm struck, overwhelming the State's fiscal resources and 

prompting a Presidential Disaster declaration. 

The 1991 and 1992 storms prompted a Governor's Shore Protection Summit in February of 

1992. As a result of the storms the Shore Protection and Tourism Act of 1992 was passed which 

created the first stable source of annual funding for shore protection of $15,000,000 a year. The 

current funding amount for coastal shore protection projects within the state is $25,000,000 a 

year. 

The Bureau of Coastal Engineering is responsible for administering beach nourishment, shore 

protection and coastal dredging throughout the state with the Shore Protection and Tourism act 

funding. The Bureau is also responsible for conducting post stmm surveys, damage assessments 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 39 
40

and emergency repairs from coastal storms impacting New Jersey. 

The Bureau also contracts with two local institutions within New Jersey for data collection and 

consultation on coastal issues. The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Coastal Research 

Center, directed by Dr. Stew Farrell, publishes a yearly report on the New Jersey Beaches 

through marine surveying and also provides consultation and design work for beach nourishment 

projects. The Stevens Institute of Technology, Davidson Laboratory of Marine Hydrodynamics 

and Coastal Engineering also provide expertise in the fields of shore protection and engineering. 

The Davidson Laboratory is located in Hoboken, New Jersey and the Coastal Research Center is 

located in Pomona, New Jersey. 

1.6 Prior Studies, Reports, Projects -Federal 

Studies 

~ 

No. 331 65th Congress 1st Session Hereford Inlet Letter from the Secretary of War August 

On August 10, 1917 H.D. No 331, the 65'" Congress of the United States, l" Session, 

a report was submitted by the Chief of Engineers to the War Department on the preliminary 

examination of Hereford Inlet in compliance with the River and Harbor act approved on July 26, 

1916. Based on testimony from local fishermen, commercial vessels and merchants, a 

maintenance dredging schedule was desired in order to maintain flow and volume of water for 

the fishing industry at Hereford Inlet and Anglesea in North Wildwood. 

This report discussed the improvement of Hereford Inlet from 3' deep on the bar at the inlet to 8 

or 9' deep at mean low water. The District Engineer stated that the amount of business 

dependent upon the inlet is large and the cost of giving relief comparatively small and he 

believes that the locality is worthy of improvement by the Federal government. The Division 

Engineer was not in concurrence and believed that the cost of periodic restoration of the channel 

would be great compared with the first cost, and he was unable to concur with the District 

Engineer that Hereford Inlet should be improved. W.M. Black, Brigadier General, concurred 

with the Division Engineer that improvement by the United States of Hereford Inlet, Cape May 

County N.J., was not advisable 

Beach erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of the New Jersey Coast Barnegat Inlet to 

Delaware Bay Entrance to the Cape May Canal December 30 1957. The purpose of this study 

was to develop a comprehensive and unified plan to restore adequate protective beaches, to 

provide recreational beaches and a program for providing continued stability to the shores within 

the study area. 

The recommended improvements included a 1,000' timber and stone bulkhead at an elevation of 

10' above MLW from the north end of the existing bulkhead to Pine Avenue, and a second 

bulkhead along Pine Avenue to New York Avenue. The plan for North Wildwood consisted of 

a beach fill from 16th Avenue to 26th Avenue. It also recommended placing beach fill to 

provide storm protection with a 50' wide berm at an elevation of 10' above MLW having a slope 

ofl on 30. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 40 
41

The 1957 study concluded that the improvements recommended at; Brigantine, Sea Isle City, 

Town sends Inlet, Avalon and the south side of Hereford Inlet are found not to be economically 

justified since the cost of providing the improvements would be in excess of the benefits that are 

reasonably assured. However, it was determined that improvements to North Wildwood would 

be justified. 

Interim Report on Hereford Inlet to the Delaware Bay Entrance of Cape May Canal Department 

Of the Army Philadelphia District 1972. In July of 1972 The Study of New Jersey Coastal 

Inlets and Beaches, Interim Report on Hereford Inlet to the Delaware Bay Entrance of the Cape 

May Canal was published by the Philadelphia District of the Corps of Engineers. This report 

recommended improvements to the Hereford Inlet area as well as the beaches from Hereford 

Inlet to the entrance of Delaware Bay. The report recommended a jetty on the north and south 

side of Hereford Inlet, a breakwater on the easterly side of Cape May Inlet and provisions for 

bypassing material collected at the up-drift side of each inlet, a navigation channel 300' wide and 

12 ft deep at Hereford Inlet, a bulkhead along the inlet frontage at North Wildwood, dikes at 

Cape May Point, a beach fill and dune fill with groins stabilized with dune-grass and sand 

fencing. No such project was constructed in the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet area. 

New Jersey Coastal Inlets and Beaches Hereford Inlet to Delaware Bay Entrance to Cape May 

Canal Assistant Secretary of the Army September 29 I 976. In September of 1976 The New 

Jersey Coastal Inlets and Beaches, Hereford Inlet to Delaware Bay Entrance to Cape May Canal, 

Communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) was submitted to 

congress. This letter from the Chief of Engineers found that the most suitable plan for correcting 

the problems would serve the purpose of; beach erosion control, navigation and storm protection. 

That plan would include jetties on both sides of Hereford Inlet, a breakwater on the easterly side 

of Cape May Inlet and provisions for bypassing material collected at the up-drift side of each 

inlet, a navigation channel 300' wide and 12' deep at Hereford Inlet, a bulkhead along the inlet 

frontage of North Wildwood, dikes at Cape May Point, groins, a beach fill 100 to 200' wide at an 

elevation IO' above ML W from 2"' Avenue in North Wildwood to Cape May Inlet, dunes with 

top widths of 25' at an elevation of 15' above MLW, construction of 2,700' of backfill along the 

inlet frontage of North Wildwood, construction of four groins along the inlet frontage of North 

Wildwood, maintenance of the groins and periodic nourishment of the beaches and maintenance 

of the dunes as required to maintain the recommended cross section during the life of the project. 

The project was not constructed. 

Beach Creek City of North Wildwood Small Navigation Project, Reconnaissance Report, 

September 1983. The Beach Creek Small Navigation Project Reconnaissance Report was 

written in September of 1983 under authority of Section 107 of The River and Harbor Act of 

1960. Beach Creek is a small navigation channel behind the Anglesea section of North 

Wildwood. The purpose of the study was to determine; 1- a means to improving and 

maintaining navigable access in Beach Creek; 2- the economic feasibility of Federal participation 

in the project under Section 107; and 3- the need and justification for a more detailed 

investigation. Based on the reconnaissance effort for Beach Creek it was not considered eligible 

under the authority of Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960. The District Engineer 

recommended that the reconnaissance be approved, but further recommended that no detailed 

studies of the navigation problem in Beach Creek in the City ofN011h Wildwood be undertaken 

at that time. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 41 
42

A Study of Sand Bypassing Options at Cape May Inlet New Jersey Philadelphia District June 

1987. In 1987 the Philadelphia District conducted a study of sand by-passing options at Cape 

May Inlet New Jersey. The project recommended improvements for beach fill, two new groins, 

maintenance of the nvo new and seven existing groins, periodic nourishment obtained from a 

deposition basin located on the northeast side of the inlet and a weir breakwater at Cape May 

Inlet. The total estimated cost was $18,400,000 million (October 1986 ). The project was not 

constmcted. 

Engineering Manual 1110-2-1616 January 31 1991. This Engineering .Manual discussed two 

options for bypassing sand across Cape May Inlet based on the findings of the 1987 report 

discussed above. It was meant to serve as a short example of the coastal processes and 

engineering analysis needed for a bypassing project. 

Summary on Three Conceptual Designs and Cost Estimates for Bypassing Measures at Cape 

May Inlet New Jersey Philadelphia District 2004. As part of the National Regional Sediment 

Management Program the US Army Corps of Engineers investigated 3 options for sand 

bypassing measures across Cape May Inlet, NJ. Alternative 1 was a fixed bypass plant, 

Alternative 2 was a floating dredge plant using the Cape May Inlet fillet, and Alternative 3 was a 

floating dredge plant using the City of Wildwood Beaches as a borrow area. The project was not 

constructed. 

The New Jersey Shore Protection Study 1988. This study investigated shoreline protection and 

water quality problems which exist along New Jersey's entire coast. Coastal processes and 

mechanisms occurring in the coastal zone which result in the movement of water, wind and 

littoral materials were examined to determine how to best alleviate the problems of erosion and 

property loss. Although it was demonstrated that existing numerical data was insufficient to 

provide long term solutions, the study suggested a future study of the near shore coastal 

processes. This feasibility report, along with many others including; Barnegat to Little Egg falet, 

Brigantine Inlet to Little Egg (Absecon Island and Brigantine Island), Townsends Inlet to Cape 

May Inlet, etc ... were drafted under this Authority. The previously mentioned studies 

recommended projects that are currently in various stages of construction. 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study Report of Limited Reconnaissance September 1990. The 

Limited Reconnaissance Phase of the New Jersey Shore Protection Study was complete in 

September of 1990. [t identified and prioritized those coastal reaches identified within the report 

which have potential Federal interest based on shore protection and restoration opportunities. 

The Report of Limited Reconnaissance suggested further studies within the project reach 

identified as Town sends to Cape May Inlet, which includes the Hereford to Cape May study 

area. 

Post Storm Report Philadelphia District December 1992. In November of l 993 The Army 

Corps of Engineers produced a Post Storm report for the Coastal Storm of 11-15 December 1992 

along the Delaware and New Jersey Coast. This report quantified damages caused by the 

December of 1992 nor' easter. This report identified damages to the Herford to Cape May Inlet 

area. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 42 
43

Townsend's Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study Philadelphia District 1998. The 

Townsend's Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study was completed in 1998 and identified the 

area as in need offederal assistance and economically justifiable for the construction of a shore 

protection project. This project consists of a beach fill in Avalon and Stone Harbor as well as 

seawalls at Hereford Inlet and Townsends Inlet. 

Public Law 113-2 the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of2013 instructed the Corps of 

Engineers to draft four reports to address the impacts of Hurricane Sandy to both constructed and 

unconstructed Federal projects and studies within North Atlantic Division of the Corps of 

Engineers. These reports were titled; The First Interim Report, The Second Interim Report, The 

Performance Evaluation Report and the Comprehensive Study. The Hereford to Cape May 

project was included in the Second Interim Report since this report was assigned with identifying 

previously authorized, but unconstructed projects, and projects currently under study. The 

Hereford to Cape May project is currently under study in the General Investigations phase of the 

Federal Feasibility process. 

Proiects 

From 1908 to 1911 the Federal Government constructed the Cape May Inlet jetties to stabilize 

Cold Spring Inlet. The jetties are+ 10' above MLW and extend 4,548' (east jetty) and 4,410' 

(west jetty) from their base into the ocean and are approximately 850' apart. The navigation 

project was authorized by Congress in 1907 and modified in 1945 to provide an entrance channel 

25' deep at mean low water and 400' wide. The navigation portion is maintained and protected 

by the two parallel stone jetties and dredged to maintain the authorized depth. 

In 1964 the Federal government built 4 groins east of the east jetty at Cape May Inlet The 

groins are timber have inner elevations of 10', outer elevations of5.5' and are approximately 

639' in length. 

The Hereford Inlet to Delaware Bay Entrance to Cape May Canal project was authorized for 

Phase I Advanced Engineering and Design in the Water Resources Development Act of 1976. 

The projects were subsequently reauthorized by Sections 831 and 501 of the Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. The projects were included recommendations for jetties, 

groins, weirs, a beach fill and navigation channels, but were not constructed. 

The Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet project was authorized for construction in WRDA 1999 

and initially contained our current study area of the Wildwoods in the Feasibility analysis, but it 

was not included in the Authorization. The Townsends project authorization required two 

seawalls, one at Hereford Inlet and one at Townsends Inlet, a beach fill in Avalon and Stone 

Harbor consisting of a dune elevation of I 4. 75' NA VD 88, an 8'berm with a width of 150', and 

restoration of 116 acres ofbaybeny and red cedar habitat at Stone Harbor Point The Avalon 

Seawall is complete, the Avalon and Stone Harbor beach fill is complete and seawall 

construction in North Wildwood is complete. The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet area was 

excluded from the Townsend's to Cape May Feasibility's selected plan. The conditions in the 

Wildwoods at the time of that study did not warrant a Federal project. Subsequent to the 

conclusion of that report the conditions in Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and North Wildwood 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 43 
44

gradually worsened and required Federal and State attention. 

1.7 Prior Studies, Reports and Projects -State 

Studies 

The State of New Jersey has been involved in providing technical and financial assistance to its 

shore towns for decades. The State officially asked the Department of Environmental Protection 

(formerly the Department of Conservation and Economic Development) to repair and construct 

all necessary structures for shore protection and damage prevention in the early 1940s (N.J.S.A. 

12:6A-J). An annual appropriation of one million dollars was established and maintained until 

I 977. Due to the devastation and erosion of the shoreline from frequent storms an additional $30 

million was appropriated in 1977. Two major storms during the winter of 1991-1992 prompted 

the Governor's Shore Protection Summit in February of 1992. As result of this summit the Shore 

Protection and Tourism Act of 1992 was passed creating the first stable source of funding, 

equaling $15 million annually to fund New Jersey shore protection projects. 

New Jersey Beach Profile Network Report Analysis of Shoreline Changes for reaches 1-15, 

Raritan Bay to Delaware Bay, The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Coastal Research 

Center, published yearly since 1986. The state of New Jersey is in partnership with the Richard 

Stockton College in order to document shoreline change along the New Jersey coast. The Center 

provides the NJDEP, Division of Construction and Engineering, a detailed monitoring report on 

coastal processes along the entire New Jersey coast. The New Jersey Beach Profile Network 

(NJBPN) Report provides regional information on coastal processes with semiannual visits in the 

spring and fall for the 127 mile coastline of New Jersey and the Center surveys 113 cross shore 

beach profiles along the ocean and bay. The data is used to report coastal conditions to the 

NJDEP. There are 29 survey locations within Cape May County monitored by the Coastal 

Center, with 4 of those locations located in the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet study area. 

Nearshore Ridges and Underlying Upper Pleistocene Sediments on The Inner Continual Shelt; 

the Dept of Geological Sciences Rutgers University October 1986. This report cataloged and 

classified vibracore samples taken along the New Jersey Shoreline. 

Recommendations for Inlet Dredge Channel Placement Based on Analysis of Historic Change: 

Townsends and Hereford Inlets New Jersey. Dept. of Geological Sciences Rutgers University 

New Brunswick NJ 08903 December 1987. This report was written to develop conceptual 

models for geomorphic change for both inlets, develop historic patterns and rates of change, 

recommend the size and orientation ofa dredged channel, and identify sources of beach 

nourishment material. 

New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan, In I 978, the legislature passed a Beaches and Harbors 

Bond Act, 1978, c. 157) and instructed the NJDEP to prepare a comprehensive Shore Protection 

Master Plan in order to reduce the impacts and conflicts between shoreline management and 

coastal development. 

After the Halloween Storm of 1991 devastated New Jersey's shoreline, $15 million was 

appropriated as an amendment to the States Economic Recovery Fund for Shore Protection. Soon 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 44 
45

thereafter, the January 1992 storm struck, oveiwhelming the States fiscal resources and 

prompting a Presidential Disaster declaration. 

The issue of providing stable funding for shore protection at the State level had been raised on 

several occasions. The two storms during the winter of 1991-92 prompted a Governor's Shore 

Protection Summit in February of 1992. As a result, the Shore Protection and Tourism Act of 

1992 was passed which created the first stable source of finding for shore protection in New 

Jersey. 

The State of New Jersey in conjunction with the Municipality of North Wildwood has 

participated in two municipal beach fills in North Wildwood as a result of erosion and inundation 

from storms. The project placed a dune and benn from North Wildwood to the border of 

Wildwood Crest Repeated storms and erosion have reduced the footprint and protection 

capability of these projects. 

The NJDEP has participated in several related projects in the study area. The NJDEP built the 

original Hereford Inlet seawalls in North Wildwood in order to protect homes from storm 

damage in the neighborhood of Anglesea. The Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet feasibility 

study recommended a more robust wall for this area. These new seawalls replaced the existing 

state built structures. 

1.8 Prior Studies, Reports, Projects- Municipal 

Studies 

Remington & Verni ck and Walberg Feasibility Study of 5 Options to Eliminate Beach Closures 

of five Mile Beach in the City of Wildwood New Jersey April 2003. The City of Wildwood, 

with funding assistance from the NJDEP, commissioned a study to examine methods to alleviate 

the problem of municipal storm water run-off and the clogged outfalls that prevent storm 

drainage on the beachfront. The proposal involved five solutions to the storm water problem that 

included; a pump station on the beach, two pump stations, extending the outfalls, beach grading 

and dune building and a no action plan. The plans did not involve the neighboring municipalities 

and the problems they had with erosion and storm damage. The estimate by Remington & 

Vernick places the cost of rerouting the municipal storm water system between $7,000,000-

$12,000,000, not including operation and maintenance. 

Coastal Processes Relevant to the Proposed Wildwood Convention Center Site Wildwood NJ. 

The report detailed the shoreline processes of Five Mile Beach from the 1920' s to the present in 

order to determine the suitability for constrnction of the Greater Wildwoods Convention Center 

on the seaward side of the boardwalk 

Cape May County Cooperative Coastal Nfonitoring Program Cape May Department of Health 

~ This report identified water quality hazards along the coastline. It identifies the coastal 

bathing areas along the ocean front and bay front within Cape May County that have elevated 

levels of fecal coliform bacteria. The Cape May County Health Depai1ment may close a 

recreational bathing area at any time to protect public welfare in the event of high fecal coliform 

concentrations. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 45 
46

Petrella Ralph JR City Engineer Cause of High Fecal Colifonn Bacteria Being Discharged 

from the City of Wildwood Storm Sewer System. This report addressed the high frequency of 

beach closures and associated water resource problems in the City of Wildwood. The report 

determined that the impounded storm-water eventually discharged at rates higher than if water 

were free flowing continuously, and resulted in elevated levels of bacteria_ 

Projects 

The City of North Wildwood has participated in three beach fills with the State of New Jersey 

and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to replenish the northern portion of the island 

with sand from Hereford Inlet. The original Project took place in 2009, was supplemented in 

2010 and again after Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The original project placed over 1,400,000 cubic 

yards of sand on the shoreline in 2009 in the form of a dune and berm. The dune had an 

elevation of+ 14.75' NA VD 88 and the berm was approximately +6.75 NAVO 88. The original 

project extended from 2nd avenue and JFK Boulevard to approximately 26'" street. The 2010 

project was paid for by FEMA as part of their Disaster Relief Fund and placed approximately 

499,000 cubic yards on the beach. After hurricane Sandy the City of North Wildwood placed 

155,000 cubic yards of sand from 2"d avenue to 25'" avenue to mitigate for erosion during the 

storm. The beach fill from 2"" Avenue to 26'" had eroded significantly at the writing of this 

report. 

The City of Wildwood Crest and North Wildwood participated in a sand back-passing operation 

in 2012 that moved 96,000 cubic yards of sand from surplus areas in Wildwood Crest to North 

Wildwood. A table listing the years and locations of these projects in included in Without 

Project conditions section of this report. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 46 
47

1.9 Project Area Photos 

Figure 12 North Wildwood, Hereford Inlet and Stone Harbor Point 

Figure 12 shuws the large sand .\pit that extend\' into Herefhrd Jnlet.fi·om 5'tone Harbor Point in 

the background and the Anglesea section (!(North Wildwood in the foreground. 

Figure l3 North Wildwood (date uuknowu) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 47 
48

Figure 14 North Wildwood 1991 

Figure 1./ and 15 show the erosion of the wide beaehes in Norlh Wildwoodfrom 1991 to 200./. 

Figure 15 North Wildwood 2004 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 48 
49

Figure 16 Clogged Outfall in Wildwood 

Fif(ure 16 and 17 show the accumulation ofscmd and its impacts in Wildwood as a re:-;u/t cl the 

sand eroded from North Wildwood. 

Figure 17 Clogged Outfall in Wildwood, looking seaward 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 49 
50

Figure 18 Wildwood Crest Fishing Pier, 1990s 

Figures 18 and 19 show the accumulation of sand over time at the Wild11-1o<xl Crest.fishing pier. 

Figure 19 Wildwood Crest Fishing Pier, 2003 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 50 
51

2.0 Existing Conditions 

2.1.1 Socioeconomic Resources 

North Wildwood, Wildwood, and Wildwood Crest are three of the four municipalities contained 

within the barrier island located between the Hereford and Cape May Inlets. These three 

communities along with sound-side West Wildwood form a shore region known as the 

Wildwood,·' Five Mile Island, or simply the Wildwood,. Benefit catego1ies to be evaluated 

include reduction in storm, wave, and inundation damages, and increased recreation value. The 

basic underlying assumptions used an FY2014 discount rate of 3-Y,%, June 2007 price level, a 

50-year period of analysis, and a base year of 2016. Project benefits for the tentatively selected 

plan (TSP) were updated to a March 2014 price level for comparison with the selected plan cost 

estimate. 

2.1.2 Population and Land Use 

The study area is located on a barrier island community in Cape May County, New Jersey along 

the Atlantic Ocean. Within USA CE- Philadelphia District boundaries, Cape May County is one 

of the four counties including Atlantic, Ocean, and Monmouth counties, located along the New 

Jersey coast Cape May County is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean on the east and south, 

borders the Delaware Bay on the west, and Atlantic County on the north. The county covers 454 

square miles, with almost 60% consisting of usable land area and the remainder being marshes 

and flood plains. Two main transportation arteries in the county are the Garden State Parkway 

and Route 9. Other major nearby roads which allow residents and visitors to access the area 

include Routes 47 and 50, the Black and White Horse Pikes, and the Atlantic City Expressway. 

North Wildwood, Wildwood, and Wildwood Crest with a combined land area of 4. l square miles 

cover approximately five linear miles along the coast The three municipalities ranked six, seven, 

and eight respectively on the list of the ten largest municipalities in Cape May County, 

Wildwood was the most densely populated of the three communities with 4,096 people per 

square mile (U.S. Census, 2010) Table L More vacationers travel to Wildwood and North 

Wildwood than to Wildwood Crest as indicated by the estimated summer population in Figure 

20. 

The year-round population of many summer destination communities has increased as babyboomers started to retire and housing development increased. The Wildwoods experienced 

substantial growth in population throughout most of the 20"' century. The steepest increase in 

population for Wildwood occurred in the decade between 1920 and 1930, while the steepest 

increase for North Wildwood occurred between 1940 and 1950 and occurred for two decades in 

Wildwood Crest between 1940 and 1960. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 51 
52

Table l Year Round Population in the Study Area (2010) 

Persons 

Municipality Square Miles Population Per 

Square Mile 

North Wild1vood 1.7 4.041 2.377 

Wild,vood IJ 5325 ~.096 

Wild,•.-ood Crest I.I 3.270 2.973 

The Wildwoods ././ 12,636 9..146 

Figure 20 Winter and Summer Population 

:-.. :: .. ;:: ... ·;.;.;·:: .. --··£-·o::r:::-. .:,,-t!;; .. :.: ... -. 

I"fiijii 

Wildwood experienced a sharp decline in population over the period from 1950 to 1970, 

population soared back up through 1980, dipped again through J 990 and spiked through 2000 

nearly to the level of its peak population in the J 950s. Wildwood and Wildwood Crest are two 

communities that had increased year-round population for the ten years between 1990 and 2000. 

During this time period North Wildwood population growth remained relatively flat. Year-round 

population decreased slightly in all three municipalities during the initial years of the 21" century 

as seen in Figure 2 t 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 52 
53

Figure 21 Historic Population 

2.l.3 Employment and Income 

The tourism industry is one of the most important industries in the State of New Jersey and in 

Cape May County. Tourism generates 32,000 jobs, or one out of every three jobs in the county 

(Cape May County Planning Department). The economy of Cape May County and the adjacent 

coastal counties rely to some extent on a transient workforce to supply the tourism industry 

employees, especially in the summer. Businesses in coastal communities have supplemented 

their workforce with workers from overseas during the busy summer months. The importance of 

seasonal employment in Cape May County contributes to its higher unemployment rate when 

compared to that of the entire state as shown in Table 2. The data show lower unemployment 

rates in each successive northern coastal county. Employers within the service industry and the 

public sector account for many of the jobs in the county. Morey's Amusement Pier, the City of 

Wildwood, and the City of North Wildwood are among the top employers in Cape May County. 

The recent economic downturn in the financial services and retail industries has also negatively 

impacted employment in the region. Those industries have recently posted job losses in New 

Jersey. 

The higher (2012) unemployment rate by county shown in Table 2 and Table 3 is due to the 

areas reliance on seasonal employment. The unemployment data updated for the most recent 

year shows the continued affect of the recession and possibly impacts from the devastating 

super-storm in 2012. The regional coastal economy has grown a healthy construction industry 

with new development, "tear downs" and renovations - a trend in which older structures are 

purchased, healthcare and educational services remain strong. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 53 
54

Table 2 Employment Comparison (2012) 

STATE COASTAL COUNTY 

New Jersey Cape May Atlantic Ocean Monmouth 

Unemployment Rate 9.5 134 13.5 10.3 8.9 

435,000 7,793 18,377 27,944 29,904 

Unemployed 

4,158,000 50,397 136,125 244,125 304,904 

Employed 

Table 3 Study Area Employment Comparison (2012) 

North Wildwood Wildwood Wildwood Crest 

Unemplo) ment Rate 21.6 30.6 24.6 

Unemployed 618 1,036 598 

Employed 2,238 2,351 1,829 

Per capita income in both the State of New Jersey and Cape May County exceeds that of the 

United States. New Jersey and Cape May County's per capita incomes are about 25% and 12% 

more, respectively, than the 2010 U.S. per capita income (Table 4). Per capita income in 

Wildwood Crest is about [0% more than the U.S. while that of North Wildwood and Wildwood 

falls below the national level. In 1999, at the time the study commenced, Wildwood per capita 

income was only half of state per capita income. Per capita income in Wildwood nearly doubled 

and increased at a faster rate than that of the state over the first decade of this century. Median 

household income and median home value was also lower in Wildwood when compared to the 

nation, the state and the other communities in the Wile/woods. Lower median home values may 

have existed in Wildwood than in the other summer destination communities because residents 

may pay a premium to live in areas away from high traffic volume and commercial activity. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibillty Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 54 
55

Table 4 Income Comparison (2010) 

Municipality Per Capita ·Median Household Median Home Value 

United States $27.334 $51,914 $188,400 

New Jersey 34,858 69,811 357,000 

Cape May County 33,571 54292 337,300 

North Wildwood $31,748 $45,041 $384,900 

Wildwood 25,118 32,783 288,000 

Wildwood Crest 40,()32 46,111 398,400 

2.1.4 Regional Economy and Development 

Tourism, referencing 2006 data, was the top industry in Cape May County with over $4.8 billion 

(Cape May County Planning Department) in revenues generated from accommodations, food, 

retail, entertainment, and transportation. Cape May County is second only to Atlantic County in 

tourism dollars. Annual tourism revenue of Cape May and Atlantic Counties is more than three 

times the revenue produced by Ocean and Monmouth Counties. The popularity of the Jersey 

shore draws many visitors from neighboring states as well as from inland areas within the state. 

The seashore proximity to major population centers is ideal for attracting visitors especially with 

high fuel prices. A large percentage oftomists are repeat visitors who return each summer. 

Cape May County welcomes approximately 19 million visitors annually. More than three 

quarters of visitors come from outside New Jersey and the weakened value of the dollar is 

expected to attract more international visitors to the county as well. 

The construction industry has also been imprntant to the regional economy. Construction within 

some commercial sectors such as healthcare and education facilities has maintained a steady 

pace. However, residential construction has decreased significantly nationally and in the region 

since 2006. As shown in Table 5, the number of proposed residential site plans plummeted by 

more than half from 2005 to 2006 and dropped more sharply in 2007. The greatest number of 

dwellings proposed during the ten year period from 2003 to 2012 was in the City of Wildwood. 

The Wildwoods has a relatively limited area for new development and most of the new 

development occurs in the form of renovations and/or replacements. Historically, cyclical 

declines in housing starts have experienced several years ofreductions. Currently, the slow but 

steady upturn in the U.S. economy following the deep 2008-2009 recession provides 

encouragement for housing starts going fornrard. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 55 
56

Table 5 Proposed Residential Site Plans 

2003 2004 2005 2!Ml6 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total# 

North 245 414 356 70 4 5 () () 2 26 1.122 

Wild,;rnod 

Wildwood 840 441 1074 712 7 37 0 10 ,, 147 3.291 

Wild,vood 117 607 345 12 0 () 0 0 0 0 L08l 

Crest 

The 1,202 l.462 L775 814 II 42 0 JO 5 173 5,49-t 

Wild,Yoods 

The number of housing units by usage category for the three coastal cities of the Wildwood, is 

displayed in Table 6, In 2010, seasonal and/or rental housing units represent a large percentage 

of housing units in the coastal counties of New Jersey, Almost half of the seasonal and/or rental 

properties in New Jersey are located in Cape May County and 47% of dwellings in the county 

are vacation homes. Consistent with other summer destination communities, the majority of 

housing units in the Wildwoods are vacant and categorized as seasonal, recreational, and 

occasional use units. Therefore, condominiums, townhouses, and vacation homes dominate the 

housing stock, Figure 22 shows the Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units (2000), shows a 

concentration of more affordable housing located in Wildwood, According to data from the 

2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, none of the housing units in 

Wildwood were valued at or above one million dollars, One third of the owner-occupied units in 

the City of Wildwood were valued below $200,000, Conversely, approximately 6% of the 

homes were valued at less than $200,000 in either Nmth Wildwood or Wildwood Crest House 

market values skyrocketed for the first five or six years of the new century and have only 

recently declined slightly in shore communities, 

Table 6 Housing Units by Usage Category (2010) 

North Wildwood 

u~age Category Housing 

Units Pcrccntaoc 

2,047 23.21

Yo 

Occupied 

O\\llCf 1,282 14.5% 

Renter 765 8.7% 

6,79J 76.S'Vo 

Vacant 

For Rent 504 5.7% 

For sale onlv 91 LO% 

Rented or sol<l. not (H.:cupicJ 

19 0.2% 

For scasonaL rci.:rcnt10nal 01 

occasional use 6,116 69.2% 

Other vacant 63 0.7% 

TOTAL I 8,8-tO I 100.0% 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

Wildwood Wildwood Crest 

Housing Housing 

Units Pcrccntavc Unih PcrccntaP"C 

2,251 32.9% 1,532 27,5% 

798 l.011 182%) 

l.453 21.2% 521 9.4% 

.t,592 67.1% 4,037 72.5% 

"' 16.6% 307 5.5% 

188 2.7% 130 2.3% 

35 34 0.6% 

,m1 44.4% 3,468 62.3% 

196 2.9% 98 l.8% 

6,843 100.0% l 5,569 ! 10().0%, 

Page 56 
57

Highlights in development include the completion of a new $70 million convention center in 

Wildwood in 2002. Portions of Wildwood have also been designated as an Urban Enterprise 

Zone (UEZ). This program encourages business investment and job creation through various 

incentives. Merchandise can be purchased at a reduced sales tax as a benefit to patronizing 

shops in these special zones. Most new development projects in all three communities cater to 

the tourism indust1y and are characterized as hotel/motel or multifamily dwellings such as 

condominiums as shown in the following listings from 2006 and 2012 data. Another new 

residential development with almost 70 new units located in Diamond Beach (Lower Township) 

was under construction during the time of this study. Major development projects are contained 

in Table 7and Table 8. 

Figure 22 Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units 

Vuluebar,,;/ 

1- l,e.1·sthanS50.0(X) 

S50.000 99. 999 

3- 5100,IJOO 149,999 

4- S150.000 199.999 

Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units 

Numb..-rofl'oit~ 

5 - $200.000 299. 999 

8. $1.000.0UO or more 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 57 
58

Table 7 Development Projects in the Wildwoods 

Location Project Name Dwelling Type # of Units/Lots 

North Wildwood Champagne Island Resorts Hotel/Motel 24 

North WT!ch,.,,ood Subtotal 2~ 

Wild\\OOd The Riviera Hotel/Motel 86 

Wildwood The Riviera Multi Famil: 288 

Wildwood Martinique Resorts Multi Fa.mil: 254 

Wildwood Anchor Beach Condo Multifamily 30 

Wildwood Petunia, LLC MultiFamil: 22 

Wildwood Westgate Village Multi Family l3 

Wildwood Subtotal 693 

Wild\\ ood Crest Sanzone Condos Multi Family 13 

Wildwood Crest Subtotal 13 

17,e Wildwoods 789 

Year - 2012 

North Wildwood Hawaiian Beach Resort Multi Family 22 

Wildwood Grand Wildwoodian Multi Family 138 

The Wildwoods 160 

Table 8 Major non-residential Space 

Location Project Name Description Square Feet 

North Wildwood Champagne Island Resort Commercial 16.275 

North Wildwood The Beach House Commercial 9,442 

Wildwood Anchor B.::ach Condominium Commercial 6.000 

2.1.5 Cape May Couuty Toll Volumes 

Each summer tourists flock to Cape May County's beaches, boardwalks, promenades, and 

amusement piers for day trips and extended vacations. The county is also a popular birding 

destination for tourists seeking to catch a glimpse of the migratory birds that stop along the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 58 
59

shoreline. A two-mile boardwalk with four amusement piers, water parks, roller coasters, arcade 

and carnival games, and shopping characterizes Wildwood. lhe Wildwoods has received many 

distinctions and positive ratings from publications and organizations as "America's Best 

Beaches", "Top Tourist Town in the Northeast", and "Best Sports Beach" Recently, a survey 

conducted by the New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium (NJMSC) to determine New Jersey's 

top ten beaches ranked Wildwood as the best with approximately 14 percent of the vote. 

Wildwood won top honor in a field of over 60 beaches from Cape May to Monmouth Counties. 

Wildwood Crest and North Wildwood ranked second and fourth, respectively. According to the 

NJMSC, Wildwood Crest was chosen as the best location for a family vacation in a special 

category of the survey. Many shore communities have increased the number of off-season 

activities to draw tourists throughout the year. The Wild woods have marketed this seashore 

location and garnered attention as an increasingly popular destination for conventioneers. The 

Wildwood Convention Center which was completed in 2002 has been a catalyst for drawing nonseasonal visitors to Five Mile lsland and neighboring summer destination communities. Table 9 

shows double-digit increases in toll volumes in each decade since 1970 in each decade up to 

2000 for which round-trip volumes were available. 

Table 9 Cape May County Toll Volumes 

Month 2000 1990 1980 1970 

January 496.754 446.112 228,904 92A42 

February 551.867 428,831 204.682 96.736 

March 639,809 487.619 255.719 131,512 

April 692,249 602.715 299.850 156.233 

May 986.735 824.296 521,234 280.945 

June 1,228.834 1,137,115 754,290 413.122 

July 1,631,363 l.457.586 1,085.620 705.272 

August 1,610,985 1.474.358 1.222.330 763,402 

September 1,078,875 597,582 616.200 383,952 

October 780.884 602.155 349,060 163.288 

November 632.448 485.524 285,900 127.515 

December 598.975 441.973 267.530 118.150 

Total 10.929.778 8.985.866 6,091.319 3 . ./32.569 

% Change 22% ./-8% 77% 

2.2 Environmental Resources 

2.2.1 Environmental Setting 

The study area is located in coastal Cape May County, New Jersey The area is a 7 mile long 

barrier island bordered to the 11011h by Hereford Inlet and to the south by Cape May Inlet 

(formerly Cold Spring lnlet). Municipalities Boroughs and Townships on the island include; 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 59 
60

North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, West Wildwood, Diamond Beach, Wildwood 

Gables and Lower Township. A natural area managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Cape 

May National Wildlife Refuge) is located at the northern boundary of Cape May Inlet, within 

Lower Township. 

The study area, which has been heavily developed as a residential and recreational area, is 

characterized by estuarine intertidal emergent wetlands behind a marine intertidal beach/bar. 

The project area is separated from the mainland by three back bay areas including Grassy Sound, 

Richardson Sound and Jarvis Sound. These are wide, shallow bays surrounded by marsh islands 

and thoroughfares connected to Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet. Common species of the 

beach and dune area on the barrier island system include beach grass, sea-rocket, seaside 

goldenrod, poison ivy, groundsel-tree, and marsh elder. 

The back bays are comptised of open water, a low marsh zone, tidal flats, a high marsh zone, and 

a transition zone. The low marsh zone is typically dominated by salt marsh cordgrass. Tidal 

flats are areas that are covered with water at high tide and exposed at low tide. They are 

important areas for algal grm.vth, as producers offish and wildlife organisms, and as nursery 

areas for many species of fish, mollusks and other organisms. Dominant species include sea 

lettuce and eelgrass. The high marsh zone, which is slightly lower in elevation than the 

transition zone is dominated by salt meadow cordgrass and salt grass. This zone is typically 

flooded by spring high-tide. Plants typical of the transition zone include both upland and marsh 

species including marsh elder, groundsel-tree, bayberry, salt grass, sea-blite, glasswort, poison 

ivy, and common reed. 

2.2.2 Air Quality 

Through the State Implementation Plan (SIP), the NJDEP Bureau of Air Monitoring, manages 

and monitors air quality in the state. The goal of the State Implementation Plan is to meet and 

enforce the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards for pollutants. 

Management concerns are focused on any facility or combination of facilities, which emit high 

concentrations of air pollutants into the atmosphere. Manufacturing facilities, military bases and 

installations, oil and gas rigs, oil and gas storage or transportation facilities, power plants, 

deepwater ports, LNG facilities, geothermal facilities, highways, railroads, airports, ports, 

sewage treatment plants, and desalinization plants are facilities and activities that may cause air 

quality problems. In New Jersey, there are nine pollutant standards index-reporting regions. The 

study area falls within the Southern Coastal Region, which covers Cape May County. 

The most detailed air monitoring station in the Southern Coastal Region is located in Brigantine. 

In 201 l, the Brigantine station was actively monitoring for Visibility, Ozone, Sulfur Dioxide, 

Real-time Fine Particulates (2.5 microns or less), Mercury, and Acid Deposition. ln 2011, the 

Air Quality Index Ratings for the Southern Coastal Region were "good" for 323 days, 

"moderate" for 40 days and "unhealthy for sensitive groups" only 2 days. (NJDEP, 201 I). 

Cape May County, NJ is classified as a non-attainment area for ozone for 2012. This means that 

the national primary health standard is not being met for ozone. There are varying degrees of 

non-attainment in New Jersey, which range from marginal (0. l 21 - 0.137 ppm) to severe #2 

(0.191 - 0.279 ppm). Cape May County was also classified as a "marginal" non-attainment for 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 60 
61

ozone based on the May 2008 mandated 8-hour standard (USEPA, 2011). Ozone is caused by 

various photochemical reactions of volatile organic substances (hydrocarbons) with oxides of 

nitrogen on days with bright sunshine and warm temperatures. Thus ozone is only a potential 

problem in the late spring, summer, and early fall months (NJDEP, 2005). For ozone 

specifically, measurements at the Brigantine station exceeded the Ne\v Jersey and National 

Standards for the revised maximum daily 8-hour average primary standard on two occasions 

with hours above 0.075 ppm (USEPA, 2011). 

2.2.3 Natural Forces 

Coastal barrier island shorelines experience a number of natural forces, which affect erosion 

rates and transportation of pollutants to bay areas. These forces may include, but are not limited 

to: waves, currents (wave-induced and tidal), swells (wind-generated waves), winds, tides and 

storms. 

Circulation patterns originate from physical transfers of water and energy to form currents, 

resulting in a mixture of several different water sources in the Bay. Bay currents are generated 

by winds, tidal forces, fluvial flow, and salinity gradients resulting from inputs of sea water, river 

and ground water. 

Waves approach the study area from a northward orientation relative to the shoreline. generating 

a prevailing southward longshore current that carries with it littoral drift, sedimentation and 

deposition. Indicators of wave climate are generally height, period and direction. Wave energy 

can be determined knowing the spectral distribution of these parameters. The average wave 

height in the study area from the 1980 to 2000 Wave Information Station (WIS) data source are 

those derived for Station 147 offshore of the Wildwoods and range from 2.3' in July to 3.9' in 

January. The maximum monthly average wave height (Hrna) at Station 147 for the l 980 - 2000 

hind cast in the month of January is reported as l 9.0', with an associated peak period of 11 

seconds and a peak direction of 71 degrees. 

Tidal currents may cause tangible effects on shore stability and water quality. These are 

generated by tidal driven water level differences between the ocean and back bay areas. The 

periodic rise and fall of the ocean water elevation adjacent to barrier islands, creates the ebb and 

flood cycle of tidal currents. The tidal currents at the inlets can facilitate the movement of 

sediments and pollutants in the coastal zone, particularly as they interact with longshore currents 

to form the typical morphological features associated with barrier island-tidal inlet zones. 

The second class of currents important to coastal shoreline stability is longshore currents. These 

currents are set up near the breaker zone adjacent to beaches, and are caused by the longshore 

component of momentum in the waves breaking at an angle relative to the shore alignment. The 

turbulent force associated with breaking waves cause the suspension of sediments, which can 

then be transported in a direction parallel to the shore by longshore currents. Along the central 

portion of the barrier beach, longshore currents are instrumental in the movement of sand to 

adjacent areas. However, at the ends of the barrier beach where inlets are carved by the tides, 

sand transport particularly at the shoulder of the inlet is influenced more by tidal currents. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 61 
62

Recently, the importance oflarge scale currents has been recognized. A near shore current off 

the coast of New Jersey is being investigated by the University of Delaware, and it is believed 

that this may be caused by a density gradient. In addition, the ever-changing Gulf Stream, with 

its far reaching global effects on climate, may also impact local water quality to some extent. 

Tides on the New Jersey coast are semi-diurnal. The average tidal period is 12 hours and 25 

minutes. The mean tide range for the Atlantic Ocean at Wildwood Crest is reported as 4.31' in 

the Tide Tables published annually by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). The spring tide range is reported as approximately 4.93' 

Recent climate research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts 

continued or accelerated global warming for the 21" Century, and possibly beyond, which will 

cause a continued or accelerated rise in global mean sea-level. For all USACE Civil Works 

activities, analysts shall consider what effect changing relative sea-level rates could have on 

design measures, economic and environmental evaluation, and risk (EC-I 165-2-185, dated 

October 2011). Sea-level rise is considered by many within the scientific and engineering 

community to be a contributing factor to long-term coastal erosion and the increased potential for 

coastal inundation. Because of the wide variability of factors that affect sea level 1ise, predicting 

trends with any certainty is difficult. 

There are a number of scenarios offuture sea level rise. Some considerations of the peer 

reviewed articles presenting current eustatic sea-level rise reflect data based upon tide stations, 

satellite observation, and historical duration data. Army Corps of Engineers Circular (EC-1165-

2-185, dated October 2011) states that, "several peer reviewed publications have proposed 

maximum estimates ofGMSL (global mean sea-level) rise by year 2100. Although the authors 

use different physical bases to arrive at the estimates, none of them propose a 21'' Century 

GMSL rise greater than 2 meters." Consequently, if the rate of sea level rise increases in 

response to global wanning, beaches could lose sand even more quickly than currently 

forecasted. Major (destructive) stom1s could also increase in frequency over the next 50 years, 

and this may also alter erosion rates. 

2.2.4 Temperature and Salinity 

Mixing occurs in near shore waters due to the turbulence created from wave energy contacting 

shallower depths. This mixing becomes less prominent in greater depths where stratification can 

develop during wann periods. Water temperatures generally fluctuate between seasonal 

changes. The average temperature range is from 3.7°C (January) to 21.4"C (October). The most 

pronounced temperature differences are found in the winter and summer months. Wanning of 

coastal waters first becomes apparent near the coast in early spring, and by the end of April 

thermal stratification may develop. Under conditions of high solar radiation and light winds, the 

water column becomes more strongly stratified during the months of July to September. The 

mixed layer may extend to a depth of 12 to 13' As warming continues, however, the 

thern10cline may be depressed so that the upper layer of warm, mixed water extends to a depth of 

approximately 40' 

Salinity concentration is chiefly affected by freshwater dilution. Salinity cycles result from the 

cyclic flow of streams and intrusions of continental slope water from far offshore onto the shelf 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 62 
63

Continental shelf waters are the least affected by freshwater dilution, and have salinity 

concentrations varying between 30 parts per thousand (ppt) and 35 ppt. Coastal waters are more 

impacted by freshwater dilution, and may have salinities as low as 27 pp!. Salinity is generally 

at its maximum at the end of winter. The voluminous discharge of fresh water from the land in 

spring reduces salinity to its minimum by early summer_ Surface salinity increases in autumn 

when intrusions from offshore more than counterbalance the inflow of river water, and when 

horizontal mixing becomes more active as horizontal stability is reduced. 

Current near-bottom water quality parameters were measured within a sand fillet adjacent to the 

Cape May Inlet during the benthic sampling effort conducted in August 2005 (Versar, 2007). 

Surface and bottom water measurements were taken at one sampling site during the sampling 

period. A Hydrolab Surveyor ll was used to measure dissolved oxygen concentration (DO), 

salinity, conductivity, temperature, and pH. Depth measurements were recorded at each station 

using the electronic depth meter on the sampling vessel. The results of the sampling showed 

little difference between the surface and bottom water quality paran1eters. Temperatures ranged 

from 23.3°C at the bottom to 25. 7 °C at the surface. Dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.1 to 7.4 

mg/I from bottom to surface and pH was 7.9 for both measurements. Salinity varied little from 

surface to bottom ranging from 29.7 to 30.0 ppt. The salinity in this area was slightly lower than 

full strength seawater, indicating this area may have some estuarine influence from the Delaware 

Bay. Similar water quality investigations were conducted within the northern project area at 

Hereford Inlet in September 2000 (Versar 2001). Bottom water quality measurements within the 

Inlet measured temperature at 2!.l °C, pH at 8.0, salinity at 31.3 pp! and dissolved oxygen 

concentrations at 8.18 mg/L 

2.2.5 Water Quality Parameters 

Water quality is generally indicated by measuring levels of the following: nutrients 

(nitrogen/phosphorus), pathogens, floatable wastes, and toxics. Rainfall is an important 

parameter for studying water quality; runoff leads to nonpoint source pollution, and fresh water 

(rainfall, ground water seepage, runoff, and river discharge) can ultimately affect hydrodynamic 

circulation in the ocean. Enterococci bacteria are used as indicators for pathogens in measuring 

water quality. According to the Cape May County Health Department (CMCHD), ilie 

enterococci portion of the fecal streptococcus group is a valuable indicator for determining the 

extent of fecal contamination in recreational surface water. When the enterococci level exceeds 

the state criteria for bathing beaches (i.e. greater than 104 enterococci per 100 ml of 

water/sample) for two consecutive water samples, taken 24 hours apart, beach closures may 

result. Many of the high readings recorded in southern New Jersey are temporary fluctuations 

caused by pollution that washes into ilie ocean through storm drains after a heavy rainfall. In 

many cases, the contamination readings return to normal the following day, so no closure is 

warranted (CMCHD, 2012). The geometric mean recommended by the State for enterococci is 

35/100ml (NJDEP, 2000). 

Elevated fecal coliform and enterococci counts along the coast of New Jersey may result from 

failing septic tanks, wastewater treatment plant discharges, combined sewer overflows, storm 

water drainage, runoff from developed areas, domestic animals, wildlife and sewage discharge 

from boats. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 63 
64

Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) is the primary pollution of back bay and near-shore coastal 

waters. NPS is the result of precipitation moving over and through land and carrying pollutants 

into surface and ground water. NPS generally correlates directly with the intensity of land 

development and contains nutrients, heavy metals, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and possibly 

some toxic substances. Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, much progress has been 

made in controlling point source discharges of pollutants but due to its very nature, NPS is much 

more difficult to identify and control. The NJDEP estimates that between 40 and 70% of 

pollutant loads are due to nonpoint sources (NJDEP, 2008). 

One indication of water quality is derived from the annual State of New Jersey Shellfish 

Growing Water Classification Charts. Waters are classified as approved, seasonal, special 

restricted or prohibited. In 2012, the near-shore waters from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

were classified as prohibited for shellfish harvesting. The waters in the back bays and inlets 

immediately adjacent to the study area were for the most part classified as seasonally approved 

or special restricted areas. 

The State of New Jersey's shellfish sampling and assessment program is overseen by the U.S. 

Food and Drug administration (FDA) and administered through the National Shellfish Sanitation 

Program (NSSP) to ensure the safe harvest and sale of shellfish within the state. The Bureau of 

Marine Water Monitoring assigns the shellfish classifications based on its sampling of coliform 

bacterial concentrations in the water column. The principle components of the sanitary report 

include: 1) an evaluation of all actual and potential sources of pollution, 2) an evaluation of the 

hydrography of the area and 3) an assessment of water quality. Emphasis is placed on the 

sanitary control of shellfish because of the direct relationship between pollution of shellfish 

growing areas and the transmission of diseases to humans. Waters not in compliance with the 

NSSP guidelines are closed to shellfish harvesting. This information is then integrated into 

shellfish classification charts by the Shellfisheries Bureau ofNJDEP. New Jersey has been very 

successful in improving the water quality for shellfish harvesting and for the past 15 years has 

upgraded more waters than it has downgraded for shellfish harvesting. Current reports indicate 

that 90% of the State's shellfish waters are harvestable. 

NJDEP research indicated that eating certain species offish and shellfish from some State waters 

posed unacceptable health risks. As a result, New Jersey has been issuing consumption 

advisories for fish and shellfish contaminated with toxic chemicals since the 1980s. Since that 

time, NJDEP has published "statewide" advisories in coastal waters for striped bass, bluefish, 

American lobster, weakfish and American eel (NJDEP, 2012). 

Water quality within the project area is also evaluated under the Cooperative Coastal Water 

Quality Monitoring Program. This program is designed to provide basic measures of the 

ecological health of New Jersey's coastal waters. The program measures parameters such as 

Dissolved Oxygen (DO), salinity, nitrogen, phosphorous, temperature and suspended solids at 

approximately 270 locations within the state on a quarterly basis. None of the assessment units 

sampled in 2007 met the criteria for general aquatic life use. This was generally due to a region 

containing low dissolved oxygen (DO) that forms off the coast between Sandy Hook and the 

Wildwoods during the summer months. During sampling, almost 50% of assessed coastal units 

exceeded the applicable DO criteria. It should be noted however, that surface water DO levels 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 64 
65

have historically met applicable criteria. While the cause of the low DO cell is not known, 

summer algal bloom die-offs have been implicated as a potential source. 

For recreational beaches, the Cape May County Health Department works with NJDEP to 

monitor bathing beaches for enterococcus. As part of the Cooperative Coastal Monitoring 

Program (NJDEP - 3, 2012) the Cape May County Health Department monitors swimming 

beaches for enterococci at approximately 17 locations within the project area (NJDEP-1, 2012) 

Samples are collected on a weekly basis from May to September. If a sample indicates high 

bacterial counts, confirmatory re-sampling is conducted. If the counts are still above the bathing 

beach standard of I 04 enterococci per I 00 ml of sample, the beach is closed to swimming 

(NJDEP-2, 2012). The results of the recent monitoring showed that in 2007, ten samples within 

the project area exceeded the bathing beach standard but did not result in any beach closures. 

Monitoring results also did not warrant any beach closures (NJDEP, 2008). 

The lack of beach closures can be credited, in part, to the fact that since 1988, there has been no 

discharge from wastewater treatment plants onto the beach as a result of the implementation of a 

regional wastewater treatment plan. The potential for contamination due to high levels of fecal 

coliform bacteria still exists however due to the presence of 19 stonn water outfalls located 

along the beach within the project area. Storm water can be contaminated during overland flow 

during heavy rainfall events and during transport through underground conveyance systems 

before being discharged onto the beach or into a waterway. The storm water conveyance 

systems that are near sanitary systems may be contaminated by leaks in the sanitary system, or 

illegal direct connections. Sewage flows from surcharging sanitary lines through manholes in 

the street have been observed to enter the storm water catch basins, where it either contaminated 

the storm water or continued to waterways that normally receive storm water. ln Wildwood, the 

locations of the ends of the ocean outfall pipes carrying this storm water are problematic, ranging 

300-500' from the mean high water line. Most of these outfalls are clogged with sand or have a 

pool of standing water at their outlet location which could pose a health risk to bathers. The City 

regularly excavates sand from around the outfalls to keep them clear of sand and allow standing 

water to drain towards the ocean. The City has been investigating measures to reduce the 

potential of beach closures due to high fecal coliform bacteria counts associated with storm water 

discharge from these outfall structures (Remington & Vernick Engineers, 2003). 

2.2.6 Wetland Habitats 

The study area encompasses both the barrier spit complex and back bay/coastal salt marsh 

systems. Wetlands are critical environmental components with regard to flood control, helping 

to preserve water quality, and they play a significant role as wildlife habitats, nursery habitats 

and refuges for juvenile finfish. 

The back bays are comprised of open water, a low marsh zone, tidal flats, a high marsh zone, and 

a transition zone. The low marsh zone is typically dominated by salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina 

alterniflora). Tidal flats are areas that are covered with water at high tide and exposed at low 

tide. They are important areas for algal grmvth, as producers of fish and wildlife organisms, and 

as nursery areas for many species of fish, mollusks, and other organisms. The dominant algal 

species include sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) and eelgrass (Zostera marina). The high marsh zone, 

which is slightly lower in elevation than the transition zone, is dominated by salt meadow 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 65 
66

cordgrass (Spartina pa/ens) and salt grass (Distichlis spicala). This zone is typically flooded by 

spring high~tide. 

The critical edge, or upland edge of the wetlands, is cmcial for the survival of those coastal zone 

species identified above that rely on this habitat for breeding, food source, cover, and travel 

corridors. It also acts as a buffer from nonpoint source pollution and activities affecting wildlife. 

Plants typical of the transition zone include both upland and marsh species including marsh elder 

(Jvafrutescens), groundsel-tree (Raccharis halimifblia), bayberry (Myrica spp. ), salt grass (D. 

.,pica/a), sea-blite (S11eda mal'itima), glasswort (Sa/icornia .spp. ), poison ivy (Rh11s radicans), and 

common reed (Phragmites austra!is). As the critical edge disappears and wetlands are 

fragmented or isolated, the diversity of wildlife that depends on it decreases. As further 

development of the coastal and back bay shorelines is expected, the continued existence of 

brackish tidal salt marsh and coastal wetlands (fringe wetlands) is threatened; consequently 

elimination of habitat and degradation of water quality due to non point sources of pollution may 

increase. 

Wetlands in the vicinity of the project area also provide high quality habitat for a variety of 

migratory shorebirds. Shorebirds that use the beaches and surrounding estuarine wetlands in the 

vicinity of the project area include the Federally listed (threatened) piping plover (Charadrius 

me/od11s) and the red knot (Federal candidate species) (Calidris canutus ruja). Other species 

include the American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates), short-billed dowitcher 

(Limnodromus griseus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), semipalmated plover 

(Charadrius semipalmatus), sanderling (C. alba), spotted sandpiper (Actitis macu/arius), willet 

(Tringa semipalmarus), and greater yellowlegs ('l'. melano/euca) (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2008). 

2.2.7 Dune Habitat 

Beaches and dunes are linked together to form the "littoral active zone". Even though there is 

active sand exchange occurring between them, the two systems are quite distinct. The beach/surf 

zone being a marine, wave-driven system, and the dune field a primarily wind-driven terrestrial 

ecosystem. Coastal dune fauna are generally not indigenous but display high diversity, while the 

floral species are typically unique to the area with moderate diversity. 

Although typical beach dunes and the habitats associated with them are almost non-existent 

within Cape May County, many elements of natural beach dune flora and fauna are still present 

within portions of Wildwood Crest and the Cape May Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The following 

discussion on beach dunes mainly pertains to healthy, undisturbed beach and dune areas, 

however, some of the dune flora and fauna discussed are still present within the project area and 

adjacent Refuge. However, large segments of the shoreline contain heavy development 

consisting primarily of residential houses or commercial structures with a maintained dune or no 

dune at all. The presence and sizes of dunes vary throughout the project area. In typical natural 

beach profiles along New Jersey's Coast, more than one dune may exist. The primary dune is 

the first dune or sometimes the only dune landward from the beach. The flora of the primary 

dune are adapted to the harsh conditions present such as low fertility, heat, and high energy from 

the ocean and wind. The dominant plant on these dunes is American beach grass (Ammophila 

breviligulala), which is tolerant to salt spray, shifting sands and temperature extremes. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 66 
67

American beach grass is a rapid colonizer that can spread by horizontal rhizomes, and also has 

fibrous roots that can descend to depths ofJ' to reach moisture. Beach grass is instrumental in 

the development of dune stability, which opens up the dune to further colonization with more 

species like seaside goldenrod (So/idago sempervirens), sea-rocket (Caki/e edentu/a), bitter panic 

grass (Panicum amarulum), American wormseed (Chenopodium ambrosioides), and beach 

cocklebur (Xanthium echinatum). 

The secondary dunes lie landward of the primary dunes, and tend to be more stable resulting 

from the protection provided by the primary dunes. The increased stability also allows an 

increase in plant species diversity. Some of the plant species in this zone include: beach heather 

(Hudsonia tomentosa), coastal panic grass (Panicum amarum), salt meadow hay (c\)x1rtina 

patens), broom sedge (Andropogon rirginicus), beach plum (Prunu;c,; maritima), sea beach 

evening primrose (Oenothera humifusa), sand spur (Cenchrus trihu/oides), seaside spurge 

(Fphorbia polygonifi,lia), joint-weed (Polygone//a articulata), black cherry (Pnmus serotina), 

bayberry (Myrica pennsylvanica), and prickly pear (Opuntia humifusa). 

2.2.8 Upper Beach Habitat 

The upper beach, or supra-littoral zone, typically lies below the primary dune and above the 

intertidal zone. An upper beach is present within the study area: however, it is subject to high 

disturbance from human activity. The upper beach zone is only covered with water during 

periods of extremely high tides and large storm waves. Sparse vegetation and few animals 

characterize the upper beach habitat This zone has fewer biological interactions than the dunes, 

and organic inputs are scarce. Many of the organisms are either terrestrial or semi-terrestrial. 

Although more common on southern beaches, the ghost crab ((hypode quadrata) is the most 

active organism in this zone. This crab lives in semi-permanent bmTows near the upland edge of 

the beach, and it is known to be a scavenger, predator, and deposit sorter. The ghost crab is 

nocturnal in its foraging activities, and it remains in its burrow during the day, In addition to 

ghost crabs, species of sand fleas or amphipods (Talitridae), predatory and scavenger beetles and 

other transient animals may be found in this zone. 

2.2.9 Intertidal Zone Habitat 

The upper marine intertidal zone is also primarily barren: however, more biological activity is 

present in comparison to the upper beach_ Organic inputs are derived primarily from the ocean 

in the form of beach wrack, which is composed of drying seaweed, tidal marsh plant debris, 

decaying marine animals, and miscellaneous debris that washed up and deposited on the beach. 

The beach wrack provides a cooler, moist microhabitat suitable to crustaceans such as the 

am phi pods: Orchestia spp. and Talorchestia spp., which are also known as beach fleas. Beach 

fleas are important prey to ghost crabs. Various foraging birds and some mammals are attracted 

to the beach fleas, ghost crabs, carrion and plant parts that are commonly found in beach wrack. 

The birds include gulls, shorebirds, fish crows, and grackles. 

2.2.10 Benthos of Intertidal and Subtidal Zone 

Benthic macro-invertebrates refer to those organisms living along the bottom of aquatic 

environments. They can be classified as those organisms dwelling in the substrate (infauna) or 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 67 
68

on the substrate ( epifauna). Benthic invertebrates arc an important link in the aquatic food chain, 

and provide a food source for a variety of bottom feeding fish species. Various factors such as 

hydrography, sediment type, depth, temperature, irregular patterns of recruitment and biotic 

interactions (predation and competition) may influence species dominance in benthic 

communities. Benthic assemblages in New Jersey coastal waters can exhibit seasonal and spatial 

variability. Generally, coarse sandy sediments are inhabited by filter feeders and areas of soft 

silt or mud are more utilized by deposit feeders, however, benthic investigations reveal that there 

is a lot of overlap of these feeding groups in these sediment types. Approximately 58 species of 

benthic organisms have been identified from Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet (Chaillou and 

Scott, 1996). 

The intertidal zone contains more intensive biological activity than the other zones. Shifting 

sand and pounding surf dominate a habitat, which is inhabited by a specialized fauna. The beach 

fauna forms an extensive food-filtering system, which removes detritus, dissolved materials, 

plankton, and larger organisms from in-mshing water. The organisms inhabiting the beach 

intertidal zone have evolved special locomotoiy, respiratoiy, and morphological adaptations, 

which enable them to survive in this extreme habitat_ Organisms of this zone are agile, mobile, 

and capable of resisting long periods of environmental stress. Most are excellent and rapid 

burrowers. Frequent inundation of water provides suitable habitat for benthic infauna; however, 

there may be a paucity in numbers of species. lntettidal benthic organisms tend to have a high 

rate of reproduction and a shott (l to 2 years) life span (Hurme and Pullen, 1988). This zone 

contains an admixture of deposit feeders and carnivores. A number of interstitial animals 

(meiofauna) are present feeding among the sand grains for bacteria and unicellular algae, which 

are important in the beach food chain. Meiofauna are generally< 0.5 mm in size and are either 

juveniles of larger macro fauna or exist as meiofauna during their entire life cycle. Some 

common meiofauna include Rotifera, Gastrotricha, Kinorhyncha, Nematoda, Archiannelida, 

Tardigrada, Copepoda, Ostracoda, Mystacocarida, Halacarida, and many groups of Turbellaria, 

Oligochaeta, and some Polychaeta. 

Natural1y occurring rocky intertidal zones are absent from the project area. However, man-made 

structures such as seawalls, jetties, and groins are present and provide suitable habitats for 

aquatic and avian species. Benthic macro invertebrates such as barnacles (Ba/anus halanoides), 

polychaetes, molluscs ([)onax sp. ), small crustaceans such as, mysid shrimp (Heteromysis 

fi,rmosa), amphipods (Gammarus spJ, and uropods (Jdotea haltica), reside on and around these 

structures. The blue mussel, (Mytilus edu/is), is a dominant member of this community. 

2.2.11 Nearshore and Offshore Zones 

The near shore zone generally extends seaward from the sub-tidal zone at MLW to well beyond 

tbe breaker zone (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984) (Figure 23). This zone is characterized 

by intense wave energies that displace and transport coastal sediments. The offshore zone 

generally lies beyond the breakers and is a flat zone of variable width extending to the seaward 

edge of the Continental Shelf Hurme and Pullen (1988) describe the near shore zone as an 

indefinite area that includes parts of the surf and offshore areas affected by near shore currents. 

The boundaries of these zones may vaiy depending on relative depths and wave heights present. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 68 
69

2.2.12 Benthos of N earshore and Offshore Zones 

New Jersey Atlantic near shore waters provide a dynamic environment heavily influenced by the 

tidal flows and long shore currents. The near shore and offshore waters of the New Jersey Coast 

contain a wide assemblage of invertebrate species inhabiting the benthic substrate and open 

water. lnvertebrate Phyla existing along the coast are represented by Cnidaria (corals, anemones, 

and jellyfish), Annelida (Polychaetes, Oligochaetes), Platyhelminthes (flatworms), Nemertinea 

(ribbon worms), Nematoda (roundworms), Bryozoa, Mollusca (chitons, clams, mussels, etc.), 

Echinodermata (sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sand dollars, starfish), Arthropoda (Crustaceans), 

and the Urochordata (tunicates). 

Figure 23 Beach Intertidal and Nearshore Zones 

2.2.13 Plankton and Marine Macroalgae 

Plankton are collectively a group of interacting minute organisms adrift in the water column, 

Plankton are commonly broken into two main categories: phytoplankton (plant kingdom) and 

zooplankton (animal kingdom). Phytoplankton are the primary producers in the aquatic marine 

ecosystem, and are assimilated by higher organisms in the food chain. Phytoplankton production 

is dependent on light penetration, available nutrients, temperature and wind stress. 

Phytoplankton production is generally highest in near shore waters. Seasonal shifts in species 

dominance of phytoplankton are frequent. Phytoplankton can be broken down into two major 

seasonal species associations. One is a spring-summer dinoflagellate dominated regime. 

October and November are periods of transition in the phytoplankton community. A second 

regime exists during the winter, which predominantly consists of diatoms. 

A number of species of marine macroalgae have been identified in the project region. The 

habitats include jetties, sand beaches, enclosed bays, and tidal creeks. The productivity is 

primarily seasonal with the densest population occurring in lune through August. Distribution 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 69 
70

and abundance of algae is closely related to seasonal temperature, salinity variations and nutrient 

levels corning from tributary streams. Rhodophyta (red algae) are the predominant benthic algae 

while Chlorophyta (green algae) comprise the largest number of intertidal algae species. 

Phaeophyta (brown algae) such as rockweed (Fucus spp.) may be found attached or floating free 

around rock jetties and pilings or washed onto the shore to make up part of the wrack line. 

Zooplankton provide an essential trophic link between primary producers and higher organisms. 

Zooplankton represent the animals (vertebrates and invertebrates) that are adrift in the water 

column, and are generally unable to move against major ocean currents. Many organisms may 

be zooplankton at early stages in their respective life cycles only to be able to swim against the 

currents (nektonic) in a later life stage, or become part of the benthic community. Zooplankton 

are generally either microscopic or barely visible to the naked eye. Zooplankton typically 

exhibit seasonal variances in species abundance and distribution, which may be attributed to 

temperature, salinity and food availability. [n marine environments, seasonal peaks in 

abundance of zooplankton distinctly correlate with seasonal phytoplankton peaks. These peaks 

usually occur in the spring and fall. Zooplankton species that are characteristic of coastal areas 

include: Acartia tonsa, Centropages humatus, ('.furatus, Temora !ongicornis, Tortanus 

discaudatus, Eucalanus pileatus, .Mysidopsis bigelowi (mysid shrimp), and Crangon 

septemspinosa (sand shrimp). Zooplankton species within the geographic area generally fall 

within two seasonal groups. The copepod, Acartia clausi, is a dominant species during winterspring, and is replaced in spring by A. tonsa. Peak densities usually occur in late spring to early 

summer following the phytoplankton bloom. 

2.2.14 Finfish 

The coastal shores and estuaries of New Jersey provide important migratory pathways, 

spawning, feeding and nursery habitat for many commercial and sport fish (USFWS, 2008). 

Shoal areas along the Atlantic coast are especially productive for finfish. The proximity of 

several embayments allows the coastal waters of New Jersey to have a productive fishery. Many 

species utilize the estuaries behind the Wildwood beaches for forage and nursery grounds. The 

finfish found along the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey are principally seasonal migrants. Winter is 

a time oflow abundance and diversity as most species leave the area for warmer waters offshore 

and southward. During the spring, increasing numbers offish are attracted to the New Jersey 

Coast, because of its proximity to several estuaries, which are utilized by these fish for spawning 

and nurseries. Offshore shoals and sand 1idges may also have a distinct influence on fish 

abundance and assemblages in New Jersey coastal waters. Vasslides and Able (2008) found that 

these features were important habitat for a number offish, including many economically 

important species. In this study, overall species abundance and richness was the highest on 

either side of the offshore ridge sampled. In addition, near-ridge habitats had higher species 

abundance and richness compared to the surrounding inner continental shelf(Vasslides and 

Able, 2008). 

The coastal waters within the project area support significant commercial and recreational 

fisheries. Commercially important species include: Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates). 

Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), summer flounder (Paralichthy, den/a/us), black sea 

bass (Centroprislis stria/a), striped bass (Morone saxali/is), bluefish (Pomalomus saltatrix), 

winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), tautog (ltwtoga onitis), weakfish (C'ynoscion 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 70 
71

regalis), scup (Stenolomus chrysops), and white perch (Morone americana). Harvesting is 

generally accomplished by use of purse seines, otter trawls, pots, and gill nets. In 2011, the port 

of Cape May-Wildwood was the 61d largest commercial fishing port on the East Coast in terms of 

volume, bringing in 40 million pounds of seafood at a value of$ I 03 million. In 2010, the port 

harvested 43 million pounds of seafood product at a value of $8 l million dollars, placing the port 

at a ranking of 7

1

" in the National Commercial Fisheries Landing chart for dollar values (NMFS, 

2011). 

Important recreational fisheries within the near shore waters of New Jersey include many of the 

above-mentioned species plus red hake (Urophycis chuss), white hake (Urophycis tenuis), silver 

hake (Mer/uccius bilinearis), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), chub mackerel (S 

japonicus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), and northern kingfish (Menticirrh11s saxatilis). 

Northern puffer (Sphaeroides maculatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), red drum (Sciaenops 

ocel/atus), pollock (l'ol/achius virens), and Atlantic bonito (San/a sarda) may also be taken 

occasionally. 

2.2.15 Shellfish 

Extensive shellfish beds, which fluctuate in quality and productivity are found in the back bays 

and shallow ocean waters of the study area. Atlantic surf clams (S),isula solidissima), hard clams 

(Mercenaria mercenaria), blue mussels (Mylilus edulis) and blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) are 

common commercial and recreational shellfish within the coastal waters of the study area. Surf 

clams are the largest bivalve community found off the Atlantic coast from the Gulf of Saint 

Lawrence, Canada to North Carolina. The blue crab and the hard clam are two of the most 

important invertebrates of recreational and commercial value along the New Jersey Coast, and 

are common in back bays and inlets. 

The surf clam has a wide distribution and abundance within the mid-Atlantic Region. Surf clams 

most commonly inhabit substrates composed of medium to coarse sand and gravel in turbulent 

waters just beyond the breaker zone (Fay et al., 1983; Ropes, 1980). The abundance of adults 

varies from loose, evenly distributed aggregations to patchy, dense aggregations in the substrate 

(Fay el al., 1983). Surf clams may reach sexual maturity their first year, with the entire 

population being sexually mature during their second year. Spawning may occur twice annually 

from mid-July to early August and from mid-October to early November. Historically, the smf 

clam fishery supported the largest molluscan fishery in New Jersey. This catch represents over 

61% of the total Mid-Atlantic area catch for 2010, and 73.9% of the East Coast harvest in 2003. 

In the last few years there has been a significant decline of surl' clams State-wide as well as in 

Federal waters off the Delmarva Peninsula. 

The Bureau of Shellfisheries, Shellfish Growing Water Classification Charts, depict shellfish 

conservation and prohibited zones. The waters immediately offshore of the project area are 

classified as "prohibited" for the harvest of oysters, clams and mussels. Hereford Inlet is 

classified as "seasonally approved", while the back bay areas surrounding the project are 

classified as "specially restricted" or "seasonally approved". 

In addition to supporting some of the best hard clam resources in the State, the bays in the 

project area also supp011 other species of shellfish. American oysters (Crassostrea virginica) are 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 71 
72

not usually present in commercially harvestable densities, but can be found throughout the 

project area. Soft clams (A1ya arenaria) and blue mussels are primarily harvested for recreation, 

but occasionally commercial densities are present Blue crabs are an important species in the 

back bay estuaries. Of all New Jersey's matine fish and shellfish, more effort is expended in 

catching the blue crab than any other single species. Smveys indicate that three-quarters of the 

state's saltwater fishermen go crabbing and that crabbing accounts for roughly 30 percent of all 

marine fishing activity (NJDEP, 1998). 

2.2.16 Essential Fish Habitat 

Under provisions of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act of 1996, the entire study area, including near shore and intertidal areas were designated as 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for species with Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), and their 

important prey species. The National Marine Fisheries Service has identified EFH within I 0 

minute X 10 minute squares. The study area contains EFH for various life stages for 32 species 

of managed fish and shellfish. There are three IO' X 10' squares that encompass the project 

area. Table 10 shows the managed species and their life stage that EFH is identified for within 

the corresponding l O X l O minute squares that cover the study area. These squares are within 

the seawater biosalinity zone. The habitat requirements for identified EFH species and their 

representative life stages are provided in Table 1 L 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 72 
Table 10 Essential Fish Habitat 

Sli\f:\L\RY OF SPE('IES \\ITH EFII DESJ(;~.\.TIO\'\ I'.'; THE APPLIC'.\UU,'. 10 miJL x 10 min. SQl'ARES \\ITIII:\ THE PRO.JEC:f AREA (Squart>S38507-t50,38507-I..JO, and 39007440)(:\(H,\, 20!3) 

(/UOSUS) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May lnlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

X(IL\l'CJ 

Page 73 
Table 11 Habitat Utilization or F.FH Species 

'"""""'""". 

ist~unl.: ~1,,I. JY9R) "-> 

,,io "''' 

r,,:,,· 

lo/)8) 

'""'"''~ PUH~rI"n ,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,m,, Sun,mc:rJloun<kr1/',:,r-,1/ldhy\dc:n/am,1J Pre:, 

=>,·up 

11,~,,.~ 

f,,, 

.,.,,,,,l,lurl,_ ''-"""'""-'" ,,,~Ok•II 

'"' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

·,harl.rC, 

''"' ""'" 

'°""'"'"'"''"'" '""'' 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page74 
75

2.2.17 Birds 

The project area is located within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture's New Jersey Waterfowl 

Focus Area under the North America Waterfowl Management Plan. Areas adjacent to the 

project area, including the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, are important resting and 

feeding areas for migratory waterfowl within the Atlantic flyway. Species common to the area 

include: American widgeon (Anas americana), canvasback (Aythya va/i5;ineria), greater scaup 

(Aythya marila), common goldeneye (Bucepha/a cla11g11/a), oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis), 

hooded merganser (f.ophodytes cuc11l/at11s), Canada goose (Bran/a canadensis), Atlantic brant 

(Bran/a hernicla), American black duck (Anas ruhripes), northern pintail (Anas acuta), mallard 

(Anas plalyrhynchos), northern shoveler (A. cfypeata) and tundra swan ((vgnus columhianus) 

(USFWS, 2008) 

The project area and the surrounding wetlands also support a wide variety of migratory shorebird 

and colonial nesting waterbird species. The shorebirds include species such as the ruddy 

turnstone (Arenaria in/erpres), dunlin (C'alidris alpina) pectoral sandpiper (C. melanotos) and 

black-bellied plover (P/uvialis squa/arola). Colonial nesting waterbirds include the State-listed 

(endangered) least tern (Sterna a11/illamm) and black skimmer (Rynchops niger); State-listed 

(threatened) little blue heron (Egrelfa caerulea) and yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanmsa 

violacea) as well as glossy ibis (Plegadisfalcinellus), snowy egret (Egret/a thula), great egret 

(Casmerodius a/bus), black-crowned night heron (Nyclicorax nyticorax), great black-backed gull 

(Larus mari1111s), herring gull (Larus argentatus), laughing gull (Larus atrici/la), royal tern 

(Sterna maxima) and common tern (Sterna hinmdo). 

2.2.18 Mammals, Amphibians, Reptiles 

Mammals typically occurring along streams and on the marsh near woodlands, in and around the 

study area, include the opossum (Didelphis sp. ), short-tailed shrew (13/arina hrevicauda), least 

shrew (C,yptotis parva), star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata), and masked shrew (Sorex 

cinereus). Bat species sighted along watercourses and in wooded areas include the little brown 

bat (Myotis /ucift1gus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Eastern pipistrelle 

(Pipistrellus suhjlm11s), big brown bat (1';ptesic11sjuscus), and red bat (Lasiurus horealis). 

Upland fields and woodlands support the Eastern chipmunk (Tamias stria/us), Eastern muskrat 

(Ondatra zihethicus), raccoon (Procyon /otor), long-tailed weasel (Mustelaft'enata), and striped 

skunk (Mephitis mephitis). In addition, gray fox ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and river otter 

(!,utra canadensis) have been identified on colonial seabird islands. 

A number of upland and fresh water species of reptiles and amphibians occur in the study area. 

Common reptiles include the following tUiiles and snakes: the snapping turtle (Chelydra 

serpentina), stinkpot (Stemolherus sp.), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon suhruhrum), eastern box 

tUitle (Terrapene carolina), northern diamondback terrapin (Ma/aclemys terrapin terrapin), 

eastern painted turtle (Clu;vsemyspicta), northern water snake (Nalrix sipedon), eastern garter 

snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), northern black racer (Coluher constrictor), and northern red-bellied 

snake (Storeria occipitomacu/ata). The red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus), four-toed 

salamander (Hemidacty/ium scutatum), Fowler's toad (B11fb woodhousei), northern spring peeper 

(Hy/a crucifer), New Jersey chorus frog (Pseudarcris /riseriata), and southern leopard frog 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 75 
76

(Rana utricularia) are all common species of amphibians found in the study area. Sea turtles, 

although present int eh project areaare not known to nest on project are beaches. 

2.2.19 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The federally-listed (threatened) and state-listed (endangered) piping plover (Charadrius 

melodus) has previously nested adjacent to the project in North Wildwood, the US Coast Guard 

Property and more recently within the US Fish and Wildlife Refuge, according to NJDEP and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife field surveys. Piping plovers nest above the high tide line on mainland 

coastal beaches, sand flats, and barrier island coastal beaches. Nesting sites are typically located 

on gently sloping foredunes, blowout areas behind prima1y dunes, wash over areas cut into or 

between dunes, ends of sand spits, and on sites with deposits of suitable dredged or pumped 

sand. The nesting season usually begins in March when the birds arrive and can extend as late as 

the end of August. Shortly after hatching, the young leave the nest and begin foraging within the 

intertidal zone. 

Food for adult plover and chicks consists of invertebrates such as marine worms, fly larvae, 

beetles, crustaceans, or mollusks. Feeding areas include intertidal portions of ocean beaches, 

ocean wash over areas, mudflats, sand !lats, wrack lines (organic material left behind by high 

tide), shorelines of coastal ponds, lagoons, and salt marshes. 

The red knot (Calidris canutus n!fa) is a Federal Candidate Species and is present at the adjacent 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge as well as the nearby Stone Harbor Point during spring and 

fall migration. Some birds may also be found lingering at the sites through the early winter. The 

red knot's spring migration to this area is timed with the release of horseshoe crab eggs. This 

generally abundant food supply helps the red knot to increase its body weight enough to be able 

to continue its migration to the red knot's Arctic breeding grounds. 

The State listed (endangered) black skimmer (Rynchops niger) and least tern (Slerna anti I/arum) 

are known to nest within Hereford lnlet (Champagne Island) and at Stone Harbor Point to the 

north of the project area. The back bay islands and marshes also host nesting colonies ofa State 

endangered species. The State threatened wading birds, little blue heron (lcgrella caern/ea) and 

yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa violacea), are also found in the back bay of the coastal 

barrier system. 

The seabeach amaranth (Amaranth11S pumilus) is a Federally-listed threatened plant. The 

seabeach amaranth is an annual plant, endemic to Atlantic coastal plain beaches, and primarily 

occurs on over wash flats at the accreting ends of barrier beach islands and lower foredunes of 

non-eroding beaches. The species occasionally establishes small temporary populations in other 

areas, including bayside beaches, blowouts in foredunes, and sand and shell material placed as 

beach fill. Although no extant occurrences of the seabeach amaranth are known within the 

proposed project area, the species has recently naturally recolonized coastal sites within Northern 

New Jersey, New York and Maryland and was present in the nearby Coast Guard LORAN 

property in 2003 and 2004. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protects migratory shorebirds as a Federal trust resource. 

Many species utilize high energy beaches (e.g., ocean and bay beaches) for feeding, including: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 76 
77

ringed plovers (Charadrius .,p.). golden plovers (Pluvialis sp.), stints (Calidris sp.), willet 

(Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), oystercatcher (Haematopuspalliatus), and ruddy turnstone 

(Arenaria interpres). Both the biomass and species composition of infauna! beach communities 

are critical for supplying the nutritional needs of shorebirds, especially during spring and fall 

migrations. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over four ( 4) Federallydesignated sea turtles: the endangered leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), Kemp's Ridley 

(Lepidochelys kempii), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles, and the threatened loggerhead sea 

turtle (Carella care/ta). These sea turtles may be found in New Jersey's continental shelf waters, 

inshore bays and estuaries from late spring to mid-fall but do not nest on the beach. Sea turtles 

feed primarily on mollusks, crustaceans, sponges and a variety of marine grasses and seaweeds. 

The endangered leatherback sea turtle may forage on jellyfish, as well. The northern 

diamondback terrapin (Malademys 1errapin /errapin) is a Federal Category 2 candidate species 

that occupies shallow bay waters, and nests on the sandy portions of bay islands as well as the 

barrier islands themselves. The diamondback terrapin is considered a canilldate species, as its 

nesting habitat is dwindling. 

Federally endangered finback whales (Ba/aenoplera physa/us) are the most common whales to 

occur in New Jersey coastal waters. Finback whales increase in relative abundance in late winter 

and spring, east of the Delaware peninsula, but may be found in New Jersey coastal waters in all 

seasons. The endangered humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and right whales (lcuha/aena 

:;pp.) are knm.vn to occur in the nearshore waters of the mid-Atlantic on a seasonal basis, and 

may be found within the vicinity of the proposed borrow area(s) from late winter through early 

spring. 

The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) population has been divided into 5 

distinct population segments (DPSs) (Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, 

Carolina, and South Atlantic). These DPSs were configured to account for the marked difference 

in physical, genetic, and physiological factors within the species, as well as the unique ecological 

settings and unique genetic characteristics that would leave a significant gap in the range of the 

!axon if one of them were to become extinct (ASSRT, 2007). On February 6, 2012, the 

Northeast Region of NMFS listed the Gulf of Maine population as threatened and the New York 

Bight (NYB) and Chesapeake Bay (CB) DPSs as endangered. The Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet Project falls within the boundaries of the NYB population. 

Atlantic sturgeon are anadromous, spending the majority of their adult phase in marine waters, 

migrating up rivers to spawn in freshwater and migrating to brackish waters in juvenile growth 

phases. Adults return to their natal freshwater rivers to spawn (Dovel and Berggren, l 983). 

After emigration from the natal estuary, sub-adults and adults travel within the marine 

environment, typically in waters less than 40 min depth, using coastal bays, sounds, and ocean 

waters (Vladykov and Greeley, 1963; Murawski and Pacheco, 1977; Dovel and Berggren, 1983; 

Smith, 1985; Collins and Smith, 1997; Savoy and Pacileo, 2003; Stein et al., 2004; Laney et al., 

2007; Dunton eta/., 2010; Erickson eta/., 201 l; D. Fox, pers. comm.; T. Savoy, pers. comm.). 

Tracking and tagging studies reveal seasonal movements of Atlantic sturgeon along the coast. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 77 
78

The harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), has been proposed for listing as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act. While mid-Atlantic waters are the southern extreme of their 

distribution, stranding data indicate a strong presence of harbor porpoise off the coast of New 

Jersey, predominately during spring. The US Fish and Wildife Service has not designated any 

areas in the project area as Critical Habitat for any protected species. 

2.2.20 Recreation 

Recreational opportunities abound within the study area, drawing millions of people to Cape 

May County each year. The beaches are the primary attraction, however varieties ofwildlifeoriented activities are also available. The beaches along the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge 

and the back bays and marshes of the surrounding areas contain numerous recreational 

opportunities. The ocean side offers visitors activities such as boating, swimming, surfing, and 

sunbathing. Surf fishing is also popular within the study area. The offshore areas in the Atlantic 

Ocean offer good fishing opportunities for private or charter boats. State designated Prime 

Fishing Areas such as Eph Shoal and Prissy Wicks Shoal are popular destinations for sport 

fishermen. The Cape May National Wildlife Refuge offers bird watching and hiking 

opportunities. The back bay estuaries and all of the tidal tributaries and waterways offer 

recreational opportunities such as clamming, crabbing, fishing, boating, sailing, windsurfing, and 

bird watching. 

2.2.21 Visual and Aesthetic Values 

Aesthetics refer to the sensory quality of the resources ( sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch) and 

especially with respect to judgment about their pleasurable qualities (Canter, 1993; Smardon et 

al. 1986). The aesthetic quality of the study area is influenced by the natural and developed 

environment. Except for the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, the beachfront of the study 

area is developed with homes, condominiums, businesses, amusement piers, boardwalks and 

promenades. However, these summer destination towns draw on the high aesthetic values of the 

seashore environment, which includes sandy beaches, dunes, and ocean views. Beachgoers and 

residents are attracted to the area for the beach scenery and clean, attractive beaches and 

structures that are present in the study area. The Cape May National Wildlife Refuge offers 

visitors a more natural aesthetic quality with natural beaches, vegetation, wildlife, and surf. 

2.2.22 Noise 

Noise is of environmental concern because it can cause annoyance and adverse health effects to 

humans and animal life. Noise can impact such activities as conversing, reading, recreation, 

listening to music, working, and sleeping. Wildlife behaviors can be disrupted by noises also, 

which can disrupt feeding and nesting activities. Because of the developed nature of the study 

area, noises are common and can come in the form of restaurant and entertainment facilities, 

automobiles, boats, and recreational visitors. However, these communities impose local 

restrictive noise ordinances to minimize noise pollution. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 78 
79

2.3 Cultural Resources 

2,3.1 Historic Background 

The historic information presented below comes from multiple published and Internet sources 

with particular reliance on the fine popular history Wildwood by the Sea: The History of an 

American Re.<ffJrt by Francis, Francis, and Scully, It also contains information obtained from the 

West Jersey History Project, and the North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest websites. 

Information on the websites was obtained by the Wildwood Historical Society, the George F. 

Boyer Historical Museum and from George F Boyers Book, "Wildwood-Middle of the Island". 

At the height of the last (Wisconsin) Pleistocene ice age the Mid-Atlantic coast may have been 

located 60 miles further east. As the huge continental glaciers began to melt around 12,000 years 

B.P., sea levels rose and the Atlantic coast retreated westward. As many regional archaeologists 

have noted, Paleo-Indian and later Archaic peoples would have occupied these gradually 

retreating coastal areas and produced shell middens (piles) and artifact layers, which now lie 

submerged and buried on the continental shelf. Fossil remains of Pleistocene megafauna, such as 

mastodon, mammoth, and other species have been dredged from the continental shelf up and 

down the Mid-Atlantic region as well. 

Later prehistoric peoples (Woodland Period) occupied the coast seasonally and exploited the rich 

marine resources (shellfish, fish, and sea mammals) during the spring and summer. Evidence of 

this seasonal occupation may now lie buried beneath the asphalt and concrete of the modern day 

towns of the Wildwoods. These prehistoric Indian travelers normally retreated inland during the 

fall and winter to hunt deer, bear, and other food and fur-bearing species. Their successful 

hunting and gathering lifestyle has been characterized by regional archaeologists as indicative of 

"primary forest efficiency." Later Woodland (Pre-Contact) horticulturists practiced a temperate 

zone variety of swidden or "slash and burn" agriculture that required the periodic or cyclic 

movement of villages to bring more productive land under cultivation. Yet even during this later 

time, and even after the time when Europeans came on the scene (late 15th and early 16th 

centmy), Native American peoples relied on the rich seasonal ma1itime resources of the MidAtlantic coast. Traces of this aboriginal occupation have been ephemeral in the Wildwoods 

region, largely due to the destructive impacts of modem day construction where late prehistoric 

or proto-historic sites may have been located. The likelihood of disturbing prehistoric sites 

buried in the sand of the modern beach is negligible. The Wildwoods beach in its current 

configuration is an artificial construction, the result ofa process begun in the early part of the 

20th century and still going strong in the 21st Early Euro-Ame1ican chroniclers noted that the 

first settlers of the area now known as the Wildwoods were the native Leoni Lenape people who 

summered on the Jersey Cape. The Algonquin speaking Lenape, who later came to be called the 

Delaware, frequently made trips to Five Mile Beach via the historic King Nummy Trail. This 

trail was used by Native Americans to access southern New Jersey hunting and fishing grounds. 

The King Nummy Trail followed a pathway parallel to the shore along what is now the Garden 

State Parkway & Route 9 corridor. It branched off at the north end of the island and provided 

access to Five Mile Beach and proceeded southward to what is now New Jersey Avenue. 

Another trail entered the island where the Rio Grande Bridge was later built and met the Five 

Mile Beach section of the King Nummy Trail in what is now Wildwood City. The Lenape 

people were gradually replaced in the Wildwoods by 18th century bay fishennan, primarily of 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 79 
80

Scandinavian decent, and mainland farmers who grazed cattle and horses on the island. The 

Farmers ferried the animals back and forth across the inlets and back bays on flatboats. The 

farmers used the Five Mile Beach grazing area until the end of the 19'" century when pennanent 

settlement interests began to take shape. 

From a European perspective regional history begins in the early l ih century when on August 

28, 1609 Henry Hudson, sailing witl1 the Dutch East India Company, entered Delaware Bay and 

upon confronting the River's shoals, and convinced the stream was not the sought after 

northwest passage, turned his ship the "Half Moon" about and proceeded north past Five Mile 

Beach. Robert Juel, sailing with Hudson, wrote in his log book "a very good land to fall in withand a pleasant land to see" after observing Five Mile Beach from the ship "Half Moon" 

In the 1620s, the Dutch West India Company sent Cornelius Jacobson Mey with three ships to 

the Delaware Bay and New York region. During this voyage he named the bay's south cape, 

Cape Cornelius and the North, Cape Mey. The south cape is now Cape Henlopen and the North 

is now Cape May. No further written records of Five Mile Beach occurred until a land grant 

from Charles ll to James, Duke of York in 1664. Various deeds occurred later, and on August 

21, 1717 the WestJersey Society conveyed "all of its title and interest in Five Mile Beach" to 

Aaron Leaming, Humphrey Hughes, David Wells and Jonathan Swain. 

The first known European settlement in Cape May County was established by whalers in 1685 

on the banks of Delaware Bay. The settlement was first called Portsmouth, then New England 

Village, then later Cape May Town and finally Town Bank. The county was formally created in 

1692 from land held by the West Jersey Society. The first Census for the county in 1726 listed a 

population of 668. In 1723 the county was divided into three precincts, Upper, Middle and 

Lower Township. In 1745 Cape May Courthouse became the County Seat. The tranquility of 

the colonial period Wildwoods was shattered by the American Revolutionary War. 

On June 28th 1776 Turtle Gut Inlet, previously located near Toledo Avenue in Wildwood Crest 

and subsequently filled by the County in 1922, was the site of a historic Naval Battle between the 

Continental Navy and the British Empire. On the 281

" the brigantine "Nancy" was sighted on the 

shoals of Turtle Gut Inlet by the British Warship the "Kingfisher" The "Kingfisher" had been 

barricading the entrance to Delaware Bay and preventing Continental ships from accessing the 

port of Philadelphia. To thwart this blockade local boats-men began to lead ships through the 

various inner waterways and coastal inlets around New Jersey's barrier islands. The "Nancy" 

was bound from the Virgin Islands with a cargo of munitions for the Colonial Army. After the 

"Nancy" run-aground in Turtle Gut she sent word to Captain John Barry of the Continental 

Frigate "Lexington" that two British Warships were pursuing her. The "Lexington" commanded 

by Captain John Barry, later Commodore Barry father of the US Navy,joined by the "Wasp", set 

out to aid the "Nancy''. Captain Bany and his men manned "Nancy's" guns and unloaded as 

many munitions as possible. After 2/3 of the munitions had been removed Barry ordered his 

men to abandon ship. Barry then ordered fifty pounds of gunpowder to be poured into the 

"Nancy's" main-sail and wrapped as tightly as possible acting as a fuse for the rest of the powder 

below deck. The mainsail was set afire the men jumped overboard with the ship's flag in tow. 

The British sailors approaching in longboats took the removal of the flag as an act of surrender 

and boarded the ship. The British sailors boarded the "Nancy" and raised a cheer to victory, only 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 80 
81

to be extinguished by the explosion of the rest of the gunpowder below. Seven British Sailors 

were reported to have died in the blast. The explosion was said to be heard forty miles above 

Philadelphia. By 1794 Captain John Barry would be known as Commodore Barry, the father of 

the American Navy. 

Militias comprised of rifle toting minutemen were common in Cape May County and several had 

seen action in the Battle of Germantown and several small skirmishes during the Revolutionary 

War. The War of 1812 saw British Warships return to blockade the mouth of Delaware Bay. 

Raiding parties would come ashore for provisions from local farms and fresh water. Lake Lily, 

located in Cape May, to the south of Five Mile beach, was a watering hole the British used 

frequently. To thwart the British raids for water to the lake the local citizens dug a canal to the 

sea to spoil the freshwater with saltwater from the ocean. 

Most of the barrier islands south of Atlantic City did not witness the development of towns until 

after the Civil War. Nearby Cape May to the south was among America's earliest and most 

distinguished summer destinations. Cape May, first known as Cape Island, may have hosted 

summer visitors a decade before the American Revolution. By the 1850s Cape May was 

immensely popular with Southerners seeking to escape the heat and malaria of Virginia and the 

Carolinas. But the Civil War ended the annual influx of Southern vacationers and tragic fires in 

l 869 and 1878 destroyed much of the city, including many of the Victorian hotels. Cape May 

never fully recovered and was soon overshadowed by the developing summer destinations in 

Ocean City, Wildwoods, Asbury Park and Atlantic City. During the mid-nineteenth century one 

group of entrepreneurs built an excursion house, called the Sutf House, in a small town north of 

Cape May called Atlantic City. Starting from a year round population of250 in 1855 Atlantic 

City grew rapidly and by 1888 the summer destination offered an incredible 506 hotels and 

boarding houses. 

The first full time white settlers to Five Mile Beach were fishermen. By I 870 they erected 

shacks at the north end of the island and later named the settlement "Anglesea" The settlers 

followed the native trails across the meadows and then reached the island by boat. In 1874 the 

government built a lighthouse at Hereford Inlet to aid the fishermen accessing the community of 

Anglesea The historic Hereford Inlet lighthouse still stands today. 

Located between Cape May and raucous Atlantic City the group of southern New Jersey summer 

destination communities known collectively as "The Wildwoods" began development during the 

1880s. The original name of the largest settlement, Florida City, was changed by the developers 

to the Wildwoods to reflect the dense, twisted forest growth of the region. The driving force 

behind the founding of Wildwood was Philip Pontius Baker (1846-1920), a merchant and hotel 

operator from Vineland who had been an original investor in earlier seaside communities like 

Sea Isle City and the original town of Holly Beach which merged and became the city of 

Wildwood in 1912. 

In 1883 Baker and his brother had walked north of Holly Beach and along an old Indian Path 

into a tangled forest of maple, oak, poplar, magnolia, holly, and cherry trees all covered with 

Spanish moss. The Baker brothers were impressed with the natural beauty of the area and 

imagined a summer destination and cottage colony set against the backdrop of this primitive but 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 81 
82

beautiful forest. But first they had to deal with the problem of wild and aggressive cattle. Before 

the age of summer destination development, mainland farmers transported cattle in flatbottomed boats to graze on Five Mile Island. Many were left on the island where they thrived on 

native grasses and grew in numbers. Early accounts report that these cattle were so wild and 

aggressive that a man walking across the island was advised to carry a rifle and a good supply of 

cartridges. As the town developed, the cattle became quite bold, wandering the streets, harassing 

the citizens, and raiding fruit and vegetable stands. Finally, the Baker brothers hired hunters to 

eliminate the wild cattle problem. 

During the 1880s, Aaron Andrews took his wife Sarah Andrews to Townsend's Inlet to 

recuperate from an illness. There the Andrews' became friends with the Joseph Taylor family of 

Philadelphia. So impressed with the area they all returned the following year determined to buy 

homes. John Burke, a real estate salesman from Vineland, brought them to look at Five Mile 

Beach. The trio, joined with Nelson Robert, Latimer Baker and Robert Young eventually 

formed the Holly Beach Improvement Society, and in 1885 Holly Beach Borough was 

incorporated. By the end of the 19th Century the increasing number of Five Mile Beach 

landowners had begun to incorporate their interests into Boroughs and Cities. Holly Beach 

Borough was incorporated in 1885, Wildwood Borough was incorporated in 1895 and the two 

subsequently joined interests with Holly Beach to form Wildwood City in 1912. North 

Wildwood Borough was combined with Anglesea Borough to form the City of North Wildwood 

in 1917. Wildwood Crest Borough was incorporated in 1910. West Wildwood was incorporated 

as a borough in 1920. 

The coming of the railroad set the course ofWildwood's future as a summer destination for 

working class families. Once trains began running from Philadelphia and other northern cities, 

Wildwood's popularity as a public summer destination and cottage colony was assured. The 

Wildwoods never attracted the high society set as did Cape May. They also did not have the 

religious foundation and strict Protestant moral code of nearby Ocean City. While they were not 

as permissive as Atlantic City they did tolerate a limited amount of gambling, illegal liquor sales, 

and prostitution. What gave The Wildwoods its unique character, however, is that from the 

beginning its founders set out to appeal to the American working class family interested in 

escaping from the heat and dirt of the big cities of Philadelphia and New York. 

The hotels and cottages, and the amusement piers and rides of the Wildwoods were all geared to 

appeal to the working man and his family. A key element of this appeal was the boardwalk, 

which put the working family in close but comfortable proximity to the ocean and its cooling 

offshore breezes. Many nineteenth century seaside resorts in England and continental Europe 

offered visitors' promenades near the ocean but the "boardwalk" lined on the land side with 

hotels and shops and on the ocean side with amusement piers, is truly a New Jersey innovation. 

The first boardwalk in Atlantic City was opened on June 26, 1870. Other seaside communities 

saw the value of a wooden promenade and followed Atlantic City's example. Ocean City built its 

first boardwalk in 1883. Wildwood built its first small non-elevated boardwalk in 1891 and a 

larger one in 1900. The first boardwalk was constructed in Wildwood by railroad conductor 

Alexander Boardman. Boardman was tired of cleaning sand from his trains so he constructed a 

wooden walkway to disperse sand from tbe patron's feet and the Boardwalk was born. About 30 

years later The Five Mile Beach Boardwalk was constructed directly on the sand along Atlantic 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 82 
83

Avenue and stretched 150 yards from Oak to Maple Ave in Wildwood Borough. In 1903 

Wildwood's leaders decided to provide an elevated walkway closer to the ocean. This 

boardwalk extended from 2nd avenue in North Wildwood to Cresse Avenue in Wildwood. 

Development and growth of the Wildwoods exploded in the decades to come. Just four years 

after its initial founding Wildwood Crest boasted "hundreds of handsome homes, big hotels, 

apartment houses and business blocks, twenty miles of cement sidewalks, all streets graveled 

with sanitary sewer system, trolley line through property, a storm proof sea wall, boardwalk 

along entire oceanfront, gas, electricity, underground telephone system, artesian water, no public 

debt" Shortly after this, the historic Turtle Gut Inlet, an impediment to developing the rest of 

the island, was closed in 1922 by Cape May County interests. The 1920's saw more rapid 

growth and expansion in the Wildwoods, both inland and onshore. One reason is that unlike 

many other shore summer destinations Wildwood had no problem with beach erosion. They had 

instead the unique challenge of an ever-widening beach. Even as the new boardwalk was being 

moved eastward to be closer to the sea in the l920's the beach continued to widen. The process 

was accelerated during the 1920s when a jetty built at Cold Spring Inlet to protect Cape May 

Harbor proved even more of a benefit to the beach at the Wildwoods. The fame of the broad 

Wildwood beach spread across the country and crowds reached record numbers during the 

1920's. On August 23, 1926 the captain of the Wildwood Beach Patrol estimated that more than 

twenty thousand people were cavorting on the sand beneath a sea of vividly colored beach 

umbrellas. In order to accommodate the immense crowds, in l 920 almost 2,600 individual 

bathhouses were constructed along the boardwalk. 

The growth of the Wildwoods after World War I and the relative prosperity of the decade 

brought increased numbers of conventions and one-day excursions to the summer destination . 

Competition among the Jersey Shore summer destinations for large conventions was keen and 

Wildwood struggled to compete against Atlantic City. This ultimately led to the construction in 

1927 of a new convention hall and many more hotels in Wildwood. One history of the period 

notes that the defining character of the Wildwoods in the roaring twenties would be the real 

estate boom that lasted for most of the decade. Those lucky individuals who bought and sold 

real estate at the shore often made great profits in just a short period of time. So profitable was 

the real estate business that some bootleggers complained that there was more money to be made 

in selling land than in selling illegal liquor and beer. During the 1930s and 40s in the Wildwoods 

were heavily influenced by the Great Depression and World War IL The numerous ballrooms 

that located along the boardwalk in Wildwood did bring larger crowds to the summer destination 

but there was little money to spend. There was also little money for the city to spend on 

boardwalk repairs and damage done by storms. In 1932 the Miss American beauty pageant was 

held in Wildwood. The pageant was not held again until I 935 when it moved to Atlantic City. 

Major fires in 1930 again in l 939 damaged many important buildings. With the assistance of the 

Works Progress Administration (WP A), and other programs of the Roosevelt Administration, the 

city began to recover in I 939, when funds became available for new boardwalk construction and 

repairs. Also during the 1930's Wildwood's officials tried to clean up the boardwalk by banning 

barkers, loudspeakers, fortune telling and mind reading. They also worked to enforce a dress 

code that required proper garments over swim suits when not on the beach. Auction houses 

became popular on the boardwalk during this time and those houses found guilty of operating 

fake auctions were closed and charged by the police. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 83 
84

During the World War II era manpower shortages became so acute in the Wildwoods that some 

restaurant owners were forced to cut back services or close. Food rationing proved an even 

greater hardship on restaurants. Coffee rationing began late in 1942 and such necessary foods as 

eggs, sugar, meat, and butter were almost impossible to obtain on a regular basis. By 1944 

restaurants were applying to the War Price and Rationing Board for more rations. Although the 

war imposed many other restrictions and caused many shortages it apparently had little effect on 

beach crowds which were continued to be quite large during this period. It was also during the 

war that a decision was made that would change the streets, and the look, of Wildwood forever. 

ln J 944 the electric railway company announced that it would terminate all streetcar service in 

Wildwood. The tracks were removed from roadways and streetcars were replaced by buses, 

bring an end to a Wildwood institution that dated back to the tum of the century. 

The period after WW II was one of great prosperity and summer destination growth. It saw the 

development of Wildwood as a major center for live entertainment. Many nightclubs and 

auditoriums were built that became the nucleus of what came to be called the" Doo Wop" 

District. Except for the businessrecessions of 1948-49 and 1957-1958 the years between the end 

of the year and the end of the Eisenhower Administration could be described in anthropological 

terms as a cultural florescence, a time that was relatively carefree, bringing record crowds and 

unequalled growth to the Wildwoods. From the cultural resources perspective the late 1950s and 

early 1960s saw the development of numerous nightclubs that earned Wildwood the nickname of 

"Little Las Vegas." By 1963 the boardwalk piers were experiencing serious competition from 

the nightclubs of the Doo Wop District. For example, tbe new nightclub called "Fort Apache" 

was designed and built with a Western theme. Fort Apache offered stagecoach, burro, and 

covered wagon rides, a passenger train pulled by a steam locomotive and 1Vlississippi River 

steamboat ride. There was also continuous entertainment with Sioux war dancers, can-can 

dancers in the Silver Dollar saloon, and cowboy shoot-outs in the streets. A saloon, bank, hotel, 

barber shop, restaurant, confectionary, stable, and other period structures made a main street 

straight out of the Old West. 

One historian notes that the nightclubs located west of the Boardwalk were now booking the 

kind of big name entertainment that one normally associated with Las Vegas. The entertainment 

industry's most famous names appeared at clubs like The Surf, The Hurricane, the Beachcomber, 

the Rainbow, and the Manor Supper Club, but numerous smaller clubs also flourished 

throughout the summer destination Within a four-block area of Atlantic Avenue, fifteen clubs 

were in full-swing by 1960. By the mid 1960s the country was wild for "go-go'' entertainment 

and Wildwood provided it. Francis et al reports that there risque clubs like Joe Cavalier's 

Frenchee. A-Go-Go Review at the Hurricane East, and Giselle's International Go-Go Review at 

the Rainbow Club. There were many others of varying sizes and quality. Wildwood became 

inundated with teenager's intent on dancing the latest craze. Large record hops were held nightly 

at the Starlight Ballroom on the Boardwalk. The records hops around the city were hosted by 

big-name disc jockeys, including the young Dick Clark wbo would later make his name with 

American Bandstand. 

With such a wealth of attractions and entertainment, Wildwood's hotel and motel industry grew 

enormously during the l960s. The summer destination's hotel, motel, boarding-house and 

cottage owners were soon providing rooms for up to two hundred thousand people per week. By 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 84 
85

the early I 960's, the height of the Dao Wop era, the summer destination's motel community had 

developed a unique personality influenced by space-age themes and rock and roll music. The 

playful facades of these motels pulled visitors into another world of fun, sun, and excitement. 

During this period sixty-nine motels were built in Wildwood, sixty-five in North Wildwood, and 

fifty-two in Wildwood Crest. Many of these motels were classed as Miami Beach-type, usually 

no more than two stories high. The cheap cost of construction and the high occupancy rates made 

many people rich. Given this incentive investors also began building taller, hotel-style 

structures, especially along the shore in Wildwood Crest. Several deluxe hotels like the Pan 

American and the Diamond Beach were also constructed. Unfortunately, several older historic 

hotels were destroyed by fire in the 1960s or torn down to make room for new construction that 

could tum a higher profit. 

The period from the mid-l 960s through the 1980s was a difficult one for the Wildwoods and 

many other summer destinations. Due to a number of sociological and economic factors, many 

summer destination sand parks began a long painful decline. The Wildwoods have survived and 

recovered remarkably well. Perhaps part of the reason it has come to be regarded as the "Queen 

of the Jersey Shore Resorts" is that its beach continues to widen at the rate of35' per year. 

Francis et al notes that while Atlantic City has experienced an amazing rebi11h thanks to 

gambling casinos, it can no longer be regarded as a true summer destination. Only the 

Wildwoods are now left to remind us of what summer "down the shore" really meant to 

Delaware Valley parents and grandparents. The Wildwoods have weathered hurricanes, fires, 

Prohibition, two World Wars, ocean pollution, devastating publicity, and a host of other 

challenges to emerge as one of America's best, and best-loved, summer destinations. 

2.3.2 Cultnral Environment 

There are no prehistoric or recorded archaeological sites on the existing Wildwood Beach and 

little likelihood that any would be encountered. The natural process of beach growth in the 

Wildwoods precludes the potential for intact prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits in the 

modern beacb area. The natural long shore transport flowing down the Mid-Atlantic coast has 

been partially blocked down-shore by the Cape May Inlet jetty and this sand has been 

accumulating in the Wildwoods since the jetty's creation. Nevertheless, there are some potential 

archaeological sites related to buried prehistoric areas on the offshore continental shelf. These 

concerns would only be prioritized if an offshore borrow site would ever be needed ( e.g. in the 

North Wildwood area). In addition to the aforementioned Hereford Inlet Lighthouse, there are 

two m~jor cultural resources in the general project area, neither ofwhicb appears to be within the 

current project's area of potential effect: 

The unexplored archeological record associated with Battle of Turtle Gut Inlet ( 1776) 

The Wildwoods Shore Resort (Dao-Wop) National Register Historic District 

Turtle Gut Inlet was previously bisected the study area between Five Mile Beach to tl1e north and 

Two Mile Beach to the south as seen in Figure 24 and Figure 25. The location of the former 

inlet is in the vicinity of Toledo Avenue in today's Wildwood Crest. The Battle of Turtle Gut 

Inlet is a little- known but authentically documented Revolutionary War naval encounter which 

took place on June 29, 1776. During this period merchant ships bound for Philadelphia were 

forced to elude the British blockage. To accomplish this they needed assistance from pilots of the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 85 
86

sloops and brigs native to Cape May. These pilots were adept at dodging in and out of the small 

harbors and inlets like Turtle Gut to escape capture by the British navy. 

2.3.3 The Battle of Turtle Gut Inlet 

On June 28, 1776 the brigantine Nancy was sighted off the coast of Cape May bound for 

Philadelphia with a cargo of munitions from the Virgin Islands. These munitions were urgently 

needed by the Continental Anny. As the Nancy came into view an urgent message was sent to 

Captain John Barry of the Continental frigate Lexington, anchored near the mouth of the 

Delaware Bay, relating that two British warships were in hot pursuit. Captain John Bany 

ordered out the barges from the Lexington and another continental frigate, The Wasp, and 

directed his oarsmen toward the Nancy. 

They found the brigantine hard aground in Turtle Gut Inlet and under heavy fire from the two 

British warships. Barry and his men boarded the Nancy and began unloading the much need 

munitions while manning the Nancy's guns to ward off the attack. When about two-thirds of the 

precious cargo of gunpowder had been unloaded Barry ordered the men to abandon the ship. He 

also ordered that fifty pounds of gunpowder to be poured in the ship's mainsail and wrapped 

as tightly as possible. This served as a fuse leading to remaining powder below deck. Barry and 

the Nancy's captain set fire to the mainsail and jumped over the side. The gunpowder exploded 

with tremendous force just as the first seven British sailors reached the Nancy and climbed 

aboard. By noon of June 29, 1776 the enemy British ships had retreated and the precious 

gunpowder was loaded onto the frigate Wasp and sent safely up the Delaware Bay 

Figure 24 Turtle Gut Inlet 

The Battle of Turtle Gut Inlet is historically significant for its strategic importance in getting 

munitions to the struggling Continental Army but also for its association with the young Captain 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 86 
87

John Barry. By 1794 Barry had advanced in rank to Commodore and been acclaimed as "the 

father of the American Navy." 

There is a marker commemorating the Battle of Turtle Gut Inlet at Miami and New Jersey 

Avenues, across from Sunset Lake in Wildwood Crest. Whether there are any archeological 

remains of the brigantine Nancy or artifacts from the British warships in the area where Turtle 

Gut Inlet once existed is not known. Coordination with the New Jersey SHPO indicates that 

there have been no professional archaeological surveys of the current study area and no known 

archaeological surveys incorporating deep test trenching in the area where Turtle Gut Inlet once 

existed. 

Figure 25 Turtle Gut Inlet Locality Sketch from the War Department 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 87 
88

2.3.4 "Doo Wop" Architecture 

The Wilclwoods Shore Resort Historic District, best known as the Doo Wop District, is primarily 

bounded by Atlanta Avenue to the south, Atlantic Avenue to the west, Morning Road to the 

north and Beach Avenue to the east Comprising about 275 buildings the district celebrates the 

soaring designs and imaginative architecture of the 1950s and 1960s, a time when America's 

early space exploration and doo-wop rock and roll music joined together to influence and create 

a unique architectural style which has been well preserved in the Wildwoods. The seashore 

architecture of this era reflected the brash and optimistic spirit of the times. The motels, diners, 

gas stations, and otlices presented a varied and exaggerated spectacle of designs. Angular 

elements, space-age imagery, tropical themes and colors, with spectacular neon signage 

reinforced and contributed to this brash and fun-loving spirit. 

In Wildwood's official handbook of design guidelines (How to Dao Wop) for restoration projects 

and new construction it is noted that the motels of The Wildwoods were originally designed to 

celebrate the automobile, allowing views of your car from your room. The buildings were 

usually situated perpendicular to the beach, allowing generous views ofWildwood's great beach. 

Rooms were arranged around a central court, containing the pool which was considered an 

essential element Often the historic pools, lobbies, signage, and colors are thematic and 

representative of the Doo Wop movement The motels of the Doo Wop District capture the 

social history of an era by reflecting the upward mobility of working class and lower middleclass Americans of the time. The design of these buildings also participated in the shift from 

serious "modem" architecture playful architectural styling. Ranch houses, restaurants, and 

especially motels used modern elements to decorate essentially simple boxes. The more 

outlandish and playful the decorative motifs were the better. 

Wildwood's design handbook notes that there is a close parallel between the Doo Wop and the 

Victorian eras. During the Victorian era, the new white collar workers became middle class after 

the industrial revolution of the mid-nineteenth century. Their buildings combined conventional 

construction and with a wide variety of surface ornament to lend style to the structure. A wide 

variety of grand architectural elements were borrowed and adapted to give the house "style." 

In the late 1950s and early I960s when many of the buildings of the Dao Wop District were 

being constructed working class and lower middle-class families wanted new and stylish 

products. To fill this demand, cars, appliances, split-level houses, and motels were created by 

grafting symbols of modernism on to conventional structures. Borrowed from art, science, and 

high-style architecture, the motifs of modernity added a layer of decoration. Where Cape May 

Victorians borrowed elements ofltalianate, Gothic, and French Second Empire styles, the 

playful builders and architects of the Doo Wop era borrowed space themes, flat roofs and angular 

elements of modernism when building the nightclubs and motels of the hip Wildwoods summer 

destination . 

Styles of"Doo-Wop" architecture include; Modern/Blast Of{ a glass walled, angular roof style 

that brings to mind the jet-age airports of the I950s and 1960s (Satellite and Admiral Motels), 

Vroom, an architectural movement expressed in angular, forward-thrusting and pointed building 

elements (Ebb Tide, Pan American and Bel Air Motels; Smfside Restaurant). Tiki/Polynesian, 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 88 
89

which reflects the fascination with the South Pacific, incorporating plastic palm trees and tiki 

heads in abundance (Ala Kai, Tahiti, Waikiki, Kana Kai and Casa Bahama Motels). Chinatown 

Revival reflects interest in exotic foreign travel, particularly the orient (Singapore Motel). and 

Phony Colonee, a patriotic style that reflects Colonial American brick and lamppost elements 

(Saratoga and Carriage Stop Motels). (Courtesy of the Wildwood Crest Historical Society) 

2,4 Geotechnical Analysis 

2.4.l Geomorphology 

The study area is situated within the southern portion of the New Jersey section of the Coastal 

Plain Physiographic Province of Eastern North America (Figure 26). In New Jersey, the Coastal 

Plain Province extends from the southern terminus of the Piedmont Physiographic Province 

southeastward for approximately 155 miles (250 kilometers) to the edge of the Continental Shelf. 

The boundary between the rock units of the Piedmont and unconsolidated sediments of the 

Coastal Plain Physiographic Provinces is known as the Fall Line, which extends southwest 

across the state from Perth Amboy through Princeton Junction to Trenton. It is termed the Fall 

Line due to its linearity and the distinct elevation change that occurs across this border between 

the more rugged, generally higher rock terrain of the Piedmont and generally lower terrain of the 

soil materials comprising the Coastal Plain. 

Figure 26 Physiographic Provinces. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 89 
90

The Fall Line separates areas with major differences in topography, geology, and hydrology. 

The Piedmont Physiographic Province, situated northwest of the Fall Line, is mainly underlain 

by slightly folded and faulted sedimentary rocks, with some localized bands of highly 

metamorphosed rocks near Trenton and Jersey City_ The major linear ridges in this province are 

underlain by intruded igneous rock, primarily diabase. These intrusions are represented by sills 

and dikes, as well as lava flows, such as those represented by the most prominent feature in the 

eastern part of the Piedmont Province known as the Palisades overlooking the Hudson River 

northwest of New York City. 

The Coastal Plain Province, lying southeast of the Fall Line, is part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain 

that extends along the entire eastern Atlantic Ocean coastline from Newfoundland to Florida. 

The Plain is the largest physiographic province in the state and covers approximately sixty 

percent of the surface area of New Jersey. This province encompasses an area of approximately 

4,667 square miles (12,087 square kilometers), almost 3 million acres. More than half of the 

land area in the Coastal Plain is below an elevation of 50' (15.24 meters) above sea level 

(NGVD). The terrestrial portion of the Coastal Plain Province is bounded on the west and 

southwest by the Delaware River and Delaware Bay, on the north by the Fall Line and on the 

northeast by the Raritan Bay and Staten Island. The remaining portions of the Coastal Plain 

Province in New Jersey are bordered by the Atlantic Ocean. The Coastal Plain area is largely 

surrounded by salty or brackish water, which gradually diminishes in salinity upstream in the 

Delaware River around the Delaware/Pennsylvania state-line. The eastern boundary of the 

Coastal Plain includes many barrier bars, bays, estuaries, marshes and meadowlands along the 

Atlantic coast extending from Sandy Hook in the north to Cape May Point at the southern tip of 

New Jersey. The study area is situated at the southern end of the Coastal Plain Physiographic 

Province in New Jersey immediately north of Cape May. 

In the northern portion of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, the line of maximum elevation runs 

from the Navesink Highlands southeastward to the Mount Holly area, with the land rising 

gradually from the sea as a moderately dissected plain to an elevation of almost 400' ( 121 

meters) in the north in Monmouth County to less than I 00' (30.5 meters) near the center in 

Burlington County. From this divide, the ground surface slopes down toward the Delaware 

River on the west and toward the Raritan River drainage system on the east. From Burlington 

County south, the divide is less pronounced with more subtle topographic control. The drainage 

basins diverge in the southern Coastal Plain with rivers and streams flowing in a radial pattern to 

the Delaware River, Delaware Bay, or the Atlantic Ocean. 

The surface of the submerged portion of the Coastal Plain slopes gently southeastward at grades 

ranging from 2.6 ft to 7.9 ft per mile (0.8 meters to l.5 meters per kilometer) for nearly 104 

miles (167 kilometers) to the edge of the continental shelf. The Atlantic coastal shelf is 

essentially sand structure with occasional silt, gravel or stone deposits. It extends from Cape 

Cod in Massachusetts to the southern tip of Florida, and is believed to be the world's largest 

sandy continental shelf. The surface of the submerged portion of the shelf consists of broad swell 

and shallow depressions with evidence of former shorelines and extensions of river drainage 

systems that developed during glacial periods when sea level was much lower. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 90 
91

2.4.2 Physiography 

The New Jersey shoreline can be divided into those sections where the sea meets the mainland, 

at the northern and extreme southern ends of the State, and where the sea meets the barrier 

islands, in the central to southern portion of the State. The barrier islands extend from Bay Head, 

down the coast for approximately 90 miles (145 km), to just north of Cape May Inlet and are 

generally continuous, except for the interruption by 10 inlets. The shoreline of the study area 

extends for approximately 6 miles (IO km), from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet (also known 

as Cold Springs Inlet) and lies entirely within the southern portion of the bani er beach section. 

The populated portion of the beach is often referred to as the 5-J\Jile Beach, with the remainder 

of the southern end of the beach occupied by the northern portion of the Coast Guard Station and 

the National Wildlife Refuge of the US. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2.4.3 Drainage of the Coastal Plain. 

The land surface in the Coastal Plain of New Jersey is divided into drainage basins, based on the 

area that contributes runoff to streams and their tributaries in a particular region. A drainage 

divide marks the topographic boundary between adjacent drainage basins. A major drainage 

divide in the Coastal Plain separates streams flowing to the Delaware River on the west and to 

the Atlantic Ocean on the east and southeast 

The surface drainage system of the New Jersey Coastal Plain was developed at a time when sea 

level was lower than at present The subsequent rise in sea level has drowned the mouth of 

coastal streams where tidal action takes place. This tidal effect extends up the Delaware River to 

Trenton, New Jersey, a distance of 139 miles (224 kilometers). The formation of the barrier 

islands removed all direct stream connection with the ocean between Barnegat Bay and Cape 

May Inlet These streams now flow into the lagoons formed in the back of these banrier beaches 

and their waters reach the Atlantic Ocean by way of the thoroughfares and inlets, discussed 

above. The significance of these features to the drainage system in the study area is that the 

Coastal Plain streams, whose upper courses carry little sediment, lose that little sediment in their 

estuaries, and in the lagoons, and supply virtually no beach nourishment to the ocean front areas. 

2.4.4 Geologic Conditions 

The New Jersey Coastal Plain Physiographic Province consists of sedimentary formations 

overlying crystalline bedrock known as the "basement complex." From well drilling logs, it is 

known that the basement surface slopes at about 155' per mile (30 meters per kilometer) to a 

depth of more than 5,000 to 6,000' (1,500 to 1,800 meters) near the coast Geophysical 

investigations have corroborated well-log findings and have permitted determination of the 

profile seaward to the edge of the continental shelf A short distance offshore, the basement 

surface drops abruptly but rises again gradually near the edge of the continental shelf Overlying 

the basement are semi-consolidated sedimentary formations of Lower to :Middle Cretaceous 

sediments. The beds vary greatly in thickness, increasing seaward to a maximum thickness of 

2.5 miles (4,000 meters) then decreasing to 1.5 miles (2,500 meters) near the edge of the 

continental shelf On top of the semi-consolidated beds lie unconsolidated sediments of Upper 

Cretaceous and Tertiary formations. These sediments range from relatively thin beds along the 

northwestern margin at the Fall Line, to around 4,500' ( 1,370 meters) beneath Atlantic City to 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 91 
92

over 40,000' (12,200 meters) in the area of the Baltimore Canyon Trough located around 50 

miles (80.5 kilometers) offshore of Atlantic City. 

Based on information provided by the New Jersey Geological Survey (NJGS) and United States 

Geological Survey (USGS), the wedge shaped mass of unconsolidated sediments that comprise 

the New Jersey Coastal Plain discussed above are composed of sand, gravel, silt and clay. The 

wedge thins to a featheredge along the Fall Line and attains a thickness of over 6,500' (1,980 

meters) in the southern part of Cape May County. New Jersey. The system is comprised of 

relatively highly permeable sand and gravel layers separated by semi-permeable to impermeable 

silt and clay layers that fonn confining layers and restrict the vertical flow of groundwater. 

These sediments range in age from Cretaceous to Upper Tertiary (i.e. Miocene - 144 to 5 Ma) 

(Ma= mega annum= million years ago), and can be classified as continental, coastal or marine 

deposits. The Cretaceous and Tertiary age sediments generally strike on a northeast-southwest 

direction and dip gently to the southeast from ten to sixty feet per mile. The Coastal Plain is 

mantled by discontinuous deposits of Late Tertiary to Quaternary (geologically recent) 

sediments, which, where present are basically flat lying. The unconsolidated Coastal Plain 

deposits are unconformably underlain by a Pre-Cretaceous crystalline basement bedrock 

complex, which consists primarily of Precambrian and early Paleozoic age (>540 Ma to 400 Ma) 

rocks. Locally, along the Fall Line in Mercer and Middlesex Counties, Triassic age (circa 225 

Ma) rocks overlie the crystalline basement rocks and underlie the unconsolidated sediments. 

2.4.5 Surface Deposits 

As indicated above, tbe Coastal Plain of New Jersey consists of beds of gravel, sand, silt and 

clay, which dip gently towards the southeast. Fossil evidence indicates that these sediments 

range from the Cretaceous to Quaternary Period, with some more recent glacial period 

Quaternary sediments mantling the surface. The older and lower layers outcrop at the surface 

along the northwest margin of the Coastal Plain and pass beneath successively younger strata in 

the direction of their dip. Since the formations dip toward the southeast. this results in a series 

of successive generally parallel outcrops with a northeast-southwest strike, with successively 

younger layers outcropping at the surface towards the southeast and progressing southward along 

the shore. 

The sea successfully advanced and retreated across the 155 mile (250-kilometer) width of the 

Coastal Plain during the Cretaceous through Quaternary Periods (144 Ma to present). Many 

sedimentary fornrntions were deposited, exposed to erosion, submerged again and buried by 

younger sediments. The types of sorting, the stratification, and the fossil types in the deposits 

indicate that deposition took place offshore as well as in lagoons and estuaries, and on beaches 

and bars. Considerable changes in sea level continued to take place during Pleistocene time. 

Glacial periods brought a lowering in sea level as water was locked up in the large terrestrial ice 

masses. As the sea level fell to a beach line thousands of feet seaward of the present shoreline, 

Pleistocene sediments were deposited in valleys cut into older formations. The water released 

through glacial melt during interglacial periods brought a rising of sea level and beaches were 

formed far inland of the present shore. 

Between Bay Head and Cape May City, the coastal lagoons, tidal marshes and barrier beaches 

that fringe the coast have contributed to the sands of the present beaches. During Quaternary 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 92 
93

time, changes in sea level caused the streams alternately to spread deposits of sand and gravel 

along drainage outlets and later to remove, rework, and redeposit the material over considerable 

areas, concealing earlier marine formations. One of these, the Cape May Formation consisting 

largely of sand and gravel, was deposited during the last interglacial stage, when the sea level 

stood 33 to 46' (10 to 14 meters) higher than at present The material was deposited along valley 

bottoms, grading into the estuarine and marine deposits of the former shoreline. In most places 

along the New Jersey coast, there is a capping of a few feet of Cape May Formation. This 

capping is of irregular thickness and distribution, but generally forms a terrace about 25 to 35' 

(7.5 to 10.5 meters) above sea level. The barrier beaches, being of relatively recent origin, are 

generally composed of the same material as that found on the offshore bottom. 

2.4.6 Subsurface Geology (Principal Stratigraphy and Aquifers) 

Based on information provided by the NJGS, the principal aquifers of New Jersey are subdivided 

into two main groups. These include the Coastal Plain aquifers south of the Fall Line and nonCoastal Plain aquifers n011h of the Fall Line. The Coastal Plain aquifers and their relative 

position in geologic time that underlie the study area are described below and are illustrated in 

Figure 27 from youngest to oldest; a generalized cross section of the Coastal Plane stratigraphy 

is shown in Figure 28. 

The Coastal Plain aquifers are comprised primarily of older unconsolidated sedimentary soil 

materials of Lower Cretaceous to Tertiary age dipping gently southeastward, and covered 

intermittently by more recent Pleistocene interglacial sands and gravels that cap the hills and 

watershed divides. The primary aquifers are situated in the older Coastal Plain sediments, which 

range in thickness from a thin edge at the Fall Line to over 6,500' at the southern tip of Cape 

May County. 

The wedge of sediments underlying the Coastal Plain forms a massive, somewhat interrelated 

aquifer system that includes several individual aquifers and confining units. These sediments are 

generally classified as continental, coastal or marine deposits. ln general, aquifers and confining 

units in the Coastal Plain Aquifer System correspond to the geologic formations present in the 

System. However, the boundaries of the aquifers and confining beds may not be the same as the 

geologic formations for the following reasons: (!) the formations may change in physical 

character from place to place and may act as an aquifer in one area or a confining bed in another; 

(2) some formations are divided into several aquifers and confining beds; and (3) adjacent 

formations may form a single aquifer or confining bed in some areas. 

There are five major aquifers in the New Jersey Coastal Plain; the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy, 

Englishtown, Wenonah-Mount Laurel, lower "Atlantic City 800 foot sand" aquifer of the 

Kirkwood Formation and the Kirkwood-Cohansey. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 93 
94

Figure 27 Coastal Plaiu Aquifers 

Age (Mya) PERIOD EPOCH FORMATIONS* ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

I 

Quaternary 

Tertiary 

Cretaceous 

Jurassic/Triassic 

Paleozoic 

REFERENCE: 

Pleistocene 

Pliocene 

Miocene 

Oligocene 

Eocene 

Paleocene 

Upper 

Cretaceous 

Lower 

Cretaceous 

N.J. Geological Survey, Rutgers University 

Department of Geological Sciences 

"Some formations listed are 

not identified in Southern 

New Jersey 

Cape May 

Pennsauken 

Bridgeton. 

Beacon Hill 

Cohansey 

Kirkwood 

Piney Point 

Shark River 

Manasquan 

V1ncentown/Hornerstown 

Red Bank/Navesink 

Mt Laurell\{\{enonah 

Marshalltown 

Englistown 

Woodbury 

Merchantville 

Cheesquake 

Magothy 

Raritan 

Potomac 

Metamorphic 

Basement 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION 

I SCALE: AS SHOWN I 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

I 

Page 94 
95

All but the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer are confined except where they crop out or are overlain 

by permeable surface deposits. There are also two other smaller, discontinuous aquifers situated 

between the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer and, lower "Atlantic City 800 foot sand" aquifer 

and another localized aquifer, the Rio Grande aquifer between the "Atlantic City 800 foot sand" 

aquifer and the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer. The aquifers are recharged directly by precipitation 

in outcrop areas, by vertica11eakage through confining beds, and by seepage from surface-water 

bodies. The major aquifers and their respective confining units are described as follows in 

ascending order from the basement bedrock surface. 

Overlying the basement bedrock is the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system. This wedge 

shaped mass of sediments of Cretaceous age is composed of alternating layers of clay, silt, sand, 

and gravel. These deposits range in thickness from a featheredge along the Fall Line to more 

than 4,100' beneath Cape May County. The Potomac-Raritan-Magotby aquifer system is 

exposed in a narrow outcrop along the Fall Line and the Delaware River. The aquifer is confined 

except in outcrop areas by the underlying crystalline basement rocks and the overlying 

Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit. 

The Merchantville Formation and Woodbury Clay fmm a major confining unit throughout most 

of the Coastal Plain of New Jersey. Although their permeability is very low, the MerchantvilleWoodbury confining unit can transmit significant quantities of water when sizeable differences 

in hydrostatic head exist between overlying and underlying aquifers. 

The Englishtown aquifer overlies the Merchantville and Woodbury confining unit in the central 

and northern parts of the Coastal Plain. The aquifer is a significant source of water for Ocean and 

Monmouth Counties. 

The Marshalltown Fonnation overlies the Englishtown sand in most of the Coastal Plain but 

overlies the Woodbury Clay in the majority of Salem County. The formation has a maximum 

thickness of 30' (9.14 meters). Because the Marshalltown Formation is thin and contains some 

slightly too moderately permeable beds, it acts as a leaky confining bed. 

Although the Wenonah Formation and Mount Laurel Sand are distinct lithologic units, they are 

hydraulically connected and together form the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer. The Mount 

Laurel Sand, a coarser sand unit than the Wenonah Formation, is the major component of the 

aquifer. The combined thickness of the Wenonah Formation and Mount Laurel Sand in outcrop 

is as much as 100' (30.5 meters). In the subsurface they range in thickness from 40' (12 meters) 

to slightly more than 200' (61 meters) and are an important water producing aquifer in the 

northern and western parts of the Coastal Plain. 

Overlying the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer is a confining unit that comprises several geologic 

units. The confining unit consists of the Navesink Formation, Red Bank Sand, Tinton Sand, 

Hornerstown Sand, Vincentown Formation, Manasquan Formation, Shark River Nlarl, Piney 

Point Formation and the basal clay of the Kirkwood Formation. Some of these geologic units 

may act as aquifers on a local basis 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 95 
96

The overlying Kirkwood Formation includes several water bearing units. The major Kirkwood 

aquifer is the principal artesian aquifer within the Kirkwood Formation, which is also known as 

the "Atlantic City 800 foot sand'' and extends along the Atlantic Coast from Cape May to 

Barnegat Light and some distance inland. In Cape May and Cumberland Counties. the upper 

artesian aquifer of the Kirkwood Formation is defined as the Rio Grande water bearing zone. 

This aquifer is productive only locally in Cape May County. Along the coast north of Barnegat 

Light and inland from the coast in Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, and the western part of 

Cumberland Counties, the sands of the upper part of the Kirkwood Formation are hydraulically 

connected to the overlying Cohansey Sand. 

The Cohansey Sand is typically light colored quartzose sand with lenses of silt and clay. The 

Cohansey Sand is exposed throughout most of the outer part of the Coastal Plain and attains a 

maximum thickness of about 250' (76.2 meters). Ground water in the Cohansey aquifer occurs 

generally under water table conditions except in Cape May County, where the aquifer is 

confined. Inland from the coast and in the northern part of Ocean County, the upper part of the 

Kirkwood Formation is in hydraulic connection with the Cohansey Sand and together they act as 

a single aquifer. 

NJGS reports indicate that more than 75 percent of the freshwater supply in the New Jersey 

Coastal Plain is derived from ground water resources. In the Coastal Plain, high-capacity 

production wells used for public supply commonly yield from around 500 to 1,000 gallons per 

minute (gpm), and many exceed 1,000 gpm. Water quality is satisfactory except for local 

elevated iron levels in several aquifers, including the lowest aquifer system, the PotomacRaritan-Magothy System, and for local contamination from saltwater intrusion and waste 

disposal and agricultural derived residues in shallower aquifer systems. In the unconfined 

Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system water is brackish or salty in some coastal areas. In confined 

aquifers, salinity generally increases with depth in the southern and southeastern parts of the 

Coastal Plain. 

2.4. 7 Local Geology 

The geology of the Wildwoods, consists of Holocene deposits of beach and near shore marine 

sands, along the beaches and the developed portions of the island, and salt marsh and estuarine 

deposits, located with back bays and the mainland. The Holocene deposits are underlain by the 

Quaternary deposits of the Cape May Formation, which is underlain by the Tertiary deposits 

consisting of the Cohansey Sand 

The beach and near shore marine sands consists of sand and pebble gravel, very pale brown to 

light gray, extending to depths as much as 50 feet, but generally less than 20 feet thick. The salt 

marsh and estuarine deposits generally consist of silt, sand, peat, clay and minor pebble gravel, 

with abundant organic matter. The Cape May Formation is present beneath the Holocene 

deposits and generally consists of inter-bedded gravels, sands and silts/clays, varying in color 

from very pale brown, yellow, reddish yellow, white, olive yellow and gray. The Cape May 

Formation has been reported to be as much as 200 feet thick on the Cape May Peninsula. The 

Cape May Formation is underlain by the Cohansey Sand, which consists of quartz sands or gray 

silty clay, ranging in thickness between 50 to 225 feet. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 96 
97

Figure 28 Stratigraphic Cross Section 

Reference: frlfonnation provided by 

the New Jersey Geological Survey, 

Rutgers• University Department of 

Ge.ologlcal Sciences, and the 

Oet:aware Geological Survey 

STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION 

FIGURE 

~------------------~·-----------~----------·--

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 97 
98

2.4.8 Native Beach and Borrow Source Data Collection 

A beach monumentation and shoreline/profile survey was conducted by Offshore & Coastal 

Technologies, Inc. - East Coast (OCT! - EC) along the Wildwood beaches between September 

24 and 29, 2003. The results of this study were presented in a report submitted to USACE dated 

December 17, 2003. The study area extended from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet. As part of 

this study, a total of 25 beach profiles were taken during the measurement period and beach 

surface soil samples were taken along selected profile lines for identification and analysis. The 

beach profiles extended from the building construction line seaward to beyond a water depth of 

25' below NA VD 88. Beach soil samples were obtained along JO preselected survey lines 

extending from 200' landward of the beach crest to a water depth of 18' below NA VD 88. 

The survey utilized North American Vertical Datum (NAVO) 1988 as the vertical datum. The 

North American Datum (NAO) 1983 was used as the horizontal datum. The New Jersey State 

Plane Coordinate System was used where actual geo-positioning was required. 

Beach samples were collected along survey lines distributed along the entire length of the beach 

survey area. The distance between consecutive soil sampling lines ranged from between 1,000 to 

2,000' of separation. Table 12 shows the survey lines that were sampled. 

Table 12 Beach and Survey Sampling Locations 

North Wildwood City 

Wildwood Cit) 

Wildwood Crest 

Lower Townshi 

WWI 

WW2 

WW2B 

WW-! 

WW7 

WWlO 

WWIJ 

WW15 

WWl7 

along inlet 

2.200 feet 

1,500 feet 

6 .. 500 feet 

I0.700 feet 

l-1-.900 feet 

20.800 feet 

2.\.400 feet 

27.100 feet 

Samples were collected during September of 2003. Samples were obtained at the following 

locations along the survey lines indicated above: 

Beach Crest minus 200' (BC-200) 

Beach Crest (BC) 

Tidal Zone Composite (Tidal) 

Depth -6' (-1.8 meters)* 

Depth -18' (-5.5 meters)* 

* Depth is referenced to NAVO 88 datum 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 98 
99

With the exception of the tidal zone composite samples, each individual sample was identified 

with a separate S-# symbol. Tidal component samples were identified with a "Tidal Composite" 

designation 

All recovered soil samples were subjected to gradation analyses using ASTM Method ASTM D 

422 by OCT! -EC to determine the distribution of patticle sizes in samples collected. The results 

of this testing were presented in OCT! - EC's report and were utilized to determine the existing 

conditions of the sacrificial beach sediments in our geotechnical analysis. 

2.4.9 Acoustic Sub-bottom Profiles 

Acoustic sub bottom profiling has been performed within the study area on a number of different 

occasions. The earliest of those used for this study are those performed by Coastal Engineering 

Research Center (CERC) of the USACE Waterways Experiment Station in 1980 and 1982. 

These studies indicated several potential borrow sources in the area offshore of the Cape May 

region. Subsequent studies by CERC and others, most notably, the New Jersey Geological 

Survey, Rutgers University and the NJDEP, have provided additional infonnation to assist in 

defining the potential borrow areas selected for incorporation into this study. 

2.4.10 Investigation of Potential Borrow Areas 

Numerous vibracores were collected by several firms under contract to U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Philadelphia District and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP) during the period 1980 to 2007 in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New Jersey from 

Avalon south to Cape May. Except for those collected in July 1999, the depth of penetration for 

the vibracores was 20' (6.10 meters). The fieldwork included positioning of the vessel using a 

DGPS navigation system and obtaining continuous core samples with penetration records. All 

fieldwork was conducted aboard contracted vessels. Particle size analysis of the sediment 

samples retrieved in the vibracores was performed in both consultants' and the Philadelphia 

District's geotechnical laboratories. 

The samples collected in July 1999 were obtained to a depth of penetration of 10' (3.05 meters). 

The fieldwork was similar to that detailed above, however the vibracoring was conducted aboard 

a 20' by 50' (6.10 meters by 15.24 meters) barge positioned by a tugboat. The vibracores were 

advanced utilizing an 8-inch (20.3 centimeter) Alpine pneumatic vibracore. Duffield Associates 

visually classified and conducted particle size analysis of the sediment retrieved in the 

vibracores. 

The latest investigations for the Hereford lnlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study were 

conducted to better define several possible borrow sources for future beach replenishments at the 

eroding beach in North Wildwood. In order to identify potential sources of replenishment sand, 

a series ofvibracore and test boring investigations were conducted by Schnabel Engineering 

under contract to the Philadelphia District. These investigations were performed in 2006 and 

2007, respectively. Details of these investigations are provided in the following paragraphs. 

Between April 14 and 15, 2006 a series of 8 additional vibracores were obtained offshore from 

the Wildwood beach area between Hereford lnlet and Cape May Inlet. The vibracores were 

performed by Schnabel Engineering and their subcontractor Alpine Drilling. Three of the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 99 
100

vibracores, NJV-745, NJV-746 and NJV-747, were obtained in Hereford Inlet immediately west 

of the former borrow area in this inlet. The other five vibracores were obtained in areas selected 

by the USACE approximately 1500' (457.2 meters) offshore of the beach area (NJV-748 through 

NJV-751 ). These vibracores were obtained to characterize the coastal sediments as possible sand 

borrow sources for future beach renourishment. Continuous soil samples were obtained from the 

vibracore samples from each five-foot or less interval and subjected to grain size analysis. The 

results of this investigation, which were incorporated into the current feasibility study, were 

presented in Schnabel Engineering's report dated June 30, 2006. 

Between February 12 and March 5, 2007 a series of 14 standard penetration test (SPT) borings 

were advanced along the Wildwood beach area extending between Hereford Inlet and Cape May 

Inlet. The test borings were performed by Tabasco Drilling under the direction of Schnabel 

Engineering. The borings were obtained in locations selected by the USACE along the beach to 

characterize the sediments underlying the existing surface beach materials. These borings 

provided better definition of potential borrow source in the vicinity of the accreting beaches in 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township for evaluation for potential use in 

renourishment of the eroding beach at North Wildwood. The 14 borings were designated NVB01 through NVB-14 and were advanced to depths of26' (7.9 meters) below the surface at each 

location. Soil samples were collected continuously in all borings. Recovered soil samples were 

examined and composited in primarily 4-foot ( l .2 meter) intervals in the borings and subjected 

to gradational analyses for use in our beach design computations. The results of this 

investigation, which were also incorporated into the current feasibility study, were presented in 

Schnabel Engineering's report dated April 17, 2007. 

Several additional vibracores were collected during the latter part of 2007 in or near the proposed 

Hereford Inlet borrow source. Those used in the evaluation of that source were NJV-797, 799 

and 800. Selected vibracore logs and gradation data obtained from all of the investigations 

mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs were reviewed to obtain information about borrow 

sources being considered. 

2.4.11 Native Beach Characteristics 

All beach survey line sample data used in the development of the composite grain size curves for 

the North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township beaches were taken 

from OCT!-EC sampling performed in September/October 2003. Comparisons were made with 

the upper samples O to 4' (0 to 1.2 meters) depth in the NVB series of borings performed by 

Schnabel Engineering in February and March, 2007. Only minor differences were found in the 

gradations of the winter and late summer samplings The North Wildwood beach has been 

severely eroded according to observations and surveys made during the period 2003 to 2007. 

The beach areas south of Line WW-7 in Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township show 

accretion based on surveys made during the same period. 

The beach material for the North Wildwood beach consists primarily of poorly graded, finegrained, quartz sand with a mean grain size M,p of 2.34 phi/ 0.2 mm, and minor amounts of silt. 

Grain size curves, for the native beach area are included in the Geotechnical Appendix. 

Cumulative grain size distribution (GSD) plots were also developed from samples, from the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 100 
101

North Wildwood beach area (native beach) and the proposed borrow areas, to visually illustrate 

the compatibility of the native beach and borrow area sediments. The cumulative GSD plots for 

the North Wildwood beach are included in the Geotechnical Appendix. 

The North Wildwood beach area has suffered erosion since 2003 with the high tide level 

retreating an average of 5' per year during the 2003 to 2007 period. This figure is based on 

surveys conducted along the beach in this area over this period. 

As customarily utilized in beach analysis, grain size calculations were made using phi units in 

lieu of metric size units. The phi units are used since they represent whole numbers at the limits 

of the Wentworth scale for sediment size sorting and because they allow comparison of different 

size distributions as they are dimensionless. Figure 29 reproduced from Table TTT-1-2 from EM 

1110-2-1100 (Part !Tl) illustrates size terminology and particle size comparisons for sediments 

The average grain size distribution of the native beach was determined using the weighted 

average of the composite of surface samples from Lines WW - 1, 2 and 2B with SPT boring 

samples from NVB 1, 2 and 3 (0 to 4' depths). This resulted in design parameters ofM• ~ 2.34 

phi/0.20 mm and "• ~ 0.46 phi (Table 13). 

This value is weighted more to the characteristics of the surface soil materials that were present 

during the investigation. These values were used in the determination of overfill and renourishment factors for each of the recommended borrow areas. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 101 
102

Figure 29 Soil Classification System 

Comparison of the Soil Classification Systems compiled from 

various sources 

Wentworth Burmister uses USDA 

boulders boulders 

cobbles 

cobbles 

cobbles 

coarse coarse medium 

gravel gravel gravel 

v. coarse 

coarse medium 

pebbel gravel 

gravel fine gravel 

medium fine fine gravel 

fine gravel coarse gran. (vf) sand a ravel 

v. coarse v. coarse sand coarse medium sand 

sand sand coarse 

coarse sand sand 

medium medium medium 

sand sand sand 

fine sand fine sand 

fine sand 

fine sand v. fine 

v. fine sand sand 

coarse silt 

coarse silt 

silts & silt 

medium silt fine silt clays 

fine silt 

v. fine silt 

clav clav 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

mm 

4026 

2048 

1024 

512 

256 

_B!l._ 

64 

32 

16 

8 

4 

2 

1 

0.5 

0.25 

0.125 

0.101 

0.0625 

0.0156 

0.0078 

0.0039 

<.0039 

us 

in Phi Stan. 

Sieve 

Size 

11.98 

-11 

-10 

-9 

10.08 -8 

_3_ 

2.52 -6 No.5+ 

1.26 -5 

0.63 -4 

0.31 -3 

0.16 -2 

0.08 -1 No.5-10 

0.04 0 No.10-

18 

No.18-

0.02 1 35 

O.Q1 2 No. 35-

60 

No. 60-

0.005 3 120 

0.002 5.01 No.120-

230 

4 <No. 

230 

6 

7 

0.0002 8 

<0.0002 

Page 102 
103

2.4.12 Borrow Area Suitability Analysis 

Borrow material should be approximately the same size or slightly coarser than the native 

material on the beach to be nourished. If the borrow material has a significantly smaller grain 

size, the profile will be out of equilibrium with the local wave and current environment, and will 

therefore be quickly eroded either offshore or alongshore. This analysis compares the native 

sediment characteristics to the borrow material characteristics. The analysis was completed 

using the methodolOb'Y put forth in the Coastal Engineering Manual (2003). Overfill factors (R,) 

were calculated for each potential borrow area. The overfill factor estimates the volume of fill 

material needed to produce one cubic yard of stable beach material after equilibrium in gradation 

has been reached between the fill and native materials by wave action and erosion processes. 

Consequently, overfill factors are greater than or equal to one. For example, an overfill factor of 

1.2 would indicate that l.2 cubic yards of borrow material would be required to produce 1.0 

cubic yards of stable material. This technique assumes that both the native and composite 

borrow material distributions are nearly log normal distribution. 

In order to determine an estimate of the renourishment factors, we deviated from the design 

procedures presented in the 2003 edition of the Coastal Engineering Manual and evaluated the 

renourishment factors using the methodology presented in the 1984 edition of the manual. The 

renourishment factor is a measure of the stability of the placed borrow material relative to the 

native beach material. Desirable values of the renourishment factor are those less than or equal 

to one. For example, a renourishment factor of R; =0.33 would mean that renourishment, using 

the borrow material, would be required one third ~s often as renourishment using the same type 

of material that is currently on the beach. North Wildwood sediment data is contained below in 

Table 13. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 103 
Table 13 North Wildwood Composite Values 

WW-I I 2.36 I 0.46 I NVB-1 I 

WW-2 I 2.24 I o.49 I NVB-2 I 

WW-2B I 2.23 I 04s I NVB-3 I 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

0-4 2.38 0-8 2.47 0-12 2.54 

0--1 2.37 

0-8 2.60 0-12 2.54 0-4 2.46 0-8 2.57 0-12 2.70 

0.40 Comp

0.40 4') to 

0.41 

0.40 Comp

0.-18 4') to 

0.52 

0.52 Comp

0.53 4')to

0.51 value
105

2.4.13 Potential Borrow Areas 

There were eight potential borrow areas identified in this phase of study Four of these areas are 

in the Hereford Inlet area and are designated H-1, H-2, H-3, and H-4. The 5"' potential borrow 

area is the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest beach area which is designated WW /WC. There were 

also three other offshore areas that were considered for potential borrow areas, located southeast 

of Wildwood, which were designated OS-1, OS-2 and OS-3. Another potential borrow source 

area, Area K, which is a designated part of OS-3, was also originally considered for evaluation, 

but this area was later selected and designated for another replenishment project in Cape May 

and was therefore excluded from this current study. The actual limits of these potential borrow 

sources will have to be determined by detailed bathymetric survey and additional subsurface 

investigation. The locations of the borrow area relative to the project area are shown in Figure 

30-33. 

The vibracores that fell within the anticipated limits of the potential borrow areas were analyzed 

for suitability with the native beach material at North Wildwood. In order to perform borrow 

area suitability analyses the mean grain size and standard deviation, both in phi units, were 

computed for each five foot or less depth increments of the vibracores. The final composite for a 

particular borrow area was developed from the individually composited section of the vibracores 

for that particular borrow area. Overfill and renourishment factors were then computed using the 

native beach and borrow area design parameters. These factors were then evaluated to determine 

the boITow material's suitability for the North Wildwood beach. 

It should be noted that renourishment of the North Wildwood Beach in the near future is 

currently under consideration and is being planned by the State of New Jersey due to the current 

erosion cycle in this area. The contemplated plan calls for using material from a source located 

in Hereford Inlet area. This renourishment work will be using state and local funding. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 105 
106

Figure 30 Wildwood Borrow Areas [valuated for Feasibility 

\ 

f 

! "O 

:1,1 no 

~~ ::i::"' ..... r: -.,0 1$1 ilii 1': gJ 

3li~ 

•p in Ii ~~ ~ 

I ii I f] a f 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 106 
107

Figure 31 Hereford lulet Borrow Area 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

\ 

Page 107 
108

Figure 32 Wildwood aud Wildwood Crest Borrow Area 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 108 
109

Figure 33 Offshore Borrow Area 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

\ 

Page 109 
110

2.4.15 Approximate Perimeter Coordinates of Potential Borrow Areas 

Borrow area perimeter coordinate points are shown below in Table 14. Perimeter coordinates 

are in New Jersey State Plane. 

Table 14 Borrow Area Coordinates 

--

II-Ill 69002 413059 

II-th 68441 416450 

H-k 68194 

H-ld 6ls56() 

II-le 68433 

II-If 67974 

H-1 68005 

69291 

Il-2h 69002 

U-2c 66229 

ll-2d 66184 

H-3a 66184 

Jl-3b 66229 

II-3(." 64379 

II-3d 64494 

! 

II-4a 64494 

II-lb 64211 

H-4c 63.J.04 

11-..td 63475 

WW!WC-1 56064 

WW/W(-2 55441 

WW/\\( -3 50394 

WW/WC-..J 4541.5 

WW/WC-5 45793 

\\W/\\'C'-6 50866 

OS-la 50047 

OS-th 47252 

3()477 

OS-td 40617 

0S-2a 25462 

22816 

20190 

22177 

OS-3:t 30167 

OS-Jh 28358 

25113 

27201 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

415055 

..J.!4697 

414187 

413399 

41.1097 

,g,;,c;,,•,,c:::. 411308 

413()59 

413165 

411993 

''3:CC.\')i)'Z' 

41199?1 

413165 

413235 

412366 

.,.::\c;;,,,:"·: -t::;,+"\·t<-'n .-:tt'.'"' 

412366 

414500 

414170 

412591 

405741 

40618(, 

:199387 

394069 

393747 

398944 

··"· :,: r!,· 

4U-U9 

404307 

398911 

397844 

:;;.;; . 387402 

J88l61 

?,77978 

377295 

,Sf 

40138{) 

402639 

399113 

396756 

Page 110 
111

2.4.16 Details of Borrow Area Design Analyses 

The beach borrow design analysis was accomplished as pa11 of the Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

(also known as Cold Springs) Inlet Feasibility Study. The methodology used is that 

recommended in the 2003 Edition of the USAE Coastal Engineering Manual (EM l 110-2-1000) 

Chapters I and IV. As previously stated, the one exception was the use of the 1984 Edition 

methodology to calculate the renourishment factor (Rj). This calculation has been dropped from 

later editions due to changes in the concept of determining the time required between 

renourishment of beach fills. It is our understanding that current practice favors a more 

historically based method to determine the frequency of renourishment rather than the older 

method based on grain size distributions of the native beach and borrow materials. 

A significant amount of older information was available for this investigation that was used in 

our analysis. This infonnation consisted of gradation curves for the collected samples, that could 

not be readily used in the ACES method for calculating overfill and re-nourishment factors. The 

ACES method requires phi diameters and sample weights for analysis. The available data was 

organized and analyzed using EXCEL to detennine the required parameters and average values 

of the median grain size and mean standard deviation for the native beach and borrow areas. The 

overfill and re-nourishment factors where then determined using the methods present in EM 

1110-2-1000, and checked using the ACES method. A description of the method utilized to 

analyze the data is presented in the Geotechnical Appendix and discussed on the following 

pages. 

In addition, cumulative GSD plots and a composite distribution plot for the native beach and 

potential borrow areas are included in the Geotechnical Appendix. The graphical plots provides 

for visual comparison of the compatibility of the native beach sediments and the bonow area 

materials. 

2.4.17 Hereford Inlet Borrow Area - Subareas H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4 and Total Area "H" 

The Hereford Inlet Borrow Area is located immediately to the north of the proposed beach 

restoration project in North Wildwood. Pumping distances would range from 0.8 miles at the 

southern end of the area (subarea H-4) to 1.6 miles at the northern end (subarea H-1). 

Nine (9) vibracores taken in the Hereford Inlet area during the period 1994 to 2007 were used to 

evaluate this area. These included NJV 185 and 187 (1994); NJV-452 (1997); NJV-745, 746 and 

747 (2006.) and NJV-797, 799 and 800 (2007). It should be noted that NJV 185 and 452 were 

taken in areas subsequently excavated for borrow used for other beach fill projects in North 

Wildwood and Stone Harbor. However, data from these vibracores was used in the 

determination of averages used in the design parameters for the area. lt is further noted that the 

material encountered in NVB-187 was significantly coarser than that encountered elsewhere in 

the area and could possibly be an anomaly. If so, it possibly has skewed the overall design 

parameters used for the Hereford Inlet source. However, for the purposes of this investigation, 

the value was used in determining the average M¢ and CT¢ for the borrow area. 

There is concern regarding the use of material from subareas H-3 and H-4 of the Hereford Inlet 

borrow area. The removal of this material is likely to change the character and ferocity of wave 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 111 
112

attack on the North Wildwood shore of the inlet. It has been reported that the parameters used in 

the design of the shoreline protection in this area would likely be changed if this shoal is 

removed and the shoreline protection could be inadequate due to the changed conditions. The 

total volume of fill contained within the proposed limits of the area to El. -28 NAVD is estimated 

to be 5,815,000 C.Y. lt should be noted that this area was designated as a potential borrow 

source for Stone Harbor beach renourishment. The overfill and renourishment factors for the 

North Wildwood area from the Hereford Inlet borrow areas considered suitable for use are 

summarized in Table 15. 

Table 15 Overfill and Renourishment Factors for Hereford Inlet Borrow Areas 

Mean ... Area.and Grain Standard ,MMi-,M•~ Overfill Facmr, Renourisb:fuent 

Vibracore Size .Deviation (RJand Fact()r, 

~esigna_tio~ M,. O'llh' er,, ' " .. Quadra°'t (&j) ·. 

.·· ' ·. 

Hl HI 0.36 0.78 0.14 NJV-745 

Hl 2.22 0.68 l.44 -0.25 NJV-799 

HI 2.61 0.10 0.84 0.59 NJV-452. 

HI 2.40 0.48 1.04 0.16 L25 1.2/l Composite 

H2 2.25 0.65 l.40 ~J.20 NJV-185 

H2 2.51 0.3] 0.72 0.38 NJV-746 

H2 2.39 0.47 l.07 0. 09 1.2 l.2/1 Composite 

HJ 2.38 0.41 0.90 0.08 NJV-747 

HJ 2.57 0.43 0.93 0.50 NJV-797 

HJ 2.46 0.42 0.91 0.25 l.6 l.4/1 Composite 

H4 

NJV-187 2.43 0.42 1.45 0.19 

H4 2.42 0.()6 1.42 0.16 NJV-800 

H4 2.42 ili -0.70 !.] .7/1 Composite1 

H-lthmH-4' 2.42 0.17 ' 1.25 1.2/1 

l. Composltc based on weighted a\'eragc of samples from each vtbrncorc based on length of sample mulllphed 

by the depth or cut represented by each sample. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 112 
113

2. Results based on weighted values by height to detenuiue average Mw and crw 

3. Subscript "u" indicates a native beach material property: subscript '"b'' indicates a borrmY material property: 

2.4.18 Wildwood - Wildwood Crest -Area "WW /WC" (Formerly Area "D") 

Area "WW/WC", which was formerly designated as Area "D", is situated immediately south of 

the North Wildwood Beach renourishment area. It is located in the accretion area extending 

from the north end of Wildwood City beach to the south end of the Wildwood Crest beach. The 

distances from the north and south ends of this borrow area to the renourishment area at north 

Wildwood range from around I to 4 miles, respectively. 

Investigations used to define the borrow area design parameters for Area "WW/WC" consisted 

of surface samples taken from Beach Lines WW-4 to WW-15 in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest 

(5 samples per line atBC+200, BC, tidal zone, EL -6 NAVD and EL -18 NA VD.) 

The initial trials included only the surface sample data to define the borrow area's design 

characteristics, primarily because we had little expectation that the communities involved would 

allow the use of this material for the project Subsequent discussions between local, state and 

COE personnel indicated some interest on the part of the local people due to benefits which may 

be derived from the reduction of the beach width in these communities; i.e. reduction in the need 

to extend storm sewer outfalls; and reduction in the width of beach traverse required to reach the 

prime recreation areas near the water's edge. 

Based on this, it was determined that better definition of these potential borrow materials was 

required and a series of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings was perfonned in 2007 to 

determine material quality at depths up to 26 ft 

The grain size characteristics of Area "WW/WC" were computed using a method similar to that 

used to determine the native beach mate1ial characteristics at the North Wildwood beach 

restoration area. Composites were developed for three sections of the borrow area using 

summations of the surface samples on each side of the seaward boring of each SPT pair located 

between the individual sampled beach lines and the seaward SPT boring. The SPT boring design 

characteristics were detennined for depths from ground surface of both 12' and 16' ( 

The design parameters for Area "WW /WC" are M: = 2.40 phi/0.19 mm and a: = 0.45 for 

excavation to EL -8 NAVD and M, = 2.42 phi/0.19 mm and CT:= 0.47 for excavation to EL -12 

NA VD. Excavation levels below these elevations were not considered due primarily to the finer 

grained materials encountered there. Use of these design parameters with the North Wildwood 

native beach design parameters resulted in a value of R. = 1.25 and R; = l.2/lfor excavation to 

EL -8 NAVD and R, = 1.25 and R1 = l.25/1 for excavation to EL -12 NAVD. The overfill 

factors for Area WW/WC are shown in Table 16. 

The total borrow quantity available in this area to El -8 NA VD is 2,257,000 CY. The quantity 

available to EL -12 NA VD is 3,010,000 CY. ln order to make this area most attractive to local 

interests, consideration needs to be given to maximizing their benefits at the earliest stages of the 

project This action should also maximize the benefits to be realized, particularly with regards to 

reducing the need for extending storm sewer outfall lines. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 113 
114

Table 16 Overfill and Renourishment Factors for WW/WWC 

: .. ""' M.b-.M.,, 

Borrow Mean Grain Standard De,;iation ·. Overfill Factor Rcnouri~hm~nt Area Si't.eJYI.+• (Phi) "••(Phi) "" "•· . (R;.) Fai:tor(R;)_ , 

0 to 8 ft 

depth 2.40 0.45 0.99 0.14 J.25 l.2/1 

0 to 12ft 2..12 0.47 l.02 0.17 us l.25/l depth 

2.4.19 Offshore Borrow Areas 

The overfill and renourishment factors for areas OS-1, OS-2 and OS-3 are summarized in the 

tables below. All vibracore samples collected in these areas are compatible with the native beach 

materials. 

Offshore Borrow Area "OS -1" (formerly designated OS-2) Offshore Area "OS-I "is located 

approximately 1.7 miles off of Wildwood beach. The northern end of the area is 2 miles from 

the North Wildwood beach restoration area, while the southern end of the borrow area is 4 miles 

from that beach fill area. This shoal area widens as it extends northward from its southern 

terminus. Investigations in the area are very limited, consisting of 2 vibracores, NJV-158 and 

NJV-159, plus several acoustic sub-bottom profile lines running both longitudinally and 

transversely across the area. The limited investigations performed to date indicate the borrow 

material occurs to a depth of 10 ft. below the mud line (to El. -35 NAVD). This material is 

underlain by gravelly and/or finer material considered unsatisfactory for beach fill at the North 

Wildwood beach restoration project. 

The design parameters computed for "OS-I" are Mf -2.26/.2mm and cr: - 0.98 for a 10 ft. 

depth of cut. Use of these values with the North Wildwood native Beach parameters result in 

values of R, - 1.35 and R; - 1/10 for this area. The volume of borrow available at this location is 

estimated to be 14,387,000 CY. lt should be noted that: (1) the information used to determine the 

design for this area is extremely limited and (2) the area has recently been designated a prime 

fishery habitat by the NJDEP. Further explorations in this area may be inadvisable. The overfill 

factors for OS-1 Area are shown in 

Table 17. 

Offshore Borrow Area "OS -2" (formerly designated OS -!)-Offshore Area "OS-2" is located 

approximately 2. 8 miles off of Cape May City. The northern and southern ends of the area are 

approximately 7 and 9 miles, respectively, south of the North Wildwood beach restoration area 

The shoal area averages 0.5 miles in width. As with OS-I, the investigations in this area are very 

limited. They consist of2 vibracores, NJV-147 and NJV-148, plus several acoustic sub-bottom 

proftle lines running both longitudinally and transversely across the area. The limited 

investigations performed to date indicate suitable borrow material occurs to a depth of IO ft. 

below the mud line (EL -35 NA VD). This material is underlain by gravelly and/or finer material 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 114 
115

Table 17 Overfill and Renourishment Factors for Borrow Area OS-I 

Mean Grain .·· .. • ... Overl'ill Area and' Size Standard 'Deviation ""' .· ,M•b-~'11 Factor(&;.) Reriourlshment 

Vibraco:re M,s and Factor. 

Design~iion "'" <r.., ~.n (R,) (Phi) (Phi) Quadrant 

OS-I 2.15 IJ5 2.93 -{)41 NJGS-158 

OS-I 2.36 0.61 l.33 0.04 NJGS-159 

OS-1 2.26 0.98 2.13 -0.18 L35 1/10 Comoositc 

considered unsatisfactory for beach fill at the North Wildwood beach restoration project The 

design parameters computed for "OS-2" are M.- = l.53/.3Smm and cr, = 1.25 for a 10 ft depth of 

cut Use of these values with the North Wildwood native beach parameters result in a value of 

R, = 1.22 and RJ = stable_ The overfill factors for OS-2 Area are shown in Table 18_ 

The volume of borrow available at this location is estimated to be 9_493,000 CY There are no 

known negatives for use of this site other than the obvious ones of distance from the restoration 

area and lack of sufficient data to fully evaluate the area. 

Table 18 Overfill and Renourishment Factors for Borrow Area OS-2 

... · . , Al'ca-and MeallGrain .M;•-M1n Overfill RCnourislunent Size Standard.Deviation "'" F~ctor(R,l Vibracore. Factor' 

PCSignation M., ""' "'' and <R,) (Phi) (Phi) ' Q\ladranf 

OS-2 1.64 1.07 2.33 -l.53 NJGS-147 

OS-2 142 1.43 3.12 -2.(Xl NJGS-148 

OS-2 1.53 L25 2.72 -1.77 l.22 Stable Comoositc 

Offshore Borrow Area "OS -3" Offshore Area "OS-3 "is located approximately 3.3 miles off 

of Cape May Inlet. The northern and southern ends of the area are approximately 6 and 7 miles, 

respectively, SSE of the North Wildwood beach restoration area_ The shoal area averages 0_5 

miles in width. 

Explorations in the area consist of S vibracores, NJV 34, 45, 48, 49 and 51, in addition to a series 

of sub-bottom profile lines. To the best of our knowledge, no mining of these materials for 

beach fill or other purposes has been performed since these investigations were accomplished. 

Suitable borrow occurs to a depth of 10 ft. below the mud line (EL -40 NA VD). This material is 

generally underlain by gravelly and/or finer material considered unsatisfactory for beach fill at 

the North Wildwood beach restoration proj eel. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 115 

·. 
116

Design parameters were computed for a 10 ft depth of cut over the area. These weighted 

parameters averaged M,: = l.46/.36mm and cr: = 0.8. Use of these values with the North 

Wildwood native beach parameters result in values of R0 = 102 and R; = 1/18. Overfill and 

Renourishment Factors for Borrow Area OS-3 are shown on Table 19. The volume of borrow 

available at this location is estimated to be S.021,000 CY 

Table 19 Overfill and Renourisbrnent Factors for Borrow Area OS-3 

2.08 1.78 3.88 -0.56 

OS-3 1.28 0.26 0.56 -2.30 NJV--!8 

OS-3 l.6-l 0.59 1.29 -l.52 NJV--!9 

OS-3 1.19 0.87 1.90 -2.50 NJV-51 

OS-3 1.46 0.80 l.76 -l.85 osite* 

2.4.20 Supplemental Investigations 

Overfill 

Fa<:tor(RJ 

and 

Quadrant 

1.02 

l{cnourishineht 

Factor 

(Rj) 

l/18 

Supplemental investigations should be performed prior to use of any of the individual borrow 

areas recommended above in any areas where the existing conditions have changed since the 

original investigation of that particular area was performed, or where only a limited number of 

initial investigations were performed. 

The extent of these investigations will vary considerably depending upon the area being 

considered for use. For instance, the scope of investigations required in the Hereford Inlet, 

W /WC and OS-3 areas would be considerably less than those required for the OS-I and OS-2 

areas .. It is anticipated that additional vibracore sampling will be required in all areas except the 

WW /WC borrow source. Hydrographic, acoustic sub-bottom and terrestrial surveys and benthic 

investigations will also be required to define the borrow areas depending on location. Additional 

geophysical or other new innovative technological exploration methods can also be utilized to 

assist in the definition of the mate1ials and subsurface conditions in the selected or future 

proposed borrow areas. 

2.5 Structure Inventory 

The structures on the beach within the project area were listed using The 1990 Report on Limited 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 116 
117

Reconnaissance by the Philadelphia District and a GIS shape file of shore protection structures 

from the New Jersey Geographic Information Systems (NJGIS) database. This includes 

structures constructed to control erosion and storm damage (groins, bulkheads and seawalls) and 

outfall structures. There are approximately 16 shore protection structures and 19 municipal 

outfall pipes within the project area. 

2,5, l Shore Protection Structure Inventory 

The project areas shore protection structures consist of revetments and bulkheads made of stone and 

timber These structures are listed in Table 20. Elevations are in NGVD. A table of recent local beach 

protection efforts in contained in Table 21 and elevations are in NA VD 88. 

Table 20 Shore Protection Structure fnventory 

I( ,~~;'Y .. ·•· .,:(:'~"'; .;(":'"'°'~?'\"~'•.• r;;?~\ lkrdOrd Inkt Frontag.:: se,mall ~tone. concrck 14.75 

~ea\\a!l 

West of Central ~ton<e. tunber. rubbk 

\tfantle-l~t bu1kheitd co1wn:k. ~Lone. hrid,. 

Central to Surf f-'\dment concrete.rnbbk. 

Surf to JFK ,,tone.grout 12 

2nd&Surl'Road groin ruhblc.eonaete 12 

2ndimd0cean grom rubh!e.<COll\.TdC 12 

2nd and JFK grom rubble. eoncrd,; II 

Central to Pine A. w. bulkhead stedpi!ing.stonctoe 12 

l'metolloffma.n,he bu!I..Jll.'ad tnnb<:Srp1lc.stone 11.3 

2nd to 13th _\\,:,nuc~ bulkhead timber pile 12.5 

Ra111b!c1 Av,; bulhlwad ll 

bt~ll)fC\!IJdl) grorn timber Ill 

Ea~tofC\Iljdty groin timber lO 

J-:astofC;\.llJdty grom tm1he1 10 

EaktnrCMljdt) grom timbcJ1 10 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

1.":.r .•:' ·.·· ... ' ; ... •.' '· 14.75 12 8,660 2006 FS.Go\ es,:ccllent 

\lll"iabk 

p1lnr 

fair 

fair 

14 77 Stahl fair 

14 187.5 State faff 

14 111 good 

12 0.5 933 1940 County fair 

11.3 1480 1931 lv!un good 

12.5 .1050 1962 \!un good 

11 5200 l'rh. l\1un 

640 1964 l-.S (loy ""' 640 1964 t:.s.Gov fair 

6'0 1%4 l.,S.Oo~ fau 

5.5 6"10 1964 1·.s.Oo\· Eur 

Page 117 
118

Table 21 Local Beachfills 

NorU1 2nd Ave to Poplar 14.75' 675' 

North Wildwood 2009 Wildwood Ave 1320,287 State/Local l lereford lnld NAVll NAVD 

Norlh 2nd-5th Ave. l lth l-l-.75' (J.75' 

North Wildwood 2010 Wildwood to Po hr Ave 499,367 Statc/I,ocal Hereford Inlet NAVD NAVD 

Wihh\ood Crest to Norlh W1ld\\ood Crest 6.75' 

North Wildwood 2012 Wild,,ood 2nd to 7th 96J)()(J Local (backms~d) na NAVD 

North 2nd.to 5th.21st to State/I,ocaJ/ 14.75 6.75' 

North Wildwood 2013 Wildwood 25th ]55.300 EEMA Hereford Inlet NAVD NAV!l 

2.5.2 Municipal Outfall Inventory 

The outfalls contained in the project area are listed below, from south to north, in Table 22. The 

outfalls that are most impacted by the excessive beach width are lthrough 17. These outfalls are 

routinely clogged with sand and require daily excavation by Public Works crews or they have 

been extended by the local municipality. The costs to excavate or extend these outfalls were 

accounted for and included as a Local Costs Forgone benefit in the economic analysis 

Table 22 Municipal Outfalls 

:\km hi~ 

\\'ashm ton 

Ho!!vwood 

:>.limni 

c\tlanta 

}h:athcr 

B.::nnd 

10 J,eamm!c'. 

11 Hand 

12 Rio Grand~· 

13 Ta.vi or 

,, Burk 

15 Youn>s 

16 S..:nc..::r 

17 Polar 

,. 19th 

19 3,d 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

. NluilAcii>:ili/§ \,., ,< 

LT 

W\\'C 

wwc 

wwc 

\\'WC 

wwc 

W\VC 

WWC'WW 

W\\' 

\\'\\ 

WW 

\\'\\' 

\VW 

W\\' 

\\'\\' 

\\'\\' 

\\'\\' 

xww 

Page 118 
119

2.5.3 Pier Inventory 

There are seven piers within the Hereford to Cape May study area. From nmih to south they are; 

Municipal, Sportland, Surfside, Hunt's, Mariner's, Adventure, and the Wildwood Crest Fishing 

Pier (Table 23). Three of the seven piers (Surfside, Morey's, and Advenhlfe) are built with their 

landward sections on elevated pile foundations at approximately 14-16' NA VD, but with their 

seaward most sections built on the beach. Previous efforts to build a dune in front of the piers by 

the NJDEP have failed, and the dune eroded rapidly after placement. 

The owners of Surfside Pier recently constructed a steel sheet pile bulkhead to protect their rides 

and amusements from future storm damages as a result of a May 2008 storm. The May storm 

produced water elevations at the Atlantic City tide gauge of +4.4' NAVD88. Surfside Pier, 

Adventure Pier and Morey's Pier were inventoried for their damage potential for the project's 

fommlation phase. Damage elements on the pier included electric utilities, gas utilities and the 

amusement rides. 

Table 23 Piers in the Project Area 

I .:\funicipal 22nd Aw elevated 

I Spo1tland 2.'1-24th ekrnt<:d 

I Surfaidc 25-26\h cl>:\atcd on grade 

I Hunts Jumper-Poplar dc\atcd on grade 

1 lv!annd~ I ,anding (\:da1-/ichdlingcr devakdon grade 

Spencer -Youngs cle\·atedongradc 

I Fbhing Pier fkathcrRd 

2.6 Coastal Processes 

A number of coastal hydraulic processes that affect the study area were investigated. The 

following paragraphs summarize these critical elements which include historic and existing 

wind, wave, water level and sediment conditions for the study site. A discussion of historic and 

existing shoreline conditions is also provided. 

2.6.l Waves 

Several hindcast data sources were available to generate wave statistics for the study area 

(Figure 34) One source was from a report entitled "Hindcast Wave Information for the U. S. 

Atlantic Coast" (Wave Information Study (WIS) Report 30) prepared by Hubertz, eta/., 1993. 

WIS Report 30 provided revised wave data for 108 locations along the U. S. Atlantic coast, and 

superseded WIS Report 2 (Corson, et al. 1981), WIS Report 6 (Corson, et al. 1982) and WIS 

Report 9 (Jensen 1983). The wave information for each location was derived from wind fields 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 119 
120

developed in a previous hindcast covering the period 1956 through 1975, exclusive of 

hurricanes, and the WIS wave model, W!SWAVE 2.0 (Hubertz 1992). Wave heights were 

universally higher for the revised hindcast than for the original hindcast since the values more 

closely corresponded to maximum measured (buoy) values. A separate report (WIS Report 19) 

documented hindcast wave infonnation for Atlantic Coast hurricanes during the 1976-1995 time 

period. The WIS output results are a verified source of information for wind and wave climate 

along the U.S. Atlantic Coast and have been used to gain a basic understanding of the wind and 

wave climate for the study area. 

A second source of wave information was from an analysis of general wave statistics that 

covered the time period of 1976 - 1993 and is presented in WIS Report 33. To better represent a 

realistic wave climate, tropical stonns and hurricanes were included in the l 976-1993 hindcast. 

The update hindcast was perfonned using an updated version ofWISWAVE 2.0, referred to as 

WISWAVE. Extra tropical and tropical events were analyzed separately, but combined to form 

complete time series and annual statistics. 

A third source of wave information for the study area of wave information was completed by the 

Corps which was a reanalysis to improve the quality of the Atlantic hindcasts using an advanced 

version of the wave hindcast model WISWAVE. More accurate and more highly resolved input 

winds, and better representation of shallow water topographic effects and sheltering by land 

forms through use of more highly resolved model domains was used in this reanalysis. This 

updated wave hindcast is for a 20-year period from 1980 to 2000 and is presented at: 

http://wis.usace.anny.mil/wis.shtml. Data is available as time series every 3-hr for the 20-yr 

period or as tabular summaries. 

The wave statistics pertinent to the study from the 1980 to 2000 WIS data source are those 

derived for Station 147. The location of Station 147 is Latitude 39.00 N, Longitude 74.50 W, in 

a water deptl1 of approximately 56' Monthly mean wave heights at Station 147 for the entire 

1980-2000 hindcast range from 2.3' in July to 3.9' in January. The maximum monthly average 

wave height (Hm,) at Station 147 for the 1980 - 2000 hindcast is in the month ofJanuary and is 

reported as 19.0 ', with an associated peak period of 11 seconds and a peak direction of 71 deg. 

Summary statistics and plots for WIS Station 147 are provided in Table 24 through Table 27 

and Figure 35 through 39 and for the years 1980-2000. 

A fourth source of offshore wave data was used for shoreline change and storm erosion 

modeling. The wave data used for storm erosion modeling was taken from a wave hindcast 

study conducted by OCT! for the Philadelphia District. Hindcast station 122J23 located offshore 

of Hereford Inlet and station ll 9J 19 located offshore of Wildwood Crest are the two closest 

OCT! hindcast stations to the study area. Utilizing the OCT! wave hindcast; historic storm data 

were generated in the hindcast using a series of numerical models applied to two storm 

populations. The hindcast used 15 historic hurricanes and 15 historic northeasters that have 

affected district coastal areas in order to formulate the stonn criteria. In addition to the stonn 

data, the OCT! wave hindcast consisted ofa continuous time series of wave heights, periods, and 

direction from 1987 to 1997. The computational points in the wave analysis were in water 

depths of about 39' situated offshore of the study area. OCT! transfonned the offshore hindcast 

data to the nearshore over varying bathymetry and provided to the District the storm hydrographs 

used for the "without project" and "with project" stonn erosion SBEACH modeling as described 

in Section 3.1. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 120 
121

The wave statistics from the 1987 to 1997 OCT! data source for Station ll 9JI 9 at Latitude 38.95 

N, Longitude 74.80 W, in a water depth of approximately 39' are as follows: monthly mean 

wave heights range from l.9' in July to 2.5' in April with the maximum monthly average wave 

height (Hm,) of2.20'. Summary wave data plots from the OCT! hindcast for station ll 9Jl 9 are 

shown in Figures 36-37 for the years 1987-1997. 

It should be noted that the actual wave spectrum experienced at any particular time along the 

project shoreline may show considerable local variation. This variability is largely due to the 

interaction of incident waves with: tidal currents at Hereford Inlet, ebb shoal morphology at the 

inlet, local shoreline alignment, near shore bathymetry, and presence of shoreline stabilization 

structures. Therefore, the hindcast wave statistics should be viewed as a very general 

representation of the wave climate of the study area. offshore. Inshore of the station location, the 

effects listed above will modify the incident waves such that significant alongshore differences 

may exist with respect to breaking wave height and angle relative to the shoreline. Note that the 

wave heights from the near shore OCT! station are lower than the heights at the offshore WIS 

station due to wave transformation. Changes in wave directions can also be seen when 

comparing the offshore WIS station to the near shore OCT! station. Computer programs which 

transform offshore waves over varying bathymetry must be used to further investigate wave 

conditions even closer to the shoreline. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 121 
122

Figure 34 Wave Hindcast Stations 

" CapeMa;yJnf(l-l 

,@HO.HI @11J,Wf @''Ml'f 

16,000Feet 

--

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 122 
123

Table 24 Percent Occurrence of Wave Height by Month WIS-147 

2.39 1.27 2.3-1 

1.05 0.3-1 0.68 

OA2 0.41 0.33 0.1 0.2-1 

0.19 0.19 0.1 0.07 0.1-1 

0.08 0.12 ()_()3 0.01 O.Cl-1 0.05 

0.02 0.02 0.02 (1.()1 0 0.02 0.()-1 

0.01 0.01 0 0.02 0.01 

0.01 0.()1 

0.01 

Table 25 Percent Occurrence of Peak Period by Month WIS -147 

1.7-1 1.88 

1.64 l.8 

1.6-l 1.81 

l.6.J. 1.57 

l U.96 

036 0.22 

.29 0.12 0.1-1 

0.1 0.05 0.03 

O.ol 0.()7 

O.Gl 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

1.7 

l.62 

l.87 

1.66 

0.75 

0.22 

0.12 

0.09 

0.31 

0.14 

2.38 

0.83 

0.32 

(l.11 

0.06 

0.03 

0.01 

0.02 

l.l2 

0.4-1 0.-16 

0.21 (l.18 

0.08 (),()5 

0.05 0.0-1 

0.03 0.01 

().()l 

0.01 

Page 123 
124

Table 26 Percent Occurrence of Mean Direction by Month WIS- 147 

0.91 l.01 J.15 

1.28 l.52 1.62 

0,99 1.37 1.62 2.01 

05.1 ().43 0.33 0.51 

0.24 0.22 0.19 o.n 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.18 

0.26 0.2 0.16 0.1 0.07 om 0.06 0.1 

0.31 0.31 0.2 0.06 0.05 006 00-1 0.06 

0.34 034 0.16 0.06 0.04 {1.()3 0.04 0.08 

0.36 0.34 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.09 

0.41 0.36 0.1--J 0.09 o.m 0.04 0.04 0.12 

Table 27 Summary of Mean Wave Height by Year 1980-1999 

3.12 •1.00 3.31 1.94 2.23 

4.23 '.1.28 2.99 3.05 2.10 

4.20 2.95 :us 1.8.J. 2.40 

4.J7 4.49 3.25 2.62 2.33 

4.40 4.40 2.92 3.8] 2.76 

3.45 2.95 2.92 3.02 2.17 

:us 3.02 2.89 2.46 302 

2.79 3.41 4.49 3.41 230 

3.10 .l.08 :Ul 2.69 2.56 

3.67 4.20 2.69 2.95 2.20 

338 3.15 2.92 2.72 2.26 

3.35 3.77 3.41 2.36 2.26 

3.67 .1.87 2.89 .1.77 2.43 

4.17 3.81 3.77 2.56 2.17 

3.31 3.51 2 92 3.08 2.79 

3.74 2.92 2.76 2.69 2.82 

4.10 4.04 4.07 3.25 266 

4.13 UM 3.08 2.76 

5.09 4.10 2.92 .l.J8 2.36 

3.64 4.00 2--1-9 J.54 3.31 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

2.3:1 

2.46 

184 

1.64 

2.69 

2.43 2.43 

187 2.76 

1.97 2.36 

2.20 2.26 

2.20 2.72 

2.13 2.43 

2.53 2.92 

2.53 2.59 

2.20 2.69 

2.36 2.3.'.\ 

2.62 4.69 

3.18 2.62 

2.72 2.30 

2.00 3.4] 

2.43 3.--1-5 

0.28 0.48 

0.23 0.37 

0.27 0.41 

0.23 0.41 

0.26 0.39 

0.25 0.33 

2.59 331 

3.08 J.51 

2.69 3.18 

2.99 3.87 

3AI 390 

2.69 3.22 

2.66 285 

2.72 3.48 

2.43 :UJ 

3.81 2.99 

3.28 4.10 

3.51 3.64 

4.20 3.58 

:l.05 3.35 

2.79 2.56 

4.92 367 

4.20 4.07 

299 302 

3.12 3.35 

5.18 3.:11 

0.5] 

0.45 4314 

05 4842 

0.51 4758 

OA 45-.fl 

0.42 4582 

Page 124 
125

Figure 35 Percent Occurrence Histogram 

Figure 36 Wave Rose of Station 147 

140·'60' 120-140 

100-120 

80·100 

130-80 

40-60 

20-40 

00-20 

Width Le-gend 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibillty Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 125 
126

Figure 37 Wave Rose of Station 147 

'20UO j "",, I 

Width Legend 

Figure 38 Wave Rose of Station 147 

no-,sc 110-13Q & 90·110 

7.0-90 

50-70 

00-50 

Width Legend 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 126 
127

2.6.2 Winds 

The site closest to the study area for which long-term systematic wind and climatic data are 

available is Atlantic City. Weather data were recorded at the Absecon Lighthouse from about 

1902 to 1958. ln 1943, systematic weather observations were initiated at the U. S. Naval Air 

Station located about 16 km (9.9 mi) northwest of the Absecon Light. Records have been made 

continuously at the Air Station site (presently, National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, 

Pomona) to the present. In 1958, the weather observation site in Atlantic City proper was 

relocated from Absecon Light about 1.8 km (1.1 mi) northwest to the Atlantic City State Marina. 

The station was then moved nearby to the Atlantic City Coast Guard Facility. 

The following paragraphs are quoted from the 1992 Annual Summary of Local Climatological 

Data, and are considered to be representative of conditions along the study ai-ea. 

l. "Atlantic City is located on Absecon r~1and on the southeast coast <if New Jersey. 

Surrounding terrain, composed of tidal marshes and heach sand, is flat and lies slight(v a hove 

sea level. The climate is principally continental in character. However, the moderating 

i11flue11ce (!(the Atlantic Ocean is apparent throughout the year, heing more marked in the city 

than at the airport. A.1i· a result, summers are relativel..v cooler and winters milder than elsewhere 

at the same latitude. 11 

2. "Land and sea hreezes, local circulations resulting from the differential heating and 

coo/in[( qfthe land and sea, (}ften prevail. These winds· occur when moderate or intense storms 

are not present in the area, thus enabling the local circulation to overcome the general H·ind 

pattern. During the H'arm season sea breezes in the late morning and afternoon hours prevent 

excessive heating Frequently, the temperature at Atlantic City during the qfternoon hours in the 

summer averages several degrees lower than at the ai11mrt and the aiq}()rt averages several 

degrees lower than the loca/itiesfarther in!cmd On occasions, sea hreezes have lowered the 

temperature as much as 8 to 11 deg C within a ha!f hour. Hou'ever, the major ejfect (![the sea 

breeze at the airport is preventing the temperature from rising above the upper 20~<i. Because 

the change in ocean temperature lags behind the air temperature from season to season, the 

1veather tenci<i to remain comparatively mUd late into the fall, hut on the other hand. warming is 

retarded in the ,<qJring Normal ocean temperatures range from an m•erage near 3 deg C' in 

.Janucuy to near 22 deg C in August." 

3. "Precipitation is moderate and lve/l distributed throughout the year, with June the 

driest month and August the H!etfest. 7/·opical storms or hurricanes occasionally bring excessive 

rainfCl/1 to the area. The bulk of winier precipitation results from storms which move 

northeastward along, or in close proximity to, the east coast of the United States. Snowfi,1/ is 

considerahly Jess than elsewhere at the same latitude and does not remain long on the ground 

Precipitation, <rften beginning as snow, lvillfrequently become mixed with or change to rain 

u 1

hile continuing as snow over more interior sections. In addition, ice storms and resultant glaze 

are refath'ely infi·equent. 

As referenced in the 1984 Annual Summary from the State Marina site, prevailing winds are 

from the south and of moderate velocity (22 to 45 km/hr or 14 to 28 mph), and winds from the 

northeast have the greatest average velocity (between 31 and 32 km/hr or 19.2 and 19.9 mph). 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 127 
128

Wind data from this period also show that winds in excess of 45 km/hr (28 mph) occur from the 

northeast more than twice as frequently as from any other direction. The maximum five minute 

average velocity at Atlantic City was recorded during the hurricane of September 1944, with a 

value of l 32 km/hr (82 mph) from the north. This stonn also caused the largest recorded stonn 

surge along the coast of New Jersey. The fastest "mile" wind speed at the Atlantic City Marina 

site from 1960 to 1984 was recorded dming Hurricane Doria in August 1971 at l 01 km/hr (63 

mph) from the southeast Wind records generally reflect the fact that the almost extreme, but 

infrequent, winds accompany hmricanes during the August to October period. Less extreme but 

more frequent high winds occur during the November to March period accompanying 

northeasters. Wind infonnation was also obtained for the study area at Station 147 from the 

1980-2000 WIS reanalysis. Table 28 and Table 29 provide infonnation on monthly distribution 

of wind magnitude and direction. 

Table 28 Percent Occurrence of Wind Speed by Month 

0.07 0.16 0.25 OAI 0.69 0.72 062 0.55 0.29 

0.84 l.OJ 1.44 1.95 2.60 2.84 316 2.93 2.04 

l.62 1.61 J.')8 2.25 2.60 2.68 2.9J 2.86 2.59 

J.93 1.65 1.68 l.79 1.50 l.31 LH 1.36 !76 

l.74 1.45 1.39 1.00 0.65 0.51 OJ6 0.57 0.96 

114 0.88 0.95 0,50 /U2 0.14 009 0.12 040 

0.71 U.56 0.49 0.22 O.!l 0.02 0.01 0.06 014 

0.29 0.24 0.20 0.07 0.01 000 o.o., 0.03 

0.09 0.11 0.08 002 0.00 (){)() 0.00 001 

U.04 O.OJ 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 

(UH 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 000 

Table 29 Percent Occurrence of Winds Speed by Direction 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

.51 

0.24 0.11 0.09 7342 

l.48 0.89 088 .'!8726 

2.16 1.69 1.76 46855 

196 200 1.82 35176 

151 1.57 1.57 23277 

0.70 1,()4 118 l3079 

028 0.60 0.74 6914 

0.10 0.22 030 2623 

0.0J 0.08 011 950 

0.01 0.02 0.03 290 

0.00 0.00 62 

066 0.54 0.71 ll519 

0.50 0.33 0.39 9074 

067 OAO 0.38 10842 

0.39 0 .. 12 0.18 7027 

0.4() 0.24 0.24 6695 

028 0.18 0.16 5039 

OJJ 0.26 0.16 6500 

0.33 0.2h 0.17 7602 

07() 0.67 0.41 18072 

0.72 067 0.63 17471 

063 0.6] 0.76 144:17 

0.34 0.45 0.45 8437 

049 0.60 076 11261 

0.65 095 1.02 13482 

0.79 112 1.23 16t>25 

0.62 062 0.8--1 11211 

Page 128 
129

2.6.3 Tides. 

The tides affecting the study area are classified as semi diurnal with two nearly equal high tides 

and two nearly equal low tides per day. The average tidal pe1iod is actually 12 hours and 25 

minutes, such that two full tidal periods require 24 hours and 50 minutes. Thus, tide height 

extremes (highs and lows) appear to occur almost one hour (average is 50 minutes) later each 

day. The mean tide range for the Atlantic Ocean shoreline is reported as 4.31' at Wildwood 

Crest Ocean Pier in the Tide Tables published annually by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The spring tide range is reported as 4.93 ft. 

Elevations relative to station datum from NOAA within the study area were obtained from 

NOAA at Station 8535835 located at Wildwood Crest. No official datum relationship has been 

established between NA VD 88 and the tidal elevations at Station 8535835 within the study area. 

Therefore, tidal elevations were referenced to NAVD 88 by interpolating values for the study 

area utilizing nearby stations. Mean High Water (MHW) was calculated to be 1.45 ft. NAVD 88 

and Mean Low Water (MLW) was calculated to be-2.85 ft. NAVD 88. Table 30 summarizes 

commonly used tidal datum elevations and ranges at Station 8535835 relative to the project 

datum of NA VD88. 

Table 30 Wildwood Crest Station Datum Elevations Summary for 8535835 

MHW Mean High Water 

DTL ~l.57 Mean Diurnal Tide Lc,;el 

MTL -0.70 Mean Tide LcYel 

MSL -0.68 Mean Sea LcyeJ 

MLW -2.85 Mean Low W atcr 

MLLW -3.04 Mean L-0v,er-Lm\ Water 

GT 4.93 Great Diurnal Range 

MN -Ul Mean Range of Tide 

No official datum relationship has been established between NAVD 88 and the tidal elevations 

shown in the table above within the study area. Tidal elevations were referenced to NA VD 88 

by interpolating values for the study area utilizing nearby stations. Mean High Water (MHW) 

was calculated to be 1.45'NA VD 88 and Mean Low Water (MLW) was calculated to be -2.85' 

NAVD 88. 

2.6.4 Sea Level Rise 

Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) is rising at the majority of tide gage locations around the world 

(National Research Council, 1987), although local mean sea level is falling in some areas where 

local tectonic effects cause the land to rise faster than GMSL. Major implications of sea level 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 129 
130

rise include increased shoreline erosion and coastal flooding. Other issues include the change in 

extent and distribution of wetlands, and salinity intrusion into upper portions of estuaries and 

into groundwater systems. The principal international effort to evaluate risks associated with 

climate change and sea level rise is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

The most recent report issued by the IPCC, "Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and 

Vulnerability", adopts a rate ofGMSL rise of 1.7 mm/yr (-0.6 ft/century). Although there is 

substantial local variability, relative mean sea level has risen at a rate of about l ft/century over 

the past century along the East Coast of the United States. Atlantic City, NJ, is the location of 

the NOAA/NOS tide gage used for this study area. Over the period of record, I 911 to 2014, the 

Atlantic City tide gage records indicate a local rate of sea level rise equivalent to 1.3 ft/century 

and its current yearly rate is 3.99 mm/yr. To account for uncertainty in future rates of Sea Level 

Rise (SLR) three potential possibilities were calculated for this study based on National Research 

Council curves (NRC I- Orange Line, NRCIII-Red Line) and presented along with the historic 

Atlantic City tide gauge (Blue Line) rates projected forward for the 50 year length of the project 

(Figure 39). This curve is based on guidance contained in Engineering Regulation I I 00-2-8862. 

These estimates indicate that sea level has the potential to rise between 0.66' to 2. Tover the 50 

year length of the project from the 2016 economic base year to 2066. The risk and uncertainty 

analysis in Section 5 of this report evaluated the impacts on project benefits from the high & low 

level of SLR calculated from the graphic below. Those results can be seen in Table 91 and 

indicate that the study area damages will increase with the increases in sea level. 

Figure 39 Sea Level Trends Atlantic City 

Sea Level Rise at Atlantic City, NJ I 

I Intermediate j 

+----_--:_-cl-ow·---------·-----------~·-------------- i 

~~~=======! ~~OO~OrlNm~~~~OO~Orl~m~~~~OO~OrlNm~~~~oo~OrlNm~~~~OO~OrlNm~~~l 

rlrlrlrlNNNNNNNNNNmmmmmmmmmm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 gggggggggggggggggg~g~g~~~g~gg~~~~~gg~gg~g~ggg~g~gggl 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

·-----J 

Page 130 
131

The risk of accelerated mean sea level rise as a contributing factor to long-term erosion and 

increased potential for coastal inundation is sufficiently documented to warrant consideration in 

the planning and design of coastal projects. Because of the variability and uncertainty of the 

climatic factors that affect sea level rise, predicting future trends with any certainty is difficult, 

and many varying scenarios exist for future sea level rise. Engineer Regulation I I 05-2-100 states 

that the potential for relative sea level change should be considered in every coastal and estuarine 

(as far inland as the new head of tide) feasibility study that the Corps undertakes and that the 

National Research Council study, Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering 

Implications, 1987, should be used until more definitive data become available. USA CE is in the 

process of updating its policy and guidance on sea level rise, and the latest Engineering Circular 

(EC) on the topic is ER 1100-2-8862. This ER was used to project sea level rise at the Atlantic 

City Tide gauge shown in Figure 39. 

USACE policy calls for consideration of designs which are most appropriate for a range of 

possible future rates of rise. Strategies such as beach fills, which can be augmented in the future 

as more definitive information becomes available, should receive preference over those that 

would be optimal for a particular rate of rise, but unsuccessful for other possible outcomes. 

Potential sea level rise should be considered in every coastal study, with the degree of 

consideration dependent also on the quality of the historical record for the study site. Based on 

the measured rate of relative mean sea level rise Atlantic City (1.3 ft/century), it is assumed that 

sea level will rise by approximately 0.66 ft. over the fifty-year period of analysis for this project. 

This potential rise in sea level was incorporated into the ocean stage frequency analysis and in 

other project design aspects such as nourishment quantities. 

2.6.5 Storms 

Storms of two basic types present a significant threat to New Jersey1s coastal zone. Hurricanes 

are the most severe storms affecting the Atlantic Coast Extra-tropical storms from easterly 

quadrants, particularly the northeast, also cause extensive damage to beaches and structures 

along the coast. 

Tropical stonns and hurricanes, spawned over the warm low latitude waters of the Atlantic 

Ocean, are probably the best known and most feared storms. Hurricanes, characterized by winds 

of seventy-five miles per hour or greater and heavy rain, plague the Gulf and Atlantic seaboards 

in the late summer and autumn. 

Extra-tropical storms, often called "northeasters", present a particular problem to the Atlantic 

seaboard. Such storms may develop as strong, low pressure areas over land and move slowly 

offshore. The winds, though not of hurricane force, blow onshore from a northeasterly or 

easterly direction for sustained periods of time and over very long fetches. The damage by these 

storms may ultimately exceed the destruction from a hurricane 

The intensity and thus the damage-producing potential of coastal storms are related to certain 

meteorological factors such as winds, storm track, and amount and duration of precipitation. 

However, the major causes of coastal damage tend to be related to storm surge, storm duration, 

and wave action. Storm surge and wave setup will be discussed in the storm erosion and 

inundation analysis included in a later section. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 131 
132

Table 31 shows the 10 highest observed water levels at the Atlantic City tidal station relative to 

the 1983-2001 tidal epoch. These observed stages have not been adjusted for sea-level rise and 

are considered as representative of the water levels experienced at the study area over the same 

period. Hurricane Sandy currently ranks second at 6.28 NAVD88 on the list of the highest storm 

water elevations at the Atlantic City tide gauge for the past I 00 years of data collection. Water 

elevations in northern New Jersey and New York City were higher during Hurricane Sandy due 

to the nature of a Hurricane's wind field since the north east quadrant of a hurricane has the 

highest wind speeds which correlate to higher surge levels. Subsequently, the tide gauges north 

of the Wildwoods experienced much higher water levels and wave heights. Sandy Hook, NJ 

recorded a maximum water level of+ l 0.49 NA VD 88 before the gauge failed during the storm 

and the Battery in New York City recorded a total water level of +11.28 NA VD 88. 

Table 31 The 10 Highest Observed Stages at Atlantic City, NJ 1912-2012 

6.28 HUR 

6.23 HUR 

5.96 HUR 

5.85 NE 

5.83 NE 

5.83 HUR 

5.63 NE 

5.38 NE 

IO 5.21 NE 

Hurricane Sandy developed from a tropical wave in the western Caribbean on 22 October and 

was soon upgraded to Tropical Storm (Figure 40). On 24 October 2012, Sandy became a 

hurricane and made landfall near Kingston, Jamaica, then re-emerged into the Caribbean and 

strengthened to Category 2 hurricane and early on 26 October, Sandy moved through the 

Bahamas. During 27 and 28 October, Sandy moved alongshore of the southeast US coast, and 

reached a secondary peak of 90 mph on 29 October with a diameter of over 1,000 nautical miles. 

Sandy turned to the north-northwest and made landfall as a post-tropical cyclone at -2000 EDT 

at Brigantine Island, NJ with winds of90 mph, causing extensive flooding, beach erosion, and 

coastal damage along the shorelines of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York. As Sandy 

approached 1andfal1, it generated intense onshore winds, waves, and a storm surge that was 

augmented by astronomical spring tides associated with the full moon of 29 October. The 

remnants eventually weakened over Pennsylvania and the storm degenerated into a remnant 

storm trough 31 October. The combined effects of wind, waves, and elevated tidal water levels 

led to significant erosion damage to the project area. Figure 40 shows the track of Sandy 

combined with wave heights recorded by the National Data Buoy Center. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 132 
133

Figure 40 Hurricane Sandy Track 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

~~'~;;;,. ''.":~~~=~==· ~!E~;J t~ f,5;!!,T, 

-

~ 

-

~ 

.. 

Page 133 
134

Hurricane Sandy caused severe beach erosion in the project area. A profile comparison between 

the most recent pre-storm surveys obtained in March of20l2 (black line) and the post-storm 

surveys obtained in November of2012 (red line) indicate that Sandy removed 346,000 cubic 

yards of sand from 2"d Ave in North Wildwood to Trenton Ave. in Wildwood Crest Figure 41 

through Figure 46 show the pre- storm and post-storm Sandy profiles. 

Figure 41 North Wildwood 2nd Avenue pre and post Sandy Surveys 

North VVUctwood ~ 2nd Ave 

Figure 42 10th Avenue in Wildwood pre and post Sandy Surveys 

North VV!ldwood- 10th Ave 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 134 
135

Figure 43 26th Avenue in North Wildwood/Wildwood pre and post Sandy Profiles 

" ,ooo 

North VVlldwood ~ 26th Ave. 

"00 o;.,ro,.,c.,,olftJh"re\il) 

Figure 44 Baker Avenue iu Wildwood pre and post Sandy Surveys 

VVi!dWood - Baker Ave 

Di..ttme,;c '°'" OOmhore \ft} 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 135 
136

Figure 45 Wildwood Crest Fern Road pre and post Sandy Surveys 

t= Oi,s\1"'~"01Tu'1<:,("(l'l1 

Figure 46 Wildwood Crest Trenton Ave pre and post Sandy Surveys 

Figure 47 and Figure 48 show storm surge in North Wildwood that penetrated a small dune and 

overtopped the existing bulkhead between 2nd and 6'" Avenues. Figure 49 and Figure 50 show a 

berm in Wildwood that was overtopped by storm surge during the stonn. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 136 
137

Figure 47 Bulkhead Overtopping at 2nd Avenue in North Wildwood During Sandy 

Figure 48 Bulkhead Overtopping During Hurricane Sandy North Wildwood 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 137 
138

Figure 49 Wildwood Post Storm 

Figure 50 Wildwood Crest Post Storm 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 138 
139

SB EACH model simulations for the 20 year and the 50 year storm events were compared to pre 

and post storm Hurricane Sandy beach profiles from March 2012 and November 2012 The 

beach volume losses for each profile are contained in Table 32. The table shows the volume lost 

as cubic yards per linear foot of beach and this volume is then multiplied by the distance between 

the profiles to obtain a total volume lost for that cell that is displayed below the table. 

The results of the SB EACH model indicate that the 20 year stonn event would erode 

approximately 183,212 cubic yards of sand from the study areas beaches, Hurricane Sandy (-30 

year event) eroded approximately 346, 736 cubic yards of sand from the beaches and the 

SBEACH modeled 50 year event eroded approximately 317,182 cubic yards of sand from the 

beach. 

Table 32 SBEACH Volume Losses Compared to Sandy profiles 

WW02 

2,172 13.94 26.12 26.30 

WW03 

2,232 8.34 26 [2 16.12 

WW04 

,-U03 8 34 ll.8 i6 ]2 

WW07 

4,203 ll.73 12.77 

WWlO 

2.057 8.51 l l.73 t3.26 

WWll 

3.935 8.51 12.64 B.2(1 

WW13 

L91() 8 63 12.64 12.95 

WWl4 

1,726 8.63 NIA lVJS 

WW15 

TOTALS 24,48[ 

Predicted 20-yr Ennt = 183212 cy loss from WW02 to WW15 (22.34-1- ft)= 8.20 0/ft muage loss rate 

Hurricane Sandy-JO year= 346.736 cy loss from WWOl to WW14 (22.755 ft)= 15.24 cy/fuwcragc loss rate 

Predicted 50-~·r Event"" 317,182 cy loss from WW02 to WW15 (22-3"14 ft)= 14.20 cy/ft average loss rate 

2.6.6 Ocean Stage Frequency 

The ocean stage frequency curve recommended for the study area was developed from NOAA 

tide gage data obtained at Atlantic City and Ventnor, New Jersey. The current Atlantic City 

NOAA gage is approximately 30 miles north of the study area. Previous to its current location in 

Atlantic City, the gage was located just south of Atlantic City in the town of Ventnor, NJ. Table 

30 has the highest observed stages at the gage when it was located first at Ventnor and later 

moved to Atlantic City. In order to adjust for sea-level tise, a base year was established and the 

annual peak stages were adjusted using the annual rate of rise multiplied by the years in between 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 139 
140

the base year and the year the peak stage was observed. From the adjusted annual series a stage 

frequency curve was constructed using Weibul plotting positions for each of the gage values and 

drawing the best fit curve through the points. Values of stage at selected reference frequencies 

are shown in Table 33. For reference, Hurricane Sandy would fall somewhere between the 20-

50 year event. 

Table 33 Ocean Stage Frequency Data 

0.20 5.0 

lO O.IO 5.5 

20 0.05 6.1 

50 0.02 7.1 

IOO 0.01 7.9 

200 0.005 8.9 

500 0.002 10.0 

2.6.7 Longshore Sediment Transport 

Longshore or littoral transport can both supply and remove sand from coastal compartments. In 

order to determine the balance of sediment losses and gains in a system, net, rather than gross, 

transport rates are required. Net long shore transport refers to the difference between volume of 

material moving in one direction along the coast and that moving in the opposite direction. 

The most recent investigation of the magnitude and direction of long shore sediment transport 

was done by USACE in 2003 as part of the District's Regional Sediment Management (RSM) 

Demonstration Project for Cape May Inlet Sand Bypassing. As part of that investigation, 

potential long shore transport rates due to waves were computed. Wave-driven transport 

potential was calculated using the CERC energy flux method with the computer program 

SEDTRAN. Four wave hindcast stations (llOJl 7, !13J 17, TJ5J17, and ll9Jl 9) from the OCTT 

Wave Hindcast database off the coast of New Jersey were used as inputs to the model. Records 

were extracted representing peak wave components from 1987 to 1996. The wave conditions in 

this time period would be representative of wave conditions as a whole between the available 

shorelines of 1986 and 1998. A WIS Phase Ill transformation was performed on the data using 

the NEMOS program available through the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL). These 

transformations were done for calculated historical shoreline angles for the study area. The wave 

gage file created from the WIS Phase Ill transformation was then used as input to determine 

potential sediment transport rates using the program SEDTRAN. The resulting long shore 

transport rates are shown in Table 34. 

A GENESIS shoreline change model was not employed to predict longshore transport rates for 

this study due to several factors. GENESIS was designed to describe long-term trends of a beach 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 140 
141

plan shape in the course of its approach to an equilibrium form and it best calculates shoreline 

movement in transition from one equilibrium state to another. It can be shown that there is no 

clear erosion or accretion trend when referring to the shoreline change rates that were developed 

based upon observed shoreline position data from 1899-2003. Over the long term the study area 

fluctuates between periods of erosion and periods of accretion based on a spatial and temporal 

scale. The shorelines adjacent to Hereford Inlet have undergone dramatic changes of extreme 

erosion and accretion depending on the period of analysis and GENESIS was not developed to 

handle an environment as dynamic as this study area. Development of a 2-D wave modeL such 

as STWA VE, was also not considered to be necessary for a feasibility-level of effort. ln lieu of 

such models, an analysis based upon observed shoreline data as described in Section 2.7.3 and 

experience of Philadelphia District personnel of conducting similar coastal storm-damage 

reduction projects was utilized based on historic shoreline interpretation, historic aerial 

photography interpretation, historic profile interpretation/ generation and SB EACH cross shore 

modeling results. The District Project Development Team was not confident in the predictive 

capability of GENESIS or SlW A VE for this feasibility study. 

Table 34 Potential Longsbore Sediment Transport Rates 

The results consist of"potential" sediment transport rates based on the computed wave energy 

and its angle with respect to the shoreline, assuming an unlimited supply of sediment. The 

methodology used is very sensitive to shoreline angle and results should only be examined for 

general transport trends. Actual sediment transport rates for the site may be slightly less when 

considering the impact of Hereford Inlet and coastal structures. 

The values indicate that there is a net southward transport which may vary from 370,000 to 

440,000 cubic yatds per year within the study area. The trends in the estimates for the net long 

shore transport show that southward transport to be almost doubled of northward transport. This 

trend makes sense when examining the shoreline change in the study area which will be 

presented later in the report. 

The values ate also representative of potential average cooditions over a spao of 12 years. It can 

be expected, however, that chaoges io long shore sediment transport could happen in a seasonal 

manner and could contribute significantly to both the short- and long-term behavioral patterns of 

the shoreline especially in the vicinity of Hereford Inlet in North Wildwood. Depending on the 

duration of the antecedent incident wave directions and intensities, a specific pattern may exist 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 141 
142

for an extended period time or change in a matter of a day or so. It is not unreasonable to expect 

that northern transport from North Wildwood into Hereford Inlet could be larger during some 

times than southern transport from Hereford Inlet depending on certain wave conditions and 

Hereford Inlet morphology. The southerly long shore sand transport from North Wildwood to 

Wildwood along with the lack of a consistent long shore sand transport from Hereford Inlet to 

replenish the beaches in North Wildwood is one reason for the eroding shoreline in North 

Wildwood. 

2.6.8 Beach Profile Characteristics 

An analysis of recent and historic beach profile data was performed to identify the temporal and 

spatial variability in beach profile characteristics throughout the study area (Table 35). The 

main profile characteristics of interest included: Dune Crest Elevation, Berm Elevation, Berm 

Width, MHW Location, Volume of Material above MHW, Foreshore Slope and Closure Depth. 

Results of the analysis were used to develop representative profile conditions. Additional 

analyses were performed using the temporal changes in MHW position and volumetric change 

rates for each profile to assess long-term shoreline change rates and estimated nourishment 

requirements. Several sources of beach profile data were assembled and analyzed. A wide array 

of survey techniques were utilized in the collection of the various sources of data. Onshore 

portions of the surveys were typically surveyed using the standard land surveying techniques. 

Near shore and offshore portions of the surveys utilized fathometers and sea sleds. All data 

sources were adjusted to a common datum and analyzed. Table 35 and Table 36 and Figure 

51 summarizes the profile data available in the study area. The stationing scheme presented 

begins at Hereford Inlet and extends to Cape May Inlet. Specifically, the beach profile data 

sources are: 

I. Line Reference Points. Onshore and offshore profile surveys referred to as Line Reference 

Point (I.RP) Surveys after the nomenclature used on the survey control sheets to designate the 

profile reference points, conducted by the USACE, Philadelphia District, were initiated in 1955 

and subsequently repeated in 1963, 1965, and 1984. Twenty-eight (28) profiles were originally 

collected for the 1955 survey. The number of profiles decreased for the 1984 survey. The 

numbering sequence for the LRP profiles increases from north to south, and the vertical datums 

were MLW for the 1965 surveys and NA VD for the 1984 surveys. Several of the LRP profiles 

were re-surveyed by Offshore and Coastal Technologies lnc. - East Coast (OCTI) as described 

below. 

2. NJDEP Surveys. Onshore and near shore profile surveys conducted by the Coastal Research 

Center, Stockton State College under contract to NJDEP were collected annually, beginning in 

1986. Four profiles have been collected within the study area as part of a general NJDEP 

program of monitoring the state's beaches. These profiles, referred herein as NJ profiles, are 

numbered in the state's designation system: NJ Profile Nos. CM I 11, CM l JO, CM l 09, and 

CM 208. New Jersey profile surveys available for this investigation are the annual surveys from 

1986 to 1994 and semi-annual surveys from 1995 to present. The numbering sequence for the 

New Jersey profiles increases from south to north, and the vertical datum is NA VD. The beach 

profile are collected using typical land based surveying techniques with the offshore limits of the 

surveys extending to wading depth. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 142 
143

The NJDEP profiles were analyzed to assess the variability of the shoreline along the study area. 

That analysis summarized the MHW contour locations from J 986 to 2006 for two NJDEP 

profiles CM l l I and CM 110. At profile CM 111 at 15"• Street in North Wildwood, the location 

of MHW has retreated over l,l 00' at an average of 53' per year from 1986 to 2006 and at CM 

l 10 the MHW location accreted over 565' at an average of27' per year. Additional shoreline 

change information regarding the NJDEP surveys is presented in the Summary of Shoreline 

Conditions section in the report 

3. OCT! Surveys. Onshore and offshore profile data were collected by OCT! for the 

Philadelphia District October 2001 and September 2003 to document existing conditions. 

Twenty (20) profiles were collected in October 2001 and the same twenty along with five 

additional profiles were collected in September 2003. OCT! utilized a sea sled beach profiling 

system which provides a highly accurate depiction of the entire profile from the upper beach to 

beyond the theoretical closure depth. Locations of several of the profiles were selected to 

correspond to locations of previously surveyed LRP profiles, allowing comparative analyses. As 

discussed in a later section in this report, select OCT! profiles were assembled and used as input 

for numerical modeling of storm-induced damages. 

The OCTT profiles were analyzed from 2001 to 2003 in order to compare the variability in 

profile characteristics at profile locations where two surveys were done. Table 37 summarizes 

differences in the locations of the 0.0 ft. NA VD 88 contour and the -l 0.0 ft. NA VD 88 contour 

between the two surveys. In general, the North Wildwood profiles retreated at the 0.0 ft. NA VD 

88 contour by an average of 122' with the largest retreat being at profile WW 03 of255' 

Offshore at the -10 ft. NA VD 88 contour the location moved seaward indicating profile growth 

in the offshore. This offshore growth offsets the profile's retreat in North Wildwood at the 0.0 ft. 

NA VD 88 contour which suggests movement of sand from the onshore to the offshore. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 143 
144

Table 35 Study Area Profiles 

• W\\· l '.\. Wildwood 2nd ,\\c 0•20 410.609.74 61.439.60 LRP H-11 prnt 

\\'\\'L\ :,..:. V,11ldwood 5th Ave g,32 410.050.71 

WWIB '.\. \\'ild,\ood 8th ,\ve '",, 40938908 

\\'W2 ;:,,;. Wil,faood !Oth,h<c 21·68 409JJ45.92 

\V\V 2.'\ :-;. \\'1ldwood 12th,\ve 27•36 408,646.95 

WW2B '.\. W1Jd\\OOd 15th AY<c 35·]0 408.103.39 

CMlll :\. Wildwood 15th Av,; 35·92 407.99L49 

WWJ ?\. Wi]d\\OOd 18th .\\'C 43,40 407.520.72 

\\'\V3A l\. \\'ild\\OOd 23rd c\\'e 57,31 406388 97 

\\'\\'4 :\'. Wikh>0od 26th Ave 65'82 405.633.22 

\\'\\'5 Wildwood Pine Aw 79-40 404A6L33 

WW6 Wildwood Lincoln 92+41 40:\.456.58 

WW7 \J.;i!dwood Baker 107'15 402385.58 

WW8 Wildwood Taylor 121"30 40L215.08 

\\'W9 \\'i!dwood Ct(";SSC: 136-'84 40().077.35 

O.l l!O \\'ild\\OOd Cres~c 136~87 400,242.56 

\\'\\/ JO Wildwood Crest Crocus 149'31 399,165.24 

W\l./Jl Wildwood Crest Fem 169~88 397,659,59 

W\\'12 Wildwood Crest Stanton \89L96 396,238.94 

WW\3 Wildwood Crest Toledo Ave 209~25 394,921.00 

W\\'14 Wildwood Crest Tn.mton 228'42 393,571.43 

WWl5 !.m\erTO\\Hship S<.'apoint 245·68 392.307.33 

C.\I 109 IA}\\slfTO\\lJ.Sh!p Raleigh 249-97 392.197.68 

\\"\Yl6 I.()WC!" TO\\ nslup Coast Guard 258·70 391.374.95 

W\\'!7 Low.;;rTO\\t1sh1p Coa1,tOuard 273-57 390,308.20 

W\Vl8 L-0\\(";fTO\\Jlshrp Coast Guard 286"·72 389.322.73 

C!\f208 LowerTO\\nship Coast Guard 287··09 389.950.36 

W\\'19 l.-O\\erTownship Coa~tGuard 301,63 :188.40687 

W\:V20 LOW"1' Township Cvf!nld>l' 314-04 387,74109 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

60.850.02 

60331.73 

59,983.76 LRP :'<P-ll4p1of 

59579.19 

59,028.00 

59JJ27.56 

58.437.l? 

57.62lU4 

57.246.81 LRP:'\:P-115 prof 

56.570.57 

55.752.41 

5-t739.20 I.RP>iP-ll6prof 

53,946.88 

52.887.38 

52,727.56 

52.0:H.99 LRP ?\P-117 prof 

50-635.86 

49.218.95 J,RP:\"P-ll8prof 

47.810.09 

46.450.07 

45.275 17 I.RP '.\"P-l 19 prof 

44.797.79 

44.367.HJ 

43,331.09 

42.460.97 LRP '.\'P-120 prof 

41,936.55 

41,300.91 

40.255.00 LRP CS-1 prof 

Page 144 
145

Table 36 Elevation Parameters 

WWOI North Wildwood HU l0.2 

WWIA North Wildwood 10.3 

WWlB North Wildwood 10.4 

WW02 North Wildwood 9.8 10.4 

WW2A North Wildwood 10.-1 

WW2B North Wildwood none 

WW03 North Wildv,:ood 10.8 9,5 

WW3A Norlh Wildwood J3.5 

WW0-1 North Wildwood none 12.0 

WW05 Wildwood none none 

WW06 Wildwood none none 

WW07 Wildwood none none 

WW08 Wildwood none none 

WW09 Wildwood 12.6 12.5 

WWIO Witd,rnod Crest 10.4 10.G 

WWll Wild\vood Crest 14.2 16.0 

WWl2 Wild,vood Crest none none 

WW13 Wild\vood Crest none none 

WWI-I Wild,vood Crest none none 

WW15 Lower Township 11.G 11.6 

WWl6 Lower Township l-1.1 l-1.-1 

WWl7 Lmvcr Township 14.7 15.0 

WW18 Lower To·wnship 21.4 22.3 

WW19 Lo,Ycr Township 18.9 18.6 

WW20 LmYcr Township 1-1.-1 15.7 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

-0.I H 5.8 1.4 

5.3 

5.4 

0.6 -1.2 5.0 0.8 

5.6 

5.5 

-1.3 -1.7 5.-1 0.7 

6.1 

5.5 5.8 0.3 

4.5 4.5 0.0 

-1.8 5.-1 0.6 

-1.-1 -+/) 0.2 

4.4 -1-.6 0.2 

-0.1 -1.8 -1.8 ()() 

0.2 4.6 4.G 00 

1.8 -1.5 4.8 0.3 

5.1 5.4 0.3 

5.0 5.2 0.2 

5.4 5.8 0.4 

0.0 5.9 5.9 0.0 

0.3 4.9 5.1 0.2 

0.3 5.5 6.! 0.6 

0.9 5.3 6.1 0.8 

-0.3 5.6 5.9 0.3 

1.3 4.9 6.2 1.3 

Page 145 
146

Table 37 Contour Locations 

WWOl North Wilct,,ood 298.0 244.0 

WW1A North Wildvmod 398.0 

WWJB North Wildwood .\l l.O 

WW02 North Wildwood 495.0 391.0 

WW2A North Wildwood 403.0 

WW2B North Wildwood 597.0 

WW03 North Wildwood 908.0 653.0 

WW3A North Wildvrnod I [29.0 

WW04 North Wildwood 1-1-55.0 1379 0 

WW05 Wild\\'OOd 1759.0 [641.0 

WW06 WildVl'OOd 1736.0 17280 

WW07 Wildwood 1563.0 1581.0 

WW08 Wildwood 1578.0 1608.0 

WW09 Wild,vood 1382.0 1386.0 

WWIO Wildwood Crest 1260.0 1300.0 

WWII Wildwood Crest l 138.0 1128.0 

WW12 Wild,vood Crest 1062.0 1034.0 

WWIJ W iict,, ood Crest 946.0 9-l6.0 

WW14 Wildwood Crest 943.0 919.0 

WW15 Lower Township 1045.0 !026.0 

WW16 Lower Township 1099.0 1062.0 

WWl7 Lm..-cr Township 1210.0 1176.0 

WW18 Lmvcr Tmrnship 1375.0 1365.0 

WWl9 Lm,ver TO\vnship 1363.0 1333.0 

WW20 Lower TO\Ynship 1271.0 1232.0 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

-5-tO 1221.0 

1212.0 

-104.0 929.0 1082.0 153.0 

976.0 

1075.0 

-255.0 1155.0 133.\.0 179.0 

1715.0 

-76.0 1914.0 1919.0 5.0 

-118.0 2060.0 2229.0 169.0 

-8.0 231-Ul 2324.0 10.0 

18.0 2160.0 2218.0 58.0 

30.0 2200.0 2307.0 I07.0 

4.0 1996.0 2156.0 160.0 

40.0 1888.0 2069.0 181.0 

-10.0 17.\8.0 1952.0 20.\.0 

-28.0 1699.0 1920.0 221.0 

0.0 1569.0 1841.0 272.0 

-24 0 1552.0 1815.0 263.0 

-19.0 1602.0 1886.0 284.0 

-37.0 1727.0 1968.0 241.0 

-34.0 1752.0 [979.0 227.0 

-10.0 1842.0 1934.0 92.0 

-30.0 1863.0 1915.0 52.0 

-39.0 1857.0 1759.0 -98.0 

Page 146 
147

Figure 51 Beach Profile Locations 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 147 
148

Figure 5Jcontinued 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 148 
149

2.6.9 Bathymetry 

An analysis of offshore and Hereford Inlet bathymetric data was conducted to identify important 

geomo"fl)hic features which may impact near shore wave transformation and resulting sediment 

transport patterns. 

A search of the National Oceanographic Service (NOS) bathymetric database for the study area 

resulted in limited data available offshore of the study area, with the most recent surveys being 

performed from 1999-2004. Older NOS surveys were found from 1937-1940 and from 1970-

1977, as well. Contours were generated for each of the survey datasets using the computer 

program SMS. A plot of the 1937-1940 NOS surveys is shown in Figure 52. The 1937-1940 

surveys were primarily offshore in deep water with only minimal amount of data in the near 

shore. The best picture of the near shore bathymetry for the study area was surveyed 1970-1977 

by the NOS (Figure 53) As the figure shows, the near shore bathymetry was steeper on the 

southern half of the barrier island as compared to the northern half of the island. For example, 

the location of the -5.0 ft. MLW contour varied from 3,700' offshore of Wildwood to 1,000' 

offshore of the Coast Guard Base. Further offshore the steepness of the southern half of the 

barrier island is not as apparent. The -10.0 ft. MLW contour parallels the shoreline 

approximately 5,000' offshore. The 1999-2004 NOS surveys were located in deep water 

offshore as shown in Figure 54. The same offshore features at approximately -20 ft. ML W 

( areas shaded in blue) do not appear to change significantly from 1970 to 2004. 

An analysis of available hydrographic surveys to quantify changes at Hereford [nlet was 

conducted using the computer program SMS. The program was used to contour, compare, and 

quantify any changes between the surveys for Hereford Inlet. Available hydrographic data that 

surveyed the entire inlet and not just navigation channels existed for the years of 1994, I 998, and 

2002. These surveys were done by Contractors for the District and the results from this analysis 

were used later during the development of the sediment budget for the study area. The contour 

plots from Hereford Inlet for the 1994, 1998, and 2002 surveys respectively are shown in Figure 

55 through Figure 57. 

Comparing these three figures it can be seen that shoaling has taken place on the inlet frontage of 

North Wildwood from 1994 to 2002. Aerial photography taken during these times also confirms 

the additional sand at the inlet frontage of North Wildwood. Examining these figures also shows 

an apparent slug of material at the seaward end of the natural deep-water channel in 2002 that 

did not exist in 1998. This slug of material most likely broke off from the shoal and was in the 

process of transporting south towards N011h Wildwood. Another notable difference between the 

figures is the evolution of the deep-water channel in the northern part of the inlet near Stone 

Harbor Point. In 1994 this channel was not well defined at all, but by 2002, the channel 

deepened and became longer. It is reasonable to assume that all of these bathymetric changes in 

Hereford Inlet from 1994 to 2002 in conjunction with the complex wave dynamics in the inlet 

impacts the beaches of North Wildwood. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 149 
150

Figure 52 Wildwoods Bathymetry 1937-1940 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 150 
151

Figure 53 Wildwoods Bathymetry 1970-1977 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 151 
152

Figure 54 Wildwoods Bathymetry 1999-2004 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 152 
153

Figure 55 Hereford lulet Bathymetry 1994 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 153 
154

Figure 56 Hereford Inlet Bathymetry 1999 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 154 
155

Figure 57 Hereford Inlet Bathymetry 2002 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 155 
156

2.6. l O Inlet Sediment Bypassing 

Hereford Inlet stores and transports sediment across its main channel through a natural process 

termed "inlet sediment by-passing"(Figure 58). This process occurs in mixed energy barrier 

islands where tidal forces and wave forces are equal and long shore transport is dominant in one 

direction. The characteristic shape of barrier islands in these environments is a drumstick, with 

the beaches receiving the sediment from the bypassing mechanism having a large seaward 

protruding beach near the inlet and thinner beaches down drift of the inlet. This shape can be 

seen in the historic photos of the project area contained in Figure 5 and Figure 66. 

The driving force behind this process is the equal interaction of the wave forces and tide range in 

combination with dominant longshore sand transport direction (south). Wave dominated 

coastlines develop where wave forces are dominant and tide dominated coastlines develop where 

tidal forces are dominant. An example of a wave dominated coastline in New Jersey is Long 

Beach Island (LB!). LB! is approximately 60 miles to the north of our project area and has a 

higher average wave heights relative to its tidal range. The barrier islands in wave dominated 

coasts are traditionally longer and have more sand stored in the flood shoals on the bay side, 

while mixed energy barriers are shorter and store more sediments in their ebb shoals and swash 

bars on the ocean side. Long Beach Island is approximately 18 miles long while the Wildwood 

is approximately 7 miles long. The importance of the wave and tidal environment becomes 

apparent when we look at the historic aerial photography in order to evaluate the 

geomorphologic history of the project area. Figure 67 shows the large drumstick barrier island 

shape that is common in South Jersey mixed energy barrier islands. The sand that created that 

drumstick shape was once in the Hereford Inlet ebb shoal. The material welded to the beach 

sometime between the 1933 aerial photo (Figure 64) and the] 970 aerial photo (Figure 66) 

through natural processes. 

Historic shoreline analysis indicates that Stone Harbor point grows south into Hereford Inlet to a 

terminal length of approximately 6,000 ft. feet into the inlet, then tidal forces breach the sand spit 

and the sand is trapped within the Hereford Inlet complex and stored in the ebb and flood shoal. 

The spit complex grew to these lengths twice in the historic shoreline record dating back to 

1870's, once in 1943 and again in 1970. The 1943 breach event of Stone Harbor point was 

thought to have contributed to the sediment supply of North Wildwood and subsequently, the 

North Wildwood Shoreline grew consistently in every shoreline record from the moment of the 

1943 breach to the 1970 survey, presumably from the material that accumulated in the ebb shoal 

and transported onshore in the direction oflittoral transport to the south through an onshore bar 

welding processes. Stone Harbor Spit grew into Hereford Inlet a second time in 1977 and again 

reached a length of approximately 6,000 ft. before breaching and presumably distributing sand 

into the ebb flood complex. The North Wildwood Shoreline grew tremendously after the initial 

J 943 breach event, and it is though that the growth could be attributed to a well documented and 

studied inlet sediment bypassing process as described by noted geologist Dr. Miles Hayes and 

later modified by others (Davis, Fitzgerald). 

The drumstick shape of the barrier island as described above occurs on the down drift side of the 

inlet at North Wildwood during bypassing cycles, as material travels in the direction of long 

shore transport which is to the south. North Wildwood was the beneficiary of this material from 

the 1943 breach and grew steadily until the 1970-1980's, only to have that material slowly erode 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 156 
157

over time into Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. 

The onshore sand migration caused by the interaction of wave and tidal forces is illustrated in 

section a. and b. of Figure 58. This processes is similar to the interaction of Stone Harbor Point 

and North Wildwood within Hereford Inlet. Stone Harbor is north of Hereford Inlet and over 

time a large sand spit forms at its southern end, which migrates south into Hereford Inlet Once 

the sand spit becomes too large, the inlet's ebb and flood tidal forces breach the spit in order to 

maintain the tidal flow between the bay and ocean. This breach causes large quantities of sand to 

accumulate within the Hereford Inlet ebb- tidal delta and flood tidal delta. The ebb-tidal delta 

eventually stores the sediment from the breached spit and slowly deposits the material on the 

shoreline of North Wildwood through landward bar migration, potentially based on the position 

of the main Hereford Inlet Channel. Hereford Inlet goes through similar by-passing cycles 

illustrated below, and inlet sediment bypassing is thought to be a large source of the sand in the 

project area. A historic beach profile analysis of this process in section 2.7.3 indicates that 

millions of cubic yards of sand have been added to the study area's shoreline through natural 

sediment transport from the Stone Harbor Point/Hereford Inlet complex through sediment bypassing cycles. 

Figure 58 Inlet Sediment Bypassing 

Mlgro!1cm orid Spit 8reochln9 

The 1943 breach event of Stone Harbor point was thought to have contributed to the sediment 

supply of North Wildwood and subsequently, the North Wildwood Shoreline grew consistently 

in every shoreline record from the moment of the 1943 breach to the 1970 survey, presumably 

from the material that accumulated in the ebb shoal and transpo1ted onshore in the direction of 

littoral transport to the south through an onshore bar welding processes. Stone Harbor Spit grew 

into Hereford Inlet a second time in 1977 and again reached a length of approximately 6,000' 

before breaching and presumably distributing sand into the ebb flood complex. The North 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 157 
158

Wildwood Shoreline grew tremendously after the initial 1943 breach event, and it is though that 

the growth could be attributed to a well documented and studied inlet sediment bypassing 

process. 

The processes at Hereford Inlet correlates well with inlet sediment by-passing processes 

described in the reviewed literature by the Project Development Team. The island has the 

characteristic "drumstick barrier" island shape, with a large bulbous northern end and skinny 

interior section (historically). The drumstick shape usually occurs on the down drift side of the 

inlet (North Wildwood) during sand bypassing cycles, as material travels south in the direction 

oflong shore transport. North Wildwood was the beneficiary of this material from the 1943 

breach of Stone Harbor Point and had grown steadily until the I 970-l 980's, only to have that 

sand erode over time and be deposited in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. 

2.6.12 Section 111-Shore Damage Attributable to Federal Navigation Projects 

Section l l l of the 1968 River and Harbor Act (PL 90-483) provides authority for the Corps of 

Engineers to develop and construct projects to prevent or mitigate damages caused by federal 

navigation work. It is not intended to restore shorelines to historic dimensions, but only to reduce 

erosion to the level that would have existed without the construction of a Federal navigation 

project. The costs of implementing measures under this authority must be shared in the same 

proportion as the cost sharing provisions applicable to the project causing the shore damage. 

The Cape May Inlet navigation project was constructed in 1911 in order to stabilize Cold Spring 

Inlet The project included a dredged navigation channel from the ocean to Cape May Harbor, 

parallel stone jetties -4,400' long on the southwest and ··4,500' long on the northeast with a crest 

elevation of 10' NGVD. The jetties interrupted long shore sediment transport and impacted the 

shorelines to the northeast (updrift) and southwest (down drift) of the inlet Downdrift beaches 

in Cape May were deprived of sand, whereas the updrift beach, referred to at the time as ''Two 

Mile Beach", accreted sand. Section 111 authority was subsequently applied (1988) in the costsharing for the authorized "Cold Spring Inlet to Lower Township" shore protection project to 

mitigate erosion damages in Cape May as a result of the navigation project. 

The fillet area northeast of Cape May Inlet in Lower Township accreted after 191 l, at a rate of 

22' per year between 1899 and 1932, but at a reduced rate thereafter indicating that the accretion 

from the construction of the inlet was isolated to the post construction timeframe rather than a 

continuous accumulation that migrated northward to Wildwood and North Wildwood and 

eventually caused problems with the municipal outfalls, Figure 59. The large peak in the 

shoreline accretion rate in NWW, (dark blue line) represents the addition of sand in 1943-

197,l well after constmction of the 1911 construction of the inlet. [n Wildwood Crest, the rate 

of shoreline accretion also peaked between 1899 and 1932 at 20' per year. However, shoreline 

changes from 1899 to 1932 also include a significant addition of sand related to the 1926 closure 

of Turtle Gut Inlet as shown in Figure 60 and Figure 61. After the inlet closed the beach 

stabilized and sand, possibly from offshore ebb shoals, was added to the beach. The inlet closure 

connected Two Mile Island with the adjacent, up-drift Five Mile Island, resulting in the present 

configuration of the continuous barrier island study area ("Five Mile Island") that extends from 

Hereford Inlet on the northeast to Cape May Inlet on the southwest 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 158 
159

The closure of Turtle Gut Inlet and the regional long shore transport of sand from Hereford Inlet 

as a result of inlet by-passing cycles are thought to be the principal causes of the excessive beach 

width in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. Further, it is concluded that the impacts of the Cape 

May Inlet jetties on Five Mile Island are minor and localized to its extreme southern end near the 

inlet, confined to the southwest end of the study area in Lower Township. Thus, Section 111 

authority is not consider appropriate for application to the damages that result from excessive 

beach width within the study area. 

Figure 59 Historic Shoreline Yearly Accretion Rates iu Segments 1,2,3,4 

Figure 59 shows the historic yearly shoreline accretion rates in the four island segments used in the 

coastal engineering analysis; Segment-I N\VW refers to North Wildwood (dark blue Jinc), Segment -2 

\VW rcfors to Wildwood (pink line), Segment -3 WWC refers to Wild\vood Crest (green line)and 

Segment -4 LT refers to LO\\:cr Township (light blue line). The rates indicate that North Wildwood went 

through a rapid accretion period from the l 934-1971 surveys. and eroded rapidly thereafter. ·with the 

shoreline of Wildwood and Wildwood Crest gaining sand from the 1977 to 2003 time period. 

Historic Shorelines 1899·2003 

-+-Segr,wnt.1NWW 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessrnent 

Year 

-Segment.21/WV 

Page 159 
160

Figure 60 1920 Aerial Photograph 

Figure 61 1933 Aerial Photograph 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 160 
161

2.7 Summary of Historic Shoreline Conditions 

Reports pertinent to the study area were compiled and reviewed for this historic shoreline change 

evaluation. This infonnation was used to develop a quantitative understanding of historic 

behavior of the study area shorelines. Shoreline change rates can vary significantly depending 

on the methodology used and time period analyzed. The reports reviewed include: 

L Ashley, Gail. 1987. "Recommendations for Inlet Dredge Channel Placement Based on 

Analysis of Historic Change: Townsends and Hereford Inlets, New Jersey" Department of 

Geological Sciences Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 

2. USA CE, Philadelphia District. 1990. "New Jersey Shore Protection Study - Report of 

Limited Reconnaissance Study", Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1990. 

3. Farrell, S.C., Inglin, D., Venazi, P., and Leathennan, S. 1989. "A Summary 

Document for the Use and Interpretation of the Historical Shoreline Change Maps for the State 

of New Jersey," prepared for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal 

Research Center, Stockton State College, Pomona, NJ. 

4. Wegge!, Richard, Ph.D., P.E. 1995, "Coastal Processes Relevant to the Proposed 

Wildwood Convention Center Site, Wildwood, NJ" 

5. USACE, Philadelphia District., "Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility 

Report", Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1997. 

6. FaITell, S. C., et al. 2003, "New Jersey Beach Profile Network, Report Covering 15 

Years of Study on Shoreline Changes in New Jersey Coastal Reaches One Through Fifteen, 

Raritan Bay to Delaware Bay," prepared for New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, Coastal Research Center, Stockton State College, Pomona, NJ. 

7. FaITell, S. C. et al. A number of profile lines are monitored annually by Stockton 

State College for the State of NJ as part of the NJ Beach Profile Network. A series of reports by 

FaITell, et al. (1994, 1995, 1997, ... .2006) analyzes this data for annual volumetric and 

morphologic changes. 

2.7.l Prior Shoreline Change Studies 

The shoreline in the study area has been characterized as an unstable shoreline prior to the 

closing of Turtle Gut Inlet in the 1920s. Since the 1920s, the shoreline steadily accreted in 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. The shorelines in North Wildwood have 

been characterized as being unstable showing periods of erosion and accretion. This unstable 

behavior is typical of the northern ends ofbaITier islands in New Jersey that are adjacent to 

uncontrolled inlets and shoreline change is drastic at these areas because the shoreline moves 

frequently as spits and shoals associated with the inlet accrete and erode. 

Sand bypassing at Hereford Inlet takes place continuously as sand is driven along the seaward 

side of the ebb tidal shoal by waves. Several reports have examined historic shoreline trends in 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 161 
162

this area as summarized in the following paragraphs 

Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report ( l 997). An analysis of historical 

shoreline behavior was done based upon maps of digitized aerial photographs and navigation 

charts by Dr. Steve Leathem1an of the University of Maryland Laboratory for Coastal Research 

Shoreline positions were extracted and shoreline change was calculated for various historical 

time periods dating back to 1839. 

Between J 943 and J 977 it was calculated that accretion as high as 1,000' occurred at the ocean 

frontage just south of Hereford Inlet It was concluded that the width of the beaches in this area 

depend on a non-interrupted supply of sand across Hereford Inlet This sand supply is dependent 

upon the integrity of the ebb-tidal shoal extending from southern end of Stone Harbor to North 

Wildwood. When this supply line of sand gets breached, the natural long shore transport would 

take sand from North Wildwood and transport it to Wildwood and North Wildwood would be 

start to erode. A gradual accretion was calculated for Wildwood Crest and Lower Township 

from 1943 to 1977 and was due in part to the impoundment of sand at the northern jetty of Cape 

May Inlet 

Farrell et al. (2003). Onshore and near shore profile surveys conducted by the Coastal Research 

Center, Stockton State College under contract to NJDEP were collected annually, beginning in 

1986. Four profiles have been collected within the study area as part of a general NJDEP 

program of monitoring the state's beaches. This profile was 1,060' wide in September 1989 and 

by December 2002 the shoreline retreated 740' The amount of sand lost between September 

1989 and December 2002 at 15"' Ave. was reported to be 396 cubic yards per foot 

2.7.2 Historic Aerial Photography 1933-2012 

Aerial photos from 1920, 1933, 1944, 1962, I 970, 2003, 2006 and 2012 are contained on the 

following pages (Figure 62 through 69) These photos illustrate the changes in beach shape after 

the closure of Turtle Gut Inlet in 1920 and the large "drumstick" barrier island shape of the 

shoreline in North Wildwood that appeared in 1970, potentially as a result of sediment bypassing 

across Hereford Inlet The 1920, 1933, 1944, 1962 and 1970 photos were geo-referenced in 

Arcview using GIS layers including the 2005 Roads layer from the NJDEP and the study area 

navigation cha11s from NOAA. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 162 
Figure 62 Aerials 1920 

1920 aerial photography 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 163 
Figure 63 Aerials 1933 

1933 aerial photography 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 164 
Figure 64 Aerial 1944 

1944 aerial photography 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

Page 165 
Figure 65 Aerials 1962 

1962 aerial photography 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 166 
Figure 66 Aerials1970 

1970 aerial photography 

Hereford !nlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Repott 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

""""""' 

Page 167 
Figure 67 Aerials 2003 

2003 aerial photography 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 168 
Figure 68 Aerials 2006 

2006 aerial photography 

Hereford lnlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 169 
.Figure 69 Aerials 2012 

Post Sandy Aerial Photography 2012 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 170 
171

2.7.3 Analysis of Beach Profile Data, 1955-2003, 2012 

Large quantities of sand have accumulated in the study area between the historic 1955 profiles to the 

present day. A historic profile comparison was initiated to determine the approximate amount of 

material that has arrived on the shoreline in the project area during this time frame. Three survey years 

were chosen for this comparison, 1955 and 2003 and 2012 (Figure 70). 

The 1955 profiles were surveyed as part of the Beach Erosion Control Report on the Cooperative Study 

of the New Jersey Coast, Barnegat Inlet to the Delaware Bay entrance to the Cape May Canal, 30 

December 1957 and directly correspond to the locations of the 2003 and 2012 surveys in the Wildwoods 

study area. The profile sheets from the 1957 report contained soundings from fathometer surveys in 

June of 1955 to a depth of approximately 30-35' The 2003 and 2012 profiles were surveyed as part of 

the existing conditions analysis for this feasibility study, primarily occupying the same survey lines as 

1955. 

The measuring tool in Arcview was used to record a horizontal distance from the baseline to the 

1955 sounding depth. This provided a distance (X) and depth (Y) value. These X,Ypairs were 

recorded for each 1955 profile and entered into a text file. A profile was created in BMAP 

(Beach Morphology Analysis Package) using the depth and distance pairs contained in the text 

file from the [955 survey sheets Figure 70) 

The project area gained approximately 12 million cubic yards of sand between 1955 and 2012 

based on this analysis (Table 38). Currently, most of the sand sits in a relatively low, flat and 

wide beach. But this sand could be redistributed within the study area to maximize storm 

damage reduction benefits in the form of a comprehensive dune system designed to reduce 

impacts from coastal storms. It is though that the material arrived from Hereford Inlet through 

inlet sediment by-passing mechanisms explained in section 2.6.10. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 171 
172

Figure 70 1955, 2003 and 2012 Profile comparison in Wildwood 

20 Wildwood 

-20 

-40 

LEGEND 

88_ 1955 Translated 

WW07 030926 1800 

'NW07 120320 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 

Distance Offshore (ft) 

Table 38 1955, 2003, 2012 Volume Comparisons 

Munici1,ality 55 Profile 03, 112 Protile Location 

NWW 84-C WWI 2nd Ave 

NWW 85 WW2 10th Ave 

NWW 86 WW3 18th 

NWW 87 WW4 26th Ave 

WW 88 WW7 Baker Aye 

wwc 89 WWlO Crocus A\c 

wwc 90 WWJ2 Stanton rd 

LT 9] WWIS Scaooint Blvd 

LT 92 WWI8 CG 

LT 93 WW20 CG 

A vera2e cuhd/f' 

AY~. X32000 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

Shoreline '55 

656 

424 

41 

443 

.36 

762 

697 

555 

1013 

867 

589.4 

Shoreline 2012 Volume Change '55-'12 

124 ~664 

947 279 

942 632 

1,00 na 

l66l 1l+3 

1568 659 

1400 na 

1219 495 

1414 339 

1304 270 

1197.9 394 

12,612,000 

Page 172 
173

2.8 Shoreline Change Analysis 

An updated shoreline change analysis was done in order to incorporate shorelines from 1998 and 

2003 by separating the study area into 4 shoreline segments. Digital shoreline change maps 

prepared for the State of New Jersey Historical Shoreline Map Series (Farrell et al. 1989) were 

reviewed to evaluate general shoreline trends. These maps include MHW shorelines from 1836-

42, 1855, 1866-68, 1871-75, 1879-85, 1899, 1932-36, 1943, 1951-53, 1971, 1977, and 1986. 

Added to the analysis was a mean high water (MHW) shoreline digitized from an aerial 

photography flight taken September 1998 and an A TV survey done by USA CE in November 

2003. Several of the shorelines were missing, incomplete, or invalid for this area. All the 

shorelines from North Wildwood to Cape May Point used in the analysis can be seen in Figure 

71 through Figure 76. The shoreline change analysis involved rotating and translating each 

digital shoreline to a user-defined coordinate system grid. The grid ran alongshore for 3] ,650' 

from North Wildwood to Cape May Inlet and extended sufficiently seaward from the grid 

baseline to encompass all the historical shorelines. The grid for the study area was divided into 

four segments based upon the municipal boundaries of North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood 

Crest, and Lower Township (Table 39). The segments were further divided into compartments 

that were no greater than l 000 ft. in length. A mean shoreline position was computed within each 

compartment by integrating the shoreline with respect to the coordinate system over the length of 

the compartment and dividing by the length of the compartment. A least squares fit of the mean 

shoreline positions versus date data was perfonmed for each compartment to determine a 

shoreline change rate. Shoreline change rates were computed for the following periods: 1899-

1932, 1932-1943, 1943-1977, 1977-1986, 1986-1998, and 1998-2003. Shoreline change rates 

were also computed for the time periods of: 1899-2003, 1932-2003, 1943-2003, and 1977-2003. 

summarizes the shoreline analysis grid. 

Table 39 Historic Shoreline Analysis Segments 

The results of the analysis showed that the North Wildwood shoreline retreated significantly 

from 1986 to 2003 by a rate of 41 'per year. Prior to 1986, the North Wildwood shoreline 

accreted for 43 years ( 1943-1986) at an average rate of 27' per year (Table 40). Prior to l 943, 

the North Wildwood shoreline experienced times of both minor accretion and retreat back to 

1899. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 173 
174

Figure 71 North Wildwood Shoreline Positions 1899-2003 

HEREFORD 

INLET 

Shoreline Positions 

CELL 1 

NORTH W1LDWOOD 1899 

1932 

1043 

1971 

-i 1977 "~tr :: 

s:_•01:2::i~•oDo•••soo Feet ~----'o_o_3 __ ~ 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 174 
175

Figure 72 North Wildwood and Wildwood Shoreline Positions 1899-2003 

CELL3 

WILDWOOD 

500 250 o soo Feet 

••o•-=••• 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

CELL2 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

Shoreline Positions 

1899 

1932 

1943 

1971 

1$77 

1900 

19$8 

2003 

Page 175 
176

Figure 73 Wildwood and Wildwood Crest Shoreline Positions 1899-2003 

Shoreline Positions 

1899 

1932 

1943 

1971 

1977 

1900 

1998 

2003 

500 250 o 500 Fem 

-•=-•cmCELL< 

WILDWOOD CREST 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

CELL3 

WILDWOOD 

Page 176 
177

Figure 74 Wildwood Crest Shoreline Positions 1899-2003 

Shoreline Positions 

1899 

1932 

1943 

1971 

1977 

1986 

1993 

2003 

500 250 0 .500Feet 

•-=--cmHereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

CELLS 

WILDWOOD CREST 

CELL4 

WILDWOOD CREST 

Page 177 
178

Figure 75 Wildwood Crest and Lower Township Shoreline Positions 1899-2003 

500 250 O soo Feel 

Shoreline Positions 

1899 

1932 

1943 

1971 

1977 

1900 

1900 

2003 

••=--cmHereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

CELL 7 

LOWER 

TO\NNSH!P 

(COAST GUARD BASE) 

·~"' '*\ 'fl> 

CELL6 "/~ 

LOWER 

TOWNSHIP 

Page 178 
179

Figure 76 Lower Township Shoreline Position 1899-2003 

Shoreline Positions 

1899 

1932 

1943 

1971 

1977 

1900 

1998 

2003 

500 250 0 500 Feet 

--=--c=--

CAPE MAY 

INLET 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

CELL 7 

LOWER 

TOWNSHIP 

(COAST GUARD BASE) 

Page 179 
180

Shoreline change in North Wildwood is heavily influenced by Hereford Inlet morphology. The 

link between Hereford [nlet morphology and the North Wildwood shoreline is complex and is 

related to the dynamics of Hereford Inlet Table 40 summarizes the shoreline change analysis 

for North Wildwood from Compartment I (at 2'' Ave.) to Compartment 9 (at 26'0 Ave.). 

Table 40 Shoreline Change Rates, Segment l 

7(X) 2.82 -0.01 23.8+ 60.62 -67.15 -56.34 

750 0.28 -l l.29 46.19 -0.18 -68.96 -89.13 

900 0.05 -16.85 47.07 -0.94 -6-1.32 -90.55 

700 1.37 -10.71 -11.09 4.27 -49.98 -79.23 

750 7.61 -3.37 33.8-l 10.49 -33.83 -76.46 

800 26.17 -9.39 30.84 9.00 -15.70 -58.43 

6(Xl 35.78 -11.80 28.84 4.73 -2.74 -35.71 

840 39.70 -l l.71 25.25 5.58 4.70 -23.78 

700 8.59 9.41 7.22 -27.52 -64.58 

750 9.31 10.77 7.75 -51.-10 -73.75 

900 9.37 11.25 9.02 -49.25 -70.55 

700 10.09 11.92 10.01 -38.06 -56.93 

750 11.63 12.12 10..!l -26.80 -43.95 

800 16.11 13.08 13.IO -14.53 -25.85 

600 18.65 13.94 15.03 -5.29 -l0.57 

840 19.17 13.6+ 15.25 0.84 -2Jl6 

Care must be taken in utilizing the most recent shoreline changes along the study area in North 

Wildwood as shown in Table 40 as an indicator of potential future trends. The most recent 

"snapshot" of volumetric changes is only for a 5 year time period of 1998 to 2003. Historically, 

the magnitude of erosion is far less than what they were in that 5 year time period. The 1998-

2003 time frame is not typical of how the study area shoreline has historical responded. 

The existing conditions within and surrounding the study did not undergo any drastic "changes" 

that would lead someone to the conclusion that a continued accelerated rate of erosion would 

continue to happen post 2003. In fact, aerial photography collected since 2003 and profile data 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 180 
181

collected in 2012 associated with pre- and post Hurricane Sandy suggests that the rate of erosion 

has reduced significantly in North Wildwood; reverting back to historical values. More weight 

should be given to the longer time periods shown in Table 40 when it comes to describing what 

the prevailing existing conditions \Vi.thin the study area; especially when in reference to 

comparing potential re-nourishment values against existing conditions. 

ln Wildwood the opposite is happening from North Wildwood. The Wildwood shoreline has 

been accreting significantly from 1986 to 2003 by a rate of 24' per year. From 1986 to I 998, the 

shoreline change rate was 26' per year while from 1998 to 2003 the accretion rate dropped 

slightly to l 9' per year. In the long-term, the Wildwood shoreline has been accreting at a rate of 

18' per year from l 899 to 2003. As previously discussed, the net long shore transport in the area 

is from the north to the south, and therefore much of the sand accumulating on the Wildwood 

beaches is coming from Hereford Inlet and North Wildwood. Table 41 summarizes the 

shoreline change rates for Wildwood from 26'" Ave. to Cresse Ave .. 

Table 41 Shoreline Change Rates for Wildwood Segment 2 

900 35.97 5.60 

600 33.35 1-UJ 

700 31.67 18.08 

!IX)() 31.31 19.62 

](X)() 29.5-i 23.69 

1000 26.05 23.43 

630 21.92 29.3~ 

900 19.55 15.0+ 

600 18.56 H.3-i 

700 18-94 15.27 

!000 17.72 13.84 

llK)O 16.7+ 12.95 

JO()() 15.60 12.51 

630 15.00 14.18 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

16.+8 

11.15 

8.50 

5.86 

2.74 

1.7 l 

-0.08 

16.13 

l-L93 

13.80 

l-U9 

13.ll 

12.66 

12.10 

12.58 2L56 1.16 

11.81 28.88 10.59 

17.00 31.7+ 14.61 

16.66 :D.09 26.67 

20.88 30.56 33.37 

25.92 26.90 34.53 

25.07 24.8+ 39.76 

15.93 16.71 

21.15 24.5+ 

24.86 27.67 

27.29 3L6l 

28.08 31.23 

27.72 28.71 

27.07 28-39 

Page 181 
182

In Wildwood Crest the shoreline has been accreting at a greater rate than even the shoreline in 

Wildwood as Table 42 shows. Since l 998, the shoreline in Wildwood Crest has accreted at an 

average rate 25.87' per year. 

In Lower Township, which includes the Coast Guard Base, the shoreline has been fairly stable in 

the long-term since 1971 From 1998 to 2003, the shoreline has accreted at a rate of 11.5' per 

year. This rate is twice as large as the long-term (1932- 2003) average of 5'per year. Prior to 

1932, the shoreline accreted significantly due to Turtle Gut Inlet closing naturally in I 921, 

Table 43 summarizes the shoreline change rates for Lower Township from Jefferson Ave to 

Cape May Inlet 

Table 42 Shoreline Change Rates for Wildwood Crest, Segment 3 

1000 16.87 

!000 19,98 13.80 

!000 25.09 ll.04 NIA 

700 )7.00 8.25 NIA 

9 !000 NIA 6.41 IO.Ti 

IO 930 NIA 3.35 9.95 

9.36 

9.88 

9.ll 

8.97 

9. l8 

700 8.60 

8.36 

10 930 7.69 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

~2.50 

NIA 9.56 

NIA 5.74 

NIA 5.90 

7.80 (dl 

9.37 7.97 

20.19 

14.+3 17.66 

ll.59 13.92 

NIA l0.92 

NIA 8.-12 

NIA 7.00 

6.50 6A2 

5.50 4.70 

26.63 

9.00 21.!2 

5.96 23.37 

4.66 18.25 

3.84 16.97 

l.37 10.77 

19.34 

17.94 

15.14 

l l.88 

IO.IO 

7.88 

Page 182 
183

Table 43 Shoreline Change Rates for Lower Township, Segment 4 

1()()() -3.59 7.51 5.62 5.50 

!000 -0.14 l 1.39 6.31 2.28 2.33 -0.18 12.07 

lOOO 14.41 11.71 5.39 5.08 5.59 -3.45 10.77 

IOOO 32.76 13.J l 3.26 5.08 8.48 -3.02 9.06 

750 46.07 16.55 1.49 -0.75 8.20 -2.87 13.33 

500 56.31 [6.05 2.40 -3.l] l0.54 -5.96 13.64 

10 500 NIA 22.53 2,68 -3.95 13.33 -9.5l 8.54 

1000 6.07 5.32 5.16 5.00 4.ll 2.94 

1000 3.16 5.00 .i.53 3-49 3.13 2.86 

lOOO 4.20 5.04 3.99 2.27 2.34 2.73 

[()()() 7.46 4.83 3.73 2.04 1.30 4).08 

1000 11.44 4.42 3.35 2.95 2.16 -<US 

750 13.98 3.52 2.lO 2.65 2.77 0.98 

500 16.39 3.50 1.99 l.73 J.80 -1.30 

10 500 NIA 3.87 1.50 0.35 -0.09 -5.22 

2.8.1 Sediment Budget 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, as part of the New Jersey Alternative 

Long-Term Nourishment Study (NJALTN) study in 2006 developed a regional sediment budget 

from Cape May Point to Manasquan Inlet. The regional sediment budget was created with the 

software tool SBAS 2004, (Sediment Budget Analysis System) which was developed by the 

USA CE Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC). This regional sediment 

budget represents the latest budget for the study area. The following section describes the 

portion of the regional sediment budget from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet that was 

developed in 2006. 

A sediment budget represents an accounting of all sediment movement, both natural and 

mechanical, within a defined area over a specified time. The defined area is represented by a 

series of control volumes. Each control volume represents an area of similar geographical and 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 183 
184

littoral characteristics. Individually each control volume can be viewed as a complete selfcontained sediment budget within its own boundaries. Sediment fluxes connect each control 

volume to one another and they represent either a sediment source or sink to the control volume. 

Sediment sources are such things as beach-fills, long shore transport, shoreline erosion, and inlet 

shoal growth. Sediment sinks are such things as long shore transport, shoreline accretion, 

dredging activities, and inlet shoal reduction. Sea-level rise can also be considered a sediment 

sink but it was not considered during the development of the sediment budget due to the fact that 

the period of analysis used was relatively short. A balanced sediment budget means that the 

sediment sources, sinks, and net change within each individual control volume equals zero. 

Also, a balanced sediment budget assumes that sediment cannot be created nor destroyed within 

each control volume. 

A balanced sediment budget can be a useful tool in investigating observed coastal changes and 

estimating future changes and management measures. The sediment budget developed 

represented potential sediment movement. It was assumed for that an "unlimited" supply of 

sediment was available, and that obstructions such as groins,jetties, and breakwaters do not 

impact the sediment pathways in any way. 

2.8.2 Analysis Procedures 

Based on the availability of shoreline position and wave data, the specific period of analysis for 

the sediment budget was selected as 1986-2003. Shoreline position data was digitized from 

aerial photographs from 1986 and 2003 and used to determine shoreline erosion/accretion during 

this period. The wave data used was taken from the 1980 to 2000 updated WIS Hindcast of the 

Atlantic Ocean. Wave data was provided by the USACE, Field Research Facility and used for 

calculating potential long shore sediment transport. Additional input data used during the 

development of the sediment budget for the portion from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

included: Dredging records from the coastal navigation project at Cape May Inlet. Quantities 

from Federal/State/Local beach fill projects compiled in a database developed by the District. 

Inlet bathymetry surveys conducted by the District and its Contractors. 

One control volume was established for each inlet and each barrier island/land mass for the 

sediment budget. An additional control volume was delineated for North Wildwood because its 

shoreline is eroding compared to the accreting adjacent shoreline of Wildwood. 

Once the control volumes were established, sboreline change was quantified using the l 986 and 

the 2003 digitized shorelines. The shoreline change rates were converted to volumes by utilizing 

representative berm heights and closure depths from available profile data. It was assumed that 

the "observed" shoreline change rate is applicable for the entire active profile height even though 

the change rate was based upon a digitized mean high water line shoreline. The "observed" 

shoreline change rate was converted to a volumetric change rate by multiplying the control 

volume's reach lengtb witb the active profile height and the computed shoreline change rate. 

Another set of inputs that was calculated for the sediment budget was potential long shore 

transport rates due to waves. Wave-driven sediment transport potential was calculated using the 

CERC energy flux method with the computer program SEDTRAN as previously discussed in the 

Longshore Transport section of the report. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 184 
185

An analysis of available hydrographic surveys to quantify changes at inlet shoals was conducted 

for the inlet control volumes of the sediment budget. The computer program SMS was used to 

contour, compare, and quantify any changes between the surveys for Hereford and Cape May 

Inlets. Available hydrographic data that surveyed the entire inlet and not just navigation 

channels was sparse from 1986 to 2003 for these inlets. There were no inlets that had 

hydrographic surveys spanning the entire period of analysis from 1986 to 2003. The volumetric 

change during the time span where data was available had to be extrapolated to represent the 

entire period of analysis of 1986 to 2003. 

The last set of inputs to go into the sediment budget was the compilation of borrow area and 

navigation channel dredging records. An average annual dredging rate was computed from the 

available records for Hereford and Cape May Inlets. The dredging records at Cape May Inlet 

were inspected to see if the dredged material was removed and placed outside the control volume 

or if the material was "relocated" within the same control volume. lt was determined that at 

Cape May Inlet, the dredging that takes place does not remove sediment from the control volume 

but merely relocates it within the control volume. Also, Hereford Inlet has a beach fill borrow 

area for the federal beach fill project at Avalon and Stone Harbor within its control volume of the 

sediment budget. Dredging records at Hereford Inlet were compiled as well. 

2.8.3 Sediment Budget Uncertainty 

Uncertainty for each sediment budget input variable was considered and tracked using SBAS. 

Uncertainty provides a means of comparing cells within the budget and quantifying the 

reliability of the budget as a whole. The percent uncertainty for various inputs can be compared, 

reveaHng the degree to which various assumptions are known. A range representing reasonable 

values for each input was calculated and entered into SBAS. The range was based upon several 

factors, including: complexity of analysis, data availability, seasonal and yearly fluctuations, 

experience and CHL guidance. Final values for long shore transport and shoreline change within 

the sediment budget differ from the values previously shown in their respective sections in the 

report. The difference is based upon applying the uncertainty percentages to the values 

previously summarized for the study area from 1986 to 2003. Table 44 summarizes the 

uncertainty percentages used during the development of the sediment budget. 

Table 44 Sediment Budget Uncertainty 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 185 
186

2.8.4 Sediment Budget Balancing 

The sediment budget was balanced on a control volume by control volume basis. The sediment 

budget inputs were adjusted within their computed uncertainty range in order to balance each 

control volume. Very often control volumes would not balance even when the known inputs 

were adjusted within their uncertainty ranges. When this happened it was often due to the fact 

that not all sediment sources/sinks were clearly identified for the control volume being balanced. 

Once the additional sources/sinks were entered, the control volume was able to be balanced. The 

Hereford and Cape May Inlet control volumes were balanced after balancing the control volumes 

for North Wildwood and Wildwood first. This had to be done in order to minimize the number 

of unknowns that often existed at the inlets due to lack of data. Common unknowns throughout 

the sediment budget that had to be solved for once everything else was examined were the 

transport rates to/from Hereford and Cape May Inlets to North Wildwood and Wildwood 

respectively. The high uncertainty percentage used for these values is a reflection of the fact that 

there is a lot of variability in these numbers since they are based upon other sediment sources 

and sinks and the complex hydrodynamics that exists at inlets. 

2.8.5 Sediment Budget Results 

The balanced regional sediment budget is shown graphically on Figure 77 and Figure 78 

and summarized in Table 45. Various assumptions regarding long shore transport, offshore 

losses, shoal growth/reduction, and shoreline erosion/accretion quantities had to be made in order 

to solve for unknowns and balance the budget. 

Cape May Inlet 

The only sediment source considered was the 62,000 cubic yards per year of material entering 

the Inlet through the eastern jetty on the Wildwood side of the Inlet. The only sediment sink 

considered was 62,000 cubic yards per year of material bypassing the Inlet through the western 

jetty and entering the Cape May City control volume. Dredging of the inlet's navigation channel 

is done by a side casting dredge with no material "removed" from the control volume. The inlet 

is very stable with a negligible amount of sediment infilling the navigation channel that needs to 

be relocated using a side casting dredge. 

Easterly sediment transport through the jetties from Cape May City and northerly sediment 

transport to the Wild woods was assumed to be negligible. Assumed no sediment transported 

into the control volume from Cape May Harbor or any offshore losses of sediment beyond the 

seaward tips of the jetties. Therefore, it was assumed that 100% of the sediment entering the 

Inlet from Wildwood is bypassed to Cape May City. 

Wildwoods 

The sediment sources are 530,000 cubic yards per year of southerly long shore sediment 

transport from North Wildwood, and 6,000 cubic yards per year of beach fill. It was assumed 

that the sediment source of northerly long shore sediment transport from Cape May Inlet was 

negligible. The sediment sinks are 122,000 cubic yards per year of northerly long shore 

sediment transport to North Wildwood, 62,000 cubic yards per year of southerly long shore 

sediment transport to Cape May Inlet, 45,000 cubic yards per year of shoreline accretion, and an 

assumed offshore loss of 124,000 cubic yards per year. lt was assumed that material from the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 186 
187

beach fills placed along with the material moved by southerly long shore sediment transport is 

accumulating offshore just northeast of Cape May Inlet It was assumed that the east jetty for 

Cape May Inlet has effectively "blocked" sediment from entering the Inlet and deflected it 

offshore to this area which is commonly known as the Coast Guard Base Fillet. No 

hydrographic survey data was available to confirm this assumption, however profile data 

collected in 2001 and 2003 confirmed the growth of an offshore bar in the area. 

North Wildwood 

Since the littoral characteristics of Wildwood differ significantly from North Wildwood (an 

accreting shoreline for Wildwood versus an eroding shoreline for North Wildwood), a control 

volume representing just North Wildwood was created. The sediment sources are 320,000 cubic 

yards per year bypassing Hereford Inlet, 122,000 cubic yards per year of northerly long shore 

sediment transport from Wildwood, 11,000 cubic yards per year of beach fill, and 257,000 cubic 

yards per year of shoreline erosion. The sediment sinks are l 78,000 cubic yards per year of 

northerly long shore sediment transport into Hereford Inlet, 530,000 cubic yards per year of 

southerly long shore sediment transport to Wildwood, and an assumed offshore loss of 20% or 

2,000 cubic yards per year from the beach fills placed. 

Hereford Inlet 

The sediment sources are 450,000 cubic yards per year of southerly long shore sediment 

transport from Seven Mile Island, 178,000 cubic yards per year of northerly long shore sediment 

transport from North Wildwood, and 50,000 cubic yards per year of shoreline erosion from 

Stone Harbor Point which was assumed to be part of this control volume. The sediment sinks are 

320,000 cubic yards per year of sand bypassing the Inlet to North Wildwood, 188,000 cubic 

yards per year of shoal growth which was measured using surveys from 1994 and 2002 with 

results extrapolated for the entire period of analysis, and J 70,000 cubic yards per year of material 

removed from the Hereford Inlet borrow area. The borrow area for the Seven Mile Island 

Federal Beach fill Project lies within the control volume and was dredged in early 2003. 

Northern sediment transport from the Inlet to Seven Mile Island was assumed to be negligible. 

The Hereford Inlet control volume could not be balanced initially because the shoreline erosion 

from Stone Harbor Point was not a defined sediment source. Once it was added as a potential 

sediment source the control volume became easier to balance. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 187 
188

Figure 77 Sediment Budget 

Figure 78 Sediment Budget 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 188 
189

Table 45 Sediment Budget Results 

Cap0 ;\fay 

Inlet Ca c !\favln!ct 

W1ldwoods 

Ca c\favinlct 

Wildwoods 

Wi!dwoods 

\);"ikhvoods 

N.\ 

LOOO Wikh,ood~ 

122.000 Sinls Xorth\\'ildwood Wildwoods 

530.000 Soun.:c W1ld\1,oods '.'iorth\\'ild»ood 

122.000 Source NorthWildv.ood \Vildwoods 

530.000 Sink Wildwoods "\"orth\\'i!dwood 

Korth 257.000 Sourc.:, :'\orth \\'ild>\ood A 

Wildwood 11.000 Source: ~orthWi!dwo0d X'i\ 

2.000 Sink i\ A ;\/orth Wikh~ood 

178.00() Sink Ikrcfordln\ct ;\:m1h \Yi!(h\OOd 

320.000 Source ?\orth\\'ild\\OOd lkrc,fordlnlct 

178,000 Source 1-lerefordlnkt Xorth \Vildv,ood 

320.0UO Sink North \\'ikh,ood Jkrdordlnlct 

Ikrcford 50.000 Source Hereford Inlet N,_\ 

Inlet 188.000 Smk llcrefordlnlct 

!70JJOO Sink :\,A Ikrcfordinlet 

Sinl Seven '.\file Beach llercfordlnld 

450.000 Source l!erefordln\ct S<:\cn'.\hkBcach 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

Lon shor..:,S.::dimcnlTrans Ort 

Lon >shore Scd1ment Trnn~ Ort 

Lon shore Sediment Trans Ort 

Lon<>shor.::Sc<lirncntTrans mt 

Shoreline.\,;action 

Offshorc J_os~cs 

B<"a,;hfill 

Offshore: 13<.)ach ti.!! Lo%es 

l~m"shorc Sediment Tnu1s Ort 

J.ongshon:, S0diment Tran~ °'' I,0110-shorc ScdinwntTrans ort 

I~m shorcScdimentTrnns Ort 

Shordmc Eroswn 

fkitchfill 

Offshore Bcad1 !1!! Los~c~ 

Lon ,~horc Scdnmmt Tnin~ J<)!1 

Lon >shoN Sediment Tran~ ort 

Lon shore Scdim<ont Tran,~ 1ort 

Longshore S,;;dnncnt Trans or\ 

Shorclin,:, Erosion 

Sho11!Gro»th 

llomm .\rcaDrcd m 

Longshore Sedim<o11t 'J'nm~ lOJ1 

Lon shor.i Scd11ncnt Trans ort 

Page 189 
190

3.0 Without Project Analysis 

3.1 Hydraulic Analysis 

3.1.1 Storm Erosion, Inundation and Wave Attack Analyses 

Storm erosion, inundation and wave attack analyses were conducted for the communities to 

determine the potential for damage caused by waves and elevated water levels which accompany 

storms. Storm-induced erosion and coastal flooding is first evaluated for the without project 

condition, which is a projection of existing conditions in the base year. Similar analyses will 

then be conducted using selected measures for the with project conditions. 

3.l.2 Factors Influencing Storm Effects 

A brief summary of the mechanisms that result in erosion and inundation from coastal storms is 

provided in this section. Although wind, storm track, and precipitation are the primary 

meteorological factors affecting the damage potential of coastal storms, the major causes of 

damage and loss oflife are storm surge, storm duration, and wave action. 

Under storm conditions, there is typically a net increase in the ocean water level which is 

superimposed on the nom1al astronomic tide height fluctuations. The increase in water level 

caused by the storm is referred to as nstorm surge. 11 The effect of storm surge on the coast 

depends on the interaction between the normal astronomic tide and storm-produced water level 

rise. For example, if the time of normal high tide coincides with the maximum surge, the overall 

effect will be greater. lfthe surge occurs at low or falling tide, the impact will likely be lessened. 

The term "stage" as applied in this analysis pertains to the total water elevation, including both 

tide and storm surge components, relative to a reference datum (NA VOSS, used herein). The 

term 11 surge 11 is defined as the difference between the observed stage and the stage that is 

predicted to occur due to normal tidal forces, and is thus a good indicator of the magnitude of 

storm intensity. Slowly moving "northeasters" may continue to build a surge that lasts through 

several high tides. Such a condition occurred during the devastating March I 962 storm that 

lasted for five high tides. 

ln addition to storm surge, a rise in water level in the near shore can occur due to wave setup. 

Although short period surface waves are responsible for minimal mass transport in the direction 

of wave propagation in open water, they cause significant transport near shore upon breaking. 

Water propelled landward due to breaking waves occurs rather rapidly, but water returned 

seaward under the influence of gravity is slower. This difference in transport rates in the onshore 

and offshore directions results in a pileup of water near shore referred to as wave setup. Wave 

setup was computed and included in this storm analysis. 

There is typically also an increase in absolute wave height and wave steepness (the ratio of wave 

height to wave length). When these factors combine under storm conditions, the higher, 

waves and elevated ocean stage cause a seaward transport of material from the beach face. Net 

movement of material is from the foreshore seaward toward the surf zone. This offshore 

transport creates a wider, flatter near shore zone over which the incident waves break and 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 190 
191

dissipate energy. 

Lastly, coastal structures can be exposed to the direct impact of waves and high velocity run-up 

in addition to stillwater flooding. This phenomenon will be considered the wave attack for the 

purpose of this analysis. Reducing wave attack with a proposed project such as a beach fill 

would reduce the severity of coastal stonn damage and also improve the utility of bulkheads and 

seawalls during the storm. 

Wave zones are the regions in which at least a 3 ft wave or a velocity flow that overlaps the 

profile crest by 3 ft can be expected to exist. These zones are the areas in which greater 

structural damages are expected to occur. The remaining zones are susceptible to flooding by 

overtopping and waves less than the minimum of 3 ft. Total water level information for the 

study area was compiled, and the values used as input to the economic model that ultimately 

computes damages associated with all three storm related damage mechanisms. 

3. l.3 Modeling Storm-induced Erosion 

Storm erosion analyses require either a long period of record over which important storm 

parameters as well as resultant storm erosion are quantified, or a model which is capable of 

realistically simulating erosion effects of a particular set of storm parameters acting on a given 

beach configuration. There are very few locations for which the necessary period of prototype 

information is available to perform an empirical analysis of stonm-induced erosion. This is 

primarily due to the difficulty of directly measuring many important beach geometry and storm 

parameters, before, during, and immediately after a storm. Thus, a systematic evaluation of 

erosion under a range of possible starting conditions requires that a numerical model approach be 

adopted for the study area. 

The USA CE has developed, released and adopted the numerical stonm-erosion model SB EACH 

(.S.torm induced BEAch CHange) for use in field offices (Rosati, et al., 1993). SBEACH is 

available via a user interface for the personal computer or through the Coastal Modeling System 

(CMS) (Cialone et al., 1992). Comprehensive descriptions of development, testing, and 

application of the model are contained in Reports I and 2 of the SBEACH series (Larson and 

Kraus 1989; Larson, Kraus, and Byrnes 1990). SBEACH model runs comparing pre and post 

storm Hurricane Sandy profiles against the 20 year and 50 year event for the model outputs are 

included in this section. 

3. l.4 Overview of SBEACH Methodology 

SBEACH Version 3.2 (Windows version) was used in this analysis. SBEACH is a geomorphic -

based two-dimensional model that simulates beach profile change, including the formation and 

movement of major morphologic features such as long shore bars, troughs, and berms, under 

varying stonm waves and water levels (Rosati, et al. 1993). SBEACH has significant 

capabilities that make it useful for quantitative and qualitative investigation of short-term, beach 

profile response to storms. However, since SBEACH is based on cross-shore processes, there 

are shortcomings when used in areas having significant long shore transport. 

Input parameters include varying water levels as produced by storm surge and tide, varying wave 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 191 
192

heights and periods, and grain size in the fine-to-medium sand range. The initial beach profile 

can be input as either an idealized dune and berm configuration or as a surveyed total profile 

configuration. SBEACH allows for variable cross-shore grid spacing, simulated water-level 

setup due to wind, advanced procedures for calculating the wave breaking index and breaker 

decay, and provides an estimation of dune overwash. Shoreward boundary conditions that may 

be specified include a vertical structure (that can fail due to either excessive scour or instability 

caused by wave action/water elevation) or a beach with a dune. Output results from SBEACH 

include calculated profiles, cross-shore parameters, and log and a repott file. 

3.1.5 SBEACH Calibration 

Calibration refers to the procedure of reproducing with SBEACH the change in profile shape 

produced by an actual storm. Due to the empirical foundation of SBEACH and the natural 

variability that occurs along the beach during storms, the model should be calibrated using data 

from beach profiles surveyed before and after storms at the project coast or a similar coast. The 

calibration procedure involves iterative adjustments of controlling simulation parameters until 

agreement is obtained between measured and simulated profiles. The best profile data set for 

model calibration in the vicinity of the study area consisted ofUSACE profile surveys taken at 

Ocean City, NJ prior to and just after the December 1992 storm in Figure 79 and Figure 80. 

Shoreline configuration, grain size, and coastal processes at Ocean City are similar to those for 

the study area; therefore, calibration using this well-documented pre- and post-storm data is 

considered sound. Additionally, a wave hindcast of the December 1992 storm (Andrews Miller, 

1993) was prepared for the Philadelphia District, and water level data for the storm was recorded 

at the Atlantic City tide gage. Initial calibration simulations produced insufficient erosion when 

compared to the post-storm profile data. With CERC's assistance, minor modifications were 

made to the SBEACH program to allow for factors particular to the southern New Jersey 

coastline. Ivlodifications included allowing the user to specify various controlling simulation 

parameters such as the empirical transport rate, transport rate coefficient for the slope dependent 

term, a decay coefficient multiplier, and the maximum profile slope prior to avalanching. These 

parameters were hardwired into the code previously. Final calibration using the Ocean City 

profile lines was satisfactorily completed and controlling simulation parameters were 

determined. Typical calibration plots are provided. Controlling simulation parameters 

determined from the calibration process are as follows: 

K = 2.se·' m/N 

EPS = 0.005 m2

/sec 

LA"v!M = 0.10 

BMAX = 40 deg. 

D,o=0.24mm 

where K is the empirical transport rate coefficient, EPS is the transport rate coefficient for the 

slope dependent term, LAMM is the transport rate decay coefficient multiplier, BMAX is the 

maximum profile slope prior to avalanching, and D,o is the effective grain size. 

An SBEACH simulation for Hurricane Sandy was performed that compared the estimated 

volumes lost above MHW from the pre- and post Sandy surveyed profiles versus predicted 

volume lost from a 20-50-yr storm taken from the existing analysis. It should be noted that not 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 192 
193

all the profiles collected pre- and post Sandy were evaluated within the project analysis. The 

profiles from the analysis were: WW02 (cell I); WW03 (cell 2); WW07 (cell 3); WW!O (cell 4); 

WWl3 (cell 5); and WW!S (cell 6). The pre- and post Sandy profiles that were collected were: 

WWOJ, WW02; WW04; WW07; and WWI L It should be noted that the pre- Sandy surveys 

were done in the previous Spring, 7 months prior to the hurricane and the post surveys were 

conducted l month afterwards. The volume lost between profiles was determined on a per linear 

foot basis by the average area end method. Table 46 summarizes these loss rates as cubic yds 

per linear foot of shoreline: 

Hurricane Sandy has been documented to be an event with a return period between 20- and 50-

years along the NJ coast This analysis verifies that the SBEACH model produced reasonable 

volumetric losses except for the extreme northern part of the project area where volumetric 

losses from Hurricane Sandy were at or exceeded the predicted losses from a 50-yr event. The 

total estimated sand lost is comparable to a 50-yr event 

Table 46 Hurricane Sandy vs. SB EACH Volume Loss Table 

WW02 

2.172 26.12 13.9-1- 26.30 

WW03 

2.2:l.2 26.12 8.34 16.12 

\\W0-4 

4JOJ 11.8 lU4 16.12 

\\\\07 

4.203 1173 7.75 12.77 

WWIO 

2.057 11.73 8.51 13.26 

wwu J.935 12.64 8.51 L'l.26 

WW13 

1.916 12.64 8.63 12.95 

WW14 

1.726 :,..; A 8.6.'I 12.95 

W\\'15 

TOT.\.LS 24.481 

Hurricane Sandy= 3-1-6.736 C) loss from WWOl to WWl-l- (22.755 ft)= 15.2-1- cy/ft average loss rate 

Predicted 20~yr Event"" 183,212 cy loss from WW02 1o WWI5 (22.344 ft)"" 8.20 cy/ft average loss rate 

Predicted 50-yr Ewnt = .117.182 cy loss from WW02 to WW15 (22.3-1-4 ft)= 14.20 cy/ft average loss rate 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 193 
194

Figure 79 Ocean City NJ 1992 SBEACH calibration Plots-138 

Figure 80 Ocean City, NJ 1992 SBEACH Calibration Plot-223 

-,0 

·500 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 194 
195

3.1.6 Development of Input Data for Storm Erosion Modeling 

Transects were selected representing the naverage 11 shoreline, structure, backshore configuration, 

and upland development conditions for various reaches in the study area. For each reach, storm 

erosion and inundation were computed and reported relative to a designated baseline. Input data 

was developed for each cell as follows. 

3.1. 7 Profile Data 

The principal physical characterization of each cell is provided by the cross-sectional 

configuration of its beach and dune system (if present). In this investigation, the October 2003 

survey profiles were selected to represent the onshore and near shore areas under the "without" 

("W /0") project base year condition. Each profile extended from the seaward end of 

development to a sufficient distance seaward beyond the depth of closure. The original survey 

information was sufficient to perform beach/dune response modeling; however, economic 

damage assessment requires evaluation of damage potential landward of the first row of 

development. Therefore, the profiles were artificially extended in a landward direction several 

blocks. These extensions were based on general characteristics of the island's topography as 

determined by field investigations, USGS topographic sheets, and recent structure inventory 

surveys. Cross sections of representative beach profile lines can be seen in for each cell. Figure 

81 through Figure 87. The cell limits are listed in Table 47 and shown in Figure 88. 

Table 47 Profiles Used in Hydraulic Analysis 

2611 St. Crcssc St 6.965 

Cressc St Rambler Rd 4.585 

Rambler Rd. Memphis A\'c 5.835 

Memphis Ave. Madison Ave. 1,090 

Madison Ave. Cape May Inlet 6.267 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

WW7 Wildwood 

WW lO Wildwood Crest 

WW 13 Wildwood Crest 

WWl5 Lower Totrnship 

WWl7 Coast Guard Base 

Page 195 
196

Figure 81 Cell I Without Project Profile 

Cell 2 W/0 Project Profile 

ProfileWW3 

DllrtanceOfrahore(ll) 

Figure 82 Cell 2 Without Project Profile 

Cell1WIOProjectProfile 

ProflleWW2 

DlstanceOffshore(II) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 196 
197

Figure 83 Cell 3 Without Project Profile 

Cell3W/O Project Profile 

ProfileWW7 

Dl..tance01fsho11!{fl) 

Figure 84 Cell 4 Without Project Profile 

Cetl4W!OProjec:tProfile 

ProfileWW10 

DistanteOffshore[fl) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 197 
198

Figure 85 Cell 5 Without Project Profile 

Cell 5 W/0 Project Profile 

ProfileWW13 

Dlstanc~ Offshore (fl) 

Figure 86 Cell 6 Without Project Profile 

Cell 6 W/0 Project Profile 

ProfHeWW15 

DlstanoeOffshore(fl) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 198 
199

Figure 87 Cell 7 Without Project Profile 

Cell 7 W/0 Project Profile 

ProfileWW17 

01,;tanceOff'shore(II) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 199 
200

Figure 88 Cells 1-7 Layout 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 200 
201

3.l.8 Model Parameters 

Various model parameters required to run SBEACH are input into the reach and storm 

configuration files. The reach configuration parameters include grid data, profile characteristics, 

beach data (including grain size), sediment transport parameters, and seawall or bulkhead data. 

The stonn configuration file includes information on wave angle, height and period, water 

elevation, wind speed and angle and other storm information. 

In the reach configuration file, the location and failure criteria for a seawall or revetment can be 

entered. Unlike many other storm erosion models, SB EACH can account for the presence of a 

vertical structure such as a seawall or bulkhead. Cell l (North Wildwood) is fronted with an 

uniform timber bulkhead, and Cell 5 (Wildwood Crest) is fronted with various types of 

bulkheads. These structures were accounted for by inputting their locations along the profile 

along with appropriate failure criteria by waves, water levels, and profile scour. 

3.l.9 Water Elevation 

The water level is the most important or first-order forcing parameter controlling stonn-induced 

beach profile change, n01mally exerting greater control over profile change duting sto1ms than 

either waves or wind. Water level consists of contributions from the tide, storm surge, waveand wind-induced setup, and wave run-up; the latter three are computed within SBEACH. Input 

data in this case is tide and storm surge data. The combined time series of tide and surge is 

referred to as the hydrograph of total water level. The shape of the hydrograph is characterized 

by its duration (time when erosive wave conditions and higher than nom1al water elevation 

occur) and by its peak elevation were developed for the study area as part of the wave hindcast 

conducted by OCT!. The Gumbel distribution (Fisher-Tippett Type l) was used. 

3.1.10 Wave Height, Period, and Angle 

Elevated water levels accompanying storms allow waves to attack portions of the profile that are 

out of equilibrium with wave action because the area of the beach is not normally inundated. 

Wave height and period are combined in an empi1ical equation within SBEACH to determine if 

the beach will erode or accrete for a time step. In beach erosion modeling, a storm is defined 

neither by the water level, wave height or period alone, but by the combination of these 

parameters that produces offshore transport. 

The SB EACH Version 3.2 allows for the input of random wave data, that is, waves with vatiable 

height period, and direction or angle. Stom1 wave data for the seven representative events used 

in this analysis were generated in the OCT! wave hindcast described previously in the Existing 

Conditions Section 2. 7 Coastal Processes. Storm wave heights, as well as water levels (Figure 

89 to Figure 95), were developed by rescaling hindcasted actual storm time series. 

3. l.11 Storm Parameters 

A variety of data sources were used to characterize the stonns used in this analysis. The ten 

highest ocean stages recorded at the Atlantic City tide gage between 1912 and 2006 were listed 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 201 
202

in the Existing Conditions Section 2. 7 Coastal Processes. For each stage, additional 

infonnation on the storm type causing the water surface elevation and if possible the actual stonn 

surge hydrograph were obtained. The duration of hurricanes along the New Jersey shore is 

generally less than 24 hours, while the average duration of northeasters is on the order of 40 

hours, and in some cases (e.g., 5-7 March l 962) considerably longer Though actual stom1 surge 

hydrographs are not available for all storm events, it was assumed that all hurricanes exhibit 

similar characteristics to one another. Northeasters demonstrate similar features; however, 

durations may vary significantly from stonn to storm. 

3.1.12 Storm Erosion Simulations 

The SBEACH model was applied to predict stonn-induced erosion for all cells within the study 

area. All representative stonn events were run against the pre-storm profiles for the base year 

conditions. Model output for each simulation includes a post-storm profile plot and plots 

showing volume change and maximum wave and water level conditions_ Simulation results 

from each particular combination of profile geometry and storm characteristics yield predicted 

profile retreat at three selected elevation contours. In this analysis, profile retreat for a given 

storm event was measured with respect to the proposed project baseline. Typical plots of input 

pre-storm profiles and the resultant post-stonn (50-yr event) profiles based on SBEACH 

predicted retreat are provided in %Figure 96 through Figure 102. 

Figure 89 Storm Conditions 5 year Event 

10 20 

Storm Conditions 

6-YearEvent 

30 

Time{hr) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

40 50 

Page 202 
203

Figure 90 Storm Conditions IO Year Event 

Storm Conditions 

10-Year Event 

10 20 30 40 

Time{hr) 

Figure 91 Storm Conditions 20 Year Event 

10 

Storm Conditions 

20-Year Event 

30 

Tlme{hr) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

40 

50 60 70 

50 60 70 

Page 203 
204

Figure 92 Storm Conditions 50 Year Event 

Storm Conditions 

50-YearEvent 

Time(hr) 

Figure 93 Storm Conditions 100 Year Event 

10 20 30 

Storm Conditions 

100-Year Event 

40 50 

Time{hr) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

60 70 80 90 100 

Page 204 
205

Figure 94 Storm Conditions 200 Year Event 

10 20 30 

Storm Conditions 

200-YearEvent 

40 50 

Time(hr) 

Figure 95 Storm Conditions 500 Year Event 

20 40 

Storm Conditions 

600-YearEvent 

60 

Time(hr) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

60 70 80 90 

80 100 120 

Page 205 
206

Figure 96 through Figure 102 contain the results of the without project beach profile change 

from the fifty year event. 

Figure 96 Pre and Post "50 yr" Storm Event Beach Profiles for Cell l 

(88 01\'tfN H) UO!P?/\913 " 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

"' 

~ 

~ 

~ 

g 

,~ 

§ 

,o 

s g 105' 

5 

~ f 

s 

I a 

J 

Page 206 
207

Figure 97 Pre and Post "50 yr" Storm Event Beach Profiles for Cell 2 

::i 

"' e .!:!? ~ 

~! 

cw 

; E .!!!,_ .s e"' 

~ '- 0,,.. 

!~ ~! 

[:_ 

(as aA~N 111 uo11•"13 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

~ 

§ 

ij 

~ 

8 

g § 

g bl 

j f ~ ,1£ 

0 

j § 

~ a 

~ t 

~ 

§ 

Page 207 
208

Figure 98 Pre and Post "50 yr" Storm Event Beach Profiles for Cell 3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 208 
209

Figure 99 Pre and Post "50 yr" Storm Event Beach Profiles for Cell 4 

..l 

~ .!!? a.. 

ii 

cw 

~ E ii! :s ·e0 

"- ~ 

D 'l"' 

3: ~ 

-

u 

';l; ~ 

"" £ 

188 OHN Ill UO!l"'l3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

~ 

§ 

~ 

~ 

~ g 

l:j i 

j 

~ 

@ 

§ 

§ 

Page 209 
210

Figure 100 Pre and Post "50 yr" Storm Event Beach Profiles for Cell 5 

.sl 

~ ,!!! D.... 

il 

cw 

~ E l,l;, 

·ecn 0,,.. ~ '--

..., 

3: ~ 

~ ~ 

"" 

11_ 

188 a~~Nlll "'!1"'13 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

~ 

\;! 

~ 

~ g 

~ 

~ 

§! i 

1§ 

Page 210 
211

Figure l O l Pre and Post "50 yr" Storm Event Beach Profiles for Cell 6 

_;i 

~ .!!? a.. 

ii 

cw 

~ E 

f~ 0,... 

§: !f' 

';;; 0 

0 ~ 

.. 

£ 

188 CHN II) UO!l"'ll 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

~ 

;g: 

~ 

~ ~ 

j 

§ 

Page 211 
212

Figure 102 Pre and Post "50 yr" Storm Event Beach Profiles for Cell 7 

_;i 

£ ·~ 

1 1 

g ~ 

£~ 

D ,,-. 

3: ~ 

(.) 

'al ~ .. 

i 

'7 

IBB OAVN Ill UO!l'"ll 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

§ 

~ 

!;! 

Ill 

g 

~ i 

J 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Page 212 
213

The shorelines in Cell 1 and Cell 5 are structured with a bulkhead. In order for stonn erosion to 

affect the community, the bulkhead must fail. SBEACH simulates failure through a number of 

mechanisms including storm-induced scour at the toe of the structure, direct wave attack, or 

inundation. There was insufficient data regarding the existing bulkheads in Cells 1 and 5, 

namely any construction and/or design details that specified such things as depth to toe. In lieu 

of having this data, engineering judgments of the failure criteria were used in the SBEACH 

analysis. The judgements were based upon the experience of conducting SBEACH analysis 

along the New Jersey coast along with field inspections of the bulkheads. The appropriate 

failure criteria were input to the SBEACH configuration file for each profile. Model simulations 

typically resulted in failure of the seawall by wave attack or toe scour at either the l 00 or 200-

year storms. 

3.1.13 Analysis of Erosion Model Results 

Two approaches can be taken to estimate stonn-induced beach erosion: the 11design-stonn11 and 

the nstorm-ensemblen approach. For the storm-ensemble approach, erosion rates are calculated 

from a large number of historical stmms and then ranked statistically to yield an erosionfrequency curve. In the design-stom1 approach, the modeled storm is either a hypothetical or 

historical event that produces a specific storm surge hydrograph and wave condition of the 

desired frequency. The design-storm approach was used in the storm erosion and inundation 

analyses for this study area. 

Results of the without project storm erosion analysis are Table 48, in feet Predicted shoreline 

erosion positions are reported relative to the design baseline. The baseline initially was placed at 

the seaward edge of boardwalks, bulkheads, and through the centerline of existing dunes, 

depending on the condition represented in each cell. In order to satisfy constraints in the 

economic analyses, an economic baseline was established that was 1350' seaward of the design 

baseline. This was done in order to ensure all slructures were landward of the baseline. The pier 

mounted structures in North Wildwood and Wildwood governed the 1350 foot offset. These 

erosion values are used as input to the economic model that ultimately computes stom1 damages 

associated with storm-related erosion. 

Table 48 Post Storm Erosion Distances 

I IOO 

935 

685 

20 475 

-35 275 

-90 -25 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

865 

695 

475 

305 

150 

-65 

635 775 l 135 

575 705 1040 

480 620 915 

75 520 815 

-50 380 665 

-125 205 HS 

Page 213 
214

3.1.14 Storm Inundation and Wave Attack Evaluation 

The project area is subject to inundation from several sources including ocean waves overtopping the beach and/or protective structures as well as flooding from the back bay. The 

inundation can be analyzed as two separate categories: I) Static flooding due to super elevation 

of the water surfaces surrounding the project area and 2) wave attack, the direct impact of waves 

and high energy run-up on coastal structures. 

The model SB EACH calculates near shore wave characteristics, wave run-up, wave setup and 

elevation of the beach profile for each hindcasted event. The wave nm-up and wave setup values 

are used, along with the eroded beach elevations, to determine inland water surface profiles, 

inland wave characteristics, and volumes of eroded material which in turn are used to assess 

economic damages. SB EACH output parameters are used to define the maximum water depth, 

run-up, and minimum dune crest elevation. 

3. l.15 Innndation/Wave Attack Methodology 

The inland wave attack and inundation methodology used in this project is based upon FEMA 

guidelines for coastal flooding analysis. The procedure divides possible storm conditions into 

four cases as follows: 

- Case I: Entire storm-generated profile is inundated. For this case, the maximum water 

elevation including wave setup is maintained to the crest of the eroded dune. Landward of this 

point, the wave setup decays at I ft vertical drop per I 000 ft of horizontal distance until the bay 

flood level is met. A wave height of 0. 78 times the water depth at the crest of the dune is 

maintained landward of the dune. 

- Case fl: The top of the dune is above the maximum water level, with wave run-up greater than 

(3 ft above the dune crest elevation. In this case, the run-up depth at the crest is limited to 3 ft, 

the water depth decays to 2 ft over first 50 ft landward of the crest, and stays at 2 ft until 

intersecting the bay water level. The wave height is limited to 0. 78 times the water depth. 

- Case Ill :The top of the dune is above the maximum water level, with wave run-up exceeding 

but still less than 3 ft above the dune crest elevation. In this case, the depth at the dune crest is 

the calculated run-up depth, which decays to 1 ft over the first 50 ft landward of the crest, and 

stays at J ft until it intersects the bay water level. The wave height is limited to 0.78 times the 

water depth. 

- Case IV The wave run-up does not overtop the dune. In this case, the wave height seaward of 

the dune is limited to 0.78 times the water depth. 

The SBEACH results for the inundation analysis were used to determine for each frequency 

storm for each profile which one of the 4 cases was applicable. The case that was most 

applicable for each given simulation dictated the inundation profile used. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 214 
215

3.1.16 Back Bay Flooding 

The project area is subject to flooding from back bay and adjacent waterways as well as direct 

ocean inundation. This elevated stage flooding is referred to as back bay still water flooding and 

is accounted for by subtracting the residual damages due to back bay flooding from the damages 

caused by ocean front inundation. 

In order to quantify back bay water levels, the numerical model DTh'LET (Amein and Cialone, 

1994) was used. DYNLET is based on full one-dimensional shallow water equations employing 

an implicit finite-difference technique. The model simulates one-dimensional fluid flow through 

a tidal inlet and its tributaries. Flow conditions can be predicted in channels with varied cross 

section geometry and friction factors. Water surface elevation and average velocity can be 

computed at selected locations and times both across and along channels. 

The model conducted for this study included Corson, Townsends, and Hereford Inlets. A total of 

84 cross-sections or nodes were input to describe the system. Depth soundings for each cross 

section were interpolated from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Nautical Chart for Little Egg Harbor to Cape May. The model was calibrated to predicted tides 

for Corson Inlet to the north and various other locations within the system including Hereford 

Inlet Predicted stages for 5 through 500-year storms were then used to d1ive the model. Model 

results indicated differences on the order of 0.3 ft. between ocean and back bay stages for each 

storm. Therefore, it is assumed that water levels along the back bay shorelines are not damped 

and are in-phase with the ocean water levels and the bay stage-frequency curve used in the inland 

inundation analysis is the same as the ocean stage-frequency curve. 

3.1. l 7 Other Parameters 

The output from the SBEACH modeling at each of the profile lines and 8 storm events was used 

to compute inland wave attack and inundation for each case. Inland island ground elevations for 

each shoreline cell were taken from quad sheets and recent surveys. Bay elevations were used as 

specified above. The bulkheads located in cells 1 and 5 reduced the direct impact from wave 

attack and erosion damage. For all but the most extreme events, failure of the protective 

structures is required for significant wave attack to occur. However, extreme waves on certain 

profiles can plunge over the fixed barriers and attack the adjacent structures causing significant 

damage. The recurrence interval in which the protective structure will fail was determined 

previously in conjunction with the erosion analysis. 

3.1.18 Without Project Inundation and Wave Attack Results 

The Ei1gineering Technical Appendix Section 2 and Economics Technical Appendix contain 

detailed results of the inundation and wave attack analyses for base and future conditions. 

Inundation curves and wave attack limits are provided in modified COSTDAM model format for 

each of the cells and respective storm conditions. 

3.2 Economic Analysis 

The study area was delineated based on physical setting, hydraulic characteristics, and economic 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 215 
216

factors. The oceanfront communities of The Wildwood\· were analyzed by community from the 

representative beach profiles. Overall, the study area is less than 6 miles in length The U.S 

Coast Guard base is buffered by hundreds of feet of beach and the surrounding vegetation of the 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge. It was, therefore, not further considered in the damage 

analysis. Damages and benefits in subsequent project formulation tables prior to detern1ination 

of the tentatively selected plan (TSP) combination are based on a June 2007 price level for 

comparison to costs which were provided in a June 2007 price level. 

3.2.l Recent Storms 

The shoreline has been characterized by severe erosion near Hereford Inlet in North Wildwood 

in the northeastern portion of the island and generous accretion toward the south of the island in 

Wildwood and Wildwood Crest This accretion in the south from the down drift transport of 

sand has resulted in nontraditional damages such as clogged and damaged outfall pipes, 

subsequent standing water on the beach, and internal drainage problems of water overflow into 

local streets. Meanwhile, residents at the northeastern end of the island have endured loss of 

land and dune encroachment Several damage causing stonns occurred in the late 1980s, early 

1990s, 2011, and most recently in 2012. Hurricane Sandy made landfall on the New Jersey 

shore in late October in 2012 causing millions of dollars of damage to residential, commercial 

and public property in coastal communities, debris and sand dispersal, and extensive damage and 

disruption to utilities and transportation systems. Superstorm Sandy, as it has been called, 

registered the second highest observed stage at the Atlantic City tidal station in the l 00 years 

from 1912 to 2012. Shore communities nmth of the storm's landfall received the most 

devastating damage during this event Although the Wildwoods fared better than barrier island 

towns up the coast, beach erosion and coastal structure damage were inevitably realized. 

North Wildwood: Local officials were contacted to deterrnine the extent ofhistotical damage. 

Table 49 displays an example of the most damaging events for which information was available. 

In general, the beach in North Wildwood has eroded significantly over the years while the beach 

in the middle and southern end of the island has accreted. According to emergency management 

officials in North Wildwood much of the beach loss has occurred on the oceanfront between 2nd 

Avenue and 19th Avenue. No recent structural or content damage to buildings has been recorded 

from ocean wave or inundation infiltration. A damaging storm occurred in February 2003 in 

which concrete walkways on Allen Drive at the Anglesea Beach Colony collapsed. One or two 

houses on Ocean Avenue received some water in the ground floor/basement from the bay (8-foot 

tide) during this same event Street flooding from the bay is common in North Wildwood. In 

2008, the Mother's Day northeaster from May 12 through 13 caused minor flooding when the 

ocean extended beyond the beach, below the boardwalk, and over the streets. An amusement 

pier bulkhead was severely damaged during this storrn event Erosion in front of Surfside Pier 

was so severe that the pier owner constructed a bulkhead to protect against continued storm 

dan,age. [n October 2012, the borough experienced beach erosion and damage to shoreline 

structures such as bulkheads and boardwalks from Superstorm Sandy. Repairs to oceanfront 

protective structures and replacement of sand and required walkovers are estimated to be more 

than $3 million. 

Wildwood: Damage in Wildwood has been relatively minor and mostly affected infrastructure. 

Outfall pipe damage creates street flooding and vehicle damage. A large beach has been the only 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 216 
217

problem area from the oceanfront causing outfalls to back up into the community. Some 

commercial structures have received minimal damage. Amusement piers and rides that are on 

the beach, and unprotected may be vulnerable to oceanfront damage. The west side of town 

floods from the bay similarly to North Wildwood. The difference between historical 

observations and modeled results for the high probability events could be caused by a 

combination of factors. Officials and business owners implement mitigation measures such as 

sandbag placement and constructing building closures. When there has been no time to deploy 

protective measures damage has occurred in Wildwood. Businesses experienced with frequent 

potentially damaging storm events also may have employed storm proofing and modifications to 

property to reduce the impacts of flooding. Natural landscaping may also act as a barrier to 

infiltration of water into buildings. These variables are not included in model parameters. The 

magnitude of Hurricane Sandy (- 30 year event) affected the entire region including the City of 

Wildwood. According to published reports, 400 residences were damaged and almost 800 

businesses were impacted. Nevertheless, the wide beaches provided a critical buffer to mitigate 

some of the damage to the oceanfront strnctures. 

Table 49 North Wildwood Storm Damages 

Date Event Maior Dama2.e Cate2.orv Dollar Loss 

Oct 1991 20-ycar Sewage system $150,000 

Dec. 1992 25-,car Debris removal $l30.000 

Feb. 1998 5-vcar Draina 1c S\ stem $232.000 

Mav 2008 3-vcar Pier bulkhead $726.000 

Ocl. 2012 -30-vcar Bulkheads and boardwalk $2.6 million 

*Dollar loss m Septemher 2007 dollars 

Wildwood Crest: The southern portion of the island has wide beaches and has experienced 

inconvenience and expenses associated with having a wide beach. The beach grows at about 80 

- JOO' per year. Wildwood Crest has had to extend its outfall pipes. Outfalls were extended 

several years ago at a cost of approximately $400,000. The town has sought permits to extend 

the outfalls again. The municipality has also built walkways for the convenience of recreational 

users with gear who must walk many yards to reach the water's edge. The municipality 

experienced erosion as the result of a severe storm more than five years ago. Superstorm Sandy 

caused damage to sand fences, walkways, and access ramps on the oceanfront in addition to bay 

front bulkhead and railing damage. Also, it was reported that property damage was sustained by 

nearly JOO residences and approximately 250 businesses. 

Superstorm Sandy: The storm left millions of dollars of damage to east coast communities from 

the Mid-Atlantic to New England when it made landfall north of Atlantic City in late October 

2012. The nature of the storm destroyed property in tbe shore counties north and northeast of the 

landfall zone and, to a lesser extent, in the counties south and southwest. In New Jersey from 

north to south, nine counties were impacted by the hurricane: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Union, 

Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, and Cape May. Atlantic, Ocean, Monmouth, and 

Hudson Counties were hardest hit by Superstorm Sandy. Published reports assert that about I% 

oftbe approximately 300,000 residential strnctures damaged by this significant storm will 

require elevating. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 217 
218

The study area of the Wile/woods is in Cape May County and located approximately 60 miles 

south of the storm's landfall. Beach erosion and back-bay inundation were the major damage 

mechanisms experienced on Hereford island. Overall, the protective berm, dune, and bulkhead 

took the brunt of stonn waves and erosion and buffered oceanfront structures in the erosionsusceptible northern section of the study area. The deepest flooding occurred from the bay 

(Grassy Sound) to New Jersey and 151

h Avenues. According to local officials, no ocean-block 

structures were washed away, and demolition of structures was not required as a result of 

Hurricane Sandy. This confirmation along with review of post-Sandy aerial photography 

indicates that structnres in the potential benefits pool remain in the analysis. 

3.2.2 Structure Inventory 

A structure database was compiled containing information pertinent to the calculation of 

hurricane and storm damage for the study area. Initially, the inventory focused on North 

Wildwood, the erosion prone portion of the study area, because field conditions established that 

the beaches in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest were extremely wide, in excess of 1,500 and 

I, 100', respectively. The inventory was later expanded to include structures in Wildwood and 

Wildwood Crest to evaluate the extent of potential damage to reaches without dunes and assess 

the impact of sand backpassing. 

Available digital aerial photos, street centerlines, and footprints of structures derived from a 

geographic information system were reviewed, and unique identification numbers were assigned 

to each structnre. Data collected in the field included address, quality and construction type, 

number of stories, and occupancy type. A handheld computer with a digital map of the stndy 

area was used to code structure characteristics on electronic forms. Photographs of each 

inventoried structure were taken for in-office verification. Figure 103 displays an example of a 

map and photo. Additional data such as first floor elevations, ground elevations, footprint area, 

and foundation type (pile or slab) were also obtained for each inventoried structure. Professional 

surveyors conducted the elevation survey on a structure by structure basis. 

The construction characteristics of each building were entered into the Marshall & Swift 

Valuation Service software to calculate depreciated replacement cost value. Table 50 displays 

total and mean residential and non-residential structure values by foundation type for the study 

area. The inventory consists of approximately 60% commercial and 40% residential structures. 

The associated content value of each residential structure is assumed to be 25% of the structural 

replacement cost This assumption is based on previous studies that established content value to 

be about 40% of structnral value in primary homes and 15 to 20% of structnral value in 

secondary/vacation homes. The study area consists of a combination of rental or vacation 

homes, and year round residential homes. However, nearly 70% of the residential structures are 

vacation and rental homes, and typically the contents of structures with these types of 

occupancies are insured at a much lower percent, therefore, a conservative weighted content-tostructure value of 25% was adopted. Field observations and site-specific interviews with local 

residents during the conduct of the Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study, which 

included a portion of the Wildwoods, substantiate that the ratio is suitable. Also, information 

from a local insurer confirmed that personal property in secondary homes is typically insured at a 

lower percentage than that of primary residences. Typically applied in urban areas, affiuence is 

an inundation reduction benefit defined as an increase in residential content-to-structure value 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 218 
219

ratio in relation to future increases in residential income. The benefit is based on the prevention 

of damages to potentially increased content values of residential structures in the future. 

Affluence is a minor potential benefit which has not been claimed by the District in any coastal 

studies. 

Table 50 Summary or Depreciated Replacement Cost Values 

TY >e (North Wildwood) I Stmcturcs I 

Pile 

Residential I 99 

Commercial I 63 

,\'uh tor al I 16] 

Slab 

Residential 18 

Commercial 13 

,\'ubtotal 31 

Total 193 

1\·Jle (Wildwood) Structures 

Pile 

Residential I 0 

Commercial I II 

/·-,'ubtoral I JI 

Slab 

Residential 28 

Commercial 97 

Subtotal /]5 

Total 136 

Tyne <Wildwood Crest) Structures 

Pile 

Residential I () 

Commercial I 2.\ 

Subtotal I 24 

Slab 

Residential I 46 

Commercial I 59 

Subtotal I 105 

Total I 1]9 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Value (SOOO) 

$43,179 

$108.965 

S152,J.I../ 

$22,.\03 

$22,993 

$45,396 

S/97,540 

Value (SOOO) 

$0 

$28.03.\ 

$28,034 

$5594 

$37,115 

S./2,709 

570,743 

Value fSOOO) 

$() 

$186,917 

S/86,917 

$32,223 

$20Ll55 

S233,378 

$420,295 

Mean 

$436 

$].730 

$L245 

$L769 

~ 5 

$200 

$383 

Mean 

$0 

$7.788 

$700 

$3..\09 

I 

Page 219 
220

Figure I 03 Map and Photo of Structure Inventory 

3.2.3 Storm Damage Methodology 

Damages (for without and with project conditions) were calculated for seven frequency storm 

events (5, 10, 20, 50, 100,200, and 500 year events) for erosion, wave and inundation damage to 

structures, infrastructure and improved property. The calculations were performed using 

COSTDAM. COSTDAM reads an ASCll 'Control' file which contains the storm frequency 

parameters for each cell and an ASCH 'Structure' file which contains the information database of 

each structure and EAD. COSTDAM checks if a structure has been damaged by wave attack, 

based on the relationship between a structure's first floor elevation and the total water elevation 

that sustains a wave. Then COSTDAM checks for erosion damage at a structure. Finally, 

CO STD AM calculates inundation damages if the water elevation is higher than the first floor 

elevation based on FIA depth-damage curves adjusted for increased salt-water damageability. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 220 
221

To avoid double counting, if damage occurs by more than one mechanism, COS TD AM takes the 

maximum damage of any given mechanism (wave, erosion, or inundation) and drops the rest of 

the damages from the structure's total damages. 

COST DAM (COastal STorm Damage Assessment Model) was used to estimate erosion, wave, 

and inundation damage to the structures in the database. The economic model incorporates 

pertinent structure characteristics such as location, ground and first floor elevations, structure and 

content values and foundation type along with coastal storm parameters such as wave zone, 

erosion zone, and water level by distance from the shore/reference line. The COSTDAM model 

and methodologies have been applied and approved for the other studies in the series of studies 

conducted along the coast of New Jersey. A description of the program's damage estimation 

methodology is provided in the following paragraphs. 

3.2.4 Erosion Damages 

The distance between the reference (profile) line and the oceanfront and back walls were 

measured in ArcGIS using geo-referenced mapping of the study area. This technique reduces the 

amount of human error and photographic distortion. For the structure damage/failure analysis, it 

was assumed that a structure is destroyed at the point that the land below the structure is eroded 

halfway through the structure's footprint if the structure is not on a pile foundation. lfthe 

structure is on piles, the land below the structure must have eroded through the entire footprint of 

the structure before total damage is claimed. Prior to this, for both foundation types, the percent 

damage claimed is equal to the linear proportion of erosion under the structure's footprint relative 

to the total damage point. 

Figure 10~ depicts the relationship between percent damage and percent of footprint 

compromised. The damage relationship was developed during the initial assessment of stonn 

erosion damage susceptibility on the Delaware and New Jersey coasts, has been applied 

regionally, and is considered a reasonable method to estimate aggregate erosion damages to the 

structure types represented in this coastal environment. 

Figure 104 Pile and Slab Foundation Erosion 

Erosion, Pili:-~~ Slab Foundation 

The communities' participation in the National 

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) ensures that 

requirements are met to build structures with first 

floors beyond the base flood elevation. NFIP 

effective dates are in 1979 for North Wildwood 

and in 1980 for both Wildwood, and Wildwood 

Crest. It is likely that structures closest to the 

oceanfront are newer and elevated. According to 

local officials, piling depth requirements are 

contingent upon several factors, vary for each 

property, and pile depth data on a structure by 

structure basis was not available at the time of 

study commencement. Furthermore, if the data 

were available it could be addressed qualitatively 

only because structure pile depth is not a variable in the modeled calculation of hurricane and 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 221 
222

storm damage reduction benefits. 

[n addition to erosion damage to structures, damage to the land the structures are on or improved 

property was calculated. The improved property value was determined by comparing market 

value of the near shore land to the cost of filling in the eroded land for reutilization and using the 

more conservative estimate. The cost of filling/restoring the improved property is based on the 

different depths, widths and cubic yards of erosion produced by each storm event. The cost of 

filling/restoring eroded improved property was determined to be less expensive. The cost was 

prorated for the width of each cell to estimate total land erosion damage. 

Erosion damage to infrastructure was also calculated. An erosion damage curve was developed 

for damage to infrastructure within the erosion limits. Values for roads, sidewalks, storm drains, 

electrical lines, and other utilities were estimated using standard engineering criteria. The 

judgment was made that all infrastructure damaged in the Wik/woods would be replaced in-kind. 

The replacement cost does not necessarily relate to the number of structures in the area. Road 

and utilities replacement costs consisted of fixed and variable costs based on ranges of feet of 

replacement/repair. In general, the replacement unit cost of roads decreased with greater 

quantities eroded reflecting economies of scale. Distance from the reference line and feet of 

erosion per event for each road and associated utilities were used to determine damage 

susceptibility. Once damages were calculated for infrastructure for the storm events they were 

placed into EAD to calculate the Expected Annual Damages. 

3.2.5 Wave-Inundation Damages 

A structure is considered damaged by a wave when there is sutltcient force in the total water 

elevation to completely destroy a structure. Partial wave damages are not calculated; instead the 

structure is subjected to inundation damages. Large masonry structures like high-rise 

condominiums are not expected to experience failure by wave damage. The wave attack damage 

relationship developed by Wilmington District for Atlantic coast studies was adopted for use in 

the New Jersey coast hurricane and storm damage reduction analyses of seven projects. Since 

waves cause similar types of damage as inundation, assessing damage prior to full wave impact 

on a structure would, in essence, duplicate the inundation damage estimate. Percentages of total 

depreciated replacement cost used to calculate damage by the depth-damage function curves for 

inundation damage reflect various characteristics of a structure. The depth-damage curves 

display the percent damaged at various stages relative to the first floor. The curves used to 

estimate inundation damage to structures were derived from well-established FIA (Federal 

Insurance Administration) depth-damage curves and previous studies of saltwater areas are 

applicable for this study. The distinguishing characteristics are construction type and the number 

of stories in a structure. The FIA curves were developed by sampling the various types of 

structures and contents at New Jersey seashore communities in Cape May and Atlantic counties. 

Curve percentages were compared to survey data of the additional damage that corrosive 

saltwater would cause. An example of the frequency at which damage begins and the damage 

mechanism for the project area is shown below in Table 51. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 222 
223

Table 51 Beginning Damage Event 

With Out Proiect DamatJC Start 

Community Cell Frcuucnn T}DC 

Norlh Wildwood I 50 Floodin11 

North Wildvvood Floodin, 

Wildwood Flooding 

Wild\,ood Crest 100 Erosion/Flooding 

Wildwood Crest/LT 50 Flooding 

Lo\Yer Towns hip (LT) 50 Flooding 

3.2.6 Emergency Clean-Up Information 

Clean-up costs for individual structures are based on the time for clean-up and additional meal 

and travel costs. Travel and meal costs are conservatively included as opposed to evacuation 

costs because most residential structures and many commercial structures are occupied only on a 

seasonal basis, and oftentimes, not by the structure's owner. Clean-up costs are applied to those 

structures affected by a particular storm event 

Emergency and clean-up costs were calculated for North Wildwood. The cost of emergency 

public services during or immediately after storm events was analyzed using information 

provided by the municipality. As a point of reference, the municipality reported damages for the 

December 1992 event with associated elevations that correspond to a 25-year event. Damage 

frequency curves were developed and extrapolated for major flood events consistent with the 

damage frequency distribution for buildings, and historic data. 

3.2. 7 Damage Zone Structures 

The number of structures affected and total damages by damage zone or damage frequency for 

structures is presented in (Table 52). Damage from the different mechanisms (wave, erosion, or 

inundation) decreases between storm events because structures may be susceptible to more 

damage from a different mechanism at different storm frequencies. However, overall damage 

from all damage mechanisms increases with higher intensity storms. Structural damage below 

the 5-year event is negligible. Storms equivalent to a 2-year event have occurred in which no 

structural damages were reported. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 223 
224

Table 52 Without Project Damages by Frequency (In $000, June 2007 p.l.) 

Structures 32 n 54 

Wave Damage 

Erosion Damage 

Inundation Damage $1.797 $3,650 $5.5-1] 

WW-Total Damage $1.797 $3.650 $5543 

Structures 

Wave Damage 

Erosion Damage 

Inundation Damage 

LT-Total Damage $0 $0 $0 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

63 115 

$9-298 $29,236 

$9.298 $29.236 

$2.151 $3.826 

$2.]53 $3.826 

125 131 

$-18.306 $51'°36 

$70 $L603 

$.\933 $3.578 

$52-309 $56-217 

II 

$12.605 $12.605 

$4.566 $12.318 

$15.675 $62.169 

$32.846 $87.092 

Page 224 
225

Figure 105 Without Project Structures and Total Damage in North Wildwood 

3.2.8 Structure Damages 

WithoutPro_jfdStructure,cillcrteiland 

Tohi!D:im,1!!cllyI'hq11cncy 

(:'<'.oi·thWildwood) 

Frequency 

Expected average annual damages by cell for structures in the Wildwood, are presented in Table 

53. 

Table 53 North Wildwood Average Annual Structural (Dollars in thousands) 

Anragc 

Annual 

Location Cell Erosion Waye Inundation Dama2c 

Notth Wildwood I $23 $919 $269 $1.211 

North Wildwood 2 $97 $502 $401 $1,000 

Total $ 120 $1.421 $ 670 $2,211 

3.2.9 Infrastructure and Improved Property Damages 

Total infrastructure damages by frequency are shown in Table 54 and Table 55. This includes 

without project average annual damages (AAD) for the infrastructure such as roads, storm 

drains, the boardwalk, piers, bulkheads, and improved property. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 225 
226

Table 54 North Wildwood Without Project Conditions Infrastructure Damages 

(Dollars in thousands) 

5-YR 10-YR 20-YR 50-YR 100-YR 200-YR 

$1.-l.\O $3.350 $3.418 $3.852 $15.089 $18.173 

0 0 () 5.540 5.5.\0 

0 0 1,239 1239 

$1..\40 $3.150 $1..\18 '.852 $21.868 $24,952 

Table 55 North Wildwood Without Project Average Annual Infrastructure and Improved 

Property Damages (Dollars in thousands) 

Catcgori Total 

Infmsuucture $226 

Board,Yalk 83 

Bulkhead 19 

TmproYed Property 28 

Total $ 356 

3.2.10 Summary or Damages 

Total estimated average annual damages in North Wildwood by location/cell and damage 

mechanism are $3,070,000 as shown in Table 56 Average Annual Damages Table 56. Average 

annual damages to structures only are estimated to be $2,211,000. 

Table 56 Average Annual Damages (Dollars in thousands) 

Location Cell Structure Infrastructure 

North Wildwood $1.211 $185 

North Wild,rnod $1.(X)O $6.\6 

Total $2.211 $ 831 

3.2.11 Emergency/Clean-Up Costs 

Improved 

Pro >crh' 

$2.\ 

$.\ 

$ 28 

The number of structures affected and the estimated costs for each storm event are presented in 

Table 57 for North Wildwood. Average annual emergency and clean-up costs for all affected 

individuals and public entities are $103,000, combined. Total expected average annual damage 

under without project conditions including emergency costs is $3,173,000. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibllity Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 226 
227

3.2.12 Back Bay Flooding 

Storm damage resulting from infiltration of waves, beach erosion, and inundation from the ocean 

shoreline was the focus of the study. Many barrier islands, including the Wildwoods, are 

traditionally subject to the impacts of bay flooding from any combination of storm events and 

high tides. This phenomenon was not evaluated as part of this study. As an example, the model 

was run for the stages associated with the back-bay (stillwater) inundation. The result represents 

inundation damages specific only to the oceanfront/nearshore structures in the database that 

would not be eliminated by a project on the oceanfront ofNortb Wildwood. These back-bay 

residual damages for these structures total $153,000 in average annual damages. 

3.2.13 Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township 

The study area at lhe Wildwood, is a dynamic system, characterized by the movement of sand 

down-shore from North Wildwood to the beaches in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest This 

redistribution of sand from North Wildwood has created an on-shore borrow area of built-up 

accreted sand in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest which has caused water to pond at clogged 

outfalls, and increased costs for beach maintenance and outfall pipe extension. At the beginning 

of the study, initial review of field conditions in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest indicated that 

beach width were in excess of 1,500' and l, 100', respectively. Therefore, the study focused on 

the highly eroded oceanfront of North Wildwood. 

In addition to the down drift structures south of North Wildwood, property located on the piers 

seaward of the proposed project may be susceptible to damage from hurricanes and storms. 

Three piers in North Wildwood and Wildwood were constructed with extensions sloping down 

near beach level and not uniformly elevated on tall piles as in other shore communities like 

Atlantic City. Structures located in these areas were reviewed to determine potential damages 

and the impact of extending various plan measures around the piers. 

3.2.14 Accreted Area Damage Summary 

Expected average annual damages by location/cell and damage mechanism for structures in the 

communities within the potential backpass area are presented in Table 58. Average annual 

damages to structures only are an estimated $3,081,000 of the $5,124,000. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 227 
228

Table 58 Wildwood, Wildwood Crest Lower Township Without Project Average Annual 

Dama2es (Dollars in thousands) 

Awragc 

Improved Structure Annual 

Location Cell Erosion Wave Inundation Infrastructure Pronerh Subtotal Damaec 

Wild\\OOd ] $4 $298 $U92 $1.306 $0 $1.494 $2.800 

Wildv,,ood Crest $15 $5 $198 $498 $4 $ 218 $ 720 

Wildwood Crest $288 $178 $482 $212 $!] $ 948 " 171 

Lm.vcr To,vnshio $49 $82 $290 $12 $0 $ 421 $ 433 

Total $ 356 $ 563 $2.162 $2.028 $ 15 $3.()81 $5.124 

3.2.15 Amusement Piers Damages 

A major attraction of the Wildwood,· are the amusement piers which offer an assortment of mild 

to high thrill rides, kids' rides, game booths, and concessions, as well as water parks. The unique 

nature of analyzing damage to the amusement piers required a separate database for the pier 

structures. Amusement pier ride replacement cost values were provided by the pier operator and 

depreciated using an amusement ride depreciation schedule. Specialized depth damage curves 

from similar activities were used ln the inundation analysis. Estimated average annual damage 

to the amusement pier rides is $122,000. Table 59 presents a breakdown of the damage estimate 

by community/pier and damage category. 

Table 59 North Wildwood & Wildwood Pier Damages (Dollars in thousands) 

Location Pier 

North Wildwood Surfside 

Wildwood Mariner's Landine: 

Wildvrnod Adventure 

Total 

3,2.16 Estimated Total Damages 

Erosion Wave Inundation A1-1erage 

Annual 

Damage 

$27 $7 $0 $3-1 

$-1-1 $! $0 $45 

$3 $12 $28 $43 

S74 S20 S28 S122 

Total estimated without project average annual damage for all categories in North Wildwood, the 

eroding portion of the study area, and Wildwood and Wildwood Crest, the down-drift accreting 

area, is $8,194,000. Table 60 presents a breakdown of the damage estimate by community. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 228 
229

Table 60 Without Project Average Aunual Damages, Total (Dollars in thousands) 

Total 

Community 

North Wildwood $3.070 

Wildwood 2.800 

Wildwood Crest/ 2.324 

Lower Townshin 

Total $8,194 

3.2.17 Beach Maintenance 

The 4 municipalities within the island all have different approaches to their outfall problems. 

North Wildwood only has 2 outfalls and they are in need of repair, but exposed so no excavation 

of sand is necessary to allow proper drainage from the street. Wildwood City excavates the 

outfalls on a daily basis and incurs a small yearly fee associated with paying its workers to do so. 

They also commissioned a report in 2003 to quantify the costs associated with extending the 

outfalls and building a pump system to alleviate the drainage problem. Wildwood Crest 

extended their outfalls from 1999-2007, and extended them again in 2008, Lower Township and 

Diamond Beach both excavate their outfalls. The costs outlined below are included as Local 

Costs Forgone in the With Project section of this report. 

North Wildwood 

North Wildwood has not extended its outfalls, nor do they perform daily excavations. The 

outfalls are exposed and draining the interior sections of the island without incident, to date. The 

NJDEP currently has a beach nourishment project it is planning to construct in the fall of2009 in 

North Wildwood at a cost of$9,750,000. 

Wildwood City 

Wildwood has a persistent outfall maintenance problem due to the large influx of sand to the 

area. In order to economically quantify the effort to maintain outfall flow for the 9 outfalls in 

Wildwood the District contacted the Wildwood City Public Works Department regarding their 

outfall maintenance schedules. The District also discussed flooding issues associated with the 

clogged outfalls. The Public Works Department characterized the depth of water levels from 

flooding when the outfalls are clogged as approximately 4-8" inches along Atlantic, Ocean and 

Pacific Avenues in Wildwood. He said outfall maintenance was done daily and workers were on 

call for rain events that occurred outside nonnal work hours. These workers were paid time and 

a half for what they estimated to be 15 events a year in which two workers had to be called in to 

deal with the problem. 

The Public Works Department also purchased a new excavator in 2006 for approximately 

$35,000. Maintenance costs on the old machine were approaching the cost of a new one at 

$34,552 over a 3 year period. Wildwood estimated the cost of fencing and warning signs around 

clogged outfalls to be approximately $500/yr. Yearly outfall excavation cost estimates based on 

daily excavation (regular man hours) and excavation during rain events (overtime), for 2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 229 
230

municipal workers, for 3 1/2 hours, with I backhoe, and fencing repairs, was approximately 

$115,000 per year. 

In 2003 Wildwood City also commissioned a report by Remington & Vernick to estimate the 

cost of extending their municipal outfalls to deal with the clogged outfall problem. Multiple 

scenarios were considered for solving the problem including; a pump station with outfall 

extension, extending outfalls, two pump stations and beach grading. The costs associated -with 

these 4 plans is in Table 61. 

Table 61 Drainage Issue Options 

Option 2003 2007 

Pump Station 25 year storm $7.818.900 $9A28,600 

Extend Outfalls $7,867.800 $9.487,500 

Two Pump Stations $9.698JOO $1L69-t700 

Beach grading/Dune Building $8.184.000 $9.868.800 

Wildwood Crest 

Wildwood Crest has been dealing with their clogged outfall issue by extending their outfalls to 

accommodate the influx of sand. They extended their outfalls in 2001, 2004 and again in 2009-

2010. Costs for these extensions are outlined below and total $1,612,000. (Table 62) 

Table 62 Wildwood Crest Outfall Exteusions 

Location (Street) 2001 (If) 2004 (II) 2009-2010 (If) Total(lf) 

Washington 0 363 306 669 

Hollnvood (I 357 279 636 

Miami 3 .. H) 109 171 620 

Atlanta 0 450 297 747 

Fern 480 162 207 8-1-9 

Heather 680 108 234 l022 

Total Lcn<!1h (It) 1500 1549 1494 -1-5..J.3.00 

Costs S 340,000 S405,000 S 867,000 $1,612,000 

Local Costs Forgone categories for North Wildwood, Wildwood, and Wildwood Crest were 

annualized and included as a project benefit in the economic analysis section ofthis report. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 230 
231

3.3 Future Without Project Conditions 

Gathering information about potential future conditions requires forecasts, which should be made 

for selected years over the period of analysis to indicate how changes in economic, social 

environmental and other conditions are likely to impact problems and opportunities. Other 

categories such as Local Costs Forgone, study area maintenance, future average annual damages, 

level of future development were also included in the assessment of Future Without conditions. 

Future without project conditions in the project area have the potential to be impacted by a 

variety of conditions including; beach geomorphology, sea level rise (SLR), economic factors, 

future development and new rules and regulations as a result of impacts from Hurricane Sandy. 

Future economic factors, beach geomorphology and SLR scenarios were evaluated in the risk 

and uncertainty analysis contained in this report. Rules and regulations imposed as a result of 

Hurricane Sandy, and modifications to existing floodplain management practices also have the 

potential to impact the study area through updates the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), new 

building code regulations and development restrictions. 

The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) recently undertook an effort to 

update their FIRMs based on analyses that were underway prior to the impact of Hurricane 

Sandy. The District considered damage values from FEMA's New Jersey Comprehensive 

Damage Assessment in North Wildwood, Wildwood and Wildwood Crest as indicators of how 

the structure database would be impacted by new floodplain management rules. This indicates 

that North Wildwood has potential to see the greatest change in the structure database as a result 

of improved floodplain measures since it had the highest level ofFEMA assistance on the island, 

followed by Wildwood Crest and Wildwood. Lower Township was excluded since a large 

portion is on the mainland, and the data does not separate the claims based on location within the 

Township. It is important to note that the North Wildwood damages are based on the entire 

island, and represent areas subject to back-bay flooding outside the ocean front structure 

database for the project. 

Changes to structure database as a result Hurricane Sandy will be evaluated as the flood plain 

maps are updated and the Hazard Mitigation Program grants (HMP) and [ncreased Cost of 

Compliance (ICC) grants are awarded to homeowners. The initial analysis indicates that 60% of 

the structure database is below the current Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE), but these 

structures will not need to comply with stricter floodplain management regulations since the 

properties were not significantly damaged during the storm. ICC and HMP grants are for 

buildings that are "substantially damaged", or subject to "repetitive losses". 

Recent discussions with floodplain officials after the Corps of Engineers In Progress Review 

(IPR) meeting in July indicate that most damages in North Wildwood were caused by elevated 

water levels on the bayside du1ing Hun-icane Sandy. These damages were experienced outside 

of our structure database, and indications are that no structures within the economic database will 

need to be excluded due to their removal from the community due to recent storm activity from 

Hurricane Sandy, buyouts or relocations out of the flooded areas. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 231 
232

3.3.l Future Without Project Hydraulic Conditions 

Previous shore protection studies the Philadelphia District have calculated the future without 

project conditions to account for the effects on damages from a steady erosion rate applied to the 

representative profiles. 

This forecasted erosion rate was applied until the erosion reached a point in which local 

municipalities would intervene with a beach-fill or shore protection measure of their own. An 

average annual damage calculation was performed based on the new adjusted profile in the Risk 

and Uncertainty analysis in Section 5.0. For this study the potential future damages were 

evaluated for cells where long-tenn erosion may result in profile conditions significantly 

different from those simulated in the base year. Sufficient long-tem1 erosion warranted 

modification of profiles for cells 1 and 2 (North Wildwood), with the remaining cells within the 

study area being historically accretionaL Long tenn erosion was incorporated by translating the 

profile landward a distance equal to the long-tenn erosion rate adopted for each cell times the 

number of years projected into the future. The long term erosion rates adopted for Cell I and 

Cell 2 were 33 '/year and 17' /year, respectively. These values were taken from averaging 

compartment values for each cell respectively from the 1977-2003 epoch in Section 2.8, 

Shoreline Change Analysis. 

Tt was assumed the locals would intervene in the future for Cell I when the beach profile eroded 

back to the existing bulkhead. It was also assumed at that time that any Local or State beach fill 

needed for Cell I would also be applicable for Cell 2 in North Wildwood. The time required for 

the existing beach profile used in the without project conditions for Cell I to erode back to the 

bulkhead was calculated to be 5 years based upon an annual erosion rate of33' per year. Based 

upon this calculation, the future without project condition eroded beach profiles for Cells I and 2 

would be applicable starting in year 6. In Cell 2, it was assumed that the future without 

project beach profile would be translated 85' landward (17' per year* 5 years) from its base 

condition. 

This eroded beach condition and other key Hydraulic and Hydrologic (H&H) parameters were 

varied for potential Future Without Project conditions in the Risk and Uncertainty Analysis in 

Section 5.0. Variation in water levels and the six SBEACH parameters had a large impact on 

future damages levels in the project area. Sea Level Rise was calculated and applied to the storm 

damage analysis. The higher SLR scenarios had a larger impact on project benefits and damages 

than variation in the economic parameters for this study. 

The municipality of North Wildwood initiated a beachfill in response to the sand lost during 

Hurricane Sandy. A contract was awarded in the Spring of 2013 for 150,000 cubic yards of 

sand for North Wildwood. Our pre and post storm surveys indicate that 350,000 cubic yards was 

eroded above the mean high water line during sandy, island wide. Therefore, we do not feel the 

spting re-nourishment will impact future without project conditions. A table of all recent local 

nourishment activity is contained in Table 21. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 232 
233

3.3.2 Future Without Project Economic Conditions 

Property development within the study area will be limited since the availability of undeveloped 

property is low. The communities in the study area are well established with limited area for 

new development beyond replacing older structures. The standard procedure for the District's 

coastal studies has been to expect the baseline structure inventory to remain stable over the 

period of analysis. In addition, any new development must comply with guidelines that the first 

floor of new buildings be at least one foot above the base flood elevation. Therefore, any future 

without project damage reduction from the proposed plans most likely would be limited. Most of 

the new development in the study area has been rehabilitations or replacement of older 

structures, not new construction on undeveloped land. The existing conditions section of the 

report shows Proposed Residential Development Site Plans for the study area. This table shows 

1,775 new developments in 2005 but quickly declines to 10 new developments in 2010. The 

Wildwoods have a relatively limited area for new development and most of the site plans were 

for renovation and rehabilitation. Economic factors including future discount rates, structure to 

content percentage, depreciated replacement cost value, and stage damage function were varied 

based on potential future scenarios in the Risk and Uncertainty analysis in Section 5.0. These 

key economic inputs had marginal impacts to benefits and damages for the selected plan. 

3,3.2, l Additional Study Efforts as a Result of Hurricane Sandy 

After Hurricane Sandy and the passage of PL l 13-2, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of2013 

instructed the Corps to compile four reports designed to expedite and complete ongoing flood and storm 

damage reduction studies in areas that were impacted by Hurricane Sandy within North Atlantic 

Division. These four reports included; l) A Comprehensive study to address the flood risk of 

vulnerable coastal populations in the areas impacted by Hurricane Sandy within the North Atlantic 

Division of The Army Corps of Engineers (The Comprehensive Study), 2) an interim report with an 

assessment of authorized Corps projects for reducing flooding and stonn risks in the affected area that 

have been constructed or are under construction (The First Interim Report), 3) an interim report 

identifying any previously authorized but unconstructed projects, and any project under study by the 

Corps for reducing flooding and storm damage risks, that are, or would be consistent with the 

Comprehensive Study (The Second Interim Report), 4) and an evaluation of the performance of existing 

projects constructed by the Corps and impacted by Hunicane Sandy for the purpose of determining their 

effectiveness and making recommendations for improvements (The Performance Evaluation Study} 

The Hereford to Cape May feasibility study falls into the category of a "previously authorized but 

unconstructed project, or any project under study" since it is currently in the General Investigations 

phase of the Corps Civil Works program and was included in the Second Interim Report delivered to 

Congress on 30 May 2013. The primary goal of the Second Interim Report was to identify the projects 

in the Corps of Engineers flood risk management portfolio that were authorized for construction but not 

yet constructed and to identify existing projects under study that addressed coastal populations at risk 

within the North Atlantic Division. These projects and studies were given Federal priority for 

completion by being funded at a I 00% Federal cost based on the funds remaining to complete the study 

as of the date of the signature of the Disaster Relief Bill, on 29 January 2013. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 233 
234

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act describes the purpose of the second interim report as; 

"Providedfurther, that an interim report ident(fying any previously authorized but unconstructed Corps 

prr!fect and any prr~ject under study hy the C'orpsfor reducingflooding and storm damaxe risks in the 

affected area, including updated construction cost estimates, that are, or lt'ould he. consistent with the 

comprehensive study 8'hall he suhmitred to the appropriate congressional committees hy May 1, 2013" 

The Second Interim Report was sent to Congress in the spring of2013 and it listed the Hereford Inlet to 

Cape May Inlet project as a study area with a population at risk that was impacted by Hurricane Sandy. 

As a result of this inclusion the study costs are 100% Federal, and additional management measures may 

need to be evaluated in order to be in compliance with the federal objectives of coastal resilience and 

risk reduction in a "post Sandy" paradigm. Additional management measures that were previously 

screened out of the plan fonnulation phase, and any measures that may result in the development of 

improved floodplain management decisions and coastal resiliency may need to be included in the 

implementation of the selected plan, or further evaluated in the Planning Engineering and Design phase. 

3.3.2.2 FEMA, the Community Rating System, and the Hazard Mitigation Program 

The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has issued grants and increased costs of 

compliance funding to property owners that need to raise or flood proof their homes in order to reduce 

their coastal flooding risk. They have also revised their flood mapping with the Advisory Base Flood 

Elevations (ABFE) and are currently in the process ofrevising the Preliminary Working Maps and the 

Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the entire region in order to more accurately assess flood risk. 

The ABFE was published (draft), but the preliminary working maps, and the FIRM were not published 

as of the date of this publication These maps are designed to show the 100 and 500 year flood plain 

and will impact insurance rates, building codes and coastal development. Changes to this flood map, and 

the subsequent modifications to the structures within the newly designated floodplain may impact the 

study areas benefits and costs as properties are raised and or relocated. 

3.3.2.3 Community Rating System (CRS) 

FEMA administers a program to help communities with flood prone areas minimize flood impacts and 

reduce their resident flood insurance costs called the Community Rating System (CRS). This program 

has the potential to reduce flood insurance premiums community wide by up to 45%. There are 4 

categories within the CRS to reduce flood premiums; Public Information, Mapping and Regulations, 

Flood Damage Reduction and Flood Preparedness. Specific activities within these categories include 

maintaining FEMA elevation certificates, providing flood protection and flood insurance information in 

the local library, etc .. Currently, three of the four communities on the island are registered with the 

CRS, and none receive the full 45% reduction in flood premiums that FEMA offers as a result of 

improved floodplain management. Most of the communities on the island receive between I 0-15% 

reduction in premiums. Part of the recommendation for this project should be increased participation in 

the CRS for the communities on the island and maximization of the potential reduction of their flood 

insurance premiums. Flood insurance premiums are likely to increase after Sandy, and all of the 

municipalities on the island should evaluate ways to reduce both their flood premiums, and flood risk. 

Participation in this program would achieve both of these goals. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 234 
235

3.3.2.4 The Hazard Mitigation Program (UMP) 

The Hazard Mitigation Program (HMP) is administered through FEMA and authorized by Section 404 

of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (the Stafford Act), 

Title 42, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 5170c. The key purpose of HMGP is to ensure that the opportunity to take 

critical mitigation measures to reduce the risk of loss oflife and property from future disasters is not lost 

during the reconstruction process following a disaster. HMGP is available, when authorized under a 

Presidential major disaster declaration, in the areas of the State requested by the Governor. There are 

three types of improvements that qualify for assistance in the Hazard Mitigation Projects, Mitigation, 

Hazard Mitigation Planning and Management Costs. There are three categories of the HMP grant;. 

1 .Mitigation Projects (acquisition, demolition, relocation, elevation), 2.- Hazard Mitigation Planning 

(Hazard identification and risk assessment and 3.Management Costs (Expenses that are reasonably 

incurred by a Grantee or sub-grantee in administering a grant or subgrant award). 

3.3.2.5 Increased Cost or Compliance Grant 

Changes to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps may force homeowners to comply with different rules 

regarding floodplain development. National Flood Insurance Program (NFJP) policyholders may 

receive up to $30,000 oflncreased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage to help pay the costs to bring 

their building into compliance with their community's floodplain ordinance. Eligibility to file a claim 

for your ICC coverage is based on two criteria; l-When your community determines that your building is 

"substantially damaged", wherein the cost to repair or improve the stmcture exceeds its market value by 

a threshold amount adopted by law or ordinance. Community building officials are responsible for the 

issuance of substantial damage declarations 2- When your community has a "repetitive loss" provision 

in its floodplain management ordinance and determines that your building was damaged by a flood two 

times in the past 10 years, where the cost ofrepairing the flood damage, on average, equaled or 

exceeded 25 percent of its market value at the time of each flood. There are four options to pursue to 

comply with the community's new floodplain management; Flood Proofing, Relocation, Elevation, 

Demolition, referred to with the acronym (F.R.E.D.). 

3.3.2.6 Impacts of FEMA grants and Floodplain Maps on Structure Database 

Changes to the areas structure database as a result of applications to the HMP, ICC or better 

floodplain management through the CRS may reduce project damages within the area as homes 

are elevated, flood proofed or acquired and relocated/demolished or as better decisions are made 

within the floodplain. If implemented, these improvements will likely reduce impacts from 

future floods. Revised flood plain maps were not available at the time of this writing. Revisions 

to flood plain maps go through a multi-stage review and may not be available for a year or two. 

The District considered proxy values for potential impacts to the structure database from 

FEMA's New Jersey Comprehensive Damage Assessment. These values were obtained by 

assessing the impacts from Sandy on the project area in North Wildwood, Wildwood and 

Wildwood Crest. These values may indicate the level of changes to the structure database as a 

result of new floodplain guidance. Areas that were impacted the greatest would have the most 

flood claims for individual assistance and Small Business Administration (SBA) loans. These 

areas would also be leading candidates for improved floodplain management policies, buy outs 

and structure elevating. Table 63 indicates that North Wildwood has the potential to see the 

greatest change in the structure database as a result of improved floodplain measures since it had 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 235 
236

the highest level ofNFIP and SBA assistance on the island, followed by Wildwood Crest and 

Wildwood. But most of these structures were likely not in the project database used for the 

economic evaluation since this table also includes back bay properties. Lower Township data 

was excluded since a large portion of Lower Township is on the mainland, and the data does not 

separate the claims based on location within the Township. 

Table 63 NFlP and SBA claims after Hurricane Sandy 

3.3.2. 7 Executive Order (EO) 11988 

Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies avoid, to the extent possible, the long and shortterm adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of flood plains and to 

avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable 

alternative. In accomplishing this objective, "each agency shall provide leadership and shall take 

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, 

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains 

in carrying out its responsibilities. n 

The Water Resources Council Floodplain Management Guidelines for implementation ofEO 

11988, as referenced in USACE ER 1165-2-26, requires an eight-step process that agencies 

should carry out as part of their decision-making on projects that have potential impacts to, or are 

within the floodplain. The eight steps and prqject-specific responses to them are summarized 

below. 

I. Determine if a proposed action is in the base floodplain (that area which has a one percent or 

greater chance of flooding in any given year). 

The proposed action is within the base floodplain. However, the project is designed to reduce 

damages to existing infrastructure located landward of the proposed project. 

2. lfthe action is in the base flood plain, identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to the 

action or to location of the action in the base flood plain. 

Chapter 4 of this document presents an analysis of potential alternatives. Practicable measures 

and alternatives were formulated and evaluated against the Corps of Engineers guidance, 

including non-structural measures such as retreat, demolition and land acquisition. 

3. If the action must be in the flood plain, advise the general public in the affected area and 

obtain their views and comments. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 236 
237

A Public Notice and a draft of this report were sent to pertinent Federal, State and local agencies 

in December of 2013. A public hearing was held in North Wildwood and multiple meetings 

were held with the local municipalities during the public review period from 20 December 2013 

to 10 March 2014 for the Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment. 

The electronic versions of the report were also made available on compact disc and online. 

4. Identify beneficial and adverse impacts due to the action and any expected losses of natural 

and beneficial flood plain values. Where actions proposed to be located outside the base flood 

plain will affect the base flood plain, impacts resulting from these actions should also be 

identified 

The anticipated impacts associated with the Selected Plan are summarized in Chapters 5 and 6 of 

this report. The project would not alter or impact the natural or beneficial flood plain values. 

5. If the action is likely to induce development in the base flood plain, determine if a practicable 

non-flood plain alternative for the development exists. 

The project will not encourage development in the floodplain since the project area frontage is 

95% developed with 5% of the ocean front parcels that are not developed being owned by the 

municipality and managed as public space. The project provides benefits solely for existing 

development. 

6. As part of the planning process under the Principles and Guidelines, determine viable methods 

to minimize any adverse impacts of the action including any likely induced development for 

which there is no practicable alternative and methods to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial flood plain values. This should include reevaluation of the "no action" alternative. 

There is no mitigation to be expected for the Selected Plan. The project would not induce 

development in the flood plain and the project will not impact the natural or beneficial flood 

plain values. Chapter 4 of this report summarizes the alternative identification, screening and 

selection process. The "no action" alternative was included in the plan formulation phase. 

7. If the final determination is made that no practicable alternative exists to locating the action in 

the flood plain, advise the general public in the affected area of the findings. 

The Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment were provided for public 

review and a public hearing was held during the public review period. The comments that were 

received are provided in Volume 3, Appendix G. of the report titled Pertinent Correspondence. 

8. Recommend the plan most responsive to the planning objectives established by the study and 

consistent with the requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Recommended Plan is the most responsive to all of the study objectives and the most 

consistent with the executive order. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 237 
238

4.0 With Project Analysis 

4.1 General 

This section contains the plan formulation for the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility 

study. Plan formulation is used to identify a list of potential plans in order to reduce impacts 

from coastal stom1s, and eventually recommend a selected plan. This analysis involved the 

establishment of plan formulation rationale, identification and screening of potential measures, 

and evaluation of detailed plans to address the study objectives outlined in the Corps of 

Engineers Planning Guidance Notebook, (1105-2-100) and the Corps Planning Manual. 

The purpose of the formulation was to identify plans which are acceptable, implementable, and 

feasible from an environmental, engineering, economic and social standpoint The plan 

formulation process was undertaken in three cycles: 

Cycle l - Initial Screening of Measures 

Cycle 2 - Secondary Screening of Measures 

Cycle 3 - Final Screening and Optimization 

Plan formulation included input from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP), the US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Project Development Team as 

well as the local municipalities. Information from the following Philadelphia District feasibility 

reports was also used since these studies addressed similar hurricane and storm damage problems 

along the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey: 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study, Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, Final Feasibility Report, 

September 1999 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, Final Feasibility Report, 

June 2002 

4.2 Planning Objectives 

The Federal objective of water resource planning is to contribute to National Economic 

Development (NED) in a way that is consistent with protecting the nation's environment 

pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal 

planning requirements contained in Engineering Regulation 1105-2-100. This objective was 

established by the US Water Resources Council's Fconomic Cl/Id Environmental Principles and 

Guidelines.for Water and related Land Resources Implementation Studies on 10 March 1983. 

The objective of the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet study is to formulate solutions to the 

problems within the study area. These solutions must be acceptable to the study sponsor. Plans 

were developed to address the following study objectives: 

• Reduce erosion, inundation and wave damages and maximize benefits over a fifty year period 

oftime within the study area. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 238 
239

, Apply Regional Sediment Management to the study area in order to maximize the use of sand 

as a resource. 

• Limit environmental and cultural impacts to borrow areas. 

, Provide a plan that satisfies the needs of the study sponsors and the local communities within 

the study area to the fullest extent possible. 

4.3 Constraints 

Constraints are items that limit the planning process and are unique to each planning study. 

They include Planning, Technical, Economic, Environmental, Institutional, Regional and Social 

Constraints. 

4.3.1 Planning Constraints 

Planning constraints are restrictions that are considered when attempting to meet the identified 

planning objectives. The fonnulation of all measures was conducted in accordance with Federal 

laws and guidelines established for water resources planning in order to avoid constraints and 

meet the study's objectives. 

4.3.2 Technical Constraints 

These constraints include physical or operational limitations. The following criteria were used in 

plan formulation: 

, Federal participation in the cost of restoration of beaches should be limited so that the proposed 

beach will not extend seaward of the historical shoreline of record. 

, Natural benn elevations, widths, and foreshore beach slopes should be used as a preliminary 

basis for the restoration of beach profiles. 

• Plans must represent sound, safe, acceptable engineering solutions. 

, Plans must comply with USA CE regulations. 

, Analyses are based on the best information available using accepted methodology. 

4.3.3 Economic Constraints 

The following items constitute the economic constraints that may impact analysis of the plans 

considered in this study. 

•Analyses of project benefits and costs are conducted in accordance with Corps ofEngineers1 

guidelines and must assure that any plan is complete within itself, efficient and safe and 

economically feasible in terms of current prices. 

, To be recommended for project implementation, benefits must exceed project costs. 

Measurement shall be based on the NED benefit/cost ratio being greater than one. 

• The benefits and costs are expressed in comparable quantitative economic terms to the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 239 
240

maximum practicable extent. 

4.3.4 Environmental Constraints 

Appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that any resulting project is consistent with local, 

regional and state plans, and that the necessary permits and approvals are likely to be issued by 

the regulatory agencies. Further environmental constraints relate to the types of flora and fauna 

which are indigenous and beneficial to the ecosystem. The following environmental and social 

well-being criteria were considered in the formulation of alternative plans. Consideration should 

be given to public health, safety and social well-being, including possible loss of life. 

, Avoid detrimental environmental and social effects, specifically eliminating or minimizing the 

following where applicable: 

air, noise and water pollution; 

destruction or disruption of manmade and natural resources (including 

endangered or threatened wildlife species), aesthetic and cultural values, community 

cohesion and the availability of public facilities and services; 

adverse effects upon employment as well as the tax base and property values; 

displacement of people, businesses and livelihoods; and 

disruption of nonnal and anticipated community and regional growth. 

, Maintain, preserve and, where possible and applicable, enhance the following in the study area: 

water quality; 

the beach and dune system together with its attendant fauna and flora; 

wetlands, if any; 

sand as a geological resource~ 

commercially important aquatic species and their habitats; and 

nesting sites for colonial birds. 

4.3.5 Institutional Constraints 

The fonnulation of alternative plans was conducted in accordance with all Federal laws and 

guidelines established for water resources planning. According to the Planning Guidance 

Notebook (ER 1105-2-100), Section IV--Shore Protection, "Current shore protection law 

provides for Federal participation in restoring and protecting publicly owned shores available for 

use by the general public.'' Typically, beaches must be either public or private with public 

easements/access to allow Federal lnvolvement in providing shoreline protection measures. 

Private property can be included only if the, "protection and restoration is incidental to 

protection of publicly owned shores or if such protection would result in public benefits." Items 

which can affect the designation of beaches being classified as public, include the following: 

A user fee may be charged to aid in offsetting the local share of project costs, but it must 

be applied equally to all. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 240 
241

Sufficient parking must be available within a reasonable walking distance on free or 

reasonable tenns. Public transportation may substitute for, or complement, local parking and 

street parking may only be used if it will accommodate existing and anticipated demands. 

Reasonable public access, defined as every one half mile or less, must be furnished to 

comply with the planned recreational use of the area. 

Private beaches owned by beach clubs and hotels cannot be included in Federal shore 

protection activities if the beaches are limited to use by members or paying guests. 

Publicly owned beaches which are limited to use by residents of the community are not 

considered to be open to the general public and cannot be considered for Federal involvement 

4.3.6 Regional and Social Constraints 

The needs of other surrounding regions must be considered and one area cannot be 

favored to the unacceptable detriment of another 

Consideration should be given to public health, safety and social well-being, including 

possible loss of life 

• Plans should minimize the displacement of people, businesses and livelihoods of 

residents in the project area 

Plans should minimize the disruption of normal and anticipated community and regional 

growth. 

4.4 Problems Within the Study Area 

The following problems were identified based on the existing conditions of the study area based 

on the problem statement below. 

Problem Statement-Erosion in North Wildwood is leaving the municipality vulnerable to storm 

damage while sand accumulation in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest is clogging municipal stonn 

water systems, degrading beach habitat, causing health issues and leaving the municipalities 

vulnerable to stonn damage. Problems are explicitly identified in Table 64. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 241 
242

Table 64 Problems, Opportunities and Objectives Within the Study Area 

Erosion. flood and 

wave damages. 

Impacts from 

clogged outfalls and 

2 decreased recreation 

experience due to 

cxcessiYe beach 

,vidth. 

Maintenance costs 

to keep outfalls 

open. 

Narrow beaches in North 

Wildwood and wide. low 

dune less beaches in 

Wildwood and W ild\\'Ood 

Crest make the area 

susceptible to stonn 

damages. 

The outfalls have stagnant 

water at their tcnninus. 

causing health, safety and 

flooding issues and 

municipal fishing piers fall 

short of waterline. 

he outfalls within the study 

area have to be excavated 

dailv and money has been 

expe~dcd to extCnd them in 

the past. 

Protect homes and 

infrastructure from stonn 

damage. 

Restore natuml stonn~v, atcr 

flow. reduce health and 

safety issues. mainlain 

rccrcalion and Wild,vood 

Crest fishing pier activity. 

Mitigate for monetary 

damages caused by 

excessive beach growth. 

Restore the beaches in North 

Wildwood with a berm and dune 

that ·will reduce future damages 

and restore beaches in 

Wildwood and Wildwood Crest 

vdth a dune to reduce damages. 

Reduce the size or the beach in 

Wildwood and Wild\vood Crest 

to eliminate stonn water ponds. 

Us the excess sand in Wild·wood 

and Wildwood Crest as a source 

of beach nourishment material 

for North Wildwood. Wildwood 

and Wild,vood Crest 

Although the closure of Turtle Gut Inlet in the l920's likely added a significant amount of sand 

to the beaches in the study area from the onshore welding of the ebb shoal, re-opening that inlet 

to reduce the accumulation of sand and un-clog municipal outfalls would prove to be problematic 

from an economic, real estate and environmental perspective. Acquisition costs of purchasing 

properties, paying for relocations and utility relocations would exceed project benefits and reopening of the inlet might have un-intended consequences on down drift beaches, which are 

protected and maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Consideration of this alternative 

was raised during the review process and the District felt that the re-opening of the inlet would 

not address the problems, opportunities and objectives to a level that it should be considered 

further in the plan formulations phase. 

4.5 Cycle 1 - Initial Screening of Solutions 

ln Cycle l, measures were identified and evaluated on the basis of their suitability, applicability, 

merit in meeting the study objectives, engineering criteria and potential to solve the indentified 

problems listed above. The goal of the Cycle l analysis was to screen out those measures that do 

not fulfill the needs of the study area based on technical appropriateness and economic 

feasibility. Judgments were made about each alternative based on knowledge gained from past 

reports and the experience of study team members. In addition, all measures were measured for 

their completeness, effectiveness, efficiency and against the study's objectives. 

The initial screening addressed both non-structural and structural measures. Non-structural 

measures control or regulate the use of land such that damages may be reduced or eliminated. 

When implementing non-structural measures, no attempt is made to reduce, divert or otherwise 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 242 
243

control coastal processes or stonn damage mechanisms. Typically, specific non-structural 

solutions include: regulation of any future development (setback limits, building elevation 

restrictions etc.), and permanent evacuation of the study area. These options are typically not 

feasible due to the level of development of a region. 

Structural measures protect property by modifying the existing coastal processes and/or by 

providing a buffer to reduce potential storm damage. Typical structural measures include 

seawalls, bulkheads, revetments, breakwaters, groins and beach fill. The list of measures that was 

identified to solve the water resource problems are contained below 

Non -Structural Measures 

• No action 

• ReQ:Ulation of future development 

• Permanent evacuation 

Structural Measures 

• Berm & Dune Restoration using Backpass Technology 

• Benn & Dune Restoration from an Inlet Source 

• Groins 

• Excavate Sand from in Front of Outfalls 

• Extend Outfalls 

• Combine Outfalls 

• Bulkhead around Piers 

• Seawall 

• Elevate Amusements 

• Remove Amusements 

• Hereford Inlet Channel Maintenance 

• Geotextile tubes 

These plans were measured against the projects objectives, the four planning criteria and the five 

evaluation tasks from the Planning Manual in the following Cycle -1 screening. A description of 

each plan is provided below. 

Non Structural Measures 

No Action. This measure would involve leaving the island to erode naturally at the north end in 

North Wildwood and allow Wildwood and Wildwood Crest to continue to accumulate sand. This 

will require significant expenditures by both municipalities as detailed later in this section in the 

form oflocal beach fills and municipal outfall extensions and beach maintenance. This measure 

does not meet any of the stated objectives. In the absence of Federal involvement, the potential 

without-project damages discussed in section 3 of this report would be realized. 

Regulation of Future Development. The with project condition for this measures involves land 

use controls enacted through codes, ordinances, or other regulations to minimize future 

development and damages on presently undeveloped lands. Such regulations are traditionally 

the responsibility of state and local governments. Regulations are currently in place to control 

future development and reduce susceptibility to damage such as the Coastal Area Facility 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 243 
244

Review Act (CAFRA) and FEMA guidelines. The State of New Jersey restricts building at the 

shore to landward of existing dune or bulkhead lines. Regulation of future development lends 

itself more to relatively large, continuous, undeveloped areas rather than heavily developed 

areas. Comparison of the with and without project condition for this measures are extremely 

similar since it is unlikely that any regulation of future development would reduce the 

susceptibility of this area due to the current level of development There is only once section 

within the project area that is undeveloped, the USFW property at Cape May Inlet. No beach 

nourishment activities are being considered there. Therefore additional regulation to prevent 

new development would have little to no impact on the study area. 

Pennanent Evacuation. Permanent evacuation involves retreat from and abandonment of coastal 

areas experiencing ongoing erosion and subject to future storm damage. This would require 

acquisition of lands and structures either by purchase or through the exercise of powers of 

eminent domain, if necessary. Following this action, all commercial and residential property in 

the acquired areas would either be demolished or relocated to another site. The level of 

development within the study area would make this measure cost prohibitive. 

Structural Measures 

Berm and Dune Restoration Using Backpass Technology. This would involve excavating the 

entire beach in front of the outfalls and shaping the sand into a dune and berm for storm damage 

reduction benefits. This measure would protect North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest 

and Lower Township from storm damages and require less maintenance than excavating the 

sand from in front of the outfalls. This measure would be better than the without project 

measure since it provides storm damage reduction to the area and relieves the maintenance 

burden from Wildwood and Wildwood Crest of excavating sand from in front of the outfalls. 

This measure meets all three of the project primary objectives listed in Table 64. 

Berm and Dune Restoration Using Inlet Dredge Source. Berm and dune restoration can provide 

a high level of storm protection, merges favorably with the existing environment, and has been 

shown in recent Philadelphia District studies to be the most effective and cost efficient measure 

in terms of providing protection from storms. Of all measures considered, a combined berm and 

dune system most closely replicates conditions typically found along natural undisturbed barrier 

island shorelines. This measure would protect North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and 

Lower Township from storm damages, but it would exacerbate the impact of excess sand on the 

beaches in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest by adding more sand to the system. This measure 

satisfies only I objective from Table 64. 

Groins. Groins are coastal structures built perpendicular to the shoreline. They extend from the 

upper beach face into the surf zone and are designed to trap littoral drift and retain sand on the 

beach. Properly designed groins can stabilize an eroding shoreline, reduce periodic nourishment 

requirements and consequently prevent sand from moving into adjacent beaches. Since the 

sediment imbalance in the study area is resulting in erosion in North Wildwood and sand 

accretion in Wildwood City, a groin or groin field may help balance the sediment in the area. 

But groins provide no protection from stonn surge, and must be combined with a dune or other 

structure that is designed to provide storm wave and flood damage reduction. Groins would only 

solve 2 of the problems in the study area identified in Table 64 by temporarily reducing the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 244 
245

migration of sand into Wildwood and Wildwood Crest 

Excavate Sand in Front of Outfalls. Trenching sand from directly in front of the outfalls in 

Wildwood and Wildwood Crest would temporarily alleviate their clogged storm water outfall 

problem. This is currently done by the Public Works Departments on a daily basis. The 

employees use a backhoe to dig a 5' by 5' trench approximately 300' from the terminus of the 

outfall to the ocean. This is a temporary solution to the problem whose costs have been outlined 

in the Existing Conditions section of this report. This measure would not solve the storm damage 

problem in the project area. This would only solve objectives 2 and 3 in Table 64. 

Extend Outfalls The City of Wildwood commissioned an Engineering Report to be written by 

Remington and Verni ck that outlined costs of extending their beachfront outfalls. The costs 

associated with that option were excessive when compared to the daily maintenance cost of 

excavation. This report identified a cost of extending the outfalls between 9-l I million dollars. 

Table 64. This measure would not satisfy the objective of providing storm damage reduction 

benefits. 

Combine Outfalls The report written for the City of Wildwood by Remington & Vemick 

recommended combining the storm water outfalls into a single manifold system and extending 

one outfall on the beach and re-routing all the urban run-off through that pipe. Costs associated 

with this option may be prohibitive considering the cost of daily excavation and maintenance. 

This measure would not satisfy the objective of providing storm damage reduction benefits. This 

report identified a cost of extending the outfalls between 9-11 million dollars. Table 64. 

Bulkheads around Piers. Bulkheads are shore-parallel structures usually built at or above the 

mean high water line to prevent wave, inundation, and/or erosion damages. The crest elevation 

is the primary design parameter controlling the effectiveness in reducing wave and flooding 

damages. Under normal conditions, bulkheads have no impact on littoral drift However, if the 

beach erodes to the point where waves are frequently impacting the bulkhead, erosion may be 

accelerated due to scour at the base. This may lead to permanent loss of dry beach in the absence 

of sand nourishment. Berm placement and periodic nourishment in front of the structure can 

prevent such failures, but the combined costs may be prohibitive. Bulkheads are costly, but can 

be effective in preventing wave and flood damages at the end of the piers located on the beach. 

This measure was expanded to include the potential for dunes around the piers, not just 

bulkheads. This measure would only solve a small portion of providing storm damage reduction 

benefits to the piers, not the rest of the communities that are identified in Table 64. 

Seawalls. Seawalls are large shore-parallel structures usually built above the mean high water 

line to prevent wave, inundation, and/or erosion damages. lbey are typically wider structures 

with a stone face intended to reduce wave damage and prevent overtopping and flooding. Crest 

elevation is the primary design parameter controlling the effectiveness in reducing wave and 

flooding damages. Seawalls are costly, but can be very effective in preventing wave and flood 

damages. This measure would protect North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower 

Township from storm damages, but it would be very costly across 7 miles of beach, locally it 

might not be acceptable, and it may increase erosion potential of the beach in the long term. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 245 
246

Elevate Pier Amusements. The project area has 4 piers on the beach that have outer sections 

that are not traditional piers. The seaward ends of the piers are built at the beach level, making 

them susceptible to storm damage. Elevating the seaward end of the piers is one way to avoid 

damage from coastal storms, but these structures represent a very small portion of the study area 

and formulating a repair to protect them would only accomplish a fraction of the project's 

objectives of storm damage reduction. 

Remove Pier Amusements. The project area has 4 piers on the beach that have outer sections 

that are not traditional piers. The seaward ends of the piers are built at the beach level, making 

them susceptible to storm damage. Removing the seaward end of the piers is one way to avoid 

damage from coastal storms, but these structures represent a very large portion of the study 

areas economy and could have detrimental impacts to the municipalities they are within. 

Hereford Inlet Channel Maintenance. The position of the Hereford Inlet channel could aggravate 

the erosion problem in North Wildwood. As the inlet channel migrates between the northern and 

southern portion of the inlet it cuts a channel in the sand in order to fill and drain the back bay 

during rising and falling tides. When this channel reaches a southern position in Hereford Inlet it 

is thought to cause erosion in North Wildwood. Maintaining the Hereford inlet channel in a 

central or northerly position might reduce erosion of the beach in North Wildwood. Analysis of 

this inlet process is out of the scope of this study due to the modeling requirements. 

Geotextile Tubes. This measure consists of the use of sand-filled geotextile tubes (geotubes) as 

a structural core of a sand dune. Depending on placement, the geotubes may provide greater 

protection than a traditional sand dune since they are more resistant to erosion. The bottom of the 

geotube core needs to be placed at or below the base of the dune to prevent scour, undercutting, 

and slumping failure of the geotube. Geotubes should remain covered under non-storm 

conditions to prevent failure due to puncture and ultraviolet light degradation. Once the geotube 

is fully exposed during a storm, stability against direct wave attack and overtopping is 

questionable. Therefore, a geotube core may be effective in reducing erosion damages, but is not 

expected to provide significant wave and inundation damage reduction. Cost effectiveness of a 

geotube core would require that potential benefits of decreased erosion damage exceed the added 

costs of constructing and maintaining the geotube core within the dune. This measure would 

protect North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township from storm 

damages, but it would be very costly across an entire 7 miles of beach, locally it might not be 

acceptable, and it may increase erosion potential of the beach in the long term. 

The Cycle -I analysis was accomplished in a three part screening process using the 

recommendations from the Planning Guidance Notebook (1105-2-100) and the Corps Planning 

Manual. The first part was to measure the measures against the four planning criteria for 

Completeness, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Acceptability (Table 65). The second part of the 

screening was to compare the measures to the study's objectives (Table 66). The third part 

combined the Corps Five Part Evaluation Phase, from the !WR Planning Manual, (Chapter 9 

page 147) with the results of the four planning ctiteria screening, and the objectives screening 

(Table 67). If the management measure satisfied one of the screening criteria, or a study 

objective, it received a" l". All the scores that the management measure received for each part 

of the screening process were totaled at the right side of the table. Those scores were then 

carried over to the Five Part Evaluation phase table for the final Cycle -1 screening. Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 246 
247

objectives and planning criteria were all weighted equally 

Table 65 Study Measures Measured Against the Four Planning Criteria 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 247 
248

After the initial screening against the four planning criteria it became apparent that the berm and 

dune restoration using backpass technology was the only measure that met each criteria for being 

complete, efficient, effective and acceptable. Benn and dune restoration using an inlet source 

extending outfalls, and a bulkhead around piers was tied for the second highest score against the 

four planning criteria. 

The screening of the measures against the study objectives is contained in Table 66. The 

management measure that scored the highest against all the projects objectives was Benn and 

Dune Restoration Using Backpass Technology. Groins finished second and Berm and Dune 

restoration using an inlet borrow source was third_ 

Table 66 Study Measures Measured Against the Objectives 

N N N N y N N 

N N N N y N N 

y y y y y y y 

y y y N N N y 

y y N y y N y 

N N N N N N N 

N N N N y N y 

N N N N y N y 

y y y N y N y 

y y y N N N N 

N y y N y N N 

y y y N N N N 

y N N N N N N 

y y y N N N y 

Scoring for the four planning criteria was combined with the scoring against the study's 

objectives and the Five Part Evaluation Phase in Table 67. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 248 
Table 67 Combined Five Part Evaluation with the 4 Planning Criteria and Objectives Scoring 

Rcwlt in <:!Jllltnu<>d c1<lsi,,n 4ml f1¢<1d1 ;;.:<:,dio11 j\u dwJJg~ 

[Regulation ofl'utu1·c J)e~dopment "'·ot !ikdy to h,iw m1pactd"e t<> !c;d ofd",efopmcnt 

IPerrnanmt E\ac1mtlon ~::~pem,ivc. no! hkel;, lo l:k: politk,1lly fri.~1hlc 

lllc11n and Uune Rc~tol'lllioil)Jfacl.pass ~<'av<>rahlc\ l,kd) I<> r~su!I m storm d"mage rcdm:iwn 

IE~rnvate ~and l'rmn in )'rontof 

)uifalls 

(\t..ndOutfulls 

IH<'tcfoNl[nl<ct(1uumd\faintenance 

;,-ote~tilc tubes 

J, '°'" "rc>~rc~f,m· f"shmg p, r 

A,ely to ~11h,a1K'<> <)thcr platl~ and n:duN long~!rnrc 

T:m~pc>rt, hut not ",t..mdahM pm Jed 

urrent!ybc,ing~rfonncdh} k,~;1l~ 

unent prnc!1~e U, Wd<lwood nnd \\ ,td,rno<l Crc"'Sl 

<JC,np,A11tlw,ir,.c,pcm,i,~ 

Pc1ge249 
250

Planning Criteria ,\'coring 

Measures that scored well against the 4 Planning Criteria were; Berm and Dune Restoration 

Using Backpass Technology (4), Berm and Dune Restoration Using an Inlet Borrow Source (3), 

Bulkhead Around Piers (3), Groins (2), Extend Outfalls (2) and Pennanent Evacuation (2), 

Geotextile Tubes (2). 

Measures that did not score well against the four criteria were No Action (l ), Regulation of 

Future Development ( l), Excavation of Sand in Front of the Outfalls (I), Combining Outfalls 

(!),Seawall(!), Elevate Amusements(!), Remove Amusements(!), and Hereford Inlet Channel 

Maintenance ( l) 

Obiectives Scorill!f 

Measures that scored well against the planning objectives are; Berm and Dune Restoration using 

Backpass Technology (7), Bulkhead Around the Piers (5) Benn and Dune Restoration using an 

Inlet Borrow Source (4), Groins (4). 

Measures that did not score well against the study' s objectives are; Excavating Sand from in 

Front of the Outfalls (0), No Action(!), Regulation of Future Development(!), Pcm1ancnt 

Evacuation (2) Extend Outfalls (2), Combine Outfalls (2), Seawall, (3) Elevation of Amusements 

(3) and Remove Amusements (3). 

The combined ranking of the management measures against; I-The Four Planning Criteria, 2-

The Projects Objectives and 3- the appraisal section of the Five Point Evaluation is summarized 

below. Tie scores in the Cycle- l screening process were settled by qualitative evaluation from 

the Corps Five Part Evaluation table. 

I. Berm and dune restoration using backpass system 

2. Bulkhead around the piers 

Berm and dune restoration using inlet source 

4. Groins 

5. Geotextilc tubes 

6. Extend outfalls 

7. Seawall 

8. Elevate amusements 

9. Remove amusements 

JO. Combine outfalls 

11. Permanent evacuation 

12. Hereford Inlet channel maintenance 

13. Regulation of future development 

14. No Action 

15. Excavate Sand From in front of outfalls 

Measures that were excluded from further analysis are listed here. Extending the Outfalls was 

excluded since this is not within the authority of the Army Corps of Engineers. Constructing a 

Seawall was excluded due to costs, and the potential erosion impacts it may cause. Elevating 

and Removing the Amusements was excluded since it is not likely feasible at this stage of 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 250 
251

development and likely not possible. Combining the outfalls into a single pump house and 

flushing the material offshore was excluded since it would not solve the issue of erosion and 

storm damage across the study area and it also appeared cost prohibitive ($9-$ l l million dollars 

2007 P.L., Table 61). Permanent Evacuation was excluded since it is not likely to be feasible at 

the current level of development on the island. Hereford Inlet Channel Maintenance was 

excluded since the direct impacts are not clear on the study's objectives, and maintaining a 

different channel position may or may not reduce erosion in North Wildwood and the different 

channel configurations would also need to be modeled beyond the scope of this study. 

Regulation of Future Development was excluded since the study area is almost J 00% built out, 

the No Action Plan was also excluded from further analysis. 

4.6 Cycle-2 

In accordance with the Planning Manual and the Planning Guidance Notebook (1105-2-100) the 

array of measures after Cycle I were evaluated against a System of Accounts (Table 68) which 

included; National Economic Development (cost effectiveness, federal tax revenues), Regional 

Economic Development Gobs, income, taxbase), Environmental Quality (air quality, 

topography, groundwater, hydrodynamics, water quality, terrestrial ecology, wetlands, benthic 

resources, shellfish, finfish, endangered species) and Other Social Effects (cultural resources, 

aesthetics) for the Cycle 2 analysis. The five remaining management measures for the System 

of Accounts are: 

I. Berm and dune restoration using backpass system 

2. Bulkhead around the piers 

3. Benn and dune restoration using inlet source 

4. Groins 

5. Geotextile tubes 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 251 
252

Table 68 System of Accounts 

Cost cffectinncss 

air quality 

nmtena! in -r,.;:orth 

\\'ikh1ood. 

Omhore.nocffcct 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

Offshor.:::::--ocffc~1. 

'.\otlikd) tohaYc 

impact. 

Page 252 
253

water quality 

expcckdon\\aYC 

di mate. 

Beac,h:,,.;-ean,hore 

orr.~ho1-.;: l\\:,gJigibk dfods arc 

ac;,.-pe-.1edon\'ia\'edimatc. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

OJEhore:'S'ocffect 

riftsand.Om,hore 

Same as berm 

restoration 

Page 253 
254

terrestrial ecology 

wetlands 

henthic organisms 

&ach,:..;c,m,horc: 

OHShore: .Sol applicable OftShorc: ::,.;ot applkablc 

Bcad1'~car.;horc:;';A 

Offshono: .Sot 

applicable 

llcach)<ca11,horc::KA 

Offahore: ::,..otapp!icablc. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

tfahor,c: t",;otapphcabk 

Offahore: i'ot 

applicahk 

;,.;'otlikdy lr,have 

impact 

Bcach·t\earshore· 

Smncas~rmand 

dune restoration. 

muphipod~. 

Bcach'.\',carshore: A 

Offshon.,·l\"ot 

applicahk 

Offahor,c: Xot 

applicable 

Page 254 
255

shellfish and essential 

fish habitat 

Offahorc:nocl1i:ctson 

offshorcbentho& 

borrowsitesin.::cthc 

Offahore: lknthos,\ithin 

dredge locations 

material \\otJk! be taken r~colonization recruitment after 

dredging ceases 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

Otfahore: !\o Eff<:ct Ollshore:;'\o 

EJ1~ct 

Bcad1 :,.;-ear~hor,; 

Off<;hore· No Effect 

Page 255 
256

finfish and essential 

fish habitat 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

omhol"\C" 'SoEITcct 

Offshorc:Sameas 

bcnuanddune 

restoration, but on a 

~malkr~cak 

Page 256 
257

endangered species 

OHshorc: >lo impads to 

oJfohoreendangered 

ea turtles and marim; mnmmak 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

011\hore-::,;o Effect 

Offshore::\oEffect 

Oft,horc:No 

Effect 

Offahorc:Sameas 

benn restoration 

neaeh;\car~horc Reach ~earshono· 

Sarne as barn and Same as benn 

dnn.::restoration. r.::storntion. 

Offshore: Same as 

henurcstoration 

)fishore:"!\oeffcct 

Page 257 
258

cultural resources 

fo1vcirnpad 

aesthetics 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

:Sot lildytohave 

impact 

Sameasbcrmand 

dun..:, H:~toration 

OHShore: Same a~ 

bcnnrestoralJon 

'.',;ot!!kelytohaw 

impad 

Page 258 
259

.iobs 

income 

tax base 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

Offshore: Same as berm Offahorc. Same as 

restoration bcnnrcstoration 

unpact. 

nnpact 

Not likely to have 

impact 

Not likely to !rnni 

impa..:t 

:°'ot likely to have ~ot like!) to h:i.ve Xot likdy to have 

impact impa<.,1. impact. 

Page 259 
260

After the Systems of Accounts screening it was determined that three measures would be 

eliminated from the five remaining. The three measures that were removed from the analysis 

were a Groin Field, Geotextile Tubes, and Benn and Dune Restoration using an Inlet Borrow 

Source. 

The Groin Field was excluded due to the impacts it may have on costs and net benefits and Corps 

guidance in ER 1165-2-130. While a Groin Field would reduce the longshore transport back into 

the accumulated areas around the outfalls, and subsequently keep material in place in North 

Wildwood, it might have only marginal impacts on project benefits while having a very large 

impacts on costs A Rough Order of Magnitude (RO.M.) cost estimate was developed using 

parametric cost data from a previous project where groins were rehabilitated and repaired to 

retain sand in a highly erosive beach area. The estimate was done using 2012 bid results for 

groin repair from the Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Inlet, Absecon Island project and design 

parameters from Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-1617. 

Groin lengths were detennined from the existing beach widths and consultation with EM 1110-

2-1617. These estimates were based on 3 groins extending from the bulkhead line to the surf 

zone in Wildwood in order to keep the sand from migrating downdrift and impacting clogged the 

outfalls. The potential lengths of series of three groins may be necessary to slow the down drift 

erosion of sand from the northern portion of the study area into the southern portions while 

avoiding a large groin offset on the northern side that is common with a single groin system. 

The length of the beaches in the area necessitates a long groin to traverse the entire beach width 

from the bulkhead to beyond the mean low water line. It was assumed that approximately three 

groins totaling 4,500 feet in length would be needed to reduce longshore transport and transition 

the beach at a gradual angle from nrnth to south in order to eliminate the large beach offsets of 

the beach fillet area (Table 69), 

Table 69 Cost Estimates for a Groin field 

Cost estimates were based on construction bids for a similar project The project that the bids 

were based on was the Absecon Island beachfill in Atlantic City, New Jersey and the estimate 

was based on the bids for groin rehabilitation and groin extension for two existing groins in 

Atlantic City at 1'1assachusetts Avenue and Vermont Avenue. Four contractors bid on the 

Atlantic City project for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Each 

contractor bid on five elements including a 1- Massachusetts Avenue groin rehabilitation, 2-

Massachusetts Ave groin extension, 3- Vermont Avenue groin rehabilitation, 4- Vennont 

Avenue groin extension and 5- low profile timber groin. The bids for each feature were 

averaged, and the total length of each feature was then used to detennine the cost per linear foot 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 260 
261

of each feature. The range of potential costs vs. savings for a stone groin field would be cost 

prohibitive based on this estimate. 

The Philadelphia District also preformed a groin analysis as part of the Absecon Island 

Feasibility Study in 1996. The analysis examined whether the construction costs was offset by 

the savings due to reduction in re-nourishment. Four groins were analyzed for possible 

placement south of Atlantic City, NJ. The four groins were each extended several hundred feet 

seaward of MHW. The beach widths there are smaller than the Wildwoods, but the overall 

coastal processes and setting is very similar. It was determined that 20,000 cy of sand was saved 

for a 6-yr re-nourishment interval. This savings varied and increased slightly as the renourishment interval got longer. Below a 5-yr cycle, there was no savings. The groins reduced 

re-nourishment from 540,000 cy to 520,000 cy every 6 yrs. 

A groin(s) separating North Wildwood from Wildwood was in place a reduced the 4-year 

nourishment quantity by 50% from 305,000 cy down to l 52,500 cy. Sand costs between $8.00 

-$10.00 per cubic yard. The cost savings by reducing nourishment would therefore be 

$1,220,000 every four years or annually at $305,000. The annualized cost to construct a 

jetty/groin system at North Wildwood would be significantly higher than this cost savings based 

on the reduced nourishment requirements based on the length of groins required to span the large 

beach at the North Wildwood and Wildwood border. 

Groins are also not recommended for projects advocating periodic nourishment as part of the 

project's construction based on Corps of Engineers guidance. Engineering Regulation 1165-2-

130 indicates that "periodic nourishment by placement of suitable material on a beach at 

appropriate intervals of time, is considered nconstruction" for cost-sharing purposes when, in the 

opinion of the Chief of Engineers, such periodic nourishment would be a more economical 

erosion protection measure than retaining structures such as groins. Thus, projects 

recommending periodic nourishment should not include structures which materially reduce 

littoral drift from reaching downdrift shores" 

Groin placement will not be considered further since the Hereford to Cape May project will be 

recommending periodic nourishment of the selected plan, and a groins costs will likely exceeded 

its benefits. 

Geotextile tubes were excluded due to their perfonnance issues and costs vs. a natural dune. An 

Inlet Bon-ow Source was excluded since it would not meet the planning objectives of reducing 

sand maintenance issues at the outfalls, reduce environmental impacts to inlet borrow sources, 

take advantage of RSM opportunities, or provide customer satisfaction for municipalities dealing 

with excess sand (Wildwood/Wildwood Crest). 

Three measures were considered for detailed cost and benefit estimating in Cycle-3. Bulkhead 

Construction around the Piers was expanded to also consider Dune Construction around the piers 

in the Cycle 3 analysis. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 261 
262

4.7 Cycle-3 

Measures recommended for further consideration in Cycle 3 are listed below. 

I. Berm and Dune restoration using Backpass Technology 

2. Bulkhead Construction around the Piers 

3. Dune Constmction around the Piers 

These 3 remaining measures were evaluated based on an analysis of stonn damage reduction 

benefits versus costs. Designs were formulated and optimized to develop the NED plan for the 

study area. A SO-year period of analysis was used with a June 2007 price level, and a 4.625% 

discount rate. 

The selected plan is determined by comparing expected benefits and estimated costs for a matrix 

of design measures. The selected plan is that which maximizes the amount of net benefits 

(benefits minus costs). Plan selection is not accomplished with the goal of providing a specific 

level of storm protection (e.g., 500 year frequency event). Rather, the selected plan is 

determined based on analysis of damage reduction benefits in response to events over a range of 

frequencies (5-year event through 500-year event). 

4.7.l Beachfill Design Parameters 

In Cycle 3, the beach nourishment measure required optimization of the design parameters. In 

developing these parameters the Shore Protection Manual, Coastal Engineering Tech Notes 

(CETN), the existing conditions in the study area and accepted coastal engineering practices 

were reviewed. Listed below are the boundary conditions utilized to construct a logical 

methodology to efficiently identify the optimum plan. The necessary design parameters for 

beach fill include beach slope; berm elevation and width; and dune width, height and slope. The 

beach slope, berm elevation, dune top width, and dune slope are affected by the prevailing 

natural processes and were based on the study area existing beach conditions. Berm width and 

dune elevation were varied to achieve project optimization. 

Beach Slope. Beach slopes are the result of on-site wave climate and the characteristics of the 

beach material. Both are similar throughout the study area. Existing beach slopes for North 

Wildwood are comparable to other Atlantic ocean shorelines in the mid-Atlantic region. An 

average near shore beach slope throughout the study area of I V:30 H was adopted for all 

measures. 

Berm Elevation. Tides, waves, and beach slope determine the natural berm elevation. If the 

nourished berm is too high, scarping may occur, if too low; ponding of water and temporary 

flooding may occur when a ridge forms at the seaward edge. Design berm heights for each 

measure have an elevation set at the natural betm crest elevation as determined by historical 

profiles. The profile surveys conducted by the Coastal Research Center, Stockton State College 

under contract to NJDEP were used to examine historical bem1 elevations. The existing berm 

elevation for NJ Profile No. CM 111 in North Wildwood, varied between+ 5.4 ft NAVD and+ 

8.0 ft NA VD between 1986 and 2006 with the average berm elevation being 6.8 ft NA VD. It 

was determined that a constructible template which closely matches the prevailing natural berm 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 262 
263

height in the study area would be set at+ 6.5 ft. NA VD. This elevation was used for all designs. 

Benn Width & Dry Beach Width. Four benn widths were modeled with varying dry beach 

widths seaward of the dune. For the purposes of this study, berms widths were defined as the 

distance from the landward toe of dune to the beach slope, and dry beach widths were defined as 

the distance from the seaward toe of dune to the beach slope. An interval between the four 

successive berm widths was chosen for modeling purposes. This interval is set wide enough to 

discern significant differences in costs and benefits between measures but not so great that the 

NED plan cannot be accurately detennined. Additionally, due to the capability of the storm 

modeling methodology and effectiveness of the existing condition parameters, a 25-ft interval 

achieved the desired accuracy. The largest dry beach width per benn considered was 160 ft. The 

smallest width was determined in a similar manner, by analyzing benefits captured with 

minimum dimensions along with the minimum dry beach width required to maintain a 

constructible beach fill given the footprint requirements of varying dune heights and toe 

protection for dune stability. The smallest dry beach width was detennined to be 75 ft based on 

research on the minimum dry beach necessary to protect the existing dune from damages based 

on historic surveys by the District and the New Jersey Beach Profile Network at Richard 

Stockton College. Dune height and the corresponding dune footprint determined the dry beach 

width for each betm. Larger dune footprints resulted in shorter dry beach widths. As dune 

heights increased by 2': the resultant dry beach width decreased by 20' 

Dune Position. Following available Corps guidance, dunes were placed as landward as possible 

in North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. This takes into account 

the location of existing isolated dunes, piers, boardwalks, vehicular rights of way and pedestrian 

access The design layouts tie new dunes into the existing dunes wherever possible. 

Dune Slope. Majority of the existing dunes within the project area have seaward slopes 

averaging 1 V:51-1. Side slopes for all measures were set at 1 V:5H, which was detennined to be 

the optimum condition based on native sand grain size and the grain size of sand to be obtained 

from potential borrow areas. 

Dune Top Width. Dune top width for all measures was set at 25'. That width is considered a 

standard Caldwell width that is common among most dune widths in coastal engineering dunes 

in NJ and Delaware. 

Dunc Elevation. The dune heights we evaluated were sufficiently above the height of the benn 

and existing protective structures in order to provide for additional storm damage protection. 

The minimal dune height the study evaluated was 12 ft. Additionally, dune heights of 14 ft, 16 

ft, 18 ft, and 20 ft were considered for North Wildwood. Dune heights that ranged from+ l2'to + 

16' NA VD 88 were considered in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. 

Dune heights under the amusement piers that run perpendicular to the boardwalk are limited 

above 14. 75' NA VD 88 due to the maximum elevation under the piers. Dune elevations above 

that height will not be able to be constructed to their full height under the piers because the pier 

elevation (14.75 NA VD 88) is below the top of the dune elevation. Past practices involved 

constructed dunes to the full elevations on the sides of the piers and at lower elevations under the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 263 
264

piers, while increasing the dunes width on its landward and seaward side under the pier in order 

to accommodate the decrease in elevation and achieve the same storm damage reduction 

potential. Lower dune elevations may create a situation where structures immediately behind the 

lower dune sections are more vulnerable than at the fully constructed dune, and therefore at a 

greater risk of damage. There are six piers that will restrict the dune elevation above 14', these 

piers are approximately 200' wide and approximately 1,276' ofbeachfront property across 

25,000' (5.1%) of the total length of the project may be at residual storm damage risk behind the 

piers. Our stomn damage modeling did not account for a 200' wide lowered dune section or 

pilings and storage under the pier, so the results of the model represent a dune profile at its full 

height, even though any height over+ 14. 75 NA VD 88 is not possible at these locations. 

Therefore, the model may overestimate the stomn damage protection capability of a dune above 

+14.75 NAVD 88 behind these six pier sections. 

Bulkhead Design. The bulkhead that was selected for cost analysis was steel sheeting bulkhead 

30 feet in length with 20 feet below grade and 10 feet above grade. The estimate considered 

protecting the entire pier section with a bulkhead front, including the boardwalk sections that 

separate the piers, in order to create a continuous system of protection. 

Summary. Based on the design parameters discussed above, 14 combinations of dry beach 

widths and dune heights were generated for North Wildwood Cells I and 2 as shown in Table 

71. Initially, nine measures (alternatives A-1) were generated but results of the COSTDAM 

economic analysis suggested that measures with larger dunes should also be examined 

(alternatives J ~ N). These additional measures were examined from an economic perspective in 

order to make sure that the matrix of measures adequately captured the point where incremental 

increases in beach fill material (costs) exceeded the incremental increases in net benefits. Figure 

106 and Figure 107 show the beach fill measures for Cells l and 2 in North Wildwood. The 

bemn widths for the measures in Cell 2 are shorter and higher than the existing berm width used 

for the w/o project analysis. Existing berm widths in Cell 2 vary from 200 ft. near the northern 

boundary with Cell 1 to 1,000 ft. at the southern boundary with Cell 3. The location of the 

representative profile used for Cell 2 has a berm width of 550 ft. which is approximately the 

average berm width for the cell. Only 400 to 500 ft. of the northern portion of Cell 2 has a bemn 

width less than the measures examined. In addition to the 14 alternatives for Cells I and 2, three 

different dune height alternatives were examined for Cells 3 - 6 in Wildwood, Wildwood Crest 

and Lower Township. Dune position, side slopes, and top widths were kept consistent with the 

dune alternatives examined for Cells 1 and 2. The three dune elevations were 12-, 14-, and 16-

ft. respectively and were evaluated in the same way as cells I and 2, with a 75' berm added to the 

design template. 

4.7.2 Berm and Dune Heights for Previously Authorized Federal Projects 

The District examined the Federally authorized beach nourishment projects in New Jersey Table 

70, as well as local beach nourishment activity by the municipality of North Wildwood in order 

to determine the range of berm and dune dimensions for this project. This provided a starting 

point for bracketing dune heights. Most of the dunes in the Cape May County area range from 

12-16' NGVD, with an 18' NGVD dune at Lower Cape May Meadows Cape May Point. Based 

on this information the dune and berm combinations for the study were developed. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 264 
265

Table 70 Previously Authorized Project Dimensions 

Manasquan-Barnegat - main 

section 22 NAVD88 25 8.5 75 

Manasquan-Barnegat -

Seaside, Pt Pl Bch 18 NAVD88 25 l l.5 100 

LB! 22 NAVD88 25 125 

Brioantine lONAVD88 25 JOO 

16114 NGVD-15/13 

Absecon ACNentnor NAVD 25 8.5 200/100 

Ocean City* 16 NGVD-15 NA VD JO 100 

Gt Egg/Townscnds - Ocean 

Cih 12.8NAVD88 25 100 

Gt Eg_g/Townscnds- O.C., 

Sea Isle, Strathmerc 14.8 NAVD88 25 50 

16 NGVD-15 NAVD 25 8.5 150 

12-16 NGVD-11-15 

NAVD 8.5 25-180 

20 

The City of North Wildwood has been participating in beach nourishment activity with the State 

of New Jersey and FEMA since 2009. The dune height for this beachfill was+ 14. 75 NA VD 88 

and the berm elevation was +6.75 NA VD 88. A listing of the nourishment activity, general 

location of the placement of the fill and fill volumes are contained in Table 71. These beach fills 

were impacted by coastal storms after their constrnction and had to be supplemented by 

additional fill after the initial placement Areas of acute erosion correlate to cell l in North 

Wildwood, the area in front of the amusement piers in North Wildwood and Wildwood and the 

transition area into Wildwood City. 

A large portion of the material placed by North Wildwood was lost as a result of Hurricane 

Sandy. District pre-storm and post storm estimates placed these losses at approximately 348,000 

cubic yards of sand lost from the MHW line to the landward most portion of the beach profile. 

These estimates, along with pre storm and post storm profiles from Hurricane Sandy are 

contained in Section 2.6.5. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 265 
266

Table 71 Dune and Berm Configurations 

12 

14 

16 

12 

14 

16 

12 

14 

16 

18 

18 

20 

20 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

115 

95 

75 

140 

]2{) 

\00 

165 

145 

125 

&O 

105 

85 

110 

160 

Page 266 
267

Figure 106 Cell I in North Wildwood 

Wf ProjectAlternative Plans 

Cell 1 ~ North Wildwood 

Figure 107 Cell 2 in North Wildwood 

Distance Offshore (ft) 

W/ProjectAlternative Plans 

Cell 2 - North Wildwood 

D1stanceOffshore (ft) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 267 
268

Initial Design Quantities. Required beach fill volumes (excluding renourishment) were 

computed for each measure in the Cycle 3 analysis. Volumes were separated into 11 duneu and 11 berm11 to account for the irregularities in shoreline positions found in the study area. "Dune" 

volumes were computed using the difference between the design measure and existing conditions 

and multiplying the unit volume by the appropriate reach length. "Benm" volumes were 

computed by comparing the existing shoreline position in plan view in each cell to a proposed 

MHW line that was representative for each measure. Total "berm" volumes were computed by 

multiplying the differences in shoreline positions by an active profile depth (the average berm 

elevation to the depth of closure). 

The plans were analyzed for erosion, wave attack and inundation damage reductions compared to 

the without project conditions. Initial model results showed that inundation was sensitive to 

dune height and erosion was sensitive to berm width. To a small degree, benm width affected the 

total stonm stage due to the berm's ability to break the waves ti.J11her offshore. Both dune and 

berm affected wave attack. 

The results of the initial model runs indicated measures with larger dunes should also be 

examined (Plan J - Plan N). These additional measures were examined in order to make sure 

that tbe matrix of measures adequately captured the point where incremental increases in beach 

fill material (costs) exceeded the incremental increases in net benefits. Benm widths in excess of 

165' resulted in exceptionally higher quantities without a commensurate increase in the 

perfonnance of reducing the stonn impacts. A similar conclusion was reached with dune heights 

in excess of+ 20' NA VD. For this reason, measures which included wider berms and higher 

dunes were not modeled. 

As more measures were modeled and net benefits calculated, perfonmance trends became 

evident. These trends helped to identify which measures would produce the highest net benefits 

and thereby, optimize the design. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 268 
269

Table 72 Initial Formulation Quantities 

4.7.3 Pier Protection Measures 

In addition to analyzing beach fill measures for Cells I and 2 in North Wildwood, beach fill 

measures were also examined to protect the amusement piers in North Wildwood and Wildwood 

against storm damages (Figure 108 and Figure 109). Historic efforts to protect these piers with 

a dune by the NJDEP were not successful. Two piers are located in North Wildwood at 23''' 

Ave. and 25'" Ave. respectively, and the other three piers are in Wildwood at Juniper Ave, Cedar 

Ave. and Spencer Ave, respectively. The two North Wildwood piers along with the Wildwood 

pier at Juniper Ave. were considered together in one analysis group, and the other two Wildwood 

piers were considered together in another analysis group. As with the beach fill design measures 

for Cell I and Cell 2, the beach nourishment measure for the amusement piers required 

optimization of the design parameters. The analysis incorporated the fact that the beach fill 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 269 
270

parameters would be more susceptible to the prevailing natural processes due to the fact that the 

location is adjacent to the natural mean high water line. The beach fill parameters of beach 

slope, berm elevation, dune width, dune height and dune side slopes were kept consistent from 

the analysis of Cell l and Cell 2 in North Wildwood. A single dry beach width of I 00' seaward 

of the piers was analyzed. The 100' was determined to be the minimum dry beach width 

necessary in order to protect the dune footprint from being compromised seaward of the 

amusement piers against the natural processes. This represented an increase of25' from the 

minimum dry beach width requirement utilized in Cell l and Cell 2. Due to the location of the 

design berm seaward of the amusement piers, quantities of sand required to constmct and 

maintain the berm increased significantly as berm widths increased. Wider berm widths seaward 

of the amusement piers were considered but were determined not be feasible because the 

incremental increases in beach fill material (costs) exceeded the incremental increases in net 

benefits. 

In order to protect the piers from being "flanked", and causing damages to the infrastructure 

beneath them (gas, water, electric) a continuous dune alignment was considered from 23'" Ave. 

in North Wildwood to the dune system at the Wildwood Convention Center as shown in 

Figure 108. The dune heights we evaluated were sufficiently above the height of the berm and 

top of the amusement piers' decking in order to provide for additional storm damage protection, 

principally reducing inundation damages. As with the analysis done for Cell I and Cell 2, the 

minimal dune height evaluated was 12 ft. Additionally, dune heights of 14 ft and 16 ft were 

considered. The additional storm damage protection in Cell 3 from the continuous dune 

alignment adjacent to the boardwalk was minimal due to the low "without project" damages 

calculated for Cell 3. 

Three dune measures were generated for the amusement pier analysis (three dune heights per 

berm for each grouping) Figure 108 and Figure 109 show the 16 foot dune beach fill measures 

for the North group which includes the two North Wildwood piers and the Juniper Ave. pier in 

Wildwood and the South group which includes the other two piers in Wildwood. One steel sheet 

pile bulkheads surrounding the piers was also considered. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 270 
271

Figure 108 Pier Protection Plan View 

Figure 109 Pier Protection Cross Section 

~ ' I 

800 1000 

OistonceOffshorc(fl) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 271 
272

4.7.4 Storm Damage Reduction Benefits 

Expected damages for several different project measures were calculated using the same 

methodologies and databases as previously detailed in the without project conditions. The 

benefits from the project measures were estimated by evaluating damage to structures under with 

and without project conditions. Potential damage reduction to infrastructure, improved property, 

and other auxiliary categories is expected to parallel reduced damage to structures and, therefore, 

was not calculated for the matrix of measures. The eroded shoreline in North Wildwood was 

analyzed first. Plan measures A-N are aligned with the current beach profile landward of the 

amusement pier structures and, therefore, would not protect those structures from storm damage. 

Table 73and Figure llO display the results of the stom1 damage reduction analysis. 

Table 73 North Wildwood Storm Damage Reduction Benefits by Measure 

Without Pro,iect With ProjL>ct 

Plan Proiect T,· JC Stonn Damaffcst Storm Dama!!es 

A 12' Dunc. 115· Benn $2,211.000 

B l4'Dune. 95' Benn $2.211.000 

C 16' Dune. 75' Benn $2.211.000 

D 12· Dune. 140' Benn $2.211.000 

E 14· Dunc. 120' Berm $2.211.000 

F 16' Dune. 100· Benn $2,211.000 

G 12· Dunc. 165' Benn $2.211.000 

H 14· Dune. 145' Berm $2.211.000 

l 16' Dune. 125· Berm $2.211.000 

J 18' Dune. 8(f Benn $2.211.000 

K 18' Dune. 105' Berm $2.21Ul00 

L 20· Dune. 85' Benn $2.211.(l!Xl 

M 20· Dune. 110· Benn $2.2ll.000 

N 20' Dune. 160' Benn $2.211.000 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

$1,887.000 

$1.137.000 

$687,000 

$1.287.000 

$975.000 

$531,000 

$1.180.000 

$6+Ul00 

$459,000 

$461.000 

$212JIOO 

$203.000 

$197.000 

$121,000 

Storm Damage 

Reduction Benefits 

$324.000 

$1,074.000 

$1.524.000 

$924.()00 

$1.236.000 

$1,680.000 

$1.031.000 

$1.567.000 

$1.752.000 

$1.750.000 

$1.999.000 

$2.008.000 

$2.014.000 

$2.090.000 

Percent 

Reduced 

IS% 

49% 

69% 

42% 

56% 

76% 

47% 

71% 

79% 

79% 

90(% 

91% 

91% 

95% 

Page 272 
273

Figure 110 North Wildwood Structure Damage 

North Wil<hwiod Strudure Dama~e 

Slructu:reDamage 

4.7.5 Optimization 

Optimization of the measures is based on maximizing storm damage reduction to structures, 

which is the priority benefit category. This was accomplished by evaluating a combination of 

dune and berm combinations costs against the projects benefits. The optimization for North 

Wildwood can be seen in Table 74. A graphic that better illustrates the net benefits is provided 

in Figure 111. Project induced benefits from backpassing operations and sediment removal 

were accounted for during optimization. Storm damage reduction to infrastmcture and improved 

property, and recreation were not used in the optimization process. Benefits which will accrue 

for those categories will be evaluated for the selected plan alternative only. Initial and 

nourishment costs for the various project measures are annualized for comparison to the average 

annual benefits for each project alternative. Initial construction and periodic nourishment costs 

are annualized over a 50-year period of analysis at an FY14 discount rate of3-Vi%. Monitoring, 

major rehabilitation, and real estate costs will be included for the selected plan alternative. The 

average annual costs are subtracted from and compared to average annual benefits to calculate 

net benefits and the benefit-cost ratio and select the optimal plan, which maximizes net benefits 

The average annual benefits and costs, net benefits and benefit-cost ratio for stonn damage 

reduction are included in below. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 273 
274

Table 74 AAB/AAC/Net Benefits for Backoass Alternative 

Plan Pro·«tT.,,nc AAB AABw/LCF AAC ;\'t"tBmcfits BCR 

3-YR Nourishment C •cle 

A l2'Dune.115'Jknn $324.000 Sl,278JJOO $2,()()7.000 ($729,00[)) 0.64 

14'Dun.:. 95'Berm SUJ74,000 $2.028,000 $2,030.000 (S2JWO) 1.00 

16' Dunc. 75' f:knn ::.U24JXJO S2A78JJOO S2JJ56,000 :i,--122,000 1.21 

D l2'Dune.140'Benn S924.000 SL878,000 S2A8l.OOO ($603.000) 0.76 

l4'Dune. \2lYBerm Sl-236.000 S2J90,0oo $2,503.000 (SJ\3JJOO) 0.87 

l6'Dunco, !(JO' l-knn Sl,68(t000 S2.634,000 52,543,000 :<:.9LOOO 1.04 

G 12' Dune. 165' Benn Si,OJLOOO SL9&5,000 SJJJl2J)00 (SUJ27JJOO) 0.66 

I! 14' Dune. 145'Bs,ml SL567,000 52,521,000 sJ.mrnoo ($514.000) O.S:l 

16'Dun.:, 125'Bs;ml SL752,000 $2.706.000 53,064.000 (SJ58JJOO) 0.88 

t8' Dune. 80'Berm 51,750,000 $2,704.000 S2.577JJOO Sl27,000 1.05 

" l8'Dunc.105'Jkmi SL999JXJO :h2,95.l000 S3,U95.000 (Sl42.000) 0.95 

20' Dunc. 85'lknn S2.008JXJO S2.%2.000 $3.140,000 ($178.000) 0.94 

l\l 20' Dunc, 110' Bam 52.(J14,00() S2.968,000 $4,182,000 (S\,21-IJJOO) 0.71 

.\i 20' Dunc. l 60' l k1111 S2,09(J,00() 53,044,000 $6,.'\67,000 (S:'U23,000) 0.48 

4- rR Srmrishment l\·de 

12' Dunc, 115' Benn S324JJOO ! SJ,278.000 S1,78Ul00 ($503.000) 0.72 

14' Dunc. 95'1kmi SL074,000 52,028,000 SL803,000 S225.000 1.12 

16' Dunc. 75' Benn " $2.478.000 SL8JLOOO S647,000 1.35 

D l2'Dun.-:, 140'[krm S9 SL878,000 $2,223.000 ($345,000) 0.84 

14'Dun.-:.120'Bcrm SL $2,190.000 $2,257.000 ($<,7.000) 0.97 

16' Dunc, 100' Benn SI. S349.000 1 s 

G l2'Dtuie. 165'Ikrm (S7l8.000> 

H 14' Dunc, 145' Berni ($206,000) 

l6'Dun..:.125'fkrm ($49.000) 

18' Dunc. 80'lkrm Sl.750.000 $2,319.000 $385,000 1.17 

K l8'Dmw.105'B,:nn Si.999,000 $2,794,000 $159,000 J.06 

20'Dunc, 85'Bcm1 $2,008,(Xl() $2,834,000 $128-000 105 

" 20'Dun.:,,!JO'J-3,mn S2,014,{XJO $3,776,000 rS808JJ(){J) 0.79 

y 20'Dune, l60'Bcrn1 $2,090,000 S5.735.000 ($2,691,000\ 0.53 

s..rn , .. 

12'Drn1c>, ll5'Bcnn S124000 Sl.278,000 SL784.000 (S506,000) 0.72 

H l4'Dunc, 95' Benn SJ,074,000 $2.028.000 SL796,000 $232.000 1.13 

!6'Dunc, 75'Bcrm $1524.000 $2.478,000 SI,823,000 S655,000 l.36 

D t2' Dune, 140' B,mn S924.000 Sl.878,000 S2,20!.000 '$.123J){)()) 0.85 

l4'Dunc>. 120'1-knn SL236,000 S2.J9o.ooo $2,224,000 ($34,000) 0.98 

16'Dunc, lOO'Bmn $1,680,000 $2,634,000 $2,255,000 $379,000 1.17 

() l2'Dun.:,.J65'!:krm SUJ:ILOOO SI.985,000 $2,696,000 ($711,000) 0.74 

14' Dun..:. 145' lknn SU67.<XJO S2,52Ul00 $2,719.000 1$198,0001 0.93 

16' Dunc>. 125' 13.:,nn SL752,000 $2,706,000 $2,747,000 &tl.000 0.99 

l8'Di.me, 80'Ben11 $1,750,000 $2.704,000 $2,284.000 $420,000 l.18 

18' Dunc, 105' Benn Sl.999.000 52,953,000 S2.78LOOO Sl72,000 J.06 

20' Dun.:,, 85' Benn $2,()()8,(){)0 $2.962,000 $2,819.000 S14.i.OOO 1.05 

" 20' Dun~. 110' B.:,1111 $2,014,000 $2.968,000 $3,747,000 M7"'°"'" 0.79 

).I 20' Dun.:,, l 60' Berni S2,090,000 $5,787,000 (Sl.74" '""" 0.53 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 274 
Figure 111 Benefits Optimization for North Wildwood 

North Wildwood Net Benefits with 5% u

$1,000,000 

$500,000 

$0 

-$500,000 

-$1,000,000 -$1,500,000 -$2,000,000 -$2,500,000 -$3,000,000 -$3,500,000 -$4,000,000 12' 14' li6' 

I Dune, Dune, Dune, 1401 

12' 14' 

Dune, 

120' 

16' 

Dune, 

100' 

12' 

Dune, 

165' 

14' 

Dune, 

145' 

Berm I Berm 1

1 

Berm Berm Berm 95' Berm1· 75' Berm , 

BC DIE F G H 

1

Du

12

Be

($2,000) $422,000 ($603,01($313,00 $91,000 ($1,027, . ($514,00' ($35

. ~25,~~647,o~ ($345,oo I ($67,~o $349,ooo ($71:ll.:~ ($206,00 ($49

232,~~I $655,000 ($323,00 i ($34,~0 $379,000 ($711,00 I ($198,00 ($41

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

iii 3 year cycle Ill 4 year cycle l>J 5 year cycle 

Pag
276

Figure 11 l indicates that the plan that reasonably maximizes the project net benefits is Plan C 

with a 4, or a 5 year nourishment cycle. Only $8,000 separates the two cycles but this analysis 

does not yet account for annual Local Costs Forgone benefits associated with outfall 

maintenance from sand clogging. These maintenance costs exceed the $8,000 that separates the 

4 year cycle from the 5 year cycle above, and any situation that triggers one year of outfall 

maintenance activities detailed in this report would negate any gains from choosing the 5 year 

cycle over the 4 year cycle due to storm damage reduction benefits alone. ln a systems context, 

the 4 year cycle will have greater net benefits than the 5 year cycle since it would reduce the 

occurrence of outfall maintenance costs which are detailed to be on the order of $75,000 per year 

in Wildwood and $148,00 per year in Wildwood Crest. 

Only the first two cells in North Wildwood were evaluated for storm damage analysis when the 

study began. After this analysis the results showed residual damages in Wildwood, Wildwood 

Crest and Lower Township. Therefore, a plan was evaluated for these areas. Table 75 shows 

the results of the benefit cost analysis for protecting Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower 

Township with a dune and berm. Dune heights above+ 16' NA VD 88 were not evaluated since 

the results in North Wildwood indicated that +16 NAVD 88 dune was the optimal plan. Berm 

widths were selected to be 75' as the minimum width necessary to protect the dune and 

appurtenances since the smallest berm width was optimized for North Wildwood. 

Table 75 Wildwood and Wildwood Crest and Lower Township AAB, AAC, Net Benefits 

Plan Project Benn AAB AAC Net Benefits BCR 

Type 

AA 1r Dunc 75' $!.57-UJOO $112.000 $1.462.000 14.05 

BB 14' Dunc 75' $1.986.000 $173.000 $1.813.000 11.48 

cc 1(/ Dunc 75' $2.231,000 $245.000 $1,986.000 9.11 

Three simulations for Wildwood and Wildwood Crest were done using the same methodology 

(SBEACH/COSTDAM work flow) as described for the dune/berm template combinations done 

for North Wildwood. In addition, the same H&H/Econ workflow using SBEACH & CO STD AM 

was done for Wildwood and Wildwood Crest using a representative post-construction beach 

profile that took into account removal of sand from the borrow area with the selected plan dune 

height. 

Plan C with a 16-foot dune and a 75-foot berm was used as a base plan to evaluate extending 

protection to the low-lying amusement piers in the study area. Plans Cl, C2, and C3 were 

developed to determine whether additional beach fill to protect the piers would be incrementally 

justified. Table 76 shows the resulting incremental average annual costs to expand protection 

around the ends of the piers. The benefits include the maximum potential storm damage 

reduction benefits to pier infrastructure. A steel sheet pile barrier around the piers was also 

evaluated and is presented. These options were eliminated from the analysis due to the limited 

benefit potential and prohibitively high cost. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 276 
277

Table 76 North Wildwood and Wildwood Piers AAB, AAC, Net Benefits & BCR by Plan 

Plan Pro.iect Type AAB I AAC Net Benefits BCR 

DUNE 

Cl 12' Dunc, JOO' Berm $400.000 $857,000 ($457,000) 0.47 

CZ 14· Dunc. 100· Benn $401.(100 $Ll35,000 ($734.000) (1.35 

C3 16' Dune, 100' Benn $497,000 $1.410.000 ($913.000) 0.35 

STEEL SHEET PJI,E 

SI Steel Sheeting $497.()00 I $L658.000 ($U6Ul00) 0.30 

The Cycle 3 analysis shows that the optimum dune and berm combination was Plan C, the 16 

dune 75 berm in N011h Wildwood across all nourishment cycles (3,4, and 5). This was one of 

only five berm and dune configurations to show positive net benefits across 14 scenarios over the 

three nourishment cycles. The other scenarios with positive net benefits were Plan B, F, J, K, 

and L The benefits for these options were less than Plan C. The plan alternative selected to 

alleviate the severe erosion in North Wildwood includes the construction of a dune with a height 

of 16' (NAVO) and a berm with a width of 75' The backpass option was reviewed and selected 

in an effort to maximize benefits and employ a systems approach to combine protecting property 

and infrastructure at the northern end of the island with improving beach conditions in Wildwood 

and Wildwood Crest/Lower Township. The presence of a wide feeder beach provides adequate 

sand to form protective dunes in the cells of the study area that lack this additional height buffer. 

Dune scenarios within Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township showed positive 

benefits across all three scenarios with the 16' dune having the greatest net benefits. A 75' berm 

will also be placed in front of the dune for protection of the dune toe from scour, protection of 

the appurtenances and in case of PL 84-99, FCCE emergencies and the entire beaches needs 

replacement The dune volume in this area was determined to be minimal, will have a small 

impact on costs and would likely maximize at the 75' length similar to North Wildwood. 

Protecting the piers with a dune or bulkhead was not feasible for two reasons; I-the dune at the 

seaward end of the amusement pier eroded rapidly after a locally constructed project was placed 

in 2009 and 2- bulkhead and dune construction around the piers had negative net benefits. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 277 
278

4.8 Summary of Optimized Plan 

The Project Development Team (PDT) employed a systems based, incremental analysis and lifecycle approach to the quantification of benefits, costs and uncertainties consistent with ER 

1105-2-100 to optimize the selected plan and determine the National Economic Development 

(NED) benefits for the Hereford to Cape May Inlet study area. Optimal plans are those plans 

that maximize net NED benefits without violating the pre-established planning criteria and study 

objectives. 

For North Wildwood, the PDT analyzed various dune elevations and berm configurations 

between+ 12 NA VD 88 and+ 20 NAVO 88 (75-foot minimum berm width) to detennine the 

optimum net benefits. This included fourteen different configurations for three nourishment 

cycles for a total of 51 separate scenarios. Table 74 shows the results of this analysis and 

demonstrates that a 16-foot dune with a 75-foot berm produced the maximum net benefits. This 

is the optimal plan for North Wildwood. 

The physical features, wave climate and tidal range of Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower 

Township are similar enough to North Wildwood to use the later as a starting point for the storm 

damage analysis in the remaining towns. Therefore, the team applied engineering judgment and 

S.M.A.R.T. planning principles to the optimization process based on the results of the North 

Wildwood analysis. The project team analyzed dune heights at+ 12 NAVO 88, + 14 NAVO 88, 

and+ 16 NA VD 88 and a berm width at 75 feet for Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower 

Township based on the results of the North Wildwood optimization and applied a risk-based 

decision process to evaluate the maximum allowable residual risk acceptable to the non-Federal 

sponsor and to provide for a systems based approach along the study area. This analysis resulted 

in a+ 16 NA VD 88 dune with a 75-foot berm for Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower 

Township as the optimum plan, which is consistent with the plan for North Wildwood. 

The plan with the highest net benefits while meeting the study's objectives is Plan C in North 

Wildwood and Plan CC in Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. Plans Cl through 

C3 and SI that were designed to protect the piers had negative net benefits and benefit cost ratios 

less than one. Detailed designs, cost estimates and environmental assessments will be evaluated 

for implementation of Plan C and Plan CC in Section 5, Selected Plan. 

The dune system along the boardwalk will not channel flood waters to the amusement piers 

during storm events. During large storm events, the dune will erode under the direct impact of 

wave forcing due to elevated storm surge levels and wave processes. Dunes do not increase 

water depths associated with coastal storms and water levels seaward of the dune are the same 

for "without projecf1 and nwith projectn conditions. No induced damages are anticipated at the 

piers due to the presence of the dune system. 

4.9 Resiliency, Risk Reduction and Snstainability 

4.9. l Resiliency 

Resiliency can be measured by post storm engineering resilience, ecological resilience and community 

resilience. Given the absence ofan explicit definition of the term we evaluated the definition of 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 278 
279

"resilience" presented in the February 2013 USACE-NOAA white paper "Infrastructure Systems 

Rebuilding Principles. 

"Resilience. Ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption 

due to emergencies" 

A comparable definition of"resilience" is presented in '"'Disaster Resilience: A National 

Imperative" by the National Academies Press (2012): 

.. the ahility to prepare and p/anfi>r, ahsorh, recover.from, and more succesifully adapt to 

adverse erents ". [Definition 2] 

Shore protection projects are engineered beaches that are designed, constructed, and periodically 

nourished to reduce the risk of economic losses arising from coastal storms, primarily along 

communities with high-value public and private infrastructure immediately landward of the 

beach_ Most shore protection projects have been authorized for and constructed in communities 

with a history of at least five decades and in some cases more than a century of intensive human 

influence, development, and investment. Shore protection projects are generally constructed to 

replicate the function of beaches in areas that were once part of natural, undeveloped systems 

that have subsequently experienced significant human development and utilization. 

Storms reduce the degree of protection provided by the beach fill project; elevated water levels 

and larger-than-normal waves displace sand from the berm and dune portions of the engineered 

beach profile and transport it principally in the offshore direction. After the storm, normal tide 

and wave conditions return, typically resulting in onshore-directed sand transport that rebuilds at 

least a portion of the berm (i.e., beach). This natural recovery of the beach berm occurs over a 

period that may range from days to months. Natural rebuilding of the dune is a process that 

requires years to decades, given its dependence on wind transport and an adequate sand supply 

on the beach. 

In the period between the storm and the partial natural recovery, an increased level of storm 

damage risk exists due to the eroded condition of the project berm and dune relative to the level 

of risk associated with a constructed, fully maintained project. Consequently, repair ofan 

engineered beach to its design dimensions is usually accomplished as a planned renourishment, 

which is included in the authorized period of analysis cycle, or as an emergency activity under 

the USACE Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies authority (PL 84-99), to restore the storm 

damage risk reduction function for which the project was authorized. This post-storm repair is 

necessary because the engineered beach may not otherwise fully recover to its authorized 

dimensions naturally, or at least not in a time frame that would minimize risks due to the 

deteriorated condition. 

In this regard, it is apparent that shore protection projects involving beach replenishment possess 

intrinsic "resilience", in light of the large volume of sediment that remains within the system 

after a major disturbance and the associated repair or replenishment that is included to restore the 

protective features to the project design dimensions. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 279 
280

Community Resilience. Although shore protection projects including beachfill are sacrificial by 

nature with the degree of resiliency described above, they do provide storm damage risk 

reduction that contributes significantly to the "resilience" of the community in which the project 

is located. Beach fill projects reduce coastal storm damages, as was amply demonstrated in 

October 2012 during Sandy at constructed projects (see USACE "Project Performance 

Evaluation Study" dated 6 November 2013). Engineered beaches prevent damages that would 

have occurred in the absence of the project. In doing so, they significantly contribute to the 

larger notion of"cornmunity resilience". That is, by reducing damages from coastal stonns they 

provide the community with the "ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and 

rapidly recover.from disruption due to emergencies" (per Definition l above). 

With a project in place, storm dan1ages are less severe than would have been the case in the 

absence of the project. With a project in place, fewer homes, businesses, and public 

infrastructure elements are damaged and destroyed, and fewer lives are disrupted or lost. 

Transportation and critical health and public safety assets return to full function after a storm 

more quickly. All oftbese considerations lessen the duration and reduce the costs of the 

recovery period, and consequently make the community more resilient than would have been the 

case without the project in place. 

4.9.2 Risk Analysis 

ER 1105-2-101, "Risk Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies" (3 January 2006) 

provides guidance on the framework to be used in Corps of Engineers flood damage reduction 

studies in order to incorporate risk and uncertainty into project planning and design. This ER 

updates and expands on guidance in EM 1110-2-1619, "Risk-based Analysis for Flood Damage 

Reduction Studies" (I August 1996). 

The 2006 publication recommends varying certain input parameters that could have an impact on 

study conclusions. This analysis was included as part of the risk and uncertainty analysis in 

Section 5 of this report. Key economic and hydrologic parameters were varied to produce a 

range of potential benefits and costs of the selected plan. The greatest contributor to deviations 

from the selected plan's benefits was from the extreme high sea level rise calculation and a 

future without project projected erosion rate on the projects profile. These factors contributed to 

a dramatic increase in project benefits and BCR. 

4.9.3 Risk Reduction 

This project contributes to long term risk reduction over the fifty year period of analysis by 

reducing the impacts from coastal storms. Storm damages without a project in place will be more 

frequent and with greater impact than with a project in place. The study are will see less 

damages with a berm and dune in place, indicating a risk reduction from the without project 

condition. Table 77 indicates that storm damages are reduced significantly island wide with the 

implementation of the selected plan. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 280 
281

Table 77 Risk Reduction for Without Project and With Project by Cell 

Probability of Type 

Occurrence 

2% Flooding 0.50% Flooding 

200/0 Flooding 5'Yo Flooding 

20% Flooding 0.20% Waye/Flooding 

PYo Erosion/Flooding 0.20% All 

2% Flooding 0.50% Flooding 

2% Flooding 2% Flooding 

This project will not completely eliminate damages within the study area. Even with the project 

in place the study area still has the risk of residual damages. These are damages that we cannot 

prevent with the project in place. These damages occur from overlapping of the dune and berm 

as a result of a storm that exceeds the identified NED plan and back bay flooding. Damages will 

also occur in areas of the project that could not be protected like the amusement piers. The with 

project condition will still have damages from coastal storms for the communities on the island. 

4.9.4 Sustainability 

There are multiple definitions of the word sustainable and several definitions of the term 

sustainability are presented below, along with references to their source. 

Definition 1.- Sustainability refers to the capacity to endure and remain productive over 

time, which is very well aligned with the concept r!f adaptation, which is ''Adjustment in 

natural or human ,\)'Stems to a new or changing environment that exploits beneficial 

opportunilies or moderates negative effects." (USA CE CL!MA TE CHANGE 

ADAPTATION PLAN AND REPORT 201 l). 

Definition 2- Hve1:vthing that H'e needfbr our survival and lrell-being depend'!", either 

direct~v or indirectly, on our natural environment. Sustainability creates and maintains 

the conditions under which humans and nature can exi.\'I in productive harmony, that 

permitfu(filling the social, economic and other requirements (Jjpresent and future 

generations. Sustainability is important to making sure that we have and u·ill continue to 

have, the water, material',;, and resources to protect human health and our enFironment. 

(Environmental Protection Agency) 

Definition 3-Relaling to, or heing a method (?[harvesting or using a resource so that the 

resource is not depleted or permanently damaged (Merriam Webster) 

A common thread to these definitions is the need to promote productivity and well being over 

time, the need to promote the coexistence of humanity and nature, and the need to minimize 

negative effects on the environment so it will be available for future generations. At the 2005 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 281 
282

World Summit on Social Development it was noted that sustainability requires the reconciliation 

of environmental, social and economic demands . This view has been expressed as an 

illustration using three overlapping ellipses indicating that the three pillars of sustainability are 

not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing. 

The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet project meets sustainability goals across multiple 

definitions of the term since it is required to incorporate these three pillars of sustainability in a 

feasibility analysis for the fifty year length of the project. Environmental concerns are evaluated 

in the Environmental Assessment and through coordination and review by the resource agencies 

including the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection as part of the feasibility process. Economic 

principals are used in benefit calculations, plan formulation ranking, and project justification by 

their contributions to the National Economic Development account. Social accounts are intrinsic 

in beach nourishment projects since they maintain habitat for beach patrons. The nexus of these 

three pillars indicates that a project is sustainable. 

Figure 112 The Three Pillars of Sustainability, World Summit on Social Development 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 282 
283

5.0 Selected Plan 

5.1 Identification of the Selected Plan 

The Planning Guidance Notebook (1 [05-2-100) recommends "selecting the alternative plan that 

reasonably maximizes net economic benefits convistent with protectinK the Nation's 

environment". This criteria was used to select a plan for implementation. Design parameters for 

the selected plan can be seen in section 4.7.1 of this report. 

5.1.1 Description of the Selected Plan 

The selected plan is a dune and berm constmcted using sand obtained from an onshore borrow source 

located a the southern end of Five Mile Island Table 79. The plan extends approximately 4.5 miles 

from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and will encompass the towns of North Wildwood, Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. The southernmost beach section, which contains US Fish and 

Wildlife Property, is not included in the selected plan. The project will include a +16' NA VD 88 dune, 

with a 25' crest on a 75' berm that is+ 6.5' NAVD88 in elevation in North Wildwood, Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. Side slopes for the dune will be I V:5H. The plan includes 

approximately 64 acres of dune grass, 28,000 linear feet of sand fence, 44 extended crossovers, 7 new 

pedestrian crossovers, 7 extended handicap crossovers, 6 new handicap crossovers, 8 existing vehicle 

crossover extensions and 5 new vehicular crossovers. The dune appurtenances requirements were based 

on existing pedestrian pathways, existing vehicular pathways and the inclusion of Americans with 

Disabilities Act complaint crossover structures to accommodate the fact that based on the existing 

profile, the beach is almost I 00% ADA compliant. Without the proposed ADA access the dune would 

not be ADA compliant. The sand for the dune and berm will be pumped from the southern borrow area 

using mobile backpassing technology to hydraulically pump the sand from the Wildwood and Wildwood 

Crest borrow source to the placement area on a four year nourishment cycle. The initial sand quantity is 

estimated at 1,527,250 cubic yards, which includes a design quantity of 1,136,000 and advanced 

nourishment of 391,000 yards. 

The backpass option will be less costly than the offshore dredging option based on lower sand 

unit costs, lower mobilization costs and higher Local Costs Forgone benefits associated with 

sand backpassing. A recent comparison to 3 dredging projects in New Jersey based on 2014 

Limited Reevaluation Reports indicates that pumping sand from NJ offshore dredging sites 

ranges in costs from $9.32 cyd to $15.18 cyd depending on location and pumping distance, while 

the current backpass estimate is $3.61- $6.05cyd (2014 P.L.). Mobilization costs for Hereford 

backpassing operations are $1,284,000 (2014 PL) for the current Hereford estimate, while 

mobilization costs for an inlet/offshore dredging job is averaging approximately $2,500,000 

(2014 PL). Local Costs Forgone benefits will also decrease under an offshore dredging 

scenario since local benefits such as elimination of outfall clearing ($75,000 per year in 

Wildwood) and reduced outfall extensions ($148,000 per year in Wildwood Crest) (Section 

5.4.4) will not be achievable under an offshore dredging operation. 

Impacts to recreation in Wildwood City were raised by the Mayor of Wildwood during the Public 

Comment pe1iod. The selected plan proposes to shorten the beach with sediment backpassing and 

elevate the berm and construct dune to create a storm damage reduction feature, which may reduce the 

opportunities the mayor has for recently developed recreation plans. The mayor of Wildwood had 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 283 
284

planned a Recreational Vehicle (RV) park on the beach, had held a summer concert series in 2013, and 

has other existing recreation events on the heach including sporting and youth events. With the project 

in place - the recreational area of the berm will still range from 300-1, l 00 ft depending on location, and 

the Corps believes that a storm damage reduction feature and recreation opportunities can co-exist in 

the study area. We will work with the Mayor to make every effort to have zero impact to his plans. 

5.1.2 Prriodic Nourishment Requirement~ 

In order to maintain the integrity of the design beachfill alternatives, beachfill nourishment must 

be included in the project design. If periodic nourishment was not perfmmed throughout the life 

of the project, longshore and cross shore sediment transport mechanisms, separate from storm 

induced erosion, would act to erode the design beach. A four year nourishment cycle was chosen 

as the cycle interval over the five year plan even though the 5 year cycle had annual net benefits 

that were $8,000 greater. The basis for this decision was in the application of Local Costs 

Forgone benefits of the backpassing operation was annualized at $75,000 per year in Wildwood 

and $148,000 per year in Wildwood Crest (Section 5.4.4). Longshore transport direction 

indicates that material would arrive in the study area through natural processes and eventually 

build the shoreline seaward, eventually clogging the outfalls. Once the outfalls are clogged the 

municipalities would have to expend funds to remove the excess sediment equal to the amount 

outlined in the Local Costs Forgone estimate, which exceeds the annualized $8,000 difference 

between the 4 year and 5 year nourishment cycles. The decision to recommend the 4 year cycle 

over the 5 year cycle is therefore policy compliant since the application of the annualized Local 

Costs Forgone benefits in a systems context would elevate the 4 year cycle benefits over the 5 

year cycle benefits by reducing outfall maintenance costs. 

The nourishment parameters were developed by considering background erosion losses using 

shoreline recession rates developed in the historic shoreline change analysis, losses due to the 

predicted rate of sea level rise, and "spreading out" losses due to diffusion of the beachfill 

through longshore transport gradients. 

The first step in the calculation of nourishment rates was to compute representative wave 

characteristics and potential net longshore transport rates based upon the OCT! wave hindcast. 

A WIS phase Ill transformation was done to transform the deepwater waves from the OCT! 

hindcast described in Section 2.6.1 to shallower water. The program SEDTRAN was then used 

as discussed in Section 2.6.7 along with representative shoreline angles for each community on 

the barrier island to calculate potential net transport rates for each community along with 

representative wave characteristics along the barrier island. The representative wave 

characteristics computed by SEDTRAN included: effective wave height, mean wave period and 

wave angle. 

A planform evolution model (Table 78) was then developed that required the following inputs: 

The effective wave height, period, angle, and longshore transport rates from the SEDTRAN 

simulations, a representative shoreline angle, and an equivalent beachfill width representing the 

size of the berm of the proposed beachfill. Beachfill percent remaining after any given year was 

output from the planforrn evolution model. Inputs to the planforrn evolution model are 

summarized below 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 284 
285

Table 78 Planform Evolution Model Inputs 

" ·<; )'~ralllete),/ ... :•: ··.· 1· i., Vafl!i\, :.:. 

Effective Wave Height 2.8 ft. 

Mean Period 4.7 sec. 

Wave Angle 133 deg. wrt 

North 

Representative Shoreline 47 deg. wrt North 

An.gle 

Background Transport Rate 420,000 cv I vr 

Nourished Beach Width 75 ft 

The background transport rate of 420,000 cy/yr is consistent with the value reported previously 

in Table 34 for North Wildwood. The planform evolution model is a grid based model, and to 

account for end losses and diffusion of the beachfill, the grid was extended to the south. A zero 

nourished beach width was simulated in this grid extension. The grid was not extended to the 

nmth due to the presence of Hereford Inlet The planform evolution model did not consider the 

down drift borrow area at Wildwood and Wildwood Crest It was assumed that the borrow area 

would have minimal impact on the fill area given the distance between the northern most outfall 

as shown in Figure 117 and end of the fill area as shown in Figure 118 (Magnolia Drive). 

These plan sheets do show that the fill and borrow areas are adjacent to each other. However, it 

should be noted that emphasis when it comes time to take sand within the borrow area will be at 

outfall locations, and it should also be noted that the constructed berm as shown on the plans that 

is adjacent to the borrow area is relatively small compared to the larger berm that is required at 

the northern end of the project This smaller constructed berm was assumed to have a negligible 

impact on the borrow area especially since the outfall where most likely material will be taken 

from is a significant distance away from Magnolia Ave. (approx. 2200 ft). 

Output from the planforn1 evolution model includes percent of original beachfill remaining after 

a given year. Experience gained by District personnel from ongoing monitoring of similar 

beachfills for neighboring northern parts of barrier islands in New Jersey suggest that 

approximately 70% of a beachfill remains after 4-years. Output from the model suggested that 

the percent of the original fill remaining after 4-years should be approximately 64% for the 

selected plan. To be conservative, the study team lowered the beachfill remaining percentage 

slightly to 60% in order to account for the location of the beachfill in relation to Hereford Inlet 

The 60% was applied to the initial quantity used in the model which resulted in a 4-year 

nourishment rate of approximately of305,000 cy (no overfill factor applied) for Cells 1 and 2 

combined with the majority ofit being for Cell 1. Since the borrow area is the beach itself in 

front of Wildwood and Wildwood Crest and that the sand characteristics are similar along the 

entire barrier island, a 1: 1 overfill factor was assumed for future nourishment cycles. 

It should be noted that tbe 305,000 cy every 4-years may appear to be low and inconstant when 

compared to tbe potential net transport rate of 420,000 cy every year and the most recent erosion 

rates quantified in the shoreline change analysis for North Wildwood presented in the Table 40 

as 60 ft/yr. However, the value can be considered to be reasonable based upon a couple of 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 285 
286

factors· 

l. A comparison was done of computed nourishment quantities against other projects the District 

has done in New Jersey. For this study the computed nourishment rate was calculated to be 19 

cy per foot per year. This value was based upon a 4,000 foot beachfill length that covers Cells I 

and a small part of Cell 2. This value of 19 cy per foot per yr is slightly higher than other rates 

computed for the District's New Jersey's constructed projects which ranged from 7 to 15 cy per 

foot per yr and New Jersey's authorized but unconstructed projects which ranged from 3 to 13 cy 

per foot per yr. lt is reasonable to assume that re-nourishment for North Wildwood be higher 

than other projects within the District; however to assume a significantly higher rate is most 

likely erroneous because as the long-term history has shown, the shoreline of North Wildwood 

has experienced periods of natural accretion in the past. 

2. The reported net transport value of 420,000 cy/yr for North Wildwood is based upon several 

assumptions as the report suggests in Section 2.6.7. Namely that the rate assumes an "endless" 

supply of sand, free from influences of adjacent inlets or structures. As it is stated in Section 

2.6.7, the actual sediment transport rate for North Wildwood could be less when considering the 

impact of Hereford Inlet. It should also be noted that the calculated transport rate was based 

upon wave characteristics and shore alignment for the years of 1986 1998. Long-term history 

suggests that transport rates could be smaller based upon the other longer time periods relative to 

2003 that are shown in Table 40. 

3. The reported erosion rate of 60 ft/yr for North Wildwood between the years of 1998-2003 as 

shown in Table 40 is relative to a small time period of accelerated erosion that is not typical of 

the long-term trends of the shoreline in North Wildwood. For example in Table 40, the longer 

time period of 1977-2003 suggest that the erosion in North Wildwood was around 24 ft/yr 

(longer time periods relative to 2003 even suggest shoreline accretion). This value of24 ft/yr is 

less than half of the more recent accelerated rate of60 ft/yr. To disregard the erosion trends over 

the longer time periods and to focus solely on the most recent shorter trend of accelerated erosion 

could lead to the conclusion that nourishment should be higher. Only further data collection and 

monitoring efforts will indicate if the recent accelerated shoreline erosion rates in North 

Wildwood are a trend or an anomaly. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 286 
287

Table 79 Description of the Selected Plan 

. ... ·'Design; lcomponeilt '• 

Bonn Elevation 

I3crmWidih 

Seaward Berm Slope 

DuncElcwtion 

Dunc Width at Crest 

Dunc Side Slope,~ 

Dunc Olhct for ),laintenancc of Existing 

S!rncturcs 

J,ongthofPrnjcct 

Jnitrnl Sand()uantit\ 

Pcrit,dic Nourishment Quantity 

~1a·or Re Jlaccment Qmmtit\ 

TanerScction 

Bonow Source Location 

Dune Gras, 

Sand Fence 

IIandicnn Cr(NSOY<:rs 

Pedestrian Dunc Cro~sov,;n, 

'6.5XWD88 

75fod 

15 

30fcct 

25,000foct 

L527,250 

391,(}{)() 

544.250 

"Jorth..-m taner -200 fret, 

Beach in Wildwood Crm,t. Wildwood and 

LO\\erTownship_ 

64acrcs 

7e;,,istin•.6ncw 

44cx1~tmo, 7n<l\\ 

8cx1sting, 5ne\, 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

?\orth \\'i]d\\OOd, \Vild,,ood, Wild\\OOd 

Crostandl,oworTm\nship 

Henn width mca~urcd from seaward bas<! of 

dunctobcnncrcst 

Same as average existing condition 

Similartosurroundin>rc ionalbcachcs 

Standtm!Cald,,cll section 

Standard Caldwell ~ectmn 

Rcquir\.'d dtmc offsets arc rdkctcd in 

sckckdn\an!a,:out 

Projcctc:,.,.is,nd~ from i\01th \Vild\toodto 

~out hem ti of Diamond Ikach 

lndndcs 11dY1mad nourishment wilh overfill 

Indudcsowrfil! 

lndude~ perio<lK' nourishment \'.ith owrfill: 

~ame dune gniss and sand foncc quantities as 

initial fill 

Ovcrfillfactorofl.5forbotTowmakrial 

l8"'sacin<> 

Alon;, bnse of dune ruJd at crossover; 

Page 287 
288

5.1.3 Borrow Area Infilling Analysis 

An analysis to determine potential longshore sediment transpoti was done in order to ascertain 

possible infilling rates post dredging of the borrow area along the beaches of Wildwood and 

Wildwood Crest (Table 80). Longshore or littoral transport can both supply and remove sand 

from coastal areas. In order to determine the balance of sediment losses and gains for an area 

such as the borrow area, net, rather than gross, transport rates are required. Net longshore 

transport refers to the difference between volume of material moving in one direction along the 

coast and that moving in the opposite direction. The design of the selected plan is consistent with 

accepted coastal enginee1ing practice and Corps criteria described in the Coastal Engineering 

Manual. Implementation of the selected plan may cause temporary steep drop offs and small 

depressions along the beach during the initial construction. All construction areas are roped off 

and secure during construction, and the design profile is a smooth beach profile that mimics the 

existing slope. Beach conditions that could temporarily be hazardous to the community will be 

avoided by creating a profile that mimics the natural topography as planned in this document and 

designed in the project specifications. Safety zones will also be established around active 

construction areas. 

The time period analyzed based upon available data was from 1986 to 1998. As part of the 

investigation, potential longshore transport rates due to waves were computed. The resulting 

longshore transport rates are shown in the table below. 

Table 80 Potential Longshore Transport Rates 

The values in the table indicate that generally, there is a net southward transport which may vary 

from 370,000 to 440,000 cubic yards per year within the study area. The trends in the estimates 

for the net longshore transport show southward transport to be almost doubled of northward 

transport. The rates computed can be used as a potential infilling rate for the borrow area along 

the beaches of Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. 

The values in the table should be viewed as representative of potential average conditions over a 

span of 12 years from 1986 to 1998 It can be expected, however, that changes in longshore 

sediment transport could happen in a seasonal timcframc and could contribute significantly to 

both the short- and long-term infilling rates of the borrow area. It would be anticipated that 

shortly after removing any sand from the borrow area that there would be a short-term 

accelerated infilling rate of sand coming from the north followed by a period of time that is more 

representative of the long-tem1 average infilling rate. It is recommended that any removal of 

sand from the borrow area be done over as wide of an area as possible within the borrow area as 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 288 
289

oppose to removing sand in a small concentrated area. This would help maintain the natural 

coastal processes in the area. 

A periodic nourishment quantity of 305,000 cu yds (minus overfill) was estimated by modeling 

the selected plan layout as a single domain using the Planform Evolution Model, a numerical tool 

that calculates background erosion and alongshore spreading losses associated with beach fill 

construction. Advanced and periodic nourishment quantities include an overfill factor of 1.25 

based on the use of sand from the selected borrow areas. 

5.1.4 Project Construction Template 

The constructed beach fill template typically varies from the design template because of 

working limitations of equipment used to place and shape the fill. After placement, sorting of 

the fill by waves and currents will naturally shape the constructed fill profile to an equilibrium 

form consistent with the design template. To account for these factors, the construction template 

is developed based on the "overbuilding method."The overbuilding method involves placing the 

required design quantity at the proposed berm elevation, but with a berm width greater than the 

design width. The seaward slope of the construction berm is generally equal to or steeper then 

the natural existing equilibrium slope. The constructed benn is "overbuilt" in the sense that it is 

wider than the intended design berm. Coastal processes readjust the profile to a natural 

equilibrium state. In this case much of the overbuilt benn sand moves offshore to form the 

intended design profile. The proposed construction and design templates for the selected plan are 

shown in Figure 116 through( Figure 121). In these figures the part of the design template 

labeled "Design Offshore Volume" is the quantity that is placed up on the beach as a part of the 

overbuilt berm, labeled "Design Offshore Volume Placed Onshore" The advanced nourishment 

quantity is also included in the overbuilt construction berm template. Beach fill construction 

using the overbuilding method often leaves the impression that much of the project sand has 

been lost soon after construction due to rapid readjustment of the construction profile. However, 

rather than being "lost," this offshore movement of sand is an indication that the construction 

profile is functioning as intended to naturally form the design template. During the review a 

commenter pointed out that there was a concern with regards to the stability of the proposed 

berm where it connects to the existing berm which surrounds the convention center dune. 

Without sufficient design information to evaluate with regards to the existing berm, a hard 90 

degree berm connection to existing berm can be a weak point and may fail during a large storm 

event During the PED phase the design section at the junction of the existing dune and the new 

dune will be refined to show a larger than 90 degree radius turn at that junction. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 289 
290

Figure 113 North Wildwood Cross Section 

HEREF0!10 lt;UJ TO COPE MII.Y !NL.ET fEl,SllllLfl'I' SIWY 

TTPICIILBEAOIAllllE51GNMCIJCOlr.;ll!lJCIIO=ss::11DII STATll)l,l0-t00TQ65+00 

UI.WiTION+~!IIBM -+WD!HIE:0£o'AlKJr,i SCIII..E/JSSIIOWNINFEEr 

Figure 114 Wildwood and Wildwood Crest Cross Section 

L-----------------------~~----

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

HEREfOIIDllt..ETTOO'f'EIUtYJl,IL.EffE/ISllllJll'SIUD'f 

TJl'ICi\LO£SIGHCRl;JSSSa:::Tl(INSTAT10N~OOTOZ40-t00 

0£.lCHOOR-~'llmlELEVl'i!lOll+l6CIJNE 

Page 290 
291

Figure 115 Lower Township Cross Section 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

1"1'PICM.[J[5lGNCIKISSSITmN 

Sf/0ICIM240+00Tt'l3l4+03 

Page 291 
Figure 116 North Wildwood Plan View 

Wffl':ZOIZ'--7' 

GORROW AREA 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

m2D1~-y·-· 

CELL 1 

Page 292 

--

O ,oo sooGRAPHIC SCAL~ 

~--

--

(INFECT) 

1 inch"' 300ft. 
Figure 117 North Wildwood/\Vildwood Plan View 

r~ • --~: 1g;~f5:gB 

--

Hereford lnlet to Cape May Inlet Fina! Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 293 

CELL 2 

O 1~ 300GRAPHIC SCAL.~00 

'"' .... --

(IN FEET) 

1 inch"" 300ft 
Figure 118 Wildwood Plan View 

ADOi LYT Of EXCAVATOR 

BASED ON 2012 SUM.Y OOA 

-

BORROW Ml£A UIIIT 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrnted Environmental Asessment 

l..lMITOfDISTURQl,NCE 

N: 53082.39 

E: 403B77.58 

Page 294 

O 100 JOOGRAPHIC SCAlb 

""-"" -- (INFE£.T) 1 inch"" 300ft. 
Figure 119 Wildwood Crest Pinn View (2) 

BORROW AREA 

Hereford lnlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 295 

O 100 -'OOGRAPHIC SCAL~ 

.... --

(INFEEf) 

1 inch"" 300ft. 
Figure 120 \Vildwood Crest Plan View 

BORROW AREA 

Hereford lnlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 296 

O 150 300GRAPHIC SCAL~ 

~- iii --

(INFECT) 

1 ;rich==: Jooft. 
Figure 121 Wildwood Crest and Lower Township Phm Vil"w 

N: 44103.16 

E: 392531.05 

~~~201~_/ 

N: 43740.40 

E: 392575.60 

BORROW AREA 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Fina! Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

CELL 6 

Page 297 

Rf.ACtllJMfTOFEXCAVAJOR 

e,l,SED~201ZSURYE'1MTA 

O 100 300GRAPHIC SCAL~ 

1----- (INFEIT) 1 in,h"" 300ft. 
298

5.1.5 Backpass Methodology 

Sediment backpassing involves the removal of sand from an area in a sand surplus to an area in a 

sand deficit, usually in the opposite direction of long-shore transport. Longshore sediment 

transport is dominant in the southerly direction in this area, and we propose backpassing 

sediment from the south to the north, in the opposite direction of natural transport. This can be 

accomplished with scraping and !tuck hauling the material to the deposition site or with mobile 

hydraulic backpassing techniques. The latter is being recommended for the Hereford Inlet to 

Cape May Inlet project. Mobile hydraulic sediment backpassing will involve the use of 1 to 2 

crawler cranes deploying a submersible or centrifugal pump in the surf zone to remove sediment 

from a source area, pump it through an 12 inch pipeline to a the placement area, and shape the 

sand into a dune and berm. 

5.1.6 Existing Backpass Systems 

The Worldwide Systems Data Rep011 by PK Basswood and RJ Murray, 1997 indicated that as of 

1997 there were 53 sediment backpass, and by-pass systems worldwide. These systems remove 

material from areas of surplus sand to deficit areas in order to manage the resource more 

efiiciently. Locally, two systems are employing backpass methodology successfully, The Indian 

River Inlet, Delaware project and a project recently constructed by the National Park Service at 

Sandy Hook, NJ. Sandy Hook, the northernmost 7 miles of beach along New Jersey's coast, has 

a long history of persistent shoreline erosion and change. After considering many options and 

measures, all parties agreed that the best plan would be a sand recycling arrangement based on 

pumping a sand slurry from a point of surplus at Gunnison Beach to the critical eroding zone. 

Gunnison Beach, in the northern area of Sandy Hook, has been increasing in sediment budget by 

the same amount of sand being lost in the critical eroding zone. The Gunnison Beach shoreline 

also has access to large migrating shoals, which makes it an ideal source of sand. 

The Indian River Inlet project was authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1968 and the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). The plan of improvement consists of 

constructing a sand bypassing plant and operation of the plant for the periodic nou1ishment of 

approximately 100,000 cubic yards of sand annually to nourish approximately 3,500' of 

shoreline on the north side of the inlet and protect the Delaware Route 1 highway. The Indian 

River Inlet project is authorized for nourishment until September 2021. 

5.1.7 Sediment Backpassing Technology 

Design decisions for the backpass system were assisted with a letter report by the Corps James 

Clausner P.E., and Time Welp of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 

(ERDC), in Vicksburg Miss., as well as Engineering Instruction Report HL-81-1 (Appendix 16, 

Volume 2). The ERDC letter report compiled data on dredging rates, pumping technology, the 

industry's ability to complete the work based on similar projects, the conceptual layout and the 

design. The report assisted in the details of the design including pump size, booster spacing 

requirements based on distance and grain size of the native material and pipeline diameter_ 

A conceptual layout of a sediment backpass system for the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 298 
299

project is contained in Figure 122 and Figure 123. The system would involve a crawler crane 

mounted with a pump on a 100' boom that would excavate material from the beach and 

nearshore in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. This crane and pump system would be attached to 

an 8" High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) with a series of boosters that would transport the 

material to the design locations. 

Figure 122 Schematic of Hydraulic Backpassing System courtesy of ERDC 

Figure 123 Side View of Crawler Crane and Crater 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 299 
300

The crater size generated by the pump is shown in the figure above and equal to three times the 

depth of the crater. Dredging rates and volumes in cubic yards per hour are contained the in the 

Dredging Technology Appendix provided by Clausner and Welp of the Corps of Engineers, 

Engineering Research and Design Center. Tables from that report are contained on the following 

page (Table 81 and Table 82). 

5.1.8 Pumps 

There are two types of pumps used for most sediment backpassing and by-passing operations; 

centrifugal and eductor. Centrifugal pumps operate with a combination of an agitator with 

spinning blades or high pressure water injected into the sand in combination with a spinning 

blade within a chamber that causes negative pressure in the chamber and entrainment of a 

sand/water mixture. Centrifugal pumps do not require a 100% clear water mixture and have a 

high discharge capability compared to eductor pumps. Eductor, or jet pumps, use the 

acceleration of water through a restrictor nozzle to entrain and transport sand. Clear, 100% 

sediment free water enters the eductor pump through the supply line and is forced through a 

restrictor nozzle. This restrictor nozzle increases the water velocity, and this increase in velocity 

over a bed of unconsolidated material will entrain the sand/water mixture into the pump, through 

the suction tube, through the mixing chamber and eventually through the discharge pipeline. Jet 

pumps require a I 00% clean water supply to operate, and have a lower cubic yards per hour 

discharge rate than centrifugal pumps. Eductor pumps are employed at Indian River Inlet, DE 

for the sand by-passing project across Indian River Inlet. 

The Corps Engineering and Research Design Center (ERDC) evaluated 88 different scenarios for 

transporting between I 00,000- 1,000,000 cubic yards of sand based on production rates, 

working days and pumping hours 

For the initial construction cost estimate and design, the District is estimating two crawler cranes, 

each with a 100' boom suspending a centrifugal pump that is capable of pumping approximately 

400 cubic yards an hour (cyh). The initial construction is estimated to be approximately 8 

months. These cranes will work in the intertidal zone, and move in and out with the tides in 

order to reach the outer limits of the near shore borrow area. The excavated material will be 

shaped into a dune and berm in North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and a portion of 

Lower Township. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 300 
301

Table 81 Sediment Backpassing Production, 300 cyh 

Scenario \'o!umc Avera••0 lmduction \Vorkin>hours Ar<>Dai!v \\'orh_in,d1l\b \_\', \Ycckh .h,hDural!on 

1,000,000 300 2AOO 12,000 18.9 

1.000,000 300 2.700 13.500 16.8 

1.000.000 ,100 JO 3.000 15.000 Jq 

1.000.000 300 12 3.600 !!WOO 12.6 

1,000.000 300 16 4,800 24.000 <J.5 

L000.000 300 2.400 14AOO 15.8 

1,000.000 300 2.700 16200 14 

1,000.000 300 JO :moo 18.000 12.6 

1.000.000 300 12 3.600 2L600 10.5 

10 L000,000 300 16 4.800 28.800 79 

11 !JJ00,000 300 24 7.200 50.400 4.5 

12 500.000 300 2AOO 12.000 9.5 

L1 300 2.700 

14 500JJOO 300 JO 3.000 15.()()() 7.6 

15 500.000 300 12 :t600 18.000 6.3 

16 500.000 300 10 4.800 24.000 4.7 

17 500.000 300 2.400 14.400 7.9 

18 500JJOO 300 2.700 16,200 7 

19 500.000 300 JO J.000 18.000 6.3 

20 500,000 300 12 3.600 21.600 5.3 

21 500,000 300 1(, 4.800 28.800 3.9 

22 500.000 300 24 7,200 7 50,400 2.3 

23 200.000 300 

24 200.000 300 2.700 13.500 3.4 

25 200,000 300 10 3.00() 15.0()0 

26 200JJOO 300 12 3.600 18.000 

27 200,000 300 16 4.800 24,000 

28 200.000 300 2.400 14,400 32 

29 200.000 300 2.700 16.200 2.8 

30 200.000 300 10 3,000 18.000 2.5 

31 200.00{) 300 12 3.600 21-600 2l 

32 200.000 300 16 4.800 28.800 16 

3:1 200.000 300 24 7.200 50.400 0.9 

34 100.000 300 2.400 12.000 19 

35 100.000 300 2.700 13.500 L7 

36 100.000 300 10 3.00() l5Jl00 15 

37 100.000 300 12 :1.600 18.000 L3 

38 100.000 300 16 4.800 24.000 I 

39 JOO.ODO 300 2AOO 16 

40 100.000 300 2-700 16.200 14 

41 100.000 300 10 3,000 18.000 u 

42 100.000 300 12 3.600 21.60() 11 

43 100.000 300 16 4.800 28.800 0.8 

44 !00.000 300 24 7.200 50.400 0.5 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 301 
302

Table 82 Sediment Backoassi112 Production, 450 cvb 

Scctiario Vo!um.:, , \ wragc production Working hours 

lJJ00.000 450 

JJJ00,000 450 

1.000,000 450 10 

l.000.000 450 12 

!JJ00.000 450 lo 

1.000.000 450 8 

1,000.000 450 

1.000.000 450 10 

1.000.000 450 12 

lO l.000.000 450 16 

ll 1.000.000 450 24 

l2 500.000 450 

13 500.000 450 

14 500.000 450 lO 

15 500.000 450 12 

16 500.000 450 16 

17 50fUlOO 450 

18 500.000 450 

19 500.000 450 10 

20 500,000 450 l2 

21 500.000 450 10 

22 500_{}()0 450 24 

23 200.()(){) 450 

24 200.000 450 

2' 200.000 450 10 

26 200.000 450 l2 

27 200.000 450 16 

28 200.000 450 

29 200,000 450 

30 200.000 450 lO 

31 200.000 450 12 

32 200,000 450 16 

.B 450 24 

34 100.()00 450 

35 100.000 450 

36 450 10 

37 450 12 

38 100.000 450 16 

39 100.000 450 

40 lOOJJOO 450 

41 100.000 450 10 

42 100.000 450 12 

.13 100.000 450 16 

44 100.000 450 24 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

\ygl)aily 

3,600 

4,050 

4,500 

5.400 

7.200 

3.600 

4.()5() 

4.500 

5.400 

7.200 

10.800 

3.600 

4.050 

4.500 

5.400 

7,200 

3.600 

4.050 

4.500 

5.400 

7.200 

10.800 

J.600 

4.050 

4.500 

5.400 

7.200 

3.600 

4.050 

4.500 

5.400 

7.200 

10,800 

3.600 

4.050 

4.500 

5.400 

J.600 

4.050 

-UOO 

5.400 

7.200 

10,800 

WorUngday~ ,\vgWcck!:v .lob Duration 

18.000 12.6 

20.250 11.2 

22.500 JO.I 

27.000 84 

36,000 6.3 

21.600 10.5 

24,300 94 

27.000 8.4 

32.400 

4UOO 5.3 

75.600 

18.000 

6~ 

20250 5 

22.500 5 

27.000 4. 

36.000 3.2 

21.600 5.3 

24.300 4.7 

27.000 4.2 

32.400 

4J.200 2.6 

75.600 l.5 

18.000 2.5 

20250 2.2 

22.500 2 

27.000 17 

36.000 13 

21.600 2.1 

24.300 1.9 

27.000 

32.400 14 

43.200 Ll 

75.600 0.6 

18.000 1.3 

20250 Ll 

22.500 l 

= 

36.000 0.6 

21.600 Ll 

24.300 0.9 

27.000 O.X 

32.400 0.7 

43.200 0.5 

75.600 0.3 

Page 302 
303

5.1.9 Major Replacement Requirements 

Major replacement quantities were developed in accordance with ER 1110-2-1407 to 

identify additional erosion losses from the project due to higher intensity (low frequency) 

storm events. The nourishment rates developed for the project measures include losses due to 

storms that have occurred within the analysis period. Storms of approximately SO-year return 

period and more frequent are encompassed in those rates. Major replacement losses are 

computed as the losses that would occur from the 50% risk event over the period of analysis. The 

annual percent frequency event with a 50% risk during the SO-year period of analysis is 1.37%. 

The period of record of stages recorded at the study area is approximately 73 years. SBEACH 

was employed to compute volumetric erosion from the selected beach alternative design profile 

utilizing the 50- and I 00-yr return period storm parameters utilized in the without- and with project 

analyses. Volumetric erosion quantities for the 73-yr event were obtained by interpolating between the 

50- and I 00-yr events. Water levels and waves were hindcast at the study area for the storm, and all 

model parameters were identical to the without and with-project analyses. Volumetric storm induced 

erosion was computed for each reach for the design beach profile. Based on local profile analyses and 

experience developed at the Philadelphia, and other Corps coastal Districts, it is estimated that 

approximately 60% of the material displaced during large storms will return to the foreshore within 

weeks and only the remaining 40% will require mechanical replacement onto the sub aerial beach to 

regain the design cross-section and insure the predicted level of storm damage reduction. It is estimated 

that a volume of approximately 153,000 cu yds would be required to perform major rehabilitation in 

response to the 50% risk event. This quantity is added to the periodic nourishment quantity discussed 

above at year 24 for cost estimating purposes. Therefore, total major replacement sand quantity in year 

24 is 153,000 cu yds Table 83, minus periodic nourishment. Because a high intensity storm would likely 

impact dune grass, crossovers, and sand fence, these items were included in the total major replacement 

costs. 

Table 83 Major Replacement Volumes 

Cell 

TOTALS 

5.1.10 Project Transitions and Tapers 

There is one taper section at the northern end of the project area. At the northern end, the project 

terminates at second street and JFK boulevard, with the tem1inus extending into Hereford Inlet 

along the North Wildwood Seawall for approximately 200'. On the southern end the project 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 303 
304

will terminate at the northern terminus of the United States Fish and Wildlife property in Lower 

Township. Beach fill transitions between different design berm and dune dimensions are 

included in the selected plan layout and are reflected in the total quantity estimates. 

5.2 Environmental Impacts 

5.2.1 Physical Environment 

Mobile hydraulic backpassing of sand from the beaches in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest 

would result in the temporary excavation of shallow pits deeper than the surrounding bathymetry 

within the intertidal zone. This is due to the existing flat nature of the bottom. Initially, 

backpassing cuts may produce abrupt edges. However, these cuts will quickly become reworked 

by the wave action in the intertidal zone and refilled with sand from the surrounding area, 

resulting in a landward shift of the mean high water (MHW) line. Based on the location of the 

sand removal, similar substrate characteristics would remain following dredging. The average 

depth of excavation will be 4-8' and will vaiy based on the existing ground elevation. Sand will 

be removed from the intertidal zone to a maximum depth of -8' NAVD. 

5.2.2 Water Quality 

The backpassing associated with the beach nourishment alternative would result in short-tenn 

adverse impacts to water quality in the immediate vicinity of the excavation and beach 

nourishment operations. Excavating sand from within the proposed intertidal borrow area will 

generate turbidity, resulting in sedimentation impacts within the immediate vicinity of the 

operations. Short-term increased turbidity can affect organisms in several ways. Primary 

production in phytoplankton and/or benthic algae may become inhibited from turbidity. 

Suspended particulate matter can clog gills and inhibit filter-feeding species. Reilly et.al. 1983 

determined that high turbidity could inhibit recruitment by pelagic larval stocks. ln addition, 

mid-water nekton like finfish and mobile benthic invertebrates may migrate outside of the area 

where turbidity and deposition occur. 

The amount of turbidity and its associated plume is mainly dependent on the grain size of the 

material. Generally, the larger the grain-size, the smaller the area of impact. The period of 

turbidity is also less with larger grain-sized materials. The proposed borrow location contains 

medium to fine sands, which are coarser grained than silts and clays. Turbidity resulting from 

the re-suspension of these sediments is expected to be localized and temporary in nature. 

Utilization of a hydraulic pump with a pipeline delivery system will help minimize tbe impact, 

however, some disturbance will occur. 

Similar water quality effects on aquatic organisms could likely be incurred from the deposition 

of borrow material on the beach. Increased turbidity resulting from the deposition ofa slurry of 

sand will be temporary in nature and localized. This effect will not be significant as turbidity 

levels are naturally high in the high-energy surf zone. Organisms in the surf zone versus deep 

water areas will be Jess likely to suffer adverse effects from turbidity because they have already 

adapted to these conditions. Fine sediments sifted from the deposited material would be 

transported by waves and currents into the nearshore with varying environmental impacts from a 

few months to at least several years (Hurme and Pullen, 1988). Parr el. al., 1978 determined that 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 304 
305

fine materials were rapidly sorted out and transported offshore after beach deposition. In their 

study, the dredged material had a much higher silt content than the beach, however, all of the silt 

was removed within 5 months. The selection of borrow material from a high energy beach 

environment should minimize the fine particle content Material taken from the proposed borrow 

area will have low quantities of silt, therefore, high levels of turbid waters after deposition 

should not persist. 

5.2.3 Biological Environment 

5.2.3.1 Terrestrial 

Impacts on terrestrial flora and fauna will be minimal within the project area. Existing dune 

vegetation, where present, would not be disturbed by renourishment activities. New dunes will 

be planted with dune grass following construction activities. Rapid recolonization of other types 

of vegetation on the beach face such as sea rocket and seaside goldenrod is expected. Impacts to 

wildlife species inhabiting the beach and dune areas are expected to be short-term and minor as 

most species are highly mobile and capable of moving outside the impacted areas until 

construction ceases. 

5.2.4 Aquatic 

5.2.4.1 Effects on Benthos 

The majority of the impacts of beach fill borrow and placement will be felt on organisms in the 

intertidal zone and near shore zones. The near shore and intertidal zone is highly dynamic, 

harsh, and is characterized by great variations in various abiotic factors. Fauna of the intertidal 

zone are highly mobile and respond to stress by displaying large diurnal, tidal, and seasonal 

fluctuations in population density (Reilly et al. 1983). Despite the resiliency of intertidal benthic 

fauna, the initial effect of beach fill deposition will be the smothering and mortality of existing 

benthic organisms within the shallow near shore (littoral) zone on the oceanfront. This will 

initially reduce species diversity and number of animals. Burial of less mobile species such as 

amphipods and polychaete worms would result in losses, however, densities and biomasses of 

these organisms are relatively low on beaches. Beach nourishment may also inhibit the return of 

adult intertidal organisms from their near shore-offshore ovenvintering refuges, cause reductions 

in organism densities on adjacent unnourished beaches, and inhibit pelagic larval recruitment 

efforts. Parr et al. (l 978) notes that the near shore community is highly resilient to this type of 

disturbance. The ability of a nourished area to recover depends heavily on the grain size 

compatibilities of material pumped on the beach (Parr et al., 1978). Due to the fact that the sand 

being placed in North Wildwood is coming from similar intertidal habitat and has accumulated 

as a result of the sediment transport mechanisms in the project area, grain size compatibility will 

allow for rapid re-colonization. 

Over the life of the project, it is estimated that approximately 415 acres of intertidal benthic 

habitat will be impacted in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest during the life of the hydraulic 

backpassing activities. Approximately 250 acres will be impacted during initial construction as 

sand is removed from the intertidal zone and the MHW line is moved landward. Dredging will 

primarily impact the benthic organisms in the surf zone. Mortality of some of these organisms 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 305 
306

may occur as they pass through the dredge device. A secondary disturbance would be the 

generation of turbidity and deposition of sediments on the benthic community adjacent to the 

backpassing. Despite the initial effects of dredging on the benthic community, recolonization is 

anticipated to occur quickly due to the dynamic nature of the intertidal zone. Due to the location 

of the borrow zone within the intertidal zone, any pits created by the removal of sand are 

expected to fill in quickly as a result of wave action in the surf zone. It is important that for 

recovery, the bottom sediments are composed of the same grain sizes as the pre-dredge bottom 

Since waves will quickly fill the borrow area with sand from the adjacent surf zone, grain size 

within the borrow area after excavation is expected to be nearly identical to sand removed. It 

should be noted that the backpassing operation will utilize an eight-inch pipe for sand transport 

which is much smaller than the 24-36" pipes used for traditional dredging projects. The smaller 

pipe size equates to a lower velocity within the pipe and a lower volume of material placed on 

the beach on any given day. These lower volumes and velocities will reduce benthic impacts 

associated with the operations. 

5.2.5. Impacts on Fisheries 

5.2.5.1 Finfish 

With the exception of some small finfish, most fish found in the surf zone are highly mobile, and 

should be capable of avoiding entrainment into the dredging intake stream. It is anticipated that 

some finfish would avoid the turbidity plume while others may become attracted to the 

suspension of food materials in the water column. Little impact to fish eggs and larvae are 

expected because these life stages are widespread throughout the Middle Atlantic Bight, and not 

particularly concentrated in the surf zone of the project area (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982). 

The primary impact to fisheries will be felt from the disturbance ofbenthic community. The loss 

ofbenthos entrained or smothered during the project will temporarily disrupt the food chain in 

the impact area. This effect is expected to be temporary as these areas become rapidly 

recolonized by pioneering benthic species. 

5.2.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat 

As discussed previously, there are a number of Federally managed fish species where essential 

fish habitat (EFH) was identified for one or more life stages within the project area. Fish 

occupation of waters within tl1e project area is highly variable spatially and temporally. Some of 

the species are strictly offshore, while others may occupy both near shore and offshore waters. 

In addition, some species may be suited for the open-ocean or pelagic waters, while others may 

be more oriented to bottom or demersal waters. This can also vary between life stages of 

Federally managed species. Also, seasonal abundances are highly variable, as many species are 

highly migratory. 

In general, adverse impacts to Federally managed fish species may stem from alterations of the 

bottom habitat, which would result from backpassing and beach fill placement in the intertidal 

zone and near shore area. EFH may also be adversely impacted temporarily through water 

quality impacts such as increased turbidity and decreased dissolved oxygen content in the 

dredging and placement locations. These impacts would subside upon cessation of construction 

activities. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 306 
307

Biological impacts on EFH are more indirect involving the temporary loss ofbenthic food prey 

items or food chain disruptions. Turbidity at the placement site could impact the ability of sight 

feeders to find prey and construction activities in general could cause certain species to avoid the 

area. As previously stated, however, the affect on benthic food-prey organisms present in the 

borrow area and sand placement areas is considered to be temporary as benthic studies have 

demonstrated recolonization occurs quickly in the dynamic near shore environment. In addition, 

the impact area is a naturally turbid environment and species found in this zone are accustomed 

to a certain level of suspended sediments in the water column. The sandy nature of the borrow 

material, and the fact it is already well sorted from being in the intertidal zone, will keep excess 

turbidity to a minimum_ 

Direct impacts could also occur to Federally managed species if they were to become entrained 

in the dredge pump. Only egg, larvae and very small fish that would be found in the intertidal 

zone would be susceptible to entrainment as most species and life stages would be able to avoid 

the dredging activity. The small size (8-inch) of the pipeline makes entrainment less likely than 

with a traditional dredge apparatus. 

5,2,6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The piping plover, which is State listed as endangered and Federally listed as threatened, is a 

frequent inhabitant of New Jersey's sandy beaches. Plovers have nested in N011h Wildwood for 

at least the past 10 years. Plovers have also nested at the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge 

and the adjacent Coast Guard property during this time period, but not on a regular basis. It is 

expected that plovers will continue to nest in these areas, especially following beach restoration 

activities. Currently, piping plover monitoring is being conducted in North Wildwood, through 

the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This practice will continue throughout the life of the project, or 

until such time as the duty is handed over to the local municipalities. In addition, protection 

measures laid out by NJDEP, Division of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service will be followed during all renourishment activities in order to protect the piping plovers 

from being disturbed. These measures may include establishing a buffer zone around the nest, 

and limiting construction to be conducted outside of the nesting period ( 15 March - 15 August). 

Beach replenishment activities can potentially have significant direct and indirect adverse 

impacts on piping plovers. Sand placement can bury nests, and machinery and vehicles on the 

beach can crush eggs, nestlings, and adults. Human disturbance related to recreational activities 

can disrupt successful nesting of these birds by preventing birds from feeding and seating adults 

off established nests. Also, pipelines used during construction may become barriers to young 

chicks trying to reach inte11idal areas to feed. It is believed that in New Jersey, predation is 

probably the primary cause of mortality for plover chicks. Observations by NJDEP, however, 

support the finding that chick survival and susceptibility to predation is strongly influenced by 

other factors, especially human disturbance and the availability and access to optimal foraging 

areas (Jenkins, 1999). 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 307 
308

Other indirect impacts associated with the proposed plan include the temporary 

reduction in the quality of forage habitat for piping plover and other shorebirds within the 

intertidal zone until the area becomes recolonized by benthic fauna such as polychaete worms, 

mollusks, and crustaceans. This impact will be short-lived as the benthic invertebrates can 

immediately recolonize the newly created habitat (Burlas et al, 2001). The construction of a 

wider beach may result in the beach becoming more attractive to nesting birds such as piping 

plover, least tern, and black skimmers. Although this may appear to be beneficial, it is believed 

that this could have adverse impacts on these species. This is based on the fact that a replenished 

wider beach may attract these birds away from natural areas where human disturbance effects are 

less. 

Another species which may be found within the project area is the Federally-listed 

threatened plant, seabeach amaranth, which inhabits overwash flats, accreting ends of 

coastal barrier beaches and lower foredunes of non-eroding beaches. While no extant 

populations are known to currently exist within the study area, this species has recently 

recolonized or has been observed in coastal sites within New York, Delaware, Maryland, and 

most recently New Jersey (USFWS,1999). Therefore, it is possible that seabeach amaranth may 

become naturally established within the project area within the life of the project. Since the 

proposed project may actually create habitat for the seabeach amaranth, impacts to this species 

are also possible related to construction of beach stabilization structures, beach erosion and tidal 

inundation, beach grooming, and destruction by off-road vehicles (USFWS, 1999). 

To address these issues, the Philadelphia District developed a programmatic Biological 

Assessment (BA) for the piping plover and seabeach amaranth as part of formal consultation 

requirements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act The USFWS reviewed the BA and subsequently issued a Biological 

Opinion in December 2005. The requirements outlined in the Biological Opinion have been 

adopted in order to comply with this statute. Formal consultation will be ongoing throughout the 

period of analysis since the USFWS recommends formal consultation be reinitiated at least 135 

days prior to construction and each periodic nourishment cycle. The Section 7 consultation 

process is expected to result in monitoring before, during and after construction, imposing timing 

restrictions if nests are found, construction of temporary protective fencing, and avoidance 

during construction. It is anticipated, however that nourishment activities will usually take place 

outside of the plover nesting season due to the quantity of fill required. Other issues to be 

addressed through community developed plover management plans include local practices such 

as beach raking, off-road vehicles, and general public access in or near nesting locations. The 

project area, specifically the foredune area, would be periodically monitored for the seabeach 

amaranth. Contingency plans for the presence of seabeach amaranth at the time of periodic 

maintenance may involve avoidance of the area (if possible), collection of seeds to be planted in 

non-impacted areas, and timing restrictions. 

The red knot, which is a Federally-listed Candidate species may be present at the site during the 

spring and fall migration, with some birds still being present in the early winter time period. As 

is the case with plovers, the project has the potential to temporarily impact food resources within 

the borrow and placement areas. Since portions of the projects will not be impacted during 

nourishment cycles, sufficient food should still be readily available within the project area. In 

addition, due to the timing of initial construction, which will take approximately 8 months, it is 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 308 
309

possible that birds will be present during construction activities. If any birds are present, they 

will easily be able to move away from the construction activities to another portion of the beach 

where they will not be disturbed. 

From June through November, New Jersey's coastal waters may be inhabited by transient sea 

turtles, especially the loggerhead (Federally listed threatened) and the Kemp's ridley (Federally 

listed endangered). Sea turtles have been known to be adversely impacted during hopper 

dredging operations. Endangered whales, such as the highly endangered Right whale, may also 

be transient visitors within the project area. 

The Federally listed Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory species along the Atlantic coast and has the 

potential to be found within the project area. While it is possible for Atlantic sturgeon to become 

entrained in the hydraulic pump during dredging operations, this is highly unlikely due to the 

transient nature of the species in the marine environment and their tendency to avoid dredging 

operations (O'Herron et al.1985). Minor and temporary impacts to water quality and prey 

resources are expected within the borrow and placement areas. Ml nor and temporary impacts 

associated with regard to noise are also expected. 

Due to the fact that sand for this project will be obtained by hydraulic back-passing using a landbased dredge pump, no impacts to sea turtles, sturgeon or whales are expected. NMFS agreed 

with this assessment during their review of the Draft Feasibility Report and EA in a letter dated 

19 February 2014 which stated that no further ESA coordination would be necessary for this 

project. 

5.2. 7 Cultural Resources 

Coordination with the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been ongoing 

since the initiation of the Feasibility study. More recently, a letter was drafted on 2 July 2 2013 

outlining the potential Area of Potential Effect (APE) and sent to the Historic Preservation 

Offices in Trenton. The Disttict received a concur on this letter on 6 August 2013 from David 

Saunders, the State Historic preservation Officer, Volume 3, Appendix G., p 49 

The USA CE has deterrnined that the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the selected plan 

includes the beaches and intertidal areas from Hereford Inlet to Cape May inlet, marking the 

northern and southern limits, and from the existing dunes to the intertidal area marking the 

eastern and western limits. The limits of construction disturbance for the selected plan are 

located within the APE (Enclosure 2). 

Although there are several recorded historic properties eligible for or listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the vicinity of the APE for the selected plan, the 

USACE has determined that dune and berm construction along approximately 4.5 miles from 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet using recently accreted sand from the intertidal zone from the 

southern end of Five Mile Island will have No Effect. 

A cultural resource assessment of the proposed intertidal sand source was conducted by FEMA 

as part of the Section l 06 review for post-Hurricane Irene beach restoration of Notth Wildwood. 

An assessment of the beach in the adjacent communities of Wildwood Crest in the south to North 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 309 
310

Wildwood was conducted to determine the sensitivity of below ground archaeological resources. 

Several aspects were analyzed including the project's proximity to know archaeological 

resources, waterways and historic properties as well as the site's environmental characteristics 

such as spoil analysis and previous ground disturbing activities within the project APE, which is 

roughly the APE of the selected plan. Remnants of the Nancy, a revolutionary war brig set afire 

by troops at Turtle Gut Inlet (Site 28CM0013) are located southwest of the APE and site 

28CM0008 is currently underneath the existing Wildwood Boardwalk. 

There are no structures within the project APE; however the chateau Blue Motel, the Hereford 

Inlet Lighthouse and the l. Thompson Baker House are all listed on the NRHP, but will not be 

affected. Also, the Wildwood Shore Resort Historic District runs parallel to the beach and is 

within the project view shed but will also not be affected. The APE is a previously disturbed, 

engineered beaches. The proposed project will collect, transport and place sand entirely within 

the previously disturbed areas. No part of the proposed undertaking is located within an 

archaeologically sensitive area, and no historic properties are within the APE. 

A copy of this July 2013 letter and the concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office is 

contained in the General Correspondence Appendix (G) of this document. 

5.2.8 Impacts 011 Air and Noise Quality 

Short-term impacts to air quality and noise levels would result from the construction phases of 

the beach nourishment alternative. Dredging activities and grading equipment use would 

produce noise levels in the 70 to 90 dB A (50' from the source) range, but these would be 

restricted to the beach area. These noises would be masked by the high background levels of the 

surf or dissipated by distance. Ambient air quality would also be temporarily degraded, but 

emission controls and limited duration aid in minimizing the effects. In the case of equipment 

use associated with the periodic nourishment efforts, conducting the work in the off-season 

would further minimize the impact. 

Noise and air quality impacts would be restricted to site construction preparation (generally 

beginning two weeks prior to dredging) and the actual dredging and placement operation. Noise 

is limited to the utilization of heavy equipment such as bulldozers to manipulate the material 

during placement. Depending on future circumstances, the construction may be conducted 

overnight to meet construction schedules. An analysis of the project emissions may be found in 

Appendix C. Air quality impacts would similarly be limited to emissions from the heavy 

equipment. No long-tenn significant impacts to the local air quality are anticipated. The Clean 

Air Act Statement of Conformity is included in this Report in Section 9.0 

Cape May County, New Jersey is within the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE area, which is classified as moderate nonattainment for ozone. As such, emissions from 

the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet project must be below 100 tons ofNOx and 50 tons of 

VOC per year. The results of these analyses indicate that the total estimated emissions that 

would result from the construction of the Hereford project are 9 l tons ofNOx and 12.8 tons of 

VOCs. The emissions for the project are below the General Conformity trigger levels of 100 

tons per year of NOx and 50 tons per year of VOCs. In addition, due to the fact that initial 

construction of this project will most likely be completed during the fall/winter months, the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 310 
311

emissions for the project will actually be spread out over two calendar years which further 

minimizes the per year emissions. 

5.2.9 Environmental Justice 

All of the measures identified in this document are expected to comply with Executive Order 

I 2989 - Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, dated 

February I I, 1994. The selected plan is not located in close proximity to a minority or lowincome community, and no impacts are expected to occur to any minority or low-income 

communities in the area. 

5.2.10 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative Impacts, as defined in CEQ regulations (40 CFR Sec. 1508. 7), are the "impacts on 

the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. n 

Along the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, several existing Federal, state and municipal beach 

replenishment projects that utilize inlet shoals or offshore areas have been completed in the 

recent past or are currently active. Nine active Federal projects are located along the coast of 

New Jersey that each utilize either an offshore sand source or an adjacent inlet. The Hereford 

Inlet to Cape May Inlet project is currently the only project utilizing a beach borrow area. nonFederal projects have been conducted recently by NJDEP and several municipalities in Avalon, 

Stone Harbor, Sea Isle City, Strathmere, Southern Ocean City, and Brigantine. These areas have 

all used either inlet borrow sites or offshore sites, which have impacted over 3,000 acres of 

marine habitat. The proposed Federal projects combined with the existing project would affect 

approximately 68 miles of beach along the New Jersey coast (south of Manasquan Inlet). This 

represents nearly 71 % of beaches along this segment of coast. 

In recent years, the New Jersey Coast has been affected by catastrophic coastal storms, most 

notably Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. In response to the devastation of the Atlantic coastal 

communities in New Jersey from Hurricane Sandy, the USACE and the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (through aid to State and local municipalities) have unde11aken 

unprecedented measures to repair and/or restore the affected beaches under P.L 84-99 Flood 

Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) and P.L 113-2: Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. 

PL 84-99 allows for the repair of beaches with active Federal projects to pre-stonn conditions 

and P.L 113-2 allows for the restoration of affected beaches to full template that have existing 

active Federal projects. Also, as part of P.L 113-2, there is the funding to complete authorized, 

but unconstructed projects, which include the Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet and the 

Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet projects. 

Since November of 2012, several of the authorized and constructed projects within the 

Philadelphia District have been completed or are currently undergoing repairs and restoration in 

accordance with P.L 84-99 and P.L. 113-2. These projects include: portions of the Barnegat 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 311 
312

Inlet to Little Egg Inlet (Hruvey Cedars, Surf City, and Brant Beach), Brigantine Island, and 

Absecon Island (Atlantic City and Ventnor), and Townsends Inlet to Hereford Inlet (Avalon and 

Stone Harbor). The Ocean City - Peck Beach (Northern Ocean City) project and Lower Cape 

May Meadows were already scheduled for periodic nourishment at the time Hurricane Sandy 

struck. Cape May City is scheduled to start repair and restore activities in September 2013. The 

remaining authorized, but unconstructed projects are Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet 

(Southern Ocean City, Strathmere, Upper Township, and Sea Isle City) and Manasquan Inlet to 

Barnegat Inlet (Seaside Park, Seaside Heights, Normandy Beach, Mantoloking, and Point 

Pleasant Beach). Some minor and temporary impacts would result in a loss of food source in the 

affected areas (Figure l24). 

In addition to the potential impacts to benthic and fisheries resources discussed, the proposed and 

active Federal projects also have the potential of cumulative impacts to the Federally listed 

piping plover and seabeach amaranth. Due to the amount of uncertainty that exists regarding 

when and how any of the active and proposed projects will be built, and the uncertainty of the 

number and location of plover nests in any given year, it is extremely difficult to quantify the 

potential impacts to piping plovers for any, and all of the projects. if the majority of the ongoing 

and proposed construction activities are accomplished outside of the nesting season, the overall 

impacts to plovers will be minimal, and the birds most likely will benefit from the additional 

beach areas. Through the implementation of plover management plans and the monitoring 

program, impacts related to human activities on the new beaches will be greatly reduced. 

Although nearly 71 % of the beaches along the NJ. coast south of Manasquan Inlet could 

potentially be impacted by beach fill placement activities, the cumulative effect of these 

combined activities is expected to be temporary and minor on resources of concern such as 

benthic species, beach dwelling flora and fauna, water quality and essential fish habitat. This is 

due to the fact that flora and fauna associated with beaches, intertidal zones and near shore zones 

are adapted to and resilient to frequent disturbance as is nonnally encountered in these highly 

dynamic and often harsh environments. Among the existing and proposed projects along this 

stretch of coast, renourishment cycles vary from two to seven years, which would likely preclude 

all of the beach fill areas being impacted at one time. 

The majority of impacts associated with all these projects are related to the temporary 

disturbance to the benthic community, and do not represent a permanent loss of marine benthic 

habitat. The borrow areas for each project would be impacted incrementally over the 50-year 

period of analysis with each periodic nourishment cycle. It is anticipated that the benthic 

community in offshore borrow areas would be recovered within several years after disturbance. 

For the Hereford project, recovery is expected to occur more quickly due to the dynamic nature 

of the beach borrow area. The cumulative impacts on Essential Fisb Habitat (EFH) are not 

considered significant. Like the benthic environment, the impacts to EFH are temporary in 

nature and do not result in a permanent loss in EFH. The borrow site proposed for this project 

does not contain prominent shoal habitat features, wrecks and reefs, or any known hard bottom 

features that could be permanently lost due to the impacts from dredging. Some minor and 

temporary impacts would result in a loss of food source in the affected areas. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 312 
313

In addition to the potential impacts to benthic and fisheries resources discussed, the proposed and 

active Federal projects also have the potential of cumulative impacts to the Federally listed 

piping plover and seabeach amaranth. Due to the amount of uncertainty that exists regarding 

when and how any of the active and proposed projects will be built, and the uncertainty of the 

number and location of plover nests in any given year, it is extremely difficult to quantify the 

potential impacts to piping plovers for any, and all of the projects. If the majority of the ongoing 

and proposed construction activities are accomplished outside of the nesting season, the overall 

impacts to plovers will be minimal, and the birds most likely will benefit from the additional 

beach areas. Through the implementation of plover management plans and the monitoring 

program, impacts related to human activities on the new beaches will be greatly reduced and in 

Figure 124 Sandy Recovery Projects, NJ and DE 

some cases eliminated The results of the Ocean City nearshore benthic sampling which was 

conducted in 2001 indicated that while the abundance of major taxa within the benthic 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 313 
314

community of the lower intertidal zone was reduced 4 months after sand placement, 6 months 

after placement, the community appeared to be recovering to pre-placement conditions. Impacts 

within the upper intertidal area, where plovers directly feed, were not detected in either the 4 or 6 

month sampling periods. Based on this data, it is possible that plover habitat may be negatively 

impacted on a temporary basis during the nesting season immediately following construction due 

to diminished food resources. This impact is more likely following the initial construction due to 

the quantity of fill and duration of the activities. The timing of the fill will also play a role in the 

rate ofbenthic recovery. Following initial fill, nourishment activities will take place only in 

areas with a high rate of erosion. Areas which have not eroded past the design template will not 

be filled. For this reason, it is even less likely that nourishment activities will affect areas with 

nesting plovers since it is unlikely that the birds will be nesting in areas with more narrow 

beaches and greater erosion. This has been the case in Ocean City where fill has not been placed 

south of 14111 street for several cycles since this area is fairly stable. 

In addition, due to the short duration of nourishment activities, and the limited quantity of sand 

associated with most cycles, it is anticipated that most, if not all, of these activities will take 

place outside of the plover nesting season. The possibility does still exist however that the fill 

activities may result in a reduction of prey resources available to plovers during the next nesting 

season. Due to the fact that, on average, only two or three of the existing or proposed locations 

will be impacted during any given year, however, these activities should not cause the species 

any undue risk or greatly impact the species as a whole. Since newly placed sand will most 

likely create additional habitat for the plovers and seabeach amaranth that does not currently 

exist, it is expected that even with these activities, more undisturbed habitat will be available to 

the species than currently exists. It should be noted that large portions of the New Jersey coast 

will still be available for use as nesting habitat on any given year. 

Similar uncertainty exists when trying to quantify the potential impacts to seabeach amaranth 

since the species has a very patchy distribution within southern New Jersey. The protection 

measures being developed with USFWS, however, should ensure that impacts are avoided or 

minimized to the greatest extent possible and therefore construction activities should not 

jeopardize the species and may actually create suitable habitat for the species. The Corps will 

work closely on this issue with the Service in order to develop the best protection plan for the 

species should it become re-established. 

5.2. 11 Coordination 

Pubic coordination for the proposed project took place through the circulation of the Draft 

Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment that was released on 20 December 2013 and 

closed for review on 10 March 2014. Coordination with various resource agencies has been 

ongoing throughout the Feasibility phase and has included correspondence, meetings and field 

visits. Multiple meetings were held in Wildwood Crest, Wildwood and Lower Township with 

the respective mayors, their engineering firms and council representatives to explain the project 

and answer questions or comments. The NJDEP coordinated a Public Hearing on 21 February 

2014. 

This EA was circulated to Federal, State, and local resource agencies with particular jurisdiction 

and interest over the affected resources and applicable statutes. In addition, the public was 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 314 
315

notified of the availability of this document for public review via a public notice, which was 

distributed to interested individuals, organization, and media outlets listed on the Philadelphia 

District's coastal New Jersey mailing list. Comment letters received from the various agencies 

and the general public during the review period can be found in Appendix G. 

5.2.12 Compliance with Environmental Statutes 

Compliance with applicable Federal Statutes, Executive Orders, and Executive Memoranda is 

summarized in which shows a complete listing of compliance status relative to environmental 

quality protection statutes and other environmental review requirements. 

A Section 404(b )(1) evaluation in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act was 

prepared and is provided in Section 10.0 of this document A Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification was received from NIDEP on 7 March 2014 and can be found in Appendix G. 

The proposed sand back-passing and maintenance activities comply with, and will be conducted 

in a manner consistent with New Jersey's requirements with regard to the Coastal Zone 

Management Act A Federal Consistency Determination was obtained from NJDEP can be 

found in Appendix G. 

The use of the sand borrow source described in this document is not expected to have significant 

air quality impacts. A Clean Air Act Statement of Conformity has been prepared and is 

presented in Section 9.0 of this document The Conformity Determinations prepared for this 

project can be found in Appendix B. The proposed action is expected to comply with Section 

176(c)(l) of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 315 
316

Table 84 Compliance with Environmental Statutes 

CO:\IPLL\'.\CE WITH lC'fflRO:\\IE:\'T.\L Ql',\LITY l'ROTH'TIO:\ STATlJTI~S A:\'.U OTHER E.'iYIRONi\U:'.\TAL REVIE\\ 

REOURE:\IE:'liTS 

l<'EDERAL STXH;TES CO\Il'Ll.\:\CE \V/PROI'OSED PLAN 

Ar,.;hcolo >ical - Resources Prot.::ction ,\ct of 1979, as amended 

C!can,\irA<.'Lasamcndcd 

Ch:an\\'ahir,\cfof1977 

Cow,tal Barner Resources Act 

Coastal Zone ii.Jana >cmcnt Act of 1972, a~ run..:,nded 

Endangcrcd S )eek~ 1\<:1 of 1973, a~ amended 

Estuary Protection Act 

F,xlernl .\cL a~ 

hsh ,nd W,ldhfo '''"""'"""'"' Ac< 

!-1nd and \\'akrCons.:,rvation Fund _-\ct as am.:micd 

/v!armc Proh:dwn. R>.1bcim.:h and Smisotuanc~ . \ct 

\la m1son-S1\n-ens Fishcrv Con~.:nation and ;l.!anagcment Act 

'.\at!ona! Ihstonc Pre~cnat!()n A,.:t ul 1966. w, amc>ndcd 

:'.'iational Environmental l'ohn .-\ct. a~ amended 

Ri,erb and l-farbor~ .-\i.:t 

\\'atersh,:,d Proh.wtwn and flood Pn;,.,,-:ntlon Ad 

WildaudS<:cnicR1H.:r_\ct 

Executiu• Orders, ;\lemornndmns ~·k, 

EO ll988. Flood 

EO 1990. 

E012114. EnYirnnmenta! Effects ofivfa'or Federal, \ction~ 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

:\'A 

!\.\ 

Full 

Full 

Ful1 

hill 

Full 

Full 

Full 

hill 

Full 

i':.O 12989, !:,nvmmmenlal Ju~t1cc m ;\,lmont, Po rnlatton~ and J .ow,Incomc Populat1011~ Full 

Countv Land l 'sc P!im Full 

Full\. '"'!_""'ll::: "-"'1"11'-'11'""'~ u, UJ'-' ~«1Ltm:. \<,()_ or uw<:r '"' ,uu1,ui<:uun !<:lJUU<am:m~ are llld for the <:UIT<:m Mill!," o, fC\1C\~ 

5.3 Project Cost Estimate 

All costs required to implement the selected plan were calculated by a cost engineer. Project 

costs were initially calculated at a June 2007 price level. The final cost analysis was updated to a 

March 2014 price level. 

5.3. l Cost Contingencies 

The estimated cost for each major element or feature of the selected plan includes an item for 

"contingencies.'' Contingencies are allowances against some adverse or unanticipated condition 

not susceptible to exact evaluation from the data at hand, but which must be represented in the 

project cost estimate. Contingency allowances used in the development of the cost estimate were 

estimated as percentages. Twenty five percent was applied to beach placement work to account 

for potential variations in pumping distances and borrow area selection, and to account for 

potentially larger required beach fill quantities at the time of construction due to future 

preconstruction erosion. Twenty five percent was applied to mobilization, demobilization, and 

preparatmy work to account for availability of dredges and variances in travel distance for the 

dredge plant. Twenty percent was applied to dune grass, sand fence, dune crossover, and vehicle 

crossover quantities to account for variances in the beach profile at the location of the dune due 

to possible preconstruction shifting and/or eroding beach conditions 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 316 
317

5.3.2 Initial Construction Costs 

The estimated initial construction cost for the selected plan is $21,605,000 (March 2014 price 

level) which includes real estate acquisition costs (including administration costs); planning, 

engineering, and design (P,E,&D), construction management (S&A), and associated 

contingencies. A summary of initial construction costs is presented in Table 85. 

Table 85 Initial Construction Cost Summary 

Total First Cost - Selected Plan 

~l,m C (75' BPrm w/ 16' NAVD Dune ttsil11~ --1 Yr. Cyck} 'onstrndion durdtion: 9-monlh, 

@25.0% 

Ul. I .,mds anJ D<lmdises Job 15 51,018,972 525-+,539 Sl,273,511 

17. B0cich R0pk>nishnwni @25.1% 

Mobilizathm, D,amob. And Pr0p,natory 

17.01 Work Joh IS $1/)26,656 S257,691 Sl,284,346 

17.70 Be,Khhll Job LS S9,883,656 S2,480,798 S12,36-!,..!54 

[7.99 A&..'>(Ki,1L(1d Cenr>ral Its>ms Job 15 $2,763,564 $693,655 ~1,457,219 

olal KPM h RPplenishnwnt SLl,673,876 ~),432,143 S17,106,019 

@15.00/o 

:10. JI.mni1w En l\1{'('flll andDl'si n(l',f,.&J/ Job LS Si,617,299 $2..J.2,595 Sl,859,894 

31. 011strud1on Manar,('nwnl (5 & A) Job IS $!,IS7,843 Sl78,l77 $1,366,020 

nt,11 !'ro('d First Cost S,]7,497,990 S--l,\07;f5J S2J,605,H4 

Rounded 517,498,000 $4,107,000 $21,605,000 

5.3.2.1 Real Estate 

The project will be constructed on existing beachfront lands that include private, commercial, 

and public ownerships. The project will impact 91 privately owned parcels within the project 

area, 10 within North Wildwood, 49 within Wildwood, 27 within Wildwood Crest and 5 within 

Lower Township. Detailed ownership data is provided in The Real Estate Appendix (Appendix 

F) of this report. The construction area excludes any existing structures. 

Submerged lands below the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) of the Atlantic Ocean are owned 

by the State of New Jersey and managed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection Bureau of Tidelands Management, except lands below MHWL where riparian grants 

exist 

Prior to construction of the project, the non-Federal Sponsor will acquire a non-standard 

Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement along the length of the project, including 

all privately owned parcels. A standard Temporary Work Area Easement with a duration of2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessrnent Page 317 
318

years will be required for staging during construction. No facility or utility relocations are 

required. Real estate costs were estimated at $1,273,987 for project construction. 

5.3.2.2 Public Access 

Engineering Regulation 1165-2-130, Federal Participation in Shore Protection Projects, requires 

that reasonable public access be provided in accordance with the recreational use objectives of 

the particular area and public use is 11 construed to be effectively limited to within one-quarter 

mile from available points qf public access to any particular shore. 11 No two public access 

points can be further than 1/2 mile (.5) apart, and no visitor can be further than 1/4 (.25) mile 

from an individual access point. 

Public access within Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet is provided at each street end along the 

beach front in North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. These public 

access points are within the Federal Access requirement in ER 1165-2-130. Access points and 

the average distance between each point are outlined below for each municipality (Table 86) 

and in the Public Access section of Volume 3 of this report. 

Table 86 Public Access by Municipality 

The regulation described above also discusses parking requirements and states that parking on 

free or reasonable terms should be available within a reasonable walking distance of the beach. 

The study area contains approximately 7,000 parking spaces within 1

/4 mile of the access points 

identified above with street parking, metered parking, or public parking lots based on aerial 

photography interpretation and estimating. An estimate of the location of these areas by 

municipality and by street can be seen in the Public Access Plan of Volume 3 of this report. The 

area is also served by public transportation with NJ Transit providing regional access to tbe 

Wildwood Bus Terminal between Davis and Burk Avenue in Wildwood, and local access via bus 

stops located along New Jersey Avenue in North Wildwood and Wildwood. 

Based on this analysis the study area from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet meets the access and 

parking requirement outlined in ER 1165-2-130 since it contains access points less than Yz mile 

apart and reasonable parking and public transportation. 

5.3.3 Periodic Nourishment and Major Replacement Costs 

The selected plan includes periodic nourishment at 4-yr intervals subsequent to the completion of 

initial construction (year 0) of the project. Major replacement is included in the design to replace 

project losses in response to a major storm event. For cost calculation purposes, major 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 318 
319

replacement is assumed to occur in year 24 together with periodic nourishment 

Table 87 - Table 89. 

Table 87 Periodic Nourishment Costs Years 4 and 8 

Periodic Nourishment Cost (Years 4 ,md 8) 

Plan C (75' Be>m1 ·w/ 16' NA VD Dune> using--i Yr. Cyck) 

17. B,•ach Re>plcnislmwnt 

Mobilu ...allon, U1!mob. And 

17.0t Pr.,paraton-Work Job LS $895,921 

7.70 BPachFill Job LS 52,904,614 

17.99 A"sodatpJ. Ce>nernl llnns Job LS $257,874 

otal B.-,a~ h Re J0nishm,,nl $4,058,408 

l'l,uuung, Engint'Pnng a.1ul !),~slgn (P,E 

(). &D\ Joh LS $221,632 

31. onstructi{•nM,rna PllWJll (S & A) Job LS S5J9,552 

'olc1l l'ro'edFirstCosl $4,819,593 

RoundE>d $4,820,000 

Table 88 Periodic Nourishment Costs remaining 8-50 

Periodic Nourishment Cost (Years 12, 16, 20, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48) 

Plan C (75' R('1'lll w/ 16' NAVD Dune usin;~ --J- Yr, CVtle) 

"'·'"·μw\l\'C'OCll'b\1 

17. 

MobiHz<1tion, !)pmob. And Pwpar<1tory 

7.01 Work Job 

!7.70 Beach Fil! Joh 

Job 

~ntal Bmch Re ,Jenishnwnt 

Planning, Engilwering and De,;1gn (P,E 

0. ~DI Joh 

3L 'onstrudtonMcm<l >p11wnt (S & A) Job 

iTot<1lProwrthrstCost 

Rounded 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

IS $895,921 

LS S2,904,614 

JS £257,874 

S.!,058,408 

LS $221,632 

IS <sssq;;;;,;, 

S-l,8\9,59J 

S--1,820,000 

_'onstruction duration: ..J:-months 

@25.1%, 

S22.J.,876 S!,120,797 

$729,058 53,633,672 

'.:>6---t,726 $322,600 

51,018,66! $5,077,069 

@15% 

S1'.24.S $254,877 

S80,9JJ $620,485 

Sl,132,838 SS,952,--Dl 

Sl,DJ,000 $5,952,000 

'nu>l.l'H-"1:Mar l4 

onstruction duration: 4-months 

@31% 

$277,735 $1,171,656 

S900,430 SJ,805,045 

S,79,9--J-l $337-814 

SL,258,l07 SS,.116,515 

@JS% 

$33,245 S23--J-,877 

S80,93J %20,485 

Sl,:'>72,28--l S6,l9l,877 

$1,372,0{Xl S6,192,.()()() 

Page 319 
320

Table 89 Major Rehabilitation Costs 

ta·or Reol.icement Cost (Yr. 24) l'n(e>l.1'H'l:Mc1rl-+ 

~tdl1 (' (75' Henn w/ l.6' NAVD Dmw usm, 4 Yr. Cycls') onstruchon dur<1hon: 5·tnOtlths 

lU'\1 ''"' L'>Jl\H!UJ ''"""''''' lll!,\1,.<.it,I 

17. fa,a,._h R('Dll'nishnwnt @31<\'o 

Mobili:r.,llH>n, J\,mob. And l'rqxir<llor_y 

17.01 lvvork Job LS 5915,261 S289,9Jl Sl,225,192 

17.70 BP<Kh Fill Job 15 53,961,931 51,228,199 $5,190,130 

17.99 As<;odated Ce1wr.ii Items Joh IS 5332,175 Sl02,97J S435,H9 

SS,229,368 $1,621,104 '.56,R50A72 

@15% 

30 Pl,mnmg, En ,nwnm, and De.,;ip,n (l',I:: & D) Job LS 5264,697 S'.'19,705 t,104,402 

11. 'zmstrnction Manas,ymenl (S & A) Job u, S665,719 $99,858 $765,577 

!Total Pro·0c1 ·First Cost 56,159,784 Sl,760,666 $7,970,450 

RoundNi 56,lt>O,O(X) SJ,761,000 117,920,000 

5.3.4 Construction Management (S&A) 

Costs for construction management include supervision and administration activities in 

overseeing prqject construction efforts. 

5.3.5 Planning Engineering and Design 

Planning Engineering & Design (PED) costs include: preparation of plans and specifications, 

development and execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA), value engineering, 

engineering and design during construction, and project monitoring. 

5.3.6 Project Monitoring 

A beach fill project has a specific longevity and must undergo periodic inspection, maintenance 

and nourishment in order to preserve and project functionality over the design life. The project 

monitoring plan will document beach fill performance and evaluate conditions within the borrow 

areas over the period of analysis. Periodic assessments and monitming data analysis will assist 

in producing recommendations for modifications to the quantities, location and cycle of future 

fills based on actual trends of fill behavior. The program was developed in accordance with EM1110-2-1004, ER-I 110-2-1407, CETN-ll-26 and the draft CETN-11-35, The following items are 

to be included in the project monitoring plan: beach profile surveys, surveys of borrow areas, 

sediment sampling of the beach and borrow areas, aerial photography, and tidal data collection. 

The field data will be regularly analyzed to support engineering and design of ongoing 

nourishment. The proposed monitoring program will begin with initial construction and 

continue throughout the period of analysis. The monitoring program includes environmental and 

physical monitoring, 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 320 
321

5.3.6. l Project Performance Monitoring 

Beach fill project will be monitored to support project engineering and design activities. Beach 

profile data will be collected to determine long shore erosion rates, define renomishment 

quantities, and indentify cross shore and long shore transport patterns in the project area. 

Approximately 30 lines will be surveyed and monitored for the project monitoring phase. 

Beach Profiles 

Beach profiles will be monitored to support project engineering and design activities. 

Beach profile data will be used to quantify sand losses from the project, define periodic 

nourishment quantities, and identify cross-shore and long shore transport patterns of the beach 

fill. Approximately 37 profile lines along the project reach will be surveyed annually. 

Inlet Hydrographic Surveys 

Routine surveys of Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet are supported by other programs. This 

information will be used to analyze project impacts to adjacent inlets. 

Borrow Site Surveys 

Borrow site surveys of the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest beaches will be performed before and 

after initial construction and nourishment and annually in between nourishment years. Data will 

be used to monitor borrow area changes, evaluate infilling rates, and quantify availability of 

borrow material for future nourishment activities. 

Aerial Photography 

Routine flights along study area are already conducted by the State of New Jersey and other 

agencies. Aerials collected for these other efforts will be utilized to analyze the performance of 

the project 

lide Data 

Tide and storm water level information is available from existing tide gages at Cape May and 

Atlantic City. Tide and water level data from these sources will provide a record of background 

and stmm conditions controlling project response 

Sediment Sampling 

Beach sediment samples will be collected before and after initial construction and each 

nourishment to identify existing and fill sand sizes, determine sorting characteristics, and 

evaluate overfill factor design procedures. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 321 
322

5.3.6.2 Environmental Monitoring 

To insure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) and the conditions of the 2005 Programmatic BO, Tier 2 consultation be 

initiated at least 135 days prior to construction. If construction activities are to take place during 

the nesting and brooding season of the Federally listed (threatened) piping plover (C'haradrius 

me/odus), the USFWS recommends that a survey be conducted to detem1ine whether piping 

plovers are actively nesting in the project area. As part of the survey, any previous nesting 

locations will be identified. This would provide the basis for delineation (e.g., fencing and 

signing) of protective zones around identified piping plover nests. This survey may also include 

identification and location of State listed (endangered) species such as the least tern (Sterno 

antillarum) and black skimmer (Rynchops ni,:er). 

As recommended by the USFWS, a survey will be performed to identify and locate the Federally 

listed (threatened) plant, seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) within the project area prior 

to initial construction and subsequent nourishment cycles. 

Endan,:ered Species Surrey 

To insure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) recommends that consultation be reinitiated at least 135 days prior to 

constmction. If construction activities are to take place during the nesting and brooding season 

of the Federally listed (threatened) piping plover (Charadrius me/odus), the USFWS 

recommends that a survey be conducted to determine whether piping plovers are actively nesting 

in the project area. As part of the survey, any previous nesting locations will be identified. This 

would provide the basis for delineation (e.g., fencing and signing) of protective zones around 

identified piping plover nests. This survey may also include identification and location of State 

listed (endangered) species such as the least tern (Sterna anti//arum) and black skimmer 

(llynchops ni,:er). 

As recommended by the USFWS, a survey will be performed to identify and locate the Federally 

listed (threatened) plant, seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumi/us) within the project area prior 

to initial construction and subsequent nourishment cycles. 

Sea 7i,rtle Marine Mammal Monitoring 

Monitoring for Federally protected sea turtles and marine mammals will not be necessaty for this 

project due to the location of the borrow area in the intertidal zone. 

Piping Plover Monitoring 

If construction takes place during the nesting season of the piping plover, monitoring will be 

conducted in conjunction with NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife to determine the presence 

and locations of nests. Based on this monitoring, appropriate measures in accordance with 

findings of the 2005 USFWS Biological Opinion will be taken to ensure that adequate protection 

is provided. This monitoring will continue throughout the duration of construction during the 

nesting season as well as nesting seasons after initial construction and subsequent nourishment 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 322 
323

activities. Tier 2 consultation with the USFWS will be reinitiated at least 135 days prior to any 

periodic nourishment in order to update project details. 

Seabeach Amaranth Afonitoring 

A survey for seabeach amaranth will be conducted prior to initial construction and each periodic 

renourishment. If seabeach amaranth populations are located within the project area prior to 

construction, monitoring shall be conducted to ensure that these plants are not adversely 

impacted during project construction. This monitoring will be conducted in accordance with 

findings of the 2005 Biological Opinion. Tier 2 consultation with the USFWS will be reinitiated 

at least 135 days prior to any periodic nourishment in order to update project details. 

('ultnral Resources Monitoring 

The District will periodically monitor sand placement activities during project construction to 

identify subsurface fill materials that could indicate the presence of buried prehistoric land 

surfaces within sand borrow areas. Any significant cultural resources that exist within the near 

shore project area will be monitored to determine impacts from sand movement offshore from 

the construction template. Monitoring results will be coordinated with NJSHPO and NJDEP, 

and adaptive management will be completed as necessary. 

5.3.6.3 Total Monitoring Costs 

Monitoring costs for the entire length of the period of analysis was estimated to be $6,874,500. 

This includes initial construction, periodic nourishment and major replacement monitoring. 

Total average annual costs for all monitoring are estimated at $140,000 over the 50-year period 

of Federal participation 

5.3.7 Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) 

Routine operation and maintenance of the project is the responsibility of the non-Federal 

Sponsor and includes maintenance of dunes (including sand fence and dune grass), pedestrian 

and vehicle accesses, and beach shaping. Beach shaping will be performed by heavy equipment 

to maintain the design template. Based on experience with similar projects, the average annual 

maintenance costs were estimated at $150,000. 

5.3.8 Constrnction and Fnnding Schednle 

The duration of initial construction was estimated at 8 months, including mobilization and 

demobilization. Construction duration for periodic nourishment was estimated at 4 months per 

cycle. Major replacement was estimated to take 5 months. 

5.3.9 Interest During Construction 

Interest Dming Construction (TDC) was computed in accordance with Engineering Regulation 

1105-2-100. Construction costs were assumed to be evenly distributed over the construction 

period. Planning, Engineering & Design (PED) and real estate acquisition costs were included in 

the calculations (March 2014 P.L.) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 323 
324

Table 90 Total Estimated Costs 

Discount Rate 3.50% 

Period of Economic Analysis 50 years 

Price Lewi Mar-14 

Base Year 2016 

Initial Construction Cost (includin R.E.) 

Initial Construction (without IDC) $921.000 

Periodic Nourishment $1,-162.000 

5.4 Project Benefits 

Total project benefits include storm damage reduction benefits, local costs foregone and 

recreation benefits. All benefits are the March 2014 price level. The project was economically 

justified on hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits but also included benefits such as 

recreation and Local Costs Forgone. Interior flood damage reduction was not included in the 

benefits calculation since interior drainage is a non-Federal responsibility. 

5.4.l National Economic Development Benefits 

The selected plan was optimized based on stonn damage reduction benefits to structures. Total 

NED benefits include storm damage reduction benefits to structures, improved property and 

infrastructure. Average Annual NED benefits are at a discount rate of 3.5% March 2014 PL, 

for the base year of 2016 for the fifty year len&>th of the project 

5.4.2 Local Costs Forgone 

The Local Costs Forgone benefits described in the following paragraphs are expected to be 

realized with implementation of any proposed project. Benefits of coastal storm management 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 324 
325

projects include reductions in non-physical damages as well as reductions in physical damages to 

homes. commercial buildings. public property and critical infrastructure. The Coastal Storm 

Risk Management National Economic Development (NED) Manual includes reduced costs for 

public protective measures or Local Costs Forgone, as it is referred to in this document, as a 

benefit category. This benefit captures future costs that would be expended by the state and local 

municipalities to protect coastal property in the absence ofa plan of protection. 

The beaches of 77,e Wik.lwood1 have been historically protected and maintained through state 

and local government-sponsored beach fill projects in North Wildwood to allay erosion. daily 

outfall maintenance to remove sand and place barriers around water that ponds at clogged 

outfalls. and construction projects in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest to extend outfall pipes 

beyond the accreted shoreline. In 2009, the State of New Jersey constructed a beach fill project 

of over one million cubic yards of sand at the northern section of lhe Wildwood,· to control 

erosion with subsequent emergency sand placements after other storm events. The future without 

project condition was based on the expectation that the state would continue to partner and 

provide protection to the communities. The implementation_of a federal project will preclude 

this action and provide a savings from public protective measures to the State of New Jersey and 

the local municipalities. 

Savings to the State of New Jersey and local communities could potentially be, depending upon 

the source of material. an estimated average annual $ l, 140,000 as a result of the beach fill and 

nourishment components of a proposed plan and $75,000 and $148,000 in Wildwood and 

Wildwood Crest from reduced outfall maintenance. Acquisition of sand from Hereford Inlet 

(dredging option) would eliminate realization of Local Costs Forgone benefits to Wildwood or 

Wildwood Crest. Local Costs Forgone were included in the average annual benefits for the 

backpass measures since the protective dune and berm will be constructed with the accreted 

beach material from Wildwood and Wildwood Crest The estimated average annual benefits 

include storm damage reduced and Local Costs Forgone or reduced maintenance costs from a 

16' dune and 75' bem1 with excess sand conveyed from Wildwood and Wildwood Crest to an 

engineered 16' dune to supplement oceanfront protection in North Wildwood, Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township. The estimated costs include initial construction, 

periodic nourishment, and interest during construction. 

5.4.3 Incidental Benefits 

Incidental benefits are benefits that are not directly attributable to storm damage reduction in the 

initial economic analysis. They include Recreation Benefits, the benefits that beachgoers enjoy 

as a result of an improved beach experience and Benefits During Construction which consist of 

benefits from partially constructed portions of the beach prior to completing the initial 

construction. These benefits are summarized below. 

5.4.3. l Recreation Benefits 

Beaches are consistently the number one travel destination in New Jersey. Tourist dollars 

contribute directly and indirectly to the regional economy. In 2008, the New Jersey Division of 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 325 
326

Travel and Tourism reported that travel and tourism generated 359,000 jobs in the state with a 

total payroll of$1 l.8 billion. 

The Rutgers State University completed in 1994, for previous New Jersey coastal studies, a 

contingent valuation method survey for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

and Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine willingness to pay for 

the existing beach and an enhanced beach. This was done on a regional basis, encompassing the 

major beach communities of the New Jersey Atlantic coast such as the communities of Absecon 

Island, Seven Mile Island, Brigantine, as well as Stone Harbor and Avalon which is just north of 

77,e Wildwood,. The survey was designed in accordance with the NED Procedures Manual -

Recreation lI (A Guide for Using the Contingent Value Methodology in Recreation Studies). 

The original report is included as an attachment to this appendix. The survey consisted of 1,063 

interviews of a random sample of recreational beach users. The interviews were conducted in 

person on the beach. The survey scope was intended for use with all South Jersey shore 

feasibility studies. The Wik/woods is also close, both qualitatively and geographically, to Stone 

Harbor therefore, it is reasonable that survey results can be representative of the conditions on 

the island. 

Beachgoers were asked to indicate how important different factors were in deciding whether to 

visit a New Jersey beach. Respondents voiced similar desires. The primary factors of 

consideration were the quality of the beach scenery, the maintenance of the beach, the width of 

the beach, the number of lifeguards, and the family-friendliness of the beach. 

The survey also used a density measure developed in cooperation with the Corps to determine if 

crowding was a problem. It was found that over 60% of the time there was at least several yards 

of space between beach towels or blankets, and only 7% of the time was it very crowded (only 2' 

between towels). Further it was determined that crowding was not considered a very important 

issue to the majority ofbeachgoers by asking respondents how important being alone is and how 

important is it to be with a large number of people. As might be expected, areas with more 

crowding tended to be frequented by people who like large numbers. People who like to be 

alone frequented areas that tended to have little crowding 

To estimate the value of the beach, as it exists currently, an iterative bidding process was 

applied. Beachgoers were first asked ifa day at the beach would be worth $4.00 to each member 

of their household. Based on their answers, they were then asked progressively higher or lower 

amounts until the amount they value the beach was determined. It was determined that the 

average value of a day at the beach is $4.22. 

Beachgoers were asked how much more they were willing to pay if the beach were widened. 

While the majority was unwilling to pay any extra, approximately 16% of Stone Harbor 

beachgoers were willing to pay, on average, $2.47 more per visit. This would be equivalent to 

an average of $0.39 for all beachgoers. This willingness to pay value for Stone Harbor was 

adopted because it is the nearest beach to North Wildwood. This value was indexed to a June 

2007 price level for the purposes of this study. Since access to the beaches of the Wildwood, is 

free, the number of visitor days was obtained from City of Nmth Wildwood estimates and by 

comparing beach size within the project area of North Wildwood with that of Stone Harbor. The 

total number of visitor days for the beach within the project area is estimated at 1,000,000 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 326 
327

Benefits were not found to accrue from increased capacity because crowding was found not to be 

a significant factor and the selected plan involves conveying accreted sand from Wildwood and 

Wildwood Crest. Removal of sand from the down drift areas is not expected to negatively affect 

the recreation experience because the beaches are extremely wide and require beachgoers to 

walk quite some distance to reach the water's edge. Benefits do arise from an increase in the 

value of the recreational experience in North Wildwood. Recent recreation proposals in the 

downdrift beaches cannot be impacted with the implementation of our selected plan and efforts 

are being made to determine how storm damage reduction and recreation can co-exist in this 

portion of the project area. 

Benefits resulting from this increase in recreational experience were calculated by multiplying 

the average daily value per beachgoer by the number of visitor days within the project area. This 

gives total recreational benefits of $693,000. 

5.4.3.2 Benefits Dnring Construction 

The proposed project will be constructed over nine months with an additional month before and 

after construction for mobilization and demobilization. Portions of the beach will be fully 

nourished before the project is completed in its entirety. The portions of the beach nourished 

early in the construction phase will provide storm damage reduction benefits. The summary 

shows tl1e monthly benefits during construction (BDC) and the resulting estimated average 

annual benefitof$102,000. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 327 
328

5.4.4 Benefit-Cost Summary 

BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR THE SELECTED PLAN 

DISCOUNT RA TE (FY14) 

PERIOD OF ANALYSIS 

PRICE LEVEL 

BASE YEAR 

3.50% 

50 YEARS 

March 2014 

2016 

A VERA GE ANNUAL BENEFITS: 

Storm Damage Reduction 

Local Costs Forgone (I) 

Recreation 

Benefits Dming Construction 

$4,095,000 

1,363,000 

693,000 

102,000 

TOTAL NED BENEFITS $6,253,000 

TOTAL COSTS: 

Initial Construction Costs (2) $21,605,000 

[nterest During Construction 349,000 

Periodic Nourishment (cycles l, 2) 5,952,000 

Periodic Nourishment (other cycles) 6,192,000 

Major Rehabilitation (3) (year 24) 7,920,000 

Average Annual Construction Costs $2,398,000 

Average Annual Monitoring Costs 140,000 

Average Annual OMRR&R Costs 150,000 

TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS $2,688,000 

NET BENEFITS $ 3,565,000 

BENEFIT-COST RATIO 2.3 

BENEFIT-COST RATIO (computed at 7%) 1.9 

RESIDUAL DAMAGES $ 5,818,000 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 328 
329

5.5 Risk and Uncertainty Associated with Coastal Projects 

Engineering Regulation 1105-2-101, dated January 2006, states "all flood damage reduction 

studies must address 1isk and uncertainty." This is due to the fact that natural systems are 

complex and measured variables, are to some degree, inaccurate_ These inaccuracies could have 

impacts on project outputs including the BCR and NED benefits. Risk analysis incorporates 

these uncertainties so the engineering and economic performance ofa project can be expressed in 

terms of a probability distribution instead of a traditional "point value" or single value for AAD, 

AAB, NED benefits and BCR. 

5.5.1 Risk and Uncertainty Coordination 

This Risk and Uncertainty (R&U) plan was the result of the coordination after the 23 July 2009 

Feasibility Scoping Meeting held at the Philadelphia District. This meeting was attended by the 

Office of Water Policy and Review (OWPR), North Atlantic Division, the NJDEP (Sponsor) and 

the District Vertical team. At that meeting the attendees came to the conclusion that a plan that 

should incorporate risk and uncertainty to comply with regulations contained in ER l !05-2-101. 

This plan was documented in the July 23 District Memorandum For Record (MFR) of the 

meeting, and later confirmed in correspondence from OWPR attendees in a 3 June 2011 letter to 

the District. "HQ, the MSC and District have concurred on the outcome of the J,SAf and 

understand the follmving actions will be required prior commencement of the Alternative 

Formulation Bri~ftng: a. Certification.for one-lime use of the SBEACH-COS7VAM methodology 

for the storm, damage and damage reduction ben~ftts analysis., b. Update the Peer Review Plan 

to include IEPR., c. Initiation <!/IEPRprocess." This new Risk and Uncertainty plan and 

SBEACH-COSTDAM certification was developed by the District Project Development Team, 

and forwarded to NAO on 17 June 2010. On 17 November 2011 NAD replied" Pending ATR 

/Agency Technical Review j team concurrence, the District can complete the updated analysis, to 

include risk and uncertainty and economic risk considerations. The analysis and result.\' 1vould 

undergo A IR and the Planning Center of E~pertise - Coastal and Storm Damage Reduction will 

determine !fan ·'appr,Jl'edfor one time use" model request to HQ USA CJ,,; qjfice of Water 

Pro;ect Review is warranted and will submit the required materials, as appropriate." The 

District began working on the R&U analysis, and forwarded tbeir results to Jacksonville District 

for their A TR. The R&U analysis was forwarded to the review team in Jacksonville, and the 

proposal was modified to incorporate their suggestions, the ATR team then approved the R&U 

approach and results in a two memoranda dated 2 February 2011 and 7 December 2011. The 

ATR team found that "the proposed analysis, if added to the current storm damage reduction 

model process employing COSJVAM, may be reasonable enough to incorporate the variability 

a_s:wxiated ·with economic and hydraulic ,systems in order to meet the requirement ident(fied at 

the Feasibili(y ScopinK Meeting of enhancing the existing effort in order to address risk and 

uncertainty." Upon review of the model results the ATR recommendation was a one-timeapproval-for-use in accordance with the process established by the Coastal Planning Center of 

Expertise (PCX) in a letter to the District and North Atlantic Division. Headquarters Planning 

and Policy Division (CECW-P) approved the model review plan in a memo dated 13 April 2012 

stating" The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet. New Jersey model review plan is approved" and 

"This model will be applicahle.fi,r use 011 the Her~fiwd /11/et to Cape May !11let, New Jersey 

Feasibility Study". The Pertinent Correspondence Section of the Appendices, Volume 3, 

Appendix G, also contains the May 2014 approval for the use of the proposed model and 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 329 
330

previous approval memos. 

5.5.2 Risk Analysis 

The Hereford to Cape May Risk and Uncertainty Analysis explicitly incorporates variations in 

key H&H (Hydrology and Hydraulics) and economic inputs in order to develop a range of 

damage levels and determine the impacts these variables play in project outputs. 

Outputs from the risk analysis will include a range of Average Annual Damages (AAD), 

Average Annual Benefits (AAB), Net Benefits and Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) that will better 

represent the potential damages and benefits that the project may encounter rather than single 

AAD, AAB, and BCR values based upon fixed assumptions about the study area. 

5.5.3 Risk and Uncertainty Methodology 

Sources of risk and uncertainty arise from the underlying variability of complex natural, social, 

hydraulic, structural and economic systems. The role of a risk analysis is to characterize the 

extent of these variations so their impact on model outputs can be understood. Outputs include a 

range of reasonably likely damage and benefit levels rather than a single point estimate. This 

can be accomplished through a type of risk analysis, the technique of varying assumptions as to 

alternative factors and examining the effects of these assumptions on the outcomes of benefits 

and costs (ER 1105-2-100). 

By definition, risk is the probability an area will be impacted by undesirable consequences, and 

uncertainty is the degree of imprecision of measured parameters used to describe the hydraulic, 

hydrologic and economic aspects of a project plan. Consequently, a R&U analysis determines 

the level of risk and uncertainty a project can potentially be exposed to throughout its lifetime. 

The role of this analysis is to quantify the extent of those variations in order to understand their 

impact on model outputs. 

The Hereford to Cape May Risk and Uncertainty Analysis will explicitly incorporate variations 

in key H&H (Hydrology and Hydraulics) and economic inputs in order to develop a range of 

damage levels and determine the impacts these variables play in project outputs. H&R inputs to 

the risk and uncertainty analysis will include variations in eroded dune location, 0.5 foot vertical 

erosion location, wave impact zone location, eroded dune elevation, maximum water elevation, 

water run--up elevation and bulkhead performance. Economic inputs to the risk and uncertainty 

analysis will include variations in the Federal discount rate, depreciated replacement cost value, 

and content-to-structure percentage. Outputs from the risk analysis will include a range of 

Average Annual Damages (AAD), Average Annual Benefits (AAB), Net Benefits and Benefit 

Cost Ratios (BCR) that will better represent the potential damages and benefits that the project 

may encounter rather than single AAD, AAB, and BCR values based upon fixed assumptions 

about the study area. 

5.5.4 H&H Risk and Uncertainty methodology 

The approach to address risk and uncertainty was to quantify a statistical bound representing a 

+/- 90% confidence interval associated with the storm erosion, wave attack, and inundation 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 330 
331

analysis from the SBEACH model runs done for the without project conditions and for the 

selected plan. Previous outputs from SBEACH for the without project conditions and selected 

plan were used to develop these bounds. The upper limit of the +90% confidence interval bound 

represented a "high" risk alternative and the lower limit of the -90% confidence interval bound 

represented a "low" risk alternative. Previously computed erosion, wave attack, and inundation 

estimates served as mean conditions for each storm frequency event. 

SBEACH generates six "response" parameters for each input beach profile at each frequency 

event (5- I 0-, 20-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year). These response parameters are: 

I. Eroded Dune Location 

2. 0.5 foot Erosion Location 

3. Wave Impact Zone Location 

4. Eroded Dune Elevation 

5. Maximum Water Elevation 

6. Runup Elevation 

These six response parameters are used to generate the three damage mechanisms used by the 

economics model (COSTDAM) to calculate Average Annual Damages (AAD), Average Annual 

Costs (AAC), Net Benefits, and the subsequent Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR). The 3 damage 

mechanisms are: 

I. Stonn Erosion 

2. Stmm Wave Attack 

3. Stonn Inundation (flooding) 

Since there is a degree of uncertainty associated with these parameters, the computer program 

EST (Empirical Simulation Technique) was used to develop the "high" risk and "low" risk 

statistical bound for each of the response parameters. EST can utilize multiple computed 

parameters associated with site-specific historical events as a basis for developing a methodology 

for generating multiple simulations of storm activity and the effects associated with each 

simulated event. The six response parameters are not independent, but are interrelated to each 

other in some nonlinear sense. Events follow a Poisson distribution in the EST portion of the 

modeling. 

The peak water elevation for each frequency event (5, 10, 20, 50, 100. 200, and 500 year) used in 

the previous SB EACH simulations along with the corresponding peak wave height and wave 

period were used as the input variables in the EST analysis. A graph showing the +/-90% 

confidence interval bands for each output parameter were developed in EST for each frequency 

within each cell for the "without project" analysis and "selected plan". A "low" and "high" 

value was picked off the confidence interval curves at each frequency. The "low" values 

represented a low risk alternative as compared to the mean and the "high" values represented a 

high risk alternative as compared to the mean. 

The H&H risk and uncertainty analysis produced six EST+/- 90% confidence interval curves for 

the key parameters used to calculate erosion, inundation and wave damages for COSTDAM 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 331 
332

inputs. The 90% confidence interval was selected because the magnitude and range of the 

distribution defined by a 95% and 99% confidence interval was determined to be too large when 

compared to the 90% confidence interval. An example of the water level curve for the storm 

events modeled in SBEACH is presented in Figure 125. The EST program generated the "high" 

risk (red line) and a "low" risk (blue line) scenario based on the+/- 90% confidence interval. 

New control files for the COS TD AN! economic model were generated based on the results of 

these six curves. EST uses a Poisson distribution for the life cycle events to determine the 

average number of expected events in a given year and it calculated a standard deviation and 

mean for each of the six response variables. 

In order to incorporate uncertainty into the analysis, the failure criteria of the existing shore 

protection stmctures were also varied. The original failure c1ite1ion assumed that the shore 

protection bulkhead would fail after being overlapped by !foot of water By incorporating a 

degree of uncertainty into the I foot failure threshold, the bulkhead was assumed to fail at a less 

frequent and more frequent water elevation compared to the original analysis. The 11more 

frequent" (red line in Figure 125) and "less frequent" (blue line in Figure 125) failure events for 

shore protection structures were scaled off the graph for the response parameters produced by 

EST. 

Figure 125 Empirical Simulation Technique (EST) 90% confidence curve for water level 

~ 

Maximum Water Elevation 

Cel!1 

i12+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..~-;.-~~~~~~-::;,,<:;.~::::~-:::::== ..... -------

0 

" 

w 

10 100 

ReturnPeriod(years) 

..._W/0Project-90%CI LowRisk~90%C I H1ghR1sk' 

1000 

The new failure criteria resulted in stmcture failures that were respectively, less probable and 

more probable to fail when compared to the previous analysis. Previous without project analysis 

showed that the bulkhead failed at the l 00-year event in North Wildwood_ Figure 125 shows 

potential failure events at the 70- and 400-year events when uncertainty is applied to the l foot 

failure threshold. It was assumed that by applying uncertainty, the bulkhead could fail at the 50-

year event for the "high risk" scenario, and at the 200-year event for the "low risk" scenario. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 332 
333

These events were chosen since a 70 year event and a 400 year event were not run in the 

SB EACH. These two scenarios were included in low and high risk damage calculations. 

The effects of Sea Level Rise (SLR) were incorporated using the guidance provided in 

Engineering Circular 1165-2-212. That guidance suggests accounting for a historic rate of sea 

level rise based on tide gauge data; a medium level of SLR; and a high level of SLR based on 

two National Research Council (NRC) curves. The range of values calculated using the 

guidance in EC 1165-2-211 was between 0.65 to 2.3' of SLR as a result of 50 years of projected 

rise at the Atlantic City tide gauge. 

Sea-level adjustments were incorporated into the development of the ocean stage frequency 

which was used for the without project hydraulic analysis for the study. Water elevations from 

historical storms as recorded at the nearby tide station at Atlantic City, NJ were adjusted for sea 

level rise accordingly and served as input to the SBEACH models. SLR was incorporated into 

the R&U analysis by calculating shoreline recession rates for each cell due to each sea-level rise 

scenario (NRC-Curves I and Tll) by using the Bruun Rule. This result was then compared to the 

shoreline recession values that were previously computed for the future without project 

condition. The larger of the two values was adopted and used in order to adjust the without 

project beach profile landward. This assumed a worst-case scenario of future beach profile 

response to accelerated sea-level rise. Any adjusted beach profile took into account the physical 

limitations of the area such as bulkheads and development locations as well as potential future 

actions by Locals and/or the State to intervene when beach conditions degrade to a point where 

action to replenish the beach must be taken. The previously computed future without project 

erosion value were based upon a calculated long-term erosion rate which examined historical 

trends in shoreline movement as well as potential future intervention by Locals and/or the State 

when the beach erodes back to the bulkhead in Cell 1. 

The elevations of the storm surge hydrograph used in SBEACH for the without project 

conditions were increased by an amount that corresponded to the worst-case accelerated sealevel change projection (2.3'). SBEACH was used again using the modified hydrographs and the 

adjusted beach profile. The values for the six response parameters SBEACH computed were 

compiled and plotted against the previously computed curves representing the 90% confidence 

interval that was done for earlier in the risk and uncertainty analysis. The curve that plotted 

furthest away from the mean was designated to be the "high risk" alternative. The erosion, wave 

impact zone, and inundation profiles that were used as input for the COSTDAM economics 

model were then calculated based upon these updated curves. 

5.5.5 Economic Risk and Uncertainty Methodology 

The economic risk and uncertainty analysis will use the new control files from EST, which will 

incorporate sea level rise parameter changes as model inputs for COSTDAM while performing a 

sensitivity analysis by varying key economic parameters that could affect AAD, AAB, Net 

Benefits and BCRs. Discount rate, depreciated replacement cost value, content-to-structure 

percentage, and the curves for stage damage will be varied for the economic portion of the 

analysis. The economic evaluation was performed over a SO-year petiod of analysis at the plan 

formulation discount rate and price level. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 333 
334

The federal discount rate is established annually and according to law is not allowed to vary by 

more than one quarter of one percentage point in any fiscal year. It is recognized that this 

parameter is likely to change. The discount rate will be varied by -Va from the baseline rate in 

effect at the time of the risk and uncertainty analysis for the 11 Jow0 risk scenario and by +1/4 for 

the 11 high11 risk scenario. 

The Marshall and Sv,aft Valuation Service was used for estimating depreciated replacement cost 

values from a combination of structure characteristics such as square footage, construction 

material, foundation type, and systems. The current depreciated replacement cost values will 

serve as the mean value for each structure. Typically, depreciated replacement cost values have 

been modified by+/- 10% in a sensitivity analysis to determine the "low" and 11 high11 risk 

scenarios. This approach will be employed to examine the effects on net benefits of the 90% 

confidence interval bands determined in the H&H analysis. Depreciated replacement cost values 

will also be varied for the most likely case scenario independently from the revised H&H 

parameters. 

The content-to-structure percentage wil1 be established using existing percentages from previous 

studies on the topic. Empirical data established a content value to be approximately 40% of 

structure value in primary homes and 15 to 20% of structure value in vacation homes. Nearly 

70% of the residential structures in North Wildwood are vacation or rental homes. A 

conservative weighted content-to-structure value of25% was adopted because it was determined 

that use of a 40% content-to-structure ratio would overestimate damage potential in a 

predominately vacation coastal community. The current content-to-structure value ratio of25% 

for district coastal studies will serve as the mean. A sensitivity to show the impact of varying the 

ratio to 10% for the "lown risk scenario and 40% under the !lhigh11 risk scenario will be 

performed. The content-to-structure ratio will also be varied for the most likely scenario 

independently from the EST low and high H&H model results. 

The stage damage curves for the mean condition will be varied by a reasonable level to 

determine the results' sensitivity to changes in this inundation damage variable. Reasonable 

levels of variation were obtained by prorating the original curves by percentage of change for 

minimum and maximum saltwater curves empirically observed in another coastal area. The 

significant coastal hydraulics parameters which determine erosion and wave damage 

vulnerability will be addressed within the SBEACH and EST models which are incorporated in 

the storm damage analysis through revised control files, the engineering component of the 

program. These critical response parameters include, as explained above, sea level rise (SLR), 

eroded beach volume, shoreline retreat, wave height above dune, and other variables 

The CO STD AM model evaluates structure erosion damage based on the presence of pile or slab 

foundation. The land below the structure must have eroded through the footprint of the structure 

before total damage is claimed for structures that are identified as having piles. Prior to this, for 

both foundation types, the percent damage claimed is equal to the linear proportion of erosion 

under the structure's footprint also referred to as the percent of the footprint compromised. 

Variation in pile depths will not be evaluated as part of this analysis because pile depths for each 

building are not available and actual pile depth or a range of depths is not a model parameter and 

was not surveyed. Therefore, the R&U for this variable cannot be addressed within the confines 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 334 
335

of the COSTDAM model. Also, variation in the first floor elevation surveys will not be 

evaluated. The level ofuncet1ainty in the parameters of structure first floor elevation and square 

footage is considered low. Professional surveyors conducted the elevation survey on a structure 

by structure basis and the square footage was derived from a Geographic lnfonnation Systems 

(GIS) database. 

5.5.6 Risk and Uncertainty Results 

Primary outputs of the analysis include a range of Average Annual Damages (AAD), Average 

Annual Benefits (AAB), Net Benefits and Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) represented by the damage 

level scenarios: (1) low risk scenarios; (2) the existing baseline dan1age level; and (3) high risk 

scenarios. The low risk scenarios will be based on the model inputs from the H&H analysis that 

incorporate the lower limit 90% confidence interval curve values for the eroded dune location, 

0.5 foot erosion location, wave impact zone location, eroded dune elevation, maximum water 

elevation and run-up elevation from the H&H analysis, coupled with variation in four key 

economic input variables that include discount rate, depreciated replacement costs, content-tostructure percentage, and stage damage curves. The existing baseline damage level will be based 

on the previously calculated AAD, AAB, Net Benefits and BCRs. The high risk scenarios will 

be based on the model inputs from the H&H analysis that incorporate the values from the upper 

limit 90% confidence interval curve eroded dune location, 0.5 foot erosion location, wave impact 

zone location, eroded dune elevation, maximum water elevation and run-up elevation from the 

H&H analysis, coupled with variation in four key economic input variables that include discount 

rate, depreciated replacement costs, content-to-structure percentage, and stage damage curves. 

All outputs from the proposed additional risk and uncet1ainty analyses will be tabulated and 

plotted to display the potential range of values that result. They will indicate the relative level of 

risk and uncet1ainty that would be associated with implementing the selected plan (Table 91 ). 

The variables from the risk and uncet1ainty analysis that are most likely to contribute to the 

variations in project outputs are the aggregated combined variations that combine low/high 

discount rates, low/high structure to cost value, low/high stage damage curves etc, are the 

combined Hydrology and Hydraulic parameters including water level, structure performance, 

erosion distances that were varied within the Empirical Simulation Technique (EST) Analysis. 

When combined, these variables have the potential to increase average annual benefits, Benefit 

Cost Ratios and Net Benefits from the MLS (Most Likely Scenario). 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 335 
Table 91 Risk and Uncertainty Results 

MLS- Most Likely 

Sceru:uio Structure I>epreLiated Replacement Conten

(selected nlan) Discount Rate 

Category na 3%% 4%% 

Storm Damage Reduction: $5,042 $5,042 $5,042 

n .... n0fits During $93 $89 $97 Construction: 

Recreation: $58/J $580 $580 

TofalAAB: $5,715 $5,711 $5,719 

% Deviation from :VILS na -0.07 1% 0.07°/o 

A.AB Rank from l\!ILS na 11 10 

Avg. Ann. Construction $2,178 $2,519 $2,602 Costs: 

Avg. Ann. Monitoring $119 $119 $119 Costs: 

TotalAAC: $2,297 $2,638 S2,721 

BCR 2.5 2.2 2.1 

% Deviation from Ml ,S na -12.00% -16.00% 

B( .'R Rank from I\'ILS na 6 5 

Net Benefits: $3,418 $3,073 $2,998 

% Deviation from MLS na -10.09% -12.29% 

~et Benefits Rank from 

na 10 MLS 

Combined Rank na 27 24 

Final rank against MLS "" 11 JO 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

Cost Value Stmdure 

-10% 10% 10% 

S4.539 $5,547 $4,460 

$84 $102 $82 

$580 $580 $580 

$5,203 $6,229 $5.122 

-8.96% 8.99% -10.38% 1

9 7 

Average Annual Costs 

S2,178 $2,178 $2,178 

$119 $] 19 $119 

$2,297 $2,297 $2,297 

Benefit Cost Ratio 

2.3 2.7 2.2 

-8.00% 8.00% -12.00'%, 1

7 7 

Net Benefits 

$2,906 $3,932 $2.825 

-14.98% 15.04% -17.35% 2

24 21 21 

9 8 7 
337

The variables with the greatest to least impact(+/-) on Average Annual Benefits, Benefit Cost 

Ratios and Net Benefits from the Most Likely Scenario (MLS) are ranked below. The ranking 

was based on the percentage that each variable deviated from the Most Likely Scenario (MLS). 

These percentages were then ranked based on the absolute value(+/-) of the deviation from the 

MLS for Average Annual Benefits, Benefit Cost Ratio and Net Benefits. These rankings were 

then totaled in the row titled Combined Rank, and then the totals from the Combined Rank were 

ranked from 1-11. The lower values had the highest impact on variables in the table above. 

I. Combined High Variation 

2. EST +90 Confidence Interval 

3. Combined Low Variation 

4. EST -90 Confidence Interval 

5. Stage Damage Curve Max/ Content to Structure Percentage -40%(tie) 

6. Stage Damage Curve Minimum 

7. Content to Structure Percentage +10% 

8. Structure Depreciated Replacement Costs Value +IO% 

9. Structure Depreciated Replacement Cost Value -10% 

I 0. Discount Rate at 4 3

·

3 

11. Discount Rate at 3 7 8 

Factors that had the highest contribution to uncertainty based on variation from the most likely 

scenario in Table 91 were variations in the EST confidence intervals (sea level rise, structure 

performance, erosion distances) fluctuations in the Stage Damage Curves and Content to 

Stmcture ratio 40%. 

The variables that had the least impact on project outputs were related to Discount Rates, 

Structure Depreciated Replacement Cost Value and Content to Structure Percentages I 0%. 

Other key variables that contribute to risk and uncertainty are first floor elevations of structures 

within the study area. This uncertainty was dealt with by quality control of the surveyed data by 

district personnel and contractors and it was not explicitly varied in the risk and uncertainty 

analysis. 

Mitigation for variables that will contribute to the increase in project AAB, BCR and Net 

Benefits are difficult for shore protection projects since natural and engineered berm levels are 

determined by local water levels, and increasing existing berm levels to deal with future water 

level increases associated with sea level rise and storm stage will cause the berm to scarp and 

produce steep beachface cliffs. Also, increasing dune elevations to mitigate for increase water 

levels during storms would require the selection of an elevation above NED optimized elevations 

which is in violation of Corps Planning Guidance. Increasing dune heights to created additional 

"freeboard" above the optimized dune height would require material that is above the NED 

optimum. Therefore, the PDT decided that adaptive management to future sea level rise was the 

best measure for mitigation of risk and uncertainty. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 337 
338

There is a very low risk and uncertainty to the recommendation for the selected plan of 

improvement from the derivation of the recreation benefits by utilizing the somewhat dated 

Rutgers University Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) report as a key input. This report was 

contracted by the Philadelphia District to Rutgers University, and was spearheaded by a 

professor with substantial CVM expertise. The Rutgers University effort entailed a large random 

sample of interviews with approximately 1000 New Jersey beachgoers. The initial starting point 

for a visitor day beach experience valuation of $4.22 from the Rutgers report was within the 

lower range of valuation that could be expected to be applied from an alternate recreation benefit 

evaluation technique, Unit Day Values. The incremental increase in the willingness to pay, 

applied as the basis for benefits for an improved recreational experience with a widened with 

project condition beach berm, was a modest $0.69 per person per day (2014 PL). Also, the 

recreation benefits are strictly a secondary incidental project purpose for this study and were not 

used in the formulation/optimization process. The selected plan has positive BCRs for all the 

communities within the project area (without recreation benefits): North Wildwood (1.4); 

Wildwood (10.6); Wildwood Crest/Lower Township (5.1); and the Total Project (2.1). The 

recreation average annual benefits of $693,000 represent only 11 % of the total project average 

annual benefits of $6,253,000. The impact of adding the recreation benefits at the end of the 

formulation process resulted in the project Benefit-Cost Ratio being adjusted slightly upward 

from 2. 1 to 2.3. 

5.6 Cost Sharing and Local Cooperation 

Cost Sharing for the selected plan is based on the Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) of 

1986. Section 103 (d) ofWRDA 86 established the cost sharing percentages for beach 

nourishment projects. The selected plan is justified based on hurricane and storm damage 

reduction benefits. No separable recreation features are included with the project. Recreation 

benefits produced by the selected plan are not required for justification and are assumed to be 

incidental to the project. In accordance with Section 103 WRDAl 986 and appropriate Federal 

regulations such as ER 1165-2-130, Federal participation in a project fonnulated for hurricane 

and storm damage reduction is 65% of the estimated total initial project construction costs 

including Lands, Easements, Rights-of-way, Relocations, and Dredged material disposal areas 

(LERRD). The estimated value of LERRD provided by the non-Federal Sponsor is included in 

total project costs. The non-Federal Sponsor shall receive credit for the value of LERRD cost 

towards the non-Federal cost share. Operation, Maintenance, Repairs, Replacement, and 

Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs are 100% non-Federal responsibility. Section 215 of the 

WRDA 1999 amended cost sharing for periodic nourishment of shore protection projects, Under 

Section 215 ofWRDA 1999, periodic nourishment for the selected plan is 50% Federal and 50% 

non-Federal. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 338 
339

Table 92 Cost Sharing for the Selected Plan 

5.6.l Sponsor Cooperation and Financial Capability 

In accordance with Section 105(a)( l) of WRDA 1986, the Hereford Inlet Feasibility Study was 

cost-shared 50%-50% between the Federal Government and the State of New Jersey. The 

contributed funds of the non-Federal Sponsor, the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, demonstrate their intent to support a project for the study area. The State of New 

Jersey has a $25,000,000 stable source of annual funding for shore protection projects. The 

sponsor has demonstrated their financial capability through their ongoing cost sharing of current 

Philadelphia District shore protection projects including; Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, 

Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Inlet, Absecon Island, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Inlet, 

Brigantine Island, Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, NJ and Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Peck 

Beach, Ocean City, NJ. The future estimated expenditures based on the initial construction, 

periodic nourishment, monitoring and operations and maintenance for the 50 period of analysis 

are shown in Table 92. The cost-sharing percentages presented herein are tentative based on the 

intent of the non-Federal Sponsor to ensure public use and access within the ful1 project area. 

Public use and access will be addressed during the Preconstruction Engineering and Design 

(PED) phase and prior to construction. Final apportionment will be based on conditions of public 

use and access at the time of construction or subsequent nourishment. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 339 
340

Table 93 Estimated Schedule of Federal and non Federal Expenditures 

Yl•m· Phm>l' Cm,t C;1sh 

2015 PED $1394,921 S464.974 

2016 Initial $14.04:CUJOO $6,288.239 

2017 \ion $140.000 so 2018 Mon SJ40.000 $() 

2019 l\lon Sl40JJOO so 

2020 Paiod1c $2.975.000 S2.975.000 

2021 \Ion. $140.000 $() 

2022 :I.Ion SJ40,000 so 2023 \Ion Sl40JJOO $() 

2024 Pcm,dic S2.975.000 $2,975.000 

2025 \fon S!40.000 so Sl.J-OJJOO so 202 ;\Ion. $140.000 $0 

2028 Periodic S3JJ95.000 S3Jl95.000 

2029 !\lon S140.000 so 2030 \Ion $140.000 so 2031 \fon :i,14(}_()()() w 2032 Periodic S3,095.000 S3.095.000 

2033 tfon. $140.000 $() 

203-t }.fon $I40JJOO so 2035 tlon Sl40JJOO so 2036 1'.:dod1c S3.095.000 SJ.095.000 

2037 :\Ion $140.000 so 2038 Mon $!40.000 so 2039 ;\,Ion $140.000 so 2040 \faior $3.960.000 $3,960.000 

20-H !>Ion St40JJOO &l 

2042 ~ion :Sl40.000 so 2043 :\Ion $140,000 &J 

20-1-l PcnodK SJJJ95.0DO 53.095.000 

2045 \Jon :i.140,000 so 2046 \fon. $140 .. 000 so 2047 ;\fon. Sl40.000 so 2048 P.:nod1c $3,095.00() S3.095.000 

2049 ~klll Sl40.000 so 2050 \.Jon Sl40JJOO so :\[on $140.()00 so 

2052 Periodic $3.095,00() $3.095.000 

2053 \Jon. $140 .. 000 so 2054 \.fon S140.000 so 2055 ;\fon $140.000 $(} 

2056 Periodic $3,095.000 S.:UJ95,000 

:\Jon $140000 so 2058 :\Ion S140JJOO ${) 

2059 ~Jon. $140.000 so 2060 P.:riodic S.1.()95.000 S3JJ95.000 

2061 :.Ion Sl40.000 so 

2062 Mon $140.000 so 2063 Sl.J.0.000 so 2064 $3.095.000 $3.095.000 

2065 I :\Ion SJ40.000 so 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

LERRD 0,\1RR&R 

so so Sl.27:1511 so so $150.000 

$0 Sl50.000 

so $150,()()() 

so so 

so $150.000 

so S150,000 

so $150,000 

so so ${) S150J)00 

so $150.000 

so $150.000 

$0 so ${) $150.000 

so $150.000 

so $15().()(){) 

$0 $0 

so Sl503JOO 

so $150,000 

$0 Sl50,000 

so so 

so S150,000 

so Sl50,000 

$0 $150.000 

so $0 

$() $150,000 

so Sl50 .. 000 

so S150 .. 000 

50 so so $150,000 

so Sl50.000 

so Sl50.000 

so so 

So $150,000 

so Sl50.000 

so S150.{JOO 

so so 

$0 Sl50,000 

so S15(UXJO 

so S150.000 

so so 

so S!50,000 

so S150.000 

so Sl50.000 

so so 

so '.,150.000 

so Sl50.{Xl0 

so S150.000 

so so so $150.000 

Total Costs 

S1,859,R94 

$21.604.750 

$290.000 

S290.000 

$290.00U 

$5,950,000 

S290,000 

S29(UJO() 

$290.()()() 

SS.950.000 

S290JJOO 

$290.000 

$290.000 

$6J90JJOO 

S290JJOO 

$290.000 

S290.000 

S(d90JJOO 

S290JJOO 

$290,000 

$290.000 

$6.190.000 

S290.000 

$290.000 

$290.000 

$7.920.000 

$290JJ(]() 

S290.000 

S290JJOO 

S6,l90,000 

$290.000 

$290.000 

$290,000 

$6.190.000 

S2<JO.OOO 

$290})()() 

S290.000 

$6.190.000 

S290.000 

$290.000 

S290.000 

$6,190,000 

S2'>0.000 

$290.000 

$290.000 

S6J90.000 

~290.000 

S29(UJOO 

S290.000 

$6.190.000 

$290,000 

Page 340 
341

5.6.2 Project Partnership Agreement 

A fully coordinated Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) will be prepared subsequent to the 

approval of the feasibility phase and will reflect final recommendations of this feasibility study. 

The non-Federal Sponsor, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, has 

indicated support of the recommended plan and desire to execute a PCA. NJDEP has committed 

to providing adequate public access for all project lands throughout the life of the project. Should 

Congress appropriate funds for construction of the project, the non-Federal Sponsor would have 

to assume non-Federal responsibilities relating to cost-sharing, financing, and other applicable 

requirements of the Water Resources Development Acts of 1986, 1996, and 1999 as indicated in 

the following paragraphs: 

a_ Provide 35 percent of initial project costs assigned to hurricane and storm damage 

reduction plus 100 percent of initial project costs assigned to protecting undeveloped private 

lands and other private shores which do not provide public benefits and 50 percent ofpetiodic 

nourishment costs assigned to hurricane and stonn damage reduction plus I 00 percent of 

periodic nourishment costs assigned to protecting undeveloped private lands and other private 

shores which do not provide public benefits and as further specified below: 

(1) Enter into an agreement which provides, prior to construction, the required non-Federal share 

of design costs; 

(2) Provide, during construction, any additional funds needed to cover the non-Federal 

share of design costs: 

(3) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and perform or ensure the 

perfonnance of any relocations determined by the Federal Government to be necessary for the 

initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and maintenance of the 

project; 

(4) Provide, during construction, any additional amounts as are necessary to make its 

total contribution equal to 35 percent of initial project costs assigned to hurricane and 

storm damage reduction plus 100 percent of initial project costs assigned to protecting 

undeveloped private lands and other private shores which do not provide public benefits 

and 50 percent of periodic nourishment costs assigned to hurricane and storm damage 

reduction plus 100 percent of periodic nourishment costs assigned to protecting 

undeveloped private lands and other private shores which do not provide public benefits; 

b. For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, and repair the 

completed project, or functional portion of the project, at no cost to the Federal Government, in a 

manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable 

Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the Federal 

Government; 

a. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the non-Federal Sponsor, now or hereafter, owns or controls for 

Hereford Inlet ta Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 341 
342

access to the project for the purpose of inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, 

rehabilitating, or completing the project. No completion, operation, maintenance, repair, 

replacement, or rehabilitation by the Federal Government shall relieve the non-Federal Sponsor 

ofresponsibility to meet the non-Federal Sponsor's obligations, or to preclude the Federal 

Government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to ensure faithful performance; 

b. Agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood 

insurance programs 

c. Comply with Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended (33 

U.S.C. 70lb-l2), which requires a non-Federal interest to prepare a floodplain management plan 

within one year after the date of signing a project cooperation agreement, and to implement such 

plan not later than one year after completion of construction of the project"). 

cl. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the initial 

construction, periodic nourishment, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 

rehabilitation of the project and any project-related betterments, except for damages due to the 

fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors; 

e. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs 

and expenses incurred pursuant to the project in accordance with the standards for financial 

management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Section 33 .20; 

f. Perf01m, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances that 

are determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances 

regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or 

under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required 

for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and maintenance of the project. 

However, for lands that the Federal Government determines to be subject to the navigation 

servitude, only the Federal Government shall perform such investigations unless the Federal 

Government provides the non-Federal Sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which 

direction; 

g. Assume complete financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs 

of any CERCLA regulated materials located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way 

that the Federal Government determines to be necessary for the initial construction, periodic 

nourishment, operation, or maintenance of the project; 

h. Agree that the non-Federal Sponsor shall be considered the operator of the project for 

the purpose of CERCLA liability, and to the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, and 

repair the project in a manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA; 

i. If applicable, comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 342 
343

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended 

by Title IV of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 

(Public Law 100-17), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring 

lands, easements, and rights-of-way, required for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, 

operation, and maintenance of the project, including those necessary for relocations, borrow 

materials, and dredged or excavated material disposal, and inform all affected persons of 

applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act; 

j. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 USC 2000d), 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Army 

Regulation 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and 

Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army", and Section 402 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C 70lb-l2), requiring non-Federal 

preparation and implementation of flood plain management plans; 

k. Provide the non-Federal share of that portion of the costs of mitigation and data 

recove1y activities associated with historic preservation, that are in excess of l percent of the 

total amount authorized to be appropriated for the project, in accordance with the cost sharing 

provisions of the agreement; 

I. Participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood 

insurance programs; 

m. Do not use Federal funds to meet the non-Federal Sponsor's share of total project 

costs unless the Federal agency providing the funds verifies in writing that such funds are 

authorized to be used to carry out the project. 

n. Prescribe and enforce regulations to prevent obstruction of or encroachment on the 

project that would reduce the level of protection it affords or that would hinder future periodic 

nourishment and/or the operation and maintenance of the project; 

o. Not less than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of protection 

afforded by the project; 

p. Publicize floodplain information in the area concerned and provide this information to 

zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development in 

the floodplain, and in adopting such rep1lations as may be necessary to prevent unwise future 

development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the project; 

q. For so long as the project remains authorized, the non-Federal Sponsor shall ensure 

continued conditions of public ownership and use of the shore upon which the amount of Federal 

participation is based; 

r. Provide and maintain necessary access roads, parking areas, and other public use 

facilities, open and available to all on equal terms; 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 343 
344

s. Recognize and support the requirements of Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood 

Control Act of 1970, as amended, and Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

l 986, Public Law 99-662, as amended, which provides that the Secretary of the Anny shall not 

commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, until the 

non-Federal Sponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for 

the project or separable element; and 

t. At least twice annually and after storm events, perform surveillance of the beach to 

determine losses of nourishment material from the project design section and provide the results 

of such surveillance to the Federal Government. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 344 
345

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 

6.1 Conclusions 

A plan was developed to reduce potential ocean-related stonn damages. This plan 

consists of the construction ofa beach benn and dune from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

encompassing North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. This plan 

includes periodic nourishment every 4 years. Specific project details are presented in Section 5.1 

of this report. The selected plan reflects information available at the time and CUITent Corps 

policies governing formulation of hurricane and stonn damage reduction projects. This plan may 

be modified before being transmitted to Congress as a proposal for authorization and 

implementation. The project sponsor, interested Federal and non-Federal agencies, and other 

parties will be advised of any such modification and given an opportunity to comment further 

prior to transmittal to Congress. 

6.1.l Study Continuation: Needs and Requirements 

In the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, Public Law 113-2, Congress provided funding 

and authority for the Corps of Engineers to execute actions related to the consequences of 

Hurricane Sandy. The Federal share of initial construction of the recommended plan is eligible 

to be funded using construction funds provided in Public Law 113-2. The Corps will address 

whether Public Law 113-2 construction funds will be used to complete initial constmction of the 

recommended plan at a later date. 

If the Corps detennines that Public Law 113-2 funds will be used for the Federal share of initial 

construction of the recommended plan, initial construction of the project may be completed 

following notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and 

the Senate by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) that the recommended plan is 

technically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally acceptable. Congressional 

authorization and appropriations will be required in order to carry out periodic renourishment. 

If the Corps, however, determines that Public Law 113-2 funds will not be used for the Federal share of 

initial construction of the recommended plan, Congressional authorization and appropriations will be 

required in order to carry out both initial constmction and periodic renourishment. 

6.1.2 Additional Tasks 

Hurricane Sandy impacted the coastline of the mid-Atlantic and northeast United States in 

October 2012, making landfall less than 40 miles northeast of the Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet study area. As a result of Hurricane Sandy, Congress passed Public Law 113-2, the 

"Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013" Chapter 4 of PL 113-2 specified actions for 

USACE, including the following [underlining added]: 

. . the S'ecreta,y (?/the Army shall expedite and complete ongoing flood and storm 

damage reduction studies in areas that were imJXICted by Hurricane Sandy,. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 345 
346

and further that· 

.. an interim report ident(fying. . anv project under study bv the Corpsfbr reducing 

flooding and storm damage risks in the affected area. . shall be submitted to the 

appropriate congressional committees''. 

USACE transmitted the "Second Interim Report to Congress" on 30 May 2013, which stated: 

.. the Secretary r!fthe Army may also use these funds to construct any pro;ect under 

studv bv the Corps for reducing flooding and storm damage risks in areas along the 

Atlantic Coast within the North Atlantic Division that were affected by Hurricane 

Sandy". 

The Second Interim Report to Congress included the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet study as a 

"Project Under Study", thus making it eligible for study completion funding, as well as 

authorizing initial project construction funding at 100% Federal expense, with the non-Federal 

share of initial construction costs repayable over a period of30 years from the date of project 

completion. Although PL 113-2 authorized initial construction of the project, it did not include 

future periodic nourishment of the project, which will require a separate authorization by 

Congress. 

North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (NACCS) 

PL 113-2 also directed USA CE to perform "a comprehensive study lo address the.flood risks C!f 

vulnerable coastal populations in areas that 1vere qtfected by Hurricane Sandy within the 

boundaries C!f the North Atlantic Division of the Corps". The "North Atlantic Coast 

Comprehensive Study" (NACCS) is ongoing and is scheduled for completion in January 2015. 

The focus of the NACCS is to reduce risk to vulnerable coastal populations and the infrastructure 

it supports. 

When the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet study was scoped and initiated, the focus was to 

address risk of potential storm damage along the oceanfront of Five Mile Island. It was 

recognized at the time that there was residual risk of back bay flooding to the communities on 

Five Mile Island and additional residual risk areas that were not able to be protected with the 

selected plan on the beachfront piers. The back bay shoreline flood risk will be reduced by 

implementation of a shore protection project (beachfill) along the oceanfront. Nevertheless, back 

bay shorelines and other residual risk areas remain susceptible to flooding during coastal storms 

and as a result of ocean storm surge. 

However, the magnitude of that problem was determined to be beyond the scope of the 

feasibility study, in pa,1 because the emphasis of the New Jersey Shore Protection Program, and 

specifically the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet component of that program, was to complete 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 346 
347

the line of oceanfront shore protection projects that extend from Sea Bright, NJ on the north to 

Cape May Point on the south, a distance of about 125 miles, As stated previously in this report, 

the coastal reach between Hereford and Cape May Inlets was the only segment of the New Jersey 

ocean coast lacking an authorized shore protection project. 

Given that Hurricane Sandy caused significant back bay flooding of the Five Mile Island study 

area between Hereford and Cape May Inlets, and given the emphasis of the NACCS to identify 

areas at risk of coastal flooding in the future, an opportunity exists to evaluate risks associated 

with the back bay flood problem of the study area and other residual risk areas that are not 

addressed by the recommended plan of this report 

6.2 Recommendations 

Overall Assessment 

In making the following recommendations, I have given consideration to all significant 

aspects in the overall public interest, including environmental quality, social effects, economic 

effects, engineering feasibility, and compatibility of the project with policies, desires, and 

capabilities of the State of New Jersey and other non-Federal interests, I have evaluated several 

alternative plans for the purpose of hurricane and storm damage reduction, A project has been 

identified that is technically sound, economically cost-effective over the 50-year period of 

analysis, socially and environmentally acceptable, and has support from the non-Federal 

Sponsor. 

Project Benefits 

The selected plan has primary benefits based on hurricane and storm damage reduction 

and provides average annual total net benefits of approximately $3,565,000 and a benefit-to-cost 

ratio of 2,3 

Initial Project Cost 

The total initial project cost of construction is estimated at $21,605,000 (March 2014 PL), 

Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Ways, Relocations, and Dredged Material Disposal Areas 

(LERRD) costs are $1,273,987 and will be credited towards the non-Federal Sponsor cash 

contribution. 

Continuing Construction Cost 

Periodic nourishment is expected to occur at 4-year intervals subsequent to the 

completion of initial construction, Periodic nourishment is estimated to cost $82,428,000 

(March 2014 PL) over the 50-year period of analysis, 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 347 
348

Ultimate Project Cost 

The ultimate cost of construction which includes initial construction, project monitoring, 

and fifty years of periodic nourishment is estimated to be $104,033,000 (March 2014 P.L.), costshared 52% Federal and 48% non-Federal based on WRDA 1999 cost-sharing of periodic 

nourishment at 50% Federal and 50% non-Federal and initial construction at 65% Federal and 

35% non-Federal. 

Modifications 

These recommendations reflect the information available at the time and current Departmental 

policies governing formulation of individual projects. These recommendations may be modified 

before they are transmitted to Congress as proposals for authorization and implementation 

funding. However, prior to transmittal to Congress, the Sponsor, the States, interested Federal 

agencies, and other parties will be advised of any modifications and will be afforded the 

opportunity to comment further. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

\s. ___ e_·-\~~-~ 

J;;i;n C. Becking 

Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers 

District Commander 

Page 348 
349

7.0 List of Preparers 

The following individuals were responsible for preparation and technical support for the 

Feasibility Study and Integrated Environmental Assessment 

Brian Bogle, P.M.P, Pro,ject Manager 

M.S. Applied Geoscience 

B.S. Hydro-geology 

B.A. Political Science 

12 years Project Management Experience 

Jefl Gebert, Coastal Planning Chief 

B.S. Geology and Geophysics 

25 years Engineering and Planning 

Expe1ience 

Bob Selsor, Economist 

BA Economics 

MBA Finance 

34 Years Experience 

Sharon Grayson, Economist 

B.A. Economics 

M.B.A. Information Systems 

Certificate Geographic Information Systems 

16 years economics experience 

Heather Sachs, Real Estate Specialist 

Realty Specialist 

Civil Projects/US Support Branch 

M. S. Real Estate 

21 years Federal Real Estate Experience 

Beth Brandreth, EA Preparation 

B.S. Marine Biology 

22 years EA and EIS preparation 

and review experience 

Alyssa Dunlap. P.E., Civil Works Design 

B.S. in Architectural Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

14 years design experience 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

Chuc!< Sutphen, P.G., Geologist 

B. S. Geo! ogy 

M.S. Geoscience 

Geotechnical and Beach Fill Analysis 

20 years geotechnical experience 

Bruce Uibel, P.E., Geotechnical Engineer 

BS Civil Engineering 

Geotechnical and Beach Fill Analysis 

40 years of geotechnical experience 

Peter Gori, P.G., Geologist 

B.S. Geology 

M.S. Environmental Engineering 

20 years geotechnical experience 

Robert Lowinski, Coastal Engineer 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

M.S. Civil Engineering 

20 years coastal engineering experience 

Nichole Minnichbach, EIS Preparation 

(Cultural Resources) 

B.A. Anthropology 

M.S. Anthropology 

15 years field experience and IO years 

federal experience 

William Welk, Cost Estimator 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

M.S. Mechanical Engineering 

19 years cost engineering experience 

Page 349 
350

8.0 Public Involvement 

Coordination of this project was done with Federal. State and local resource agencies. Agencies 

notified for this study included the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), and New Jersey State Historic 

Preservation Office (NJSHPO). 

A Planning Aid Letter, prepared by the USFWS, is provided in Appendix G. A draft Section 

2(b) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report was requested from the USFWS and is contained 

in the technical appendices. A final Section 2(b) was prepared by the USFWS following the 

final review of this Final document. This report will provide official USFWS comments on the 

project pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 

A copy of the Feasibility Study and Integrated Environmental Assessment is being provided to 

the following individuals/agencies for review in addition to the interested public that requested 

copies. 

Federal 

Honorable Frank Lobiondo 

House of Representatives 

2427 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Ms. Grace Musumeci, Chief 

Environmental Review Section 

Strategic Planning and Multi-Media 

Programs Branch 

USEPA Region II 

290 Broadway 

New York, NY 10007-1866 

Mr. Eric Schrading, Supervisor 

New Jersey Field Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

927 North Main Street (Bldg. D) 

Pleasantville, NJ 08232 

Ms. Mary A. Colligan 

Assistant Regional Administrator 

for Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Region 

55 Great Republic Drive 

Gloucester, MA O l 930 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 350 
351

Lynn G. Canton, Regional Director 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Region II 

26 Federal Plaza 

Suite 1337 

New York, NY 10278 

Ms. Karen Greene 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Habitat Conservation Division 

James J. Howard Marine Sciences 

Laboratory 

74 Magruder Road 

Highlands, New Jersey 07732 

State 

Bob Martin, Commissioner 

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection 

P.O. Box 404, Station Plaza 5 

501 East State Street, Floor 4 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0404 

Dave Jenkins, Chief 

Endangered & Non-Game Species 

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection 

Division of Fish and Wildlife 

CN 400 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0400 

Jeffrey C. N onnant 

Principal Fisheries Biologist 

NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Bureau of Shellfisheries 

Nacote Creek Shellfish Office 

P.O.Box418 

Port Republic, NJ 08241 

Geoffrey L. Wikel, Chief 

Environmental Coordination Branch 

Division of Environmental Assessment 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

381 Elden St. 

Herndon, Va 20170-4817 

Mark Pederson 

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Land Use Regulation Program 

CN401 

501 East State Street 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0401 

Bureau of New Source Review 

Air Quality Permitting Program 

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection 

401 E. State Street, 7th Floor 

Mail Code 401-07H 

P.O. Box420 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 

Administrator Peter Clarke 

NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Bureau of Marine Fisheries 

Nacote Creek Shellfish Office 

P.O. Box 418 

Port Republic, NJ 08241 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 351 
352

Daniel D. Saunders 

New Jersey Historic Preservation Office 

NJ Department of Environmental Protection 

P.O. Box 404, Station Plaza 5 

501 East State Street, Floor 4 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0404 

Local 

Mayor Ernie Troiano 

Wildwood 

4400 New Jersey Avenue 

Wildwood, NJ 08260 

Mayor Carl Groon 

Wildwood Crest 

6101 Pacific Avenue 

Wildwood Crest, NJ 08260 

Dr. Stewart Farrell, Director 

Coastal Research Center 

P.O. Box 195 

Jim Leeds Road 

Pomona, NJ 08240-0195 

Dave Rosenblatt, Administrator 

Natural and Historic Resources 

Engineering and Construction 

1510 Hooper Avenue 

Toms River, NJ 08753 

Mayor Patrick Rosenello 

North Wildwood 

90 l Atlantic Avenue, 

North Wildwood, NJ 08260 

Mayor Micheal Beck 

Lower Township 

2600 Bayshore Road, 

Villas, NJ 08251 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 352 
353

9.0 Clean Air Act Statement of Conformity 

CLEAN AIR ACT 

STATEMENT OF CONFORMITY 

HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET FEASIBILITY STUDY 

CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 

Based on the conformity analysis in the subject report, I have determined that the proposed 

action conforms to the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Environmental 

Protection Agency had no adverse comments under their Clean Air Act authority. The air 

quality comments received from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection were 

addressed in the final feasibility report and integrated Environmental Assessment (EA). The 

proposed project would comply with Section 176 C (1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 353 
354

10.0 District Legal Certification 

CERTIFICATE Of LEGAL REVIEW 

NEW !ERSEY SHORE PR011;CTJON STUDY, HEREFORD lNLBT 'l'O CAPE MAY INLET, 

FBAS!lllLITY REPORT AND INUIDRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSF'5SMENT, 4128/2014. 

Date: May 30,2014 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 354 
355

11.0 Evaluation of 404 (B) (1) Guidelines 

I. PROJECT QESCRIPJIQN 

A.l£will.!I 

The proposed project site is located along the Atlantic Coast shoreline of New Jersey from 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and includes the communities of North Wildwood, Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. An onshore borrow site is the source of the nourishment 

material. This borrow area lies within Wildwood. Wildwood Crest and Lower Township and 

straddles the MHW line and material will be taken from the intertidal zone and upland beaches. 

This area has historically accreted sand through natural process associated with long-shore 

sediment transport. 

B. General Descrintion 

The purpose of the project is hurricane and stonn damage reduction through the placement of 

dredged material (sand) obtained from the borrow sites on the beachfront in the form of a berm 

and dune. The plan includes a dune with crest elevation at+ 16ft NA VD fronted by a 75-ft wide 

berm at elevation +6.5 ft NAVO. The design template for both dune configurations includes a 

25-ft dune crest width with I V:SH dune side slopes. The design template extends seaward from 

the berm crest down to mean low water (MLW) at a slope of IV: lOH, and extends further down 

to a closure depth of 26 ft following the average existing beach profile shape. Initial sand 

quantity is approximately 1,362,000 cubic yards, which includes overfill factors and advanced 

nourishment. Periodic nourishment of approximately 305,000 cubic yards is scheduled to occur 

every 4 years. 

C. Authority and Purpose 

The Hereford Inlet Feasibility study is part of the overall New Jersey Shore Protection Study, 

which was authorized under resolutions adopted by the Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Environmental and 

Public Works of the U.S. Senate in December 1987 that states: 

Jhat the Board of Rngineers fi,r Rivers and Harhors, created under Section 3 ,!f 

the Rivers and Harbors Act, approved.June 13, 1902, be, and is herehy requested to review 

existing reports of the C:hief of Engineers .fbr the entire coast of New Jersey, with a view to 

study, in cooperation with the 5'tate of New Jersey, itspolihcal suhdirishms and agencies and 

instrumentalities thereqf, the changing coastal processes along the coast qf New Jersey. 

Included in this sludy 1vill be the development of a physical, environmental, and engineering 

database on coastal area changes and proce.\:\·es, including appropriate monitoring, as the hasis 

for actions and programs to prevelll the harmful ~[feels <!/shoreline erosion and storm 

damage; and, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal 

agencies as appropriate, develop recommendationsfor actions and solutions needed to 

preclude.further ·water quality degradation and coastal pollution from existing and 

anticipated uses <i coastal waters affecting the New Jersey coast. Site .~pec{fic studiesfbr heach 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 355 
356

erosion control, hurricane protectfrm, and related pwposes should he undertaken in areas 

ident(jled m_; having potential/Or a Federal prqject, action, or re,.,ponse. 

The House resolution adopted by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation on 

December I 0, l 987 states: 

That the Hoard c!f [<_,"ngineers for Rivers and Harbors is hereby requested to review 

existing reports of the Chief of b1gineersfor the entire coast ofNew Jersey with a view to study, 

in cooperation ivith the ,_)~fate of New Jersey, its political subdivisions and agencies and 

instrumentalities thereqf, the changing coa'ital processes along the coast qf New Jersey. 

Included in th;s study w;fl be the development r?f a physical, environmental, and engineering 

datahase on coastal area chcmges and processes, including appropriate monitoring, as the hasis 

for actions and programs to prevent the harn1fid effects of shoreline erosion and storm 

damage; and, in cooperation with ihe J.,,f,vironmental Protection Agency and other Federal 

agencies as appropriate, the development q_frecommendationsfor actions and solutions needed 

to preclude further water quality degradation and coastal pollution from existing and 

anticipated uses of coastal waters affecting the New Jersey Coast. ...)~ite 5,JJec(flc studies for 

heach erosion control, hurricane protection, and related purposes should he undertaken in 

areas ident(jied as having potentia/f()r a Federal prr?ject, action. or response lt1hich is 

engineeringly, economically, and environmentally.feasible. 

See Supplemental Authority in Section 1.0 

D. General Description of Dredged or Fill Material 

L General Characteristics of Material. The proposed borrow material is medium to coarse 

sands with some fines and gravel. Clay, silt, and organic content are low with neutral pH and 

low fertility. Grain size analyses have demonstrated that the borrow material is comparable to 

the native beach sand. As such, the borrow material is considered ideal for berm and dune 

restoration. 

2. Quantity of Material, The quantity of beach fill material required for initial fill for the 

project is estimated to be approximately 1,527,000 cy, which includes overfill factor and 

advanced nourishment Periodic nomishment of 391,000 cy is scheduled to occur every 4 years. 

3. Source of Material. The proposed source of the beach fill material is from the southern 

portion of the project area in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. 

E. Pescrintion of the Pronosed Discharge Site 

L Location. The proposed discharge locations will be from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

along the beachfront and in the near shore environment. 

2. Size. The proposed plan will create 64 acres of dune habitat above MHW. Below MHW, 

sand will cover intertidal and subtidal habitat These habitats will not be lost however, as the 

sand placement simply shifts the area seaward. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 356 
357

3. Type of Site. The proposed discharge is comprised of eroding sandy beaches located from 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet. The proposed discharge sites are unconfined with placement to 

occur on shoreline beach areas and open watec 

4. Type(s) of Habitat. The type of habitat present at the proposed discharge locations are 

marine sandy beach intertidal and sub tidal near shore habitats and marine open water. 

5. Timing and Duration of Discharge: 

There are no seasonal restrictions for beach fill placement and associated discharges with the 

exception that certain areas or segments may require avoidance if piping plovers are nesting 

within the impact area(s) during the nesting season (March -August). For initial construction, 

the discharge would be continuous for approximately 8 months. Periodic nourishment would 

occur over approximately 4-6 months every 4 years during the SO-year period of Federal 

participation. Estimated year of initial construction is 2016. 

F. Description of Discharge Method 

A land based hydraulic dredge will be used to excavate the sandy material from the borrow area. 

The material would be transported from the dredge pump using an 8 inch high density 

polyethylene pipeline (HOPE) to booster pumps stationed every 3,000-4,000 along the beach. 

The final grading would be accomplished using bulldozers and front end loaders working in the 

upland beach and near shore area. 

II. FACTUAL DETERi'VIINATION 

A. Physical Substrate Determinations 

I. Substrate Elevation and Slope. For the entire project area rl1e final proposed elevation of the 

beach substrate after fill placement would be +6.5' NA VD at the top of the berm and+ 16' 

NA VD at the crest of the dune. The proposed profile would have a foreshore slope of IV: 1 OH 

and an underwater slope that parallels the existing bottom to the depth of closure. 

2. Sediment Type. The sediment type involved would be sandy beach fill material (consists 90% or 

greater of fine, medium and coarse sands and gravels) obtained from the intertidal beach area in 

Wildwood and Wildwood Crest 

3. Dredged/Fill Material Movement. The planned construction would establish an initial 

construction template, which is higher and wider than the final intended 

design template or profile. It is expected that compaction and erosion would be the primary 

processes resulting in the change to the design template. Also, the loss of fine grain material into 

the water column would occur during the initial settlement These materials may become redeposited within sub tidal near shore waters. 

4. Physical Effects on Benthos. The proposed construction and discharges would result in initial 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 357 
358

burial of the existing beach and near shore benthic communities when this material is discharged 

during berm construction. Substrate is expected to be composed of material that is similar to 

existing substrate, which is expected to become recolonized by the same type ofbenthos. The 

dredging within the borrow site would result in the removal of the benthic community from the 

substrate, however, due to the dynamic nature of the intertidal zone, recolonization will occur 

quickly following the completion of dredging activities. 

5. Other Effects. Other effects would include a temporary increase in suspended sediment load and 

a change in the beach profile, particularly in reference to elevation. Bathymetric changes in the 

placement sites would raise the bottom several feet, which would be offset seaward. The 

shoreline in the borrow area will be offset landward. 

6. Actions Taken to l.\'linimize Tm pacts. Actions taken to minimize impacts include selection of 

fill material that is located in an upland site rather than a site from an offshore source. Using 

upland source will minimize impacts to benthic resources, fisheries, shellfish habitat and cultural 

resource targets. 

B. Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations 

I.Water. Consider effects on: 

a. Salinity - No effect. 

b. Water chemistry - No significant effect. 

c. Clarity - Minor short-term increase in turbidity during construction. 

d. Color - No effect. 

e. Odor - No significant effect. 

f. Taste - No effect. 

g. Dissolved gas levels - No significant effect. 

h. Nutrients - Minor effect. 

i. Eutropbication - No effect. 

j. Others as appropriate - None. 

2. Current patterns and circulation 

a. Current patterns and flow - Minor impacts to circulation patterns and flow in the beach zone 

and near shore where the existing circulation pattern and flow would be offset seaward the width 

of the beach fill placement. Minor circulation differences are expected within the immediate 

vicinity of the borrow area due to the change in the shoreline location. 

b. Velocity- No effects on tidal velocity and long shore current velocity regimes. 

c. Stratification - Thermal stratification normally occurs beyond the mixing region created by the 

surf zone. There is potential for both winter and summer stratification. The normal pattern 

should continue after construction of the proposed project. 

d. Hydrologic regime - The regime is largely tidal marine and oceanic. This will remain the case 

following construction of the proposed project. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 358 
359

3. Normal water level fluctuations - The tides are semi diurnal. The mean tide range for Cape 

May lnlet is reported to be 4.85' and for Atlantic City it is reported to be 4.02' in the Tide Tables 

published annually by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA).Construction of the proposed plan would not affect the tidal regime. 

4. Salinity gradients - There should be no significant effect on the existing salinity gradients. 

5. Actions that will be taken to minimize impacts- None are required: however, the use of sand 

backpassing techniques for this project will minimize potential impacts associated with the use 

of an offshore borrow area and will also keep the sand in the littoral system of the project area. 

The use of a hydraulic pump and 8 inch pipe will minimize potential water quality impacts. 

C. Suspended Particulateffnrbidity Determinations 

1. Expected Changes in Suspended Particulates and Turbidity Levels in the Vicinity of the 

Disposal (Beach fill Placement) Site - There would be a short- term elevation of suspended 

particulate concentrations during construction phases in the immediate vicinity of the dredging 

and the discharge locations. Elevated levels of particulate concentrations at the discharge 

locations may also result from 11washout 11 after beach fill is placed. 

2. Effects (degree and duration) on Chemical and Physical Properties of the 

Water Columu -

a. Light penetration - Short-term, limited reductions would be expected at the discharge sites from 

dredge activity and berm washout, respectively. 

b. Dissolved oxygen - There is a potential for a decrease in dissolved oxygen levels but the 

anticipated low levels of organics in the ban-ow material should not generate a high, if any, 

oxygen demand. 

c. Toxic metals and organics - Because the borrow material is 90% or more sand, and originates 

from areas where no known sources of significant contamination exist, the material is expected 

to be free of any significant contamination in accordance with 40 CFR 227.13(b ). 

d. Pathogens - Pathogenic organisms are not known or expected to be a problem in the borrow 

area. Therefore, beach fill placement is not expected to significantly increase indicator bacteria 

levels above normal conditions. 

e. Aesthetics - Construction activities and the initial construction template associated with the fill 

placement site would result in a minor, short-term degradation of aesthetics. This is due to the 

temporary impacts to noise, sight, and smell associated with the discharges and beach dewatering during construction and periodic nourishment 

3. Effects on Biota 

a. Primary production, photosynthesis - Minor, short-term effects related to turbidity. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessrnent Page 359 
360

b. Suspension/filter feeders - Minor, short-term effects related to suspended particulates outside 

the immediate deposition zone. Sessile organisms would be subject to burial if within the 

deposition area. 

c. Sight feeders - Minor, short-term effects related to turbidity. 

4. Actions taken to miuimize impacts include the selection of clean sand with a small fine grain 

component and a low organic content. Standard construction practices would also be employed 

to minimize turbidity and erosion. 

D. Contaminant Determinations 

The discharge material is not expected to introduce, relocate, or increase contaminant levels at 

either the borrow or placement sites. This is assumed based on the characteristics of the 

sediment, the proximity of the borrow site to sources of contamination, the area's hydrodynamic 

regime, and existing water quality. In accordance with 40 CFR 227. l3(b ), the dredged 

material/beach fill is not expected to contain any significant contamination. 

E. Aonatic Ecosxstem and Organism Determinations 

1. Effects on Plankton - The effects on plankton should be minor and mostly related to light level 

reduction due to turbidity. Significant dissolved oxygen level reductions are not anticipated. 

2. Effects on Benthos - Initially, a removal of the benthic community within the borrow area and 

burial ofbenthos within the discharge (beach fill) location. The losses ofbenthic organisms are 

somewhat offset by the expected rapid opportunistic recolonization from adjacent areas that 

would occur following cessation of construction activities. Recolonization is expected to occur 

rapidly in both the borrow and discharge (beach fill placement) area through horizontal and in 

some cases vertical migrations ofbenthos 

3. Effects on Nekton Only a temporary displacement is expected, as the nekton would probably 

avoid the active work area. 

4. Effects on Aquatic Food Web Localized significant impacts in the affected areas due to loss 

ofbenthos as a food source through burial at the beach fill placement site or removal at the 

dredging site. This is expected to be short-term as the borrow and beach fill placement sites 

should become recolonized by benthos within a few days following the impact. 

5. Effects on Special Aquatic Sites - No special aquatic sites such as sanctuaries and refuges, 

wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs and riffle and pool complexes are present 

within the project area. 

6. Threatened and Endangered Species - lbe piping plover (Charadrius melodus), a Federal and 

State threatened species, has, in the past, utilized some of the sandy beach habitat within the 

project impact area. This bird nests on the beach and could potentially be impacted by beach fill 

placement activities if present within the affected area. Monitoring to determine the extent of 

nesting activity prior to initial construction (if construction will take place during the nesting 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 360 
361

season) and periodic nourishment is required to insure that the nesting locations can be avoided 

during construction until the chicks fledge the nest. If birds do re- establish themselves within 

the project area following construction, monitoring will be conducted on a yearly basis in 

conjunction with NJDEP, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Following construction activities, it is 

also possible that the Federally threatened seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumi/us) could 

become established within the project area, as it has been recently found north of the project 

area. Surveys will be conducted prior to any construction or nourishment activities to determine 

the presence/location of any plants in order to protect them from construction impacts. 

Additional issues such as local beach-use management after construction and nourishment with 

regard to the piping plover and seabeach amaranth are addressed through a programmatic 

Biological Opinion as part of formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Several species of threatened and 

endangered sea turtles, as well as the Atlantic sturgeon may be migrating along the coast 

adjacent to the project. Sea turtles and sturgeon have been known to become entrained and 

killed by suction hopper dredges. Since hopper dredges will not be used for this project, no 

impacts to sea turtles or sturgeon, related to dredging activities, are expected. 

7. Other Wildlife - The proposed plan would not significantly affect other wildlife. 

8. Actions to minimize impacts - The use of a borrow area in the intertidal zone will minimize or 

eliminate potential impacts to most species found within the project area. 

F. Pronosed Disnosal/Pischarge CBeachfill Placement} Site Determinations 

I. Mixing Zone Determination 

a. Depth of water - 0 to-20' mean low water 

b. Current velocity - Generally less than 3'per second 

c. Degree ofturbuleuce - Moderate to high 

d. Stratification - None 

e. Discharge vessel speed and direction - Not applicable 

f. Rate of discharge - Typically this is estimated to be 300-400 cubic yards per hour 

g. Dredged material characteristics - medium-course sand and gravels with low(< 10%) silts, 

clays and organics 

h. Number of discharge actions per unit time - Continuous over the construction period 

2. Determination of compliance with applicable water quality standards -A Section 401 Water 

Quality Certificate (WQC) and consistency concurrence with the State's Coastal Zone 

Management (CZM) Program has been obtained from the State of New Jersey (App. G). 

3. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics -

a. Municipal and private water supply - No effect 

b. Recreational and commercial fisheries - Short-term effect during construction; there would be 

a tempora1y loss of surf clam stocks within the near shore placement sites and within the borrow 

area. Loss of benthos would result in temporary loss of food source for finfish. 

c. Water related recreation - Short-term effect during construction where potential beachgoers, 

bathers, and surf-fishermen would be prohibited from accessing active construction locations. 

d. Aesthetics - Short-term adverse effects to noise sight and smell during construction are 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 361 
362

anticipated 

e. Parks, national and historic monuments, national seashores, wilderness areas, research 

sites and similar preserves - The dredging and fill placement will not impact any national sites, 

however, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se1vice is adjacent to the placement site in Lower 

Township. Since only a small portion of the construction will occur near the Park, but the effects 

are expected to be zero. 

G. Determination of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem- Impacts on benthos and the 

aquatic ecosystem in general are considered to be temporary and do not represent a significant 

loss of habitat since the borrow and placement areas are both located in the dynamic near shore 

and intertidal area .. This project in concert with other existing or proposed similar actions, may 

produce measurable temporary cumulative impacts to benthic resources. However these impacts 

are short-term. 

H. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aanatic Ecosystem~ Secondary impacts such as 

turbidity on aquatic organisms or temporary loss of food sources through the burial or removal of 

the benthos are considered to be of short duration. 

lit. FINDINGS QF CQMPLIANq; QB NQN-CQMPLJAN[E WITH THE RESIBKIJONS 

QN DISCHARGE 

A. Adaptation of the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines to this Evaluation. No significant adaptation 

of the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines were made relative to this evaluation. 

B. Evaluation of Availability of Practicable Measures to the Proposed Discharge Site, Which 

Would Have Less Adverse Impact on the Aquatic Ecosystem. The alternative measures 

considered for accomplishing the project objectives are detailed in the Feasibility Report and 

Integrated Environmental Assessment of which this 404(b )( 1) analysis is a part. Several 

measures including No Action, Permanent Evacuation and Regulation of Future Development 

would likely have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem. However, these measures were 

determined to not be practicable or economically justified in meeting the needs and objectives of 

providing storm damage reduction. Selection of sand sources heavily considered impacts on the 

aquatic ecosystem, and the source was chosen over other sites, which potentially could have had 

a higher adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. 

C. Compliance with Applicable State Water Quality Standards. This action is not expected to 

violate State of New Jersey Water Quality Standards. A Section 40 I water quality certificate 

was obtained from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection prior to initiation of 

discharges associated with this project (App G.). 

D. Compliance with Applicable Toxic Effiuent Standard or Prohibition Under Section 

307 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed action is not expected to violate the Toxic 

Effluent Standards of Section 307 of the Clean Water Act. 

E. Compliance with Endangered Species Act. The proposed action will comply with the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 and be consistent with the Terms and Conditions outlined in the 

District's Biological Opinion which addresses impacts and mitigation measures for piping 

plovers and seabeach amaranth. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 362 
363

F. Compliance with Specified Protection Measures for Marine Sanctuaries Designated by the 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The proposed action will not 

violate the protective measures for any Marine Sanctuaries designated by the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. 

G. Evaluation of Extent of Degradation of the Waters of the United States. The proposed action 

is not expected to result in pennanent significant adverse effects on human health and welfare, 

including municipal and private water supplies, recreation and commercial fishing, plankton, 

fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites. Significant adverse effects on life stages of 

aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on aquatic ecosystems; aquatic ecosystem diversity, 

productivity, and stability; and recreational, aesthetic, and economic values is not expected to 

occur or have long-term effects on impacted resources. 

H Appropriate and Practicable Steps Taken to Minimize Potential Adverse Impacts of the 

Discharge on the Aquatic Ecosystem. Appropriate steps to minimize potential adverse impacts 

of the discharge on aquatic systems include selection of borrow material that is low in silt 

content, has little organic material, and is expected to be uncontaminated. 

l. On the basis of the guidelines, the proposed discharge sites for the dredged material are 

specified as complying with the requirements of these guidelines, with the inclusion of 

appropriate and practical conditions to minimize pollution or adverse effects on the aquatic 

ecosystem. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 363 
364

12.0 References 

Abel, C.E., Tracy, B.A., Vincent, C.L., Jensen, R.E. (1989). "Hurricane Hindcast Methodology 

and Wave Statistics for Atlantic and Gulf Hurricanes from 1956 - 1975,'' WIS Report I 9(AD 

A207 849), U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Automated Coastal Engineering System (ACES), software, Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory, 

http:! /chi .erdc.usace.arrny.mil/chl .aspx?p=s&a=PUBLJCA T!ONS · 105 

Ashley, G.M. ( l 987), recommendations for Inlet Dredge Channel Placement based on historical 

Change, Townsends Inlet and Hereford inlets, New Jersey, NJDEP, Rutgers University, New 

Brunswick, NJ. 

Boswood, P.K., Murray, R.J., (2001)Worldwide Sand Bypassing Systems, a data report, 

Coastal Se1vice Technical Report, R20, Conservation Technical Report No. 15, Queensland 

Environmental Protection Agency. _ 

Burlas, M., Ray, G.L., Clarke, D.G. 2001. The New York district's biological monit01ing 

program for the Atlantic coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan Section beach erosion 

control project. Final report. US Army Engineer District, New York, and US Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Available at 

www.nan.usace.army.mil/business/prjlinks/coastal/ Asbury/index.htm 

Boyer's, George F. "Wildwood-Middle of the Island, 1976" 

Brooks, R.M. and Brandon, W.A. (1995). "Hindcast Wave Information for the U.S. Atlantic 

Coast: Update 1976-1993 with Hurricanes," WIS Report 33(AD A298 660), U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199. 

Cape May County Health Department, 2012 Beach Closure Status, n.p., n.d., 

www.capemaycountygov.net/Cit-e-Access/webpage. cfm ?T[D=5& TPTD= 12 91 7 

www.capemaycountygov.net/Cit-e-Access/webpage.cfm?TID=5&TPID=7753 

Chaillou, J.C., and Scott, LC. 1997. Evaluation ofBenthic Microfaunal Resources at Potential 

Sand Borrow Sources: Townsends Tnlet to Cape May Inlet Cape May County, New Jersey. 

Versar, Inc. Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 

Chase S., (2006) Sand Backpassing with Land Based Equipment A Cost Effective Approach for 

Beach Restoration Tetra Tech EC, Inc, Florida. 

Clausner, J., Welp T., (2008) Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) Letter Report, Mobile 

Hydraulic Backpassing System for the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report, 

Corps of Engineers - Engineering Research and Design Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Collins, M.R., and T.J.J. Smith. 1997. Distributions of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in South 

Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17:995-1000. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 364 
365

Coastal Engineering Manual, Engineering Manual (EM) 1100-2-1110, Coastal Hydrualics 

Library, April 2002. 

Corson, W.D., Resin, D.T., Brooks, RM., Ebersole, B.A., Jensen, R.E., Ragsdale, D.S., and 

Tracy, B.A. (1981). "Atlantic Coast Hindcast Deepwater Significant Wave Information," WIS 

Report 2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Corson, W.D., Resio, D.T., Brooks, R.M., Ebersole, B.A., Jensen, R.E., Ragsdale, D.S., and 

Tracy, B.A. (1982). "Atlantic Coast Hindcast, Phase II: Wave Information," WIS Report 6, 

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Cutler, lK and Mahadevan, S. (1982). "Long-Term Effects of Beach Nourishment on the 

Benthic Fauna of Panama City Beach, Florida," MR 82-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Coastal Engineering Research Center. 

Davis, Richard A., Fitzgerald, Duncan M., (2004) Beaches and Coasts, Blackwell Publishing, 

350 Main Street Maldon , MA., 2004. 

Dovel, W.L. and TJ. Berggren. 1983. Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson estuary, New York New 

York Fish and Game Journal 30(2):140-172. 

Dunton, Kl, A Jordaan, K. McKown, D. Conover, M. Frisk. 2010. Abundance and Distribution 

of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) Within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Determined 

from Five Fishery-Independent Surveys. Fish. Bull. 108:450-465. 

Erickson, DL, A. Kahnle, M.l Millard, EA Mora, M. Bryja, A. Higgs, l Mohler, M. DuFour, 

G. Kenney, l Sweka and EK Pikitch. 2011. Use of Pop-up Satellite Archival Tags to Identify 

Oceanic-Migratory Patterns for Adult Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus 

Mitchell 1815 Applied Ichthyology 27 (2011), 356-365. 

Farrell, S.C., Inglin, D., Venazi, P., and Leatherman, S. (1989). "A Summary Document for the 

Use and Interpretation of the Historical Shoreline Change Maps for the State of New Jersey," 

prepared for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Research Center, 

Stockton State College, Pomona, NJ. 

Farrell, S. C., Hafner, S., Constantino, C., Bogle, B., Rabine C., Linzer E., (2002), "New Jersey 

Beach Profile Network, Analysis of the Shoreline Changes in New Jersey Coastal Reaches One 

through Fifteen, Raritan Bay to Delaware Bay," prepared for New Jersey Depai1ment of 

Environmental Protection, Coastal Research Center, Stockton State College, Pomona, NJ. 

Farrell, S. C., Hafner, S., Robine, C., Gruver, Howard, SR, Smith B., Linzer, E., (2008), "New 

Jersey Beach Profile Network, Analysis of the Shoreline Changes in New Jersey Coastal 

Reaches One through Fifteen, Raritan Bay to Delaware Bay," prepared for New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Research Center, Stockton State College, 

Pomona, NJ. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 365 
366

Farrell, S. C., Hafner, S., Howard, S., Barone, D., Mckenna, K., Rabine, C., Koch, R., Smith, 

B., Gruver, M., Flynn, M., Linzner, E.,(2010), "New Jersey Beach Profile Network, Analysis 

of the Shoreline Changes in New Jersey Coastal Reaches One through Fifteen, Raritan Bay to 

Delaware Bay," prepared for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal 

Research Center, Stockton State College, Pomona, NJ. 

Farrell, S. C., Hafner, S., Howard, S., Barone, D., Mckenna, K., Rabine, C., Koch, R, Smith, 

B., Gruver, M., Flynn, M., Tracey, C., (2011), "New Jersey Beach Profile Network, Analysis of 

the Shoreline Changes in New Jersey Coastal Reaches One through Fifteen, Raritan Bay to 

Delaware Bay," prepared for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal 

Research Center, Stockton State College, Pomona, NJ. 

Farrell, S. C., Hafner, S., Howard, S., Barone, D., McKenna, K., Rohine, C., Koch, R., Smith, 

B., Gruver, M., Flynn, M., Tracey, C., (2012), "New Jersey Beach Profile Network, Analysis of 

the Shoreline Changes in New Jersey Coastal Reaches One through Fifteen, Raritan Bay to 

Delaware Bay-Covering 25 Years of Research,'' prepared for New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, Coastal Research Center, Stockton State College, Pomona, NJ. 

Farrell, S. (2013) North Wildwood Beach Nourishment (CENAP-OP-R-20J:l0'99-24) 

Shoreline Changes along Hereford Inlet Since 1998 Potential related to Sand removal for Beach 

Nourishment. 

Fay, Clemon W., Richard J. Neves, and Garland Pardue. (1983). "Species Profiles: Life 

Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic)-

Surf Clam," US. Fish and Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS-82/11.13 or U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Report TR EL-82-4. 

FEMA (1989). "Guidelines and Specifications for Wave Elevation Determination and V Zone 

Mapping," Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

Francis, David W.; Francis DeMali, Diane; Scully, Robert J; (1998) "Wildwoods by the Sea: the 

History of an American Resort" 

Grosslein, M.D. and T.R Azarovitz. 1982. Fish, distribution. MESA New Yark Bight 

Atlas monograph 15. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY. 182 pp. 

Hammer, R.M. (2000). "Environmental Survey of Potential Sand Resource Areas: Offshore 

New Jersey," Draft report prepared for Minerals Management Service. 

Hicks, S.D., and Hickman, LE. (1988). "United States Sea Level Variations through 1986,'' 

Shore and Beach (July), Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, 

Berkeley, CA. 

Hubertz, J.M. (1992). "A User's Guide to the WIS Wave Model, Version 2.0," WIS Report 27, 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 366 
367

U.S. Anny Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Hubertz, J.M., Brooks, RM., Brandon, W.A, Tracy, B.A. (1993). "Hindcast Wave Information 

for the U.S. Atlantic Coast," WIS Report 30, US. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Hunter Research, Inc. (1997). "Phase 1A Cultural Resources Investigations, Townsends Inlet 

to Cape May Inlet Cape May County, New Jersey." 

Hurme, A.K., Pullen, EJ. 1988. "Biological Effects of Marine Sand Mining and Fill 

Placement for Beach Replenishment: Lessons for Other Uses". Marine Mining, 

Volume 7. pp 123-136. 

Jenkins, David. 1999. New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Personal 

Communication. 

Jensen, R.E. (1983). "Atlantic Coast Hindcast, Shallow-Water, Significant Wave Information," 

WIS Report 9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Laney, RW, J.E. Hightower, BK Versak, M.F. Mangold, W.W. Cole Jr, S.E. Winslow. 2007 

Distribution, Habitat Use, and Size of Atlantic Sturgeon Captured During Cooperative Winter 

Tagging Cruises, 1988-2006. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 56,167-182. 

Larson and N.C. Kraus (1989). "SBEACH: Numerical Model for Simulating Storm-Induced 

Beach Change, Report I: Empirical Foundation and Model Development," TR CERC-89-9, U.S. 

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Loftin, V.,Waller, D., New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2012, Water 

Monitoring and Standards, Work/Quality Assurance Plan 

www.nj.gov/dep/wms/bmw/bathingbeach/reports/20l2qaplan.pdf 

Long, D. and W. Figley. (1984). "New Jersey's Recreational and Commercial Ocean Fishing 

Grounds," New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division offish, Game and 

Wildlife, Marine Fisheries Administration, Bureau of Marine Fisheries. 

Louis Berger Group, Inc. (1999). "Environmental Repmt: Use of Federal Offshore Sand 

Resources for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia," 

prepared for The U.S. Department of the Interior- Minerals Management Service - Office of 

International Activities and Marine Minerals (INTER.MAR) under Contract No. 1435-01-98-RC30820. 

Maurer, D., RT Keck, JC. Tinsman, W.A Leathern, C.A Wether, M. Huntzinger, C. Lord, 

TM. Church. (1978). "Vertical Migration ofBenthos in Simulated Dredged Material 

Overburdens," Vol 1: Marine Benthos, Technical Report D-78-35, US. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 367 
368

Murawski, W.S. (1969). "A Study of Submerged Dredge Holes in New Jersey Estuaries with 

Respect to Their Fitness as Finfish Habitat," Miscellaneous Rep011 No. 2M, Division offish and 

Game, New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development National Research 

Council (NRC) (1987). "Responding to Changes in Sea Level," Marine Board, National 

Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Murawski, S. A. and A. L. Pacheco. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on Atlantic Sturgeon, 

Acipenser oxyrhy11ch11s (Mitchill). National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Se,ies 

Report 10: 1-69. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northeast Region. (1996). "Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 Consultation: Biological Opinion for Dredging Activities Within the Philadelphia 

District," November 26, 1996.National Research Council. (1995). "Beach Nourishment and 

Protection," Academic Press: Washington, D.C. 

2011, n.p. 

New Jersey Bureau of Fisheries. (1979). "Studies of the Back Bay Systems of Atlantic County 

Final Report for Project 3-223-R-3," Nacote Creek Research Station, Port Republic, NJ. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2012, Advisory Report 

www. state. nj. us/ dep/ dsr/2012-advisory-report. pdf 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2011, Air Quality Index Ratings I Ozone, 

Publications/ Annual Reports/ Appendix-A. n.p .. www.njaginow.net/Default.l tr.aspx 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2012, Coastal Cooperative Monitoring 

Program www.nj.gov/dep/beaches/results/cc-09042012. html 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2012, Fish Smart Eat Sma11, n.d. n.p., 

www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/njmainfish.htm 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (1988-1991). "Reevaluation 

Shellfish Growing Areas 49-51," Bureau of Marine Water Classification and Analysis. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (1995). New Jersey 

Bureau of Shellfisheries, "Annual Surf Clam Inventory Report." 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (1996). "Shellfish Growing 

Water Classification Charts," Bureau of Marine Water Classification and Analysis. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (1997a). "Shellfish Growing 

Water Classification Annual Report -1996 Data," prepared by Bonnie J. Zimmer, Ph.D. Bureau 

of Marine Water Monitoring. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 368 
369

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (1997b). "Inventory ofNew 

Jersey's Surf clam (,\JJisula solidissima) Resources," prepared by New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (1997c). "The Management and 

Regulation of Dredging Activities and Dredged Material in New Jersey's Tidal Waters." 

NOAA. (1999). "Essential Fish Habitat Designations Within the Northeast Region (Maine to 

Virginia) - Working Copy," National Marine Fisheries Service. Gloucester, MA. 

North Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2011, Fisheries of the United States US 

Commercial Fisheries Landing Report www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercialfisheries/fus/fus l I/index 

Nordstrom, Karl F. Coastal Geomorphology of New Jersey, New Brunswick, N.J (1977). · 

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, 

Technical Report 

O'Herron, J.C. II, and R.W. Hastings. I 985. A Study of the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum) population in the upper tidal Delaware River: Assessment of impacts of 

maintenance dredging (Post- dredging study of Duck Island and Perriwig ranges), Draft final 

report. Prepared for the U S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District by the Center for 

Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New 

Brunswick, NJ. 

Parr, T., E. Diener and S. Lacy. 1978. Effects of Beach Replenishment on the Nearshore 

Sand Fauna at Imperial Beach, California. MR 78-4. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center. 

Richardson T., Mcnair E., (1981), Instruction Report HL-81-1, A Guide to the Planning and 

Hydraulic Design of Jet Pump Remedial Hydraulic Bypassing Systems, Hydraulics Laboratory, 

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 

Ropes, J.W. (1980). "Biological and Fisheries Data on the Atlantic Surf Clam, Spisu/a 

solidissima," U.S. Dep. Comm, NOAA, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Center Tech. Ser. Rep. No. 

24. 

Rosati, J.D., Wise, R.A., Kraus, N.C., and Larson, M. (1993). "SBEACH: Numerical Model for 

Simulating Storm-Induced Beach Change, Report 3: User's Manual," IR CERC-93-2, US. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Reilly, Francis J. Jr. and Bellis, Vincent J. 1983. The Ecological Impact of Beach 

Nourishment with Dredged Materials on the Intertidal Zone at Bogue Banks, 

NC. U S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center. 

Ropes, J.W. 1980. Biological and Fisheries Data on the Atlantic Surf Clam Spisula solidissima, 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 369 
370

US Dep. Comm., NOAA, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Center Tech. Ser. Rep. No. 24 

Saloman, C.H. (1974). ''Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics ofNearshore Zone 

of Sand Key, Florida, Prior to Beach Restoration," US. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal 

Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, Final Report, unpublished. 

Savoy, T. and D. Pacileo. 2003. Movements and important habitats of subadult Atlantic sturgeon 

in Connecticut waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society !32: 1-8 

Schnabel Engineering (2006), Geotechnical Data Report Vibrational Coring Wildwood to 

Hereford inlet, Cape May County NJ, Contract prepared by Schnabel, Inc. for U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Philadelphia District under W912BU-05-D-00l. 

Scott, LC. and C. Bruce. (1999). "An Evaluation and Comparison ofBenthic Community 

Assemblages Within Potential Offshore Sand Borrow Sites and Nearshore Placement Sites for 

the Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey Feasibility Study," prepared by 

Versar, Inc. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District under DACW61-95-D-0011 

(0046). 

Scott, LC. and F. P. Wirth, UL (2000). "An Evaluation and Comparison ofBenthic Community 

Assemblages within New Potential Sand Borrow Sites for Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends 

Inlet, NJ,'' prepared by Versar, Inc. for US. Anny Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District 

under DACW61-95-D-OOI I (0048). 

Silberhorn, Gene M., Illustrations Warinner, Mary. COMMON PLANTS of the mid Atlantic 

coast John Hopkins University Press, 1982. 

Smith, T.U. 1985. The fishery, biology, and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser 

oxyrhynchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishers 14(1):61-72. 

Stein, A.B., KD. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004. Atlantic sturgeon marine distribution and 

habitat use along the northeastern coast of the United States. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 133:527-537. 

Strahler, Alan; Strahler, Arthur; Physical Geography, Science and Systems of the Human 

Environment John Wilewy & Sons, Inc. 1997 

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, Nonattainment Status for Each County by Year for 

New Jersey, n.p., n.d.,www.epa.,rnv/oagpsOOl/greenbk/anay nj.html 

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, Q&A, www.epa.gov/regionl/eco/beaches/ga.html 

USACE, Philadelphia District. (1990). "New Jersey Shore Protection Study - Report of Limited 

Reconnaissance Study,'' September 1990 

USACE, Sea Level Considerations for Civil Works Programs, 2011, EC-1165-2-212, 

Washington D.C. http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-circulars/EC 1165-2-

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 370 
371

USA CE, (1987). A Study of Sand By-Passing Options at Cape May Inlet New Jersey 

USA CE ( 1984). "Shore Protection Manual," U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

USACE, Sand Bypassing System Selection 1991, Engineering Manual 1110-2-1616, 

Washington DC. 

USA CE, Philadelphia District., "Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report", 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1997. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Planning Aid Report: Fenwick Island 

Interim Feasibility Study-Baseline Biological Resources and Potential Impacts 

of Dredging at a Candidate Offshore Sand Borrow Area. Prepared by George 

Ruddy (SFWS) for the US. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2008b). "Planning Aid Report: Hereford Inlet Inlet to 

Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study Cape May County, New Jersey," prepared by (USFWS) for 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2012). "28 Report: Hereford Inlet Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet Feasibility Study Cape May County, New Jersey," prepared by (USFWS) for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District 

Van Vorhees, Lowther, A., 2012, National Marine Fisheries Service office of Science and 

Technology, Fisheries of the United States, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ Assets/commercial/fus/fus l l /FUS2011.pdf 

Vasslides, J.M., and K.W. Able. 2008. Importance of shoreface sand ridges as habitat for fishes 

off the northeast coast of the United States. Vishery Bulletin 106: 93~107. 

Versar, Inc. 2007. Preconstruction Evaluation and Assessment ofBenthic Macro-invertebrate 

Resources at the Cape May Fillet Borrow Area, Cape May, New Jersey. Prepared for the US 

Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 

Vladykov, V.D., and JR. Greely. 1963. Fishes of the Western North Atlantic I :24-60. 

Wise, RA., Smith, S.J., and Larson M. (1996). "SBEACH: Numerical Model for Simulating 

Storm-Induced Beach Change, Report 4: Cross-Shore Transport under Random Waves and 

Model Validation with SUPER TANK and Field Data," TR CERC-89-9, U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Wegge!, Richard, Ph.D., P.E. 1995, "Coastal Processes Relevant to the Proposed Wildwood 

Convention Center Site, Wildwood, NJ." 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 371 
372

1990 Report or Limited Reconnaissance. 25 

7.0 List of Preparers, 350 

8.0 Public Involvemenl 351 

9.0 Clean Air Act Statement of Confonnity. 354 

ABSTRACT. 3 

Aerial Photograph. !60 

Air Quality. 60 

Anglcsca. 27. -1-0. 41, 8L 82 

Back Bay Flooding. 215 

Bathymctry. 149. 150,151.152. !53. 15-1 

Beach Maintenance. 229 

beach nourishment 366 .. 369 

Beach Profile. -14. l-12. 147,161 

Bcachfill Design Parnmcters. 262 

benthos .. 368 

Birds. 75 

black skimmer, 76 

Borrovv Area Infilling Analysis. 28R 

borrow areas. 324 

Cape, 1. 2. 3. 25. 27. 3H. 39. -10. 41. -12. 43. 45. 51. 

53. 54. 55. 56. 58. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 85. 86. 88. 

99.100.119. U0.142, 158,159.161. 

182. 183, 184. lH5. 186, UN. 215, 

265. 283,298.330. 331. 346 

Coastal Plain. 90 

Conclusions and Recommendations. 3-1-6 

Constraints. 239. 2-10, 241 

Continuing Construction Cost.. J.+8 

Cost Sharing. 25. 339 

COSTDAM. 215. 2211. 330. 334,335.336 

cultural resources, 324. 368 

Cycle L 23R, 242 

Cycle~2. 251 

Cycle~3, 262 

December 1992. 42 

District's Preliminary Financial Analysis. 25 

dunes, 324 

DYNLET, 215 

EAD.:!22 

EFH, 73 

Employment 53 

Elwironrnental Resources. 59 

Erosion Damages, 221 

essential fish habitat. 3 70 

Feasibility. l, 2. 3. 25. 27, -13. -15. 99. 106. 161.162. 

23R. 330 

finfish, 369 

FONSL 10 

Hereford, 2. 3, 25. 27, 40. 41. 42. -13. -1-1. 81. 85. 99. 

JOO. 111. 117. 119. 121, 141. 142. 149.153. 154. 

155, 156.157. 158.159.161.162.180.181. M3. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment 

13.0 Index 

184. 185, 1R6. 187. IR9, 215. 238. 2-13. 2-16, 2R3. 

298. 3113. 30,1, 330. 331. 3"16 

Historic Shoreline. 161 

Hvdraulic Analysis. 190, 195 

h~itial Project Cost 3-J.8 

Longshore Sediment Transport .. 1-10, 141, 185. 189 

Mammals. 75 

monitoring. 32 L 323,324.369 

nears ho re zone. 3 71 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study. 2. 3, 25, 26. -12. 

161. 23H 

non-Federal Sponsor, 39 

OceanStageFrequency. l-1-0 

Pier Protection. 269 

piping plover. 323 

PL 113-2. 233 

Planning Objectives, 238 

Population, 51. 52. 53 

Problems, 2-1 I 

Project Benefits, 348 

Pro]ect Constrnction Temphltc, 289 

Project Cooperation Agreement. 3-1-2 

Project Cost Estimate, 317 

Project Pmtnership Agreement. 342 

red knot. 76 

Regional Economy. 55 

Risk Analysis. 331 

Risk and Uncertainty. 330. J3 l, 334,336 

SBEACH. 191. 192. 201. 213. 21-1. 215. 330,335 

sea beach amaranth. 76 

Sea Level Rise, 129 

sea turtles. 77, 323 

scabeach amaranth. 323, 324 

Section 1 l L l 58. 159 

Sediment Backpassing Teclmology. 298 

Sediment Budget, 183. 185. 186. 188,189 

Sediment Bypassing, 15 6 

Selected Plan. 283, 287 

shellfish. 369 

Socioeconomic Resources. 5 l 

Storms, 13 l 

Structure Inventory, l l 7. 218 

Study Arca. 27, 52. 144. 2-11 

Study Authorization. 26 

sturgeon, 77 

Threatened and Endangered. 76 

Volume l. l 

Water Elevation, 20! 

Water Quality, 63 

Wave Attack Amilyses. l 90 

Wildvvood Board\,:alk, 27 

Page 372 
373

With Project Analysis. 238 Without Project Analysis. 190 

14.0 Glossary of Terms 

Active profile zone - The nearshore zone across which the dominant sediment motion occurs. 

Barrier island - A sand body that is essentially parallel to the shore, the crest of which is above 

normal high water level. 

Beach - The zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the low water line to 

the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of 

permanent vegetation (usually the effective limit of storm waves). The seaward limit of a beach 

unless otherwise specified is the mean low water line. 

Beach profile - The intersection of the ground surface with a vertical plane; may extend from 

behind the dune line or the top ofa bluff to seaward of the breaker zone. 

Beach renourishment - Pumping sand onto the beach and building up former dunes and upper 

beach after construction of an initial nourishment. 

Benthic community - Organisms that live on the sub-aquatic bottom. 

Biogenically derived sediments - Biogenous sediments consist of the remains of either marine 

plant or animal skeletons, either coarse grained as found in shallow coastal waters, or fine 

grained as found in deeper waters. 

Borrow site - A term used to describe the site identified for, or remaining after, borrow material 

has been removed for placement onto a beach. In upland areas, the site frequently becomes a 

body of water. In marine areas, the site becomes a hole in a bay or nearshore area. 

Carbonate platform - A large and thick accumulation of carbonate strata that it typically 

isolated from other land masses. 

Carbonate sediments - Sediment formed by the organic or inorganic precipitation from aqueous 

solution of carbonates of calcium, magnesium, or iron. 

Closure depth - The depth of water beyond which sediments are not normally affected by 

waves. 

Coastal geology - Origin, structure, and characteristics of the sediments that make up the coastal 

region, from the uplands to the nearshore region. Sediments can vaty from small pat1icles of silt 

or sand to larger particles of gravel and cobble, to formations of consolidated sediments and 

rock. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 373 
374

Coastal plain - A broad, low relief region composed of horizontal or gently sloping strata of 

elastic materials fronting the coast, and generally representing a strip of sea bottom that has 

emerged from the sea in recent geologic time. 

Coastal sediment budget - The identification of sediment sources and sinks, and the 

quantification of the amounts and rates of sediment transport, erosion, and deposition within a 

defined region. 

Compatibility analysis - Methods used to evaluate the suitability of the sediments in a borrow 

area for beach nourishment purposes based on the characteristics of the native beach material and 

I or the profile shape of the constructed beach. 

Continental shelr - The region of the oceanic bottom that extends outward from the shoreline 

with an average slope of less than 1: 100, to a line where the gradient begins to exceed 1 :40. 

Cross-shore direction - Perpendicular to the shoreline. 

Cross-shore transport - A wave and I or tide-generated movement of shallow-water coastal 

sediments toward or away from the shoreline. 

Drowned barrier island - A long, narrow coastal sandy body, representing a broadened barrier 

beach that was above high tide and parallel to the shore in prior sea level conditions and is now 

underwater. 

Dune - A ridge or mound ofloose, wind-blown material, usually sand. 

Ebb tidal delta - The bulge of sand formed at the seaward mouth of tidal inlets as a result of 

interaction between tidal currents and waves. 

Equilibrium beach profile-The slightly concave slope of the floor ofa sea or lake, taken in a 

vertical plane and extending away from and transverse to the shoreline, being steepest near the 

shore, and having a gradient such that the amount of sediment deposited by waves and currents is 

balanced by the amount removed by them; the transverse slope of a graded shoreline. The profile 

is easily disturbed by strong winds, large waves, and exceptional high tides. 

Estuary - (1) A coastal embayment where there is freshwater input that is influenced by tides. 

(2) The part of a river that is affected by tides. (3) The region near a river mouth in which the 

fresh water of the river mixes with the salt water of the sea. 

Flood tidal-delta - The bulge of sand formed at the landward mouth of tidal inlets as a result of 

flow expansion. 

Gross sediment transport - The sum of the sediment transport magnitudes in the dominant and 

secondary directions. The gross sediment transport does not have a direction or sign. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 374 
375

Hot spot - Shoreline segment characterized by erosion rates that are significantly greater than 

adjacent shoreline segments. 

Hydraulic sand placement - Sediment (sand) moved using water and centrifugal pumps 

mounted on a barge or large seagoing vessel (hydraulic dredging), usually moving sediment 

originating from an offshore site. 

Hydrographic surveys - l) The description and study of seas, lakes, rivers, and other waters. (2) 

The science of locating aids and dangers to navigation. (3) The description of physical properties 

of the waters of a region. 

Inlet improvement - Modifications to an existing inlet, usually for purposes of navigation, 

which may include channel deepening and/or jetty construction. Other reasons for inlet 

improvement may include positional stabilization and improved flushing of the bay served by the 

inlet 

Inlet positional stability - A type of stability related to the orientation of the inlet's tidal jet. 

lnte1'tidal Zone - The zone between spring high tide and spring low tide. 

Jet-probe - A long pipe into which water under high pressure is pumped in order to penetrate 

into unconsolidated sediment. 

Littoral cell - A reach of the coast that is isolated sedimentologically from adjacent coastal 

reaches and that features its own sources and sinks. Isolation is typically caused by protruding 

headlands, submarine canyons, inlets, and some river mouths that prevent littoral sediment from 

one cell from passing into the next. 

Littoral zone - In beach terminology, an indefinite zone extending seaward from the shoreline to 

just beyond the breaker zone. 

Longshore bar - A sand bar that extends roughly parallel to the shoreline. 

Longshore direction - Parallel to and near the shoreline, alongshore. 

Longshore sand bars - A sand ridge or ridges, running roughly parallel to the shoreline and 

extending along the shore outside the trough, that may be exposed at low tide or may occur 

below the water level in the offshore. 

Longshore transport - A wave- and/or tide-generated movement of shallow-water coastal 

sediments parallel to the shoreline. 

Low energy environments - Coastlines where wave and tidal forces are typically relatively 

small due to the climate, the location of the site and I or due to nearshore submerged features that 

function to reduce incoming wave energy. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 375 
376

l\rlagnetometer survey - A geophysical test to determine the ferrous returns for subsurface 

materials such as shipwrecks, debris and other anomalies located within a borrow site. Such 

materials must be located to avoid damage to dredge equipment or to determine the precise 

location of historic relics, shipwrecks, or other artifacts. 

Marsh - An area of soft, wet, or periodically inundated land, generally treeless and characterized 

by grasses. 

Miocene Epoch - The period of geologic time that extends from 24 million years to 5 million 

years before the present. 

Moraine - An accumulation of earth, stones, etc. deposited by a glacier, usually in the form of a 

mound, ridge, or other prominence on the terrain. 

Nearshore - In beach terminology, an indefinite zone extending seaward from the shoreline well 

beyond the breaker zone. 

Nearshore zone - In beach terminology, the zone that extends seaward from the low tide line 

including the bar and trough topography that commonly extends well beyond the breaker zone. 

Net sediment transport - The difference between the sediment transport magnitude in the 

dominant direction and the transport magnitude in the secondary direction. Sediment transport is 

usually considered to be positive to the right as an observer looks seaward. The net sediment 

transport can be positive, negative, or zero. 

Oblique sand ridge -A generic name for any low ridge of sand formed at some distance from 

the shore, either submerged or emergent at an angle to the shoreline. 

Planform -The outline or shape ofa body of water as determined by the still-water line, that is, 

a map. 

Planform evolution - The morphodynamic changes that take place over time on a particular 

geographic entity. 

Profile eqnilibration - The process of adjustment of a beach profile from one shape to one 

which is in more of an equilibrium condition with the waves and tides. Occurs after placement of 

nourishment materials at a slope steeper than equilibrium. 

Quartz sediment - Sediment formed by solid fragmental material that originates from the 

weathering of quartz rocks and comprises most sediment along the Atlantic Coast 

Reconnaissance level sand source investigations - Broad scale field investigation to provide 

sediment stratigraphy and particle size information to identify prospective candidate sand source 

and to provide information for the preparation of preliminary project design and cost estimates. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 376 
377

Regional sand management - Management of sediment resources based on broad geographic 

considerations. 

Relict - Remnant left after decay, disintegration, or disappearance. 

Sediment budget - The mass balance between inputs and outputs of sediment within a defined 

coastal environment. 

Sediment characteristics - Physical attributes of a sediment sample measured by the statistical 

variations in particle size, chemical composition, density, moisture content, and color. Sediment 

is a solid fragmental material that originates from weathering of rocks and is transported or 

deposited by air, water, or ice, or that accumulates by other natural agents, such as chemical 

precipitation from solution or secretion by organisms (biological origin), and that forms in layers 

on the Earth's crust or surface at ordinary temperatures in a loose, unconsolidated fom1 (for 

example, sand, gravel, silt, mud). 

Sediment composites - A particle size distribution that represents the overall average of all 

sediment strata within a borrow site, usually based on multiple sediment grain size distributions 

weighted accordingly. 

Sediment pathways - The routes along which sediment movement occurs. 

Shore-parallel structures - Structures that are constructed onshore and parallel to the beach, 

including seawalls and revetments designed to protect the land and buildings located 

immediately landward. Shore-parallel structures also include breakwaters and submerged sills 

located in nearshore waters which act to intercept and reduce the energy of approaching waves. 

Shore-perpendicular structures - Structures such as groins and jetties that are constructed 

perpendicular to the beach and extend out into the water. These types of structures are designed 

to retard or interrupt the longshore movement of sand and accumulate sand on the beach updrifr 

of the structure. 

Shoreline stabilizatiou - Measures to retard erosion to protect upland property. Recognized 

erosion control measures include seawalls, revetments, jetties, groins, breakwaters, and beach 

nourishment. 

Siliciclastic sediment - Sediment that is composed primarily of fragments of silicate minerals or 

rock fragments, most commonly quartz. 

Storm tide - A rise above normal water level on the open coast due to the action of wind stress 

on the water surface. Storm surge resulting from a hurricane also includes that rise in level due to 

atmospheric pressure reduction as well as that due to wind stress. 

Tidal delta - An alluvial deposit, usually trians'Ular or semi-circular, at the mouth of a tidal inlet 

that accumulates as the result of the combination of wave processes and tidal currents. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 377 
378

Tidal flat - Un vegetated sandy or muddy land area that is covered and uncovered by the rise and 

fall of the tide. 

Tom bolo - A bar or spit of sand that connects or "ties" an island to the mainland or to another 

island. 

Trough sand accumulation Where sand accumulates in a long and broad bathymetric low 

between adjacent sand bars or reefs. 

Washover fan - Sediment deposited inland of a beach by overwash processes associated witb 

storms where elevated water level and large waves transport sediment across the beach. 

Wetland - Land whose saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of 

soil development and the types of plant and animal communities that live in the soil and on its 

surface. 

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Asessment Page 378 
379

US Army Corps 

of Engineers 

Philadelphia District 

NEW JERSEY 

SHORE PROTECTION STUDY 

New J crsey Department 

of Environmental 

Protection 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet 

Volume - 2 Engineering and Technical Appendix 
380

VOLUME 2: ENGINEERING TECHNICAL APPENDIX 

Table of Contents 

Section 1: General 

Section 2: Hydrology and Hydraulics 

Section 3: Surveying and Mapping Requirements 

Section 4: Geotechnical Investigations 

Section 5: Project Design 

Section 6 Construction Procedure and Water Control Plan 

Section 7: Initial Reservoir Filling and Surveillance Plan (na) 

Section 8: Storm Emergency Plan 

Section 9: Construction Materials 

Section 10: Reservoir Clearing (na) 

Section 11: Operation and Maintenance 

Section 12: Access Roads 

Section 13: Corrosion Mitigation (na) 

Section 14: Project Security 

Section 15: Cost Estimate 

Section 16: Backpass Dredging Technology 
381

Section 1 

General 

This Engineering and Technical Appendix was prepared in accordance with ER 1110-2-1150, 

Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects. Information in this appendix supplements data 

in the Feasibility report to satisfy criteria in 1110-2-1150 
382

Section 2 

Hydrology and Hydraulics/Coastal Processes 
383

Figure 1. Wave Hindcast Stations 

Here.ford Inlet to Cape tfay Inlet 

ATUINTIC 

OCEAN 

Five Mile Island 

Study Area 

Appendix A.. Section 2 
Table 1. Percent Occurrences of Wave Height by Month for WIS Station 147 

,~· "c, A .. •nernm< ••,·n ; ,.;, . HU.; "'"""'''"'. I

0.81 0.93 1.3 1.74 1.61 2.11 2.55 1.91 

2.97 2.62 2.98 3.21 4.21 4.39 4.53 4.72 

2.64 2.42 2.39 2.02 1.82 1.29 1.1 1.27 

1.16 1.03 1.05 0.77 0.52 0.33 0.23 0.34 

0.47 0.42 0.41 0.33 0.21 0.08 0.06 0.1 

0.22 0.19 0.19 0.1 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.07 

0.12 0.08 0.12 0.03 0.03 0 0.01 0.04 

0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0 0.02 

0.02 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.02 

0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 

0.01 0.01 0 

Table 2. Percent Occurrences of Peak Period b Month for WIS Station 147 

,,1,s~A:t1F {;f~~" flt~~ ,J~; i:"1'/!!.'¥,i ;?';f~fit C\\JUlit rA_(i,(f 

2.24 1.86 1.97 1.79 1.39 1.74 1.88 1.7 

2.01 1.65 1.61 1.35 1.41 1.64 1.8 1.62 

0.68 0.66 0.86 0.92 1.31 1.64 1.81 1.87 

0.62 0.62 0.67 0.86 1.63 1.64 1.57 1.66 0.69 0.66 0.7 0.96 1.46 1 0.96 0.75 

0.61 0.7 0.71 1 0.74 0.36 0.22 0.22 

0.61 0.63 0.7 0.6 0.29 0.12 0.14 0.12 

0.46 0.43 0.52 0.35 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.09 

0.53 0.47 0.68 0.37 0.15 0.01 0.07 0.31 

0.03 0.06 0.07 0 0.01 O.Q1 0.14 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May lnlct 
Table 3. Percent Occurrences of Mean Direction b1 

Qti~t:tr~tt "1lli<Hlllftil iti. .-c ;1,\fcl'tf 

0.36 0.17 0.39 0.25 0.66 0.46 0.43 0.26 0.11 0.43 

0.7 0.68 0.79 0.51 0.27 0.71 

0.77 0.81 1.08 0.67 0.54 0.88 

0.54 0.84 0.94 0.88 0.73 1.09 

0.87 0.91 1.01 1.15 1.23 1.42 

0.91 1.28 1.52 1.62 1.73 1.49 

0.99 1.37 1.62 2.01 2.63 1.41 

0.54 0.53 0.43 0.33 0.51 0.75 0.47 

0.24 0.22 0.19 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 

0.26 0.2 0.16 0.1 0.07 0.07 0.06 

0.31 0.31 0.2 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.16 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 

0.36 0.34 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04 

0.41 0.36 0.14 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.04 

Hen:oford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 
2.26 2.59 

2.46 2.59 3.08 

4.10 4.20 2.95 3.15 1.84 2.40 1.84 2.03 2.69 3.

4.07 4.17 4.49 3.25 2.62 2.33 1.64 2.23 2.99 3.

3.54 4.40 4.40 2.92 3.81 2.76 2.69 2.03 3.41 3.

3.61 3.45 2.95 2.92 3.02 2.17 2.43 2.43 2.69 3.

3.77 3.18 3.02 2.89 2.46 3.02 1.87 2.76 2.66 2.

3.74 2.79 3.41 4.49 3.41 2.30 1.97 2.36 2.72 3.

3.28 3.87 3.08 3.31 2.69 2.56 2.20 2.26 2.43 3.

3.22 3.67 4.20 2.69 2.95 2.20 2.20 2.72 3.81 2.

2.89 3.38 3.15 2.92 2.72 2.26 2.13 2.43 3.28 4.

4.20 3.35 3.77 3.41 2.36 2.26 2.53 2.92 3.51 3.

4.23 3.67 3.87 2.89 3.77 2.43 2.53 2.59 4.20 3.

4.23 4.17 3.81 3.77 2.56 2.17 2.20 2.69 3.05 3.

4.17 3.31 3.51 2.92 3.08 2.79 2.36 2.33 2.79 2.

4.49 3.74 2.92 2.76 2.69 2.82 2.62 4.69 4.92 3.

4.72 4.10 4.04 4.07 3.25 2.66 3.18 2.62 4.20 4.4.17 4.13 3.84 3.08 3.22 2.76 2.72 2.30 2.99 3.4.40 5.09 4.10 2.92 3.38 2.36 2.00 3.41 3.12 3.

4.43 3.64 4.00 2.49 3.54 3.31 2.43 3.45 5.18 

Herc ford lnld to Cape May Inld 
g 

" i 

! 

;i 

g 

:l' 

I 

I 

Percent Occurrence 

148 

Figure 2. WIS Station 147 Percent Occurrence Wave Direction, Period, and He

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 
388

14 0 16.0 

120 140 

100- 12.0 

8.0- 10 0 

60 80 

40 60 

20 4.0 

00 20 

15 0- 17.0 

130-150 

11 0- 130 

90-110 

70-90 

5.0-70 

0 0-5.0 

Width Legend 

(a) Percent Occurrence of Wave Direction vs. Wave Height (feet) 

270 

Width Legend 

(b) Percent Occurrence of Wave Direction vs. Wave Period (sec) 

Figure 3. Wave Roses of WIS Station 147 (1980-2000) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Appendix A, Section 2 
Percent Occurrence 

Figure 4. OCTI Station 119J19 Percent Occurrence Wave Direction, Period, 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inkt 
390

i 

120- 140 

mo 120 

BO 10 0 

60 80 

40 60 

20 40 

00 20 

Width Legend 

(a) Percent Occurrence of Wave Direction vs. Wave Height (feet) 

no 150 

' 

11.0 130 ~/ 

90 11 0 

70 90 

50 7.0 "" 0.0 5.0 't, 

Width Legend gi 

(b) Percent Occurrence of Wave Direction vs. Wave Period (sec) 

Figure 5. Wave Roses ofOCTJ Station 119J19 (1987-1997) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Appendix A., Section 2 
Table 5. Percent Occurrences of Wind S ~·t:~~~~,r,:~~J3kr"~;1 U.U/ 1 u. 16 I 0.25 

0.841 1.031 1.44 1.95 I 2.60 I 2.84 3. 16 I 2.93 I 

1.62 I 1.61 I 1.98 2.25 I 2.60 I 2.68 2.93 I 2.86 I 

1.93 I 1.65 I 1.68 1.79 I 1.50 I 1.31 1.31 I 1.36 I 

1 . 7 4 I 1.45 I 1 .39 1.00 I 0.65 I o.51 o.36 I o.57 I 

1.141 0.881 0.95 o.50 I 0.32 I 0.14 o.o9 I 0.12 I 

0.11 I o.56 I 0.49 0.22 I 0.11 I 0.02 0.01 I 0.06 I 

0.29 I 0.24 I 0.20 0.01 I 0.01 o.oo I o.o3 I 

o.o9 I 0.11 I 0.08 0.02 I o.oo o.oo I o.oo I 

o.04 I o.03 I 0.02 0.01 o.oo I o.oo I 

0.01 I 0.01 I 0.01 o.oo I o.oo I 

Table 6. Percent Occurrences of Wind Direction b Month for WIS Station 14

1iJAl5J}: l~ift !ilVI~~ ,f,~f>ffc;; \&IA:¥' 2,fQ_ivf (i~l:Jt:,k •;J~~

0.62 I 0.61 I 0.12 I 0.47 I 0.40 I 0.40 I o.34 I o.50 0.49 I 0.46 I 0.44 I o.38 I o.54 I o.30 I 0.26 I o.56 

0.45 I o.50 I 0.47 I o.51 I o.57 I 0.48 I o.33 I 0.61 0.25 I 0.23 0.23 I 0.45 

0.23 I 0.24 0.29 I 0.43 

0.14 I 0.11 0.21 I 0.29 

0.21 I 0.22 0.34 I o.36 

0.23 I 0.21 0.45 I 0.47 

o.50 I o.59 I o.76 I o.99 I 1.28 1.23 I 1.01 

o.55 I o.51 I 0.67 0.11 I o.93 I 1.29 I 1.45 I 1.11 

o.56 I 0.42 I 0.45 o.50 I 0.62 I o.90 I 1.24 I o.88 

o.35 I o.31 I 0.28 o.37 I 0.41 I 0.43 I o.56 I 0.45 

o.75 I o.58 I o.59 o.59 I 0.49 I 0.37 I 0.48 I 0.39 

1.12 I o.84 I o.78 o.64 I 0.43 I o.33 I o.33 I 0.29 

1.29 I 1.13 I 1.09 0.10 I o.51 I o.38 I o.38 I o.35 

o.73 I 0.11 I 0.75 0.47 I 0.41 I o.24 I 0.21 I 0.29 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 
WW1 N. Wildwood 2nd Ave 0+20 410,609.74 

WW1A N. Wildwood 5th Ave 8+32 410,050.71 WW1B N. Wildwood 8th Ave 16+79 409,389.08 

WW2 N. Wildwood 10th Ave 21+68 409,045.92 

WW2A N. Wildwood 12th Ave 27+36 408,646.95 WW2B N. Wildwood 15th Ave 35+10 408,103.39 

CM 111 N. Wildwood 15th Ave 35+92 407,991.49 

WW3 N. Wildwood 18th Ave 43+40 407,520.72 

WW3A N. Wildwood 23rd Ave 57+31 406,388.97 

WW4 N. Wildwood 26th Ave 65+82 405,633.22 wws Wildwood Pine Ave 79+40 404,461.33 WW6 Wildwood Lincoln Ave 92+41 403,456.58 WW7 Wildwood Baker Ave 107+15 402,385.58 WW8 Wildwood Taylor Ave 121+30 401,215.08 WW9 Wildwood Cresse Ave 136+84 400,077.35 

CM 110 Wildwood Cresse Ave 136+87 400,242.56 

WW10 Wildwood Crest Crocus Rd 149+31 399,165.24 

WW11 Wildwood Crest Fern Rd 169+88 397,659.59 

WW12 Wildwood Crest Stanton Rd 189+96 396,238.94 WW13 Wildwood Crest Toledo Ave 209+25 394,921.00 WW14 Wildwood Crest Trenton Ave 228+42 393,571.43 WW15 Lower Township Seapoint Blvd 245+68 392,307.33 

CM 109 Lower Township Raleigh Ave 249+97 392,197.68 

WW16 Lower Township Coast Guard Base 258+70 391,374.95 WW17 Lower Township Coast Guard Base 273+57 390,308.20 

fforeford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 10 
rvwv1a1 LowerTownship rcoastGuardBase [ 286+72 r 389,322.73 [ 

Lower Township 

Hereford Inkt to Cape May Inlet 11 
394

Figure 6. Beach Profile Locations Hereford Inlet to Wildwood 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inld 13 Appendix A .. Si;'.ction 2 
395

Figure 7. Beach Profile Locations from Wildwood to Cape May Inlet 

Hereford lnfot to Cape May Inlet 14 Appendix A .. Sc,1.ion 2 
Table 8. Elevation Parameters of the Beach Profiles Collected By OCTI in 200

WW1A North Wildwood 10.3 

WW1B North Wildwood 10.4 

WW02 North Wildwood 9.8 10.4 0.6 4.2 

WW2A North Wildwood 10.4 WW2B North Wildwood none 

WW03 North Wildwood 10.8 9.5 -1.3 4.7 

WW3A North Wildwood 13.5 

WW04 North Wildwood none 12.0 5.5 

WW05 Wildwood none none 4.5 

WW06 Wildwood none none 4.8 

WW07 Wildwood none none 4.4 WW08 Wildwood none none 4.4 WW09 Wildwood 12.6 12.5 -0.1 4.8 WW10 Wildwood Crest 10.4 10.6 0.2 4.6 

WW11 Wildwood Crest 14.2 16.0 1.8 4.5 

WW12 Wildwood Crest none none 5.1 

WW13 Wildwood Crest none none 5.0 

WW14 Wildwood Crest none none 5.4 

WW15 Lower Township 11.6 11.6 0.0 5.9 

WW16 Lower Township 14.1 14.4 0.3 4.9 

WW17 Lower Township 14.7 15.0 0.3 5.5 

WW18 Lower Township 21.4 22.3 0.9 5.3 WW19 Lower Township 18.9 18.6 -0.3 5.6 

WW20 Lower Township 14.4 15.7 1.3 4.9 

lforeford Inlet to Cape :-.fay Inli.:t 15 
WW1A North Wildwood 398.0 

WW1B North Wildwood 411.0 

WW02 North Wildwood 495.0 391.0 -104.0 929.0 

WW2A North Wildwood 403.0 

WW2B North Wildwood 597.0 

WW03 North Wildwood 908.0 653.0 -255.0 1155.0 

WW3A North Wildwood 1129.0 

WW04 North Wildwood 1455.0 1379.0 -76.0 1914.0 

WW05 Wildwood 1759.0 1641.0 -118.0 2060.0 

WW06 Wildwood 1736.0 1728.0 -8.0 2314.0 

WW07 Wildwood 1563.0 1581.0 18.0 2160.0 

WW08 Wildwood 1578.0 1608.0 30.0 2200.0 

WW09 Wildwood 1382.0 1386.0 4.0 1996.0 

WW10 Wildwood Crest 1260.0 1300.0 40.0 1888.0 

WW11 Wildwood Crest 1138.0 1128.0 -10.0 1748.0 

WW12 Wildwood Crest 1062.0 1034.0 -28.0 1699.0 

WW13 Wildwood Crest 946.0 946.0 0.0 1569.0 

WW14 Wildwood Crest 943.0 919.0 -24.0 1552.0 

WW15 Lower Township 1045.0 1026.0 -19.0 1602.0 

WW16 Lower Township 1099.0 1062.0 -37.0 1727.0 

WW17 Lower Township 1210.0 1176.0 -34.0 1752.0 WW18 Lower Township 1375.0 1365.0 -10.0 1842.0 

WW19 Lower Township 1363.0 1333.0 -30.0 1863.0 

WW20 Lower Township 1271.0 1232.0 -39.0 1857.0 

Ifrreford lnh~t to Cape }.fay Inlet 16 
398

WW1 0 800 800 

2 800 1500 700 

3 1500 2250 750 

4 2250 3150 900 

5 3150 3850 700 

6 3850 4600 750 

7 4600 5400 800 

8 5400 6000 600 

9 6000 6840 840 

WW2 1 0 1000 1000 

2 1000 1900 900 

3 1900 2500 600 

4 2500 3200 700 

5 3200 4200 1000 

6 4200 5200 1000 

7 5200 6200 1000 

8 6200 6830 630 

WW3 0 1000 1000 

2 1000 2000 1000 

3 2000 3000 1000 

4 3000 4000 1000 

5 4000 5000 1000 

6 5000 6000 1000 

7 6000 7000 1000 

8 7000 7700 700 

9 7700 8700 1000 

10 8700 9630 930 

WW4 0 800 800 

2 800 1600 800 

3 1600 2600 1000 

4 2600 3600 1000 

5 3600 4600 1000 

6 4600 5600 1000 

7 5600 6600 1000 

8 6600 7350 750 

7350 7850 500 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 17 Appendix A., Section 2 
,$i¥!iJne11,\' }~oJ'i!:p: "'.f-:;· ?:;ft~~( 7X}l~iCl s; tJfJ'fi J~Jst1z {5;j.:f,~t i&

1 1.00 1711.50 1859.10 2056.70 2178.70 2615.40 

2.00 1845.90 1938.80 1938.70 2749.30 3294.90 

3.00 1987.20 1996.50 1872.30 3442.80 3441.20 

4.00 2063.00 2064.70 1879.30 3479.80 3471.30 

5.00 2031.00 2076.20 1958.40 3355.40 3393.80 

6.00 1835.50 2086.70 2049.60 3200.00 3294.40 

7.00 1239.80 2103.40 2000. 10 3048.70 3129.70 

8.00 869.50 2050.40 1920.60 2901.10 2943.70 

9.00 715.90 2026.10 1897.30 2755.90 2806.10 

2 1.00 632.40 1908.20 1855.30 2616.00 2710.00 

2.00 672.90 1860.00 1921.60 2481.90 2595.10 

3.00 743.00 1843.60 2001.20 2380.20 2486.50 

4.00 768.60 1813.60 2012.50 2301.60 2454.60 

5.00 774.90 1808.00 2023.80 2223.20 2373.10 

6.00 831.30 1806.10 2066.70 2160.00 2347.90 

7.00 946.40 1805.90 2063.60 2121.70 2355.00 

8.00 1073.90 1797.30 2120.00 2031.10 2117.30 2342.90 

3 1.00 1134.60 1766.70 2099.60 2042.00 2091.90 2354.80 

2.00 1146.70 1740.90 2076.20 2070.50 2066.70 2276.60 

3.00 1177.90 1699.70 2012.90 2053.70 2025.60 2238.00 

4.00 1188.50 1695.10 1897.00 2075.70 2033.20 2201.30 

5.00 1151.70 1708.40 1889.30 2103.10 2088. 10 2197.40 

6.00 1080.80 1740.20 1892.00 2155.60 2241.60 

7.00 942.60 1770.50 1891.90 2237.70 2289.40 

8.00 620.00 1841.00 1931.70 2272.20 2325.30 

9.00 1874.40 1944.90 2245.40 2292.20 2347.20 

10.00 1961.50 1998.40 2277.00 2333.20 2404.90 

I-krdOrd lnld to Capi.:: May Inlet 18 
Table 11 (Continued). Mean Shoreline Positions (feet) by Compartment 

-~ -,~,,, 

4 1.00 2036.60 2040.60 2290.70 2353.80 2472.10 

2.00 2056.40 2050.60 2276.90 2340.90 2454. 10 

3.00 1795.80 2069.80 2140. 10 2272.20 2327.60 2396.30 

Ann ...., ..... ,.v, rn '"'lnor::- "" ""-11':'"7 l:'n ,.....,"tr nn ....,..,,:o nn '"'l"ln"7 "7n 

5.oo I 2078.90 I 2074.20 I 2199.50 I 2376.10 I 2389.80 I 2410.80 I 

6.oo I 1644.30 I 2119_90 I 2248. 70 I 2399.60 I 2430. 10 I 2480.40 I 

7.oo I 1122.50 I 2203.70 I 2347.90 I 2439.20 I 2469.70 I 2546.oo I 

8.oo I 775.90 I 2296.30 I 2478.30 I 2519.90 I 2515.40 I 2589.20 I 

9.00 504.10 2362.30 2538.90 2606.10 2587.30 2682.20 

10.00 2364.50 2612.30 2687.30 2663.60 2783.60 

Hen~ford lnkt to Cape May Inlet 19 
Table 12. Shoreline Change Rates (feet/year) by Epochs 1'[~~~ntr~d~p;tfna'fl;;!'.~1F1~~~1S4~!~~tr:1~F

2 700 2.82 -0.01 23.84 60.

3 750 0.28 -11.29 46.19 -0.

4 900 0.05 -16.85 47.07 -0.

5 700 1.37 -10.71 41.09 4.

6 750 7.61 -3.37 33.84 10

7 800 26.17 -9.39 30.84 9.

8 600 35.78 -11.80 28.84 4.

9 840 39.70 -11.71 25.25 5.

2 1000 38.66 -4.81 22.37 10

2 900 35.97 5.60 16.48 12

3 600 33.35 14.33 11.15 11.

4 700 31.67 18.08 8.50 17

5 1000 31.31 19.62 5.86 16

6 1000 29.54 23.69 2.74 20

7 1000 26.05 23.43 1.71 25

8 630 21.92 29.34 -0.08 25.

3 1000 19.15 30.26 -2.07 8.33 29.

2 1000 18.01 30.48 -0.20 -0.63 23

3 1000 15.81 28.47 1.46 -4.68 23.

4 1000 15.35 18.35 6.38 -7.08 18

5 1000 16.87 16.45 7.64 -2.50 12

6 1000 19.98 13.80 9.

7 1000 25.09 11.04 5.

8 700 37.00 8.25 5.

9 1000 6.41 10.73 7.80 6.

10 930 3.35 9.95 9.37 7.

Hereford Inlet to Cape \fay Inlet 20 
Table 12 (Continued). Shoreline Chan~e Rates (feet/year) by Epochs 

• s:(;lgm~ti,scil)"IA1t ~lfgt!t'; :"1~~1~2' t~a~rf{~ 1;;1~1~11: '.','f~p,J~;?'i'; tt~1'M

4 I 1 800 0.36 8.93 10.52 13

2 800 -0.53 8.08 10.67 12

3 1000 8.30 6.39 4.72 9.23 7.

4 1000 -3.59 7.51 5.62 5.50 4.4

5 1000 -0.14 11.39 6.31 2.28 2.

6 1000 14.41 11.71 5.39 5.08 5.

7 1000 32.76 13.11 3.26 5.08 8.

8 750 46.07 16.55 1.49 -0.75 8.

9 500 56.31 16.05 2.40 -3.13 10

10 500 22.53 2.68 -3.95 13

Hereford Inlet to Cap,: May inlet 21 
403

Table 13. Shoreline Chan2e Rates (feet/year) Relative to 2003 

1 1 800 6.26 5.92 3.83 -3.27 -25.45 -30.57 

2 700 8.59 9.41 7.22 -27.52 -64.58 -56.34 

3 750 9.31 10.77 7.75 -51.40 -73.75 -89.13 

4 900 9.37 11.25 9.02 -49.25 -70.55 -90.55 

5 700 10 09 11.92 10.01 -38.06 -56.93 -79.23 

6 750 11.63 12.12 10.41 -26.80 -43.95 -76.46 

7 800 16.11 13.08 13.10 -14.53 -25.85 -58.43 

8 600 18.65 13.94 15.03 -5.29 -10.57 -35.71 

9 840 19.17 13.64 15.25 0.84 -206 -23.78 

2 1 1000 19.89 14.>:54 I 16.43 8.~ti I 5.29 -11.75 

2 900 19.55 15.04 16.13 15.93 16.71 1.16 

3 600 18.56 14.34 14.93 21.15 24.54 10.59 

4 700 18.94 15.27 13.80 24.86 27.67 14.61 

5 1000 17.72 13.84 14.39 27.29 31.61 26.87 

6 1000 16.74 12.95 13.11 28.08 31.23 33.37 

7 1000 15.60 12.51 12.66 27.72 28.71 34.53 

8 630 15.00 14.18 12.10 25.20 27.07 28.39 39.76 

3 1 1000 13.68 11.69 10.90 23.32 25.51 24.49 37.97 

2 1000 12.57 10.65 10.08 19.69 22.73 22.94 34.15 

3 1000 11.68 10.08 9.36 17.15 20.19 19.34 33.88 

4 1000 11.33 10.03 9.88 14.43 17.66 17.94 35.55 

5 1000 11.33 9.47 9.11 11.59 13.92 15.14 26.63 

6 1000 11.89 9.31 8.97 10.92 11.88 21.12 

7 1000 13.15 9.44 9.18 8.42 10.10 23.37 

8 700 15.29 8.70 8.60 7.00 7.88 18.25 

9 1000 8.45 8.36 6.50 6.42 6.96 16.97 

10 930 7.59 7.69 5.50 4.70 3.60 10.77 

4 1 800 7.03 7.44 5.46 4.01 0.59 11.83 

2 800 6.45 6.95 5.25 3.80 0.71 16.04 

3 1000 6.07 5.32 5.16 5.00 4.13 2.94 10.35 

4 1000 3.16 5.00 4.53 3.49 3.13 2.86 9.47 

5 1000 4.20 5.04 3.99 2.27 2.34 2.73 12.07 

6 1000 7.46 4.83 3.73 2.04 1.30 -0.08 10.77 

7 1000 11.44 4.42 3.35 2.95 2.16 -0.15 9.06 

8 750 13.98 3.52 2.10 2.65 2.77 0.98 13.33 

9 500 16.39 3.50 1.99 1.73 1.80 -1.30 13.64 

10 500 3.87 1.50 0.35 -0.09 -5.22 8.54 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :tvfay Inlet 22 Appendix A .. Section 2 
404

CELL 1 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

0 500 F'eet 

Figure 8. North Wildwood Shoreline Positions 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :1\fay Inlet 23 

HEREFORD 

INLET 

Shoreline Positions 

1899 

1932 

1943 

· .. 1971 

1977 

1900 

1998 

2003 

Appendix A., Section 2 
405

CELL3 

WILDWOOD 

500 250 0 

-- 500 Feet 

Figure 9. North Wildwood and Wildwood Shoreline Positions 

Hereford Inlet to Cape r-..fay Inlet 24 

CELL 2 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

1899 

1932 

1943 

1971 

1977 

1986 

1998 

2003 

Appendix A .. SC'ction 2 
406

Shoreline Positions 

1899 

1932 

1943 

1971 

1977 

1900 

1998 

2003 

500 25-0 O 

•• 

CELL4 

WILDWOOD CREST 

SOO Fee! 

Figure 10. Wildwood and Wildwood Crest Shoreline Positions 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 25 

CELL3 

VIIILDWOOD 

Appendix A., Section 2 
407

Shoreline Positions 

1899 

1932 

1943 

1971 

197T 

1986 

1998 

2003 

500 zso O $00 Foo! 

--

Figure 11. Wildwood Crest Shoreline Positions 

Hereford Inlet to Cape r-.fay Inlet 26 

CELLS 

WILDWOOD CREST 

CELL4 

WILDWOOD CREST 

Appendix A., Section 2 
408

Shoreline Positions 

1899 

1932 

1943 

1971 

1sn 

1900 

1998 

2003 

500 250 () 

•• 500 Feel 

CELL 7 

LOWER 

TOWNSHIP 

(COAST GUARD BASE) 

Figure 12. Lower Township Shoreline Positions 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 27 

CELL6 

LOWER 

TOWNSHIP 

Appendix A .. Section 2 
409

Shoreline Positions 

1S99 

1932 

1943 

1971 

1977 

1900 

1998 

2003 

500 250 0 

•• SOO Feet 

CAPE MAY 

INLET 

Figure 13. Cape May Inlet Vicinity Shoreline Positions 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 28 

CELL 7 

LOWER 

TOWNSHIP 

(COAST GUARD BASE) 

Appendix A .. , Section 2 
Cell 1 W/0 Project Profile 

ProfileWW2 

15 ~-----------------~----··-----~~---------~--------------~---------~--~~-~----

i 

-5 +---- ------ --- -- -'------'1.--

z 

$ 

0 i ~10 

iii 

-15 +------- ----c---- - ---- - ""'- --- -~ ----j--- -----------,---20 +- ------ -------,-----25 f-------------- +------- -- -+-

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 

Distance Offshore (ft) 

Figure 14. W/0 Project Conditions Profile for Cell 1 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 29 
Cell 2 W/0 Project Profile 

ProfileWW3 

15 r-·----~-·-··,~~---~.----~---~--c--·---------.-~---··---~-----~~,~--·---

10 +--------------··------------------------+----------

.. 

.. 

C 

;;l 

2 

!!:, -5 

C 

j 

.. 

> 

-10 

w 

-15 -20 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

Distance Offshore (fl) 

Figure 15. W /0 Project Conditions Profile for Cell 2 

HerdOrd Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 3() 
Cell 3 W/0 Project Profile 

ProfileWW7 

15 r-·-~·----";··~~~-~-r·--~-~--r···----···--·r--~-~-.:~~~\~~:_ ___ ,-~---

10+-···-·····························+·-·············>--·········· 

00 

.. 

C 

;;i 

2 

!:. -5 

C 

j 

.. 

> 

-10 

w 

-15 -20 

-25 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

Distance Offshore (ft) 

Figure 16. W/0 Project Conditions Profile for Cell 3 

Hereford Inlet io Cape May Inlet 31 
Cell 4 W/0 Project Profile 

ProfileWW10 

15 ,--·~--·--~-·--------~---~~--~·--------~----,---------·~-----

.; 

.. 

C 

z 

!:. -5 

C 

-10 

w 

-15 

-20 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

Distance Offshore (ft) 

Figure 17. W/0 Project Conditions Profile for Cell 4 

Iforeford Inlet to Cap..: i\fay Inlet 32 
Cell 5 W/0 Project Profile 

ProfileWW13 

15 r-------1··------~--T 

__ __"."'~~~-----

10 j; ·\--· ·, ----- --

"' "' C 

;l: 

2 

!!:, -5 

C 

j 

.. :, 

.!! -10 

w 

-15 -20 

-25 

500 1000 1500 2000 

Distance Offshore (ff) 

Figure 18. W /0 Project Conditions Profile for Cell 5 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 33 
Cell 6 W/0 Project Profile 

ProlileWW15 

15 r------~~·--~~,-····-···~---~-~-~----------~----···-···~~------~~---·····-~10 

co 

.. 

C 

-5 

2 

!!:. 

C: 

.9 -10 

.; 

> 

w " 

-15 -20 -25 

-30 

500 1000 

Figure 19. W /0 Project Conditions Profile for Cell 6 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 

1500 

Distance Offshore (ff) 

34 

20
20 

15 

10 

"' "' C 

2 

:!:. -5 

C: 

., > -10 

iij 

-15 -20 -25 

-30 

500 1000 1500 

Figure 20. W /0 Project Conditions Profile for Cell 7 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 

Cell 7 W/0 Project Profile 

ProflleWW17 

2000 

Distance Offshore (It) 

35 

2500 
417

Figure 21. Cell Limits 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inkt 36 Appendix A, Section 2 
20 

15 10 

ii, 5 

"' C 

z 

E 0 

C 

0 

Cl) -5 iii 

-10 -15 -20 

0 500 1000 

Cell 1 - North Wildw

Base and Future Without Proje

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 22. Base and Future Without Project Conditions for Cell 1 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 37 
20 

15 

10 

i 5 

Cl 

z 

0 

t: 

0 

1ij 

iii -5 jjj 

-10 -15 -20 

0 500 1000 

Cell 2 - North Wildw

Base and Future Without Proje

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 23. Base and Future Without Project Conditions for Cell 2 

Hereford lnld to Cape \fay Inlet 38 
Cell 3 - Wildwood 

Base and Future Without Proje

20 ~--··~~------·~---~-------~---·--~·----·----------~··---·---

15 10 

~\ 

i s; 

Cl 

z 

C: 

0 

j 

0 

.2 -5 

UJ 

-10 -15 

~o 

0 500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 24. Base and Future Without Project Conditions for Cell 3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 31ay lnld 39 
20 

15 10 

i 5 

Cl 

;;;: 

z 

0 

C: 

0 

" -5 jjj 

-10 -15 -20 

0 500 1000 

Cell 4 - Wildwood 

Base and Future Without Proje

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 25. Base and Future Without Project Conditions for Cell 4 

H..:=reford Inlet to Cape :t,.fay Inlet 40 
Cell 5 - Wildwood C

Base and Future Without Proje

20 ~---~----~----------·--------~-~~-----------------------~---

15 1 

10 -t ,, ____ ...... -••'\ 

ig 5 

Cl 

z 

C: 

0 

j 

0 

-5 

UJ 

-10 

-15 

-20 

0 500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 26. Base and Future Without Project Conditions for Cell 5 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :t,.foy lnfot 41 
Cell 6 - Lower Town

Base and Future Without Proje

20 -r-·----~---·--·----~---~~-~--~----------------~---~--~~---··

i 

Cl 

z 

5. 

C: 

0 

j 

15 

10 

5 

0 

-5 

UJ 

-10 -15 

0 500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 27. Base and Future Without Project Conditions for Cell 6 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 42 
20 

15 10 

i 5 

Cl 

z 

0 

C: 

0 

:; !': 

" -5 w 

-10 -15 -20 

0 500 1000 

Cell 7 - Lower Town

Base and Future Without Proje

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 28. Base and Future Without Project Conditions for Cell 7 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlct 43 
425

10 20 

Storm Condffions 

5-Year Event 

30 

Time(hr) 

40 

Figure 29. "5-yr" Storm Conditions used in Storm Damage Analysis 

10 20 

Storm Conditions 

10-Year Event 

30 

Time(hr) 

40 50 

Figure 30. "10-yr" Storm Conditions used in Storm Damage Analysis 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 44 

50 60 

60 70 

Appendix I\.. Section 2 
426

10 20 

Storm Condffions 

20-Year Event 

30 

Time. (hr) 

40 50 

Figure 31. "20-yr" Storm Conditions used in Storm Damage Analysis 

20 g 

:c 

. 

~ 15 :s: 

10 20 30 

Storm Conditions 

50-Year Event 

40 50 

Time. (hr) 

60 70 

Figure 32. "50-yr" Storm Conditions used in Storm Damage Analysis 

Hereford Inlet to Cape tfay Inlet 45 

60 70 

80 90 

Appendix A., Section 2 
427

25 

20 

€ 

'!: 15 ~ 

~ 

i 10 

It 

C 

;; 

z 

.,_ 

ii 

w 

-5 

-10 

10 20 30 

Storm Condffions 

100-Year Event 

40 50 

Time (hr) 

60 70 80 

Figure 33. "100-yr" Storm Conditions used in Storm Damage Analysis 

25 

€ 

! 20 ,-------- ---~+----------

l i 15 

It 10 C 

i 

. > 

iii 

10 20 30 

Storm Conditions 

200-Year Event 

40 50 

Time (hr) 

60 70 

Figure 34. "200-yr" Storm Conditions used in Storm Damage Analysis 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 46 

90 100 

80 90 

Appendix A., Section 2 
428

t 10 a 

i 

!S 

~ 

iii 

20 40 

Storm Condffions 

500-Year Event 

60 

Time (hr) 

80 

Figure 35. "500-yr" Storm Conditions used in Storm Damage Analysis 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 47 

100 120 

Appendix A., Section 2 
20 

15 10 

., 

., 

C 

z 

0 

C 

0 

1 -5 iij 

-10 -15 -20 

500 1000 

W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 1 - North Wildwood 

--,"-" ... ~••

' / 

'-·· 

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 36. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Base Cond

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 48 
20 

15 

10 

co 

co 

C 

z 

E 

C 

0 

j 

Q) -5 jjj 

-10 -15 -20 

500 

W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 2 - North Wildwood 

'~ ·~. C "'-',,,, ,,,,,_,, "···----

1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 37. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Base Cond

Hereford Inlet to Cape: May Inlet 49 
20 

15 10 

., 5 

"' C 

i 

e. 0 

C 

0 

Q) -5 jjj 

-10 -15 -20 

,_.,_,.,,._""·-.... ~~%..--~f 

500 1000 

W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 3 - Wildwood 

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 38. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Base Cond

Hereford Inlet to Cape May lnl<-'1 50 
W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 4 - Wildwood 

20 ~-------~---------·---~---------·--·~--~--·-·--·~---~-

15 10 

a, 5 

ex, 

C 

E o 

C 

0 

-5 

-10 

. 

. 

. 

-15 

-20+-------,--------.-------,--------,.

500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 39. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Base Cond

Hereford lnld to Capt: May Inlct 51 
W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 5 - Wildwood Crest 

20 ,-"·---~--~--~·----·~----·---------·~·~·~·-----~--·----~·~

15 10 

18 

C 

0 

i 

E -5 

C: 

0 

-10 

Q) 

iii 

-15 -20 -25 

-·· -·L x7,,_,-- ;, 

*' "-w~J; 

-30 

0 500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 40. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Base Cond

Hereford Inlet to Cape \fay lnld 52 
20 

15 10 

5 

a, 

"' C 

z 

s. -5 

C: 

0 

:c, 

-10 

iii 

-15 -20 -25 

W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 6- Lower Township 

/~-~ 

-~J -------

-,_ . .. 

'"-,,~ 

~'"""'-, . 

~--

-30 

1500 

Distance (feet) 

0 500 1000 

Figure 41. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Base Cond

}foreford lnli:t to Cape ;\fay Inlet 53 
20 

15 10 

5 

., 

., 

C 

0 

;i: 

z 

-5 

C 

0 

-10 

QI 

jjj 

-15 -20 -25 -30 

0 500 1000 

W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 7- Lower Township 

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 42. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Base Cond

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 54 
20 

15 

10 

'° 5 "' C 

i 

E 

C: 0 i 

0 

:,:, 

-5 w 

-10 -15 -20 

0 

"-

500 1000 

Future W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 1 - North Wildwood 

-~-~~

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 43. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Future Colforcford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 55 
Future W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 2 - North Wildwood 

20 ~-~---------------------~--------~---~~------~~--------------~~-~

15 10 

lo 5 

"' C 

E 

C 

0 

-5 

LU 

-10 -15 

-----~ 0 ·~"'"· ' 

>-,,-, -,_,_ ',, ___ , ________ M8-=

-20 

500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 44. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Fntnre Co

Hereford Inlet to Capt.": ~fay Inlet 56 
Future W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 3 - Wildwood 

20 ~·-~·-----~-~-·---------~·--~~--~---,-----~-------~·~--~

OJ 

"' C 

E 

C 

0 

15 10 

51 ......... ---·--·-------"""'-:::.__..... 

0 

.!!1 -5 

w 

-10 -15 

0 500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 45. Pre- and Post "SO-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Future Co

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 57 
20 

15 10 

co 5 

"' 

;,~~ ,,,j 

--~ .. j 

C ' 

ii:;. 0 

C: 

0 

(!) -5 jjj 

-10 -15 -20 

500 1000 

Future W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 4 - Wildwood 

. 

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 46. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Future Co

Hereford Inlet io Cape May Inlct 58 
Future W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 5 - Wildwood Crest 

20 ~·~--~·------·~----·~~--~·~-----·~---~·--·~·~·~--·~--

15 10 

&, 

co 

Cl 

0 

2 

e. -5 

C: 

0 

-10 

jjj " 

-15 -20 -25 -30 

0 500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 47. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Future Co

Hereford Inlet to Cape ifay lnh..-1 59 
Future W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 6 - Lower Township 

20 ,----~---~------·----·~------~-~----~----·------~·--,-~~---

15 10 

i 

C 

0 

s. -5 

C: 

0 

-10 

Q) 

w 

-15 -20 -25 -30 

0 500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 48. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Future Co

Hereford Inlet to Cape ).fay Inlet 60 
20 

15 10 

5 

ii, 

., 

C 

0 

z 

l:S. -5 

C: 

.Q 

-10 

u:; "

-15 -20 -25 -30 

0 500 1000 

Future W/0 Project Profiles 

Cell 7 - Lower Township 

\.:"" 

-,~~--

'''"·--

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 49. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Without Future Co

Hereford Inlet to Cape: ;\fay Inlet 61 
443

Costdam file explanation. 

DISTANCE 

0.0 

DEFAULT 

0.25 

~vr 

IOyr 0.0 

20yr 0.0 

50yr 0.0 

IOOyr 45.0 

200yr 60.0 

500yr 65.0 

NUMBER OF 

WAVE 

. 0 

. 0 

. 0 

. 0 

955.0 

940.0 

935.0 

POINTS IN 

7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

WATER 

E 

Location of the 3 foot 

wave impact zone 

for the 5-yr through 

0. 0000. 

0. 0000. 

0. 0000 . 

0. 0000. 

0. 0000. 

00. 0000. 

ELEVATION 

INUNDATION PROFILE: DISTANCE FROM 

WATERLEVEL 

~ 200.0 10.7 

. 700 .. 0 5 .. • 0 . 

IOyr 200.0 

100,0 .. 

20yr 200.0 

250.0 

Oyr 200.0 

250.0 

JOOy ·206 :o 

20()v 

500y 

-60. 0 

SOQ.O 

SJQ,Q_ .. 

-30.0 

780.0 

ROSION RATE 

Inundation profiles 

shmvn as distance, 

elevation pairs for the 

5-yr through 500-yr 

stonn events 

TOTAL 

5.0 

5.5 
444

Table 14. Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 1 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

3549,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE I LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0.0 0.0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

1080.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1180.00 0.00 0.0 o. 0. 

1235 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1285 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1345. 00 285.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1450.00 2190.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1535.00 2105.00 0.0 D. D. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 9.20 650.00 9.20 1302. 00 9 .20 1307 . 00 .00 

2100.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800.00 D. 00 3200 .00 .00 

0.00 9.40 650.00 9.40 1302 .00 9 .40 1307. 00 0 . 00 

2100.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800 .00 0 .00 3200 .00 .00 

0 .OD 9.70 650.00 9.70 1302 .00 9.70 1307. 00 0 .00 

2100 .00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800 .00 0.00 3200. 00 D. 00 

0 .00 11 .50 1302. 00 11.50 1352.00 8.70 1680.00 8.60 

2336 .00 8 . 30 2664.00 8.00 2992.00 7.10 3320.00 7.10 

0 .00 13. 60 650.00 13 .60 1302 .00 13. 60 1320. 00 13 .60 

1352 .DO 13. 60 1845.00 11 .70 2339. 00 9. 80 2832 .00 7 .90 

0 .00 15.00 700.00 15 .00 1420. 00 15.00 1450 . 00 15 . 00 

1492 .00 15.00 1998.00 13. 00 2505. 00 10.90 3012 .00 8 .90 

0 .00 17.10 750.00 17.10 1490.00 17.10 1520. 00 17 .10 

1583 .00 17.10 2170.00 14.70 2758.00 12.40 3346 .00 10 .00 

Table 15. Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 2 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

2959,0.D 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 62 

1700.00 0 .00 

3640.00 .00 

1700.00 0 . 00 

3640. 00 0 .00 

1700 . 00 .00 

3640. 00 .OD 

2008 .00 .60 

3640. 00 7.10 

1335. 00 13 .60 

3640.00 7 .90 

1470. 00 15. 00 

3640 .00 8.90 

1550 .00 17.10 

3640. 00 10.00 

Appendix A .. Section 2 
445

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 1040.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1100. OD 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1170.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1265.00 0.00 0 . 0 0 . 0. 

1330. 00 145.00 0 . 0 0 . 0. 

1385. 00 2170.00 0 . 0 0. 0 . 

1440.00 2115.00 0. 0 o. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 8.60 650.00 .60 1333.00 8.60 1338.00 0.00 

2100.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800.00 0 .00 3200.00 0.00 

0.00 8.90 650.00 8.90 1333.00 .90 1338 .00 0.00 

2100.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800.00 .00 3200 .00 0.00 

0.00 9.30 650.00 9.30 1343.00 .30 1348 .00 0.00 

2100.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800.00 0.00 3200 .00 .00 

0.00 10.80 650.00 10. 80 1337.00 10.80 1580 .00 9 . 80 

2006 .00 8.00 2316.00 7. 80 2626.00 7. 60 3250 .00 7 .10 

0 .00 14.20 650.00 14.20 1480.00 14 . 20 1500. 00 14 .20 

1538 .00 14.20 2051.00 12.10 2564.00 10 .00 3077 .00 7 .90 

0 .00 15.90 650.00 15.90 1480.00 15. 90 1500. 00 15. 90 

1556 .00 15.90 2128.00 13. 60 2700.00 11. 20 3272.00 8 .90 

0 .00 18.10 650.00 18.10 1480.00 18.10 1500.00 18 .10 

1560 .00 18.10 2072.00 16.10 2566.00 14.10 3061.00 12 .10 

Table 16. Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 3 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

6965,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

85.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

250.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

415 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

665 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

875 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1075. 00 2245.00 0.0 D. 0. 

1375.00 1945.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 63 

1700.00 .00 

3555.00 .DO 

1700.00 .00 

3555.00 0.00 

1700.00 0.00 

3555.00 0.00 

1823.00 8.80 

3555.00 7.10 

1520.00 14.20 

3555.00 7.90 

1520. 00 15.90 

3555 . OD 8.90 

1520 .00 18.10 

3555. 00 10.10 

Appendix A., Section 2 
446

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 7.90 650.00 7.90 1338 .00 7.90 1343 .00 .00 

2100.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800. 00 .00 3200. 00 .00 

0.00 8.30 650.00 8.30 13 3 8 .00 8 .30 1343 .00 . 00 

2100.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800 .00 0 .00 3200 .00 .00 

0.00 8.60 650 .00 8.60 1338.00 8 .60 1343.00 0.00 

2100.00 0.00 2500 .00 0.00 2800.00 0 .00 3200.00 0.00 

0.00 9.30 650. 00 9 . 30 1338.00 9.30 1343 .00 .00 

2100.00 0.00 2500 .00 0 .00 2800.00 0.00 3200. 00 .00 

0 .00 13. 60 650.00 13 .60 900 .00 13. 60 1200.00 13 .60 

1388 .00 13. 60 1891.00 11 .so 2399. 00 9 .50 2800.00 7 .90 

0 .00 15.20 650.00 15. 20 900. 00 15 . 20 1200.00 15 . 20 

1473.00 15 . 20 2040.00 12 .90 2608.00 10. 70 3050.00 .90 

0.00 17 .20 650.00 17 .20 900.00 17 .20 1200.00 17 .20 

1528.00 17 .20 1976.00 15.40 2400.00 13 .60 3150.00 10 .70 

Table 17. Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 4 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

4585,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 325.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

485.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

655.00 0.00 0.0 0. o. 875.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1045.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1200.00 1915.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1415.00 1700.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 8.00 650.00 8.00 893.00 8.00 8 98 .00 0.00 

1600.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 0.00 2800. 00 0.00 

0.00 8.60 650.00 8.60 893.00 8.60 898 .00 0.00 

1600.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 . 00 2800 .00 0 .00 

0.00 9.20 650.00 9.20 893.00 .20 8 98 .00 .00 

1600.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 0 .00 2800. 00 0 .00 

0.00 10.20 650.00 10.20 8 98. 00 10. 20 903 .00 10 .70 

1600.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 0 .00 2800.00 0.00 

0.00 12.30 650.00 12.30 900.00 12 .30 920.00 12.30 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inld 64 

1700.00 

3320.00 

1700.00 

3320.00 

1700 . 00 

3320. 00 

1700.00 

3320.00 

1300. 00 

3320. 00 

1300 .00 

3320. 00 

1300 .00 

3320. 00 

1200.00 

3115. 00 

1200.00 

3115.00 

1200.00 

3115.00 

1200.00 

3115.00 

940.00 

0.00 

0.00 

. 00 

.00 

. 00 

. 00 

. 00 

. 00 

13. 60 

7.90 

15. 20 

.90 

17 .20 

10 .00 

0.00 

. 00 

. 00 

0. 00 

0 .00 

0 . 00 

0 . 00 

0 . 00 

12 . 30 

Appendix A., Section 2 
447

948.00 12.30 1368.00 10.80 1789 .00 9.40 2210. 00 7 .90 

0.00 14. 60 650.00 14. 60 900 .00 14.60 920.00 14 .60 

1168. 00 14. 60 1644.00 12. 70 2120. 00 10. 80 2596.00 8 .90 

0.00 16.80 650.00 16.80 900 .00 16.80 920.00 16 .80 

1210. 00 16.80 1783.00 14.50 2355.00 12. 30 2928. 00 10. 00 

Table 18. Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 5 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

5835,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

655.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

715.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

775.00 0.00 0.0 o. 0. 

870.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1275.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1400.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1475.00 45.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE 

0.00 8.30 650.00 8.30 1029.00 

1800.00 0.00 2200.00 0.00 2600.00 

0.00 9.00 650.00 9.00 1034.00 

1800.00 0.00 2200.00 0.00 2600.00 

0.00 9.50 650.00 9.50 1034.00 

1800.00 0.00 2200.00 0.00 2600.00 

0.00 11.20 1034.00 11.20 1084.00 

2040.00 9.40 2359.00 9.10 2677.00 

13 .10 650.00 13 .10 1000.00 

13 .10 1545.00 11. 70 2006.00 

14.70 650.00 14 .70 1000.00 

14. 70 1697.00 12 .80 2168.00 

AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

8.30 1034.00 0.00 

0.00 3000.00 0.00 

9.00 1039.00 0.00 

0.00 3000.00 .00 

9.50 1039.00 .00 

0.00 3000.00 .00 

10.60 1402.00 10.20 

8.50 2996.00 8.10 

13.10 1020.00 13.10 

10.30 2467.00 8.90 

14.70 1020.00 14.70 

10.80 2640.00 8.90 

3115. 00 

940 .00 

3115 .00 

940. 00 

3115 . 00 

1400.00 

3315.00 

1400. 00 

3315.00 

1400.00 

3315 00 

1721. 00 

3315.00 

1040.00 

3315.00 

1040.00 

3315.00 

0.00 

1084.00 

0.00 

1226.00 

0.00 

1246.00 

17.40 

17.40 

650.00 17 

1871.00 14 

.40 1000.00 

.90 2497.00 

17.40 1200.00 

12.50 3123.00 

17.40 1220.00 

10.00 3315.00 

Her.:iford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 65 

7 .90 

14 . 60 

8 . 90 

16 .80 

10 . 5 0 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

.00 

. 80 

7.70 

13 .10 

7.90 

14.70 

. 90 

17.40 

10.00 

Appendix A .. S..:ction 2 
448

Table 19. Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 6 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

1090,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

525.00 0.00 0.0 0. o. 575.00 0. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

645.00 0. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

730.00 0. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

830.00 0. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

970.00 0. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

1145.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 9.90 650.00 9.90 893.00 9.90 8 98 .00 0.00 

1600.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 0.00 2800.00 0.00 

0.00 10.20 650.00 10 .20 893.00 10.20 898.00 0.00 

1600.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 0 .00 2800.00 0.00 

0.00 10 . 40 650.00 10.40 893.00 10 .40 898.00 0.00 

1600 .00 0 .00 2000.00 0.00 2400. 00 0 .00 2800.00 0.00 

0 .00 12 . 40 650.00 12.40 8 93 .00 12 .40 898.00 0. 00 

1600 .00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 0.00 2800. 00 0 .00 

0 .00 13 .40 650.00 13 .40 893.00 13 .40 909. 00 13 .10 

943 .00 12. 60 1320. 00 11. DO 1698.00 9 .50 2075.00 7.90 

0 .00 15.10 650.00 15.10 903.00 15 .10 919.00 15.00 

953.00 14.70 1468.00 12.80 1983.00 10. 90 2498 .00 8 .90 

0.00 17.10 650.00 17.10 1000.00 17 .10 1020 .00 17 .10 

1088.00 17.10 1727.00 14.80 2367.00 12 .40 3007. 00 10 . 00 

Hereford Inlet 1o Cap~ May Inlet 66 

1200. 00 0 .00 

3150. 00 . 00 

1200. 00 .00 

3150. 00 . 00 

1200. 00 0 .00 

3150 . 00 . 00 

1200. 00 .00 

3150.00 0.00 

926.00 12.90 

3150. 00 7 . 90 

936 .00 14 .90 

3150 .00 8.90 

1040. 00 17.10 

3150 . 00 10.00 

Appendix A., Section 2 
449

Table 20. Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 7 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

6267,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 

110.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

215.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

310.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

435.00 0.00 0.0 0. o. 535.00 0.00 0.0 o. 0. 

685.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

925.00 630.00 0.0 0. o. NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

1 & 2 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 9.60 200.00 9 . 60 518.00 9 . 60 523 .00 0 . 00 

1000.00 0.00 1100. 00 .00 1200.00 .00 1400. 00 .00 

0.00 9 .90 200.00 9 .90 518.00 9 .90 523.00 .00 

1000.00 0 .00 1100. 00 0 .00 1200.00 0 .00 1400. 00 .00 

0.00 10 .80 200.00 10. 80 518.00 10 .80 523.00 0 .00 

1000.00 0 .00 1100. 00 0.00 1200.00 0 .00 1400. 00 0 .00 

0.00 12. 80 200.00 12.80 518.00 12.80 523 .00 0. 00 

1000.00 0.00 1100. 00 0.00 1200.00 0.00 1400 .00 0 .00 

0.00 13. 60 200.00 13. 60 518.00 13. 60 534 .00 13 . 30 

568 .00 12. 60 838.00 11. 50 1109. 00 10.40 1379. 00 9 . 30 

0 .00 15.30 200.00 15.30 300.00 15.30 400 .00 15 .30 

603 .50 15.30 864.00 14.20 1126. 00 13 .20 1388 .00 12 . 20 

0 .00 17.90 200.00 17.90 300 .00 17 .90 400.00 17 .90 

683 .00 17 .90 924.00 17.20 1166. 00 16.50 1408. 00 15. 90 

800.00 

1650.00 

800.00 

1650.00 

800.00 

1650.00 

800.00 

1650.00 

551.00 

1650.00 

500.00 

1650.00 

500.00 

1650.00 

. 00 

.00 

0.00 

0.00 

. 00 

.00 

0.00 

0.00 

12.90 

8.20 

15.30 

11. 20 

17.90 

15. 20 

Table 21. Future Low Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 1 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

Her-:ford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 67 Appendix A., S.;:ction 2 
450

3549,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

1045.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1141.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1188. 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1226.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1262.00 58.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1310.00 341. 00 0.0 0. o. 1371.00 1250.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAI WATERLEVEL 

0.00 8.00 650.75 8.00 1301. 50 8.00 1306. 50 0.00 

2084.33 0.00 2473.25 0.00 2862.17 0.00 3251.08 0.00 

0.00 8.80 650 .75 8.80 1301.50 8.80 1306. 50 0.00 

2818.83 0.00 3575 .00 0.00 1350.00 .00 2495.00 0.00 

0 .00 9. 60 650 .75 9.60 1301.50 9 .60 1306.50 0.00 

2632 . 17 0.00 3295 . 00 0.00 1350. 00 0 .00 2495.00 0.00 

0 .00 10.10 650.75 10.10 1301. 50 10. 10 1306 .50 0 .00 

2232 .17 0.00 2695.00 0.00 1350 .00 0. 00 2495. 00 0. 00 

0.00 11. 74 1302.00 11. 74 1352.00 .90 1680. 00 .80 

2336.00 8.50 2664.00 8.20 2992.00 .90 3320 .00 .90 

0 .00 12. 70 680 .25 12 .70 1360 .50 12.70 1377 .17 12.70 

1410 .50 12.70 1725. 90 11 .44 2041 . 30 10.17 2356 .70 8.90 

0 .00 14.18 702 .85 14 .18 1405 .70 14 .18 1430.47 14.18 

1480 .00 14.18 1828 .00 12 .78 2176 .00 11 .39 2524.00 10.00 

1695.42 

3640.00 

2062.67 

3640.00 

1969.33 

3640.00 

1769.33 

3640.00 

2008.00 

3640.00 

1393. 83 

3640.00 

1455.23 

3640.00 

.00 

.00 

. 00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

8.80 

7.90 

12.70 

8.90 

14.18 

10.00 

Table 22. Future Low Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 2 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

2959,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

1002.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1059.00 

1121. 00 

1208.00 

1256. 00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

Ht.>Nford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

68 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

Appendix A., Section 2 
451

1297.00 55.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1329. 00 340.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 0.00 8.00 666.25 8.00 1332. 50 8.00 1337 .50 0.00 1707 .08 0. 00 

2076.67 .00 2446.25 0.00 2815.83 0.00 3185.42 0.00 3555. 00 . 00 

0.00 . 20 666.25 8.20 1332 .50 8.20 1337.50 0.00 1707 .08 .00 

2076.67 .00 2446.25 0 .00 2815. 83 0 .00 3185.42 0 .00 3555.00 .00 

0.00 .50 666.25 8 .50 1332 .50 8 .50 1337.50 0 .00 1821.67 .00 

2305.83 0.00 2790. 00 0 .00 1350 .00 0 .00 2452.50 .00 3555.00 . 00 

0.00 10.10 6 66 . 25 10 .10 1337. 00 10 .10 1580.00 .10 1823.00 8.00 

1920.00 7.60 2200. 00 7 .40 2400.00 7 .30 2700.00 7.10 3555.00 7.10 

0.00 12.06 721. 85 12 .06 1443.70 12 .06 1460.37 12.06 1477.03 12.06 

1493.70 12.06 1826 .80 10. 67 2159.90 9 .29 2493 .00 7.90 3555.00 7.90 

0.00 12.82 727. 00 12 .82 1454.00 12 .82 1470 .67 12 .82 1487. 33 12.82 

1504.00 12.82 1815.90 11 .51 2127.80 10 .21 2439 .70 8 .90 3555. 00 8.90 

0.00 15.20 730.35 15 . 20 1460.70 15 .20 14 77. 3 7 15.20 1494 .03 15.20 

1510.70 15.20 1930.63 13 .47 2350.57 11 .73 2770.50 10.00 3555 . 00 10.00 

Table 23. Future Low Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 3 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

6965,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

0.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

70.00 0.00 0.0 0. o. 205.00 0.00 0.0 o. 0. 

424 .00 0.00 0.0 0. o. 5 08 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

590 .00 838.00 0.0 0. 0. 

842.00 956.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 6.70 668.75 6.70 1337.50 6.70 1342. 50 0 .00 

2001.67 0.00 2331.25 0.00 2660.83 0.00 2990.42 0. 00 

0.00 7.00 668.75 7.00 1337.50 7.00 1342.50 0 . 00 

2001.67 0.00 2331.25 0.00 2660.83 0.00 2990.42 0. 00 

0.00 7.10 6 68 .75 7.10 1337.50 7 .10 1342. 50 0.00 

2001.67 0.00 2331 . 25 0.00 2660.83 0 .00 2990.42 0.00 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 69 

1672. 08 0.00 

3320.00 0.00 

1672. 08 0.00 

3320.00 0.00 

1672.08 0.00 

3320.00 0.00 

Appendix A .. Section 2 
452

0.00 8.40 668.75 8.40 1337.50 8.40 1342.50 0 .00 1846 .67 .00 

2350.83 0.00 2855.00 0.00 1350.00 0.00 2335.00 .00 3320. 00 .00 

0.00 12.00 668.75 12.00 1337.50 12.00 1354.17 12 .00 1370 .83 12.00 

1387.50 12.00 1712.50 10.63 2037.50 9.27 2362.50 7. 90 3320. 00 7.90 

0.00 13 .12 668.75 13 .12 1337.50 13 .12 1364.17 13.12 1390 .83 13 .12 

1417.50 13 .12 1768.83 11. 71 2120.17 10.31 2471.50 8.90 3320 .00 8.90 

0.00 14.69 708.75 14.69 1417.50 14.69 1434.17 14.69 1450.83 14.69 

1467.50 14.69 1856.50 13 .13 2245.50 11. 56 2634.50 10.00 3320.00 10.00 

Table 24. Future Low Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 4 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

4585,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, 

247.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

349 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0 . 

455 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

593 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

691 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

791 .00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

909.00 2206.00 0.0 o. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

ZONES 1 & 2 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 7.60 432.25 7.60 864.50 7 .60 869.50 0.00 

1618.00 0.00 1992.25 0.00 2366 .50 0.00 2740.75 0.00 

0.00 8.00 432.25 8.00 8 64 . 50 8.00 869.50 .00 

1618.00 0.00 1992.25 0.00 2366 .50 0.00 2740.75 .00 

0.00 8.50 432.25 8.50 864.50 8.50 869.50 0 .00 

1618.00 0.00 1992.25 0.00 2366.50 0.00 2740.75 0. 00 

0.00 9.90 434.25 9.90 868.50 9 .90 873.50 0.00 

2217 .83 0.00 2890.00 0.00 1350.00 .00 2232.50 0.00 

0 .00 10.50 528.75 10.50 1057.50 10 .50 1062 .50 .00 

1787 .50 0.00 2150.00 0.00 1350.00 0 .00 2232 .50 0 .00 

0 .00 12.52 528.75 12.52 1057.50 12 .52 1074 .17 12 .52 

1107. 50 12.52 1399.33 11.31 1691.17 10.11 1983 .00 8.90 

0.00 14.70 539.00 14.70 1078.00 14.70 1094 .67 14.70 

1128. 00 14.70 1517.00 13 .14 1906.00 11. 57 2295 .00 10 .00 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 70 

1243.75 

3115.00 

1243.75 

3115.00 

1243.75 

3115. 00 

1545.67 

3115.00 

1425.00 

3115.00 

1090.83 

3115.00 

1111. 33 

3115.00 

. 00 

.00 

.00 

0.00 

0.00 

. 00 

.00 

. 00 

0.00 

0.00 

12.52 

8.90 

14.70 

10.00 

A.ppendix A.,, Section 2 
453

Table 25. Future Low Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 5 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

5835,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE I LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0.0 0.0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

355.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

450.00 0.00 0 . 0 0 . 0. 

495.00 0.00 0 . 0 0. 0. 

550.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1010 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1175 .00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1290.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 7.60 514.25 7.60 1028 50 7.60 1033.50 0.00 1413.75 0.00 

1794.00 0.00 2174.25 0.00 2554.50 .00 2934.75 0. 00 3315.00 0 .00 

0.00 8.30 514. 25 8.30 1033.50 8 . 30 1038.50 0 .00 1061.83 0 . 00 

1078.50 0.00 1521.83 0.00 1965.17 0. 00 2408.50 .00 3315.00 0 .00 

0 .00 8.60 516.75 8.60 1033.50 8 .60 1038 .50 .00 1066 .83 0.00 

1083 .50 0.00 1516.83 0.00 1950.17 0 .00 2383 .50 .00 3315 .00 0.00 

0 .00 10.10 1038.50 10.10 1043.50 0 .00 1402 .00 0 .00 1721 .00 0.00 

2040 .00 0.00 2359.00 0.00 2677.00 0 .00 2996 .00 0 .00 3315. 00 0.00 

.00 12.20 592.50 12.20 700.00 12 .20 800. 67 12 . 20 1000. 33 12 .20 

1084.00 12. 20 1545.00 10.80 2006.00 9 .60 2820 . 00 7 .90 3315 . 00 7 .90 

0.00 13 .30 657.50 13 .30 1015.00 13 . 30 1131. 67 13 . 30 1248 .33 13 .30 

1250.00 13 .30 1650.00 11. 90 2480.00 .90 2640.00 .90 3315. 00 8 .90 

0.00 15.80 667.50 15.80 1335. 00 15.80 1368.33 15 .80 1401. 67 15. 80 

1435 .00 15.80 1871.00 13 .40 2720. 00 10. 00 3123.00 10 .00 3315 .00 10 .00 

Hernford Inkt to Cape May Inlet 71 Appendix A., S.:::ction 2 
454

Table 26. Future Low Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 6 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

1090,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

468.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

509.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

567.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

621.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

697.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

803.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

949.00 0.00 0.0 o. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 9.30 437.25 9 . 30 874.50 9.30 879 .50 0.00 

1636.33 0.00 2014.75 0. 00 2393.17 0.00 2771 .58 .00 

0.00 9.60 437.25 9.60 874.50 9.60 879 .50 0 .00 

2309.83 0.00 3025.00 0.00 1350. 00 5 .50 2250. 00 5. 50 

0.00 9.80 437.25 9. BO 874.50 9 .BO 879 .50 0. 00 

2176.50 0.00 2825.00 0.00 1350.00 6 .10 2250.00 6 .10 

0.00 11. 50 437.25 11. 50 874.50 11 .so 879.50 .00 

1576.50 0.00 1925.00 0.00 1350.00 7 .10 2250 .00 .10 

0.00 12.30 440. 25 12.30 BBQ.SO 12 . 30 BBS .50 0 .00 

1306 . 83 0.00 1517. 50 0.00 1350. 00 7.90 2250. 00 7. 90 

0 .00 13. 70 440 . 25 13. 70 880.50 13. 70 897.17 13 .17 

930 .50 12 .11 1219.17 11. 04 1507.83 9.97 1796.50 .90 

0 .00 14.52 497.25 14.52 994.50 14.52 1011.17 14 .52 

1044 .50 14. 52 1454.50 13. 01 1864.50 11.51 2274.50 10 .00 

1257.92 0.00 

3150.00 0.00 

1594 .67 0.00 

3150. 00 5.50 

1528 .00 0.00 

3150.00 6.10 

1228.00 0.00 

3150.00 7 .10 

1096 17 . 00 

3150. 00 7 .90 

913 .83 12 .64 

3150 00 B .90 

1027. 83 14 .52 

3150 .00 10 .00 

Table 27. Future Low Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 7 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 72 Appendix A., Section 2 
455

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

6267,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 

78.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

146.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

237.00 0.00 0.0 o. 0 . 

332 . 00 0 . 00 0.0 0. 0. 

399 . 00 0. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

506.00 0. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

716.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 0.00 9.10 258 .75 9.10 517. 50 9.10 522 .50 0 .00 

8 98 .33 0.00 1086.25 0.00 1274 .17 0.00 1462 .08 0.00 

0 .00 9.30 258.75 9.30 517 .50 9 .30 522.50 0.00 

1137. 50 0.00 1445.00 0.00 1350. 00 0 .00 1500.00 0.00 

0 .00 10.10 258.75 10.10 517 .50 10 .10 522.50 0 .00 

1030.83 0.00 1285.00 0.00 1350. 00 0 .00 1500. 00 0 .00 

0.00 11. 90 258.75 11. 90 517. so 11. 90 522 .50 . 00 

979.17 0.00 1207.50 0.00 1350.00 0.00 1500. 00 0 .00 

0.00 12.50 200.00 12.50 300.00 12.50 350. 00 12 .so 553.50 12.50 838.00 11.17 1109. 00 10.10 1600.00 7.90 

0.00 13 .41 262.25 13 .41 524.50 13 .41 541.17 13. 41 

574.50 13 .41 843 . 38 12.34 1112 .25 11 .28 1381. 13 10. 21 

0.00 15 .13 2 91 .75 15 .13 583 .so 15. 13 600 .17 15 .13 

633.50 15 .13 8 87 .63 14.40 1141 .75 13 .67 1395 .88 12.93 

710. 42 0 . 00 

1650.00 0. 00 

830.00 . 00 

1650.00 0.00 

776.67 0.00 

1650 .00 0.00 

750 . 83 0.00 

1650 .00 0.00 

375. 00 12.50 

1650. 00 7 .90 

557 .83 13 .41 

1650 .00 9 .14 

616 .83 15 .13 

1650. 00 12 .20 

Table 28. Future High Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 1 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

3549,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

1175.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1255.00 0.00 0.0 0. o. 

Hereford Inlet to Cap.: May Inlet 73 Appendix A, Scction 2 
456

1330 . 0 0 o. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

1435 . 00 95. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

1555.00 1050.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1645.00 1995.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1690.00 1950.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 9.50 650.75 9.50 1301.50 9.50 1306 .50 0.00 1695.42 0.00 

2084.33 0.00 2473.25 0.00 2862.17 0.00 3251. 08 0.00 3640.00 0.00 

0.00 10.87 650.75 10.87 1301. 50 10. 87 1318 .17 10.87 1334. 83 10.87 

1351. 50 10.87 1782.43 9.08 2213.37 7 .29 2644 . 30 5.50 3640.00 5.50 

0 .00 11. 60 650.75 11. 60 1301. 50 11 .60 1318 .17 11 .58 1334. 83 11. 56 

1351. 50 11. 54 1788.17 9. 73 2224.83 7 .91 2661 .50 6 .10 3640.00 .10 

0 .00 14.52 650.75 14.52 1301.50 14 .52 1386 .00 14 .52 1470.50 14.52 

1555 .00 14.52 2173.06 12.04 2791.11 .57 3409 .17 7.10 3640.00 7.10 

0.00 16.37 777.50 16.37 1555.00 16 .37 1585.00 16.37 1615.00 16.37 

1645.00 16.37 2143.75 14.38 2642 .50 12 .38 3141. 25 10.39 3640.00 8.39 

0.00 17.98 822.50 17 .98 1645. 00 17.98 1668.33 17.98 1691. 67 17.98 

1715.00 17.98 2196. 25 16 .06 2677 .50 14 .13 3158.75 12.21 3640.00 10.28 

0.00 20 . 3 8 857.50 20 . 38 1715 .00 20. 38 1741.67 20 .38 1768 .33 20 . 3 8 

1795.00 20 . 38 2256.25 18 .53 2717. 50 16.69 3178.75 14 .84 3640. 00 13 .00 

Table 29. Future High Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 2 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

2959,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

1150.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1235.00 0.00 0.0 o. 0. 

1315.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1392.00 0.00 0.0 o. 0. 

1448.00 802.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1502.00 2053.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1578.00 1977.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 11.27 857.50 11.27 1000.00 11.27 1200.00 11.27 1400.00 

1455.00 11.27 1955.00 9.18 2480.00 7.09 2995.83 5.00 3555.00 

0.00 11.85 713.75 11.85 1427.50 11.85 1444.17 11.85 1460.83 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\.fay Inlet 74 

11. 27 

.00 

11.85 

Appendix A.. Section 2 
457

1477.50 11. 85 2002.78 9.74 2528.06 7.62 3053.33 5. 50 3555. 00 .50 

0.00 12.57 732.50 12.57 1465.00 12.57 1481.67 12 .57 1498 .33 12 .57 

1515 .00 12.57 2048.06 10. 41 2581.11 8.26 3114.17 6 .10 3555 . 00 6 10 

0 .00 14.77 748.75 14.77 1497.50 14.77 1520.83 14 .77 1544 .17 14 .77 

1567.50 14 .77 2206.94 12.22 2846.39 9.66 3485 .83 7.10 3555.00 7.10 

0.00 16 .81 783.75 16.81 1567.50 16.81 1584 .17 16.81 1600. 83 16.81 

1617.50 16 .81 2101.88 14.85 2586 .25 12.89 3070 .63 10.93 3555.00 8.97 

0.00 18 . 43 797.75 18.43 1595 .50 18.43 1612 .17 18.43 1628.83 18.43 

1645. so 18 .43 2122.88 16 .50 2600 .25 14.58 3077. 63 12.66 3555.00 10.74 

0.00 20 .86 816.25 20 .86 1632 .50 20.86 1649 .17 20.86 1665.83 20.86 

1682.50 20 .86 2150.63 18 .98 2618 .75 17.09 3086 .88 15.21 3555.00 13. 33 

Table 30. Future High Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 3 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

6965,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0. 35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 

258.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

430.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

625 .00 0.00 0. 0 0. 0. 

9 06 .00 0.00 0 . 0 0 . 0. 

1095 .00 1466.00 0 . 0 0 . 0. 

1245 . 00 1760.00 0 . 0 0 . 0. 

1500.00 2190.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

1 & 2 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 11 .38 816.25 11.38 1349. 00 11. 38 1365 .00 11. 38 

1399. 00 11 . 38 1905.00 9.25 2445.00 7 .13 2943 .50 5 .00 

0.00 11 .99 674.25 11. 99 1348. so 11. 99 1365 .17 11 .99 

1398.50 11 .99 1922.50 9.83 2446.50 7.66 2970. 50 5 .50 

0.00 12.75 674.25 12.75 1348. 50 12.75 1365.17 12 .75 

1398.50 12.75 1935.83 10.53 2473.17 8.32 3010.50 6 .10 

0.00 14 .74 674.25 14. 74 1348 .so 14.74 1365 .17 14 .74 

1398.50 14 .74 2018.43 12.19 2638 .37 9.65 3258 . 30 7 .10 

0.00 16 .76 674.25 16.76 1348. 50 16 .76 1365 .17 16 .76 

1398.50 16 .76 1878.88 14.79 2359.25 12 .82 2839 .63 10 .85 

0.00 18.34 674.25 18.34 1348 .50 18 .34 1397 . 33 18 .34 

1495.00 18.34 1951.25 16.52 2407 .50 14 .69 2863 .75 12 .86 

0.00 21. 42 747. 50 21 .42 1495.00 21.42 1515.00 21.42 

1555.00 21.42 1996.25 19 .65 2437.50 17.89 2878.75 16 .13 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 75 

1382.00 

3320.00 

1381. 83 

3320.00 

1381. 83 

3320.00 

1381. 83 

3320.00 

1381.83 

3320.00 

1446 17 

3320.00 

1535.00 

3320.00 

11. 38 

5.00 

11. 99 

5.50 

12.75 

.10 

14.74 

7.10 

16.76 

8.87 

18.34 

11. 04 

21. 42 

14.36 

Appendix A., Section 2 
458

Table 31. Future High Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 4 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

4585,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE I LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0.0 0.0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

450.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

674.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

903.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1228 . 00 890.00 0 . 0 0. 0 . 

1428 .00 1687.00 0 . 0 0. 0. 

1642 .00 1473.00 0 . 0 o. 0. 

1921.00 1194. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 10.50 502.25 10 .so 1004 . 50 10.50 1009 . 50 0.00 1360.42 0 .00 

1711 .33 0.00 2062.25 .00 2413 .17 0 .00 2764 .OB 0.00 3115.00 0 . 00 

.00 11. 50 502.25 11 .50 1004 .so 11 .50 1021 .17 11. 40 1037.83 11. 30 

1054 .50 11.20 1512.83 .30 1971 .17 7 .40 2429 .50 5.50 3115 . 00 5.50 

0 .00 12.10 502.25 12 .10 1004 .50 12 .10 1021 .17 11. 94 1037. 83 11. 77 

1054 .50 11 .61 1497.00 9.77 1939.50 7.94 2382 .00 6 .10 3115 . 00 6 10 

0 .00 13 .99 502.25 13. 99 1004.50 13. 99 1021 .17 13 .99 1037 .83 13.99 

1054.50 13 .99 1685.50 11. 69 2316 .50 9 .40 2947.50 7 .10 3115. 00 7.10 

0.00 16 .02 612.50 16.02 1225. 00 16 .02 1241.67 16 .02 1258 .33 16.02 

1275 .00 16.02 1735.00 14.16 2195. 00 12 . 31 2655. 00 10 .46 3115. 00 8.60 

0 .00 17.83 630.00 17.83 1260. 00 17 . 83 1276 .67 17. 83 1293 .33 17.83 

1310. 00 17.83 1761.25 16. 01 2212 .50 14 .19 2663 .75 12 .37 3115. 00 10.55 

0 .00 19.59 647.50 19.59 1295. 00 19 .59 1311. 67 19 .59 1328 .33 19.59 

1345. 00 19.59 1787.50 17.81 2230 .00 16 .03 2672 .50 14 .25 3115.00 12. 4 7 

Hereford Inkt to Cape May Inlet 76 Appendix iL Section 2 
459

Table 32. Future High Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 5 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

5835,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, 

1028.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1125. 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1225 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1430 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1758 . 00 0.00 0.0 0 . 0. 

1845 . 00 45.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1925. 00 1390.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

ZONES 1 & 2 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0 .00 10 .80 647.50 10 .BO 1028.00 10. 80 1206 .17 10.00 

1400 .00 9 .10 1500.03 8 .77 1971.57 6.89 2443 .10 5.00 

0 .00 11 . 40 514.25 11 .40 1028.50 11 . 40 1045 . 17 11.28 

1078 .50 11 .04 1525.17 9 .19 1971. 83 7 . 35 2418 .so 5.50 

0.00 12 .00 516.75 12.00 1033 .50 12 . 00 1050 . 17 11. 83 

1083.50 11 . 49 1516.00 9. 69 1948 .so 7 . 90 2381 . 00 6.10 

0.00 14.39 516.75 14.39 1033 .50 14 . 39 1050 . 17 14.39 

1083 .so 14.39 1724. 3 9 11.96 2365.28 9 .53 3006 .17 7.10 

0 .00 15. 87 592.25 15.87 1184. 50 15 .87 1201 .17 15 .87 

1234 .50 15.87 1925.50 13 .21 2616 .50 10.56 3307 .50 7 .90 

0.00 17.59 657.50 17.59 1315. 00 17.59 1331.67 17 .59 

1365.00 17.59 1852.50 15.61 2340. 00 13.63 2827.50 11 .65 

0.00 19. 72 667 .50 19. 72 1335.00 19 . 72 1368. 33 19 . 72 

1435.00 19.72 1905. 00 17.84 2375.00 15.96 2845.00 14 .08 

fforeford Inlet to Cape May Inlct 77 

1344. 00 9.40 

3315.00 5.00 

1061.83 11.16 

3315.00 5.50 

1066 .83 11. 66 

3315. 00 6.10 

1066 .83 14.39 

3315. 00 7.10 

1217 .83 15.87 

3315.00 7 .90 

1348. 33 17 .59 

3315.00 .67 

1401 .67 19 . 72 

3315 . 00 12 .20 

Appendix A., Section 2 
460

Table 33. Future High Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 6 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

1090,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 715.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

774.00 0.00 0 . 0 0. 0. 

872.00 0.00 0 . 0 0. 0. 

1005.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1135.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1312.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1540.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

1 & 2 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 0.00 12.30 456 . 25 12 . 30 912.50 12.30 917. 50 0 .00 

1661.67 0.00 2033 .75 .00 2405.83 0.00 2777 .92 0 .00 

0.00 12.60 913 .00 12. 60 918.00 0.00 1287 .86 0 .00 

1908.57 0.00 2218.93 0.00 2529.29 0 .00 2839 .64 .00 

0.00 13. 60 938.00 13. 60 988.00 .37 1296 .86 7 .91 

1914 .57 7. 72 2223.43 7. 64 2532.29 7 .55 2841.14 7 .13 

0 .00 15.10 469.00 15.10 938.00 15 .10 954.67 14 .97 

988.00 14 .70 1607.00 12 .17 2226.00 9 .64 2845.00 7 .11 

0.00 16 . 24 472.50 16 .24 945.00 16 . 24 961. 67 16 .24 

995 .00 16 . 24 1686.67 13. 46 2378.33 10 .68 3070.00 7 .90 

0 .00 18 .07 492.50 18.07 985.00 18 .07 1001.67 18 .07 

1035. 00 18 . 07 1563.75 16.03 2092 .50 13 .98 2621.25 11 . 94 

0 .00 20 .69 552.50 20. 69 1105 .00 20 .69 1121.67 20 .69 

1155 .00 20. 69 1653.75 18.86 2152 .50 17. 03 2651 .25 15 .20 

1289.58 0.00 

3150.00 0.00 

1598.21 0.00 

3150.00 0.00 

1605.71 7.81 

3150. 00 

971. 33 

3150 . 00 

978 .33 

3150.00 

1018.33 

3150 .00 

1138 .33 

3150 .00 

6.20 

14.83 

7.10 

16.24 

7.90 

18.07 

9.89 

20.69 

13. 36 

Table 34. Future High Risk Without Project Conditions COSTDAM File for Cell 7 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

6267,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 78 Appendix A .. Section 2 
461

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

315.00 D. 00 0.0 D. D. 

438.00 0 .00 0.0 0. 0. 

548.00 0. OD 0.0 D. D. 

715.00 0 .00 0.0 0. 0. 

873.00 69. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

983.00 668.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1182.00 618.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 11. 70 322.25 11. 70 644.50 11. 70 649.50 0.00 816 .25 .00 

983.00 0.00 1149.75 0.00 1316.50 0.00 1483.25 0.00 1650. 00 . 00 

0.00 12.30 329.75 12. 30 659.50 12 . 30 664.50 0.00 924 .67 . 00 

1184.83 0.00 1445.00 0.00 1350.00 0 .00 1500.00 0 .00 1650. 00 .00 

0.00 12.60 329.75 12.60 659.50 12 .60 676.17 12.50 692.83 12.40 

709.50 12.30 944.63 11 . 33 1179.75 10.35 1414.88 9. 38 1650.00 8.40 

0.00 14 .66 337.25 14 .66 674.50 14.66 6 91.1 7 14.66 707.83 14. 66 

724 .50 14.66 955.88 13 .70 1187.25 12.75 1418.63 11. 79 1650. 00 10.83 

0 .00 16.50 347.25 16 .50 694.50 16.50 711.1 7 16 .50 727. 83 16.50 

744.50 16.50 970.88 15.65 1197. 25 14.80 1423.63 13 . 95 1650 . 00 13 .10 

0.00 18.15 400.00 18.15 800.00 18.15 816.67 18 .15 833 . 33 18.15 

850.00 18.15 1050.00 17.43 1250.00 16 .70 1450. 00 15. 98 1650 . 00 15 .25 

0.00 20.35 462.50 20.35 925.00 20 . 35 941. 67 20 . 35 958 . 33 20.35 

975.00 20.35 1143.75 19.79 1312.50 19 .22 1481 .25 18 .66 1650. 00 18.09 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 79 Appendix A., Section 2 
20 

15 10 

5 ' 

a, 

"' C 0 

i 

e. -5 

C 

0 

-10 

Cl) 

w 

-15 -20 -25 -30 

0 

Pier Protection Analysis -16ft. Dune+ 100ft. Berm 

North Wildwood and Wildwood 

!Amusement Pie 

Seaward End 

500 1000 

r\,. /', ... _ ,,p#,,,t' '"\,._ 

"",,,., 

1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 50. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for 16 ft. Dune & 100 f

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inkt 80 
20 

15 10 

ii, 

CX) 5 

Cl 

> 

<( 

z 

- 0 

t: 

.Q 

1ii 

> <II -5 w 

-10 

-15 -20 

0 500 

Wildwood "With Project" Analysis 

"Cutback" Scenarios for Cell 3 

1000 1500 

Distance Offshore (ft) 

2

Figure 51. Berm Cntback Alternatives Examined for With Project Analysis in 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :ti.fay Inkt 81 
20 

15 

10 

5 

.; 

"' C 

z 

E -5 

C 

0 

:c i -10 

w 

-15 -20 -25 -30 

0 

Selected Plan Profile - 16ft. Dune+ 75ft

Cell 1 - North Wildwood 

-~ 

'',,~

500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 52. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Selected Plan in Ce

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 82 
Selected Plan Profile - 16ft. Dune+ 75ft

Cell 2 - North Wildwood 

20-.------~~--~--------~-~~-~--~----~----~·-----·--~

15 10 

5 

.;; 

0 

i 

s. -5 

C 

0 

-10 

jjj "

-15 -20 -25 

J. i I " '\', 

, I ·. 

\ ·...J ' 

~---

-30 

0 500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 53. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Selected Plan in Ce

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlct 83 
Selected Plan Profile -16ft. Dune 

Cell 3 - Wildwood 

20 ~-~-----------~-------~~-~---~-~---~----------~-~----~

15 

I, 

10 r\ 

' i \ -=....,,. 

\J ~---- • --~~

- --

f 

C 

i 

5, -5 

0 

C 

,Q 

j -10 " 

jjj -15 

-20 -25 

0 500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 54. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Selected Plan in Ce

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inl0t 84 
Selected Plan Profile -16ft. Dune 

Cell 4 - Wildwood 

20 -r-~--~~~-~----··-····--·---·~~···-·----·----··~ .. ~----~------·-

15 

'\' 

ff 

10 {---··--"--\ ,1 l 

..... ·~ 

5 

18 

C 0 

z 

E -5 

C 

0 

-10 

w " 

-15 

-20 -25 

-,,-,,-.--!}'.-, 

--,.

'!o,,,_ 

-,,,,,,c - '''''~-- • . 

····

0 500 1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 55. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Selected Plan in Ce

Hereford Inlet to Cap1:: May Jnl0t 85 
20 

15 

10 

5 

co 

co 

C 

0 

;:c 

z 

E -5 

C 

0 

j -10 (1) 

iii 

-15 -20 -25 -30 

0 500 

Selected Plan Profile - 16ft. Dune 

Cell 5 - Wildwood Crest 

1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 56. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Selected Plan in Cellereford Inlet to Cape May lnlcl 86 
20 

15 10 

5 

co 

"' C 0 

i 

s. -5 

C 

0 

-10 

Q) 

ijj 

-15 -20 -25 -30 

0 500 

Selected Plan Profile - 16ft. Dune 

Cell 6- Lower Township 

' 

-

---

-

1000 1500 

Distance (feet) 

Figure 57. Pre- and Post "50-yr" Storm Beach Profiles for Selected Plan in Ce

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.lay Inl0t 87 
470

Table 35. Selected Plan of 16 ft. Dune+ 75 ft. Berm COSTDAM File for Cell 1 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

3549,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

1065.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1155.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1160.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1175.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1185.00 0.00 0.0 0. o. 1215.00 0.00 0.0 0. o. 1250.00 2390.00 0.0 D. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 8.80 600.00 8.80 1182. 00 8.80 1187 .00 0 . 00 

1500.00 0.00 1900.00 0.00 2300.00 0.00 2900 .OD 0. 00 

0 .00 9.00 600.00 9.00 1182.00 9.00 1187. 00 0 .00 

1500. DO 0.00 1900.00 0.00 2300.00 0.00 2900 .OD 0 .DO 

0 .00 9.40 600.00 9.40 1182 .00 9.40 1187. 00 0 .00 

1500 .00 0.00 1900.00 0.00 2300. 00 0.00 2900.00 0 .00 

0 .00 11.20 600.00 11. 20 1182 .00 11. 20 1187 .00 .00 

1500 .00 0.00 1900.00 0.00 2300. 00 0.00 2900 .00 .00 

0.00 13 .20 600.00 13 .20 1187 .00 13 .20 1192 .00 0 .00 

1500.00 0.00 1900.00 0.00 2300.00 0.00 2900. 00 o. 00 

0.00 14.90 600.00 14.90 1187. 00 14.90 1204 .00 14 .90 

1238 .00 14.70 1749.00 12.80 2260.00 10. 80 2771. 00 8 .90 

0 .00 16.90 600.00 16.90 1313. 00 16.90 1329. 00 16 .90 

1363 .DO 16.90 1954.00 14 .90 2546.00 12.50 3175.00 10 . 00 

1300. 00 

3640.00 

1300. 00 

3640.00 

1300. 00 

3640.00 

1300.00 

3640.00 

1300. 00 

3640.00 

1221.00 

3640.00 

1346. 00 

3640.00 

Table 36. Selected Plan of 16 ft. Dune+ 75 ft. Berm COSTDAM File for Cell 2 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

2959,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

0 . 00 

0 .00 

0 . 00 

0 .00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

14.90 

8.90 

16.90 

10.00 

Her~ford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 88 Appendix A .. Sedion 2 
471

1045 .00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1110 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1160 .00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1200 .00 0.00 0. 0. 0. 

1260.00 0.00 0 . 0 0 . 0. 

1305.00 0.00 0 . 0 0 . 0. 

1380. 00 335.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 9.40 600.00 9 . 40 1132. 00 9.40 1137.00 .00 

1400.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 3000.00 .00 

0.00 9. 80 600.00 9. 80 1132. 00 9.80 1137. 00 0 .00 

1400.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 3000.00 0 .00 

0.00 10.00 600.00 10.00 1132. 00 10.00 1137. 00 .00 

1400 .00 0.00 2000.00 0. 00 2500.00 0.00 3000.00 0 .00 

0 .00 12.00 600.00 12.00 1132. 00 12.00 1137. 00 0.00 

1400 .00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 3000.00 0.00 

0.00 13 .00 600.00 13. 00 1142. 00 13. 00 1147 .00 0.00 

1400.00 0 .00 2000. 00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 3000. 00 0.00 

0.00 14 .50 600.00 14.50 1142.00 14.50 1159. 00 14.50 

1193. 00 14 .50 1723.00 12.80 2252.00 10.70 2765. 00 8.90 

0.00 17.40 600.00 17.40 1200.00 17.40 1220. 00 17.40 

1240.00 17.40 2014.00 14.50 2703.00 11. 70 3150. 00 10.00 

Table 37. Selected Plan of 16 ft. Dune COSTDAM File for Cell 3 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 6965,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TC REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

85.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

250 . 00 0. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

420 . 00 0. 00 0.0 0. 0. 

675 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

885 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

995 .00 845.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1275.00 2045.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

1200.00 0.00 

3555.00 0.00 

1200.00 0 .00 

3555.00 0 . 00 

1200. 00 0 .00 

3555. 00 . 00 

1200.00 0.00 

3555.00 0.00 

1200.00 0.00 

3555.00 0.00 

1176.00 14.50 

3555.00 8.90 

1230 . 00 17.40 

3555. 00 10.00 

0.00 7.90 650.00 7.90 1182.00 7.90 1187.00 0.00 1700.00 0.00 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :tvlay Inlet 89 Appendix A,, Section 2 
472

2100.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800.00 0.00 3200. 00 .00 

0.00 8.30 650.00 8.30 1182.00 8. 30 1187. 00 .00 

2100.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800.00 0.00 3200 00 .00 

0.00 8.60 650.00 8.60 1182.00 .60 1187. 00 .00 

2100.00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800.00 .00 3200 .00 .00 

0.00 9.30 650.00 9.30 1182.00 .30 1187. 00 .00 

2100 .00 0.00 2500.00 0.00 2800.00 0 .00 3200.00 .00 

0 .00 13. 60 650.00 13. 60 1187.00 13 .60 1192. 00 .00 

1268 .00 0.00 1571.00 0.00 1874 .00 0 .00 2178 .00 0 .00 

0 .00 15.80 650.00 15.80 1200 .00 15. 80 1250 . 00 15 . 80 

1258.00 15. 80 1589.00 14.40 1920. 00 13 .00 2252 .00 8 .90 

0.00 17.90 650.00 17.90 1200. 00 17 .90 1250. 00 17 .90 

1300.00 17.90 1385.00 17.90 1895 .00 15 .80 2518 .00 13 .30 

Table 38. Selected Plan of 16 ft. Dune COSTDAM File for Cell 4 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

4585,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 

330.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

490.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

665 . 00 0.00 0 . 0 0 . 0. 

805 .00 0.00 0 . 0 0 . 0. 

955 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1145. 00 855.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1425.00 1690.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

1 & 2 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0.00 8.00 650.00 8.00 877.00 8.00 882.00 0.00 

1600.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 0.00 2800.00 0.00 

0.00 8.60 650.00 .60 877 .00 8.60 882.00 0.00 

1600.00 .00 2000.00 .00 2400 .00 0.00 2800.00 0.00 

0.00 9.20 650.00 9 . 20 882 .00 9.20 887 .00 0.00 

1600.00 0.00 2000.00 0 .00 2400. 00 0.00 2800. 00 0.00 

0.00 10.50 650.00 10.50 887.00 10.50 892.00 0.00 

1600.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 0.00 2800.00 0.00 

0.00 12.80 650.00 12.80 902.00 12. 80 907.00 0.00 

947.00 0.00 1294.00 0.00 1640.00 0.00 2120.00 0 .00 

0.00 14.90 650.00 14.90 900.00 14.90 915.00 14 .90 

1050.00 14.90 1343. 00 13. 70 1734.00 12.10 2540.00 8 .90 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 90 

3320. 00 

1700. 00 

3320 . 00 

1700. 00 

3320.00 

1700.00 

3320.00 

1251. 00 

3320.00 

1255.00 

3320. 00 

1260 .00 

3320. 00 

1200.00 

3115.00 

1200. 00 

3115. 00 

1200. 00 

3115 . 00 

1200 . 00 

3115 .00 

930 . 00 

3115 .00 

930 . 00 

3115 .00 

.00 

0 . 00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

15.80 

8 .90 

17 .90 

10. 10 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

. 00 

. 00 

. 00 

0.00 

0.00 

14.90 

8.90 

Appendix A, Section 2 
473

0.00 

1200.00 

17.00 650.00 

17.00 1680.00 

17.00 900.00 

14.90 2309.00 

17.00 915.00 

12.40 2939.00 

17.00 1063.00 

10.00 3115.00 

Table 39. Selected Plan of 16 ft. Dune COSTDAM File for Cell 5 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 5835,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE/ LONG TERM EROSION RATE 0. 0 0. 0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 655.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

715. 00 0.00 0.0 o. 0. 

775.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

870 . 00 0.00 a.a 0 . 0. 

1035 .00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1195. 00 0.00 0.0 0. o. 1315 . 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

1 & 2 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 0.00 8.30 650.00 . 30 917.00 8.30 922 .00 0.00 

1800.00 0.00 2200.00 0.00 2600.00 0.00 3000.00 0.00 

0.00 9.00 650.00 9.00 922.00 9.00 927.00 0.00 

1800.00 0.00 2200.00 0.00 2600. 00 0.00 3000.00 .00 

0.00 9.50 650.00 9.50 932 .00 9.50 937.00 .00 

1800.00 0.00 2200.00 0.00 2600 .00 0. 00 3000.00 .00 

0.00 11.40 650.00 11. 40 932.00 11 .40 937.00 .00 

2040.00 0.00 2359.00 0.00 2677.00 0 .00 2996 .00 .00 

0.00 13 .40 650.00 13 .40 932.00 13 .40 937.00 . 00 

993.00 0.00 1348. 00 0.00 1703.00 0.00 2058.00 0.00 

0.00 14.90 650.00 14.90 700.00 14.90 800 .00 14.90 

1020.00 14.90 1492.00 13. 00 1963. 00 11. 00 2474.00 8.90 

0.00 17.50 650.00 17.50 900.00 17.50 1000.00 17.50 

1150. 00 17.50 1711.00 15.40 2273.00 13 .10 3064.00 10.00 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 91 

1400 .00 

3315 . 00 

1400 . 00 

3315 . 00 

1400. 00 

3315.00 

1721. 00 

3315.00 

976.00 

3315.00 

1000.00 

3315.00 

1100. 00 

3315.00 

17.00 

10.00 

0.00 

0 . 00 

0 .00 

0 .00 

0 . 00 

0 .00 

0.00 

0.00 

.00 

0.00 

14.90 

8.90 

17.50 

10.00 

Appendix A., Section 2 
474

Table 40. Selected Plan of 16 ft. Dune COSTDAM File for Cell 6 

REACH LENGTH AND X-SECTION VOLUME 

1090,0.0 

DISTANCE SHORELINE TO REF LINE I LONG TERM EROSION RATE 

0.0 0.0 

DEFAULT PERSONAL PROPERTY PERCENTAGE 

0.35 

STORM EROSION,WAVE IMPACT,WAVE DAMAGE ELEVATION, ZONES 1 & 2 

525.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

575.00 0.00 0 . 0 0. 0. 

645.00 0.00 0 . 0 o. 0. 

730.00 0.00 0 . 0 0. 0. 

830.00 0.00 0.0 o. 0. 

920.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

1120. 00 0.00 0.0 0. 0. 

NUMBER OF POINTS IN WATER ELEVATION PROFILE 

10 

INUNDATION PROFILE. DISTANCE FROM BASELINE AND TOTAL WATERLEVEL 

0 .00 10 .30 650.00 10 .30 893. 00 10 .30 898 .00 0.00 1200. 00 . 00 

1600 .00 0 .00 2000.00 0.00 2400. 00 0 .00 2800 .00 0.00 3150. 00 .00 

0 .00 10 .60 650.00 10.60 893 .00 10 .60 8 98 .00 .00 1200. 00 . 00 

1600 .00 0 .00 2000.00 0.00 2400. 00 0 .00 2800 .00 .00 3150 . 00 .00 

0.00 10.90 650.00 10.90 893.00 10. 90 8 98 .00 .00 1200 .00 0 .00 

1600. 00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 0 .00 2800 .00 .00 3150. 00 0. 00 

0.00 12.70 650.00 12.70 893.00 12 .70 8 98 . 00 0 . 00 1200. 00 0.00 

1600 .00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 0.00 2800. 00 0.00 3150. 00 0.00 

.00 13 .70 650.00 13. 70 893.00 13. 70 898 .00 .00 1200. 00 0.00 

1600. 00 0 .00 2000.00 0.00 2400.00 .00 2800. 00 0 .00 3150.00 0.00 

0.00 15 .50 650.00 15.50 903.00 15.50 919. 00 15. 40 936 .00 15.30 

953.00 15 .10 1468.00 13. 00 1983.00 10.90 2435. 00 8 .90 3150. 00 8.90 

0.00 17. 60 650.00 17.60 1000.00 17.60 1020. 00 17.60 1040. 00 17 .60 

1088.00 17.60 1727.00 15.20 2367.00 12.70 3100. 00 10.00 3150 . 00 10 . 00 

Hi!reford Inlet to Cap~ May Inld 92 Appendix A .• Section 2 
475

Section 3. 

Surveying and Mapping Requirements 

Profile data was developed from offshore and onshore survey lines collected in 1955, 1965, 

2001, 2003 and 2012. These profiles were used to perform storm damage and volume 

calculations. A total of25 survey lines were occupied in North Wildwood, Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. These profiles consisted of surveys from the back dune, 

over the berm to the offshore area and to the depth of closure. Profiles from the Richard 

Stockton Coastal Research Center were also used for this analysis. 

Data collection for the study mapping effort including surveys, historic aerial photography from 

1920, 1933, 1944, 1962, 1970, 2003, and 2006. Planimetric data was also collected from the 

2003 survey data. Auto CAD and Arcmap were used to store and interpret the survey data. 

Mapping for the Feasibility study is sufficient for the plans and specifications phase, but new 

survey data will be acquired. Beach profile surveys every 200 feet from the dune/bulkhead line 

to the depth of closure will be required to accurately determine the quantities in developing the 

plans and specifications. These profiles will also include shore protection structures and groins 

in the study area. 
476

Section 4 

Geotechnical Appendix 
477

GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX 

03/6/14 Version 

INTRODUCTION 

The geotechnical appendix provides detailed information and records of the data and procedures 

utilized in the preparation of the Geotechnical Analysis presented in this report. The information 

and data presented in the following sections which include the following: 

Section 1 - Summary of Boring and Vibracore Utilized 

Section 2 - Design Value Computations and Tables 

Section 3 - Description of the Design Methodology 

Section 4 Investigation Reports (DVD) 

Section 5 - Bibliography of Referenced Documents 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet Appendix A.. Section 4 
478

GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX 

SECTION 1 

Summary of Boring and Vibracore Utilized 

This section presents the boring and vibracore logs and gradation curves utilized in the 

geotechnical analysis presented in this report. It is noted that there are additional beach, vibracore 

and SPT sampling locations along the beach and near the proposed borrow areas that are not 

included in the analysis because they were either outside the area under consideration, or they 

represent material that was examined and found to be unsatisfactory for the proposed North 

Wildwood beach replenishment. In some cases, potential borrow areas had been dedicated to 

other beach replenishment projects and were therefore not considered in this analysis. The 

additional geotechnical information is available in the geotechnical investigation reports included 

for reference in Section 4, on the attached DVD. The following presents a summary of the borings 

and vibracores used for the geotechnical analysis. 

Boring ID Boring Type Sample Area Report 

NVB-1, NVB-2 & Borings Native Beach Geotechnical Data Report Wildwood 

NVB-3 Beach Investigation (4-17-2007) Material -

WW-1, WW-2& Beach North Atlantic Coast of New Jersey 

WW-2B Samples Wildwood Beach Profile Data Collection (12-17-

2003) 

Hereford Inlet 

Borrow Area 

NJV-745, NJV- H-1 452 & NJV-799 Geotechnical Data Report - Vibrational 

NJV-185 & Coring - Wildwood to Hereford Inlet 

NJV-746 H-2 (06-30-2006) and 

Vibracore Geotechnical Investigation Vibrocoring NJV-747 & NJV- H-3 along the New Jersey Coast - 797 Townsend/Hereford Inlet Study Area 

NJV-187 & NJV- H-4 (12/1998) 

800 

NVB-5, 7, 9 & 11 Borings Geotechnical Data Report Wildwood 

WWIWWC 

Beach Investigation (4-17-2007) 

WW-4, WW-7, Beach Borrow Area Atlantic Coast of New Jersey 

WW-10, WW-2B, Samples Beach Profile Data Collection (12-17-

WW-13 & WW-15 2003) 

NJGS-158 & 159 Vibracore Offshore #1 Logs provided by NJGS 

NJGS-147 & 148 Vibracore Offshore #2 

NJV-34, 45, 48, Vi bra core Offshore #3 No report was available, information 

49 & 51 taken from grain size analysis curves 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Appendix A, Section 4 
479

GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX 

SECTION 2 

Design Value Computations, Plots and Tables 

This section presents the computations utilized in the geotechnical analysis, including the 

millimeter to phi conversion and design value computations, cumulative grain size distribution 

(GSD) plots and composite distribution plot, for the borrow areas, and tables utilized to tabulate 

and calculate the overfill factors and re-nourishment factors for each of the borrow areas. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet Appendix A, Section 4 
NORTH WILDWOOD BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT 

CURRENT SUMMARY SHEETS 

North Wildwood Native Beach parameters established using composite of surface and SPT samples val

A. Native Beach Material Parameters 

From Beach Lines - WW-1, WW-2 and WW-2B, surface samples for total line - BC+200 to EL-18, and Oto 4' S

(See Table 2.5 for additional information and details) 

M<l>n (Average)= 2.34 Subscript "n" ind

Oa,n (Average) 0.46 Subscript "b" ind

B. Individual Borrow Area Summaries 

1 ao1e :l:.1A Hererora m1et tsorrow Areas {L;Ons1aermg oniy ae ptn or oorrow ana composmngJ 

Mean Median Mean Standard 

Borrow Area & Dia. in Phi Deviation in Phi Est. Borrow M©b*D D*a@b 

Comments Vibracores Units units Depth Avg. M<b Av

Mob D 

a.b 

H-1 NJV- 745 2.41 0.36 12.5 30.10 4.46 

NJV- 799 2.22 0.66 14 31.14 9 26 

NJV-452 2.61 0.39 12 31.34 4.63 

NJVH-1 Totals 7 45, 799&452 7.24 1.40 38.5 92.58 18.35 

H-1 Average NJV- 2.40 

H-1 Average* 7 45, 799&452 2.41 

H-2 NJV-185 2.25 0.65 14 31.50 9 03 

NJV-746 2.51 0.33 17 42.74 5.61 

H-2 Totals NJV-185&746 4.76 0.98 31 74.24 14.64 

H-2 Average NJV-185&746 2.39 

H-2 Averaae* 2.38 

H-3 NJV-747 2.38 0.41 16 38.02 6.62 

NJV-797 2.57 0.43 11 28.27 4.71 

H-3 Totals NJV-747&797 4.95 0.84 27 66.29 11.33 

H-3Average NJV-747&797 2.46 

H-3 Average• 2.47 

H-4 NJV-187 2.43 0.67 16 38.85 10.69 

NJV-800 242 0.66 12 28.98 7.86 

H-4 Totals NJV-187&800 4.84 1.32 28 67.83 18.55 

H-4Average NJV-187&800 2.42 

H-4 Averaae 2.42 

Average H-1 to H-4 (Weighted by depth) 2.42 

Average H-1 to H-4*(No weighting) 2.42 

Notes: 

1 Overfill (Ra) and Renourishment (RJ)Factors calculated using isolines for adjusted overfill and renourishment, (Shore Protection Manual, 198

2 Overfill (RJ and Renourishment (R1) Factors calculated using HBeach Nourishment Overfill Ratio and Volume" equations contained in Coas

Manual, 2004. 
NORTH WILDWOOD BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT 

CURRENT SUMMARY SHEETS 

North Wildwood Native Beach parameters established using composite of surface and SPT samples values - 

A. Native Beach Material Parameters 

From Beach Lines - WW-1, WW-2 and WW-2B, surface samples for total line - BC+200 to El.-18, and Oto 4' SPT samples 

(See Table 2.5 for additional information and details) 

Ma,, (Average) = 2.34 Subscript "n" indic

Oa,, (Average) = 0.46 Subscript "b" indic

B. Individual Borrow Area Summaries 

Table 2.1B Hereford Inlet Borrow Areas (Considering compositing by volume using depth based M.,& Oep values) 

Mean Median 

Diameter in Phi Mean Standard Est. 

Estimated 

Borrow Area & units (weighted) Deviation in Phi Est. Area Borrow V'Mcr,b 

Comments Vibracores units (weighted) (SF'106) Depth Volume va

Ma,b (V) 

Ocr,b D 

Mean Median 

NJV-7 45, 452 & 

H-1 799 2.40 0.48 2.55 15 1415000 3396000 674

H-2 NJV-185 & 746 2.39 0.47 4.25 16 2516741 6015010 118

H-3 NJV-7 47 & 797 2.46 0.42 1.80 14 932296 2293449 391

H-4 NJV-187 &800 2.42 0.66 1.71 14 884074 2139459 586

l:Volumetric Values 59 5748111 13843919 284

Avg M" = 1V* M<Df1V = 2

Avg ""' = 1V•rt,0 /IV= 0

Notes 

1 + Overfill (Ra) and Renourishment (R)Factors calculated using isolines for adjusted averfi!I and renounshment, (Shore Protection Manual. 1984) 

2 - Overfill (Ra) and Renourishment (R1) Factors calculated using "Beach Nourishment Overfill Ratio and Volume" equations contained in Coastai Engineerin

Manual. 2004 
NORTH WILDWOOD BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT 

CURRENT SUMMARY SHEETS 

North V\i'lldwood Native Beach parameters established using composite of suriace and SPT samples values - 

A. Native Beach Material Parameters 

From Beach Lines - WW-1, WW-2 and WW-2B, suriace samples for total line - BC+200 to El.-18, and Oto 4' SPT samp

(See Table 2.5 for additional information and details) 

Mw, (Average) 2.34 

cr<l>n (Average) 0.46 

Subscript "n" indicat

Subscript "b" indicat

B. Individual Borrow Area Summaries 

Table 2.1C Hereford Inlet Borrow Areas (Considering compositing by volume with no weighting by depth) 

Mean Median Mean Standard Est. 

Borrow Area & Diameter in Phi Deviation in Phi Est. Area Borrow Estimated 

Comments Vibracores units (weighted) units (weighted) (SF*106) Depth Volume V*M<>b v·cr<1

Mwb cr"b D (V) 

NJV-7 45, 452 & 

H-1 799 2.41 0.47 2.55 15 1415000 3416753 6621

H-2 NJV-185 & 746 2.38 0.49 4.25 16 2516741 5994876 12269

H-3 NJV-747 & 797 2.47 0.42 1.80 14 932296 2305569 3924

H-4 NJV-187 & 800 2.42 0.66 1.71 14 884074 2140785 5849

Z:Volumetric Values 10.30 59 5748111 13857984 28664

Avg Mwb = lV*MwJl:V = 2.41 

Avg cr<l>b = z:v•a"iJZ:V= u.:iu 

Notes: 

1 - Overfill (RJ and Renourishment (~Factors calculated using isolines for adjusted overfill and renourishment, (Shore Protection Manual, 1984). 

2 - Overfill (RJ and Renourishment ( i) Factors calculated using "Beach Nourishment Overfill Ratio and Volume" equations contained in Coastal 

Engineering Manual, 2004. 
Table 2.10 -Summary -Total values for Tables 2.1A, 2.18 and 2.1C 

Description Avg. M"'b Avg. O"'b 0¢b/O

H-1 thru H-4 Values by method of Note 1 2.42 0.51 1.1H-1 thru H-4 Values by method of Note 2 2.42 0.51 1.1H-1 thru H-4 Values by volumetric method with weighted (Note 1) values 

for individual areas 2.41 0.49 1.0

H-1 thru H-4 Values by volumetric method with unweighted (Note 2) values 

for individual areas 2.41 0.50 1.0

NOTES: 

In Table 2.1A shows results which employed the weighted values by height to determine 

2 In Table 2.1A shows results which employed the unweighted values by height to determ
TABLE 2.2 OFFSHORE BORROW AREA • OS#1 

Summary Sheet for Borrow Area Characteristics 

Vibracore 

Mean Median Mean Standard Depth of Suitable Diameter in Phi Units Deviation In Phi Designation (weighted M©b) Units (wgt'd cra,b) Material (feet) 

NJGS-158 2.15 1.35 10 

NJGS-159 2.36 0.61 10 

Totals •Borrow Area OS#1 

Wtd. Average.Borrow Area OS#1 

Check. using individual weighted averages for each vibrocore 

,#2 

Summary Sheet for Borrow Area Characteristics 

Vibracore Mean Median Mean Standard Depth of Suitable Diameter in Phi Units Deviation in Phi Designation (weighted Ma:,b) Units (wgt'd crwb) Material (feet) 

NJGS-147 1.64 1.07 10 

NJGS-148 1.42 1.43 10 

Totals ~Borrow Area OS#2 

Wtd. Average-Borrow Area OS#2 

Check using individual weighted averages for each vibrocore 

TABLE 2.4 OFFSHORE BORROW AREA • OS#3 

Summary: Sheet for Borrow Area Characteristics 

Vibracore Mean Median Mean Standard Depth of Suitable Diameter in Phi Units Deviation in Phi Designation (weighted Mct,b) Units (wgt'd cra:>b) Material (feet) 

NJV-34 1.29 0.54 9 NJV-45 2.08 1.78 9 NJV-48 1.28 0.26 12.2 NJV-49 1.64 0.59 14 NJV-51 1.19 0.87 14 

Totals -Borrow Area OS#3 

Wtd. Average-Borrow Area OS#3 

Check - using individual weighted averages for each vibracore 

Assumed 

Borrow M<Db*D 

Depth 

10 21.5 10 23.6 

20 45.1 

Assumed 

Borrow M11b"D 

Depth 

10 16.36 10 14.20 

20 30.56 

Assumed 

Borrow Mct,b"D 

Depth 

9 11.59 9 18.75 

10 12.79 10 16.42 10 11.92 

48 71A7 

D*cralb (M0 ,'D)ID 

13.50 2.15 

6.10 2.36 

19.60 

2.26 

2.26 

D*crctib (M.,,'D)/D 

10.72 1.64 

14.34 1.42 

25.06 

1.53 

1.53 

D"'crc!>b (M0 ,'D)ID 

4.89 1.29 

16.05 2.08 

2.57 1.28 

5.93 1.64 8.74 1.19 

38.19 

1.49 

1.50 
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SRT) BORING TO BEACH SAMPLE DESIGN VALUE COMP

AND DETERMINATION OF COMPOSITE DESIGN VALUES FOR NORTH WILDWOOD BEACH RESTORA

Table 2.5 - NATIVE BEACH DESIGN ANALYSIS FOR NORTH WILDWOOD 

Beach Average Value SPT Average Value 

Sampling 

BC+ 200 to EL-18 

Boring Depth SPT Sample Depth Ranae 

Line Geometric Mean Inclusive Graphic Number (Feet) Geometric Mean Inclusive Graph

(M(j)) Deviation Wm) (M(j)) Deviation (Om

WW-1 2.36 0.46 NVB-1 0-4 2.38 0.40 

0-8 2.47 0.40 

0-12 2.54 0.41 

WW-2 2.24 0.49 NVB-2 0-4 2.37 0.40 

0-8 2.60 0.48 

0-12 2.54 0.52 

WW-2B 2.23 0.48 NVB-3 0-4 2.46 0.52 

0-8 2.57 0.53 

0-12 2.70 0.51 

Average 

Values 2.27 0.47 North Wildwood - Native Beach - Ove

WW-1 to WW-2B Surface Samples & 
Table 2.6 - BORROW AREA DESIGN ANALYSIS (AREA WW/WC) 

Average Value Average Value 

BC+ 200 to EL-18 SPT Samole Deoth 

Beach Sampling Line Geometric Mean Inclusive SPT Boring Depth (feet) Geometric Mean Inclus

(Mo) Graphic (Mo) Devi

Deviation (Ool 

VINV-15 2.38 0.53 NVB-11 0-4 2.53 

AVG. VINV-15 & -13 2.35 0.51 0-8 2.56 

VINV-13 2.33 0.48 0-12 2.56 

0-16 2.46 

VINV-13 2.33 0.48 NVB-9 0-4 2.46 

AVG. VINV-13 & -10 2.34 0.48 0-8 2.46 

VINV-10 2.36 0.48 0-12 2.44 

0-16 2.48 

VINV-10 2.36 0.48 NVB-7 0-4 2.40 

AVG. VINV-10 & -07 2.33 0.48 0-8 2.46 

VINV-07 2.30 0.47 0-12 2.44 

0-16 2.45 

VINV-07 2.30 0.47 NVB-5 0-4 2.47 

AVG. VINV-07 & -04 2.28 0.50 0-8 2.47 

VINV-04 2.27 0.52 0-12 2.48 

0-16 2.63 

WW/WC Overall 

Composite using Only Composite 

Beach Samples using only 

Calculations & SPT 

M0 =2.34 & a 0 =0.46 Samples 

2.33 0.49 0-4 2.46 

2.33 0.50 0-8 2.48 

0-12 2.48 

@12' (M.,-M0 ,)/ 

{Mq,b-MCiln)/aQ)n = -0 03 Excavation a(J)n = 0.30 

Oq:,JOa:m= 1.07 0¢,t/CTr:in = 0.92 R

Ra=1.05 0-16 2.51 

@16' (M.,-M00)/ 

VINVNVC Beach Rj=1/1 excavation a©n = 0.36 

Sample Composite & Oq:,JO©n"" 0.93 R

Using only Beach (M.,-M0 ,)/o0 , 0 0.11 R, 

Overfill/ 0-12' Samples to compute aq,b/aq,n= 1.05 Renourishme R; 

Avg. a<P& M4> for Ra=U7 nt Factors2 R, 

0-16' 

Native beach Rj=1.1/1 R; 

Notes: 

1 - Overfill (Ra) and Renourishmenl (Rj)Factors calculated using isotines for adjusted overfill and renourishmenl, (Shore Protection Manual, 19

2 - Overfill (Ra) and Renourishment (R1) Factors calculated using "Beach Nourishment Overfill Ratio and Volume" equations contained in Coa

Engineering Manual, 2004. 
487

Native Beach - North Wildwood 

Boring Sample No. Sand(%) Soil 

ID Sam le De th % Coarse Medium c, 

WW-1 S1 0.0 0.0 

WW1 S3 0.0 2.5 

WW1 S4 0.0 2.1 

WW1 S5 0.0 2.0 

WW2 S6 0.0 1.1 

WW2 S7 0.0 0.8 

WW2 S9 0.0 0.8 

WW2 S10 0.0 1.5 

WW2 S11 0.0 3.9 

WW2B S12 0.0 1.4 

WW2B s 0.0 0.0 

WW2B s 0.0 0.0 

WW2B s 0.0 1.2 

WW2B s 0.0 7.8 

0.0 2.7 

0.0 2.0 

0.0 2.0 

0.0 1.0 

0.2 1.8 

0.2 2.3 

0.2 2.0 

0.5 3.5 

0.5 1. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ?\.fay Inld 11 Appendix A, Section 4 
l:: 

a, 

'iii 

s: 

'"' .c 

" C: u:: 

'E 

le "

0.. " 

Cummulative Grain Size Distributio

North Wildwood Beach - Native 

U.S. Standard Sieve Opening (inches) U.S. Standard Sieve 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1000 

Boulder 

12-in 3-in 3/4-in 

100 10 

Gravel 

Cobble 

Coarse Fine 

#4 #10 #40 

~

I \ 

\ 

' 

Particle Size (mm) 

Sand 

Coarse Medium 

Hereford Inlet to Cape '.'\fay Inkt 12 
489

Borrow Area - Wilwood/Wildwood Crest 

Boring 

ID % 

VVW-4 0.0 

VVW-4 0.0 

VVW-4 0.0 

VVW-4 0.0 

VVW-4 0.0 

VVW-7 0.0 

VVW-7 0.0 

VVW-7 0.0 

VVW-7 0.0 

VVW-7 0.0 

VVW-10 0.0 

VVW-10 0.0 

VVW-10 0.0 

VVW-10 0.0 

VVW-10 0.0 

VVW-13 0.0 

VVW-13 0.0 

VVW-13 

VVW-13 

VVW-13 

VVW-15 

VVW-15 

VVW-15 

VVW-15 

NVB-05 

NVB-05 

NVB-05 

NVB-05 

NVB-07 

NVB-07 

NVB-07 

NVB-07 

NVB-09 

NVB-09 

NVB-09 

NVB-09 

NVB-11 

Hereford lnlet to Cape May Inlet 

Coarse 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

1.0 

0.5 

0.2 

0.0 

0.3 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

0.3 

0.2 

0.0 

13 

Sand(%) 

Medium 

0.5 

0.8 

2.1 

8.5 

1.8 

0.0 

6.5 

4.4 

10.7 

1.8 

0.0 

0.0 

2.1 

4.9 

3.5 

0.2 

3.0 

Fine 

99.0 

99.1 

97.8 

91.3 

98.1 

99.8 

92.8 

95.3 

89.0 

97.4 

99.9 

99.8 

97.7 

Soil 

Oescri tion 

Appendix A, Section 4 
:E 

'iii "' 

s: 

>, 

.c 

<ii 

C: 

u:: 

E 

"' [: 

n. "' 

Cummulative Grain Size Distributio

Wildwood/Wildwood Crest Borr

U.S. Standard Sieve Opening (inches) U.S. Standard Sieve 

12-in 3-in 3/4-in #4 #10 #40 

100 

90 

80 I 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1000 100 10 

Particle Size (mm) 

Gravel Sand 

Boulder Cobble 

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium 

I-krdord lnkt to Cap,c: \lay Inlet [4 
491

Borrow Area. Hereford Inlet. H-1 

Boring Soil 

ID m Fine c, Descri lion 

99 0. 96.0 

NJV-799 0.5 16.5 81.5 SP 

NJV-799 10-15 00 1.5 97.0 SP 

NJV-799 15-20 2.5 31.0 63.0 SP 

NJV-745 0-5 0.0 1.5 96.0 SP 

NJV-745 5-10 0.0 2.0 96.0 SP 

NJV-745 1 00 1.0 98.0 SP 

NJV-745 15-20 0.0 0.0 1.0 97.0 

NJV-452 0-5 00 0.3 2.4 94.4 

NJV-452 5-10 00 0.0 0.1 97.4 

NJV-452 10-11.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 97.5 

NJV-452 11.3-14.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 87.5 

15-16.8 0.0 0.7 4.2 

16.8-18.6 0.0 0.3 

00 

2.5 

Median 

Hereford Inkt to Cape 1fay Inlet 15 Appendix A, Section 4 
Cummulative Grain Size Distrubtion (

Hereford Inlet - H-1 

U.S. Standard Sieve Opening (inches) U.S. Standard Sieve Nu

:E 

"' ·;:; 

s: 

>, 

.c 

a.i 

C: 

iI 

C: 

l:c "

0.. " 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1000 

Boulder 

12-in 

Cobble 

Ikreford Inkt to Cape May Inlet 

3-in 314-in #4 

-

--

100 10 

Gravel 

Coarse Fine Coarse 

#10 #40 

-.. "-"'- -.., 

I""' \ I\'- 

"\ \ \\ 

\ ' \ 

\ I \ 

\ \ \ 

\! \ 

\ 

i\ \ 

i \ \ 

\ \ 

I 

\ 

\ 

\ 

' 

Particle Size (mm) 

Sand 

Medium 

16 
493

Borrow Area - Hereford Inlet - H-2 

Boring 

ID 

Sample 

De th 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Soil 

17 Appendix A, Section 4 
Cummulative Grain Size Distrubtion (

Hereford Inlet - H-2 

U.S. Standard Sieve Opening (inches) U.S. Standard Sieve Nu

:E 

a, 

·;;:; 

s: 

>, 

.c 

:;; 

C: 

iI 

"E 

" 

D. " 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1000 

Boulder 

12-in 

Cobble 

Ikrcford Inkt to Cap,c May Inlet 

3-in 314-in 

100 10 

Gravel 

Coarse Fine 

#4 #10 #40 

"""-\ --, 

II.\ 

\ 

i 

I 

I 

Particle Size (mm) 

Sand 

Coarse Medium 

18 
495

Borrow Area - Hereford In let - H-3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 19 Appendix A, Section 4 
Cummulative Grain Size Distrubtion (

Hereford Inlet - H-3 

U.S. Standard Sieve Opening (inches) U.S. Standard Sieve Nu

:E 

"' "iij 

:I: 

>, 

-" 

" <:: u: 

1= 

" re 

D. " 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1000 

Boulder 

12-in 

Cobble 

Hereford Inld to Cape May Inlet 

3-in 314-in 

100 10 

Gravel 

Coarse Fine 

#4 #10 #40 

11,;::\ 

I 

\ 

i 

Particle Size (mm) 

Sand 

Coarse Medium 

20 
497

Borrow Area - Hereford Inlet (H-4) 

Boring Sample Depth. Gravel Sand(%) Fines Soil 

ID Medium Fine % c, 

NJV-187 2-2.5 0.7 87.3 12.0 

NJV-187 4.5-4.8 1.5 95.5 3.0 

NJV-187 8-8.5 0.2 98.0 1.8 SP 

NJV-187 10.2-10.5 0.2 97.8 2.0 SP 

NJV-187 13.2-13.7 0.5 97.5 2. SP 

NJV-187 15-15.3 22.1 74.9 2.0 SP 

NJV-187 18.2-18.7 00 94.0 6.0 SP-SC 

0-5 0.0 2.0 1.0 SP 

5-7.5 0.0 3.0 2.0 SP 

7.5-10 1.0 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :t\fay Inlet 21 Appendix A., Section 4 
Cummulative Grain Size Distrubtion (

Hereford Inlet - H-4 

U.S. Standard Sieve Opening (inches) U.S. Standard Sieve Nu

:E 

Cl 

>, 

.c 

a3 C: 

iI 

C: 

" le 

0. " 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1000 

Boulder 

12-in 

Cobble 

Ikreford Inkt to Cape May Inlet 

3-in 3/4-in 

100 10 

Gravel 

Coarse Fine 

#4 #10 #40 

"I. '" ,..

\ \ ""

\ \ 

' ' 

I 

\ 

\ 

\ 

i 

I I I 

I 

Particle Size (mm) 

Sand 

Coarse Medium 

22 
499

ff Shore Borrow Area - OS #3 

Boring Sample No. Gravel Sand(%) Fines Soil 

ID (%) Coarse Medium Fine %) c, Descri tlon 

NJV-34 S-1 0.5 0.5 41.5 55.5 2.0 SP 

S-1 0.0 1.0 25.0 SP 

S-1 0.0 0.0 36.0 SC-SM 

S-2 0.0 0.0 9.0 SP-SC 

S-3 0.0 0.0 16.0 SC 

S-1 0.0 0.0 50.0 SP 

S-2 0.0 2.0 70.0 SP 

0.0 1.0 19.0 SP 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 23 Appendix A, Section 4 
Cummulative Grain Size Distributio

Off-Shore Borrow Area #

U.S. Standard Sieve Opening (inches) U.S. Standard Sieve 

:E 

"' ·a; 

:;; 

>, 

.0 

'" C: u:: 

1:: 

" e 

0.. " 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1000 

Boulder 

12-in 

Cobble 

Ikreford Inkt to Cap~ May Inlet 

3-in 3/4-in 

100 10 

Gravel 

Coarse Fine 

#4 #10 #40 

'-"' ·" \ \\.. 

\ '\ \ 

\

\ 

\ 

Particle Size (mm) 

Sand 

Coarse Medium 

24 
Composite Distribution Plo

Native Beach and Borrow Area 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May In

l 301-~~--~--~--~~--~~--~~~~-·~,~~-·-fr~---~-3;::--~--~

f3 

3 

ij 20 4-~~~--~~~~-----~~~--;;-""7~ 

I 

15 

10 +-~---···------~~~·~--~-r-·~~~4-~-~......,,-~.~-~i.

5 +------~-~~~--,F-;;c·;;;;"""',ll'-~~---;11:=-~~~~.--~·~--~-rc, 

0 .L . .--=:::::;::ii~_,:;.,,.._,...-~::::;;;;.,.;;.ef/{.._~ .. 

·l.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3 3.5 

Grain Size {phi) 

--NB- North Wildwood --BA- Wildwood/Wildwood Crest BA- Hereford Inle

lforeford Inlet to Cape May Inkt 25 
502

GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX 

SECTION 3 

Description of the Design Methodology 

This section presents additional information and details on the method developed by the 

Philadelphia District to convert available gradation data to design values for comparison of native 

beach and borrow materials. 

Method for Determining Median Grain Size (Mq,) and Mean Standard Deviation (aq,) 

The method described herein was developed by the Geotechnical Section of the Philadelphia 

District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (NAP-EC-EG) during the period 2005 to 2006. At the 

time, NAP-EC-EG was tasked to perform a borrow area investigation for the proposed beach 

restoration in North Wildwood, New Jersey. 

A limited amount of geotechnical data was available from past investigations of the North 

Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township beaches and borrows areas located 

offshore and in Hereford Inlet adjacent to the North Wildwood beach. Additional investigations 

were preformed to obtain supplemental information required for the geotechnical analysis of the 

target site and potential source areas. Recovered soil samples were subjected to visual 

identification and laboratory gradation analyses to determine the type of soil material present and 

grain size distribution of the recovered samples. 

The data evaluated was primarily in the form of gradation curves plotted on 5 Cycle semi-log 

paper (ENG FORM 2087). The gradation curves were available for beach samples which had 

been taken along selected lines and that had been obtained in a number of potential borrow areas 

considered for the North Wildwood beach restoration site. As the study progressed it was 

determined that additional sampling was required to accurately determine the native beach and 

borrow area material design parameters. These investigations consisted of several additional 

vibracores taken in the Hereford Inlet borrow area and 12 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 

borings drilled along the beach between North Wildwood and Lower Township. 

The available data was converted to phi grain size designations in order to develop design 

parameters for the native beach and borrow area materials. This was accomplished using the 

following procedure: 

1. The grain size in millimeters (mm) for the 95, 84, 75, 50, 25, 16, and 5 percentages 

coarser by weight of each sample (095 , 0 84 , 0 75 , etc.) were determined from the individual 

grain size curve. 

2. These values were converted to phi sizes using the relationship: cp = -log2D. 

3. The mean grain size and standard deviation for each sample were then computed as 

follows: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 26 Appendix A. Section 4 
503

a. The mean grain size (M~) of each sample was determined using the 

relationship: 

Mo/= ((p1s+(pso+(ps4/3 where <p16, (pso and (pa4 are the 16%, 50% and 84% 

coarser by weight phi sizes, respectively. 

b. The standard deviation for each sample was determined using the relationship: 

ao/ = (<p a4-<p 1s)/4 + ( <p gs+ <p s)/6. 

4. The mean grain size and standard deviation for each group of samples can then be 

determined by averaging the values of each test, i.e. M~11a4= (M~ 1+ M~2+ M~3+ M94)/4 

and 01 to 04= (01+02+03+04)/4. The weighted averages of these values can also be 

determined by using the height or volume of the sample portion represented by the 

individual result as a multiplier of that result then summing and averaging to obtain the 

weighted value for a given sample or area. The following example shows this methodology 

for an individual vibracore with varying heights of samples: 

The EXCEL program developed to accomplish these calculations is illustrated on Tables 3.1 and 

3.2. Table 3.1 provides typical output from the program for Vibracore NJV-454. Table 3.2 

provides the input for the individual cells for the same vibracore. It is noted that the program, once 

set up for an individual sample, can be copied and pasted in subsequent sections of the worksheet 

for new samples with minimal effort. However, care must be taken in entering new data and spot 

checking of computed values is required to assure valid results. 

The method employed to determine the overall median grain sizes and standard deviations for 

complete sampling lines, vibracores, STP boring borings, native beach area and complete borrow 

sources are obtained in a similar manner as was shown on the Table 3.1. 

Once the values were obtained for the native beach material and each individual borrow area 

investigated, the values for the overfill (Ra) and renourishment (Ri) factors were determined using 

the nomograph method of the 2008 Edition of the Coastal Engineering Manual and 1984 Edition of 

the Shore Protection Manual. A further refinement in determining the Ra and Ri factors consisted 

of using the applicable portion of the Automated Coastal Engineering System (ACES) 

methodology with inputs of the Met> and Oct, values for the native beach and borrow areas to obtain 

the values of Ra and Ri for each individual borrow area. These values were then checked against 

those obtained using the nomograph method. Agreement between the two methods is not exact, 

but is considered adequate for the scope of this study. It is noted that the higher values of the 

renourishment factors (those obtained by the nomograph method) were used to determine the 

beachfill costs for the cost analysis. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 27 Appendix A, Section 4 
Vibrocore Sample Number Grain D % 

Number and Depth Size Coarser 

NJV- 455 S-1 0.0- 5.0. 0.12 95 

0.13 84 0.15 75 0.17 50 

0.2 25 

0.23 16 

0.26 5 

NJV- 455 S-2 5.5 -10.0 0.13 95 

0.16 84 0.17 75 0.21 50 0.26 25 

0.3 16 

0.38 5 

NJV 455 S 3 10.0 15.0 0.13 95 

0.15 84 0.17 75 0.24 50 0.35 25 0.37 16 0 72 5 

NJV- 455 S 4 15.0 19.1 0.14 95 

0.19 84 0.22 75 0.27 50 0.33 25 0.37 16 0.42 5 

SUM 

Average 

Table 3.1 

Calculated Values of <I>, M<I>, a<I> and Wtd. Va

of same from mm grain size Values 

Phi Geometric Mean 

Diameter (phi16+phi50+phi84 )/3 

(Mo) 

3.059 

2.943 2.737 

2.556 2.540 

2.322 2.120 

1.943 

2.943 2.644 

2.556 

2.252 2.211 

1.943 1.737 1.396 

2.943 2.737 

2.556 

2.059 2.077 

1.515 1.434 

0.474 

2.837 2.396 

2.184 

1.889 1.906 1.599 1.434 1.252 

8.734 

2.184 

Inclusive 

(phi84-phi 
Vibrocore Sample Number Grain 0-% 

Number and Depth Size Coarser 

NJV -455 S-1 0.0-5.0. 0.12 95 

0.13 84 0.15 75 0.17 50 0.2 25 0.23 16 0.26 5 

NJV-455 S-2 5.5-10.0 0.13 95 

0.16 84 0.17 75 0.21 50 

0.26 25 0.3 16 0.38 5 

NJV-455 S-3 10.0-15.0 0.13 95 

0.15 84 0.17 75 0.24 50 0.35 25 0.37 16 0.72 5 

NJV-455 S-4 15.0-19.1 0.14 95 

0.19 84 0.22 75 0.27 50 0.33 25 0.37 16 0.42 5 

SUM 

Average 

Table 3.2 

Formulas used to determine Values of Cl>, MCI>, aCI> and 

Weighted Values of same from mm grain size data 

Phi Geometric Mean Inclusive Graphic Deviation 

Diameter (j)16+cp50+cp84)/3 ((j)34-(j)15)/4+((j)95-(j)05)/6 

(Mm) (Om) 

=-LOG(D4,2) =-LOG(D5,2) =-LOG(D6,2) =-LOG(D7,2) =AVERAGE(F9,F7,F5) =(F5-F9)/4+(F4-F10)/6 

=-LOG(D8,2) =-LOG(D9,2) =-LOG(D10,2) =-LOG(D12,2) =-LOG(D13,2) =-LOG(D14,2) =-LOG(D15,2) =AVERAGE(F17,F15,F13) =(F13-F17)/4+(F12-F18)/6 =-LOG(D16,2) =-LOG(D17,2) =-LOG(D18,2) =-LOG(D20,2) =-LOG(D21,2) =-LOG(D22,2) =-LOG(D23,2) =AVERAGE(F25, F23,F21) =(F21-F25)/4+(F20-F26)/6 =-LOG(D24,2) =-LOG(D25,2) =-LOG(D26,2) =-LOG(D28,2) =-LOG(D29,2) 

=-LOG(D30,2) 

=-LOG(D31,2) =AVERAGE(F33,F31,F29) =(F29-F33)/4+(F28-F34)/6 

=-LOG(D32,2) 

=-LOG(D33,2) 

=-LOG(D34,2) 

=SUM(G4:G35) =SUM(H4:H35) =AVERAGE(G4:G35) =AVERAGE(H4:H35) 

SUM 

wrn. AVG
506

GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX 

SECTION 4 

Investigation Reports (DVD) 

Electronic versions of the investigation reports and data utilized in the calculations are included for 

additional reference in the DVD attached to this report. The following is a list of the reports and 

information contained on the DVD: 

Previous Investigation Reports 

Geotechnical Data Report Vibrational Coring Cape May Fillet Area Study Cape May 

County, New Jersey. May 16, 2006 

• Geotechnical Data Report Vibrational Coring Cape May, New Jersey. October 12, 2007 

Geotechnical Data Report Vibrational Coring Townsends & Hereford Inlets Cape May 

County, New Jersey. October 12, 2007 

• Geotechnical Data Report Vibrational Coring Wildwood to Hereford Inlet Cape May 

County, New Jersey. June 30, 2006 

Geotechnical Data Report Wildwood Beach Investigation Cape May County, New Jersey. 

April 17, 2007 

• Geotechnical Investigation Vibrocoring along the New Jersey Coast - Townsend/Hereford 

Inlet Study Area. December 1998 

• Nearshore Ridges and Underlying Upper Pleistocene Sediments on the Inner Continental 

Shelf of New Jersey. October 1996 

Atlantic Coast of New Jersey Beach Profile Data Collection: September 2003. Wildwood, 

New Jersey. Project Summary Report. December 17, 2003 

Geotechnical Data 

USACE Grain Size Analysis, October 1978, January 1979, March, 1995 

NJGS - Boring Logs and Grain Size Analysis, March 2009 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 29 Appendix A, Section 4 
507

GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX 

SECTION 5 

Bibliography of Referenced Documents 

The following documents and reports were utilized in the preparation of the report. 

Atlantic Coast of New Jersey Beach Profile Data Collection: September 2003. Wildwood, New 

Jersey. Project Summary Report. Offshore & Coastal Technologies, Incorporated. 

December 17, 2003. 

Automated Coastal Engineering System (ACES), Veritech, 2014 

Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, New Jersey. Phase I General Design Memorandum. USACE, 

August 1980. 

Characterization of Sediments in Federal Waters Offshore of New Jersey as Potential Sources of 

Beach Replenishment Sand. Phase II, Year 2 Final Report. NJGS, Rutgers University, 

NJDEP. 

Coastal Engineering Manual -Appendix A - Glossary of Coastal Terminology. USACE. July 31, 

2003. 

Coastal Engineering Manual. EM-1110-2-1100, USACE. August 1, 2008. 

Draft Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1. New Jersey Shore 

Protection Study, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet. USACE, July 1996. 

Geoacoustic Study of New Jersey Coast from Townsends Inlet to Hereford Inlet. Technical Report 

HL-96-3. WES, July 1996. 

Geotechnical Data Report Vibrational Coring Cape May Fillet Area Study Cape May County, New 

Jersey. Schnabel Engineering. May 16, 2006. 

Geotechnical Data Report Vibrational Coring Cape May, New Jersey. Schnabel Engineering. 

October 12, 2007. 

Geotechnical Data Report Vibrational Coring Townsends & Hereford Inlets Cape May County, 

New Jersey. Schnabel Engineering. October 12, 2007. 

Geotechnical Data Report Vibrational Coring Wildwood to Hereford Inlet Cape May County, New 

Jersey. Schnabel Engineering. June 30, 2006. 

Geotechnical Data Report Wildwood Beach Investigation Cape May County, New Jersey. 

Schnabel Engineering. April 17, 2007. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inl~t 30 Appendix A, Section 4 
508

Geotechnical Investigation Vibrocoring along the New Jersey Coast- Townsend/Hereford Inlet 

Study Area. Duffield Associates, December 1998 

Land Use Management. New Jersey Geological Survey. New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP). April 12, 2006. 

Nearshore Ridges and Underlying Upper Pleistocene Sediments on the Inner Continental Shelf of 

New Jersey. Rutgers University. October 1996. 

Shore Protection Manual. Coastal Engineering Research Center. USAGE, 1984. 

The Geology and Landscapes of New Jersey. 1977. 

Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Reporl and Environmental Impact Statement. 

Volume 2. Appendix D. 1996. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 31 Appendix A. Section 4 
509

Section 5 

Project Design 

The following section contains the infrastructure damages from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

feasibility study by cell (1-7) for each storm event (5, l 0, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500 year). 

Infrastructure damages include damages to gas lines, water lines electric utilities, light poles, 

boardwalk etc, from erosion, wave damage and inundation. 

The selected plan layout and cross sections are contained at the end of the section. 
lforeford Inlet to Cape May Inkt 

9.66. 

1f44121 
herefordtocapemayinfrastr _ 07 

Page 2 o/20 

lforeford Inlet to Cap.: May Inlet 
Electric (LF) 'Lafe,aiEieclLF 

Telephone (LF) 

Lateral Tel (LF) 

Cable TV (LF) Lateral tatiie TV (LF) 

21Gas (LF) 

1 .. + . Excavation (C'f) Bedding 4" (CY) 

Backfill (CY) 

Man Hole (EA) 

....... . Excavation (CYl 

Bedding 6" (CY) 

Backfill (CY) 

Concrete (CY) 

6" to is··lsanliarysewer (LF) 

Excavation (CY) 

.. Bedding4'' (CY) 

Excavation (CY) 

. BeiicliiiiJi§···(cYt 

Backfill (CY) 

24" fo:io··lsanitarvsewe, (Lr= .. 

Excavation (CY) 

Bedding 6" (CYj 

Backfill (CY) 

33'' to42"[SanitarySewei(LF). 

Excavation (CY) 

Bedding6" (CY) 

el[aieraisan 

Excavation (CY) Bectdlng6'' (CY)' 

Backfill (CY) 

Man Hole SD (EA) I 15: 

Excavation (CY) i442 §a i 

lkrcford Inlet to Cape May Inh::t 
herefordtocapemayinfrastr _ 07 

Page 4 of20 

lfordOrd Inlet to Cape 11ay Inlet 
61ll071 44005, 

26 07] 18.62 

Hcr.:-ford Inkt to Cape May Inlet 5 
Catch Basin (EA) 

.. . Excavaffon (CYJ 

Bedding 6" (CY) 

. . . Backfiil(CY) 

he refordtocape mayinfrastr _ 07 

.:C.:._o:'.C::.,'...f"°".C.:.:ec:'::::":'ic:1;::-;rev,+--;,i,,;';;,,.-c,'~c;;+~~,iii,--,,isc;;;f--,;i~'s-

Backfill (CY) 33··1,iii2"ls10,mo,ain /Cf'j ..... , 

Excavation (CY) s.aa,nSJ.§'' /c'i'i 

Backfill (CY 

flum5erornund,ngs(N 

Number of FH (F) ryi,,caii:alerai!f'lj 

~lJ',:,CtJ,:1t1P1~J:~~ H~~L T 

lkreford Inlet to Cape l\.fay Inlet 

Page 6 of20 

6 
Hereford Int.:t to Cape May In!-ct 
Number of Buildings {NI 

Number ofFH (F) 

Typical Lateral (Ft) 

Typical Road Width (W 

Number of pipe sup po 

Iforeford Inlet to Cape \fay Inkt 

herefordtoca pemayinfrastr _ 07 

Page 8 of20 

8 
CE[IIK 

UtilityPole-(EA)-- iiil 1 102 61:i' al Electric (LF) -Taie,aiE1ec (LF) -

, _ _ _ 

1TeleehoneJLF) Lateral Tel (LF) 

Cable TV (LF) 

'Late,a1 cableTv_(_Li=J 

85' 

hf 

16286-

isis, 

16286 

1815 

lbi!::Sb 

1815 

68 

·fo2 

13702 

·12i36 

13702 

1260 

13702 

- 1260 

51 

6s" 

10319 

960! 

10319 

- 960! 

10319: 

96(f 

2 Gas (LF 864' 658 152 

Excav_at,o_n (CY) 227 6_: 17_3_3 __ 40! Bedding 4" (CY) 14.2: 10.8 2.5 Bedding 6" (CY)I 34_ 17: 31.21 20.06 

- - Backiill(CY)-- 4048.43' 3696.39 2376.2:f 

Backfill (CY) 

24''to30''lsanifa-iy~s_·e_w_-e_r~(L_F~j--~------~------~---

Excavation 

' sectiling il" 

Backfill (CY)I o: 01 

33" to 42" I sanitaiy sewer (CF) or d 

ExcavationJCY)I - Oj 01-- 

Bedding 6" (CY) 0: 0 

Backfill (CY)I Oi 

6[Laieraisari sew (LF) -- - 966 

Excavation (CY) 

-- sectd1ngi3·· (icc0Y-ft) -~~~--:.ni;-;it---,.---ii~~---rr----.:c-

Backfill (CY) 

Man H~l:c:f,,;;~~)(CYj1 --- -96f 

Bedding 6'' (CY)I 0.74 1 O 74! O 01 Oi 

Backfiff(CY) M.01: - ea.bf o· Page\!0120 o 

IkrdOrd Jnkt to Cape May lnh!t 
Hereford Inlet to Cape :>-lay Inlet 10 
Hero;;ford Inlet to Cape :-.fay In!d 11 
CELLl6 500 yr 200 y_r 100 yr 1 50 yr 20yr 

1----- · +uffffiyPoie<EAl - ·- t -- s2f - sat - 46r - 4-61- ··- <

f - 1~i~:!{D~hr(i(A)) - ...... t- ·--·- 4~i---·····- 4~1-· -··- 4~T ·- ·--···· 4~j- .. 4

·fl1~;:t~r:hLF) ... -· . · 1- 121~i ··-· .. 123~t ... ··· 12J hs~l ····-· H7~ 

,rn:f£i°t:il[~ -· + i27~i f23~t 121~ -nsif- Ht~

0 0 O' 0 0 

1275! ····· 1230 ···· 121s, --Has···· nto

577.6 530.9 520.61 515.4 510.3 

1s2.11-··139:s··· ··fat:( fas1 · 134.4

9.5 8.7 8.6 1 8.5 8.4 

12s.4 12i39 1 12s:Ei · 124-4

1230 -··· 121_!ji 11_85 _1170

324 320 312.1 308.1 

Bed~rikii;&EL 31J:1! 2~~l11 ··- :zsl~-i- iilM- :JN

•-·······--··-·--·,Man Hole (EA) 27f - -26 26 . .. 26 - 25

I I .. . Excavation (CY) 2597.37i 2501.17 2501.17 2501.17 2404.9

Bedding 6" (CY) 20.06, 19.31 19.31 19.31 18.57

Backfill (CY) 2376.251 2288.24 2288.24 2288.24 2200.23 

Concrete (CY) 100.54! 96.81 96.81 96.81 93.09 

6" to 1 S"tSanitary Sewer (LF)- - - 2746.91 - 2375.6 2173.3 2072.1 -----1976:1 

Excavation (CY) 1642.6' 1420.6 1299.6 1239.1 1181.7 

Bedcllng4"(CY) 93.3i 80.7 - -73.81 ___ 70'3 6T

Backfill (CY) 1424.5i 1232 1127.1 1024.8

T13"1o2F saniiarysewer(LFj - mu rn<i:t 4324.1 

Excavation (CY) 3694 3694 3694

sedc!liig13''/cY) ·-·· 173.5' ·· ··· 1'73.s ········ 173.5 

Backfill (CY) 3135.2: 3135.2 3135.2 1 3135.2 3135.

24" fo3o··lsanitarysewer<CFj ··· ----····· a' ··-··a·· a ····· · a ·-·-·--····· 

Excavation (CY) 01 0 0 0 O

sei1dlii9a··(c\i ·· - or · o a o 

........ ·-·········· .. ......... ElackfiU(C:Y) ....... 0 '. .. .... 0 .. O 

33" to 42" Sanitary Sewer (LF) O i O O

Hereford Inkt to Cape May Inkt 12 
Excavation _(_CY)I DI DI DI DI D

E3Eld~ffk~~;~~f· ······· · gJ·· ·· · g1 ··········gr · gf·· ··· ·· g

f.··· 

5

J1:.a1er§ISai!cta:a\1f~(CY)l 24W;1 ··231N~l ·······k~J~r. 22W~j .... jHg

Bed~f<lii;@~1 · rnlHf ·· i8~::¥i ··· 11iH T7~Hj Tt2l'~

1 

·· ....... +fv1§nHole~c~~?ion(CY)1 3559J~; . 34133~:l · 331313 i~, 33613JiJ 3313131~

I ........... + .. .. . F3.edir1t:,;·{g~l 32~H! i . 31 ~tm 3086:~~'. . 3()8();~ j .. 3080;~ 

I .......... ICatchBasin~~.Q.?te(fY)j 137,fH 1:34:nJ .. 13Q.3¥L 1303H 130'.3¥

.. Excavation (CY)J .. 1442.98] . 10581fJ/. 673.3fJj 673:391 · . 673,39

Bedding6"(CY)j 11.14! 8.17 5.2 5.2 5.2

Backfill (CY) 1320.141 968.1 616.07'. 616.07 616.07

· concrete <tYJ ss.s5r 46.96 26:or 2607 2i3.6

6''.to15+3tcmn[)ra~x~fJaiion(CYJ ;~~Hi· 1~¥H' .•. 1~~H .. JJ~

Bedding 4" (CY) 57.1' 56.1 55.3' 55 54.6

·sac1cr111(cn s11:9; · ·ss1fs · 845.4. · s39.9 ···· 834.

16': to 21 "!Storm Drat~fJation (CY) ! ... ~1~i:~ ..... ~6!~:! .... ~6~~:; ... ~;;~

-··· Bediri~;; igBt· . 6!~!;1· 6!!}:; t ... 6::n 6~;~Jt .. 68 r;~ 

24" to 30"JStorm Dra~x~fJation (CY)) . t :h ~i~~:; 

···· · ,...... Bedi:zkf~;;)g~j ···· 2loii: ·· s!;i:~1 ···· i · ·· 5~~;:: 

33"to<l2"J?torrn[)rai~tfJation(cY5t .......... 

g1. .. gf ......... g, ........ g 

.. E3edit&~;; lg~! ·.. ... . gr ..... ..... gt .. . .. .. . g, ............ g 

t · · ~j\/Vater(~F) Excavation (CY)/ ·· ~;~!J; ... im:;f .. ;m{ ..... ;rii; 

BejJ~fki;;f 201 ·· 2!%'.~J ···· 21!~:~/ · 2I6::1J ···· 1!8t~ 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 13 

~fiH

266.3

587

0 

Q

3334.2 

·1e938

1 HH
11 Lateral Water (LF) 

Excavation (CY) 

- secfrfini4'' <CYJ 

Backfill (CY) Paveriieiii .. <sFf ···· 

4 ft Sidewalk (SF) 1 

- -

1curiiiLF'> 

Number at" suildinils.<Nf 

Number of FH (F) 

Tyi:>Tca1 Laieral(Fi) 

Typical Road Width (W) 

fforcford Inkt to Cape 1fay Inld 

1275: 1230 12151 1185 1170

240~3~ -· 23?33 2295 2238.3 2210 

70.81 68.3 - 67.5 r -. /35.a -- ..... 6

1883.2: 1816.7 1794.5 1750.2 1728.

fa24aoT ... 9§000 ·- 864ooT 81600 -· i6aoo 

73601 6400 5760 5440 512

3680° 3200 2880° 2720 .... 2560

· a5r -·---·· a:z ·· --·-· .... jg·· _

81' 78

9· 9 

15 15 

36! 30 

14 
! l?~.n:ia_~~~-?I ~L!~-~! 19g Y.el~~-~":~.1:1( .. ; .. 

· Item Quanti!}'' ';~:;~zt~nf ---- l1~tti~/~r---

l1/2" x 6" L. SS bolts ·1twrst·straes··· 

·light poles 

, electric cable~220 V 

! public telephone 

- 'ie1eefioiiecai:iie 

T1s dia. SS pipe 

1f0f hi:lll-diclil-(568-SketCh) 

public telephone 

:te!e_e.hone Gabie 

:1.5" dia. SS pipe 

. for handrail ( see sketch) 

l3/8"diaX6''LSSbolts+ 4vvv;_ 

, (for handrail) 

l11i1i~r 

I plywood 1" thick I 126720 sf' 

Hereford Inlet to Cape t-.lay Inlet 15 
140800 sf' under concrete walkway_ 

28160ft, support beam for concrete walkway- new lumber is so

-------------------------------------,---------------------------------------,-----------------

of boardwalk decking. Damage is assumed to occur if wave

Hereford Inlet to Cape },..fay Inlet 16 
526

i 

: ! 

i :i : ! 

,_J I i I i 1 

: 

i ! ! 

i ! 

' : ! ! !i! ~ 

i I ! i i g ' 

! 

i i ~ ·~ ~! 

~ ! ' '' ~ §; 

i ' ' 0 

i I l-S N 

] " 1 ' il2 i 

i i I 1t ! ~~ μ I ! lj ii 

i 

_J__I···· I- '''~-' 0'' 

' i i t! i ! : ! i 

i I ' : 

! 

i i 1! 

1l lj 

1--l '"' ' ! 

' !~-' --~ Ii 

i j hi :5 

! i I ii] ' ~! ' ' ,_~ 

i ! ! • 

: ~ I ~-~- i1 ! i i ! 

g, 

i 

: 

i ! 

' ~ § ~g i;;;;I;; :e ~! ' i ! 1-~ 

I i 

i ~ ~ ":;; :1 

: ij ! i 

::.:;::;; 

! i - i ·-<O ,~ I ! ! ! ~ ~ ;:;:;1:;; " :;:; " 

i I-~ 

i&! i I : 

~~ : 

' : ! 

i i 

1:. ~ .:;;} ! i:;;;;i~ !~ ' C !t __ [ iO 

·~ ,,.,-L : ! : -····- -~~ ·:o ii ,~ ii i\c/' l:li :\J ,i: i 

IS: § ~1~ ~, ::iiiill~ 

ii :m 

1' ~ : ! 1--:-I~ ~; c 

* ~i 

I J i 

i 

1,:, ~ ~!~ ~: i 

!;'; ;';:~ 11 !I :1u !L ~ i"O 

~~· ~~ ~! -1i in : 

;~ iO 

iii !N:s, 

! -, r I '~ ~ gi € '" r;:~ ! :o := I ~ :! Ii ~£ !i : ,j i I 

1 f; -:~ I- II j~ 1! '" 1] i~ i1 jo ;;-! ] i i !(_ ~ ~~&! " 10 

"" J1 

: ! i l i 

l: 

!i : i: : • 

i 

i i I 

: 

i ! i 

lo ~! nl: ffi: ,~ ~t I 

c' '~ !jj {! ll 1 ~i I :; .E[ f'i"i'! 1 i;: 
527
+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

20 

-

15 10 

i' 

i 

i 0 

z 

-5 

-10 -15 

DESIGN SAND FILL 

ONSHORE VOLUME 

DESIGN BEACHFILL 

OFFSHORE VOLUME 

-

SEAWARD EDGE 

OF BERM 

TOP OF BERM +6.5 

MHW +1.35 

ADVANCED 

NOURISHMENT 

PORTION OF DESIGN 

OFFSHORE VOLUME 

Pl.ACED ONSHORE 

-20. -900 -BOO -700 -600 . -500 . -400 

lkrd'ord Inlet to Cape May Inlict 

DISTANCE FROM SURVEY BASELINE (FEE

}9 

HER

TYPICAL 
20 

g;i 15 

DESIGN SAND FlLL 

ONSHORE VOLUME - BORROW AREA 

VOLUME 

1 10 

8 5 

"'- 0 

-

5 

-10 

-15 

DISTANCE FROM SURVEY BASELINE 

NOTES: 

1. EXACT LIMrTS OF BORROW AREA MAY VARY FlROM THAT SHOWN HERE, BASED ON EXISTING 

BEACH CONDITIONS AND DREDGING EQUIPMENT SELECTED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 

2. CENTERLINE OF NEW DUNE IS LOCATED ALONG THE SEAWARD EDGE OF THE EXISTING DUNES 

IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE SAND VOLUME REQUIRED 

3. NEW DUNE VEGETATION IS NOT SHOWN. 

lkrcford Inlet to Cnpe r>.Iay Inlet 20 

HER

TYPIC
20, 

DESIGN SAND FILL 

ONSHORE VOLUME 

D

"' 15 

IU~ Ut UUNt tLtV. + 10 

; 10 EXISTING BEACH PROFILE (VARIES)--------..__ ..... TOP OF DESIGN 

':',-6EBM±§5 

MHW +1.35 . _J 75' 

z .MLW-=2..75- 

-5 

~10_. 

"'-15 

NOTES: 

1. CENTERLINE OF NEW DUNE IS LOCATED ALONG THE SEAWARD EDGE OF THE EXISTING DUNES IN ORDER T

2. NEW DUNE VEGETATION IS NOT SHOWN. 

f-kreford Inlet lo Cape May Inlet 21 
!iii,- :, e:;.:· :c" i CELL 1 

BORROW AREA 

NOTES: 

1. ALL EXISTING DUNE CROSSOVERS AND BEACH ACCESS POINTS W!Ll BE EXTENDED OV£R 

THE PROPOSED DUNE. SPREAD SHEET AVAILABLE Of LOCATIONS AND CROSSING TT'PE. 

2. SAND WILL BE PLAC£D ON THE SEAWARD SIDE OF ESTABLISHED DUNES. IN ORDER TO 

R~•,Pll!ll'~&'~~Sflle' 

-~ I --

PROPOS£D -

300

GRAPH!C SCAL~ 

( IN FEET) 

1 inch = 300 ft. 
I i • -~ igci~~s1~s 

BORROW AREA 

NO ITS: 

1. All EXISTING DUNE CROSSOVERS AND BEACH ACCESS POINTS Will BE EXTENDED MR 

THE PROPOSED DUNE. SPREAD SHEET AVAILABLE OF LOCAllONS AND CROSSING lYPE. 

2. SANO Will BE PLACED ON THE SEAWARD SIDE OF ESTABLISHED DUNES. IN OROER TO 

Ri!:MH'·),P~00t&~RE1SH1f1t 

OUTFAU. 

CELL 2 

300

GRAPH!C SCAL~ 

~- .J I 

--

( IN FEET ) 

1 inch = 300ft. 
REACH LIMIT OF EXCAVATOR 

BAS£D ON 2012 SliM'I' DATA 

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE _J 

BORROW AREA uw T \_N, 53082.39 

E: 403877.58 

NOTES: 

1. ALL EXISTING DUNE CROSSOVERS ANO BEACrl ACCESS POINTS Will BE EXTENDED 0\1£R 

TI-IE PROPOSED DUNE. SPREAD SHEET AVAILABLE OF LOCATIONS AND CROSSING TYPE. 

2. SANO Will BE PLACED ON THE SEAWARD SIDE OF ESTABLISHED DUNES. IN ORDER TO 

R~,,p~eS'Eo~AEICfM'it 

I --

300

GRAPH!C SCAl~ 

( IN FEET ) 

1 inch = 300ft. 
w 

z 

:::, 

:c 

w 

z 

:::, 

:c 

CELL 4 

REACH LIMIT OF EXrA.VATOR 

ON 2012 SURVEY DATA 

c:. 

X 

BORROW AREA 

NOTES: 

1. ALL EXISTING DUNE CROSSOVERS AND BEACH ACCESS POINTS Will BE EXTENDED MR 

THE PROPOSED DUNE. SPREAD SHEET AVAILABLE OF LOCATIONS AND CROSSING n'PE. 

2. SAND WILL BE PLACED ON THE SEAWARD SIDE OF ESTABUSHED DUNES. IN ORDER TO 

Ri!A©l·0'Plffll'OO!:&'REIG"1s' 

300

GRAPH!C SCAL~ 

-~ I 

--

( IN FEET ) 

1 inch = 300ft. 
LU 

T ::J 2 CELL 5 :c'" u '/) § ;;] 

BORROW AREA 

NOTES: 

1, ALL E:<!STING OLINE CROSSOVERS ANO BEACH ACCESS POINTS WILL BE EXTENDED OVER 

rHE PROPOSED DUNE. SPREAD SHEET AVAILABLE OF LOCATIONS AND CROSSING 1YPL 

2. SANO WILL BE PLACED ON THE SEAWARD SIDE OF ESTABLISHED DUNES. IN ORDER TO 

R~',PR0Pl!)S'£&~RE1Gfftft 

-~ I --

JOO GRAPHIC SCAl~ 

( IN FEET) 

1 inch = 300 ft 
OIJTfAll 

MLW 2012 

BORROW AREA LIMIT 

CELL 6 

BORROW AREA 

NQT[S: 

1. All EXISTING DUNE CROSSOVERS ANO BEACH ACCESS POINTS WILL BE EXTEND[[] OVER 

THE PROPOSED DUNE. SPREAD SHEET AVAILABLE OF LOCATIONS ANO CROSSING lYPE. 

2. SAND Will BE PLACED ON THE SEAWARD SIDE OF ESTABLISHED DUNES. IN ORDER TO 

R1A!Jlt•PAOP00tfl>'flflGl!T,• 

ROCH LIMIT Of EXCAVATOR 

BASED ON 2012 SUIMY DATA. 

O ,so .:,ooGRAPHIC SCAlb 

.... I I 

--

( IN FEET) 

1 inch 300ft. 
537

Section 6 

Construction Procedures and Water Control Plan 

The specific method of construction to be used by the contractor is not specified beforehand in the 

contract specification. T11e contractor will be instructed to back-pass the sand hydraulically from the 

borrow area to the placement area, but may chose other method to mobilize the material from the borrow 

area. However, based on the infonnation provide in the feasibility study, the contractor \vill likely use a 

mobile crane with an educator or centrifugal pump to mobilize the sand, and series of booster pumps to 

transport the sand to the placement site. this pipeline will run north south along the beach, likely above 

the mean high water line on the beach/berm. 

T11e contractor will likely use excavators, bulldozers, and frontend loaders to maneuver the sand around 

the placement site to get the dune to the design specifications. The discharge pipe will be smaller than 

traditional 30" pipe used in other projects, and likely be 8" hgh density polyethylene pipe (HOPE) that 

will be maneuvered by front end loaders with grapple anns. Miscellaneous equipment to be stored on the 

beach will include a light tower, fuel tank with containment, welding machine, a temporary shelter for 

constmction personal and a site trailer. Upland staging areas will be provided for constmction field 

offices, temporary storage during construction. 

Water quality monitoring is described in the environmental section of the main report. 
538

Section 7 

Initial Reservoir Filling and Surveillance Plan 

NIA 
539

Section 8 

Storm Emergency Plan 

An emergency plan, New Jersey Hurricane Evacuation Study, \Vas created in 2007 for the Federal 

Emergency Management Association, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Philadelphia 

District of the Army Corp of Engineers. A copy of the report can be found at the website below. 

http://www.state.nj.us/njoern/plan/pdf/maps/hurrevacution studv.pdf 
540

Section 9 

Construction Materials 

The beachfill material is from an onshore beach borrow source and is fully compatible with the existing 

beach sand. The dredged material is clean beach sand and chemical contamination is not an issue with 

this type of material . Vehicular crossovers and pedestrian crossovers will be constrncted with pressure 

treated pine lumber and 1-5 type gravel will likely be used as a base material for their constrnction. This 

base material will be trncked in from an outside source. 
541

Section 10 

Reservoir Clearing 

N/A 
542

Section 11 

Operation and Maintenance 

Operation, Maintenance, repair, replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the completed 

initial beachfill project is a non Federal Responsibility. The non-Federal sponsor will be 

furnished with an OMRR&R manual to assist them I carrying out their obligations under ER 

1110-2-2902. Some items considered as the non Federal sponsor's responsibility include dune 

grass and sand fence, dune crossovers, and some of the project monitoring. Periodic 

nourishment of the project is expected to occur every 4 years subsequent to the completion of the 

intial construction and as part of continuing construction, will be a Federal non-Federal cost 

share responsibility, 
543

Section 12 

Access Roads 

Most of the work in conjunction with this project will be done in the nearshore. The required 

equipment will be transported to the project site via local roads in accordance with state and local 

regulations including a traffic control plan. Exact contractor acess to the beach will be 

coordinated in the Real Estate plan with the location of Temporary Work Are Easements and 

contractor lay down areas, and further refined in the plans and specifications. 
544

Section 13 

Corrosion Mitigation 

NIA 
545

Section 14 

Project Security 

Initial Construction and periodic Nourishment of the project wil lnecessatatea temporary 

restrictive closure of a 1,000' -2,000'section of beach as filling operation move along the beach. 

Sand ramps over the dredge pipe on the beach will be provided at public acess points during 

construction. 

For security and public safety, temporary fencing along with signage will be required around 

work areas. Contractor personnel will be required to insure security and public safety. 

Navigation will not impacted by the submerged pipeline and the coast guard will issue a standard 

notification to mariners. The District addresses project security and public acess in more detail 

during the Plans and Specs phase. 
546

Section 15 

Cost Engineering Appendix 
-• TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY•-• 

PROJECT New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

PROJECT NO P2 109882 

LOCATION Wildwood, NorthWildwoodandWildwoOOCrest NJ 

This Estimate reflects the srope and schedule in report, Draft Final Feas1b11ity Study 

Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure ESTIMATEO COST 

WBS CIVIi Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC 

NUMBER ..£!SL ..£!SL .Jl!!L ..£!SL .Jl!!L 

A C D E F G 

02 RELOCATIONS so so so 04 DAMS so $0 - so 05 LOCKS so $0 $0 06 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES so so - so 

17 BEACH REPLENISHMENT - IN!TIAL S13,674 S3,432 25.1% S17 106 0.0% 

CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $13.674 S3,<132 S17 106 0.0"/o 

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES S1.019 $254 25% $1,273 00% 

30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DES!GN $1,617 $243 15% 51,860 00% 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1.188 $178 15% S1 366 00% 

PROJECT COST TOTALS: $17,498 $4.107 23% $21,605 

------------ACTING CHIEF, COST ENGINEERING, HARRY P STEINER 

PROJECT MANAGER, BRIAN P BOGLE 

CHIEF, REAL ESTATE CRAIG R HOLMESLEY CHIEF PLANNING, PETER R. BLUM 

CHIEF, ENGINEERING. PETER M TRANCHIK 

------------ CHIEF OP, XXX 

CHIEF, CONSTRUCTION, CHRISTINE D CLAPP 

------------ CHIEF, CONTRACTING KISHA YRA J LAMBERT 

CHIEF, DP-CW, FRANK R MASTER 

CHIEF, OPM, NATHAN C. BARCOMB 

Filename HEREFORD~FEAS_Non-CAP _TPCS Mar2014 Rev Oi-2014May14xlsx 

Tab, TPCS TPCS 1 

PROJEC

(Consta

Program Year (B

Effective Pnce 

CCST CNTG 

..£!SL ..£!SL 

H I 

so so 

$0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 

$13,674 53,432 

-------

$13,674 $3,432 

$1,019 S254 

Si,617 $243 

$1,188 $178 

$17,498 84,107 
-• TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY·-• 

"""" CONTRACT COST SUMMARY"""'' 

PROJECT New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

LOCATION Wildwood, North Wildwood and Wildwood Crest, NJ 

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule 1n report, Draft Fmal Feasibility Study 

Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure ESTIMATED COST 

5/20/2014 

3/112014 

RISK BASED 

WBS C1v1I Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL 

NUMBER Feature & Sub.Feature Descr1t;1tion .J§!2_ .J§!2_ ___[fil_ .J§!2_ 

A B C D E F 

PHASE 1 

02 RELOCATIONS SD $0 0% $0 04 DAMS so $0 0% $0 05 LOCKS so $0 0% $0 06 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES $0 so 0% so 

17 BEACH REPLENISHMENT - IN!TIAL 813,674 $3,432 251% $17 106 

--------------

CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $13 674 S3,432 25% $17,106 

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES S1,019 $254 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN 

23% Project Management $310 $47 

31% Plannmg & Env1ronmerrtal Compliance $420 $63 

36% Engineering & Design $487 $73 

04% ReVl€',1'/S, A TRs, IEPRs, VE $51 $8 

0.5% Life Cycle Updates (cost, schedule, nsks) S68 $10 

11% Contracting & Reprograph1os $154 S23 

0.9% Engineering During Construction $127 $19 

0.0% Planning Dunng Construction so $0 00% ProiectOperations $0 $0 

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 

87% Construction Management S1.188 S178 

00% ProJectOperahon $0 $0 

DO% ProJect Management so $0 

Filename HEREFORDJEAS_Non-CAP _TPCS Mar2014 Rev 01-2014May14 xlsx 

Tab TPCS 

25% S1.273 

15% S357 15% $483 

15% S560 15% $59 15% '79 15% S177 15% $146 15% $0 15% $0 15% $1,366 15% so 

i5% so 

PROJECT FIRST COST 

(Constant Dollar Basis) 

ESC COST CNTG 

___[fil_ ..1filSL .J§!2_ 

G H I 

00% $0 so 

0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 

00% $0 so 00% $13,674 $3,432 

so 

-------

S13,674 $3,432 

00% 51,019 S254 00% $310 S47 00% S420 $63 00% S487 $73 00% $51 $0 00% $68 S10 00% $154 $23 00% S127 S19 

0.0% $0 so 

00% so so 00% SU88 S178 00% $0 $0 

0.0% so so 

TPCS2 
WBS ESIIMATED COST PROJECT FIR

Civil \\'orks \VBS Risk Based Program Pticc L:wl D

.Feature Description COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST 

($K) (SK) (O/o) ($K) (O/o) (SK) 

RELOCATIONS RESERVOIRS 

4 DAMS 

5 LOCKS 

6 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES 

7 POWERPLAN 

8 ROADS RAILROADS & BRIDGES 

9 CHANNELS & CANALS 

JO BREAKWATER & SEAWALLS 

11 LEVEES & FLOODWALLS 

12 NAVIGATION PORTS & HARBORS 

13 PUMPING PLANT 

14 RECREATION FACILITIES 

l 5 FLOODW A Y CONTROL & DIVERSION STRUCTURE 

16 BANK STABILIZATION 

17 BEACH REPLENISHMENT I 55,173 16,556 30.01% 71,7301 0.00% 55,173 

18 CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION 

19 BUILDINGS GROUNDS & UTILITIES 

20 PERMANENT OPERATING EQUIPMENT 

30 PLANNING ENGINEERING and DESIGN 

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 

99 OMRR&R 5,779 1,721 29.78% 7,500 0.00~/o 5,779 

Operation Maintenance Repair Replacement 

Estimated Total 

TPCS - 3 
~'E..,UURE 

17 Beach Replenishment 

PN 

PN 

PN 

1,,, 

11 

12 

PN 

PN 

21 

MR PN PN PN PN 40 

41 

42 

PN -14 

45 

-l6 

47 

PN 

2014.UO 

Estimated Pnce Leve! Jan-Mar/ 2014 

2Q 2014 

4,231 1,062 1()% 

117 29 JO'),o 

73 18 10% 73 18 10% 

31 1,062 25.!0% 

117 29 2510% 

73 18 10'),o 

69 21 31 

-1,223 1,309 3100% 

111 3J(JU% 

69 21 310{)% 69 3100% 

1,3()9 310()% 

111 35 O/J% 

69 21 3!.00% 69 21 3100% 

-l,223 1,309 3100% 

111 35 3! 00°10 

69 21 3100% 69 21 31.00'}o 

5,394 1,672 3100% 

111 310{)'),o 

69 21 31.00% 

21 3100% 

4,223 U09 31.00% 

lll 35 3UXl% 

69 00%i 

69 3100% 

-+,223 l,309 3100% 

111 35 3l(U)% 

69 21 3100% 69 21 31()0% 

4,223 1,309 3100% 

111 35 3100% 

3100%) 

21 00% 

4,223 l,309 31.00% 

111 3100% 

69 21 310mo 69 21 3100% 

4,223 l,309 3100% 

111 35 3100% 

ti9 21 

69 

5.293 

146 

91 

91 

146 

91 91 

1-16 

91 91 

140 

\Jl 

91 

!46 

91 

()j 

7,066 

146 

91 91 

!46 

91 91 

14-0 

91 91 

146 

91 91 

146 

91 91 

146 

2()

Programmed Levd J,m-:vl

2Q 20

000% 4,23! 000% 117 

(J.00% 73 oooa,o 73 

().()0% 4,23! 

000% 117 

000% 73 

{)00% 69 

()(HJ% -.1-,223 

OU/J% 111 

()!)()% 69 

000% 69 

()()!)'),·() l

()00% 111 

().{)()% 69 

{)0!)% 69 

000% 000% 111 

OUO'l-o 69 

0.0fFo 69 

OO(f'A, 5,394 

OU0%, 111 

I] ()!)~,., 69 

000%, 69 

!)(){)% 4,223 

000% JJJ 000% 69 

000°,f. 69 

noo% 4,223 

000% Ill 000% 69 

00()% 69 00U% 4,223 

\JO!f\& 111 

000% 69 

Ono% 69 

000% 4,223 000% 111 000% 69 000% 69 

\){)()% 4,223 

000% 111 

TPC
2014.00 

IEstimakd Pnce Lew! I Progrnrnmed L<cvd 

Jan-\far- 2014 

PN 

P"K 

'1R 

PN PK PK 

p~ 

17~ O\Illli&R 

17 

_ OJ\ JRR&R 

Fenture Bemg l;SED 
201400 

Estrmc1kd Prwc Level ,fan-Mar/ 2014 Programmed Leve

2()2014 

COST CNTG C'.'HG TOL\L ESC COST 

(SK) ~K) (%) (SK) ('%) (SK) 

IJ.00% 

() 15U0% () 1)0()% 

3 150!)0,c, () OJJ0'% 

PN 4 33 150()% 255 ll00% 

() 1500% () 000% 

6 () 1500% () IJ00%, 

0 1500% () 000% 

15(11)% 000% 

() 1501)% 000% 

10 0 1500% 0.!)0% II 0 000% 

PN 12 33 151)1)%, 255 0/)()%, 

13 1500% 0 000% 

14 0 1500% 0.00'% 

15 0 1500%, u 000% 

p;-,c 16 J50U%, 255 000% 22

17 () 1500% () 00()% 

18 0 1500% () 000%, 

19 0 15()()% 0 {)/l(J% 

2U 33 15(10% 25'.i 000% 22

u 1501)% (JOO% 

I) 1500% 000% 

2' 15(10%, 0 000% 

},JR 24 265 40 1511()0,1) )04 1)(1()% 26

25 0 1500')-o ().00% 

PN 281 1500% 2s51 I)!)/)~,,, 

1500% 0 {)00% 

() \5(]0% () ()/)1)% 

0 1500% () 000% 

33 ! 5 1)1)~ 0 25') 1)00% m 

P:'/ 361 33 1500% 2551 0(1()% 

0'1 ,01 33 1500'!1,, 25,1 {)/J/)% 

41 

43 

:1 33 1500% 2551 (J.0\)% 

1500% () 000%, 

46 47 

P'I 4si 222 33 1500% 2551 0.00%, 2:::
Estcmatcd Pnce Lcvc!.faa-'1ac I 201' . I Programmed l~ve

2Q2014 

FEA1T.lm YEAR I COST C'.1:'TG C'.'sTG TOT-\L ESC COST 

($K) 

PN 

{I 

540 81 1500% 62,11 000% 54

u 15UO% 0 000% 

0 1500% () 00{)% 0 l5UI)% 0 1)00% 

PN 540 8l 1501)% 62,1 000% 541

9 

10 

11 

PN 

121 

540 

13 10 15 0 l50U0,o (JI 000% 

PN 16 541) 81 J5UO% 62(1 {J/)1)% 5~

17 18 

PN 191 20 540 81 1500% 6201 (//)()%, 541

2)1 1500% 01 1)00% 

]\JR 24 666 JOO 1500% 766 00()% 66

25 1501J'% () 1)00%, 

PN 2sl 540 81 1500% 6201 000% 5-!-

p)f 321 54U 81 15U0°o 62111 000% 54

540 81 1500% 6201 OU0% 54

401 5"0 81 15 01)~,o 6201 0011% 54141 0 15.()0% 0 000% 42 43 

Ml 

541) 81 1500% 

6201 

1)()()% 541

45 ]5(1()%, 0 000% 

4{) 150U% 0 U00% 

47 I) 15 00~ 0 (J 000% 

p~ 48 540 81 15.U0% 620 1)00%, 5~
554

Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ Shore Protection Study 

SECTION 15 - COST ESTIMATE 

Paragraph 

2 

3 

11 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Description 

Introduction 

INITIAL PROJECT CHARGES USING MOBILE HYDRAULIC 

SAND BACK-PASSING FOR BEACH FILL 

General 

Basis of Cost 

Alternatives Considered 

Renourishment Interval Optimization 

Total First Cost for Selected Plan 

ANNUAL CHARGES FOR THE SELECTED PLAN 

General 

Periodic Nourishment 

Major Replacement Costs 

OMRR&R Costs 

Monitoring Costs 

3 

3 

3 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

CONTINGENCCES, PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING & DESIGN, AND 

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FOR THE SELECTED PLAN 

20 

21 

22 

Contingencies 

Preconstruction Engineering & Design 

Construction Management 

6 

6 

6 

CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR THE SELECTED PLAN 

23 

2A thru 2N 

3 

4 

5 

General 

LIST OF TABLES USING MOBILE HYDRAULIC SAND 

BACK-PASSING FOR BEACH FILL 

Description 

Total First Cost - Selected Plan 

Total First Cost - Plans A thru N 

Periodic Nourishment Cost (Years 4 and 8) 

Periodic Nourishment Cost (Years 12 thru 48) 

Major Replacement Cost (Year 24) 

7 

8 

9 - 22 

23 

24 

25 
555

No. Description Page 

6 Construction Schedule 26 

7 Project Schedule 27 

Paragraph Description Page 

INITIAL PROJECT CHARGES USING HOPPER DREDGING FOR BEACH FILL 

24 General 46 

25 Basis of Cost 46 

32 Alternatives Considered 47 

34 Renourishment Interval Optimization 47 

35 Total First Cost for Selected Plan 47 

LIST OF TABLES USING HOPPER DREDGING FOR BEACH FILL 

Description 

SA thru SN Total First Cost - Plans A thru N 48 - 61 

2 
556

SECTION 15 - COST ESTIMATE 

I. Introduction: Two separate beach fill methods were considered for this project: mobile 

hydraulic sand back-passing and hopper dredging. Mobile hydraulic sand back passing will be 

discussed first followed by hopper dredging 

INITIAL PROJECT CHARGES USING MOBILE HYDRAULIC 

SAND BACK-PASSING FOR BEACH FILL 

2. General: This section presents detailed cost estimates for initial construction, nourishment, 

maintenance, monitoring and major replacement resulting in total and annualized project costs 

for alternative storm damage reduction plans for mobile hydraulic sand back-passing. The fifteen 

alternative plans developed for mobile hydraulic sand back-passing include: 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

0 

Description 

115' wide berm with+ 12' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

95' wide berm with +14' NAVO dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

75' wide berm with+ 16' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

140' wide berm with+ 12' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

120' wide berm with+ 14' NAVO dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

100' wide berm with+ 16' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

165' wide berm with+ 12' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

145' wide berm with+ 14' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

125' wide benn with+ 16' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

80' wide berm with+ 18' NAVO dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

105' wide berm with+ 18' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

85' wide berm with +20' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

11 O' wide berm with +20' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

160' wide berm with +20' NAVO dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

No action 

The top of the berm is at an elevation of +6.5' NA VD and extends from 2nd Avenue in North 

Wildwood to Juniper Avenue in Wildwood. The dune for each alternative has I on 5 side slopes 

and a top width of25'. The dune extends the same distance as the berm. The initial construction 

for each of the above plans includes design and advanced nourishment beach fill. Also included 

are provisions for periodic nourishment, beach profile and environmental monitoring, and major 

replacement to restore the design beach profile damaged by significant storm events beyond that 

designed for in the nourishment cycle quantity. The plan layout of the NED plan with typical 

improved beach sections is shown in the section of the Feasibility Study, Main Report describing 

the NED Plan. 

3. Basis of Cost: Cost estimates presented herein for the Cycle 3 analysis are based on June 2007 

price levels. Initial beach fill costs are based on beach surveys taken in October 2003. The unit 

prices were developed in accordance with the construction procedures outlined herein. All initial 

construction, nourishment costs, and major replacement costs presented in this appendix are 

NED costs. 

3 
557

4. lnitial fill costs are based on the assumption that mobile hydraulic sand back-passing was used 

for placement of the beach fill. Approximately 975,000 C.Y. of beach fill from onshore borrow 

area WW/WC was placed in Cells l and 2. The average pumping distance for the initial beach 

fill uses an average pipeline length of 14,667 L.F. A 150 hp electric submersible agitator dredge 

pump would be suspended from a crawler crane with a minimum 100' boom. A 300 kW 

generator would be mounted on the back of the crane to power the dredge pump. Sand up to 50% 

solids by weight, to be transferred through l 0-inch gum tube-lined dredge hose to 12-inch HDPE 

pipe on the beach. Diesel engine, skid mounted booster pumps would be placed every 5,000 feet 

to transfer the sand slurry to the outlet location where the beach fill would take place. 

Horsepower for each booster is 400 hp. Instrumentation including magnetic flow meters would 

provide flow rates and production numbers. A 350 C.Y. per hour production rate was used for 

cost estimating purposes and is based on the Sand Bypass Plant, Indian River Inlet, Delaware 

Coast Protection job constructed by NAP in 1989 and operated by Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DENREC). 

5. Periodic nourishment fill costs are based on the assumption that mobile hydraulic sand backpassing was used for placement of the beach fill. Approximately 366,000 C.Y. of beach fill 

material from onshore borrow area WW /WC was placed in Cells I and 2. The average pumping 

distance for the nourishment cycle uses an average pipeline length of 14,667 L.F. The placement 

of this material will follow the constructability outlines in paragraph 4. 

6. Mobilization and demobilization costs are based on the assumption that beach filling 

equipment located within 250 miles from the project site will perform the work. Mobilization 

and demobilization costs also include subcontractor mob and demob. Construction access would 

be by local streets. The locations of the borrow areas are displayed in the section of the 

Feasibility Study, Main Report describing the NED Plan. 

7. Real estate costs for the fifteen alternatives included in the Cycle 3 screening were not 

included since they are expected to be minimal as most of the land is a public beach owned by 

the sponsor. Real estate costs as shown in Table I are included as NED costs and reflect 

acquisition of easements on private beach and include surveys, appraisal, and administrative 

costs between the limits of beach filling. For more information refer to the Real Estate Appendix. 

8. Environmental monitoring costs for the fifteen alternatives included in the Cycle 3 screening 

were not included since they are dependent on the EA document and that document was not 

finalized at the time of the Cycle 3 screening. 

9. Construction Management costs for the fifteen alternatives included in the Cycle 3 screening 

were included as a percent of the construction cost and is based on ER415-l-16, Table E-1. A 15 

percent contingency has been included in S&A costs. 

10. Contingency allowances used for the fifteen alternatives included in the Cycle 3 screening 

were 15 percent for the beach fill work and 12 percent for the mobilization and demobilization 

work and is based on EMl 110-2-1301, Appendix C. 

11. Alternatives Considered: Alternative plans were developed in two phases for the plan 

selection process. In the first phase the alternative plans were compared during the Cycle 1 and 

Cycle 2 screening process. For more information on these plans, refer to the section of the 

4 
558

Feasibility Study, Main Report describing the NED Plan. Based on an analysis of these annual 

costs with their associated benefits, the beach restoration only plan was selected for the second 

phase for final plan optimization and selection. 

12. The costs for the fifteen alternatives as described in paragraph 2 for this second phase of plan 

selection are shown in Tables 2A thru 2N. 

13. Renourishment Interval Optimization: For more information on the renourishment interval 

optimization that selected the 4-year cycle, refer to the section of the Feasibility Study, Main 

Report describing the NED plan. 

14. Total First Cost for Selected Plan: The estimated project first cost is for the selected plan - a 

dune and berm constructed using 1,007,250 CY of sand obtained from onshore borrow area 

WW/WC located on the beach in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. A+ 16' NAVD high dune with 

a top width of25' on a 75' wide berm that is 6.5' NAVD high would be constructed from North 

Wildwood to the northern border of Wildwood and is based on a selected nourishment cycle of 4 

years. In Wildwood and Wildwood Crest, the project will consist of placing 520,000 CY of 

beach fill to construct a+ 16' NA VD high dune and raising the elevation of the existing berm to 

6.5' NA VD. Side slopes for the dunes will be 1 on 5. The average pumping distance for the 

initial beach fill uses an average pipeline length of 15,600 L.F. [n Wildwood and Wildwood 

Crest, the average pipeline length is 1,000 L.F. Also included is the placement of 64 acres of 

dune grass, 28,000 L.F of sand fence, extending 44 existing pedestrian crossovers, 7 new 

pedestrian crossovers, extending 7 existing handicap crossovers, 6 new handicap crossovers, 

extending 8 existing vehicle crossovers and 5 new vehicle crossovers. It was assumed that beach 

filling work would be performed by an earth moving contractor and the work for installing the 

dune appurtenances performed by a subcontractor. NED real estate acquisition costs and 

pertinent contingency, engineering and design and construction management costs are also 

included. Details of the initial construction cost estimate are shown in Table I. 

ANNUAL CHARGES FOR THE SELECTED PLAN 

15. General: The estimate of annual charges for the selected plan is based on an economic 

project life of 50 years, an interest rate of 3 .50% and a March 2014 price level. The annual 

charges include annualized first cost and interest during construction, the annualized periodic 

nourishment costs, post construction monitoring costs, and OMRR&R costs. It is noted that 

interest during construction was developed for the first cost of the project constructed over a 

nine-month period. For the selected plan, the total annualized cost is $2,688,000. 

16. Periodic Nourishment: The periodic nourishment volume to be placed at 4 year cycles, 

subsequent to commencement of construction and throughout the 50 year economic life is 

391,250 C.Y. from onshore borrow area WW /WC. Mobile hydraulic back-passing was used for 

placement of the beach fill. This volume includes overfill and tolerance. The placement of this 

material will follow the constructability outlines in paragraph 4. For more details on the 

development of the periodic nourishment quantity refer to the section of the Feasibility Study, 

Main Report describing the NED Plan. The borrow area for periodic nourishment are also shown 

in the section of the Feasibility Study, Main Report describing the NED Plan. Periodic 

nourishment costs for the selected cycle are shown in Tables 3 and 4. 

5 
559

l 7. Major Replacement Costs: Major replacement costs are included as an additional cost for 

significant storm events beyond that designed for in the selected nourishment cycle to restore the 

design profile. The major replacement losses are computed as the losses that would occur from 

the 50% risk event over the project life. For more detail on the development of the major 

replacement quantity, refer to the section of the Feasibility Study, Main Report describing the 

NED Plan. Major replacement costs are shown in Table 5. 

18. OMRR&R Costs: OMRR&R costs for the selected plan were estimated to be $150,000 

annually and cover maintenance of the beaches, dune grass, sand fencing, dune crossovers and 

some project monitoring. 

19. Monitoring Costs: Post construction monitoring costs include coastal and environmental 

monitoring over the 50-year project life. Average annualized monitoring costs are $140,000. 

CONTINGENCIES, PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING & DESIGN, AND 

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FOR THE SELECTED PLAN 

20. Contingencies: The estimated cost for each major subdivision or feature of the recommended 

project includes an item for "contingencies". The item for "contingencies" is an allowance 

against some adverse or unanticipated condition not susceptible to exact evaluation from the data 

at hand but which must be expressed or represented in the cost estimate. The contingency 

allowances used in the development of the cost estimate for the selected project were estimated 

as an appropriate percentage using Crystal Ball software for preparing risk analysis. 25. l percent 

was applied to beach placement work for years Oto 10 and 31 percent was applied to beach 

placement work for years 11 to 50 to account for concerns about pumping distances and borrow 

area selection, and to account for larger required beach fill quantities at the time of construction 

due to future preconstruction erosion, concerns about availability of pumping equipment, 

variances in the travel distance for the pump plant, and for increases in labor and fuel prices. 

21. Preconstruction Engineering & Design (P, E & D): Preconstruction Engineering and Design 

costs include local cooperative agreements, environmental and regulatory activities, general 

design memorandum, preparation of plans and specifications, engineering during construction, 

A/E liability actions, cost engineering, construction and supply contract award activities, project 

management, and the development of the PCA. P, E & D costs were estimated as lump sums of 

$1,859,894 for the initial beach fill construction, $254,877 for the nourishment cycle, and 

$304,402 for the major replacement and are based on similar Corps of Engineers projects of the 

same magnitude and include 0.5% of construction costs to cover NAD labor requirements. A 

contingency factor of 15% is included in the P, E & D costs. 

22. Construction Management (S&A): Construction Management costs include contract 

administration, review of shop drawings, inspection and quality assurance, project office 

operation, contractor initiated claims and litigations, and government initiated claims and 

litigations. S&A related costs were estimated as lump sums of $1,366,020 for the initial beach 

fill construction, $620,485 for the nourishment cycle, and $765,577 for the major replacement 

and were based on similar Corps of Engineers projects of the same magnitude. A contingency 

factor of 15% was included in all S&A costs. 

6 
560

CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR THE SELECTED PLAN 

23. General: The construction and project schedules of the selected plan are shown in Tables 6 

and 7 of this Engineering Technical Appendix. The schedule is based on the timeliness of the 

report's approval and allocation of funds by Congress, the foregoing construction procedures, 

and the ability oflocal interests to implement the necessary items of local cooperation. 

7 
561

T..ih!(, 1 - Tot.ti First Cost- Selcckd Pl.to 

Pl,m C(75' Berm w/ 16' NAVD Dun0 using4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT 

NU MR.ER 

OL 

DFSCRJPTJON OF tTEM 

L1nds ,1nd D,nn<1ges 

17. Beach Replenislrnwnt 

17.01 

17.70 

!7.99 

30. 

31. 

Notes: 

Mohilization, D<>mob. And Prepar<1tory Work 

Bea(.h Fill 

Associated GPtwrnl ltems 

Tol<1l BPach Heplenishmenl 

Planning, Engineering a11Ci Design (P,E & D) 

Constrnclion M,m.igernenl (5 & A) 

Tot,11 Projt>ct t'irst Cost 

(Rounded) 

Heachfill quantity indudPs 4 yr. nourishment ("yde. 

QUANTtTY UOM 

l Job 

job 

Joh 

1 Joh 

1 Job 

1 Joh 

8 

UNIT 

PRICE 

LS 

LS 

LS 

LS 

IS 

LS 

ESTTMAT.ED 

AMOUNT 

51,018,972 

51,026,656 

$9,883,656 

$2,763,564 

S13,673,876 

$1,617,299 

$1,187,843 

$17,--1,97,990 

$17A98,000 

Price I.evel: M.ir 14 

Construction duration: 9-months 

CONTlNGl''.N( ·y TOTALC\)ST 

@25.0%1 

$254,539 S!,273,511 

@25.1% 

S:257,691 $1,284,-146 

S2,--l,80,798 Sl2,:1MA.54 

S--,93,655 $3,457,219 

$3,432,143 S17,l06,019 

@15.0% 

$242,595 Sl,859,89--l 

$178,177 $1,366,020 

S4,l07,453 $2L605,4--!4 

$1,107,000 $21,605,000 
562

Table 2.A- Total Fir..t Cost Prke Level: Jun 07 

Pl.m A (115' Benn w / 12' NA VD Dune using 4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

NUMBER PR[CE AMOUNT 

01. L,mds and Damages 1 job LS so $0 $0 

17. Beach ReplC'nishmeni 

M0Nliz<1.tion, Demob. And Preparatory Work 1 job IS $426,853 $51,222 $478,075 

Beach Fill 

Site Work- Cells 1 and 1 

Excavation/Pmnping Sand 879,000 CY $6.66 SS,852,382 $877,857 $6,730,239 

Survey Creiv @ Borrow Are.1 D 5.71 Mo. $144,980 >827,836 $124,175 S952,0ll 

Survey Crew Xii Be1·m w / Dune 5.71 Mo. &87,471 $499,459 $74,919 $574,378 

Grading@ Benn w / Dune 5.71 Mo. $128,172 $731,862 $109,779 $841.641 

Site Scrnrity 5.72 Mo. $6,572 517 r560 $5,634 $43,194 

Night Lighting 5.71 Mo. $47,044 $268,668 $40,300 $308,969 

Total BP,Kh Replact•mcnt $8,644,620 $1,283,887 $9,928,508 

30. Planning, EnginPE>ring and l)esign (P,E & D) 1 job LS $1,000,000 $150,000 51,150,000 

31. Construction Management (5 & A 1I1! 8.60%) 1 Job LS 

Tol,11 Project First Cost 

(Rounded) $10"388,000 $1,545,000 $11,933,000 

NotE>s: 

BE><Kh fill quantity includes 4 yr. nourislunent cyde. 

9 
563

Table 2B - Total First Cost Price Lf'vf'l: Jun 07 

Plan B (95' Berni w / 14' NAVD Dunf' using4 Yr. Cyde) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF HEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

01. Litnds and D<Uuages l Joh LS so !i) $0 

17. Beach Replenishment 

Mobilization, Demob. And Prepar,1tory Work Job LS $444,860 $53,383 $498,243 

Beach Fill 

Site Work- Cells 1 and 2 

Exc,1va ti.on/ Pumping Sand 922,000 CY $6.66 $6,145.038 $921,756 $7,066,793 

Survey Crew @ Borrmv AJ'.'('a D 5.99 Mo. $144,980 $869,025 $130,354 $999,,78 

Survey Crew@ Berm w / Dunc 559 Mo. $87,471 $524,3111 $78,645 $6112,946 

Gmding @ Bem1 w / Dune 5,99 Mo. S128J72 $767,750 5115,163 $882,913 

Silf'~ecuritv 5.99 Mo. $6,832 $411,944 $6,142 $47,086 

Nigh! Ughfing 5.99 Mo. $47,04-1 $281,982 $42,297 $324,279 

Total Beach Rep1wernenl $9,073,900 Sl,'47,739 $10,421,639 

30. Planning, Engineeiing and Design (P,E & D) 1 Job LS $1,000,000 £150,000 $1,150,000 

31. Construction :Management (S & A@ 8.23%) l Job 15 £746,782 $112,017 $858,799 

Total Project First Cost $[0,820,682 $1,609,756 $12,430,438 

(Rounded) $10,821,000 $1,610,000 $12,430,000 

Notes: 

Be,tch fill quantity indudes 4 yr. nourishmPnt cydc< 

10 
564

Table 2C - Total First Cost Price Level: Jun 07 

Plan C (75' Berm w / 16' NA VD Dune using 4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

01. Lands ,md D,nuages Job !S $0 $0 $0 

17. Beach Replenishment 

Mobilization, Demob. And Prep,m1tory Work Job LS $467,073 $56,049 $523,122 

Be.i.ch Fill 

Site Work- Cell'> land 2 

ExcaY.llion/Purnping Sand 975,000 CY S6.66 56,498,083 $974,712 $7,472,795 

Sunrey Crew@ Borrow Area D 6.34 Mo. $144,980 $9[9,6118 $137,941 $1.057,549 

Bermw/ Dune 6.34 Mo. ~7,471 $554,829 $83,224 $638,053 

BPrmw/ Dune 6.34 Mo. $128,172 5812,610 Sl2L892 $934,502 

Site Securitv 6.34 Mo. 56,572 S'll,686 .56,253 $47,939 

Night Lighting 6.34 Mo. $47,044 $298,259 $H739 $342,998 

Tot,ll Beach Replacement $9,592,148 Sl,424,810 $11,016,9:::,8 

30. Planning. Engineering c1nd Tu-sign (P,E & D) I Joh LS Sl,000,000 5150,000 Sl,150,000 

31. Construction Management (S & A@ 8.23%) I Job LS 5789,434 Sl!S,415 $907,849 

Tol:itl Project :First Cost $1],381,582 $1,693,225 $[3,074,807 

(Rounded) $11,382,000 $1,693,000 $13,075,000 

Notes: 

Beach fill quantity indud('S 4 yr. nourishment cycle, 

11 
565

Tahle 20 - Total First Cost Prke Level: Jun 07 

Plan D (140' Berm w/ 12' NA VD Dune 1L<;:ing ..\Yr.Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DFSCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

NUMBER PRICE AMOUNT 

OL Lands .ind D,un.iges I Job LS so so so 

17. Beach Replenishment 

Mobili.l,llion, Demob. And Prer.tratory Work I Job !S $502,344 $60,281 $562,625 

Bend1Fill 

Site Work- Cells 1 and 2 

Excavation/Pumping Sand 1,081,400 CY $654 $7,077,655 $1,061,648 58,139,...103 

Suryey Crew 'f!:i Borrow Area D 7.03 Mo. $142,344 $1,000,806 $150,121 $1,150,927 

Surny Crew \a) Berm w J Dune 7.03 Mo. $85,881 $603,829 $90,574 $694,404 

Grading@ Berm w / Dunc> 7.03 Mo. $125,841 $884,662 $132,699 $1,017,362 

Site Security 7.03 Mo. $6,452 $!5,..%3 $6,805 $52,168 

Night Lighting 7.()3 Mo. $46,189 &124,755 $48,713 $373,468 

Tot.i.l BE',Kh Repl,Kement $10,439,415 SJ,550,S42 SI!.990,257 

'.lll. Planning, Engineering and Design (P,E & D) 1 Job L, $1,000,000 $150,000 Sl,150,000 

3L Construction Management (S & A 'ill 8.23%) 1 Joh LS ~9,164 $128,875 $988,038 

Total Project First Cost 512,298,579 $1,829,717 $14,128,295 

(Rounded) $l2,299,000 $1,830,000 $14,128,000 

Notes: 

Beach fill quantity indud('s 4 yr. nou.rishm('nt cyd(', 

12 
566

Table 2E- Total First Cost Prke Level: Jun 07 

Plan E (120' Bem1 w/ 14' NA VD D1me using4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DFSCRJPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

NUMBER PRICE AMOUNT 

01. L,mds and Dam,i_ges l Jo!, !B $0 $0 so 

17. Beach Replenishment 

Mobilization, D('mob. And Prep,u.ttory Work l Job LS $1,040,(179 $124,809 $J,H4,888 

Beach Fill 

Site Work- Cells l and 2 

Excavation/Plllllping Sand 1,.124,400 CY $6.44 S7,246,646 $1,086,997 ~,3._13,642 

Survey Crew 1.p Borrow Area D 5.42 Mo. Sl88,056 $1,019,959 $152,994 Sl,172,953 

Suntey Crew :a; Berm w / Dune 5.42 Mo. $113,438 $614,834 $92,225 $707,059 

Grading :ii; Benn w / Dune 5.42 Mo. $167)22 $905,801 $135,870 Sl,041,671 

Sib• Secruity 5.42 Mo. $6,452 $34,976 $5,246 $40,223 

Night Lighting 5.42 Mo. $46,189 $250,?>44 $.17,552 $287,896 

Tot,tl Bea(h 'Replacement $11,T12,640 $1,635,694 $12,748,3._i..._) 

30. Planning. Engineering <md Design (P,E & D) 1 Job LS $1,000,000 $150,000 $1,150,000 

31. Construction Management (S & A@ 8.23%) l Job LS .'p914,570 $137,186 $1,051,756 

Total Projed First Cost $13,027;210 $1,922,879 $14,950,089 

{Rounded) SJ:3,027,000 $1,921,000 $14,95(),000 

Notl's: 

BC'ach fill quantify includes 4 yr. nourishm('nt cycle. 

13 
567

Table 2F- Total First Cost Price Level: Jun 07 

PlanF (100' Bermw/ 16' NAVD Dunf'using4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAi.COST 

NUMBER PRICE AMOUNT 

OL L,md~ and n,tm.tg{'S l Job LS so so so 

17. Be.ich Replenishment 

Mobilization, Demob. And Preparatory Work l Job LS 51.083.665 $130.040 $1,213,705 

Beach Fill 

SHe Work- Celis land 2 

Excavc1lion/Pumping S,md 1,177,400 CY $6.44 $7,585,988 $1,137,898 SS,723,886 

Survev Crew@ Borrow Area D 5.68 Mo. $188,056 51,068,722 S160,308 $1,229,031 

Surve)· Crew ((~ Bem1 w J Dune 5.68 Mo. $113,438 $644"328 $96,649 $740,977 

Gm ding "& Berm \:V / Du11e 5.68 Mo. $167,122 $9-19,253 $142,388 $1,091,641 

Sih"S.:-curity 5.68 Mo. $6,452 S\16,662 $5,499 $42,161 

Night I .ighting 5.68 Mo. $46,189 $262,400 $39,360 $301.760 

Tot,tl Bead1 Replacem0nt $11.631,018 $1,712,143 SB.343.160 

30. Planning, Engineering a11d Design (P,E & D) 1 Job LS Sl,000,000 S150,000 $1,150,000 

31. Construction Man,1.g<"ment (S & A@ 8.23%) 1 Job LS S957,233 $143,585 Sl,100,818 

Tolal Project First Cost $13,588,250 52,005,728 $15,593,978 

(Rounded) $l3,588,000 $2,006,000 $15,594,000 

Notes: 

B('ach fill quantity indud0S 4 yr. nourislun,:,nt cyd0. 

14 
568

Table 2G - Total First Cost Price Level: Jun 07 

PfonG (165' Bermw/ 12' NAVD DuneusingJ Yr. Cyck•) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

NUMBER PRJC:E AMOUNT 

OL Lmds ,md Damages l Job LS so so so 

17. Beach Replenishment 

Mobiliz.ition, Demob, And Prepar<ttory Work l Job LS $871,659 $104.599 $976.258 

Bea,h Fill 

Site Work- Cells 1 and 2 

Excavation/Pwn_ping S,md 1,306,400 CY $6.44 $8,419,617 $1,262,943 $9,682,560 

Survey Crew Xi' Borrcn'\' Area D 6.30 Mo. $188,056 $1,184,866 $177,730 $1,362,595 

Sun'ey Cre,v 'W Berm \V / Dune 6.30 Mo. $113,438 $714,659 $107,199 $821,858 

Griltting ,ii) 8Prm w / Dune 6.30 Mo. $167,122 $1,052,869 $157,930 $1,210,799 

Site Security 6.30 Mo. $6,432 $40,666 $6,100 $46,766 

Night Lighting 6.30 Mo. $46,189 $290,991 $43,649 $3..14,639 

Tot..il Beach Repla<"emt>nt $12,575,326 SJ,860,149 $14,435,476 

30. Planning.. Engineering illld Design (V,E & D) l Job LS $1,304.348 $195,652 SJ,500,000 

31. Construction Management(S & A (i"fJ 7.97%) l Job rs $1,002,254 $150,338 Sl,152,592 

Tola.l Project First Cost $14,881,928 52,206,139 $17,088,067 

(Rounded) $14,882,000 $2,206,000 $17,088,000 

Notes: 

Beach fill quantity indud0s 4 yr. nourislun,:,nt cyd0. 

15 
569

Table 2H ~ Total First Cost Price Levf'l: Jun 07 

PlanH(145' Bf'rrnw/ 14' NAVD Dmwusing4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAI,COST 

NUMBER PRICE AMOUNT 

Ill. Lands and DatrhlgN; I Job IB so so so 

17. Beach Replenishment 

Mobilit:.ttion, Demob. Ami Prepar.ttory Work Job LS $1,225,165 $147,0'.W Sl,372,185 

Beach Fill 

Site Work- Celfa l ,rnd 2 

Excavalion/Pwnping Sand 1,349,400 CY ,i;bA.\ $8,694,872 51,304,231 $9,999,103 

Stuvev Crew @ Borrow Area D 651 Mo. S188,056 $1,224,245 $183,637 $1,407,881 

Surve}· Crew@ Benn w / Dune 651 Mo. $113,438 $738,481 $110,772 $849,254 

Crn.tl-ing :m Berm w / Dune 6.51 Mo. $167,122 $1,087,964 $163,195 $1,251,159 

SitE' Security 6.51 Mo. $6,452 $.\2,012 ,$6,302 $18,314 

Night Lighting 6.51 Mo. $.\6,189 $300,690 $.(5,104 $.14-5,794 

Tot..i.1 Beach Replacement $13,313,430 $L960,260 $15,273,690 

3(L Planning, Engineering and Design {P,E & D) 1 job LS Sl,000,000 $150,000 51,150,000 

31. Construction Managem.Pnt (S & A@ 7.97%) 1 job IB $1,061,080 $159,162 $1,220,242 

Tolal Projed First Cosl 515,374,511 $2,269,422 $17,643,932 

(Rounded) SJS,375,000 52,269,000 $17,6.\4,000 

Notes: 

Bl:'ach fill quantity indud('s 4 yr. nou.rislun<>nt cyd('. 

16 
570

Table 21 - Total First Cost Price Level: Jun 07 

Planl(l2S'Bem1 w/ 16' NAVD Dune using4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DFSC"RIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

NUM]~ER PRICE AMOUNT 

01. J,J.nds ,md Darrlilges l Joh IS so so so 

17. Beach Replenislunenl 

Mobilization, Demob. And PrE>paratory Work 1 Job LS $1,268,783 $152,254 $1,421,037 

Bead1Fill 

Site Work- Cells 1 and 2 

Excavation/Pumping Sand 1,402,400 CY 56.4-4 $9,038,328 $1,355,749 $10,394,077 

Survey Crew @ Barro\'\' Area D 6.76 Mo. S188,056 $1,272,180 $190,827 Sl,463,007 

Survey Crew <it Bem1 w / Dune 6.76 Mo. $113,.138 $766,8-U $115,026 $881,867 

Grading (!l) Berm w / Dune 6.76 Mo. $167,122 SLl29,745 $169,462 Sl,299,206 

Site.5E'curity 6.76 Mo. $6,452 $43,6I6 $6,542 $50,158 

Nighi Lighting 6.76 Mo. $46,]89 $..112,353 $46,853 $359,206 

Tot.i.l Be.Kh Rt'placement $13,831,&45 S2,036,7B $] 5,868,558 

30. Planning, Engineering and Design (P,E & D) Job LS $1,000,000 $150,000 $1,]50,000 

3L Construction Management (S & A 'iJJ 7.97%) 1 Job IS $1,102,398 S165,360 $1,267,758 

Tola! Project First Cost $15,934,243 $2,352,073 $18,286,116 

(Rounded) $15,934,000 $2,352,000 $18,286,000 

Notes: 

Bl:'ach fill quantity indudl:'s 4 yr. nourislun0nt cydl:'. 

17 
571

Table 2} - Total First Cost Prke Level: Jun 07 

Plan}(80' Bermw/ 18' NAVD Dune usi11g4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

NUMBER PRICE AMOUNT 

01. L,mds ,md D<lln.ar,es j Job L'i 50 50 $0 

17. Beach ~eplE'nishmenl 

Mobiliz.i.tion, Demob. And Prepamtory Work j Job L'i $1,136.316 $136,358 $1,272,674 

Bea,h Fill 

Site Work- Cells 1 and 2 

Exc.i.v ation/Pumping S,md 1,2-11,400 CY $6.44 S-7,998,278 Sl,199,742 $9,198,020 

Survev Crew ({i) Borrow Area D 5.99 Mo. $188,056 Sl,126,455 S168,%8 S1,295A24 

Survc), Crew (ii) Berm w / Dune 5.99 Mo. $113,438 "679,494 $101,924 $781,418 

Grading@ Berm,,:/ DunP 5.99 Mo. $167,122 $1.()()1,061 5150)59 $1,151,220 

Site S~•rn.tity 5.99 Mo. $6,452 $38.659 $5,799 $44,458 

Night Lighting 5.99 Mo. $46,189 $276,741 $41,511 $.118,253 

Tot,11 Beach Replacement $12,257,004 Sl.804.461 $l4,061,466 

30. Planning, EnghlPering ,md Design (P,E & D) 1 Job LS St.000.000 $150.000 Sl.150.000 

31. Construction ManagcmC'nt (S & A@ 8.23%) 1 Job LS $1,008,751 $151.313 Sl.160.064 

Total Projed First Cost $14,265,736 52,105,774 $16,371.530 

(Rounded) $14,266,000 $2,106,000 $16,372,000 

Notes: 

Bt'ach fill quantity includes 4 yr. non.rislun<'nt cyde. 

18 
572

Table 2K- Tot.al First Cost Price Level: Jun 07 

Plan K(lOS'BPrmw/ 18' NAVD Duneusing4 Yr, Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DFSCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

01. L<mds ,md D,1m,1ges l Job LS so so so 

17. Bead1 RPplenishment 

Mobilization, Demob. And P.r('p,m1t0Ty Work l Job LS $1,321,434 $158,572 SJ,480,006 

Bea,h F-iJl 

Site Work- Cells land 2 

Ex,avation/Pumping Sand 1.466.400 CY $6.48 $9,508,2$4 $1.426,243 $10,934,527 

Survey Crew ,ty Borrovv Area D 5,69 Mo. $235,029 SL337,3l5 $2110.597 SL537,912 

Sunrey Crew !{Ii Berm w / Dune S.69 Mo. s141,m $8116,688 $121,003 $927,692 

Grading @ Bt>rm w / Dune S.69 Mo. $208,887 $1,188.567 $178,285 $1,366,852 

Site Security 5.69 Mo. .56,452 S.%,737 $5,511 542,248 

Night Lighting 5.69 Mo. $68,679 S390,784 $58,618 $149,401 

Tolrtl Beach Replacemenl $14,589,809 $2,148,828 $16,738,638 

30. Planning, Enginf'ering ,md Design (P,E & D) 1 Job 15 $1,000,000 $150,000 Sl,150,000 

31. Construction Management (S & A@ 7.97%) l Job 15 Sl,162,808 $174,421 $1,337,229 

Total Project flrst Cost $16,752,617 $2,473,250 $19,225,867 

(Rounded) $16,753,000 $2,473,000 $19,226,000 

Nott>s: 

BPach fill quantity includes 4 yr. nourishment cyck 

19 
573

Table 2L- Tot.i.l First Coot Price Level: Jun 07 

Plan L (85' BPrmw/ 20' NA VD Dune using4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

01. L,mds ,md D<nnages l Job IS so so so 

17. Beach RPplenishment 

Mobilization, Demob. And Prep,1r,1t01-y Work Job IS $1,380,667 $165,680 $1,546,347 

Beach Fill 

Site Work- 0,11s J and 2 

Exc,l\'ation/Pumping Sand 1,538,400 CY $6.48 $9,974,755 $1,496,213 $l1,470,968 

Sun,ey Crew 'fJ Borrow Area D 5.97 Mo. $235,029 $1,403,123 $210,468 $1,613,592 

Sun·ey Crew (a) Bt1tm w / J)une 5.97 Mo. $141,773 $846,385 $126,958 $973,343 

Gr,tding ft! Berm w / Dunt' 5.97 Mo. $208,887 $1,247,055 $187,058 $1,434,114 

SiteSecuritv 5.97 Mo. $6,452 $38,530 $5,7&) 544,110 

Night Lighling 5.97 Mo. 568,679 

Tolal BC'ach Repl,wemenl 

30. Planning, Engineering and Design (P,E & D) 1 Job 15 Sl,000,000 $130,000 $1,150,000 

31. Construction M,magement (S & A@ 7.97%) 1 Job LS 51,219,452 $182,918 Sl,402,370 

Totill Project First Cost $17,519,981 $2,586,577 $20, 106,558 

(Rounded) $17,520,000 52,587,000 S20, 107,000 

Notes: 

Beach fill quantity includes 4 yr. nourishment cycle, 

20 
574

Tahle 2M- Total First Cost Prke Level: Jun 07 

PfanM(1lO'Bem1w/ 20' NA VD Dune usjng-! Yr. Cyde) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT FSTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

NUMBER PRJCE AMOUNT 

OL Lands and Darrwr,es j Job LS so so so 

17. Beach RE>plenishment 

MobHiLalion, Demob. And Prepardtory Work j Job IS $1.431,318 $171,758 $J,6Qo,076 

Beach Fill 

Site Work- Cells land 2 

Exe av ation/Pmnping Sand 1,906,600 CY $6.54 512,477,553 51,871,633 $[4,349,!86 

Survey Crew@ Borrow Area n 6.20 Mo. $284,688 Sl,765,066 $264,760 Sl,.029,825 

Smvey Crew @ Berm w / DunP 6.20 Mo. $171,762 $1,064,924 $159,739 $1,224,663 

Cr,H.Hng ,q; Berm w / Dune 6.20 Mo. $251,683 $[,560,435 $234,065 $1,794,500 

Sile Security 6.20 Mo. .56A52 $40,022 $6,003 $46,025 

Night Lighting 6.20 Mo. $92,378 $572,836 $85,925 $658,761 

Tot<1.l Beach Replannnent $'18,912,153 $2,793,883 $21,706,037 

30. PlcmIUilg. Engineering and Design (P,E & D) 1 Job IS $1,000,000 $150,000 Sl,150,000 

31. Construction Management (S & A@; 7.76%) 1 Job 15 $1,467,583 $220,137 51,687,721 

Total ProjPrl First Cost $21,379,736 $_1,164,021 $24,543,757 

(Rounded) $21,380/JOO $.1,164,000 $24,544,000 

Notes: 

Reach fill quantity indud('s 4 yr. nourislun('nt cyd('. 

21 
575

Table 2N - Total First Cost Prke Level: Jun 07 

Plan N (160' BeTm w/ 20' NA VD Dune using 4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

NUMBFR PRICE AMOUNT 

OL L,mds and Dam,,gt'S l Job IS 50 50 50 

17. Beach Repleillshmenl 

Mobiliz,tlion, Demob. And Preparatory Work l Job LS Sl.900.174 $228,021 $2,128,195 

Beach Fill 

Site Work- Cells 1 and 2 

}.xcavation/Ptunping 5d11d 2,674,600 CY $6.51 $17,4IL646 52,611,747 $20,023,393 

Survey Crew iip Borrmv Area D 650 Mo. $377,373 52,452,925 Si367,939 52,820,863 

Su:n'ey Crew@ Berm w / DunP 6.50 Mo. $227,654 $1,479,751 $'221,96..1 $1,701,714 

Gm.ding :!'i) Berm \V / Dune 6.50 Mo. $334,728 $2,175,732 $.)26,360 $2,502,092 

Site Sc•curity 650 Mo. $6,452 $41,938 S,,,291 $48,229 

Night Lighting 650 Mo. $114,868 $746,734 $112,010 $858,744 

Tot.tl Bl:'ach Replucement $26,208,899 S,,,874,1.'lO $.10,083,229 

30. Planning, Engineering cmd Design (P,E & D) I Job LS SJ,000,000 $]50,000 SI,150,000 

31. Construction Management(S & A@7.34%) 1 Job LS SJ,923,733 $288,560 $2,212,293 

Total Project First Cost $29,132,633 51,312,890 $33,445,522 

(Rounded) $29,13..1,000 $4,313,000 $.13,446,000 

Notes: 

Reach fill quantity includes 4 yr. nou.rislun<>nt cyd<>. 

22 
576

T .i.ble J - Periodk Nourishment Cost (Years 4 and 8) 

ACCOUNT 

NUMHER 

DESCRIPTJON OF ITEM 

17. Beach Replenishme11t 

17.0 l Mobiliz.ition, DPmob. And Pr(1paratory Work 

17-70 BPach Fill 

17.99 Associated General Hems 

Tot,1! Beach Replenislunent 

30. PLmning, Engineering and Des:ir;n (P,E & D) 

31. Construdion MnTu.1g1:"ment(S & A) 

Total Prnject First Cost 

(Rounded) 

QUANTITY UOM UNIT 

PRlCE 

l Job LS 

l Job LS 

l Joh LS 

[ Job 15 

1 Joh LS 

23 

PrirC>l.('Vt>l:Mar 14 

Construction duration: 4-months 

E~TJMATF.P CONTTNGFN(:Y TOTAL COST 

AMOUNT 

@25.l(Yo 

$895,921 5224,876 Sl,!20,797 

$2,904,614 $729,058 S.3,633,672 

S257,874 $64,726 $.122,600 

$.t,058,..JOS St0i8,66i SS,077,069 

@15~/o 

$221,632 S33,2--!5 '£254,877 

$539,532 $80,933 $620,..185 

$./.,819,593 $l,B2,838 SS,952,-111 

'.54,820,000 $1,133,000 $5,952,000 
577

Tabl(• 4- Perio<lk Nourishm1?nl Cost (Years 12, 16, 20, 28, 32, 36,40, 44 dnd 48) 

ACCOUNT 

NUMBER 

[)ESCRIPTJON OJ' ITEM 

17. Beach RC'plenislnnPnt 

17.01 Mohili,:<1tion, lJ(•mob. And Prq-iM,1tory Work 

17.70 Rc,1ch Fm 

17.99 Assod,ltPd Genl'Tcll ftems 

Total Be<1ch UC'plenishnwnt 

30. P!,mninr;, Engin"cring ,md Design (P,E & D) 

31. Construction Management(S & A) 

Tottll l'rojed Firsl Cost 

(Rounded) 

QUANTITY UOM 

Job 

Job 

l Job 

l Job 

l Job 

24 

UNTT 

PRll'F 

JS 

LS 

IS 

IS 

LS 

Prfre LeYel: Mar 14 

Construction duration: 4-months 

ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOT AI, C05T 

AMOUNT 

@31% 

5895,921 S277.735 Sl,173,656 

S2,90J,614 S900A30 $3,805,045 

'i,257,874 579,941 $..137,814 

$4,058,408 Sl,258,107 $5,:H6,515 

@15% 

S221,632 $3'.),245 $25---1,877 

S539,552 $80,933 $620,485 

.$-l,819,593 $1,372,284 S6,!91,877 

54,820,000 Sl,J72,000 $6,192,000 
578

T.1.ble 5- Major Replacement Cost (Yr. 24) 

ACCOUNT 

NUMBER 

DESCRfPTJON OF ITEM 

l7. Reach RcpJc,nishmrnt 

17.01 Mobiliz.ition, Dt1moh. And Pn1paratory Work 

17.iO Beach Fill 

17.99 As..soci,tt(•d G{'neral It{'ms 

Total Beach R{'plenishment 

30. P!,mning. Enginc1ning nnd Design (P,E & D) 

31. Construction M,magement(S & A) 

Tot,1.l Pi-ojed First Cost 

{Rounded) 

Nott1s: 

BeachfiTI quantity includC's 4 yr. nourishment ryde. 

QUANTTTY UOM 

Joo 

Job 

l Joh 

l Joh 

[ Joh 

25 

h-ke LPvel; M.n- l-1, 

Constru(lion duration: 5--months 

UNTT FSTTMATED CONTINGEN(·y TOTAL COST 

PRlCE AMOUNT 

@31% 

LS $935,261 S289/l:11 Sl,225,192 

LS S3,96l,931 $1,228,199 SS,190,IJO 

rs $.'B2,175 S!02,97-1, $435,149 

$5,229,368 Sl,62U04 .$6,850,472 

@15% 

LS §264,697 S39,705 SJQ .. i,,.102 

LS $665,719 $99,858 $765,577 

:'56,159,784 $1,760,666 $7,920,450 

%,16(\000 $1,761,000 $7,920,000 
! 

NotE's: 

Table 6 - Herford lo Cape May Feasibility Study 

TASK \\'EEKS 

Work Plans & Submittals 

I\1obdi;;at10n 

SUiwys 28 

Be.ichii1ll 26 

Structur<c Monitmini:;- 26 

Dune Crossowr Vl/ork 27 Dune Planhnr, and Seeding 27 Demobiltza.t;on 

Herford to C1pe May f-'ea.s1blh\y Study m1tml construdwn durntwn = 36 wet'ks, usr 9 mon
Table 7 - Project Schedule 27 
Print Date Tue 20 May 2014 

Elf. Date 3/1/2lli4 , 

Labor ID: Region 1 EQ !De EP11R01 

Standard Corps RC'ports 

Project, HERF2CAPEMALFEAS3v4-2 

'"'""'""''*''FOR OFF!C!AL USE ONLY'"''

HERF2C APEMAY _FEAS3v+-2 

Report 

Cost Engineering S

Peter Cori1 EC-EC

William Welk 

Preparation Date 5/12/201--! 

Effeclive Date of Pricing 3/1/2014 

Estimated Construction Time 270 Days 

This rC'port is not copyrighted, but the information contained herei

Currency in US Jollars 

28 
Print Date Tue 20 :tvla,y 2014 

Eff. Dale 3/1 /20J4 

Standard Corps Reports 

Projt~ct: HERF2CAPEMAY _FEAS3v4-2 

.... .., .... .., .... FOR OFFICIAL USE ONL r ......

Descri tion 

Library Properties 

Project Notes ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Markup Project Cost Swnmary .. 

HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLETS FEASIBILITY STUDY· SELECTED PLAN COST ESTIMATE ..

01. LANDS AND DAMAGES ...........•..•....•.......• ...............•....•.•........•.• .........•........•....•.....• ...........•........•.•....•.•. . ..•.•......•..

01. Lands ru1d Dao1ages ........................................................... ............ ............................................... . .............. .. . .................. ............ ..... 

17.IC INJT AL CONSTRUCTION BEACH REPLENISHMENT - Move Beach Fill w / Mobile Hydraulic Back-p

99. Ass<x:ialed General Items 

30. PLANNING ENGINEERING & DESIGN .......••...•.• ....•.•.....• 

01. Planning Engineering & Design ........... . 

31. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 

01. Construction Manar,cment 

Project Indirect Summary ................ . .................................. . 

HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLETS FEASIBILITY STUDY· SELECTED PLAN COST ESTIMATE 

en. LANDS AND DAMAGES ················································································-··············································· .........•....•.•..•.•.•..... ·•·•····•····

01. Lands and Dao1ages ................................ _.............. . ....................................................... "......... ........... . ......................... . 

17.!C INITAL CONSTRUCTION BEACH REPLENISHMENT· Move &•ach Fill w/ Mobile Hydraulic Backp

01. Mobilization, Demobili7_ation and Preparatory Work 

70. Beach Fil! .. 

30. PLANNING ENQNEERING & DESIGN 

01. Planning Engineering & Design 

31. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMEN01. Conslruction Managemenl .......... -....... ... 

Contractor Indirect Summary .................... . 

AA Prirnti Contractor (lnilial C\mstrudion) 

AB Prime Conlraclor - No markups. 

Crews Backup Contractors Labor Payroll Markup Report 

1 AA Pdrnc Contractor (Initial Conslruction)-' 

1.2 SU Survl'y Sub 

1.3 EL Ell'ctrical Sub 

1.4 SE Security Sub 

2 AB Prime Contractor - -

Lubor ID: RPgion 1 EQ ID: EPl lROl Currency in lJS dollurs 

29 
Print Date Tue 20 Ma.y 2014 

Eff. Dale 3/1/2014 

Sland,lrd Corps Reports 

Project: HERF2CAPEMAY_FEAS3v4-2 

,,..,.,.,.,,..,,,.FOR OFF!C[AL USE ONLY""""

Descri tion 

Labor ID: Region 1 EQ lD: EP1.1R01 Curwncy in US dollars 

30 
Print Dale Tue 20 !vfuy 2014 

Elf. Dale 3/1/2tn, 

Designedhy 

Peter Gori., EC-EG; Alyssa Dunlap, EC-EC 

Eslimatf><lby 

Cost Engineerinp; Section 

Prepared by 

William.Welk 

Direct Costs LaborCost EQCost 

Mall Cost 

SubBidCosl 

Lump Sum 

Labor Rates LaborCostl 

LaborCost2 LaborCosl3 LaborCost-1 

01 NORTHEAST 

Sales Tax 7.00 

Working Hours per Year 1,360 

Labor Adjustment Factor 1.12 

Cost of Money 2.50 

Cost of Money Discount 25.00 

Tire Recap Cost Factor 1.50 

Tire Recap Wear Factor 1.80 

Tire Repair Factor 0.15 

Equipment Cost Factor 1.00 

Standby Depreciation Factor 0.50 

Labor lD: Region 1 EQ !De EPl J ROl 

Standard Corps R('ports 

Project: HERF2CAPEMAY_FEAS3v4-2 

******************FOROFFlClAL USE ONLY*******

Costbook CB12EB-b: MIi English Cost Boo

Labor Region 1: Labor Region 1 -201

Equipment EPllROl: Mil Equipment 2011 R

Fuel 

Eleclricily 0.190 

Gas 3.600 

DlE'scl Off-Road J.860 

Diesel On-Rood 4.350 

Currency in US dollars 

31 
Print Dale Tue 20 May 2014 E[f. Date 3/1/2014 

Stundatd Corps Reports 

Projccl: HERF2CAPEMAY~FEAS3v4-2 

""'"'"""""FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY''""

Date Author Note 

5/19/2008 Bill Welk L Prepared hy lhe US. Army Corps of Engineers,. Philadelphia District, Wanamaker B

7/10/2()12 7/10/2012 7/10/2012 7/10/2012 7/10/2012 

5/ !4/2013 

5/14/2013 5/1-1/2013 5/14/2013 5/14/20]3 

5/1-1/2013 

5/14/2013 

5/14/2013 

5/1-1/2013 5/14/2013 5/14/2013 

5/1-1/2013 5/1-1/2013 

Labor ID: Rcf)On 1 

2. SUMMARY OF WORK: Work includes, but is not limilcd lo beach fill in Norlh Wild

il('ms for the selecled plan: Plan C - 75' wide berm with +16' NAVO high <lune includi

backpassing,. are as [ ollows: 

Approximately 1,007,250 CY. of beach fill from onshore borrow Area WW /WC wi.U b

dislancn for the initiol conslruclion beach fill uses an average pipeline length of 15,600 

suspended from a crawler crane with a minimum 100' boorn. A 300 kW gt'nernlor wou

pump. Sand up lo 50% solids by weight, lo be transferred through 10-inch gun, tube-l

m.ounted booster purnps would be placed every 5,000 feet lo transfer the sand slurry t

Horsepower for t'ach booster is -!00 hp. lnstrurncnlulion including ir1.agnetic flow mete

In Wildwood and Wildwood Crest, the project will consist of placing 520,000 CY of b0

eiE?vation to 6.5' NAVO. Side slopes for lhe dunes wiH he 1 on S. In Wild

is the placement of 64 acres of dune grass, 28,000 LF of sand fonce, 

crossovers, extending 7 exinting handicap crossov<?rs, 6 new handicap crossovers, 

3. Construction schedule: 

- Report completion (Program Year)- September 2014 

- Eslinmtcd starl of conslruction-Octoher 2017 

- Mid-point of conslruclion - February 2018 based on 9-rnonth construction duration. 

4. Used Cape rvtay County, NJ labor rates, General Decision Number NJ140050, Mod. N

5. Real estate costs (project feature 01) provided thriugh PL-PC and furnished by CENA

6. P,E&D costs (project feature 30) and S&A costs (project feature 31) provided hy PL-P

7. Price level: March 2014 

8. Conlingencies are based on Crystal Ball soft ware for preparing risk analysis and are: 

- Initial conslruclion work - 25.1 %; Nouri!:ihmcnl (Years 4 and 8) - 25.1 %; Nourishment 

- Real eslale cosls - 2..J:.9% - S&A and P,E&D -15% 

9. Crilirnl ussurnplions: 

- Beach fill work will he pcrmilled only from 5(,ptember to April due to the tourist seas

hour production rate wus used for cost cslimating purpoSPS and is ba

constructed hy NAP in 1989 and operated by Delawi:lXC Department of N

EQ JD, EP11 ROJ Currency in US dollars 

32 
Prinl Date Tue 20 I\1av 2014 

Eff. Dale 3/1/2Cn4 • 

Date Author Note 

StanJmd Corps Reports 

Pr(~ect: HERF2CAPEMAY _FEAS3v-1-2 

"'""""'""''FOR OFFICIAL lJSE ONLY',_..

5/14/2013 - There will be no severe weather evenls during construclion. 

2/12/201-l 

3/12/2014 

3/12/2014 

Labor ID: Rep)on 

- Beach fill work will tah~ place Monday lo Friday, 24-hours per Jay. -Job will he open bid. 

10. Used RS. Means, MII Cost Book, price quot(CS and historic data for maleritil costs as 

EQ lD: EPllROl Currency in US dollars 

33 
Print Dale Tue 20 May 2014 

Eff Date 3/1/2014 

Direct Cost Markups 

Produclivily 

Overlime 

Standrml 

Actual 

'l'Jmrsday 

SunJm; 

Sales Tax 

Contractor Markups 

)OOH (Small Tools) )OOH )OOH% 

HOOH Profit% 

ProfilWG 

Gwdeline 

Risk 

D{({i.culty 

Pnwd 

Jm!i'.sf(Contrnctor':-) 

SubConfra1·t111g 

Total 

Bond 

Tii:red, 24months, 

Dny=f.Neek 

Surclwr:;;e 

Can/me/ Price 

500,000 

2,000,000 

Labor lD: fa,gion 1 EQ !De EPl 1 Rll1 

OTf'aclur 

1.50 

1.50 

1.50 

2.(XJ 

Category 

Producli vily 

Overlime 

[lours/Shift 

8,0() 

8.00 

TaxAdj 

Category 

)OOH )OOH )OOH 

HOOH 

Profit 

Profit Bond 

."vo 

.\!o 

Value 

0.080 

0.0130 

(J.030 

0.070 0.070 

0.090 

0.090 

Fond Rate 

nss 

7.39 

5.81 

5.41 

Sh!fts/JJrry 

200 

Currnncy in US dollars 

34 
Print Date T uP 20 May 201.J: 

Eff. Date 3/1/2014 

Bond% 

Owner Markups 

Conlingency 

Escalation 

S!OH 

Labor JD: R(igion 1 

100,000,000,000 

EQ lDc EP11R01 

Slandard Corps R~•ports 

Pn~ecl: HERF2CAPEMAY~FEAS?,v4-2 

..,.,,,.,.,,_,..,FOR OFF!ClAL USE ONLY"'"

Bond 

Category 

Contingency 

Escalalion 

SlOH 

4.88 

Currency in OS dollars 

35 
Print Date Tue 20 l\1a y 20"14 Standard Corps Reporls 

Elf. Dute 3/1/2014 Project: HERF2CAPEMAY~FEAS3v-!-2 

mm"'""m"FOR OFF!ClAL USE ONLY""

Descri tion Quantity UOM C

Project Cost Summary 

HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLETS FEASIBILITY STUDY - 1.0 LS 

SELECTED PLAN COST ESTIMATE 

01. LANDS AND DAMAGES 1.0 LS 

01. Lands and Damages 1.0 LS 

17.IC INITAL CONSTRUCTION BEACH REPLENISHMENT- Move 1.0 LS 

Beach Fill w/Mobile Hydraulic Backpass System 

01. Mobilization, Demobilization and Preparatory Work 1.0 LS 

70. Beach Fill 1.0 LS 

99. Associated General Items 1.0 LS 

30. PLANNING ENGINEERING & DESIGN 1.0 LS 

01. Planning Engineering & Design 1.0 LS 

31. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1.0 LS 

01. Construction Management 1.0 LS 

Labor ID: Region 1 EQ !De EP11R01 Currency in US dollars 

36 
Print Date Tun 20 :tvfay 2014 SlandarJ Corps Reports 

Eff. Date 3/1/2014 Project: HERF2CAPEMAY~FEAS3v-!-2 

.. ,.,..., • .,,.,..,FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY' .....

Desc:ri tion Quantity UOM Direc

Project Indirect Summary 14,81

HFJlEFORD TO CAPE MAY INLETS FEASIBILITY STUDY - 1.0 LS 14,81

SELECTED PLAN COST ESTIMATE 

01. LANDS AND DAMAGES 1.0 LS 1,01

01. Lands and Damages 1.0 LS 1,01

17.IC INITAL CONSTRUCTION BEACH REPLENISHMENT- 1.0 LS 10,99

Move Beach Fill w/ Mobile Hydraulic Backpass System 

01. Mobilization, Demobilization and Preparatory Work 1.0 LS 78

70. Beach Fill 1.0 LS 7,64

99. Associated General Items 1.0 LS 2,57

30. PLANNING ENGINEERING & DESIGN 1.0 LS 1,61

01. Planning Engineering & Design 1.0 LS 1,61

31. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1.0 LS 1,18

01. Construction Management 1.0 LS 1,18

Labor lD: Region 1 EQ ID, EP11R01 Currency in US dollars 

37 
Print Date Tue 20 May 2014 

Elf. Dale 3/1/2014 

Descri£_tion 

Contractor Indirect Summary 

AA Prime Contractor (Initial Construction) - Land 

Based Equipment 

SU Survey Sub 

EL Electrical Sub 

SE Security Sub 

AB Prime Contractor~ No markups. 

Labor ID: Region 1 EQ ID: EPl1 R01 

Standard Corps Reporls 

Projf>cl: HERF2CAPEMAY~FEASJv4-2 

"'"'"'"*"""FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY""'

DirectCost JOOH HOOH Pro

8,602,507 811,672 753,134 747,2

245,437 24,544 21,598 24,7

70,320 7,032 6,188 7,5

83,271 8,327 7,328 7,9

5,815,228 0 0 

Currency in US dollars 

38 
Print Date Tue 20 Mav 2014 

Elf. Dale 3/1/2014 · 

Descri.E_tion 

Crews Backup 

GOV COEMEQMDJ 1 

/v1JL B-EQOflK\ffD F:rjtnp. 

RSM ELEC ELEC 

RSMQ19Ql9 

USR CLABA11 hi.borer 

Outside Laborers, (.SemhSkiiled) 

USR CLABA21 laborcr foreman 

:\UL X-LAHORI:R Outside Laborers, (Sena-Skilled) 

A1JL 

.\!11L X-PLU.\113ER 

USRN/ANoCrcw 

USR USURSURVS SurvPyors 

FOP FC-SURYR SurUf'lJOrs 

Op,,rators, Usht 

ffowy 

Labor ID: Region 1 EQ !De EP11 ROJ 

Slan,fard Corps RC>ports 

Project: HERF2CAPEMAY~FEAS?lv-!-2 

"'""""'"'"'FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY'""

Currt'ncy in US dollars 

39 
Print Dale Tue 20 May 201---l 

Eff. Date 3/1/2014 

Standard Corps Reports 

Projt•ct: HERF2CAPEMAY~FEAS:lv,!-2 

""'"'"""'"'FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY'"'

Descri_Etion 

Lruck rntd, 14 ton 

TRUCK ,\10UN1ED, 14 

USR ZDOZHVY2 D,m,r, 310 HP, w /blade 

310 I IP, POVvLRSHIT''( 

USR ZGENPORTS.6KW Generator set, portable, 5.6 Kw, 120/2--l:OV 

120;240V, W HZ 

USR ZGENSK1DMTD300KW Generator set, skid mld. 300 KW 

SK[f) MTD, 300 KW 

(24.4 iV[) BOOM, 6X4 

{/\.DD 

USR ZMARBOAT18-ITW / OCABlN Boat, 18' River Runner, w / o Cabin Vee Hull, Cap 1,350 lbs, 

Outboard, 18'x7.9'x0.51 

USR ZMJSSMTOOLJ Small Tools 

NON x:,,1rxxo20 S:\11\U. 

USR ZTRKTRP KP1 Truck, 

EP 150XX012 TRUCK, 

ton 

1 TON flICKUP, 4X4 

Labor lD: Region 1 EQ !De EP11R01 

18' RJVJ~R RUNNLR, VLE J{ULL, 

Currency in US dollars 

40 
Print Date Tue 20 ::tvfuy 2014 SlandarJ Corps Reports 

Elf. Dale 3/1/2Gl4 Project: HERF2CAPEMAY~FEAS3v-l:-2 

,m"'"""'"''FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY"'"

Description SUIExperience SUIRate FICA FUIRate PayrollTax State 

-----

Contractors Labor Payroll 

Markup Report 

1 AA Prime Contractor 256.60 6.88 7.65 0.60 15.13 NJ 

(Initial Construction) - Land 

Based Equipment 

1.2 SU Smvey Sub 256.60 6.88 7.65 0.60 15.13 NJ 1.3 EL Electrical Sub 256.60 6.88 7.65 0.60 15.13 NJ 1.4 SE Security Sub 256.60 6.88 7.65 0.60 15.13 NJ 

2 AB Prime Contractor- No 256.60 6.88 7.65 0.60 15.13 NJ 

markups. 

Labor ID: Region 1 EQm EPllROl Cum,>ncy in US dollars 

41 
Print Date Tue 20 l\1ay 2014 Standard Corps Reporls 

Elf. Dale 3/1/2014 Projccl: HERF2CAPEr'v1AY~FEAS3v4-2 

•m"'"'""'"'FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY""

Descri:etion BaseWage Overtime Payroll WCI T

Labor Backup 

FOP FA-AGENS GenPral Superintendents (P.M.) 144,429 0 21,857 25,251 

FOP F A-PROJM Project Managers 1,057 0 160 185 

FOP FB-ACONT Contract Administrators 8,160 0 1,235 1,427 

14.72 

FOP FB-CLTYP Clerks, T ypisls, Bookkcq:iers & 589 0 89 103 

Receptionist FOP FC-ENGCf Engineers, Civil 149,867 () 22,680 26,201 

25.36 

FOP FC-FLDRT Field Draftsmen 5,807 0 879 1,015 

19.61 

FOP FC-SURYC Surveyors, Chief 31,376 0 4,748 5,486 

FOP FC-SLJRYR Surveyors 43,728 0 6,617 7,16-!6 

FOP FD-SAENG Safoty Engineers 1-15,5().J. 0 22,020 25,439 

FOP FD-SECWT Security, Waldunen/ Guards -18,289 0 7,308 8,r---l:42 

41.49 

MIL B-CARPNTER Carpenters 8,630 0 1,306 1,509 

46.51 

MIL B-ELECTRN Eleclricians 17,697 0 2,678 3,093 

41.48 

MIL B-EQOPRMED Equip. Operators, Medium 436,701 78,805 131,679 76,349 

MlL B-EQOPROlL Equip. Operators, Oilers 4,058 0 614 709 

43.02 

MlL B-STM/PIPE Steam/Pipditters 574 0 87 100 

Labor ID: Region 1 EQ JD, EP11Rlll Currency in US dollars 

42 
Print Date Tue 201v1ay 201--i 

E[f. Date 3/1/2014 

Descri.E.tion 

MIL B-STM/PIPE Stcam/Pipdittcrs 

:MIL B-TRKDVRHV Truck Drivers, Heavy 

MIL X-EQOPRHVY Outside Equip. Operators, Ht'avy MIL X-EQOPRLT Outside Equip. Opemlors, Light 

MlL X-LABORER Outside Laborers, (Semi-Skilled) 

MIL X-LABORER Outside Laborl'rs, (Semi-Skilled) 

MIL X-PLUMBER Outside Plumbers 

Labor ID: Region 1 EQ 10: EPl 1 ROl 

Standard Corps Reports 

Project: HERF2CAPEMAY~FEAS3v4-2 

'""''"'"'""'FOR OFFICIAL USE ONL y,.,..,

BaseWa~ Overtime Payroll WCI T

350 0 53 61 

8,135 0 1,231 1,--!22 

232,104 40,913 45,589 40,579 

37.94 

613,539 121,813 137,5-!7 107,615 395,206 32,202 149,037 69,094 

,'14,90 

62,576 () 9,470 10,940 

13,766 0 2,083 2,407 

Currency in US dollars 

43 
Print Date Tue 20 :May 2014 Standard Corps Reporls 

Elf. Dale 3/1/2014 Project: HERF2CAPEMAY~FEAS3v4-2 

.. ,., .. .,.,,,,,.. .. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.., .. ,.

Descri:etion Depr/Rntl FCCM Fuel F

Equipment Backup 

4.77 0.1b 

EP Gl OXXOl 2 GENERATOR SET, SKID MTD, 300 KW 22,910 763 245,830 27

9.07 

EP T50XX012 TRUCK, HIGHWAY, CREW, 1 TON PICKUP, 4X4 16,431 1,666 57,063 7

1.11 0,12 11.06 

EP W35XX023 WELDER, ENGINE DRIVEN, GAS, DC-CC, 300 AMP, 234 26 2,-149 

3 KW, TRAILER MTD 

8.90 L17 

GEN C80Z2240 CRANE, HYDRAULIC, TRUCK MOUNTED, 14 TON 5,243 805 17,268 2

(12.7 MT), 80' (2-1.4 tvD BOOM, 6X4 

720 U.97 8.51 

GEN D30Z2640 DRILL, EARTH/ AUGER, HYDRAULIC AUGER, 231 31 272 

14" (356 MM) DIA, 30' (9.1 M) DEPTH, 3,500 FT-LBS (483.9 KGF-M), 

W /TRAILER (ADD COST FOR DRILL STEEL AND CUTTING EDGE 

WEAR) 

5.41 OJ4 

GEN L50Z4640 LOADER/BACKHOE, WHEEL, 0.80 CY (0.6 M3) 130 18 149 

FRONT END BUCKET, 9.8' (3.0 M) DEPTH OF HOE, 24" (0.61 MJ 

DIPPER,4X4 

1.:25 0.10 0.00 

GEN T40Z7090 TRUCK OPTlON, DUMP BODY, REAR, 12 CY (9.2 38 5 () 

M3) (ADD 45,000 LB (20,412 KG) GVW TRUCK) 

0.36 24.19 

GENT50Z7-!00 TRUCK, HIGHWAY, 25,000 LB (11,340 KG) GVW, 68 9 581 

4X2, 2 AXLE (ADD ACCESSORIES) 

MAP C75GV019 CRANES, HYDRAULIC, SELF-PROPELLED, 149,974 87253 163,284 23ROUGH TERRAIN, 50 TON, 110' BOOM, 4X4 

0.32 U.03 2.34 

MAP G10WC002 GENERATOR SET, PORTABLE, 5.6 KW, 120/240V, 92 8 668 

60HZ 

1.91 0.32 24.43 

Labor 10: Region 1 EQ ID: EPJ 1 Rill Currency in US dollars 

44 
Print Dale Tue 20 May 2014 Standard Corps Reporls 

Eff. Dale 3/1/2014 Projet·L: HERF2CAPEMAY_FEAS3v,!-2 

'"*'*'"*'"".,.FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY''"'.

Descri:etion Depr/Rntl FCCM Fuel F

MAP MHJSMOOS MARINE EQUIPMENT, BOATS & LAUNCHES, 18' 1,528 259 19,5-1:1 2

RIVER RUNNER, VEE HULL, NO CABIN, CAP 1,350 LBS, 

OUTBOARD, 181 X 7.9' X 03 

J 40.68 

MAP Tl 5CA016 TRACTOR, CRAWLER (DOZER), 310 HP, 310,722 17,CllO 392,198 52

POWERSHIFT, W/15.3 CY SEMl-U BLADE (ADD ATTACHMENTS) 

5.34 0.59 0.00 

MAP HSXX019 TRUCK TRAILER, LOWBOY, 75 TON, 3 AXLE (ADD 1,195 133 0 

TOWING TRUCK) 

MAP T50XX029 TRUCK, HIGHWAY, 50,000 LBS GVW, 3 AXLE, 6X4 1,854 275 8,738 1

(CHASSIS ONLY-ADD OPTIONS) 

0.50 0.16 

NON XlvllXX020 SMALL TOOLS 10,892 3,384 3,--185 1

Labor lD: Region EQmEPllROl Currency in US dolbrs 

45 
599

INITIAL PROJECT CHARGES USING HOPPER DREDGING FOR BEACH FILL 

24. General: This section presents detailed cost estimates for initial construction, nourishment, 

maintenance, monitoring and major rehabilitation resulting in total and annualized project costs 

for alternative storm damage reduction plans using hopper dredging for beach fill. The fifteen 

alternative plans developed using hopper dredging for beach fill include: 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

0 

Description 

115' wide berm with+ 12' NAVD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

95' wide berm with+ 14' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

75' wide berm with+ 16' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

140' wide berm with+ 12' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

120' wide berm with +14' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

100' wide berm with+ 16' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

165' wide berm with+ 12' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

145' wide berm with+ 14' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

125' wide berm with+ 16' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

80' wide berm with+ 18' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

105' wide berm with+ 18' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

85' wide berm with +20' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

110' wide berm with +20' NA VD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

160' wide berm with +20' NAVD dune using 4 Yr. Cycle 

No action 

The top of the berm is at an elevation of +6.5' NA VD and extends from 2nd Avenue in North 

Wildwood to Juniper Avenue in Wildwood. The dune for each alternative has 1 on 5 side slopes 

and a top width of25'. The dune extends the same distance as the berm. The initial construction 

for each of the above plans includes design and advanced nourishment beach fill. Also included 

are provisions for periodic nourishment, beach profile and environmental monitoring, and major 

replacement to restore the design beach profile damaged by significant storm events beyond that 

designed for in the nourishment cycle quantity. The plan layout of the NED plan with typical 

improved beach sections is shown in the section of the Feasibility Study, Main Report describing 

the NED Plan. 

25. Basis of Cost: Cost estimates presented herein are based on June 2007 price levels. Initial 

beach fill costs are based on beach surveys taken in October 2003. The unit prices were 

developed in accordance with the construction procedures outlined herein. All initial 

construction and nourishment costs and major rehabilitation costs presented in this appendix are 

NED costs. 

26. Initial beach fill costs are based on the assumption that a generic medium-size hopper dredge 

was used for placement of the beach fill. Approximately 944,500 C.Y. of beach fill material from 

offshore borrow area H was placed in Cells 1 and 2. The average haul distance for the initial 

beach fill is 0.47 miles. A mooring barge was located approximately 3,400 feet offshore of North 

Wildwood beach based on the benthics to allow access for a loaded dredge. The average 

pumping distance for these cells uses an average pipeline length of 6,640 L.F. for the initial 

beach fill. 

46 
600

27. Periodic nourishment beach fill costs are based on the assumption that a generic medium-size 

hopper dredge was used for placement of the beach fill. Approximately 341,600 C.Y.ofbeach 

fill material from offshore borrow area OS-2 was placed in Cells 1 and 2. The average haul 

distance for the nourishment cycle is 7.1 miles. A mooring barge was located approximately 

5, l 00 feet off shore of Wildwood beach based on the benthics to allow access for a loaded 

dredge. The average pumping distance for the nourishment cycle uses an average pipeline length 

of5,120LF. 

28. Mobilization and demobilization costs are based on the assumption that beach filling 

equipment located within 250 miles from the project site will perform the work. Construction 

access would be by local streets. The locations of the borrow areas are displayed in the section of 

the Feasibility Study, Main Report describing the NED Plan. 

29. Real estate costs for the fifteen alternatives included in the Cycle 3 screening were not 

included since they are expected to be minimal as most of the land is a public beach owned by 

the sponsor. 

30. Environmental monitoring costs for the fifteen alternatives included in the Cycle 3 screening 

were not included since they are dependent on the EA document and that document was not 

finalized at the time of the Cycle 3 screening. 

31. Construction Management costs for the fifteen alternatives included in the Cycle 3 screening 

were included as a percent of the construction cost and is based on ER4 l 5-l-16, Table E-1. A 15 

percent contingency has been included in S&A costs. 

32. Alternatives Considered: Alternative plans were developed in two phases for the plan 

selection process. ln the first phase the alternative plans were compared during the Cycle l and 

Cycle 2 screening process. For more information on these plans, refer to the section of the 

Feasibility Study, Main Report describing the NED Plan. Based on an analysis of these annual 

costs with their associated benefits, the beach restoration only plan was selected for the second 

phase for final plan optimization and selection. 

3 3. The costs for the fifteen alternatives as described in paragraph 24 for this second phase of 

plan selection are shown in Tables SA thru SN. 

34. Renourishment Interval Optimization: For more information on the renourishment interval 

optimization that selected the 4-year cycle, refer to the section of the Feasibility Study, Main 

Report describing the NED plan. 

35. Total First Cost for Selected Plan: The estimated project first cost is for the selected plan -

dune and berm constructed using 944,500 CY of hydraulically placed design and advanced 

nourishment beach fill from offshore borrow area H. A +16' NA VD high dune with a top width 

of 25' on a 75' wide benn that is 6.5' NA VD high would be constructed from North Wildwood 

to the northern border of Wildwood and is based on a selected nourishment cycle of 4 years. It 

was assumed that beach filling work would be performed by a dredging contractor. Pertinent 

contingency, engineering and design and construction management costs are also included. For 

more information on the selected plan using hopper dredging for beach fill as an option, refer to 

the section of the Feasibility Study, Main Report describing the NED plan. 

47 
601

Table SA- Total First Cost 

Plan A (115' Rel'm v,rj 12' NAVD DunC" using4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DFSCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT 

NUMTIEH PRICE 

OJ. Lands and Damag<'S l J(lb LS 

17. BPach Replenishment 

Mobilization, Demoh And Preparatory WOl'k Job LS 

Hopper Dredging 

Site Work, Excavation and DispoSdl 

CPll 1 801,900 (-Y 

'lO. 

31. 

NotPs: 

Total BPach Replacement 

Planning, EnginePringand Design (P,E & D) 

Construction ManagE'ment (S & A@ 9.89%) 

T olal ProjE',t t'irst Cost 

(Rounded) 

Dredging qu,mtity includes 4 JT. nourishment cyclt•. 

46,600 CY 

1 job 

Joh 

48 

IS 

rs 

Prke LevE>l: Jun 07 

ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

AMOUNT 

$688,723 £82,647 $771,370 

$1,000,000 S150,000 $1,150,000 

$614,172 $90,082 $704,254 

i7,S24,203 $1,150,925 58,975,128 

$7,824,000 $1,151,000 $8,975,0()() 
602

Table SB - Total First Cost Price Level: Jun 07 

Plan B(95' RNmw/ 14' NAVD Dune using4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

01. Lmds and Damages l Job LS $0 $0 $0 

17. Rrach Replenislunent 

Mobilib1tion, Demoh. And Preparatory Work l job LS $688,721 $82,647 $771,370 

Hopper Dredging 

Site Work, Excavation and Disposal 

Celll 824,900 CY $6.49 $5,353,601 $803,040 $6,156,641 

Cell2 66,600 CY $6.61 $440,226 S66,034 $506,260 

Total Be<1eh Replacement $6,482,550 $951,721 $7,434,271 

30. Pla1ming, Engince-ring and Df'sign (P,E & D) 1 job LS $1,000,000 $150,000 $1,150,000 

31. ConstructioH M<magement (S & A@; 9.89%) job LS 

Total Project First Cost 

(Rounde-d) $8,124,000 $1,196,000 $9,320,000 

Notps; 

Dredging quantity includes 4 yr. nouris.brnPnt (ycle. 

49 
603

Table SC - Tolal First Cost Price Level: Jun 07 

Plan C (75' Benn\-'11-j 16' NAVD Dune using4 Yr. Cyde) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITRM QUANTITY UOM UNIT FSTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTALCaiT 

01. Lands and DaUk1.ges l job LS ,1 $0 '.!,) 

17, Beach Replrnishment 

Mohihbrtion, Demoh And PrPparatory Work l job LS $688,723 $82,647 $771,370 

H o-pper Drede,ring 

Site Work, Excavation and Disposal 

Crll l 853,900 CY $6.47 53,524,733 $828,710 S6;353,443 

Crtl2 90,600 CY $6.60 $597,%0 $89,694 $687,654 

Total Be,1ch Rl'plncemenl $6,811.416 $1,001.051 S7,812,467 

30. Planning, Engineering and Design (P,E & D) l Joh LS $1,000,000 $150,000 Sl.150,000 

31. Construction M,rnagrment (S & A@ 9.89%) Job L'i 

Total Project Firsl Cost 

(Rounded) $8,.J.85,000 $1,250,000 $9,735,000 

Notes: 

Dredging quantity indudE'S 4 yr. nourishment cydt>. 

50 
604

Table SD- Total First Cost 

Plan [) (140' Berm w / 12' NA VD Dune using 4 Yr, Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY 

NUMBER 

01. Lands and Damages 1 

17. Beach Replenishment 

Mobili,,.ition, Demob. And Prepar.itory Work 

Hopp{'T l)r('dgi.ng 

Sile Work, .Excavation and Disposal 

CellJ 981,500 

Cell2 60,200 

Total Be,tch Repla<·emenl 

30. Planning, Enginee1i.ng and Design (P,E & D) 1 

3L Construction Managemenl (5 & A@ 9.89%} 1 

Total Project First Cost 

(Rounded) 

Notes: 

Dredging quantity .includes 4 yr. nourishment cycle. 

51 

UOM UNIT 

PRICE 

Job rs 

Job LS 

CY S6.46 

CY $6.58 

Job IS 

Job l~S 

FST!MATED 

AMOUNT 

;/1) 

$688,723 

$6,340,490 

S3%,116 

$7,423,329 

$1,000,000 

$9,160,000 

CONTINGENCY 

$82,647 

$951,074 

$59,417 

$1,093,138 

$150,000 

$1.351,000 

Price Level: Jun 07 

TOTAL COST 

$771,370 

$7,291,564 

$455,533 

$8,518,467 

51.150,000 

$10,511,000 
605

Table SE- Total First Cost Price Leve 1: Jun 07 

Plan E(120' Berm w/ 14' NAVD Dune using4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

01. Lmds and Damages Job LS 50 $0 ,:lJ 

17. Beach Replenislunent 

Mobilibltio:n, Demob. And Prep«r,1tory Work Joh LS $688,723 $82,647 $771,370 

H o-pper Dn•dging 

Site Work, .Excavation and Disposal 

Celll 1,0()1,500 CY So.45 $6,479,025 $971,854 $7,450,879 

Cell2 80,200 CY S6.57 $326,914 $79,037 $605,951 

Total Reach Replact'ment $7,694,662 $1,133,538 $8,828,200 

30. P1mning, Engineering and Design (P,E & D) 1 Job LS $1,000,000 $150,000 51,150,000 

31. Construction Mmagement (S & A ,if! 9.89%) Job LS 

Tot«l Project First Cost 

(Rounded) $9,456,000 $1,396,000 $10,851,000 

Notes; 

Dredging quantity includes 4 yr. nourishment (-ycle. 

52 
606

Table SF- Total First Cost Price Lewl: Jun 07 

Plan F (100' Berm w/ 16' NAVD Dune using 4 Yr. CydE>) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

NUMBER PRICE AMOUNT 

01. Lands and Damages 1 Job I~S :fl) 50 50 

17. Beach Repll"tfr>hment 

Mohili1A.tion, Df'mob. And Prep,m1tory Work Job LS $688,723 $32,647 $771,370 

Hoppl"r J)redging 

Site Work, .Exca\'ation and Disposal 

Cell! 1,0:n,soo Cf "'5.43 $6,645,405 $996,811 $7,642,216 

Cel12 104,200 CY "'5.56 $6&1,552 $102,533 $786,085 

Total Beach Replacement $8,017,680 $1,181,990 $9,199,670 

30. Planning, Engineering and DE-sign (P,E & D) l Job LS $1,000,000 $150,000 Sl,!50,000 

31. Construction M<m,1gemenl (S & A (ill 9.89%) l Job IS 

Total Project First ( :ost 

(R01mded) $9,811,000 $1,449,000 $11,260,000 

Notes: 

Dredging quantity includes 4 yr. nourishment cycle. 

53 
607

Table SG ~ Total First Cost Price Level: Jun 07 

PlanG(165' Bnm w/ l2'NAVDD1me using4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT FSTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

OL Lmds and Damages Job IS :ii) $0 $0 

[7. Beach Replrnishment 

Mohilb1tio:n, Demob. And Prep«ratory Work job LS Si,88,723 $82,647 $77[.370 

Hopper Dredging 

Site Work, Exravation and Disposal 

Celll 1,178,200 CY Sl,.42 $7,564,044 $1,134,607 58,698,651 

Cell2 78,000 CY Sl,.54 $510,120 576,518 £586.~,8 

Total Beach Replacement $8,762,887 $1,293,771 $10.056,658 

30. P1mning, Engineering and Design (P,E & D) 1 Job LS $1,000,000 $150,000 51,150,000 

31. Construrtio11 M<111..i.gement (S & A@ 9.46%) Job IS 

Total P.rojecl First Cost 

(Rounded) $10,592,000 $1,566,000 $12,158,000 

Notes; 

Dredging qu,1ntity includes 4 yr. nourL<iliment cycle. 

54 
608

Table SH-Tolal Firsl Cost PricE> Level: Jun 07 

Plan H (145' Berm ,v/ 14' NA \lD Dune usU.1g4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT FSTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

01. L,mds and Damages 1 Joh IS ,00 $0 ,00 

I7. Beach Replenishment 

Mobili7,,1tion, Demoh. And Prepar<1tory Work 1 job 15 $688,721 $82,647 $771,370 

Hopper Dredging 

Site Work, Excavation and Disposal 

Celll 1,201,200 CY $6.40 $7,687,680 $1,153,152 $8,840,832 

Cell2 98,000 Cr $6.53 $639.940 $95,991 $735,931 

Total Bead1 Rl'plan•menl $9,016,3-!3 $1,331,790 $10,348,133 

30. P1uming, Engineering and Design (P,E & D) 1 job 15 $1,000,000 $150,000 $1,150,000 

3l. C011struction Management (S & A@ 9.46%) l job LS 

To!:al Project First Cost 

(Rounded) $10,869,000 Sl,608,000 512,477,000 

Notps; 

Dredging quantity includes 4 yr. nouris.brnent (ycle. 

55 
609

Table SI~ Total First Cost l'rice Level: Jun 07 

Plan I (125' Berm w/ 16' NAVD Dune using 4 Yr. Cyck·) 

ACCOUNT DESCRTPTION OF lTEM QUANTITY UOM UNTT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

Ol. Lmds and Damages l job LS :ro $0 :ro 

17. Beach Replenishment 

Mobiliz,:ltion, Demoh. And Prep«ratory Work l job LS $688,721 $32,647 $771,370 

Hopper Dredging 

Site Work, Excavation and Disposal 

Celll 1,230,200 CY So.39 $7,860,978 $1,179,147 S9,040,l25 

Cell2 122,000 CY &,,52 $795,440 $119,3[6 $914,756 

Total Beach Replacement $9,345,141 Sl,38LJ09 $10,726,250 

30. Planning, Engineering and Design (P,E & D) l job LS $1,000,000 $150,000 Sl,150,000 

31. Construction M~1nagement (S & A J:!J 9.46%) job LS 

Total Project Firsl Cost 

{R01mded) $11,229,000 $1,662,000 $12,891,000 

Notes; 

Dredging qu,1ntity indudes 4 yr. nourLc;bment cycle. 

56 
610

Table SJ~ Total First Cost Price Level: Jun 07 

P1in J (80' Berm w/ 18' NA VD Dune using4 Yr. Cyde) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

01. Lands and Damages l job LS ,00 so ,00 

17. Beach Replenishment 

Mobili?,,1tion, Demob. And Prepar,1tory Work l job LS $688,723 $82,647 $771,.170 

Hopper Dredging 

Site Work, Exrnv.1tion and Di'>posal 

Cdll 1,068,500 CY S6.47 $6,913,195 $1,036,979 $7,950,174 

Cell2 133,200 CY 86.55 $872A60 $130,869 $1,003,329 

Tolal Be,1chRep1l..:emenl $8,474,378 SL2511,495 59,724,873 

30. Plamting, Engineedng and Design (P,E & D) l job LS $1,000,000 $150,000 $1,150,000 

31. Construction M,mageme-nt (S & A @ 9 .89%) Job L'i 

Total Project First Cost 

(Rounded) $10,312,000 $1,524,000 511,837,000 

Notes; 

Dredging quantity indudes 4 yr. nourishment (ycle. 

57 
611

Table SK~ Total First Cosl Price Level: Jun 07 

Plan K(lOS' Berm w/ 18' NA VTI Dune using4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DE=JCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT FSTJMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

OJ. L.mds and Damages 1 job L'i $() $0 $() 

17. Reach Replcnishm0nt 

Mobilization, Demoh. And Prepar<1tory Work 1 job LS $688,72, $82,647 $771,370 

Hopper Dredging 

Site Work, Exr<1v«tion .i.nd Disposal 

Celll 1,265,200 CY $6.37 $8,059,324 $1,208,899 $9,268,223 

Cell2 151,000 CY $6.50 $981,500 $147,225 $1,128,725 

Tot.11 Beach Rephlcement $9,729,547 $1,438,770 S1Ll68,317 

30. Phlnning, EJ.1gineering and Design (P,E & D) 1 job LS 51,000,000 $150,000 51,150,000 

31. Construction MmMgement (S & A@; 9.46%) Job LS 

Tot.11 Project First Cost 

(R01mded) $11,650,000 Sl,725,000 513,375,000 

Notes; 

Dredging qu«ntity lncfodes 4 yr. nourLc;bment cycle. 

58 
612

Table SL - Total First C06t Price LE>ve l: Jun 07 

PLm L(85' Bermw/ 20' NAVD Dunf' using4 Yr. Cyde) 

ACCOUNT DFSCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT EST!MATW CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

01. L.mds and Damag('s 1 Job LS Sil Sil ro 

17. Reach Repleni'>hmcnt 

Mohiliz.ation, Demoh. And Prep«r.1tory Work 1 Job LS $688,721 $82,647 $771,370 

Hopper Dredging 

Site Work, Excavation and Disposal 

CeUl 1,304,200 CY S6.35 $8,28[,670 $1,242,251 $9,523,921 

Cell2 !84,000 Lr 1'6.49 Sl,!94,160 $!79,124 $!,373,284 

Tolal Bt'Mh Replacement $10,164,553 $1,50.J,021 $11,668,574 

30. PLum:ing, Engineering and DP-sign (P,E & D) 1 Joh rs 51.000,000 $150,000 $1,150,000 

31. Construction M,magNnPnt (S & A@ 9.46%) Job LS 

Tot<li Project First Cost 

(Rounded) $12,126,000 $1,796,000 $13,922,000 

Notps; 

Dredging qu«ntity lncfodps 4 yr. nourL<;bn1Pnt cycle. 

59 
613

Table SM- Tot,ll First Cost Price LE'VE'l: Jun Oi 

Plan M {110' Berm w / 20' NA VD Dune using 4 Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTALCCYST 

01. Lands and Damages Job LS $0 $0 $) 

17. Beach ReplenishrnE>nt 

Mohilib1tion, Demoh. And Preparatory Work 1 job LS $688,72) $32,647 $77l.170 

Hopper Dredging 

Site Work, Excavation and Di<;posal 

Celll 1,624,900 CY So.32 $10.269.368 $1,540,405 $11,809,773 

Cell2 209,400 CY So.45 $1"'50.6.10 $202,595 $1,553,225 

Tol,11 Beach Replacement $12.308.721 $1,825,646 $14,134,367 

30. Planni11g, Enginel'ring and Design (P,E & D) l job 15 SL000,000 5150,000 Sl.150.000 

31. Construction Man,1genwnl (S & A@ 9.46'1£,) job l.5 

Total Project First Cost 

(Rmmded) $14,473,000 $2,148,000 $16,621,000 

NotE>s: 

Dredging quantity lncfodes 4 yr. nourishmrnt cyclr. 

60 
614

Table SN - Total First Cost Price LE>vel: Jun 07 

Plan N {160' Berm w / 20' NA VTI Dune using J Yr. Cycle) 

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF ITRM QUANTITY UOM UNIT ESTIMATED CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST 

Ol. Lands and Damages l Jo}, LS $0 $0 $0 

17. Reach Replenislunent 

Mobiliz,1tion, Demob. And Preparatory Wo1·k l Job LS $1.377,-1-16 $165,294 $1,542,740 

H oppE't Dredging 

Site Work, Excavation and Dic;posal 

Cell 1 2,.306,900 CY $6.27 $14,464,263 $2,169,639 $16,63-1,902 

Cell2 248,900 CY $6.40 $],592,%0 $238,944 $L831,904 

Total Beach RC'p.l.i.cerneni $17,434,669 $2,573,877 $20,008,546 

30. PL--mning, Engineering and Design (P,E & D) l Job LS $1,000,000 $150,000 suso.ooo 

31. Construction M,magement (S & A@ 8,92%) Job LS 

Tolal Project F"irsl Cost 

(Rounded) $19,990,000 $2,953,000 $22,943,000 

Notes: 

Dredging quantity indudes 4 yr. nourishment (ycle, 

61 
615

Section 16 

Dredging Technology 

1. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Letter Report 

2. A Guide to the Planning and Design of Jet Pump Remedial Sand Bypassing Systems 

3. World Wide Sand By-passing Systems: Data Report 
616

March 26, 2008 

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Letter Report 

Mobile Hydraulic Backpassing System for the 

Hereford to Cape May Feasibility Study 

March 26, 2008 

James E. Clausner, PE 

Timothy L. Welp 

'\Napwfo 1 phl\CENA.P-PL\pl-p\CoastalPlanning .. PL-PC\I-Iereford Jo .. Cape"May\Dredging J'ech\ERDC _ report\CHL Final hackpm~s Repo1t 

Mar-26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet Appendix A., Section 16 
617

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Letter Report -

Mobile Hydraulic Backpassing System for the 

Hereford to Cape May Feasibility Study 

Table of Contents 

March 26, 2008 

Note - this page is considered optional, and if needed, completed after receipt of 

comments. 

Section Page 

Background 2 

Study Approach 4 

Conclusions 10 

Recommendations 12 

References 12 

Figures 1-5 14-18 

Tables 1-6 19-24 

Appendix A- Contractor Contact Infonnation 25 

Appendix B Request for Information provided to contractors 26-31 

Appendix C - DOP Information Provided 32-38 

Appendix D - Javeler Tnfonnation Provided 39-41 

2 

\\Nap-fa 1 phl\CEN AP-PL\p 1-p\Coasta!Planning_..PL-PC\Hereford.Jo .. Capc\'f ay\Dredging . Tech\ERDC. report\CHL Final backpass Report 

Mar-26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !'\fay Inlet Appendix A., Section 16 
618

March 26, 2008 

Background: 

Beach erosion is a problem at North Wildwood, NJ, which is immediately south of Hereford 

lnlet (Figure 1). As part of the Hereford to Cape May Feasibility Study (simply referred to as the 

feasibility study from now on) the US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District (NAP) is 

investigating various options to economically backpass sand from the wide beach to the south, 

Wildwood, NJ, to North Wildwood (Figure 2). In early February 2008, Mr. Brian Bogle, the 

project manager for the NAP's Hereford Inlet to Cape May Feasibility study, contacted Messrs. 

James Clausner (Associate Technical Director for Navigation) and Timothy Welp (Hydraulic 

Engineer, Coastal Engineering Branch) of the U.S. Army Engineer Research Development 

Center's (ERDC) Coastal and Hydraulic Laboratory (CHL). Based on recommendations 

Mr. Jeffrey Gebert (NAP), Mr. Bogle requested CHL assistance in evaluating mobile hydraulic 

based backpassing systems as possible solutions to the beach erosion problem at North 

Wildwood. Due to Mr. Welp's prior commitments, Mr. Clausner agreed to conduct the study and 

have Mr. Welp review the final report. The remainder of this section describes volumes to be 

backpassed, conventional backpassing options, why mobile submersible pumps may be more 

desirable for this application, desired submersible pump operating features for this project, and 

other pertinent engineering details related to this project. 

Backpass Volumes. The NAP estimates between lOOK and 200K cy/yr need to be backpassed 

from Wildwood to North Wildwood on an annual basis. However, because of the existing deficit 

on the North Wildwood beach, a one time "beach nourishment level" effort of 500,000 to 

1,000,000 cy is needed prior to the annual backpassing. 

Conventional Backpass Options. A proven option for bypassing/backpassing modest volumes 

is to use conventional earthmoving equipment to collect the sand and then truck it from one 

location to another. This has been done at Avalon, NJ, twice in the past five years and is being 

considered at Wildwood. However, the cost of this option, estimated at about $20/cy by NAP 

for the Wildwood application, is considered to be too expensive. This option also significantly 

interferes with beach use. 

Submersible Pump Options. The high cost and interference with beach use resulting from the 

conventional earthmoving option for backpassing led to NAP's interest in evaluating mobile 

hydraulic pumps to entrain the sand at Wildwood in conjunction with booster pumps to transfer 

the sand to North Wildwood with the desire to reduce costs (ideally to less than $10 per cubic 

yard). In a recent paper, Chase (2006), described a system based on a submersible pump (Figure 

3) deployed from a crane that appears to meet many of the NAP's requirements. The goal 

Chase's system was to mine a specific volume, 100 to 200K cy from over as limited an area as 

possible. Chase's (2006) system used a crane for deployment, creating pits in the nearshore zone 

15 to 20 ft deep and based costs on backpassing 200K cy a distance ofup to 24,000 ft over a 

period of four months. He also provided data for shorter distances and lOOK cy. Chase also 

included as an option a sheet pile that could be used to increase production by allowing the crane 

to be positioned further seaward. This sheet pile wall, if used, would have to be removed and 

moved periodically to mine the relatively thin layer of sand proposed for this project. 

3 

\\Nap-fslphJ\CENAP-PI.\pl-p\CoastalPlanning PL-PCIIforeford _to-_Cape!\iay\Dredging .. Tech\ERDC_rcport\CI-IL Final hackpass Report 

Mar 26 08.doc 

Hcr;ford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet Appendix A.. Section 16 
619

March 26, 2008 

NAP Desired Submersible Pump Back Passing Methods. The NAP desires a more mobile 

system than that described in Chase (2006) with minimal infrastructure support and impact to 

beach users. Also, rather than dig a series of relatively deep pits, NAP would prefer to remove 

sand in a thin layer over a wide area with excavation pits no deeper than 10 fl: below the zero 

elevation on the cross section provided by NAP (Figure 4), thought to be typical of the 

Wildwood Beach. Initially, NAP expressed a desire to remove the material between the blue line 

(original shoreline) and the red line (minimum cut width) or the black line (maximum cut width) 

between +5 and -10 ft elevation. Note the datum on this figure in NA VD88. Also, NAP (after 

discussions with Messrs. Clausner and Welp) requested the contractors consider options to 

deploy a submersible pump or eductor Get pump) that could be less expensive than using a crane. 

Other less expensive deployment options include an A-frame or tripod to deploy the submersible 

pump. Another option considered by NAP, as described in an e-mail from Mr. Gebert, was to 

use mechanical equipment, scrapers and dozers to stockpile sand and then use hydraulic pumps 

to transfer the sand to North Wildwood. 

Other Pertinent Details. 

Sand Grain Size. The sand to be backpassed is 0.15 mm. 

Backpass Distance. Required distance for backpassing is between 5,000 and 15,000 ft, 

thus booster pumps will be required. 

Tide Range. Tide range at the site is 4 ft. 

Schedule. Ideally the system would transfer sand outside of the summer tourist season 

when the beach is most heavily used, thus the material should be transferred from Sep 15111 to 

May 15th, a total of 8 months. 

With the above background information, most of which was provided during a conference call 

on Feb 14, 08, Mr. Clausner began the study in early March 2008. Over the course of the study, 

NAP supplied additional information in response to Mr. Clausner's requests and those from the 

various companies. An important piece of information was that the datum on the cross section 

provided was NA VD88. Dr. Don Stauble (CHL), who has done considerable work in the Cape 

May, provided an estimate ofMLLW at Wildwood, which based on NOAA tidal station data, is 

estimated to be 3 ft below 0.0 NA VD (Stauble 2008). 

Study Approach: 

Based on the limited time available, less than one month, Mr. Clausner decided to contact a 

number of reputable companies that sell and, in some cases, perform dredging, with submersible 

pumps or eductors. Mr. Clausner developed a short Request for Information (RFI) that he 

supplied to five companies: Javeler Construction Company (Toyo Pumps), Hagler Pumps, Heger 

Pumps (trade name Drag Flow), DOP (a Dutch company), and Standard Gravel (Genflo Jet 

Pumps). Appendix A contains the names, phone numbers, e-mail addresses and web sites of the 

companies contacted. Appendix B contains the full RFI. Following the initial contact, 

Mr. Clausner had subsequent e-mails and phone conversations with several of the company 

representatives. Note, we did not investigate any environmental concerns that might be 

associated with this type of beach mining operation. 

4 

'\Nap-I); lphl\CENAP-PI,\pl-p\CoastalPJanning .PL-PC\Hereford . ..fo ~ Cape\fay\Drcdging ·1ech\ERDC .. rcport\CHL Final backpass Report 

?I.Jar .. 2G 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Appendix A., Section 16 
620

March 26, 2008 

Results from Contractor Input and CHL Calculations 

Between the conference call on February 14, 2008 and late February, 2008, Messrs Clausner and 

Bogle developed a mutually agreeable SOW and Mr. Bogle provided funds. During the first 

week in March, Mr. Clausner, with the assistance of Mr. Welp, developed the list of contractors 

and POCs, and Mr. Clausner developed the RFI. On March 5tl', Mr. Clausner provided the RFI to 

the above listed contractors. The results of the initial contacts follow. 

I. Heger Pumps, which sells Drag Flow Pumps, POC is Siegfried Heger. Mr. Heger 

responded to the initial RFI, and had a phone conversation with Mr. Clausner. The phone 

conversation with Mr. Heger showed him to be quite knowledgeable (he also provided 

information to Mr. Chase in the preparation of his 2006 paper). Mr. Clausner was under 

the impression that Mr. Heger would provide a written response. However, that did not 

occur. 

2. Hagler Pumps, POC's were Mr. Robert Hagler and Ms. Laurie Nalley. Mr. Hagler and 

Ms. Nalley did not respond to the RFI. 

3. Standard Gravel, POC's were Mr. Spencer Green and Mr. John Green. After the initial 

RFI, Mr. Spencer Green e-mailed Mr. Clausner that he and his father were leaving 

shortly on an extended trip would not be able to review the RFl until 14 March at the 

earliest. Mr. Green did not provide any response. 

4. Darnen Dredging Equipment, a Dutch Company, which sells DOP Submersible Dredge 

Pumps, POC was Mr. David Tenwolde. Mr. Tenwolde provided considerable 

information on appropriate DOP submersible pumps, booster pumps and related 

equipment appropriate for this application. The complete set of information is provided in 

Appendix C. Perhaps of most interest were details of a somewhat similar application on 

the east coast ofltaly between Venice and Ravenna conducted in 2003, which used two 

DOP 2320 submersible pumps and a diesel driven booster and associated 

instrumentation. In this application, the pumping distances ranged from 3,000 to 

18,000 ft, and material was transported through a 300 mm (12-inch) pipe. The 

submersible pump was deployed from a CAT 320 excavator removing sand from a sheet 

pile lined pit to prevent the excavator from falling into the pit. Average production rate 

was 400 cum/hr (520 cy/hr) over the entire operation. 

a. While the information on this Italian application showed the DOP equipment is 

very likely quite suitable for the Wildwood Backpass project, specific information 

on proposed operating scenarios, and total costs for the Wildwood Backpass 

project were not provided. A rough cost for the full set of equipment specified 

was provided by Mr. Tenwolde, which included a D2320 pump, diesel driven 

hydraulic power unit and instrumentation ($410,000), production meter ($66,000), 

and diesel powered booster pump station ($257,000), which totals to $733,000 

based on a $1.56 per Euro conversion rate. 

b. Requesting additional information on the Italian application and attempt to get 

more detailed costs for Wildwood application was considered. However, our 

5 '- \ N ap-fs 1 ph11CEN AP-PL\pJ-p\Coa<;talPlanning .. PI~-PC\I-Iereford .Jo _.Cape May\ Drcdging_.Tech\ERDC . ..rcport\CI-IL Final backpass Report 

Mar 26 08.doc 

Herd'ord Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet Appendix A., Section 16 
621

March 26, 2008 

expectation of success was low, so it was decided to focus our efforts in the 

information provided by Javeler Construction Company described next. 

5. Javeler Construction Company (Toyo Pumps), our initial POC was Mr. Leslie Cross, 

however, following the initial e-mail, Mr. Richard Binning responded to the RFP. Toyo 

is a Japanese submersible pump, sold in the US via the Toyo Pumps office in Vancouver, 

BC, Canada (associated with Javeler Construction Company). Javeler Construction 

company has its main office in New Iberia, LA, and while the office in Vancouver, BC 

that helps to market Toyo Pumps, it is primarily a specialized construction company. 

Mr. Binning in the Vancouver, BC office provided considerable information that 

specifically addressed the RFI. The remainder of the report is based on information 

provided by Mr. Binning and developed by Mr. Clausner and modifications to the 

operating details developed through a series of e-mails between Messrs Clausner, Bogle 

and Gebert. Provided initially is the information developed by Mr. Clausner, followed by 

input from Mr. Binning. 

CHL Calculations of Project Duration. To assist both the contractors and NAP, we calculated 

the time required to backpass IOOK cy, 200K cy, SOOK cy, and 1 M cy at average production 

rates of 400 cy/hr and 600 cy/hr. The calculation rates of 400 cy/hr and 600 cy/hr calculations 

were based on initial information from Mr. Binning as possible production rates for a 12 inch 

and 14 inch Toyo pump, respectively. Not knowing the specific operating schedule, calculations 

were made for 5, 6, and 7 day/week operations and daily work times of 8, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 24 hr. 

A subsequent set of calculations were made at a 300 cy/hr production rate. This was based on a 

March 18th e-mail from Mr. Binning where he indicated a production rate of 300 cy/hr was 

assumed as a long-term average production rate to include crane movement. Using this same 

logic, i.e., a 25% reduction in production in the 600 cy/hr rate for the larger Toyo pump to 

account for crane movement, a set of calculations using a production rate of 450 cy/hr was made. 

Tables I and 2 provide the project durations based on the 300 and 450 cy/hr production rates, 

respectively. An Excel spreadsheet with the full set of production rate calculations is being 

provided to NAP along with this report. 

Because the vast majority of the Javeler information is based on a 300 cy/hr production rate, 

most of the following discussions are based on Table I. Also, the discussions focus on the 

assumptions made by Mr. Binning: a 5-day work week, 8 dredging hours per day, 22 working 

days per month (4.33 weeks/month) a 15,000 ft pumping distance. Of prime importance is the 

assumption is that the long term average production rate of 300 cy/hr is based on being able to 

mine sand from an elevation of +5 NA VD to -IO NAVO, or a vertical height of 15 ft. For the 

annual backpass rates of I 00,000 and 200,000 cy/hr, the actual project durations, defined as the 

months required for pumping only, not including mob and demob, based on the 5 day, 8 hr/day 

are 1.9 months (IOOK cy) and 3.8 months (200 K cy). Based on the same pumping rate and 

schedule, backpassing SOOK cy is probably marginal, 9.5 months, which is longer than the 

8 month non-summer season). Backpassing I .OM cy at the 300 cy/hr, 8 hr/day, 5 day/week 

would take almost 19 months, and is assumed to be unacceptable. 

6 

\\Nap-fa 1 phl\CE'K AP-Pl)pl-p\CoastalPlanning_.PL-PC\Hereford _to·" Cape May\ Dredging_J'ech\ERDC "report\CHL Final backpass Report 

Mar 26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ;\fay Inlet Appendix A., Section 16 
622

March 26, 2008 

From Table 1, it can be seen that increasing the number of hours per day of pumping or the 

number of days/week pumping occurs, shortens the duration required, for example pumping 

9 hours per day reduces the pumping time to 3.4 months (200K cy) and 1. 7 months (100K cy). 

To backpass SOOK or IM cy in less than 8 months would require higher production rates. 

Examining Table 2 shows SOOK cy could be backpassed in 6.3 months at the 8-hr/day, 5 day/wk 

work schedule and 1.0 M cy could be backpassed in 7 months on a 12-hr/day, 6 day per week 

schedule. These larger backpass volume requirements might be more logically treated as a more 

conventional beach nourishment job, i.e., a 24-hr/day, 7-day/wk schedule. In that case, the 

pumping duration would reduce to 1.5 months for the SOOK cy and 3.0 months for the I.OM cy. 

The tables also provide information on pumping duration based on other schedules, e.g., 

12-hr/day and 16-hr/day which might be better received by the residents. 

CHL Calculations of Volumes Available for Different Beach Mining Swath Widths. To 

assist the contractors and NAP, we calculated volumes of sand available per unit width of beach 

and used that information to calculate the volumes available for a given swath width. A swath is 

defined as the width of the beach that can be mined without moving the submersible pump 

deployment device. For example a crane with a 100 ft boom, would have a swath width of 

approximately 200 ft. 

The vertical datum on the cross section (Figure 4) is NA VD88. At this location in New Jersey, 

the Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) datum is approximately 3.0 ft below NAVD88. NAP 

indicated they would like to limit the sand mining depth to about -3.0 ft MLLW (-6.0 ft 

NA VD88) to minimize offshore beach impacts. Based on this assumption, slopes of the various 

profiles were measured, including the max cut profile (Black line), minimum cut profile (Red 

line), and original profile (Blue Line), both on the "dry beach" assumed to be between +5 ft 

NAVD88 (+8 ft MLLW) and 0.0 ft NAVD88 (+3 ft MLLW); and on the "wet beach" 0.0 ft 

NAVD88 (+3 ft MLLW) and -6.0 ft NAVD88 (-3.0 ft MLLW). The somewhat arbitrary division 

between the "dry beach" and "wet beach" was based on the change in the slope at the 0.0 ft 

elevation NA VD88. The average distances between the lines were also measured and converted 

to feet, with the results shown in Table 3. 

The dry beach widths listed in the top of Table 3 are easy to visualize and were used in volume 

computations described below. The wet beach slopes may help contractors decide operating 

methods. 

Using this information, the cross sectional areas of the dry and wet beaches were computed as 

shown in Table 4. For example, the cross sectional area of dry beach for the max cut is 1,500 ft2

. 

Per foot of beach width, that corresponds to a volume of 55.6 cy. To assist in computing how 

many cubic yards could be removed from a "single" positioning of the submersible pump, the 

volume available in 50 ft increments were computed from 50 to 250 ft for both the "maxim cut" 

and "minimum cut" for the dry beach and wet beach. For example, if a large crane is used to 

mine a 250 ft wide swath of beach (i.e., a crane with a boom length of 125 ft), the volume 

available is 22,000 cy from single locations. For the dry beach I assumed a rectangular area (plan 

view), while for the wet beach, I assumed a half circle in area to account for the swing radius of 

the crane. 

7 

\ \Napw fs I phl\CEN AP~ PL\pJwp\Coasta!Planning ... PLw PC\ Hereford.Jo ... Cape1fay\DredginK .. -l'ech \ER DC report\CHIJ Final ba.ckpass Report 

?\far 26 08.doc 

HcrCi:Ord Inlet to Cape 1.fay Inlet Appendix A .. Section 16 
623

March 26, 2008 

Table 5 shows the length of beach required to provide a given volume, from lOOK cy to lM cy 

based on both the maximum and minimum cuts. Noteworthy is the length of beach required for 

mining to get lM cy; over 10,000 ft for the max cut and almost 17,000 ft for the minimum cut. 

These required lengths may cause the District to consider increasing the maximum mining depth 

of -3.0 ft MLLW. 

Table 6 provides he number of times the system would have to be moved to remove the volumes 

required at the minimum and maximum cut for a range of swath widths. This clearly shows the 

value of having a system that can remove sediment from a wide swath width. For example using 

the minimum cut at a 50 ft swath width to move the larger beach nourishment volume of lM cy 

would require 370 moves, while a 250 ft swath width would required only 74 moves. For the 

smaller, annual backpassing requirements, the narrow swath widths are not as much of a burden. 

For example to transfer lOOK cy at a 50 ft swath width for the maximum cut requires the system 

to be repositioned 22 times, while at the 250 ft swath width and the maximum cut only requires 4 

moves. Thus, for the renourishment, a system with a larger swath removal width would likely be 

required to keep costs low, while for the smaller annual backpassing, a less costly system based 

on a smaller swath width may be suitable. 

Response to CHL REP from Richard Binning (Javeler Construction Company). The 

information below has been extracted from the response provided by Mr. Richard Binning on 

March 111

h, 2009. The complete original response can be found in Appendix D. Mr. Binning 

stated in his introduction that 

"Based on your description of the North Wildwood application, we can meet 

your target price of$ 10 per cubic yard. There are a lot of details to go over, but 

conceptually, this is achievable. Javeler has the capability to do the work as a 

contractor or to provide equipment and technical support." 

Mr. Binning provided information for two options, the first option, on which his more detailed 

cost estimates were based, was for a Javeler 12 inch Electric Submersible Mobile Dredging 

System. The second option was based on a Javeler 14 inch Submersible Mobile Dredging 

System. 

Option 1- 12 Inch System. The 12-inch electric system is capable of transferring 3,000 

- 4,000 gpm of slurry at a maximum distance of 15,000 ft. Sand production of up to 400 cubic 

yards per hour of material is possible with this system. The prime mover in this system is a Toyo 

150 hp electric submersible agitator dredge pump which would be suspended from a crane with 

120 - 160 feet of boom. Power would be from a 300kW generator to be mounted on the back of 

the crane, fuel usage is estimated atl8 gal/hr. The unit is capable of transferring sand at up to 

50 % solids by weight. Output from the pump is through a 10-inch gum lined dredge hose to 

12 inch HPDE pipe on the beach. Diesel engine powered, skid mounted boosters would be 

placed every 5,000 feet to transfer the sand slurry to the south inlet location. Horsepower 

requirement for each booster is 400 hp. 

8 

\\Nap-falphl\CEN,\P-PL\pJ-p\CoastalPlanning .PL-PC\I!ereford.Jo .. Cape1fay\Dredging_ .. Tech\ERDC .. report\CIIL Final hackpass Report 

!\far_26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape J\fay Inlet App¢ndix A .. Section 16 
624

March 26, 2008 

Responding to a subsequent e-mail from Mr. Clausner, Mr. Binning provided the following 

assumptions on which the $10/ per cubic yard estimate was based. 

1. The Javeler proposal at $10/yd was based on dredging from +S to -IO NA VD88. 

2. Javeler assumed 100,000 to 200,000 cubic yards of sand to be moved. 

3. The cost estimate was based on: 

a. Single shift (8 dredging hours per day); 5 days/wk; 22 days per month. 

b. $ 4/gallon diesel fuel. 

c. Included beach grading on discharge side. 

d. 15,000 feet pumping distance with maximum 15' vertical lift. 

4. The cost estimate was based on utilizing the most standard, readily available submersible 

dredging system that Javeler has, the I SO hp Toyo electric submersible dredge pump 

through 12 inch HDPE pipe with boosters every 5,000 ft. 

5. Production was based on an average production of 300 cy/hr, although at times, the 

system will be pumping in excess of 400 cy/hr. Time to relocating the crane is included 

in the average production rate. 

Option 2 - 14 inch System. The 14 inch hydraulic system is capable of transferring 5,000 -

6,000 gpm of slurry at a maximum distance of 15,000 ft. The maximum sand production rate of 

the system is 600 cy/hr. The system consists of a Toyo 12-inch hydraulic driven submersible 

agitator dredge pump suspended from a crane with 120 - 160 feet of boom, or mount directly to 

a large excavator and use the hydraulics from the rig to run the pump. An external hydraulic 

power unit (350 hp), if required, would be mounted on the back of the crane. The system will 

pump a sand slurry up to SO% solids by weight through a 12 inch gum tube lined dredge hose to 

14 inch HPDE pipe on the beach. Diesel engine powered, skid mounted booster pumps with 

marine gear drives, will be placed every 5,000 feet to transfer the sand slurry to the south inlet 

location. The horsepower requirement for each booster is 500 hp. 

Manpower required for the backpassing system is a function of pumping distance. Javeler likes 

to have one additional man per booster station (every 5,000 ft). The base system with 5,000 ft of 

line requires 3 people to operate it (Javeler is non union). 

Mr. Binning noted that the deeper the "cut" the more efficient the submersible agitator dredging 

system is. Also allowing a cut to -IO ft NA VD ensures an adequate water supply to the 

submersible and uninterrupted dredging operations. Excavation in the intertidal zone should 

ensure quick sand replacement. The simplest, most effective system is to hang the submersible 

from a crane. 

BullDozer Production and Cost Information. This is not an area of our expertise, however, 

between the internet and other sources we compiled the following information that may prove 

useful in developing backpass options that use land based equipment. An internet search found 

Figure 5, maximum production rates for a range of Caterpillar bulldozers for a range of haul 

distances. This information came from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations (1998). The chapter provided factors that can be used to compute production under a 

range of materials, slopes and conditions. Not having any background in this area, we choose 

not to attempt to modify these production rates. However, it provides a starting point. For 

9 

\\Napwf.<; lphl\CENAP~PI,\pl-p\Coasta!Planning .. PL-PC\Hereford Jo Cape~fay\Dredging . .Tech\ERDC .. report\CHL Final backpass Report 

J\.far_2G OS.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }day Inlet Appendix A., Section 16 
625

March 26, 2008 

example a D8 dozer's maximum production rate with loose material is about 400 cum/hr 

(520 cy/hr) for a 50 meter (164 ft) average dozing distance. This is approximately equal to the 

production rate of the submersible pumps and thus appears to be a reasonable option to "feed" 

the submersible pump in a backpassing situation. 

We also developed some limited cost data that may be useful in evaluating options that make 

greater use ofland based equipment. Mr. Brian Peterson of St. Paul District Fountain City Area 

Office (personal communication), estimated a D-7 dozer uses l 00 gallons of diesel fuel in a l Ohr day of moving sand. Assuming fuel consumption is roughly comparable to hp, and a D-7 

bulldozer hp is 240, while a D8 bulldozer hp is 3 l 0, thus fuel consumption of a D-8 bulldozer is 

130 gallons in a 10 hr day or 13 gallons per hour. Mr. William Welk (personal communication), 

cost estimator at NAP, provided a cost estimate for a D-8 Bulldozer. The estimate, based on an 

8-hr day at fuel at about $3.10 per gallon in bulk, was $2,250 per day. Details of the cost 

estimate are attached (PDF file). 

Hopefully, the above information could be used by a competent cost estimator or dredging 

contractor in producing cost estimates for bulldozer assistance in a hydraulic based mobile 

backpass system. 

Chase (2006) Review Comments. Mr. Clausner reviewed the Chase (2006) paper in light of 

this study and has the following comments. The backpass system proposed by Chase is 

somewhat different than the system desired in this study as noted earlier. The backpass fuel 

costs, assumed to be for crane, submersible pump and booster pumps are based on a fuel cost of 

$2.00 per gallon. Increasing the fuel cost to $4.00 per gallon raises the estimated backpass costs 

by about 9%, increasing the cost for bypassing 200,000 cy from $7.05/cy to $7.65. Note, there 

was no attempt to update any of the other costs presented in the Chase paper. We assume that 

other fuel costs are associated with the nourished area grading, but were not broken out 

separately and thus the overall increase associated with the increasing cost of fuel could not be 

calculated. For future efforts on this study, persuading Mr. Chase to provide the details he used 

to develop his paper would be worthwhile. 

Conclusions 

Information provided by Javeler Construction Company concludes it is possible to backpass 

200K cy of beach sand a distance of 15,000 ft over a period of about two to four months using a 

crawler crane to deploy a submersible pump at a cost of about $10/cy. This is based on the 

following assumptions: use of a rented crane with a 120 to 160 ft boom, mining pits down to 

- 10 ft NAVD88, and $4/gallon diesel fuel. Mr. Wei p's experience with Javeler Construction 

Company has been positive, and Mr. Clausner's limited experience with Javeler has also been 

positive. The bottom line is that the information from Chase 2006, reinforced by the more recent 

and Wildwood project specific information from Javeler Construction Company leads us to 

believe that a mobile based hydraulic backpass system has good potential for meeting NA P's 

goal of approximate! y $10/ cy. 

10 

\\Nap-fslphl\CENAP-PL\pl-p\CoastalPlanning.YL-PC\Hereford.Jo.-Cape:t-.fay\DredginR .. Tech'ERDC report\CHL Final backpass Repoti 

1far 26 OS.doc 

Herd'ord Inkt to Cape May Inlet 10 Appendix A., Section 16 
626

March 26, 2008 

However, it must be noted that with the limited information we developed, we cannot conclude 

that the $10/cy unit price is possible with "surgical" or a limited depth beach (-3 ft MLL W) 

mining plan. Also, we were not able to get feedback from our contractors on backpassing costs 

that included the use ofland based equipment, i.e., bulldozers and scrapers, to feed material to a 

hydraulic based system. Our intuition is that this option would be more expensive than the crane 

based system, but we cannot say for sure or how much more expensive. We were able to gather 

some data that may assist others in conducting that analysis. 

Another question we were unable to answer is potential cost savings associated with a less 

expensive deployment method. We think the lower cost of the simpler deployment system may 

be more than offset by the smaller capture area with the simpler deployment system and large 

number of times the system would have to be moved. In fact, after additional discussions, we 

believe a crawler crane is probably by far the best method to effectively deploy the submersible 

pump. 

In addition to examining the annual backpassing requirements, NAP requested unit cost 

estimates for a one time backpassing of SOOK to 1 M cy. The duration to backpass SOOK cy, 

7.7 months working 10 hr days five days a week and 1 M cy, 8 months working 16-hr days, 6 

days/wk, make use of the smaller system marginal at best. The larger system proposed by 

Javeler Construction Company appears capable of bypassing these larger amounts in a 

reasonable amount of time, i.e., easily less than one eight month beach off season, e.g., SOOK cy 

in 6.4 months pumping 8-hr/day, 5 days/week, and 1 M cy in 7.1 months pumping 12-hr/days 

and 6days/wk. Working 24/7 makes these durations much shorter, 1.5 months for SOOK cy and 

3 .1 months for lM cy. 

A major issue for the large one time beach nourishment volumes is the long length of beach 

required to provide sufficient volume if the shallower sand mining limit (-3 ft MLLW) is used. 

For example, to mine 500 K cy over the minimum cut width would require about 8,400 ft of 

beach and to mine 1 M cy over the minimum cut width would require almost 17,000 ft of beach. 

Even at the maximum cut width, the beach length required is over 5,000 ft for SOOK cy and 

10,000 ft for 1 M cy. 

The shallower mining depths will increase costs due to the frequency the system would have to 

be moved. Assuming no infilling occurs and a 100 ft wide swath width is being removed, the 

system would have to be moved 19 times if the minimum beach width cut is used. For a SOOK or 

lM cy backpassing, the number of movements required with a 100 ft wide swath range from 56 

(SOOK cy, max cut width), to 185 (lM cy, min cut width). While repositioning a crane and using 

a flexible HDPE pipeline is not a major issue, these figures imply that without significant 

infilling of the craters during operation, these minimum swath widths would likely be impractical 

for the beach nourishment volume and significantly increase costs for the smaller annual 

volumes, particularly for a non-crane deployment option. 

The 100 to 200K cy annual backpassing duration is not excessive, so "aesthetics" (i.e., a large 

crane on the beach) may be less of a problem." For a SOOK to 1,000 K cy backpass operation, 

where the crane/dozers, etc., will be on the beach longer, this may become more of an issue. 

11 \\ N ap-fs 1 phl\CENAP-PI,\pl-p\Coa<;talPlanning .. Pf ~-PC\Hereford._to ·-CapeMay\Dredging .Tech \ERDC .. report\CHI~ Final backpac;s Report 

!\far 26 08.doc 

Herd.Ord Inki to Cape 1fay Inkt 11 Appendix A., Section 16 
627

March 26, 2008 

However, using a larger, more robust system on a longer work schedule, perhaps even a 24/7 

basis would reduce beach impacts by lessening the time required to complete the project. 

Recommendations 

First get good data on crater infilling rates. While sediment transport models can provide some 

estimates, the rate of filling of the craters at Indian River Inlet will provide the best information. 

If the rates of filling are sufficiently high, then allowing deeper mining depths may be justified. 

Also, as recommended by Chase (2006), a bucket could be mounted on the crane and the crater 

refilled to some degree to reduce safety issues. This would, obviously, add to costs and 

durations. 

Perhaps the best recommendation would be to provide a modest sum to an experienced 

contactor, e.g., Javeler, and have them do several more detailed cost estimates with various 

options; submersible pumps deployed with a crane, other deployment options, e.g., using land 

based equipment for a large portion of the sub aerial sand removal. 

Another issue to consider when developing options would be to examine purchasing the majority 

of the HDPE pipeline as opposed to renting it. The last 5,000 to 8,000 ft could remain buried on 

the North Wildwood beach once a sufficient beach width is established. 

Consider a small demonstration project, by identifying an application with a current need for 

backpassing some modest amount of sedments. Javeler Construction Company has indicated 

they could mobilize a 12 inch system to pump up to 5,000 feet within 2 weeks. They estimate 

the dredging costs would not exceed $10/yard, based on a minimum volume of 40,000 yards. 

Prior to this demonstration, the contractor should visit the Indian River Inlet Bypass plant to get 

information on present operating methods and lessons learned, e.g., the influence of waves and 

tide on crater infilling and production rates and advantages and disadvantage of working 

alongshore vs cross shore. This information would also be valuable for the contractor 

performing the more detailed cost estimates described above. 

Finally, the recent increases in the price of diesel fuel will likely raise prices across the board. 

We believe the purely land based backpassing option, i.e., using scrapers, dozers, and dump 

trucks, would be more impacted than the hydraulic based backpassing options. 

References 

Chase, S. (2006). "Sand back-passing with land based equipment, a cost-effective approach for 

beach restoration," Shore and Beach Vol 74, No 2, Spring 2006), pp 19-25. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1998). "Watershed Management 

Field Manual, F AO Conservation Guide 13/5, Chapter 6, Road Construction Techniques, page 6. 

http//www.fao.org/docrep/006/t0099e/T0099e06.htm 

12 

\\N apwfa 1 phl\CENAPw Pl,\plwp\CoastalPlanning._.PLw PC\IIereford.Jo-· Cape~fay\Dredging_ .. Tcch\ER DC report\CHI, Final backpass Repoti 

Mar-26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cap~ i\fay Inlet 12 Appendix A .. Section 16 
628

March 26, 2008 

Peterson, B. (2008). Personal communication, telephone call with Mr. Tim Welp, March 24, 

2008. 

Stauble, D. (2008). Personal communication, e-mail dated March 11, 2008. 

Welk, W. (2008). Personal communication, e-mail dated March 24, 2008. 

13 

\\Nap~fal phl\CENAP-PL\pl-p\CoastalPlanning .. PL-PC\lforeford _to .. CapeMay\DredginK. Tech\ERDC _rcport\CHL Final hackpass Report 

}.far 26 08.doc 

Her~ford Inld to Cape May Inlet 13 Appendix A., Section 16 
629

Miles 

Cape May Inlet 

Figure 1. Location map. 

14 

March 26, 2008 

Townsends Inlet 

Avalon 

~ § § ~ Qi 

Stone Harbor ~ r;:j 

HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ 

SCALE AS SHOWN 

US ARMY ENGINEER DlSTRICT, PHILA, PA 

1\'Nap-fa lphl 1CENAP-PL\pl-p\Coasta1PlanninR. PL-PC\ flereford .Jo .. Cap.:,1fay\Dredging ... Tech\ ERDC-report1CHL Final backpass Report 

!\far _26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlct to Cap~ May Inlet 14 Appendix A., Section 16 
630

March 26, 2008 

N 

Sediment imbalance between northern and southern portions of project area 

Figure 2. Aerial photo of project area. 

15 

\\Nap-fa l phl1CENAP-PL\pl-p\Coa."talPlanning_. PL-PC\Hcrcford Jo .. CapeMay\Dredging Tech\ERDC .. reportlCHL Final hackpa.<ss Report 

Mar 26 08.doc 

Heriford Inlet to Cape Ma;1 Inkt 15 Appendix A., Section 16 
631

March 26, 2008 

Figure 3. Crane deploying submersible pump from jetty 

16 

\\N'ap-falphl\CENAP-PL\pJ-plCoastalPlanning .PL-PC\Hereford .to. CapeMay\Dredging .. Tech\ERDC .report\CHL Vinal backpass Rcpot1 

Mar 26 OS.doc 

Her,;Jord Inkt to Cap.:- May Inlet 16 Appendix A .. Section 16 
632

(X) 

(Q 

0 

> <( 

z 

g 

C 

0 

., 

w 

Tide Range 

~ .iQQO 

March 26, 2008 

1000 2000 3000 4000 

Di stance Offshore (ft) 

Figure 4. Beach profile at Wildwood showing proposed borrow location. Note this figure has an 

error, it shows the tide range as 6 ft. This will be corrected on Wednesday AM. 

17 

\\Nap-fa 1phl'.CEKAP-PL\pl-p\CoastalPlanninK. PL-PC\Hereford Jo_ CapcMay\Dredging .'fech\ERDC-.. report\CHL Final backpass Repoti 

\far 26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 17 Appendix A., Section 16 
633

March 26, 2008 

a: ti> tOOO 

12 "' ~·5 1300 1--~m 

Wj::.~ -- a.gi 1 ~D~ &00 ~o -

~lfli. G"' ;!! ~ 

@!~ 3 400 

i8; 

.,: 2 2:00 fll ::, 

0 

0 

AVERAGE 00.l'ING DISTANCE (m<rt•ra) 

Figure 5. Maximum production rates for different bulldozers equipped with straight blades in relation to 

haul distance (from Caterpillar Handbook, 1984). 

18 

\\Nap-fslphl\CENAP-PL\pJ-p\CoastalPlanning ... PL-PC\Ilereford Jo._CapeMay\Dredging_Tech\ERDC...report\CHL Final backpass Report 

ivfar 26 OS.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1\fay Inlet 18 Appendix A., Section 16 
634

March 26, 2008 

Table 1. Hereford Inlet - Wildwood Beach Backpassing Rates and 

Durations 

Based on 300 cy/hr long term average production 

Working Avg 

Volume Average Working Avg Daily days Weekly Job 

Scenario Backpassed production hours Production per Production Duration 

Number (cy) Rate cv/hr per dav (cv) week (cv) (months) 

1 1,000,000 300 8 2,400 5 12,000 18.9 

2 1,000,000 300 9 2,700 5 13,500 16.8 

3 1,000,000 300 10 3,000 5 15,000 15.2 

4 1,000,000 300 12 3,600 5 18,000 12.6 

5 1,000,000 300 16 4,800 5 24,000 9.5 

6 1,000,000 300 8 2,400 6 14,400 15.8 

7 1,000,000 300 9 2,700 6 16,200 14.0 

8 1,000,000 300 10 3,000 6 18,000 12.6 

9 1,000,000 300 12 3,600 6 21,600 10.5 

10 1,000,000 300 16 4,800 6 28,800 7.9 

11 1,000,000 300 24 7,200 7 50,400 4.5 

12 500,000 300 8 2,400 5 12,000 9.5 

13 500,000 300 9 2,700 5 13,500 8.4 

14 500,000 300 10 3,000 5 15,000 7.6 

15 500,000 300 12 3,600 5 18,000 6.3 

16 500,000 300 16 4,800 5 24,000 4.7 

17 500,000 300 8 2,400 6 14,400 7.9 

18 500,000 300 9 2,700 6 16,200 7.0 

19 500,000 300 10 3,000 6 18,000 6.3 

20 500,000 300 12 3,600 6 21,600 5.3 

21 500,000 300 16 4,800 6 28,800 3.9 

22 500,000 300 24 7,200 7 50,400 2.3 

23 200,000 300 8 2,400 5 12,000 3.8 

24 200,000 300 9 2,700 5 13,500 3.4 

25 200,000 300 10 3,000 5 15,000 3.0 

26 200,000 300 12 3,600 5 18,000 2.5 

27 200,000 300 16 4,800 5 24,000 1.9 

28 200,000 300 8 2,400 6 14,400 3.2 

29 200,000 300 9 2,700 6 16,200 2.8 

30 200,000 300 10 3,000 6 18,000 2.5 

31 200,000 300 12 3,600 6 21,600 2.1 

32 200,000 300 16 4,800 6 28,800 1.6 

33 200,000 300 24 7,200 7 50,400 0.9 

19 

\\Nap~fa lphl\CENAP~PI ,\pl~p\CoastalPlanning .PI,~PC\Ifereford .. to CapcMay\Dredging_Tech\ERDC .report\CHT, Final backpass Report 

Mnr_26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 19 Appendix A .. Section 16 
635

March 26, 2008 

Working Avg 

Volume Average Working Avg Daily days Weekly Job 

Scenario Backpassed production hours Production per Production Duration 

Number (CV) Rate cv/hr per dav (cv) week (cv) (months) 

34 100,000 300 8 2,400 5 12,000 1.9 

35 100,000 300 9 2,700 5 13,500 1.7 

36 100,000 300 10 3,000 5 15,000 1.5 

37 100,000 300 12 3,600 5 18,000 1.3 

38 100,000 300 16 4,800 5 24,000 1.0 

39 100,000 300 8 2,400 6 14,400 1.6 

40 100,000 300 9 2,700 6 16,200 1.4 

41 100,000 300 10 3,000 6 18,000 1.3 

42 100,000 300 I 12 3,600 6 21,600 1.1 

43 100,000 300 16 4,800 6 28,800 0.8 

44 100,000 300 24 7,200 7 50,400 0.5 

Table 2. Hereford Inlet - Wildwood Beach Backpassing Rates 

and Durations 

Based on 450 cy/hr long term average production 

Working Avg 

Volume Average Working Avg Daily days Weekly Job 

Scenario Backpassed production hours per Production per Production Duration 

Number (cv) Rate cy/hr day (cv) week (cv) (months) 

1 1,000,000 450 8 3,600 5 18,000 12.6 

2 1,000,000 450 91 4,050 51 20,250 11.2 

3 1,000,000 450 10 4,500 5 22,500 10.1 

4 1,000,000 450 12 5,400 5 27,000 8.4 

5 1,000,000 450 16 7,200 5 36,000 6.3 

6 1,000,000 450 8 3,600 6 21,600 10.5 

7 1,000,000 450 9 4,050 6 24,300 9.4 

8 1,000,000 450 10 4,500 6 27,000 8.4 

9 1,000,000 450 12 5,400 6 32,400 7.0 

10 1,000,000 450 16 7,200 6 43,200 5.3 

11 1,000,000 450 24 10,800 7 75,600 3.0 

12 500,000 450 8 3,600 5 18,000 6.3 

13 500,000 450 9 4,050 5 20,250 5.6 

14 500,000 450 10 4,500 5 22,500 5.1 

20 \\::-.J ap-tS 1 phl\CEN AP-PI ,\pl·p\CoastalPlanning ... PT,. PC\Ilereford .. to ... Cape~fay\ Dredging__. T ech\ER DC. repot1\CI-Il, Fin al ba.:kpass Report 

Mar-26 08.doc 

Hereford lnld to Cape May Inlet 20 .i\.pp,mdix A., Section 16 
636

March 26, 2008 

15 500,000 450 12 5,400 5 27,000 4.2 

16 500,000 450 16 7,200 5 36,000 3.2 

Working Avg 

Volume Average Working Avg Daily days Weekly Job 

Scenario Backpassed production hours per Production per Production Duration 

Number (cv) Rate cv/hr dav (cv) week (cv) (months) 

17 500 000 450 8 3,600 6 21,600 5.3 

18 500,000 450 9 4,050 6 24,300 4.7 

19 500,000 450 10 4,500 6 27,000 4.2 

20 500,000 450 12 5,400 6 32 400 3.5 

21 500,000 450 16 7,200 6 43,200 2.6 

22 500,000 450 24 10,800 7 75,600 1.5 

23 200,000 450 8 3,600 5 18,000 2.5 

24 200,000 450 9 4,050 5 20,250 2.2 

25 200,000 450 10 4,500 5 22,500 2.0 

26 200,000 450 12 5,400 5 27,000 1.7 

27 200,000 450 16 7,200 5 36,000 1.3 

28 200,000 450 8 3,600 6 21,600 2.1 

29 200,000 450 9 4,050 6 24,300 1.9 

30 200,000 450 10 4,500 6 27,000 1.7 

31 200,000 450 12 5,400 6 32,400 1.4 

32 200,000 450 16 7,200 6 43,200 1.1 

33 200,000 450 24 10,800 7 75,600 0.6 

34 100,000 450 8 3,600 5 18,000 1.3 

35 100,000 450 9 4,050 5 20,250 1.1 

36 100,000 450 10 4,500 5 22,500 1.0 

37 100,000 450 12 5,400 5 27,000 0.8 

38 100,000 450 16 7,200 5 36,000 0.6 

39 100,000 450 8 3,600 6 21,600 1.1 

40 100,000 450 9 4,050 6 24,300 0.9 

41 100,000 450 10 4,500 6 27,000 0.8 

42 100,000 450 12 5,400 6 32,400 0.7 

43 100,000 450 16 7.200 I 6 43,200 0.5 

44 100,000 450 24 10.800 I 7 75.600 0.3 

21 

\\Nap-fslphl\CENAP-PL\pl-p\CoastalPlanning ... PL-PC\IIereford ."to .CapeMay\Drcdging Jech\ERDC "report\CHL Final backpass Report 

Mar 26 08,doc 

Hcrcl'ord lnld to Cape 1.fay Inlet 21 Appendix A .. Sedion 16 
637

March 26, 2008 

Table 3. Beach widths used to compute backpass volumes 

Beach Segment Elevation Line Color Max Cut Width Min Cut Width 

Average Slope 

Dry Beach +5.0 ft NAVO 88 All colors 300 ft 185 ft 

(+8.0 ft MLLW) to 

0.0 ft NA VD 88 1V:25H 

(+3 0 ft MLLW) 

Wet Beach OONAVD88 

(+3 ft MLLW) to 

-6.0 ft NAVO 88 

(-3 0 ft MLLW) 

Blue Lineoriginal 

1V:26H 

Black Line 

max cut 

IV:69H 

Red linemin cut 

1V:54H 

22 

\\Nap~fslphl\CENAP~PL\pl·p1Coa~talPlanning __ PL·PC\liereford _to_ Capc\'1ay\Dredging_ Tcch\ERDC _ report\CHL Final backpass Report 

Mm-~ 26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 22 Appendix A .. Section 16 
Table 4. Hereford Inlet - Wildwood 

Beach Sand Volumes Available for 

Different Minina Depths 

Cross Sectional Areas 

"Dry Beach - +5 NAVD88 (+8 ft 

MLLVV) to a.a NAVD88 (+3 fl MLLVV) 

Volume Volum

Width Height Area (cy per per50 

(ft) (ft) (sq ft) ft/beach) ft (Cy) 

Max Cut - Blue to Black Line 300 5 1,500 56 2,80

Min Cut - Red to Black Line 185 5 925 34 1,70

"Wet Beach - a.a NAVD88 (+3 ft 

MLLVV) to -6 NAVD88 /-3 ft MLLVV) 

Top Bottom 

Width Width Height 

Assume a trapezoidal shape (ft) (ft) (ft) 

Max Cut - Blue to Black Line 300 83 6 1140 42.6 1,70

Min Cut - Red to Black Line 185 41.4 6 679 25.2 99

Total Volume 

Available for wet 

and dry beach 

Max Cut 4,40

Min Cut 2,70

23 
639

March 26, 2008 

Table 5. Total Volume Available/ft of beach width 

Length of beach 

(ft) needed to 

remove 

Volume 

(CY per 

ft/beach) 100,000 CV 200,000 CV 500,000 CV 1,000,000 CV 

Max Cut - Blue to 

Black Line 98 1,000 2,000 5,100 10,000 

Min Cut - Red to 

Black Line 59 1700 3,400 8,400 17,000 

Table 6. Number of deployment system movements required to 

move a given volume of sand 

100,000 200,000 500,000 1,000,000 

CV CV CV CV 

Movements for a 50 ft 

swath Max 22 45 112 225 

Movements for a 50 ft 

swath Min 37 74 185 370 

Movements for a 100 ft 

swath Max 11 22 56 112 

Movements for a 1 00 ft 

swath Min 19 37 93 185 

Movements for a 150 ft 

swath Max 7 15 37 75 

Movements for a 150 ft 

swath Min 12 25 62 123 

Movements for a 200 ft 

swath Max 6 11 28 56 

Movements for a 200 ft 

swath Min 9 19 46 93 

Movements for a 250 ft 

swath Max 4 9 22 45 

Movements for a 250 ft 

swath Min 7 15 37 74 

24 \\ Nap·fs I ph1\CENAP·PL\pl·p\Coasta1Planning_ PL· PC\Hereford _to_ Cape1fay\Dredging_ Tech\ERDC _rcport\CHL Final back.pass Report 

!vim·_ 26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 24 Appendix A., Section 16 
640

Appendix A 

Contractor Contact Information 

March 26, 2008 

1. Heger Pumps. POC - Mr. Siegfried Heger, (562)-989-5432, Sheger@hegerpumps.com 

htqJ://www.dragflow.com/Default.htm 

2. Hagler Pumps. POC - Mr. Robert Hagler and Ms. Laurie Nalley, 803-278-2728, 

bobhagler@haglersystems.com , laurie N alley@haglersystems.com 

http://wwvif.haglersystems.com/about.htm 

3. Javeler Construction Company. POC - Mr. Richard Binning, 604-929-9543, 

rbinning(fl)telus.net 

htqJ ://wv.cw. toyopumps. com/pumps/submersibles/ submersiblelist. html 

4. Standard Gravel Company, POC - Mr. Spencer Green, (985) 839-3442, 

sgreen@genflopumps.com 

5. Damen Dredging Equipment, POC - Mr. David Tenwolde, +31(0)33 247 40 40 

dt@dam endredging. com http:// dam en dredging. com/html/ en/ dop .htm 

25 

\I Nap-fa 1 phJ\CENAP-PL\pl-p\Com;talPlanning -PL-PC\Hereford Jo ... CapeMay\Dredging-·Tech\ERDC .. report\CHL Final backpass Report 

Mar_26 08.doc 

Herd'ord Inlet to Cape May Inlet 25 Appendix A., Section 16 
641

March 26, 2008 

Appendix B 

Request for Information Provided to Contractors 

Request for Conceptual Mobile Hydraulic Backpassing System for the 

Hereford to Cape May Feasibility Study 

Background: The beach immediate south of Hereford Inlet, North Wildwood, NJ, is 

experiencing erosion (Figure 1). As part of the solution to this erosion problem, the US Army 

Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District (NAP) is investigating the various options to that would 

economically backpass sand from the wide beach to the south, Wildwood, NJ, to North 

Wildwood (Figure 2). 

The NAP estimates between 100,000 and 200,000 cy/yr need to be bypassed on an annual basis. 

However, because of the existing deficit on the North Wildwood beach, a one time "beach 

nourishment" effort of 500,000 to 1,000,000 cy is needed initially. 

Need/Requirements: A proven option for bypassing/backpassing modest volumes is to use 

conventional earthmoving equipment to collect the sand and then trucking the sand from one 

location to another. This has been done at Avalon, NJ, twice in the past five years and is being 

considered at Wildwood. However, the cost of this option, estimated a $20/cy by NAP for the 

Wildwood application, is considered to be too expensive, it also significantly interferes with 

beach use. NAP is interested in looking at mobile hydraulic pumps to entrain the sand at 

Wildwood in conjunction with booster pumps to transfer the sand to North Wildwood with the 

desire to reduce costs, ideally to less than $10 per cubic yard. The attached paper by Stuart 

Chase (Shore and Beach Vol 74, No 2, Spring 2006), describes a system based on a submersible 

pump deployed from a crane that meets many of the NAP's requirements. However, the sheet 

pile wall specified as part of the system, would add to the cost and create a feature that would 

have to be removed and moved periodically. 

The NAP desires a more mobile system with minimal infrastructure support and impact to beach 

users. Also, rather than digging series of relatively deep pits, NAP would prefer to remove sand 

in a thin layer over a wide area with excavation pits no deeper than l O ft below mlw. A typical 

cross section of the Wildwood beach is shown in Figure 4. NAP desires to remove the material 

between the blue and black lines between +5 and -10 (the outermost lines in case the colors are 

not visible), a horizontal distance of between 250 and 350 ft Also, to reduce costs they would 

like to avoid using a crane to deploy the submersible pump (or eductor), instead using less 

expensive system such as an A-frame or tripod to deploy the submersible pump. Another option 

is to use mechanical equipment, scrapers and dozers to stockpile sand and then use hydraulic 

pumps to transfer the sand to North Wildwood. 

The sand to be backpassed is 0.15 mm. A challenge will be the distance to bypass the sand, 

between 5,000 and 15,000 ft, thus booster pumps will be required. Tide range at the site is 4 ft 

26 

\\\'ap-falphJ\CENAY-PL\pl-p\CoastalPlanning.YL-PC\Hereford .to ... CapeMay\Dredging ..'fech\ERDC_.report\CHL Final backpa.~s Report 

Mar 26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 26 Appendix A., Section 16 
642

March 26, 2008 

Ideally the system would transfer sand outside of the summer tourist season when the beach is 

most heavily used, thus the material should be transferred from 15 Sep to 15 May. 

Additional Needs for Portable, Mobile Hydraulic Backpass Systems. As noted, this 

information is for a feasibility study, and thus the information provided is not a commitment to 

you for actual work. The actual work for the Wildwood to North Wildwood backpassing is 

probably several years away. However, the need to backpass sediments from wider beaches to 

erosion "hot spots" is a problem at many locations around the US. While typical beach 

renourishment intervals are 5 to IO years, in many locations erosion "hot spots" develop quickly 

(within months to a couple of years) that require from a few !OK cy to 100 K cy with distances 

on the order of a few thousand feet or more. In New Jersey alone, NAP estimates there are 

currently several projects, e.g., Avalon, Atlantic City, Brigantine, and Ocean City, that could 

make use of a low-cost hydraulic based system now. Obviously, for the smaller volume projects, 

a very mobile system that could be easily moved to another site would be advantageous. 

Hopefully the potential to quickly turn a good conceptual system into a functioning system 

will motivate you to devote some serious effort to this request. 

Deliverables: This is a request for you to describe a conceptual system/systems that can meet the 

requirements stated above. Please include the following. 

I. A description of the system components including specific pump(s), hp, discharge line 

sizes, power sources, etc. 

2. A description how the system would be operated. 

3. Manpower requirements and skills for the operators (ideally the system or most if it could 

be operated by city workers) 

4. Estimated costs and durations (please state assumed schedule, i.e., 5 days/per week, 8 

hours/day, etc.) to backpass annual volumes of IOOK cy, 200k cy, SOOK cy, and 1,000,00 

cy. The cost estimate should be based on an assumed cost for diesel fuel of $4.00/gallon. 

The cost estimate should have sufficient information so the cost estimate can be updated 

based on changes in the cost of diesel fuel. 

5. Please note any uncertainties or additional information that would be needed for 

improving the accuracy of your proposal. 

6. Typical "beach nourishment" grading of the sand placed in North Wildwood will be 

required, i.e., a specific berm width, height, and foreshore slope. 

7. We realize that some systems may not be able to fully meet every requirement. 

However, please feel free to submit a system that meets most the requirements and note 

the limitations. 

8. As noted above, if time permits, you may want to provide information for a second, 

smaller, and more portable system. 

9. We hope to have cost and performance data on the land based backpassing at Avalon, NJ, 

in a day or two. 

Deadline: Final input is desired by COB on 13 March, and no later than COB 14 March. Ideally 

this will be in the form of MS Word document. 

27 

\\Nap-fa lphl1CE"KAP-Pl,\pl-p\CoastalPlanning .. PL-PC\Hereford Jo ... CapeMay\Dredging_. Tech\ERDC .report\CHL Final hackpass Report 

Mar 26 OS.doc 

Hcr~ford Inlet to Cape P.fay Inlet 27 Appendix ,L Section 16 
643

March 26, 2008 

Follow-on Questions. I expect in most cases, you will have additional questions. I, James 

Clausner (US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS), and NAP 

staff will be available for follow-up phone calls on Thursday and Friday, March 6 and 7, and 

Monday, March 101

\ to answer additional questions. Please contact me to set up a time. 

POC: 

James E. Clausner, PE 

Associate Technical Director for Navigation, 

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 

CEERD-HV-T 

3909 Halls Ferry Rd 

Vicksburg, MS 39180, 601-634-2009 

i ames.e. clausnerralusace.army .mil 

28 

\\}fap-fa lphl\CENAP-Pl,\pl-p\Coa"talPlanning .PI~-PC\Hereford ._to_. CapeMay\Dredging .. Tcch\ERDC .report\CHL Final backpass Report 

Mar 26 08.doc 

Here-ford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 28 Appendix A.. Section 16 
644

Miles 

Cape May Inlet 

Figure 1. Location map. 

29 

March 26, 2008 

Townsends Inlet 

Avalon 

~ & & ~ Qj 

Stone Harbor "'?:f r;J 

HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ 

SCALE AS SHOWN 

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILA, PA 

\\ ~ap-fa 1 phl\CENAP-PL\pl-p\CoastalPlanning .. PL-PC\Ikreford Jo . Cape May\ Dredging_Tech\ERDC report\CHL Final hackpass Report 

Mar 26 08.doc 

HereiOrd Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 29 Appendix A., Section 16 
645

March 26, 2008 

Sediment imbalance between northern and southern portions of project area 

Figure 2. Aerial photo of project area. 

30 

\\Nap-fa l phl\CENAP-PL\pl-p\CoastalPlanning ... PL-PC\ Hereford Jo _.CapcMay\ DredginK .. Tech\ERDC _report\CHL Final backpass Report 

r.far 26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 30 Appendix A., Section 16 
646

March 26, 2008 

Un!i!led 

LEGEND -Jnpul. Prorilie: WW07 MaxCul 

- input Profile WW07 Mineui -Input Plt'IM,e 'M¥07 ~ 

.,o 

,CJOIJ 4000 

Figure 4. Beach profile at Wildwood showing proposed borrow location 

31 

\\Nap-fa lphl\CENAP-PL\pl-p\CoastalPlanning. PL-PC\I-lereford. to .. CapeI\fa)" Dredging _Tech\ERDC _ _report\CHL Final hackpai;s Report 

Mar 26 08.doc 

Hercl'ord Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 31 Appendix A., Section 16 
647

March 26, 2008 

Appendix C 

Information Provided by Darnen Dredging Equipment on DOP Submersible Pumps 

Project description Sand Backpass Italy 

Project location 

Year 

Equipment 

Pumping distance 

Pipe Diameter 

General: 

: East coast ofltaly between Venice and Ravenna 

: 2003/2004 

: 2 * DOP 2320 + Diesel driven Booster BS 250 + Instrumentation 

: 3000 18000 ft 

: 300 mm ID (12 inch) 

As the DOP pumps are designed for pumping high densities and long distances, it is the ideal 

tool for this kind of operations. A relatively low investments and it's multipurpose use 

( excavator, pump and power pack-> the power pack can be a Pileco/Ice Europe Powerpack 

suitable for vibratory hammers, can all be used separated from each other) make it a versatile 

tool for USACE and their contractors. 

More detailed technical information can be downloaded from our website 

WWW .damendredging. com 

Loading: 

At this location truck's where loaded with an hydraulic excavator for logistic purposes. 

The first DOP 2320 pump was mounted on a CAT 320 excavator and a fixed position was 

created using Sheet piles in order to prevent sliding of the excavator in the Dredged pit. The 

DOP pump was fitted with a sand production head withjetwater nozzles. A separate pump 

provided Jetwater. A separate, cabin controlled Diesel-Hydraulic Power pack provides the power 

for the DOP pump drive. 

32 

\\Nap-fa lphl\CENAP-PL\pJ-p\CoastalPlanning . .PL-PC\Ilereford .. to CapeMaylDredging. Tech\ERDCJeportlCJIL Final backpass Report 

!\far 26 08.doc 

HerCford Inlet to Cape !vfay Inlet 32 Appendix A., Section 16 
648

March 26, 2008 

The operator has a cross needle indicator and operational instrumentation in his cabin for an 

optimal and safe production process. Client fitted instrumentation can be more professional with 

steel supports etc. 

33 

\\Nap-fa 1 phf\CENAP-Pl,\pl-p\CoastalPlanning. __ PL-PC\I-krcford_ to ___ Capc;\.,fay\ Drcdging __ Tcch\ER DC _report\CHL Final backpass Report 

~far_ 26 08.doc 

Hcr<C'ford Inlet to Cape ;\fay Inlet 33 Appendix: A, Section 16 
649

March 26, 2008 

The pump is connected to a flexible discharge hose with floats and connected to a bud-welded 

HDPE pipe with an internal diameter of 300 mm. 

34 

\\Nap-ts 1 phPCF.NAP-Pl,\pl-p\CoastalPlanning __ Pl,-PCI Hereford __ to_ Capelvfay\Dredging __ Tech\ERDC __ report\ CHI, Final bacl--pass Report 

~far_ 26 08.dO(: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape \fay Inlet 34 Appendix A., Section 16 
650

March 26, 2008 

Production measurement & registration (PMR unit) : 

The HDPE pipe feeds into a production measurement and control unit that feeds a signal of 

Velocity and Density into the operators cabin and finally to the Cross Needle yield indicator unit. 

All data is stored on a PC and registers Velocity, Density and Production (dry material). This 

data can be used for payment purposes but also for analyses of the project. 

PMR unit with protective cover. 

35 \\:-Jap-fa lphl1CE~AP-Pl)pl-p'Coa~ta1Planning __ Pl,-PC\Hercford __ to_ Cape1fay\Dredging _ Tcch\ERDC _repo1t\CIU, Final backpass Report 

?\.far_ 26 08-do.: 

l-krcford Inlet to Cape 1-fay Inlet Appendix A., Section 16 
651

March 26, 2008 

Internals of PMR unit 

Boosters: 

A second DOP 2320 unit is located on the beach and used as booster and/or back-up unit for the 

excavator mounted DOP. Pressure and Vacuum signals are fed to the operators cabin in order to 

follow and control the long distance pumping process. A second (diesel driven) Booster is 

located further down the beach and is also remote operated from the operators cabin. The diesel 

driven booster is equipped with a mechanical seal and therefore no additional water supply 

systems are required, and make the operation very flexible and not labor intensive during 

repositioning of the equipment. 

36 

\\Nap-ts lphl\CENAP-PJ ,\pl-p\CoastalPlanning _PL-PC\Hereford __ to __ CapeMay\Dredging_ Tcch\ERDC_ report\CHL Final backpass Report 

'.\far_ 26 08.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 36 Appendix A .. Section 16 
652

March 26, 2008 

Booster BS 250 & PMR unit during test in Holland 

Result: 

37 

\\Nap-fs l phJ\CENAP-Pl,\pl-p\CoastalPlanning_ PL-PC Hereford_ to __ Cape1fay\Dredging ___ Tech\ERDC _report\CHJ, Final backpass Report 

Mar_ 26 08.doc 

Her<C'ford Inkt to Cape 1-fay Inlet 37 Appendix A., Section 16 
653

March 26, 2008 

Production estimates for Hereford Inlet: 

The estimated production for the maximum distance results in an average production of 400 

m3/hr without downtime and pipe/equipment shifts taken into account. This requires a careful 

and dedicated excavator operator who has basic knowledge about pumping liquefied slurries. 

Qualified general mechanics and operators can be involved for general assistance and 

maintenance. 

These production estimates are based on 300 mm ID pipes and pump revolutions of approx. 1000 

RPM (which is higher then the usual 850 RPM), Influence of wear will be lower due to low 

velocities, the higher pump revolutions will increase wear however this is partly compensated by 

the fine grains of the material to be pumped. The velocities are close to the critical velocity for 

this kind of material. 

If the contractor desires to pump at higher velocities, an extra booster will be required. 

38 

\\Nap-fslphl1CF.NAP-P1}pl-p\Coai;ta!Planning. PI ,-PC\Hercford _ to __ CapeMay\Dredging_ Tcch\ERDC_ rcpo1t\CHL Final backpass Report 

Ylar _ 26 08-doc 

Iforeford Inlet to Cape 1.Iay Inlet 38 Appendix A .. Section 16 
654

feet 

March 26, 2008 

Appendix D 

Information Provided by Javeler Construction Company 

Jim Clausner 

US Anny Engineer Research Center 

3909 Halls Ferry Road 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

Tel: 601.634.2009 

jarnes.e.clausner@us.anny.mil 

Subject: Javcler Mobile Sand Backpassing Dredging System 

Dear Jim: 

March 12, 2008 

With regards to your March 5 email about mobile sand backpassing systems; specifically, the 

beach erosion problem at North Wildwood, NJ, please find enclosed our response. Javeler is very 

interested in this application. As one of the most experienced mobile sand dredging 

contractors/equipment providers in the country, we look forward to providing assistance. 

Based on your description of the North Wildwood application, we can meet your target price of$ 

IO per cubic yard. There arc a lot of details to go over, but conceptually, this is achievable. 

Javcler has the capability to do the work as a contractor or to provide equipment and technical 

support. 

The Toyo submersible dredge pumps have a reputation as the most rugged solids handling 

submersible pumps available. On the first job we used the Toyo in 1983, we pumped over 

500,000 cubic yards of sand with zero unscheduled down time. We simply mounted the Toyo 

submersible from a draglinc. The simplicity of this dredging system made it very easy to operate 

and the reliability of the equipment eliminated down time. 

Various size submersible dredge pump systems are available - both hydraulic and electric drive. 

I have provided both an electric 12" and a hydraulic 14" option below. The electric 12" pump 

system option is more readily available. Additional capital costs are required to set up for the 14" 

hydraulic system. 

Option l - Javeler 12 inch Electric Submersible Mobile Dredging System 

The 12 inch electric system is capable of transferring 3,000 4,00 gpm of slurry at a maximum 

distance of 15,000'. Sand production up to 400 cubic yards per hour of material. 

Suspend a Toyo 150 hp electric submersible agitator dredge pmnp from a crane with 120 - 160 

of boom. Generator (300 kw), to be mounted on the back of the crane. Sand up to 50 % solids by 

weight, to be transferred through 10 inch gum tube lined dredge hose to 12 inch HPDE pipe on 

the beach. 

Diesel engine, skid mounted boosters will be placed every 5,000 feet to transfer the sand slurry to 

the south inlet location. Horsepower requirement for each booster is 400 hp. 

39 

\\Nap-fs l phl\CEN AP-PL\pJ-p\CoastalPlanning .PL-PC\I-foreford.,to .Cape?day\Dredging .. Tech\ERDC. report\CHL Final backpa.<;s Report 

Mar-26 OS.doc 

Hereford Inld to Cap~ tvlay Inlet 39 App~ndix A., Section 16 
655

March 26, 2008 

Javeler Electric Submersible System Components 

• Toyo 150 hp submersible agitator pump and will produce 3,000- 4,000 gpm at 64 - 74 feet 

of head. l11e pump weighs 8,000 lbs and will pass a 4.7 inch rock. 111c motor is 460 volt/3 

phase/60hz and has 150' of cable. Nema starter included. 

• One hundred twenty feet of IO inch heavy duty, 3/8 inch gum tube lined, dredge hose. The 

150 psi rated hose is in 40 foot lengths, and has 150 # flange connections. 

• 300 kw sound attenuated diesel engine driven generator (fuel usage estimated at 18 gal/hr). 

• GIW (or equal) horizontal booster pumps: diesel engine 400 hp; marine gear drives: skid 

mounted. Gland water from portable seal water tanks. 

• 12 inch SOR 17 HOPE pipe welded together; flange connections every 400' for access. 

• magnetic flow meter to provide flow rates and production numbers 

Option 2 - Javeler 14 inch Submersible Mobile Dredging System 

The 14 inch hydraulic system is capable of transferring 5,000- 6,00 gpm of slurry at a ma'l'.imum 

distance of 15,000'. Sand production up to 600 cubic yards per hour of material. 

Suspend a Toyo 12 inch hydraulic driven submersible agitator dredge pump from a crane with 

120 160 feet 

of boom, or mount directly to a large excavator and use the hydraulics from the rig to run the 

pump. Hydraulic power unit (350 hp), if required, to be mounted on the back of the crane. Sand 

up to 50 % solids by 

weight, to be transferred through 12 inch gum tube lined dredge hose to 14 inch HPDE pipe on 

the beach. 

Diesel engine, skid mounted boosters with marine gear drives, will be placed every 5,000 feet to 

transfer tl1c sand slurry to the south inlet location. Horsepower requirement for each booster is 

500 hp. 

Javeler Hydraulic Pump System Components 

• Toyo TO 160B submersible agitator pump, has variable speed capability up to 850 rpm and 

will produce 5,000 6,000 gpm at 100 115 feet of head. The pump weighs 8,000 lbs aud 

will pass a 4.7 inch rock. The TO 160B has a Rexrotl1 500 hydraulic motor and 200 feet of 

hydraulic lines. 

40 

\\Nap-flslphl\CENAP-PL\pl-p\Coasta!Planning. PL-PC\Hereford.Jo ... Cape1fay\Dredging. Tech\ERDC .report\CI-IL Final hackpass Report 

Mar-26 OS.doc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape tfay Inlet 40 Appendix A., Section 16 
656

March 26, 2008 

• One hundred twenty feet of 12 inch heavy duty, 3/8 inch gum tube lined, dredge hose. The 

150 psi rated hose is in 40 foot lengths, and has 150 # flange connections. 

• Hydraulic power unit with Cat Tier 3 engine; Chevron Clarity biodegradable hydraulic oil, 

electronic monitoring warns of engine trouble, Rexroth piston motor. 

• GIW (or equal) horizontal booster pumps; diesel engine 500 hp; marine gear drives; skid 

mounted. Gland water from portable seal water tanks. 

• 14 inch SDR 11 HDPE pipe welded together; flange connections every 400. for access. 

• magnetic flow meter to provide flow rates and production numbers 

Manpower required for the backpassing system is a function of pumping distance. We 

like to have one additional man per booster station (every 5,000 feet). Base system with 

5,000 feet ofline requires 3 people to operate it (Javeler is non union). 

We look forward to working with the Corps of Engineers on this and other sand 

backpassing projects. You can reach me at 604-929-9543 or Les Cross at our Louisiana 

office at 337-364-5841. 

Regards 

Javeler Construction Co., Inc. 

Richard Binning 

41 

\\N ap-fs l phl\CEN AP-PL\pl-p\CoastalPlanning··· PL-PC\ Hereford _.to. Capdvfay\Dredging. ~fech\ERDC ... report\CHL Final backpa<,s Report 

I<.far 26 08.doc 

Hereford [nkt to Cape May Inlet 41 Appendix A., Section 16 
657
658
659

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wlien Date Entered) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM ,. REPORT NUMSER 12' GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER 

Instruction Report HL-81-1 

.. TITLE (and SubtHle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED 

A GUIDE TO THE PLANNING AND HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF Final report 

JET PUMP REMEDIAL SAND BYPASSING SYSTEMS .. PERFORMING ORG, REPORT NUMBER 

1. AUTHOR(111) B, CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e) 

Thomas w. Richardson 

Ernest c. McNair, Jr. 

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK 

u. s. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS 

Hydraulics Laboratory 

P. o. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180 

"· CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE 

Office, Chief of Engineers September 1981 

u. s. Army 13. NUMBER OF PAGES 

Washington, D. C. 20314 125 14. MON!TORlNG AGENCY NAME 6: ADDRESS(lf different from Control!lng Offfce) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of th/t; report) 

Unclassified 

!Sa. OECL ASSI F'!CAT!ON/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report) 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abetract entered in Block 20, Ji different from. Report) 

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, 

Springfield, Va. 22151. 

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on teverne aide If necea1uuy and ldtmtlfy by block number) 

Hydraulic design 

Hydraulic machinery 

Jet pumps 

Sand 

2Q, ABSTRACT (C'oat.lm..111 an, rtu•er- lflda ff l'Nte&8ffaey' t!ltld. fdertJHy by block number) 

This report is intended as an aid to engineers studying alternative 

solutions to a coastal sand bypassing problem. Using this report, engineers 

already familiar with coastal processes and centrifugal pumping systems will 

be able to: (a) determine the feasibility of a jet pump remedial bypassing 

system at a given site, (b) develop initial layouts for such a system, and 

(c) perform the system basic hydraulic design. A Set of considerations and 

(Continued) 

00 FORNI 

l JAN 73 EDITION OF f NOV 65 tS. OBSOLETE Unclassified 

SE.CURtTY CLASSIFICATION- OF TH?S P-A.GE (111han Deta Entered) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 44 Appendix A., Section 16 
660

Unclassified 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS F'AGE(Whan D.l'ltll Bnterod) 

20. ABSTRACT (Continued). 

guidelines relative to feasibility and intial layout are discussed in varying 

degrees of detail. Two step-by-step hydraulic design procedures are presented, 

one being an iterative type adaptable to computer solution, the other a graphical approach. Both procedures are keyed to a simple system with one jet pump 

and one booster pump4 Additional considerations are given for systems using 

multiple jet and/or booster pumps. A companion report to be issued at a later 

date will describe techniques and equipment for building~ operating, and monitoring a jet pump bypassing system. 

Unclassified 

SECURITY CLAS5lF1CATl0N OF TH1S PAGE(ll'11,m Data Entered) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 45 Appendix A, Section 16 
661

PREFACE 

This report is the result of research performed under the Improve·-

ment of Operations and Maintenance Techniques (IOMT) research program 

which is sponsored by the Office, Chief of Engineers (OCE), and conducted 

at the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES). This report contains guidance for the planning of a jet pump remedial sand bypassing system and also contains specific instructions for preparing 

the basic hydraulic design for such a system. 

A companion report will be issued at a later date describing techniques and equipment for building, operating, and monitoring a jet pump 

bypassing system. This companion report will also include example designs illustrating the procedures and recommendations from both reports. 

Both reports are based on testing conducted by WES investigators in both 

laboratory and field installations. 

The IOMT work unit was entitled "Eductor Systems for Sandtrap By--

passing" and was performed during the period 1973-1979, The study was 

performed under the direction of Messrs. H.B. Simmons, Chief of the 

Hydraulics Laboratory, F. A. Herrmann, Jr., Assistant Chief of the Hydraulics Laboratory, and R. A. Sager, Chief of the Estuaries Division. 

The work was performed by Messrs. W. B. Fenwick, T. W. Richardson, P. L. 

Chandler, J. C. Roberge, S. R. Bredthauer, and E. W. Flowers under the 

supervision of Mr. E. C. McNair, Jr., Chief of the Research Projects 

Group. This report was prepared by Messrs. Richardson and McNair. 

report was reviewed in draft form by several CE Division offices, by 

U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, by the Engineering and 

Operations Divisions of OCE, and by Dr. D.R. Basco of E2o ConsultantP, 

Inc., as a consultant to WES. 

Commanders and Directors of Wes during the conduct of this ,,ork 

unit and the preparation and publication of this report were COL G. H. 

Hilt, CE, COL John L. Cannon, CE, COL Nelson P. Conover, CE, and COL 

Tilford C. Creel, CE. Technical Director was Mr. F. R. Brown. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 46 Appendix A .. Section 16 
662

CONTENTS 

PREFACE .•••.•..• 

CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI) 

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT 

PART I: INTRODUCTION •• 

The Bypassing Problem 

Site Study and Problem Formulation 

Consideration of Bypassing Alternatives 

Site Conditions Affecting Feasibility of Shore-Based 

Jet Pump Bypassing System. • • • •.••••• 

Description and Configurations of Jet Pump Bypassing 

Systems • • . • . . • • 

PART II: INITIAL SYSTEM LAYOUT 

System Purpose ••••• 

Mode of Operation ••.• 

Interaction with Structures 

Location of Shore-Based Equipment 

Location of Individual Jet Pumps 

Site to Which Bypassed Material Is Pumped 

Effective Operating Time 

System Capacity •••••..• 

Considerations for Interception Type of System 

Distribution of System Capacity 

Backflushing .•..• 

System Pipe Sizes and Materials 

Other Considerations 

System Schematic Drawings 

Equivalent Lengths 

PART III: HYDRAULIC DESIGN .• 

Iteration Design Procedure 

Graphical Design Procedure 

Additional Considerations for Multiple Jet or Booster 

Pumps •• 

PART IV: SUMMARY 

REFERENCES 

PLATES 1-14 

APPENDIX A: NOTATION • 

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL EQUATIONS 

Colebrook-White Equation 

Equivalent Lengths 

APPENDIX C: DERIVATION OF GRAPHICAL DESIGN CURVES 

2 

Page 

1 

3 

4 

5 

8 

10 

13 

15 

23 

24 

25 

27 

30 

31 

34 

35 

39 

43 

44 

46 

49 

52 

53 

53 

57 

58 

84 

93 

98 

99 

Al 

Bl 

Bl 

B2 

Cl 

Hcri:-ford Inlet to Capo 1fay Inlet 47 Appendix A .. Section 16 
663

CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI) 

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT 

U. S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be converted 

to metric (SI) units as follows: 

Multii:>lz B To Obtain 

cubic yards 0.7645549 cubic metres 

Fahrenheit degrees 5/9 Celsuis degrees or 

Kelvins* 

feet, 0.3048 metres 

feet of water 2988.98 kilograms per 

square centimetre 

feet per second per second 0.3048 metres per second 

per second 

gallons per minute 0.06308 litres per second 

inches 25.4 milli.metres 

square feet o. 0929 square metres 

* To obtain Celsius (C) temperature readings from Fahrenheit (F) readings, use the following formula: C = (5/9)(F - 32). To obtain 

Kelvin (K) readings, use: K = (5/9)(F - 32) + 273.15. 

3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ivfay Inlet 48 Appendix A., Section 16 
664

A GUIDE TO THE PLANNING AND HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF 

JET PUMP REMEDIAL SAND BYPASSING SYSTEMS 

PART I: INTRODUCTION 

1. Sand bypassing is a term used to denote the transfer of cohesionless sediments past man-made or natural barriers that trap, divert, 

or otherwise interfere with the natural process of coastal sediment 

transport. This bypassing can be accomplished by natural forces, as is 

the case in most uncontrolled and unimproved tidal inlets, or bypassing 

can make use of pumps or other means for excavating and transporting 

littoral materials. 

2. This report provides specific guidance in the design of remedial 

bypassing systems that employ jet pumps for initial solids handling. 

The term "remedial" refers to bypassing for the purpose of alleviating 

an existing problem, as opposed to preventing a possible future problem. 

However, many of the techniques and approaches used can be applied to 

either situation. Although jet pumps have been used as suction boosters 

on hydraulic dredges for many years, their use in sand bypassing was 

developed as new technology in a research program sponsored by the 

Office, Chief of Engineers (OCE). Work under this program was performed 

by the Hydraulics Laboratory of the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station (WES). 

3. This report also provides some general guidance in the coastal 

engineering approach to sand bypassing problems. The approach presented 

in this report is oriented toward the requirements of jet pump systems, 

but useful information will result regardless of the type of bypass system finally selected. 

4. PART I of this report j_s devoted to evaluating a site and defining the parameters on which the bypassing system can be designed. 

Characteristics of jet pump bypassing systems and potential jet pump system configurations are also presented. PART II of this report deals with 

preparing a preliminary system layout. Methods are presented for 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 49 Appendix A., S.:::ction 16 
665

preliminary selection of portions of a jet pump system based on site 

requirements and characteristics. Specific design procedures and calculations are presented in PART III of this report. A subsequent report 

will contain instructions and suggestions for building, operating, and 

monitoring a jet pump bypassing system, as well as example designs. 

The Bypassing Problem 

5. Any activity in the coastal zone that impounds or diverts 

littoral sediments implies the need for sand bypassing. The earliest 

planning stages of such an activity should include consideration of ways 

to accomplish sand bypassing. When consideration for bypassing was not 

made prior to construction, the need for such a capability must be 

determined and remedial action taken if necessary. 

6. There are several indicators of the need for a sand bypassing 

system of some type. Navigational problems caused by channel shoals and 

downdrift beach erosion coupled with updrift beach accretion (Figures 1 

and 2) are by far the most common indicators that natural processes are 

being altered and that mechanical bypassing of some type may be needed. 

In many of these circumstances, complaints of local citizens and 

navigation interests will be heard. 

7. Confirmation that a situation does exist which may be alleviated with a bypassing system can be made by personnel versed in coastal 

engineering who perform the following steps: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :\Jay Inlet 

a. Site visits and inspections. First-hand, visual inspections of a site will usually provide evidence of updrift 

accretion/downdrift erosion, indicative of littoral interruption. Visual inspection may even show evidence of 

channel shoal or offshore bar formation by unusual breaking 

wave patterns in or near channel areas~ 

b. Review of site history. A review of photographs, charts, 

and maps will provide an excellent indication of the behavior of the site. General beach recession or aggradation, 

both updrift and downdrift, can often be diagnosed. Such 

studies are not only helpful in diagnosing problems, but 

may later prove invaluable in establishing magnitudes. For 

instance, comparisons of high-water marks i.n aerial photographs of a jetty accretion fillet may help identify the 

5 

50 Appendix A .. Section 16 
666

Figure 1. Aerial view of Mexico Beach, Florida, showing updrift 

accretion, downdrift erosion, and channel shoaling 

6 

Hereford Inl~t to Cape I\fay Inlet 51 Appendix A, S.!dion 16 
667

Figure 2. Aerial view of Port Sanilac, Michigan, showing 

accretion fillet and downdrift erosion 

7 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 52 Appendix A .. Section 16 
668

rate of accretion of littoral drift for a particular period 

of history. 

c. Hearings and interviews - Dialogue with local citizens who 

have observed the site over an extended period is helpful 

in establishing behavioral patterns. Such discussions may 

define events that occur during and immediately following 

severe storms. Extent of wave runup or overtopping, extent 

of beach damage, rate of beach rebuilding following storms, 

areas of concentrated wave attack, etc., are examples of 

site characteristics that might be identified by this 

method. Reports of wind speeds, wave heights, and water 

levels should be used judiciously since these parameters are 

extremely difficult to quantify by casual observation. 

These steps should provide sufficient information to decide whether a 

problem exists that might require further site study and investigation. 

Site Study and Problem Formulation 

8. Design and employment of a sand bypassing system require a 

specialized coastal processes study of the site. Results of such a 

study provide the basis on which to select the most appropriate sand 

bypassing approach. If a field data collection program is needed, the 

cyclic nature of many coastal phenomena requires that the collection 

period be at least one year. Periods exceeding one year usually give 

more complete results. Because of this relatively long observation 

period, the coastal processes study should be implemented as soon as possible following the decision to investigate a mechanical bypassing 

solution. 

9. Coastal processes studies are complex and the methods for 

carrying out such studies are beyond the scope of this report. Engineer 

Manual 1110-2-3300, "Beach Erosion Control and Shore Protection Studies," 

published by the Office, Chief of Engineers, in 1966 and the Shore Protection Manual (SPM) prepared and published in 1977 by the U.S. Army 

Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) may be consulted for guidance 

in designing and implementing such a study. However, to provide additional explanation, some of the important items of a coastal processes 

study for a jet pump bypass system are listed in approximate order of 

8 

Hereford Inlet to Cape \fay Inlet 53 Appendix A., Section 16 
669

importance, together with explanatory remarks: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1.fay Inlet 

a. Littoral transport. Transport vectors (rates and 

directions) as a function of time should be determined. 

The smaller the time increment for which transport vectors 

can be quantified, the better. Especially important are 

vectors for storm events, when large transport rates may 

be expected. In addition, an attempt should be made to 

establish the confidence limits of these vectors, taking 

into account such factors as data accuracy and effects of 

any simplifying assumptions used in processing the data. 

b. Movement paths and deposition patterns. Of equal importance to identifying transport vectors is the determination of paths along which the transport is moving and the 

patterns in which it is depositing. This is especially 

important in the vicinity of structures, for two reasons: 

(1) Structures have complicated and often unpredictable 

effects on littoral transport. The only reliable way 

of determining movement paths and deposition patterns 

near structures is to collect and analyze field data 

on them. Model test results may be used to supplement 

such data, but should not be considered a substitute. 

(2) A jet pump bypassing system is usually used near structures to take advantage of the channelization of sand 

movement and the concentrated deposition that often 

occurs there. Also, the structures can provide protection and a foundation for the land-based portion of 

such a system. 

c. Waves. Waves have direct effects on a jet pump sand bypassing system mainly in the restrictions they place on 

jet pump deployment and in their effect on pumphouse location and characteristics. The wave climate has many in-· 

direct effects, however, such as being a prime cause of 

littoral transport and causing alterations in water levels 

due to setup. A frequency distribution of significant wave 

heights at the site, the representative wave periods, 

and possibly yearly directional roses of significant height 

and period usually provide information for the direct effects which waves have on a bypassing system. For determining indirect effects, however, a much more detailed description of the wave climate at the site may be required. 

d. Sediment characteristics. A description of the sediment 

to be bypassed is essential to design of the bypass 

system. Characteristics that must be determined include; 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Grain size distribution. 

(2) In situ porosity. 

9 

54 Appendix A., Section 16 
670

(3) Specific gravity of sediment solids. 

(4) Presence of cohesive material or cementing agents. 

(5) Presence of large objects such as cobbles, shells, or 

debris. 

(6) Subsurface profiles in areas where jet pump system may 

operate, preferably obtained from core samples. 

e. Water-level fluctuations. The magnitude and frequency of 

water-level fluctuations due to tides, wave setup, surges, 

seiches, and other causes should be determined. Of 

special importance is identifying what combinations of 

these fluctuations might be expected over different time 

periods. 

f. Morphology. Detailed surveys should be made to determine 

nearshore bathymetry at and adjacent to the bypassing 

site, Yearly morphologic cycles as well as longer term 

trends should be identified using these surveys, previous 

ones, and other data, An attempt should be made to predict future morphological trends. 

_g_. Currents. The only direct effect which currents might 

have on a jet pump bypassing system would be on jet pump 

deployment. Maximum expected currents, their location, 

and direction should be identified. Indirect effects of 

currents include the potential to transport sediment to 

jet pump locations or even past these locations in 

suspension if strong enough. 

10. Other information that is needed for preliminary design of 

the jet pump system but would not necessarily result from a coastal 

processes study includes: 

a. Above-water layout of bypassing site, to include plan views 

and cross sections of structures, topographic features, 

rights of way, locations of utilities, etc. 

b. Physical description of areas to which bypassed material 

will be pumped, and identification of possible routes for 

pipelines. 

c. Design characteristics of structures in the vicinity of 

the bypassing system (design parameters and criteria, 

armor unit sizes, etc~)e 

Consideration of Bypassing Alternatives 

11. A number of bypassing methods and approaches should be considered for any given bypassing problem. Very rarely will a problem 

10 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 55 Appendix A, Section 16 
671

be so well defined and limited in scope that it can be alleviated only 

by one type of system. The designer then has the task of selecting the 

system which most nearly satisfies the bypassing requirements of that 

site. The following is a brief discussion of some aspects of the spectrum of bypassing systems. 

Classification 

12. Many ways of classifying sand bypassing systems are possible. 

However, aside from capacity, the single characteristic of any system 

that most affects its suitability for a particular project is the degree of mobility which it possesses, Mobility in this sense is defined 

as the ease with which the system can reach various areas of the project 

site, Accordingly, the following classifications are suggested: 

a, Fixed systems, in which the entire physical plant is 

fixed as to location. Examples could be dredge pump 

systems operating from a house or platform or jet pump 

systems using fixed jet pumps. Such systems require a 

high degree of predictability of littoral transport vectors, movement paths, and deposition patterns. 

b, Mobile systems, in which the entire physical plant can 

be relocated readily to reach various areas of the bypassing site or other sites. Examples could be floating 

dredges or jet pump systems mounted on trailers. Such 

systems may be more vulnerable to the physical environment than other types. Dredges, for instance, may be 

affected by wave action. 

c. Semimobile systems, in which mobility is restricted to a 

single, well-defined area of the project site, the scope 

of which can be a determining factor in system design. 

Examples could be dredge pump systems mounted on tracks 

or rails, or jet pump systems using mobile jet pumps. 

13. An important aspect of the classification system described in 

paragraph 12 is that particular equipment may fit more than one category, 

depending on site conditions and how it is used. For instance, a landbased clamshell crane might be used in one location only, making it 

essentially fixed. If a suitable roadway exists on a jetty, the clamshell might be moved back and forth along the jetty's length, in which 

case it could be termed a semimobile system. Driven onto a 

barge, the clamshell crane could become the major part of a mobile 

system. While this situation may appear confusing at first, in fact a 

11 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 56 Appendix A .. Section 16 
672

mobility-type classification is useful to the designer. Since it is 

based not just on system characteristics but on the interrelationship 

between these characteristics and project conditions and requirements, 

it deals directly with the problem at hand: choosing the best system 

for a particular situation. 

Equipment 

14. The list of equipment that can be used to form a bypass system is extensive. Anything from a hand shovel to a hopper dredge 

could conceivably be employed. The following list, not at all complete, 

gives items of equipment that exist at present and that have been or 

could easily be used in a bypass system: 

Structures 

a, Floating dredges. 

(1) Trailing suction hopper. 

(2) Cutter suction. 

(3) Plain suction. 

(4) Bucket ladder. 

(5) Clamshell. 

(6) Dipper. 

(7) Backhoe, 

b. Land-based mechanical equipment. 

(1) Dragline. 

(2) Clamshell. 

(3) Backhoe. 

c. Hydraulic equipment. 

(1) Dredge pump. 

(2) Jet pump. 

(3) Other types of solids-handling pumps. 

15. The role of structures as part of a total sand bypassing system should never be underestimated. Structures can perform the following important functions, among others: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape i\fay Inlet 

a. Direct and channelize movement of littoral drift. 

b. Cause deposition of littoral drift at predetermined 

locations. 

12 

57 Appendix A., Section 16 
673

c. Provide access to areas of project site seaward of 

shoreline. 

d. Provide foundation for part or all of bypass system. 

e. Shelter bypass system from wave action. 

Any bypass system design should try to make maximum use of the benefits 

that existing structures can offer. In addition, serious consideration should be given to structural changes or additions that might 

help in operation or design of a bypass system. Such additions might 

include the creation of deposition areas for littoral drift by means 

of breakwaters or weir sections in jetties. 

16. The engineer responsible for the solution of a bypassing 

problem will undoubtedly study a number of possible methods in detail and 

will develop several potential solutions that will be studied even 

further. If a jet pump bypassing system is identified as a possible 

alternative, the remainder of this report will serve as a guide in 

developing designs for such a system. 

Site Conditions Affecting Feasibility of Shore-Based 

Jet Pump Bypassing System 

17. Certain site characteristics and bypassing requirements 

could make a jet pump bypassing system viable at a given site, Assuming 

that such a system would be deployed from shore (as opposed to a 

floating base), these characteristics and requirements are: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ]\.fay Inlet 

a. Need for continuous bypassing. Such a requirement 

definitely indicates that a jet pump system should be 

considered. Jet pump systems operate at a relatively 

low pumping rate compared with a large hydraulic dredge. 

Bypassing performed by a jet pump system can be made to 

proceed at a rate of the same order of magnitude as the 

average littoral drift rate. 

b. Littoral transport near shore or structures. Littoral 

transport moving close to shore or to structures at the 

site can usually be handled by a shore-based jet pump 

system. At most sites, at least one location can be 

identified where this occurs. More specific criteria 

will be given later. 

c. Moderate peak transport rates. Although not an absolute 

13 

58 Appendix A., Section 16 
674

requirement, the less littoral transport rates at a 

site vary with time over a yearly cycle, the better 

suited the site is for jet pump bypassing. Those sites 

with significant variation can be dealt with using 

concepts that will be explained later. 

d. Littoral drift impoundment area. An existing sheltered 

impoundment area, such as that created by a detached 

breakwater or a weir section in a jetty, is of great 

benefit in making a jet pump system viable. An exposed 

impoundment area, such as a jetty accretion fillet, may 

be helpful depending on other factors in the system design. 

18. Many other, more site-specific factors will have to be considered in determining the viability of jet pump bypassing at a particular site. In addition, not all of the above factors are necessary in 

order for a site to be suitable for a jet pump system. However, a site 

that possesses all of these factors can be considered a prime possibility 

for jet pump bypassing unless one or more conditions exist that preclude 

use of a jet pump system. 

19. Some site conditions will probably preclude the use of a jet 

pump bypassing system. These are: 

a. Presence of cohesive or cemented materials. Cohesive 

clays and cemented sands cannot be effectively dislodged 

by the jet pump using presently available cutting t'echniques. Even relatively thin layers of such material may 

cause problems. 

b. Transport and/or accretion over a broad area. lf littoral 

transport and/or accretion of such transport occurs over 

broad or poorly defined areas at the site, it may be 

difficult to design a reasonable jet pump bypassing sys-, 

tem. In many ways, this situation would be the converse 

of the factors described in paragraphs 17 band d. 

c. Absence of suitable location for clear water intake. 

This will be discussed fully in later parts of this report, 

but a relatively sheltered, accretion-free location must 

be available from which clear water can be drawn to drive 

the jet pump. 

Other considerations may impact upon the feasibility of a bypass system, 

such as property ownership, aesthetics, and local attitudes. Such items 

must be dealt with but are beyond the scope of this report. 

14 

Hereford Inlet to Cape tfay Inlet 59 Appendix A., Section 16 
675

Description and Configurations of Jet Pump Bypassing Systems 

20, The center-drive;, jet pump, the primary component of the jet 

pump bypassing system, is different from other pumps in that it contains 

no moving parts and is powered by a jet of water. The jet pump operates 

completely submerged, resting on the bottom with its suction tube buried 

in the material to be pumped. The basic principle behind the operation 

of the jet pump is the exchange of momentum within the pump. Clear water, 

normally supplied by a centrifugal pump, enters the jet pump through a 

nozzle as a turbulent jet (Figure 3). In the mixing chamber, turbulent 

SUCTION TUBE 

MIXTURE 

MIXING 

CHAMBER 

~ I 

DILUTED 

SAND-WATER 

MIXTURE 

Figure 3. Jet pump principles of operation 

mixing occurs between the water jet and a sand-water mixture drawn into 

the suction tube. This mixing causes a transfer of momentum from the 

jet to the sand-water mixture. At the same time, the sand-water mixture 

is diluted by the jet water. The diluted mixture then passes into the 

diffuser section of the jet pump, causing more sand-water mixture to be 

drawn into the suction tube in a continuous process. In the diffuser, 

a gradual expansion of the jet pump walls results in some flow energy 

changing from velocity to pressure. After exiting the diffuser, the 

diluted mixture moves through a discharge pipeline, usually to a 

,, The term "center-drive" refers to a jet pump with a nozzle located on 

the center line of the main pump body. "Side--drive" or "peripheral·· 

drive" jet pumps, on the other hand, have one or more nozzles located 

on the periphery of the main pump body. 

15 

Hernford Inlet to Cape tviay Inlet 60 Appendix A., Section 16 
676

conventional dredge pump acting as a discharge booster. 

21. The performance of the center-drive jet pump in a given medium 

can be defined in terms of three dimensionless parameters. These parameters are: (a) head ratio, N; (b) flow ratio, M; and (c) area ratio, 

R. The head ratio, N, is defined as 

where 

HDIS 

HSUC 

HSUP 

N HDIS - HSUC 

HSUP - HDIS (1) 

total energy head in the discharge pipeline at the jet pump 

total energy head in the jet pump suction tube at the jet 

pump 

total energy head in the supply pipeline at the jet pump 

The flow ratio, M, is defined as 

where 

QSUC 

QSUP 

M _QSUC 

QSUP 

volumetric flow rate into the jet pump suction 

volumetric flow rate through the jet pump nozzle 

The area ratio, R, is defined as 

where 

ANOZ 

AMIX 

R ANOZ 

AMIX 

area of the opening at the tip of the jet pump nozzle 

inside area of the mixing chamber of the jet pump 

Locations of these parameters on a center-drive jet pump are shown in 

Figure 4. 

(2) 

(3) 

22. Gosline and O'Brien (1934), Mueller (1964), Reddy and Kar 

(1968), and others have worked on defining the relationships between 

M, N, and R for various jet pump configurations pumping water. 

Several investigators, such as Fish (1970), Zandi and Govatos (1970), 

and Silvester and Vongvisessomjai (1970), have worked on comprehensive 

theories for jet pumps pumping solids. However, experimentation with a 

16 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 61 Appendix A., Section 16 
677

HDIS, ODIS 

HSUP, OSUP 

Figure 4. Location of jet pump parameters 

particular jet pump is usually required for best results. Experimental 

data from the WES research program were used to define the relationships 

£or a specific jet pump type pumping both clear water and medium sand. 

Relationships for pumping sand are presented in a later portion of this 

report. 

23. Figures 5-7 illustrate the basic components of a simple jet 

pump bypassing system. More complex configurations are possible and 

SUPPLY PIPELINE 

CRATER"\. CLEAR 

WATER 

Figure 5. Elevation view of simple jet pump system 

17 

Hereford Inlet to Cape fl fay Inlet 62 Appendix A. Section 16 
678

JET PUMP SUPPLY PIPELINE 

SUPPLY 

PUMP 

SUPPLY 

PUMP 

SUCTION 

PIPELINE 

CRATER JET PUMP 

DISCHARGE 

PIPELINE 

BOOSTER 

PUMP 

- BOOSTER 

DISCHARGE 

PIPELINE 

Figure 6. Plan view of simple jet pump system 

CUTTING JET(S) 

(OPTIONAL)---i---OI 

SUPPLY PIPELINE 

JET PUMP 

JET PUMP 

SUCTION 

TUBE 

JET PUMP 

DISCHARGE 

PIPELINE 

Figure 7. Elevation view of jet pump 

are frequently required, but the operating principles remain the same. 

Figures 5-7 are especially important because the terminology shown for 

various system components will be used throughout this report. 

24. The component parts of the simple jet pump system shown in 

Figures 5-7 and their purposes are as follows: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 

a. Supply pump. Provides clear water to drive the jet pump. 

Also supplies water for jet pump cutting jets, if such 

are used, and may supply flushing water for the booster 

pump. Supply pump suction pipeline must be located in an 

area relatively free of shoaling or large amounts of 

suspended sediment or small debris. The supply pump is 

18 

63 Appendix A .. Sedion 16 
679

usually an ordinary centrifugal pump. 

b. Supply pipeline. Carries clear water from supply pump to 

jet pump. May be made of rigid pipe, flexible hose, or a 

combination of both. Also carries water for cutting jets. 

c. Jet pump. Dredges sand/water mixture and provides head 

to move it through jet pump discharge pipeline to booster 

pump. Jet pump suction tube is used to ensure burial of 

jet pump suction opening and consequent intake of high 

solids content sand/water mixture. Cutting jet(s) aid in 

burial of suction tube and in excavation of consolidated 

material. 

d. Crater. One of the most important parts of any jet pump 

system. The crater is formed on the sea or lake bottom 

and is maintained by virtue of the jet pump dredging below 

the level of the surrounding bottom. If the jet pump 

supply and discharge pipelines are flexible, a jet pump 

resting on an undisturbed bottom will excavate a crater 

by simply following the bottom of the crater downward as 

it removes sand. This process is illustrated in Figure 8. 

A jet pump buried below the undisturbed bottom, on the 

other hand, with rigid supply and discharge pipelines will 

excavate a crater above itself by removing sand from 

underneath. Figure 9 illustrates the formation of such a 

crater. The crater acts as a trap for littoral drift 

that would otherwise pass by. Without a crater or an 

array of craters, the jet pump has no chance of intercepting moving littoral drift. Crater size and shape are 

functions of many factors, such as depth of the jet pump 

below surrounding bottom, characteristics of in situ sediment, and rate of dredging by jet pump relative to rates 

of littoral material influx and slumping of crater sides. 

e, Jet pump discharge pipeline. Conveys jet pump discharge 

mixture from jet pump to booster pump. May be of same 

construction as supply pipeline. 

f. Booster pump. Provides energy to move jet pump discharge 

mixture to selected discharge area. Several booster 

pumps may be required along length of booster discharge 

pipeline, depending on distance mixture is to be pumped. 

The booster pump is usually an ordinary dredge pump. 

K· Booster discharge pipeline. Carries discharge mixture 

from booster pump to discharge area. Usually of rigid 

construction~ 

25. One characteristic of a jet pump bypassing system is that many 

variations on the simple system shown in Figures 5-7 are possible in order 

to adapt the system to specific requirements. Some of these variations 

are: 

19 

Hereford Inlet to Cape "!vlay Inlet 64 Appendix A., Section 16 
680

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Figure 8. Excavation of crater by jet pump 

resting on bottom 

Figure 9. Excavation of crater by jet pump 

buried below bottom 

20 

65 Appendix A., Section 16 
681

a. Mobility of on-shore components. 

(1) Permanent. Onshore system components, such as the 

supply and booster pumps, are located on fixed foundations onshore or on a structure such as a jetty. 

Usually, they are protected from the elements by an 

enclosure. 

(2) Portable. Onshore components are mounted on a movable 

platform, such as a truck or trailer, and operate from 

parking locations onshore or on a structure. These 

components can then be used at several locations within 

a site or at different sites. 

b. Mobility of jet pump(s). 

(1) Fixed. Jet pump is installed permanently at a certain 

elevation, below the existing bottom. In such a 

configuration, the jet pump is virtually immune to 

wave action or the effects of currents. Multiple 

fixed jet pumps can be installed to create craters 

which cover a certain area~ 

(2) ~obile. Jet pump is equipped with a variable buoyancy 

float and flexible hoses, allowing it to be raised 

from its crater, moved a certain distance, and sunk 

to create another crater. This configuration of jet 

pump is best employed in areas sheltered from severe 

wave action~ 

c. Flexibility of jet pump pipelines. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

(1) Rigid. Jet pump supply and discharge pipelines are 

constructed of steel pipe or other rigid material. 

Usually, this type of piping is used in conjunction 

with fixed jet pumps and can, in fact, be the means by 

which the jet pump is fixed in place. 

(2) Flexible. Flexible hose, such as rubber dredging hose, 

is used for jet pump pipelines. This hose is normally 

used with a mobile jet pump to allow easy relocation 

of the jet pump. In such a use, the hose would be 

equipped with floats of fixed buoyancy to prevent it 

from being buried in the existing bottom or in the jet 

pump crater, 

(3) Combination. Lengths of rigid pipe are connected by 

lengths of flexible hose to form the supply and discharge pipelines. Such a configuration provides a 

certain degree of flexibility at less cost than an 

all-flexible system, With floats attached, this 

type of pipeline can be used with mobile jet pumps in 

areas subject to very mild wave action. Without 

floats, such piping could be used with fixed jet pumps, 

provided that the jet pumps are supported by some 

means independent of the pipelines. 

21 

66 Appendix A., Section 16 
682

d. Number of jet pumps operating simultaneously. 

(1) Single. System in which only one jet pump operates at 

a time. Such a system is the simplest to design and 

operate. A number of jet pumps may be installed at a 

site and operated individually, although the complications of piping and valving arrangements will increase 

rapidly as the number of jet pumps increases. In 

general, however, a single-type installation is 

preferable to a multiple one, 

(2) Mu_ltiple. System in which two or more jet pumps operate at a time, This type of system should be considered only where the requirements of the bypassing 

project cannot be met by a single-type system, or 

where an excessive number of independent jet pumps are 

required for a single-type system. If a multip1.e 

system is necessary, the number of jet pumps operated 

simultaneously should be kept to a minimum. 

Except as noted, any of the system variations discussed above can be 

used in conjunction with any of the others. 

26. It should be noted that all discussion in this report deals 

with shore-based bypassing systems. However, there is no reason why 

a jet pump system designed using the techniques presented in this guide 

could not be placed on a floating platform. Such deployment would place 

the system philosophically in the category of dredges; therefore, no 

discussion of that deployment technique is presented in this report. 

22 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 67 Appendix A., Section lG 
683

PART II: INITIAL SYSTEM LAYOUT 

27. The aim of this part of the report is to provide guidance for 

the designer in arriving at general system configurations for which more 

detailed designs can be made. Although subsequent discussions will be 

in terms of a single system layout, in reality the designer should consider several alternative layouts simultaneously. All the alternatives 

should be treated equally until economics or other factors influence the 

choice of a final design. 

28. Two points regarding this part of the report should be 

understood at the outset: 

a. A series of topics are discussed that relate to the 

initial system layout. These topics are not presented in 

sequential order; in fact, no such order can be applied 

to them. Most of the topics interact with one or more 

of the others, the degree of interaction sometimes 

depending upon other factors as well. The designer must 

develop a grasp of the concepts being presented rather 

than trying to follow the presentation in a step-by--step 

fashion. 

b. The success of the initial system layout in meeting the 

actual bypassing requirements of the site will depend 

primarily upon the quality of the coastal processes study. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COASTAL PROCESSES STUDY CANNOT 

BE OVEREMPHASIZED. It is the foundation upon which the 

bypassing system is designed. Designing a jet pump 

bypassing system without detailed information on items 

such as littoral transport vectors is not advised. 

29. The principal purpose of the initial system layout is to provide an approximation of a bypassing system that can be refined and 

altered using the design procedures presented in PART Ill. A secondary 

purpose of the initial system layout is to identify problem areas at the 

site that may be independent of coastal processes or system pumping 

performance. 

30. Certain guidelines are presented relating to the initial layout. These guidelines pertain to selecting the mode of operation, 

location, operating time, capacity, sizing of various elements, and ce.rtain other system features. It should be remembered that the guidelines 

are only aids and that significant modifications may be needed after 

23 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 68 Appendix A., Section 16 
684

more detailed calculations are performed. In general, however, use of 

the guidelines should result in reasonable selections of components for 

the system. 

System Purpose 

31. There are two basic purposes for which any bypassing system 

can be designed: 

a. Reduction of navigation shoaling caused by littoral drift. 

b. Alleviation of undesirable beach changes caused by interruption of littoral drift. 

The purpose that the system is to serve should be specifically identified 

so that requirements pertaining to that purpose can be satisfied. For 

example, a bypassing system whose purpose is to reduce channel maintenance will be designed, installed, and operated so as to bypass material 

causing shoals in the navigation channel. On the other hand, a system 

whose purpose is to provide periodic nourishment for a downdrift beach 

may be installed and operated quite differently. 

32. The designer should be especially wary of attempting to design a "dual-purpose" bypass system; i.e. , one that tries to reduce 

navigation shoaling and alleviate beach changes at the same time. Although the problems of shoaling and beach changes are often interrelated 

at a particular site, attempting to solve both simultaneously with one 

bypass system can be difficult for the following reasons: 

a. The interrelationship between the two problems is often 

far more complex than it appears. 

b. The optimum approach to solving one of the two problems 

with a bypass system can be very different from the 

optimum approach to solving the other problem. 

The end result of such a compromise design will often be a bypass system 

that solves neither problem very well. A better approach is to design 

the system to help solve one problem only. Then, at the end of the 

design process, review the projected effects of the system on the other 

problem. Many times it will be found that a system designed for one 

problem will have significant beneficial effects on the other as well. 

24 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ?..Jay Inlet 69 Appendix A., Section lG 
685

The review may also suggest some modifications to the system design 

that would aid in solving the other problem without affecting performance on the primary problem. 

Mode of Operation 

33. A jet pump bypassing system has two possible modes of 

operation: 

a. Removal of littoral materials from a deposition area. 

b. Interception of moving littoral drift. 

In making the initial system layout, one of these two modes should be 

selected as the primary mode of operation and the system designed 

accordingly. Generally speaking, mode~ is preferable to mode 1?_, all 

other factors at a site being equal. A system designed for mode a will 

probably be of smaller capacity and consequently cost less. The deposition area will provide a trap for littoral drift moving at high rates, 

allowing the accumulated drift to be bypassed later during times of 

lower drift rates. This fact in turn implies a more regular operating 

schedule for the system. A system designed for interception, however, 

must be operated when drift is moving, whether day or night. The dependence of system configuration on mode of operation is illustrated 

in Figure 10, where the choice of interception as the primary mode indicated the use of fixed jet pumps located in the path of active transport 

movement. Sand moving along this path will (hopefully) fall into the 

jet pump craters and be bypassed by the system. An existing sheltered 

impoundment basin at the site, on the other hand, might be well suited 

to mobile jet pumps digging craters at different locations to maintain 

the basin as a trap for littoral drift, Figure 11 shows a system of 

this type, The possible negative effects of interception should be considered at this stage, also. If the system is effective in intercepting 

drift at a certain point, it may cause erosion immediately downdrift 

of that point. Serious stability problems with adjacent structures 

could be caused by such erosion. 

34. The preceding two examples should not be taken as firm guidance, For instance, there is no reason why mobile jet pumps cannot 

25 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\.fay Inlet 70 Appendix A., Section 16 
686

~ CRATERS AND FIXED JET PUMPS 

u°c~ 

Figure 10. Fixed jet pumps in interception mode 

DIRECTION OF 

NET LITTORAL DRIFT 

CRATERS DUG 

AT VARIOUS 

TIMES BY 

/ MOBILE JET 

~ PUMPS z , .... 0 ... , 

B I'"';; w ... ., Ul ,.., 

0: \_, /.... ,, ..... ,_ \ ,/ 

,_, 

Figure 11. Maintenance of impoundment basin by mobile jet pump(s) 

26 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 71 Appendix A .. Section 16 
687

operate in an interception mode or why a field of fixed jet pumps cannot 

be placed in an impoundment basin. The final choice of mode/system 

combination must be dictated by the requirements and restrictions of each 

individual site, 

Interaction with Structures 

35. A number of general areas are possible for placement of the 

jet pumps, depending upon the purpose of the bypass system, results of 

the coastal processes study, and arrangement of structures at the site. 

The first two items have already been discussed. Some types of structures that may be found at a site and that pertain directly to 

bypassing are: 

a. Jetty. 

b. Offshore breakwater. 

c. Shore-connected breakwater. 

d. Weir section. 

36. Figures 12-15 show some possible configurations of these 

structures at a site and possible locations for system jet pumps. THESE 

FIGURES ARE BY NO MEANS DEFINITIVE. Initial selection of jet pump locations should be based on consideration of a number of factors, including 

the following: 

a. Littoral transport vectors. 

b. Transport movement paths and deposition patterns. 

c. Mode of operation, 

d. Proximity to shore-based equipment. 

However, Figures 12-15 indicate some locations that might prove feasible 

and that present themselves as a direct result of structural configurations, Hatched areas in the figures indicate regions within which jet 

pumps might be located. 

37. An implied assumption in Figures 12-15 is the existence of a 

strongly predominant net drift direction. At many potential bypassing 

sites, however, the littoral drift may be approximately equal from both 

directions. In such cases it may be necessary to utilize jet pumps on 

27 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :t\.fay Inlet 72 Appendix A., Section 16 
688

DIRECTION OF 

NET LITTORAL DRIFT 

I 

I 

I ....J I w 

~ I ~ I 

~ I 

§ I <1: 

('.) 

> <i: 

z 

I 

I 

Figure 12. Jettied navigation channel 

DIRECTION OF 

NET LITTORAL DRIFT 

Figure 13. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

/ 

I 

/ 

....J 

UJ 

z 

z 

<i: 

I 

u 

z 

0 

i== 

<i: 

S2 

> <i: 

z. 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Offshore breakwater and jetties 

28 

73 Appendix A.. Scdion 16 
689

DIRECTION OF 

NET LITTORAL DRIFT 

Figure 14. 

DIRECTION OF 

NET LITTORAL DRIFT 

..J / 

~ I 

~ I 

i5 I 

5 I 

~ I t9 

> 

<( 

z 

/ / 

/ 

Shore-connected breakwater and jetties 

\. 

' ' I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I ..J 

w 

z 

z 

<( 

:i:: 

u 

z 

0 

~ t9 

> 

<( 

z 

/ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

/ 

Figure 15. Jetties with weir section 

29 

Hereford Inlet to Cape r-.fay fnlet 74 Appendix A., Section 16 
690

both sides of the site to bypass littoral drift approaching from either 

direction. 

Location of Shore-Based Equipment 

38. Tentative location(s) for shore-based equipment should be 

selected for the initial layout. However, the choice of location for 

the shore-based portion of a jet pump system is interactive with location 

of the jet pump(s). Therefore, considerations of this section must be 

meshed with those of the following section on locating the jet pumps to 

assure a sound approach. On one hand, shore-based equipment must be as 

close as possible to the jet pumps. On the other hand, jet pumps cannot 

be used in areas without a suitable nearby location for the shore-based 

equipment, The following factors must be considered in evaluating potential sites for shore-based equipment. The £actors pertaining to 

shore-based equipment are listed in approximate order of importance, although this will vary somewhat from site to site: 

a. Proximity to jet pump location(s), Distance along potential pipeline routes from the shore based equipment to 

the farthest jet pump should be less than about 600 to 

700 ft*. This requirement is not rigid and will be discussed later in more detail. 

b. Supply pump location, The supply pump must be located as 

close as possible, both vertically and horizontally, to 

a suitable location from which it can draw clear water 

through the supply pump suction pipeline, THIS LOCATION 

MUST ALWAYS BE FREE OF SIGNIFICANT SHOALING. If the location is subject to shoaling under existing conditions, 

then measures must be taken to change the shoaling pattern 

preferably by passive means such as structural alterations 

or additions. For the initial layout, try to place the 

supply pump such that the following relation is satisfied: 

ELSUP + 0.03(LSUPSA) < 15.0 (4) 

* A table of factors for converting U. S. customary units of measurement 

to metric (SI) units is presented on page 4. 

30 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 75 Appendix A .. Section 16 
691

C • 

d. 

e. 

where 

EL SUP 

LSUPSA 

elevation of supply pump center line above 

mean low water, ft 

approximate length of supply pump suction 

pipeline, ft 

If this relation cannot be satisfied, choose the location 

that comes closest and proceed with the system layout. 

It may be necessary later to make some significant changes 

in the system configuration, depending upon values calculated in PART III of this report. 

Access. Pref er ably, the area where the shore-based equip-

;;;ent is located should be accessible by land vehicle. 

This is especially important during system construction 

and is a major convenience for system operation. Access 

by other means such as by boat is possible but much 

less desirable. 

_1'0:_ECJsure. The shore-based equipment should be located 

in an area as sheltered from wave action as possible. The 

more exposed the location, the more expensive the nonfunctioning portions of the system will be (pump houses, 

pipe anchors, etc.). 

Fuel_or pow~ Consideration should be given to the 

ease of fuel delivery or power hookup when choosing a 

site for shore-based equipment, although this is usually 

not a controlling factor. 

Location of Individual Jet Pumps 

39. The main intent of locating individual jet pumps in the 

initial design layout is to establish approximate values for the following items: 

a. Total number of jet pumps in system. 

b. Length(s) of jet pump supply and discharge pipeline(s). 

c~ Size, location, and number of craters~ 

Items a and care interdependent to a certain extent. Obviously, the 

number of craters in the system will be related to the number of jet 

pumps. However, the number of jet pumps will also be a function of the 

size of the craters; for instance, when fixed jet pumps are being used 

to cover a certain area with craters. In such case, the larger the 

craters, the fewer jet pumps are needed. For the initial layout, craters 

31 

Hereford Inlet to Cape l\fay Inlet 76 Appendix A., Section 16 
692

can be assumed to be conical in shape, with relative dimensions as shown 

in Figure 16. 

EXISTING 

BOTTOM 

JET PUMP 

Figure 16. Suggested design crater dimensions 

40. The depth, d , of the jet pump below the existing bottom is 

limited by several factors. A practical maximum is approximately 25 ft, 

although theoretically no real limit exists. The presence of hard or 

cohesive strata will limit d to the depth at which they begin. If 

such strata occur within 5 or 6 ft of the existing bottom, the applicability of jet pumps at that location is doubtful. Also, the proximity 

of a particular jet pump to rubble-mound structures such as jetties or 

breakwaters imposes an indirect limit on d at that location. In such 

a case, placement of the jet pump too close to the structure may result 

in localized undermining of the structure foundation. Conversely, if the 

jet pump :is placed too far away, a significant portion of the littoral 

transport may move past the system next to the structure face. A rule 

of thumb to use for :initial jet pump location adjacent to a structure is 

shown in Figure 17. This rule is based on an isolated jet pump adjacent 

to a structure. A group of such jet pumps might pose a greater threat 

to structural stability. The possible stability effects of such a group 

should be :investigated thoroughly on a case-by-case basis. 

41. For mobile jet pumps, the term "location" :implies determining 

the area in which each jet pump will operate. The following guidelines 

32 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 77 Appendix A., Section 16 
693

JETTY, BREAKWATER, ETC. 

MINIMUM 

1.25d 

/// 

d 

Figure 17. Suggested design dimensions for jet pump location 

adjacent to structure 

should be kept in mind in mobile pump layout: 

a. Mobile jet pumps are moved much more easily along an arc 

than back and forth along a radius (Figure 18). The 

latter type of movement usually involves lengthening or 

shortening the supply and discharge pipelines. 

RADIAL 

MOBILE JET \\I MOVEMENT 

PUMP ~-

ARC MO~ ----- (PREFERRED)/ 

SUPPLY & DISCHARGE 

PIPELINES 

Figure 18. Movement of mobile jet pump 

33 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 78 Appendix A., Section 16 
694

b. Supply and discharge pipelines in the water should be 

arranged so as to be approximately perpendicular to 

approaching waves wherever possible (Figure 19). 

c. The maximum length of supply and discharge pipelines in 

the water should be less than 400 ft. This is a practical 

limitation based on the difficulty of handling long 

floating pipelines. Ideally, the shorter these pipelines 

are, the better. 

PREFERRED 

ORIENTATION 

Figure 19. Orientation of mobile jet pump 

Site to Which Bypassed Material Is Pumped 

42. The initial system layout should include an approximate 

location or locations to which the material picked up by the system will 

be pumped. The purpose of selecting such a location at this time is to 

allow determination of the required booster discharge pipeline length, 

as well as the approximate number of booster pumps that will be needed. 

Selection of the discharge location(s) will be determined largely by 

the information gathered in the coastal processes study, the purpose of 

the bypassing system, and special requirements and restrictions of the 

34 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 79 Appendix A., Section 16 
695

site. The discharge point(s) should be no farther away from the bypass 

site than necessary but should not be so close that the discharged 

material is returned to the bypass site by local littoral processes. 

In addition, the discharge point(s) should not be located in areas of 

little or no littoral movement where the bypassed material might 

stagnate. 

43. A rough estimate of the required number of booster pumps can 

be made by assuming an equal initial spacing between the pumps along the 

booster discharge pipeline. This initial spacing may have to be adjusted later based on PART III calculations. Figure 20 shows a suggested range of values to use for the initi81 estimate of booster spacing as a function of the median size, or d

50 , of the sediment to be 

bypassed. The designer should choose a value from this figure that 

falls in the shaded area for the applicable sediment size, then use 

this value in laying out the booster system. For example, suppose the 

sediment to be bypassed has a d 50 of 0.20 mm. Based upon the physical layout of the site, the designer might then choose an initial 

booster spacing of, say, 3000 ft. If the total discharge line length is 

9000 ft, the inital system layout will then include three booster pumps. 

The first would be located as close as possible to the jet pump(s) 

(usually at the same location as the supply pump). The second would be 

at the 3000-ft point on the discharge line, and the third at the 6000-ft 

point (Figure 21). 

Effective Operating Time 

44. The concept of an "effective" as opposed to a total time of 

system operation will now be introduced. Definition of effective time 

of operation is necessary for computation of the required system capacity. 

This step requires that a schedule of operation to accomplish the bypassing be selected. The schedule of operation depends on many factors 

including availability of manpower, local restrictions on.operation of 

the system, availability of material to be bypassed, and other factors 

that may be peculiar to the site such as ice during parts of the year. 

35 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1\foy Inlet 80 Appendix A., Section 16 
696

5000 

4000 

l;: 

d 3000 

u "' 

~ 

ffi 

i;; 

0 

g 2000 

1000 

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0,6 

Figure 20. Initial estimate of booster station spacing as a 

function of sediment size 

SUPPLY PUMP 

AND BOOSTER " 

PUMP 

BOOSTER 

DISCHARGE 

PIPELINE 

BOOSTER PUMP 

BOOSTER PU:_M_J 

3000 FT ALONG 3000 FT 3000 FT _.,~~~~~~_,,._;....,__~~~~~~~~~---+-<>--~~~~ PIPELINE 

TO BOOSTER 

Figure 21. Example arrangement of multiple boosters on 

9000-ft-long discharge line for 0.20-mm sand 

36 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 81 Appendix A., Section 16 
697

The basic schedules that should be considered are: 

Daily: Operation for a regular period each day on a 5- or 6-

day-per-week basis. 

Intermittent: Operation only when conditions are such that 

bypassing is needed, This means that the system may be idle 

for days at a time and may be operated 24 hours a day during 

other periods, 

Either of the above two schedules can be employed year-round, or only 

on a seasonal basis, or as a mixture of the two. For instance, it might 

be decided to operate a system on a daily basis during times of the 

year when drift rates are high, and on an intermittent basis at other 

timeso 

45. The total operating time is the number of hours per year when 

personnel are present and the system could be in operation. The effec-

"tive operating time is defined as the number of hours per year that the 

bypassing system is actually pumping sand, The effective time of operation can be approximated by estimating the number of working days per 

year, multiplying by the operating hours per day to get the total operating hours per year, and correcting this value for work or operational 

interruptions. A system of correction factors is presented below to 

assist in determining an effective operating time. 

46. The correction factor for interruptions due to system repair 

and replacement is applicable to both daily and intermittent operation 

but should be less for the latter. Intermittent operation should allow 

a higher level of preventive maintenance to be performed, reducing the 

frequency of repairs. No standard correction factor is available to 

apply to jet pump bypassing systems, but a reduction in total operating 

time of 10 to 15 percent was observed during the WES research program 

and appears to be a reasonable long-term average for daily operation. 

The system should perform with less downtime during early life, but 

may have more during later years, 

47. Other work interruptions take many forms, but the most prevalent are jet pump suction blockages, temporary lack of littoral materials, and need to relocate mobile jet pumps. The reduction factor for 

suction blockages should be greater for sites with a high number of 

37 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 82 Appendix A., Section 16 
698

shell fragments or cobbles or where sea grasses or debris are present. 

Mobile jet pumps also call for·a higher correction factor than do fixed 

pumps. Factors for pump blockages should range from 5 percent for fixed 

pumps in relatively clean sandy shoals to 10 percent for mobile pump 

assemblies in clean sandy shoals to 20 percent for pumps in areas that 

have a high shell or cobble content or other debris. In general, fixed 

pumps are more susceptible to blockage by moving causes (seaweed, debris, 

etc.) while mobile pumps are affected by in situ causes (cobbles, for 

instance) and to a lesser degree by moving causes. A high incidence of 

blockages from in situ and moving causes may make frequent relocation of 

a mobile pump necessary. 

48. Temporary lack of littoral materials is a situation that 

primarily affects fixed jet pump assemblies. In theory, a properly 

planned bypassing system will have littoral materials available for 

pumping at one location or another in the bypassing area throughout the 

period constituting the total operating time. However, there may be 

occasions when transport and deposition patterns and rates change 

enough to "starve" the system of littoral material. There is no set way 

of estimating this effect, but a factor of 5 percent might be applied to 

areas with known transport and deposition anomalies. 

1,9. Relocation of mobile pump assemblies for reasons exclusive 

of suction blockages is a variable dependent on pumping rate, depth 

to which craters are dug, and rate of littoral material influx. When 

the pumping rate and the littoral influx rate to the crater are similar, 

the pump may require only occasional repositioning. When the influx 

rate is low and crater depth shallow, however, frequent movement of the 

pump may be necessary. Obviously, this is a highly variable situation, 

but a factor of 10 percent might be applied to mobile assemblies under 

average conditions as a first guess. A high anticipated incidence of 

pump movement might increase this factor to 15 or 20 percent. 

50. The Effective Operating Time, EOT , in hours per year for 

the bypassing system can be determined from the relationship: 

EOT (NOD x HD) [1. 00 - (RR + PB + ALM + RMP)] 

38 

(5) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 83 Appendix A., Section 16 
699

where 

NOD number of operating days per year 

HD number of working hours in an operating day 

RR correction factor for system repair and replacement 100 

PB correction factor for pump blockages . 100 

ALM correction factor for absence of littoral materials 100 

RMP correction factor for relocation of mobile pump 

assemblies 100 

51. Proper application of the factors presented here should result in a realistic estimate of the effective operating time for the bypassing system. This analysis shows that the effective operating time 

could be as little as 50 percent or less of the total operating time, 

If the effective operating time seems to be relatively low, it should 

be remembered that many dredging systems have similar characteristics. 

Hopper dredges may spend a large amount of time in transit to and from 

the discharge site, while cutter suction dredges have to cease operation 

to periodically move swing wire anchors or to allow vessels to pass in a 

navigation channel. If the dredging site is subject to significant wave 

action, floating dredge downtime may be further increased. 

System Capacity 

52. The short term relationship between the rate of littoral influx, the production capacity of the bypassing system, and the available 

storage volume at a site is given by the expression 

where 

Hereford Inlet to Cape "}..fay Inlet 

(6) 

average rate of net littoral influx to storage area(s) 

during interval llt , cu yd/hr 

a time interval of the bypassing season, hr; should be 

as short as possible consistent with available data 

storage volume available during interval llt , cu yd 

39 

84 Appendix A, Section 16 
700

EXC required capacity of bypassing system, cu yd/hr 

EOT lit system effective operating time over interval hr 

53, STOREllt is not.a fixed quantity, but is dependent upon 

factors such as the condition of the storage area at the start of lit . 

Storage of littoral material in one form or another takes place at all 

littoral barriers. Often, it is this very storage or a portion of it 

that makes bypassing necessary. Evaluation of storage for bypassing 

purposes is complicated by the fact that only a part of the total 

storage at a site may be available for transfer by a bypassing system • 

.Material stored in locations not reachable by the system cannot be 

included in the system analysis. Also, because of the variation of 

littoral rates during the year, the system may temporarily remove all 

the material within the effective storage area. This temporary removal 

may result in deepening of the adjacent bottom and localized slumping 

into pumping areas. This readjustment of the adjacent area must occur 

without endangering nearby structures, 

54. For purposes of the initial layout, areas that are potentially within reach of a bypassing system should be identified as 

storage areas. As a rule of thumb, all areas below mean high water and 

located such that the total length of the jet pump discharge line will 

not exceed 600 to 700 ft can be considered to be potentially within reach 

of a jet pump bypassing system. The figure of 600 to 700 ft is given here 

for initial estimating purposes, not as an absolute limit. The range 

of mobile jet pumps will be determined more by the practical limitations 

of handling long reaches of floating pipelines and may therefore be less 

unless special measures are taken. For fixed jet pumps, where floating 

components are not a problem, the range of the system is a function of 

hydraulic and power considerations only. In most cases, however, the 

designer will find rapidly increasing power requirements if the jet pump 

discharge lines become too long, Areas such as jetty fillets, offshore 

bars, shoals, and prepared impoundment areas should be considered for 

use as potential storage areas. Past surveys of these areas together 

with estimates from the coastal processes study of transport vectors 

should be analyzed to determine: (a) that littoral transport does in 

40 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 85 Appendix A.. Section 16 
701

fact enter each area, and (b) what deposition patterns occur and how 

these patterns change with time. Only after this sort of analysis has 

been performed can a reasonable value of storage capacity (the amount 

of material that the area is capable of retaining at any one time) be 

determined. 

55. QL as used in Equation 6 is an average net influx from all 

directions. In other words, it is the average rate at which littoral 

material moves into the storage area and remains there during L\t • The 

maximum value for QL is the average gross transport rate from all 

directions into (but not out of) the storage area during L\t Use of 

this value would be based on the assumption that the storage area "traps" 

all littoral material which moves into it. In some instances, total 

trapping may not be the case, and a portion of the gross influx will 

continue on through the storage area. This might occur during periods 

of high wave activity or strong currents, The portion that moves 

through would not be available for bypassing; consequently, less storage 

and/or a smaller system production capacity would be indicated, Operation of the bypass system in the storage area will affect the value 

chosen for QL • Usually, the trapping capability of the storage area 

will be increased due to the craters formed by the system jet pumps. 

The amount of this increase will depend on variables such as the number, 

size, location, and condition of the craters, 

56. An earlier section of this report (paragraph 50) outlined 

how to determine EOT, the Effective Operating Time per year, The same 

techniques can be applied to determining EOTL\t for a particular time 

interval. 

57. Once STOREL\t , QL , and EOTL\t have been determined, 

Equation 6 can be used in a rearranged form to determine various values 

of EXC , the system production capacity: 

EXC 

QL(L\t) - STOREL\t 

EOT L\t 

(7) 

Equation 7 can be incorporated into many possible schemes for arriving 

41 

Hereford Inlet to Cape Afay Inlet 86 Appendix A . ., Section 16 
702

at a final design value of EXC The following approach is given only 

as an example of such a scheme: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

a. 

b. 

C, 

d. 

e. 

For a Cit corresponding to a particular time interval of 

the year, a value or possible range of values for Q1 is 

determined from the coastal processes study, keeping"in 

mind the discussion in paragraph 53. 

EQT is calculated, using the considerations described 

in ~~ragraphs 44-51. Several values may be possible, 

The storage capacity of the storage area(s) is determined 

(see paragraphs 53 and 54). If the storage capacity 

varies during the year, this effect should also be taken 

into account, since this calculation is for a particular 

time of the year. 

Reasonable estimates are made of what range of initial 

conditions might exist in the storage area(s) at the 

beginning of the Cit interval. The bounds of this range 

are that the storage area is either completely full or 

completely empty. However, the actual condition or range 

of conditions will probably lie in between these bounds. 

A range of STOREl'lt values is calculated, based upon the 

range of initial conditions determined in paragraph d. 

For any particular initial condition, 

where 

ST CAP 

STIN 

STORE Cit STCAP - STIN 

storage capacity of storage area, cu yd 

initial condition of storage area; i.e., 

volume of material already there at 

beginning of interval Cit , cu yd 

(8) 

f, Reasonable combinations of QL, EOTl'lt , and STOREl'lt 

are determined. Although a range of values for each 

variable may have been identified, it does not necessar--

ily follow that each value within the range of a particular variable can occur in combination with all values of 

the other two variables. Also, some combinations of the 

three variables may be more likely to occur than others, 

£· Equation 7 is solved using the combinations determined 

in paragraph i_. The values of EXC thus calculated are 

recorded. 

h. Steps~ through_& are repeated for other Cit intervals 

occurring at other times of the year. The result is a 

number of possible values for EXC . From these, a 

42 

87 Appendix A., Section 16 
703

design value or set of values is chosen to use in sizing 

the system components. The criteria for choosing a value 

or values for EXC will have to be determined by the 

designer. One criterion, and possibly a wasteful one in 

terms of system construction costs, would be simply to 

use the largest value of EXC . Another method might 

involve constructing a frequency distribution graph of 

EXC , plotting the relative frequencies of occurrence of 

classes of EXC values based on data from the above 

calculations. Then, from this graph, some value or values 

of EXC would be chosen corresponding to predetermined 

frequency criteria. Inherent in such a method is the 

understanding that on occasion, the storage capacity of 

the system will be exceeded. 

58. Again, it is emphasized that the preceding approach is given 

only as an example. The important aspect of this section of the report 

is to understand the basic concepts of effective operating time and 

storage, and how their interaction with littoral drift rates should 

determine the design capacity of the system. 

Considerations for Interception Type of System 

59. Occasionally, the designer may find that little or no storage 

capacity is available at the site, and that the bypass system must function by intercepting sand which is in continuous motion. In this situation, of course, the concept of storage does not apply in determining 

a design value of EXC 

then becomes simply: 

60. QL as used 

The relationship expressed in Equation 6 

EXC(EOT lit) (9) 

in Equation 9 takes on a somewhat different 

character than for Equation 6. None of the littoral material remains 

in the vicinity of the system; it is either all caught by the jet pump(s) 

or else moves past the system and is gone, presumably forever. Therefore, QL is now simply the rate at which littoral material approaches 

the system during 6t. It is imperative that Q1 values be determined for 6t intervals which are as small as possible. The ideal 

43 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 88 Appendix A., Section 16 
704

situation would be to have estimates of hourly rates of QL • The 

major concept here, however, is that the bypass system capacity is a 

direct function of the littoral drift rate for an interception type of 

system. 

Distribution of System Capacity 

61. The number of jet pumps to be operated simultaneously should 

be decided in the initial system layout. F,,ctors such as the system 

mode of operation, littoral transport vectors, and required system capacity must be considered. The size of jet pumps employed in the system 

will have an influence as well. WES experience thus far with jet pump 

bypassing systems has indicated that two sizes of the Pekar center-drive 

jet pump'~ have pumping capacities which match the requirements of many 

bypassing situations. The manufacturer's designation of these sizes, 

the 4 x 4 x 6 and the 6 x 6 x S, describes the nominal inside diameters 

of the suction, mixing chamber, and discharge, respectively. For each 

pump, the approximate range of pumping capacity suggested for use in 

this report is shown below. 

Je~ 

4 X 4 X 6 

6 X 6 X 8 

Up to 100 

Up to 200 

62. The tabulated values given are intended only as guidelines 

and not guarantees. The actual pumping capacity depends on a number of 

site-specific conditions. Simply because a pump is capabl~ of moving, 

say, 100 cu yd/hr, does not mean that it will be able to pump at that rate 

in a given situation. Final determination of jet pump size based on 

site conditions will be made in PART III of this report. However, the 

tabulated values will allow the designer at this stage of design to identify available options in the number of simultaneously operating jet 

pumps. For example, if a design value for EXC of 140 cu yd/hr has been 

selected, the designer might choose to operate one 6 x 6 x 8 jet pump at 

----------------------------------- "' Manufactured by Pekar Iron Works, Columbus, Georgia. 

44 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 89 Appendix A., Section 16 
705

a time with a capacity of 140 cu yd/hr. Or, he might elect to operate two 

4 x 4 x 6 jet pumps simultaneously, each pumping 70 cu yd/hr. Depending 

on circumstances at the site, he might even investigate using three or 

more 4 x 4 x 6 jet pumps at a time, each with the appropriate pumping 

rate. KEEP IN MIND, HOWEVER, THAT THE BETTER SYSTEM WILL USUALLY HAVE 

THE LEAST NUMBER OF JET PUMPS OPERATING AT ONE TIME. IF THE JOB CAN BE 

DONE WITH FEWER JET PUMPS, DON'T USE MORE. 

63. Once the number of simultaneously operating jet pumps has 

been determined, the required capacity of a single jet pump, EXCl , 

should be estimated. This is actually a complex task if done rigorously, 

involving a series of iterative calculations for a pipeline network. 

One of the characteristics of a multiple jet pump system is that all 

other variables being equal, the capacity of each jet pump relative to 

the others will vary inversely with jet pump discharge pipeline length, 

For example, in Figure 22, jet pump #1 would have a greater capacity 

CRATER 

(TYPICAL) 

JET PUMP #3 -\;-~~-.J 

Figure 22. Example jet pump discharge pipeline 

lengths, multiple jet pump system 

than 112, which in turn would pump more than 1/3. EXCl can be 

approximated from the following simple relation: 

EXCl = ~xc 

NUM 

45 

(10) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 90 Appendix A .. Section 16 
706

where NUM is the number of jet pumps operated simultaneously. However, 

the designer must remember that in a multiple system with different 

jet pump discharge pipeline lengths, it is extremely difficult to obtain 

exactly the same output from each jet pump. Also, it may be necessary, 

due to local transport vectors, for one jet pump to have a capacity in 

excess of EXCl as calculated above. The point of all this is that a 

value for EXCl should be chosen not calculated for a multiple jet 

pump situation, taking local conditions and requirements into account. 

In PART III of this report, the designer will be shown how this chosen 

value is used to arrive at a design for the complete multiple system. 

Backflushing 

64. Backflushing, an operational technique peculiar to jet pumps, 

must be discussed in the initial layout phase of system design, since 

it influences the layout and selection of discharge pipelines in systems 

with more than one jet pump. For a jet pump operating with a certain 

supply flow rate QSUP , if the flow resistance in the jet pump dis--

charge pipeline is increased, the suction flow rate QSUC will decrease. 

If the discharge pipeline flow resistance is increased enough, QSUC 

will become zero. If an "infinite" discharge flow resistance is created 

by closing a valve in the jet pump discharge pipeline, the jet pump 

supply water will flow out the suction of the jet pump (Figure 23). 

This property of a jet pump can be useful in clearing the suction of 

blockages due to shells, debris, etc. Operationally, such a technique 

is called "backflushing," and the valve in the jet pump discharge pipeline is called the "backflush valve." 

65. The influence of backflushing requirements on discharge pipeline layout is illustrated by Figures 24 and 25. Each figure shows a 

system with two jet pumps operated simultaneously. In Figure 24, the 

jet pumps share a common discharge pipeline, while in Figure 25 they 

have separate pipelines that join just before the booster pump. The 

common discharge pipeline in Figure 24 has one backflush valve, while 

each pipeline in Figure 25 has its own. 

46 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 91 Appendix A., Section 16 
707

JET PUMP #2 

SUPPLY PIPELINE BACK FLUSH 

VAL VE (CLOSED) 

SUPPLY WATER 

JET PUMP 

DISCHARGE 

PIPELINE 

Figure 23. Jet pump backflushing 

JET PUMP DISCHARGE PIPELINE (COMMON) 

Figure 24. Two jet pumps with common discharge pipelines 

47 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 92 .Appendix A .. Section 16 
708

CRATER 

(TYPICAL) 

#2 DISCHARGE PIPELINE 

JET PUMP #2 

SUPPLY PIPELINE 

(COMMON) 

#1 DISCHARGE PIPELINE 

Figure 25. Two jet pumps with separate discharge pipelines 

66. In the Figure 24 system, closure of the backflush valve will 

cause both jet pumps to backflush, even if only one has a suction blockage. There may also be a tendency for more flow to be directed outward 

through the unblocked suction since the hydraulic resistance there is 

less. In the Figure 25 system, each jet pump can be backflushed independently. However, more discharge piping and backflush valves are 

required and system installation may be more difficult. 

67. A backflushing capability is necessary for all mobile jet 

pumps, since they oft·en develop suction blockages when excavating new 

craters. Fixe;d jet pumps, on the other hand, are subject to blockage 

mainly by objects falling into their craters. Backflushing will remove 

these objects from the jet pump suction, but may not remove them from 

the crater. If they remain in the crater, they will eventually reenter 

the jet pump suction. It is usually necessary, therefore, to provide 

some type of coarse screen around the suction of a fixed jet pump to 

prevent large objects from entering. Then, the question of how to pro·-

vide a backflushing capability will be answered by the degree of 

48 

Hereford Inlet to Cape II.fay Inlet 93 Appendix A., Section 16 
709

discharge pipeline complexity the designer is willing to introduce. 

System Pipe Sizes and Materials 

68. The initial system layout must include a "first guess" at 

the size and material for the following pipelines: 

a. Jet pump supply, 

b. Supply pump suction, 

c. Jet pump discharge. 

d. Booster pump discharge. 

Actually, several alternates should be developed at this stage for each 

of the above pipelines. These alternates should be carried through the 

design procedure in PART III as parallel calculations. Then, the relative effects of each will be apparent, and the most suitable combinations of size and material can be chosen. 

69. The following general guidelines may be followed in choosing 

initial pipe sizes for single jet pump systems. These guidelines apply 

only to pipe with inside dimensions corresponding to Schedule 40 specifications. For other types of pipe, the nominal sizes given below may 

not be acceptable. The pipe sizes given are for initial estimating 

~~ only and may be changed in the final design, based on the results of PART III calculations: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1.fay Inlet 

Jet pump supply pipeline. 

(1) 4 X L; X 6 jet pump - 6 in. for line lengths up to 

500 ft; 8 in~ for greater lengths. 

(2) 6 X 6 X 8 jet pump - 8 in. £or line lengths up to 

500 ft; 10 itL for greater lengths. 

Supply p~~ucti~n pipeline. At least one pipe size 

larger than the jet pump supply pipeline. 

Jet 12ump discharge pipeli~ 

(1) The best that can be done at this stage in the design process is to choose a jet pump discharge pipeline size which falls in the middle of a range of 

design possibilities. The approach used consists of 

choosing a pipe size based on the calculated value 

of EXCl , then adjusting the jet pump discharge 

pipeline length so that the combination of EXCl , 

49 

94 Appendix A., Section 16 
710

t;: 

:i:' 

f0 

~ UJ 

~ 

--' 

~ 

a: 

w 

0 

0: 

<! 

r 

:;; 

iS 

" 2 

a' 

~ w 

--' 

en 

"' "' 2 

1600 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

pipe size, and pipeline length fall within a predetermined range of values. The designer may later 

have to revise his initial layout following more 

detailed calculations in PART III. 

(2) The designer should enter Figure 26 using the value 

of EXCl from paragraph 63 and move vertically to 

20 

the first line encountered corresponding to a particular pipe size, which then becomes the "first guess" 

at the jet pump discharge pipeline size. Then, the 

approximate center of the range of pipeline lengths 

possible :for EXCl and that pipe size can be found 

from the vertical axis. If the value from Figure 26 

is greater than 700 ft, the designer may lengthen the 

pipeline to the new value, if necessary. If the Figure 26 value is substantially less than the value 

used up to now, the designer must shorten the jet pump 

discharge pipeline to the new value. If the discharge 

pipeline cannot be shortened to the new value, the 

designer may move upward on Figure 26 to the line 

corresponding to the next larger pipe size. This pipe 

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 

EXC1, CU YD/HR 

Figure 26. Possible jet pump discharge pipeline lengths 

versus EXCl for various pipe sizes 

so 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ii.fay Inlet 95 Appendix A., Section 16 
711

size then becomes the "first guess" in subsequent 

calculations. The designer should resist the urge to 

use longer or larger pipelines than necessary, since 

the system will be more expensive to build and operate. Also, the designer should not use 6-in. pipe 

with a 6 x 6 x 8 jet pump or 10-in. pipe with a 

4 x 4 x 6. If the discharge pipeline length is 

changed, the designer should review all aspects of 

the initial layout to see whether other changes are 

necessary. In parti.cular, if the area of influence 

of the jet pump(s) is altered, a new system capacity 

will have to be calculated. 

d. Booster pump discharge pipeline. Same size as jet pump 

discharge pipeline, or possibly one pipe size larger if 

flow in the jet pump discharge pipeline is near maximum 

for that pipe size. 

For multiple jet pump systems that use common supply and discharge pipelines to serve all simultaneously operating jet pumps, pipe sizes for 

items .1!:. and c should be chosen such that their inside areas are roughly 

the appropriate multiple of the areas for the sizes shown above for 

single systems. For instance, if a 6-in. supply pipeline would be 

chosen for a certain single jet pump system, then an 8-in. pipeline is 

indicated for a two-jet pump system with the same pipeline lengths (the 

inside area of an 8-in. pipe is slightly less than twice that of a 

6-in. pipe). The instructions given above for items band .3. apply to 

multiple jet pump systems as well. 

70. An initial selection of pipe materials should be made at 

this stage, so that the complete hydraulic characteristics of the pipelines will be known for PART III. Although different materials will 

have different hydraulic characteristics, no adjustments for pipe material (such as changing pipeline lengths) should be made to the initial 

system layout at this stage. Some options that may be considered and 

that have performed satisfactorily in WES field tests are: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

a. Jet pump supply pipeline. 

(1) Steel - For fixed jet pumps. 

(2) Flexible rubber hose - For mobile jet pumps. 

(3) High density polyethylene (HDPE) - For fixed jet pumps 

where the pipe will not have to support any external 

load, such as the weight of the jet pump. 

51 

96 Appendix A., Section 16 
712

b. Supply pump suction pipeline. 

(1) Steel. 

(2) HDPE. 

c. Jet pump discharge pipeline. Sarne as jet pump supply 

pipeline. 

d. Booster pump discharge pipeline. 

(1) Steel. 

(2) HDPE. 

Other Considerations 

71. Two other items must be considered by the designer before 

proceeding with the system hydraulic design: (a) booster pump flushing 

water and (b) jet pump cutting jets. Flushing water is clear water 

(i.e. no solids) which is continually provided to the booster pump 

stuffing box to prevent solid particles from entering. The flushing 

water must be at a pressure greater than the discharge pressure of the 

booster pump. The system supply pump may be able to provide flushing 

water to a nearby booster pump if the supply pump discharge pressure is 

sufficiently greater than that of the booster pump. If this arrangement 

is used, the supply pump will have to be sized to provide this additional 

flow. 

72. As described previously, cutting jets are often used around 

the jet pump suction to aid in suction burial and in excavating consolidated material. Mobile jet pumps should always be provided with cutting 

jets, due to the range of conditions they often encounter. For fixed 

jet pumps, cutting jets may or may not be needed depending on the size 

and characteristics of the material that enters the jet pump crater. 

Fine sand that tends to pack quickly may require some cutting action to 

loosen it. Coarse, well-graded sand, on the other hand, may flow easily 

under the influence of suction alone. The point is that for fixed jet 

pumps, the question of whether to provide cutting jets should be answered 

by sediment information gathered in the coastal processes study. The 

water for cutting jets has to be provided by the supply pump (Figure 7), 

imposing an additional flow requirement on it. 

52 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 97 Appendix A .. Section 16 
713

73. The final aspect of initial system layout is the preparation 

of system schematic drawings in both plan and elevation. Schematic 

drawings should show the following information as a minimum: 

a. Major system components (jet, supply, and booster pumps 

and structures). 

(1) Location. 

(2) Elevation. 

b. Pipelines. 

(1) Routing. 

(2) Length. 

(3) Size. 

(4) Material. 

c. Valves and pipe fittings (bends, reducers, etc.). 

(1) Location. 

(2) Size. 

(3) Type. 

d. Craters. 

(1) Location. 

(2) Dimensions. 

e. Jet pump excavation rate(s). 

74. A set of example schematic drawings for a mobile jet pump 

system with two jet pumps, one of which operates at a time, is shown 

in Figures 27-31. 

Equivalent Lengths 

75. A convenient method to account for hydraulic energy losses 

caused by bends, valves, or other fittings in a pipeline is to replace 

these fittings in the calculations with lengths of straight pipe which 

give the same energy losses as the fittings. These "equivalent lengths" 

of straight pipe are added to the actual length of the pipeline. Then, 

a calculated loss factor is applied to the total equivalent pipeline 

53 

Fforeford Inl~t to Cape !\..fay Inlet 98 Appendix A., Section 16 
714

6" 45° BEND 

6" 90° BEND 

SUPPLY AND BOOSTER PUMPS 

BOOSTER 

PUMP 

--------.__: 

6" HDPE SCHED 40 

3000' LONG 

Figure 27, Overall system schematic 

oO 

4X4X6 

JET PUMP 

EXC1"'" 70 CU YD/HR 

BOOSTER PUMP 

'--o,scHARGE 

Figure 28. Detailed schematic - jet, supply, and booster 

pumps (plan view) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 99 Appendix A .. Section 16 
715

SUPPLY PUMP 

6" STEEL 

30' LONG...______ B" HOPE' 

0','r{--.J--'-'0 ~-:::---:::::::::::==--;~:'[gN4g 6" FLEXIBLE RUBBER HOSE f 175/250' LONG 

.JI,_ 8 /,;e- , 

Figure 29. Jet pump supply system (elevation view) 

BOOSTER PUMP 

EL +9.0' 

6" 45° BEND 

-6" STEEL 

30' LONG 

6" FLEXIBLE RUBBER HOSE 

EL 

Figure 30. Jet pump discharge system (elevation view) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 

Figure 31. Booster discharge pipeline underchannel 

crossing (elevation view) 

55 

100 Appendix A., Section lG 
716

length (actual plus fitting equivalents), giving the total system energy 

loss in one computation. 

76. Tables giving equivalent lengths of steel or cast iron pipe 

for different types and sizes of fittings are_ in many hydraulic handbooks (see Hydraulic Institute Standards, 1965, p E(I)-7). For fittings and pipe materials not included in such tables, Appendix B suggests some approaches to be used. The tabulation below shows an example 

of equivalent length calculations for the supply pump suction pipeline 

shown in Figures 28 and 29. 

Type of Fitting Number of Fittings 

Strainer 1 

45-deg bend 2 

Equivalent Length 

per Fitting, ft 

35.6 

7, 7 

Total 

ft 

35.6 

15.4 

Straight pipe 75.0 

Total equivalent length 126.0 

56 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 101 A.ppendix A, Section 16 
717

PART III: HYDRAULIC DESIGN 

77. Two separate procedures are described in this section that 

can be followed in designing jet pump systems for pumping sand. These 

procedures are presented in step-by-step fashion. In some steps, it is 

necessary that judgment be applied, and explanatory text is included to 

guide the designer. The knowledge or information that is necessary to 

perform the calculations or to make the decisions required by each step 

is specified where possible. A simplified flow chart is included so that 

the logical structure of the hydraulic design process can be followed. 

78. The first procedure consists of a series of well-defined calculation steps. Included in the procedure is an iteration loop to determine values of the jet pump operating parameters. This procedure can 

be partially adapted to a programmable desk calculator or a computer. 

Such adaptations are not included in this report. 

79. The second procedure utilizes graphs of jet pump performance 

together with discharge head curves generated by the designer to arrive 

at values of the operating parameters. The major advantage of this procedure is that it allows the designer to consider the entire range of 

jet pump possibilities at once, without having to recalculate design 

values. Also, jet pump cavitation limits are built into the graphs and 

values of efficiencies are shown. 

80. The basic jet pump system for pumping sand consists of a 

centrifugal pump to provide supply water, a jet pump, a booster pump, and 

the interconnecting pipelines with valves and fittings. Either of the 

design procedures that follow will result in the following information: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 

a. Values of operating parameters for: 

(l) Jet pump. 

(2) Supply pump. 

(3) Booster pump. 

b. Flow rates and velocities at all points in system. 

c. Values of energy losses in all pipelines. 

d. Percent solids pumped at design operating point. 

e. Methods for selecting: 

57 

102 Appendix A .. Section 16 
718

(l) Supply pump. 

(2) Booster pump. 

81. The given procedures are for the basic single jet pump system 

with one booster pump. Procedures for systems with multiple jet and/or 

booster pumps are similar except for some additional hydraulic considerations. These will be discussed at the end of PART III. 

82. The design calculations make use of the initial layout and 

schematics of the bypassing system generated in PART lI. If the design 

calculations show that a system element is inadequate or produces inefficient operation, a more reasonable selection should be inserted into 

the layout together with other associated corrections. By this method, 

the designer is assured of considering the bypassing system as an entity 

rather than as a group of components. 

83. In both design procedures described in this part of the report, the total system design develops as a function of the jet pump 

design operating point. A major consideration in choosing the jet pump 

design operating point is efficiency of the jet pump at that point. 

Since the other demands on the jet pump at that point (excavation rate, 

pumping distance, etc.) resulted directly from project considerations 

discussed in PART II, such an approach will usually produce a welldesigned system. However, the designer must remember that overall 

system efficiency, i.e., accomplishing the required bypassing with the 

least amount of total energy, is what really matters. Jet pump efficiency is a major factor in overall system efficiency, but the supply 

and booster pump operating characteristics play a role as well. Therefore, the designer should consider several alternative designs and compare the projected energy consumptions for each. 

Iteration Design Procedure 

84. The following design calculations are presented as a number 

of discrete steps. At the beginning of each step the information necessary to perform the calculations is given. The necessary relationships 

and equations are either presented in the step or are specifically 

58 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet ]03 Appendix A., Section 16 
719

referenced. Some steps are check points and may show that reselection of 

system components and recalculation of new system values are necessary. 

These steps are specifically identified. A detailed flow chart showing 

relationships between steps as well as decision points in the design 

procedure is presented in Plate 1. 

Step 1: Objective - Determine the minimum discharge pipeline velocity, often called critical velocity, necessary to 

maintain solids in suspension for all pipelines with 

solids flow. Also, determine the representative settling 

velocity of the sediment particles to be bypassed. This 

calculation should be done for each size of pipe used in 

the sediment-carrying portion of the system. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ti.fay Inlet 

Information required - (a) Pipe inside diameter, D , 

ft; (b) median diameter of sediment to be bypassed, d

50 , 

mm; and (c) specific gravity of the sediment solids, 

SGSOL (for quartz sand, SGSOL ~ 2.65). 

Method The first sediment parameter that will be 

determined is the settling velocity, W , of the d50 

sediment particle. W can be determined from the curves 

in Figure 32, which shows plots of both empirical data 

and equations from several investigators for quartz 

particles settling in water at 68°F. For d5o < 0.6 mm 

the center of the plots may be used. For d50 > 0.6 mm 

the plots diverge rapidly, indicating that variables such 

as the particle shape become more important. In this 

range of particle sizes, it is suggested that plot 9 be 

used, since it is based on data using naturally occurring 

particle shapes. It should be noted that d50 is expressed in millimetres and W in millimetres per second 

in Figure 32. The value of W from Figure 32 should be 

multiplied by 0.00328 to convert it to feet per second 

for use in subsequent calculations. 

The following empirical relationship from Durand (1953) 

is suggested as a means of determining the minimum discharge pipeline velocity, VCRIT : 

VCR IT FL l[2gD(SGS0L - l)] (11) 

FL , a proportionality coefficient, can be determined 

from Figure 33. C,, in Figure 33 is the expected volumetric concentration of solids in the discharge pipeline. It is suggested at this stage in the calculations 

to use the curve marked C ; 15% as a conservative 

value~ v 

59 

104 Appendix A,, Section 16 
a. 

[ 

g 

:, 

(l 

-g 

,, 

.~ 

[ 

g 

§: 

> :g 

g ?'-

g g· 

" 

101 

E 100 

E 

0 

cl "' 

°' 0 

10-1 

FOR QUARTZ (S5 = 2.65) AT 20°C WATER PETTYJOHN et al. DATA 

1 ,Jr 1.000 6 STOKES' EQUATION 

2 '¥ 0.906 7 NEWTON'S EQUATION 

3 '¥ 0.846 8 RUBEY'S EQUATION 

4 '¥ 0.806 9 DATA FROM MAMAK 

5 '11 - 0.670 

/1

,# V 5\. 

.• 

r--- 8 I< 

.,, ;: ........ 6 

V 

,A} ? 

[,.-.: r,:;~ J? 

10-1 100 101 

W,mm/s 

Figure 32. Settling velocity of quartz pa

Sediment Transport by Graf (1971). (£)1971 

with permission of McGraw-Hill 
721

1.2 

fZ. ~ " .... "-- "'- Cv = 15% ,~ ""'-. "-- Cv = 10% 

I ....._ Cv = 5% :---cv= 2% 

1.0 

0.8 

LL...J Q.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

0 2 3 4 

Figure 33. FL versus dso for Durand relationship 

(from Hydraulics of Sediment Transport by Graf (1971). 

@1971 by McGraw-Hill Inc. Used with permission of 

McGraw-Hill Book Company) 

Step 2: Objective - Determine the minimum required volumetric flow 

rate, QSUPmin , in the system discharge pipelines to 

assure conveyance of solids in suspension. 

Information required - (a) VCRIT from Step 1, fps; 

(b) discharge ·pipe maximum inside area, ADIS , ft2. 

ADIS should be the inside area of the largest pipe in 

the sediment-carrying portion of the system. 

Rationale - The flow rate calculated in this step is the 

minimum clear water flow rate that should be supplied to 

the jet pump nozzle. Such a minimum flow rate will help 

ensure that sediment in the discharge pipelines can still 

be carried in suspension even if the jet pump intake plugs 

completely. 

Method - Perform the following calculation to obtain 

QSUPmin in gallons per minute (gpm): 

QSUP . min (448.831)(ADIS)(VCRIT) (12) 

Step 3: Objective - Determine the jet pump suction flow necessary 

to produce the required project site bypassing rate. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Information required - (a) Individual jet pump required 

bypassing rate, -EXCl , cu yd/hr; (b) in situ porosity, 

n, of sediment to be bypassed; (c) specific gravity, 

SGSOL, of solids. 

61 

106 Appendix 1L Section 16 
722

Rationale The mixture entering the jet pump suction is 

called suction flow, and the volumetric rate of entry is 

termed QSUC. This mixture is composed partly of fluid 

and partly of solid sand particles. By determining the 

specific gravity of the in situ material at the site and 

making certain assumptions as to the specific gravity of 

the entering mixture, the value of QSUC can be 

determined. 

Method - The required jet pump suction flow, QSUC , in 

gallons per minute, can be calculated from 

where 

(

SGIN - SGWAT ) QSUC; EXCl (3.37) SGSUC - SGWAT (13) 

SGIN in situ material specific gravity 

SGSOL(l - n) + n(SGWAT) 

SGWAT 

SGS UC 

specific gravity of ambient water (1.00 for 

fresh water, 1.025 for seawater) 

assumed average specific gravity of mixture 

entering jet pump suction 

In WES field tests, SGSUC varied between about 1.40 and 

1.85 depending on pumping conditions. It is suggested 

that a value of SGSUC; 1.70 be used for preliminary 

estimation. 

Step 4: Objective - Select a jet pump size to use in subsequent 

calculations. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet 

Information required - Value of QSUC, gpm, from Step 3. 

Rationale - Two sizes of the Pekor center-drive jet pump, 

the 4 x-z; x 6 and the 6 x 6 x 8, have pumping capacities 

that match the requirements of many bypassing situations. 

The same dimensionless performance characteristics are 

assumed for each, but flow rates in the larger pump are 

higher. It is therefore necessary to know which pump is 

being considered for steps later in this procedure. 

Method - Compare the value of QSUC with those given 

below: 

QSUC Range, gpm 

200 to 500 

500 to 700 

700 to 1500 

62 

107 

Jet Pump 

I, X 4 X 6 

Transition 

6 X 6 X 8 

Appendix A., Section 16 
723

Select the jet pump corresponding to the correct range 

of QSUC • For values of QSUC in the transition range 

either jet pump may prove the most feasible, depending on 

other system requirements. It is suggested that both types 

be considered simultaneously. 

If QSUC from Step 3 is less than 200 gpm, the designer 

should consider at this point whether such a small capacity 

is correct, and if so, why. Since QSUC is a direct 

function of EXCl (Equation 13), and the value of EXCl 

for a given EXC depends only on NUM, the number of 

jet pumps operated simultaneously (Equation 10), it may 

be that QSUC is too small because NUM is too large. 

Or, EXC may be too small. The designer should return 

to the initial layout to check these possibilities. If 

such is not the case, the designer should reevaluate the 

entire situation to make sure the problem is of sufficient 

magnitude to warrant a sand bypassing system. 

If QSUC is larger than 1500 gpm, the designer should 

also recheck his determination of EXC , NUM, and EXCl. 

If the value chosen for EXC still appears reasonable, 

the only option left is to increase NUM, the number of 

jet pumps operated simultaneously. As a general guideline, if adding more than one additional jet pump to NUM 

is required to make QSUC less than 1500 gpm, the designer 

should at this point reconsider the entire system layout. 

If the layout still looks sound, then there is a good 

possibility that the bypassing problem is beyond the 

feasible range of a jet pump solution. THE DESIGNER MUST 

RESIST THE TEMPTATION OF FORCING A JET PUMP SYSTEM TO FIT 

THE PROBLEM. For many situations, a jet pump system is 

not practical. Results of this step may be indicating 

just that. 

Step 5: Objecti~ - Determine the flow ratio M, the head ratio 

N , and the area ratio R, of the jet pump. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape I-.fay Inlet 

Information required - (a) QSUP~in , gpm, from Step 2, 

(b) QSUC , gpm, from Step 3, (cJ jet pump dimensionless 

performance curves, Plate 2. 

Rationale As discussed earlier (paragraphs 20-22), the 

behavior of jet pumps of a given design when pumping a 

given medium can be described by three dimensionless 

ratios. These are: 

Head Ratio N HDIS - HSUC 

HSUP - HDIS (1 bis) 

Flow Ratio M QB!_<;_ 

QSUP (2 bis) 

Area Ratio R ANOZ 

AMIX (3 bis) 

63 

108 Appendix A. Section 16 
724

* 

As part of the WES research program "Eductor Systems for 

Sandtrap Bypassing," the relationships between these 

ratios were defined for a Pekar center-drive jet pump 

under the condition of pumping medium sized sand (d50 

0.5 mm). These relationships are shown graphically in 

Plate 2. It is evident from the plots shown in Plate 2 

that if two of the ratios are selected, the third is 

uniquely defined, Since the effects of different grain 

sizes on M vs N relationships have not been measured, 

it is suggested that the plots in Plate 2 be used only 

for naturally occurring beach sands (d50 = 0.1 to 1.0 mm). 

More detailed performance data for a particular beach sand 

or data for coarser or finer sediments should be obtained 

by pump testing, 

The operating efficiency, E , of the jet pump can be 

defined at any point from the relationship 

(14) 

Peak operating efficiency is a goal of any design procedure 

and is a consideration in the accomplishment of this step. 

Method - The optimum'~ flow ratio, Hop , can be found from 

the previous calculations of drive water flow rate requirements and jet pump suction flow rate requirements. 

Therefore 

M 

op 

QSUC 

QSUPmin 

(15) 

Enter Plate 2 at M0 and trace vertically to the jet 

pump dimensionless p~rformance curve which gives the 

largest possible value of head ratio, Nmax • Note the 

area ratio, R, associated with this curve, Determine 

the operating efficiency, E , of the jet pump at that 

point from the relation 

E ~ M X N (16) 

op max 

If E is approximately 0.20 or greater, the jet pump 

operating ratios have been selected. If E is between 

0.14 and 0.20, the designer must choose whether to use 

This flow ratio is "optimum" in the sense that it derives directly 

from bypassing requirements and the minimum flow rate in the discharge 

line. "Optimum" in this context does not necessarily imply a degree of 

efficiency. 

64 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :-.fay Inlet 109 Appendix A., Section 16 
725

the M and N values just calculated, or try for a 

higher E value. 

If E is less than 0.14, compare the value of Mop with 

values of M in the following tabulation corresponding 

to the proper R. If M0 p is greater than the value 

from the tabulation, the value of QSUPmin should be increased and the operating ratios recalculated. If Mop 

is less than the tabulated value, QSUC should be increased for recalculating the operating ratios. Once new 

ratios are calculated, use them to recalculate E. 

Continue this process until an acceptable value of E is 

found. 

R M 

0.096 1.063 

0.138 0.745 

0.175 0.614 

0.202 0.537 

0.246 0.463 

0. 311 0.205 

Step 6: Objective Calculate the discharge flow from the jet 

pump, QDIS 

Information required - Jet pump suction flow, QSUC , and 

supply flow, QSUP, gpm, used in the final determination 

of M in Step 5. 

Rationale - Flow rates in various segments of the discharge system must be calculated in determining the system 

design operating point. The input to the calculations of 

chis step should be the rate of flow of the mixture entering the jet pump through the suction tube, QSUC , and 

the dimensionless flow ratio, M. These values must 

reflect any adjustments made in Step 5. 

Method - The volumetric discharge flow rate from the jet 

pump, QDIS, can be calculated from the relationship 

QDIS = QSUC + QSUP (17) 

Step 7: Objective - Calculate the expected maximum volumetric 

concentration of solids, CVMAX, in the jet pump discharge pipeline. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Information required - (a) Jet pump flow ratio, 

St-ep 5; (b) spec.ific. gravity of sediment solids, 

65 

M , from 

SGSOL; 

110 Appendix A, Section 16 
726

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

(c) in situ specific gravity, SGIN, of sediment to be 

bypassed (from Step 3); (d) jet pump discharge, QDIS , 

gpm, from Step 6; (e) porosity, n , of in situ sediment 

to be bypassed; (f) specific gravity of ambient water, 

SGWAT , from Step 3. 

Rationale - Head loss calculations should be based on the 

maximum slurry concentration conditions that are reasonably expected to occur. The WES research program indicated certain relations that could be used for different 

jet pump configurations to estimate what the maximum 

sustained specific gravity of the mixture entering the 

jet pump might be. These relations are used in the 

following calculations. 

Method CVMAX can be determined from the relationship 

CVMAX = (-M-) (SGSUCM - SGWAT) 

1 + M SGSOL - SGWAT (18) 

where SGSUCM is the assumed maximum sustained specific 

gravity of the slurry entering the jet pump suction. 

Experiments at WES developed the following relationships 

between SGSUCM and SGIN : 

For fixed jet pumps with no cutting assists: 

SGSUCM SGIN 

For fixed jet pumps with cutting assists: 

SGSUCM = O.SS(SGIN) + 0.15 

For floating jet pumps, which almost always require 

cutting assists: 

SGSUCM 0.80(SGIN) + 0.20 

(19) 

(20) 

(21) 

Note - The solids coneentration determined in this step is 

to be used for subsequent calculation of energy losses 

and booster pump requirements only. No attempt should be 

made to return to previous steps with this value since the 

bypassing system will not consistently attain solids eoncentrations as high as those calculated in this step. 

The expected maximum specific gravity of slurry in the 

66 

111 Appendix A., Section 16 
727

jet pump discharge pipeline, SGDISJ , can be computed 

from: 

SGDISJ = CVMAX(SGSOL) + (1 - CVMAX)SGWAT (22) 

The maximum excavation rate of in situ material by one 

jet pump, EXCMAX, cu yd/hr, can be calculated by the 

expression 

EXCMAX 0. 297_(CVMAX) (QDIS) 

1 - n (23) 

EXCMAX as given by this expression should exceed EXCl 

as used in Step 3. If it does not, a mistake was made 

somewhere in Steps 3 through 7. Calculations in these 

steps should be checked. 

Step 8: Objective - Calculate the required jet pump discharge 

head, HDIS 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Information required - (a) Description of jet pump discharge pipeline including inside diameter and length 

(D and LDISJ), both in feet, with adjustments for valves, 

fittings, and bends; (b) hydraulic characteristics of jet 

pump discharge pipe; (c) total flow rate delivered by jet 

pump, QDIS , gpm, from Step 6; (d) settling velocity, 

W, of d50 particle diameter, fps (see Step 1); 

(e) maximum concentration of solids, CVMAX, in jet pump 

discharge pipeline; (f) specific gravity of sediment solids, 

SGSOL ; (g) elevation of booster pump center line, ZBOO 

ft, relative to water surface datum; (h) maximum specific gravity of slurry in jet pump discharge pipeline, 

SGDISJ , from Step 7; (i) expected maximum water depth 

over jet pump while operating, DEPMAX, ft; (j) design 

pressure or vacuum head at the booster pump suction flange, 

PHSUCB , in feet of water. Suggestions for selecting a 

value of PHSUCB are given in this step. 

Rationale - The jet pump discharge head represents the 

total energy output of the jet pump. It is composed of 

the energy required to overcome friction losses in the 

discharge pipeline, of velocity head energy, of energy required to raise the mixture to the level of the booster 

pump, and of the pressure or vacuum at the booster pump. 

Friction losses in pipelines carrying fluids and solids 

are calculated in two steps. First, losses attributable 

to the fluid flow alone are calculated. Then, these 

losses are adjusted to account for the presence of the 

solids. Equivalent lengths of pipeline should be used 

in the calculations. 

67 

112 Appendix A., Section 16 
728

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Fluid energy losses: the Darcy-Weisbach formula is often 

used to calculate the rate of head loss per unit length of 

pipeline for fluid flow, (llh/ l\L) w 

where 

f 

D 

V 

f v2 

D 2g 

dimensionless friction factor; a function 

of pipe relative roughness and Reynolds 

numb'er 

pipe inside diameter, ft 

flow velocity in the pipe, fps 

acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec 2 

The friction factor, f , can be found from a Moody 

diagram such as that shown in Figure 34 (Moody 1944). 

(24) 

f can also be found directly by an iterative solution of 

the Colebrook-White equation (Colebrook 1939). This 

method is described in Appendix B. Other relationships 

such as the Hazen-Williams formula are available to 

define fluid head loss rates, and the appropriate one 

should be selected by the designer on the basis of what 

information is available on the hydraulic characteristics 

of the pipe being used. 

A word of caution is necessary at this point against 

using so-called "rules of thumb" for estimating head loss 

rates or any other hydraulic parameter. While such 

methods may indeed give answers approximating those of 

more complex formulas, their range of validity is often 

not known, At the very least, their use can result in 

wasteful overpowering of a system, In the worst case, 

they may give results which underestimate head losses, 

causing the system to be inadequate. 

Mixture energy losses: the flow regime existing in the 

booster discharge pipeline must be determined before 

adjustments are made to fluid-only head loss rates to 

account for the presence of solids. The piping system 

has been designed to carry the mixture in a nonsettling 

mode, so the only test necessary is whether the mixture 

is a heterogeneous or homogeneous slurry. A heterogeneous 

slurry has a vertical concentration gradient in the pipe; 

i.e., more solid material is carried at the bottom of the 

pipe than at the top. In a homogeneous slurry, velocities 

in the pipe are high enough that solids are distributed 

68 

113 Appendix A., Section 16 
:::: 

8 

o' 

a. 

[ 

0 

(l 

-g 

I 

[ 

:;:: 

> 

"" ~· 

r 

fl 

§' 

"-

a: 

0 

fu 

<,: 

LJ.. 

2 

0 

.= 

SJ 

a: 

LJ.. 

0.100 0.090 

0.080 

0.070 

0.040 

0.025 

0.020 

0.015 0.010 

0.009 

0.008 

I 'LAMINAR 

COMPLETE TURBULENCE 

---~------------ 0.050 = E/0 

-----::...------------ 0.040 ---~-----------0.030 ---.....::,.,._ __________ 0.025 ----~....-----------0.020 -----::....---------0.015 0.010 .::::::_-----:::....,.-------- 0.008 

::------::"'s;:---------,o;;.006 

===------------~:_;~--.:-;:------

~~~~~=::=::::::::~=s

:::-----=

-

~~-

0.001! I I I I 11 I I I I I I I 111 I I I I I I I 11 I 

103 104 105 io6 

REYNOLDS NUMBER = VD 

V 

Figure 34. Moody diagram (after Mo
730

Hereford Inlet to Cape T\foy Inlet 

more or less evenly over the pipe cross section. Head 

loss rates are much greater in the homogeneous flow range. 

Therefore, it is more efficient to size the discharge 

piping system to produce heterogeneous flow, The transition velocity between heterogeneous and homogeneous flow, 

VHOM, fps, can be found from: 

VHOM 

3~----

\/ 1800 gWD (25) 

where D is the pipe inside diameter, ft, and W 

is the settling velocity of the sediment particles, fps. 

Now, the mixture head loss per unit length, (Llh/LIL)m , 

can be determined. For the situation 

V > VHOM (homogeneous regime): 

( u ~hL) [Cv(SGSOL - 1) + 1] 

w 

(26) 

where the subscripts m and 

water, respectively, a~d Cv 

concentration in the mixture. 

w refer to mixture and 

is the volumetric solids 

For the situation 

VCRIT < V < VHOM (heterogeneous regime): 

(t~t { (::J [llOO(SGSOL - l)WgD] + 1} (27) 

Equations 25 and 27 are attributable to Newitt et al. 

(1955). Equation 26 is from Graf and Acaroglu (1967). 

Method - To apply the above calculation procedure to 

the jet pump discharge pipeline, substitute VDIS for 

V. VDIS is the velocity in the jet pump discharge 

pipeline, fps: 

VDIS QDIS (28) (448. 831) (ADIS) 

70 

ll5 Appendix A., Section 16 
731

where ADIS is equal to the jet pump discharge pipe 

cross-sectional area, ft2. 

Also, substitute the jet pump discharge pipeline inside 

diameter, ft, for D and CVMAX from Step 7 for Cv 

in order to determine the unit mixture head loss from 

either Equation 26 or 27. Then, the total head loss in 

the jet pump discharge pipeline, HMJ , in feet of water, 

is calculated by the expression: 

HMJ llh 

llL m 

LDISJ (29) 

where LDISJ is the total equivalent length of the jet 

pump discharge pipeline, ft. 

Consideration should be given at this point to the choice 

of PHSUCB, the estimated design pressure or vacuum at 

the booster pump suction flange. Choosing PHSUCB to be 

a vacuum will result in a smaller required HDIS from 

the jet pump, which will significantly decrease the jet 

pump supply water requirements. However, such a choice 

will increase the possibility of cavitation and water 

hammer at the booster pump when the jet pump suction becomes plugged or if the system as installed has different 

hydraulic characteristics from the design. A vacuum may 

also cause air to be drawn into the system through pipe 

joints or other openings, creating a loss in booster 

pump efficiency and adding to cavitation and water hammer 

problems. A compromise might be to choose PHSUCB as 

a mild pressure, say +10 ft, for the initial design and 

then recheck the design later for the effects of different flow possibilities. 

The required jet pump discharge head, HDIS , in feet of 

water, can now be calculated from the expression 

HDIS VDIS

2 

+ HMJ + ~ DEPMAX(SGDISJ - SGWAT) 

(30) 

+ SGDISJ(ZBOO) + PHSUCB 

Step 9: Objective Calculate the jet pump suction head, HSUC. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\lay Inlet 

Information required - (a) Jet pump suction flow, QSUC , 

gpm, as used in Step 6; (b) length of jet pump suction 

tube, LSUC , ft; (c) inside area of jet pump suction, 

ASUC, ft2. 

Rationale - The jet pump sucXion head represents the 

71 

116 Appendix A., Section 16 
732

total energy available at the jet pump suction. This 

value is composed of the velocity head of the suction 

fluid minus the head losses of the sediment/water mixture 

as it enters and flows through the suction tube. 

Method - The jet pump suction head, HSUC, in feet of 

water, can be calculated from the expression 

HSUC = v~~c 2 

- [2(LSUC) + 4(v~~c.:.)] (31) 

where 

VSUC = QSUC/(ASUC x 448.831) in fps 

The expression in brackets in Equation 31, developed 

from laboratory observations, is an estimate of the total 

mixture head loss in the suction tube. Detailed information on design of the suction tube will be given in a 

subsequent report. A value of LSUC = 2.0 ft is suggested for the present design purpose. 

Step 10: Objective - Calculate the required jet pump supply head, 

HSUP. 

Information required - (a) Jet pump head ratio, N (see 

Step 5); (b) required jet pump discharge head, HDIS 

(see Step 8), in feet of water; (c) jet pump suction head, 

HSUC (see Step 9), in feet of water. 

!J:ationale - The dimensionless jet pump head ratio, N, 

is a function of the jet pump supply head, the jet pump 

discharge head, and the jet pump suction head (Equation 1). Therefore, definition of any three of these 

parameters uniquely defines the fourth. 

Method - The required jet pump supply head, HSUP , in 

feet-;;-£ water, can be calculated from the expression 

HSUP HDIS ; HSUC + HDIS (32) 

Step 11: Objective - Calculate QSUP from the standpoint of 

nozzle hydraulics, to determine whether the value of 

QSUPmin calculated in Step 2 is realistic. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ivlay Inlet 

Information required (a) Jet pump supply head, HSUP , 

in feet of water; (b) 2rea ratio, R, from Step 5; 

(c) jet pump suction head, HSUC , from Step 9, in feet 

of water. 

Rationale - This step is the "closing" step of an 

72 

117 Appendix A., Section 16 
733

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

iterative ~alculation procedure, the objective of which 

is to determine the operating parameters of the jet pump. 

The jet pump operates by means of supply water entering 

through a nozzle, Therefore, its behavior on the supply 

side can be characterized by a form of the basic nozzle 

equation. When the results of calculations from the 

nozzle equation are approximately the same as those 

arrived at via Steps 1 through 10, then the values of 

operating parameters determined in Steps 1 through 10 

can be considered valid. 

Method - Calculate QSUP, gpm, by means of the following equation, which is conservatively based on the 

results of laboratory tests of jet pumps: 

QSUP B(ANOZ)l(HSUP - HSUC) (33) 

ANOZ can be calculated from the following relation: 

ANOZ Rx AMIX (34) 

The tabulation below gives values of AMIX for Pekar 

4 x 4 x 6 and 6 x 6 x 8 jet pumps: 

Jet Pump 

4 X 4 X 6 

6 X 6 X 8 

AMIX, ft 2 

0. 0873 

0.1963 

B is a coefficient which varies with the value of R. 

The following tabulation gives values of B to use 

with corresponding R values. 

R B, gpm/ft512 

0.096 3533.4 

0.138 3429.7 

0.175 3633. 9 

0.202 3776.5 

0.246 3682.5 

0.311 4544.8 

Compare this value of QSUP with the value of QSUP 

used in the final determination of M in Step 5. If 

they are not within approximately 5% of each other (and 

73 

118 Appendix A., Section 16 
734

they probably will not be), the iterative calculation 

procedure must be worked again. Replace the Step 5 

QSUP with the value of QSUP calculated in this 

step, return to Step 5, and work through to this point 

again. Several runs through Steps 5-11 may be necessary 

until the two values of QSUP agree. After the first 

iteration, the value of QSUP calculated in this step 

is no longer compared with the original Step 5 QSUP , 

but with the value of QSUP calculated in the previous 

iteration. Caution: if at any time the value of QSUP 

calculated in this step is less than the Step 5 QSUP , 

the iteration must be carried out differently. Either 

the excavation rate, EXC , or the jet pump discharge 

pipe diameter can be reduced. The first adjustment will 

have the effect of reducing QSUC ; the second will 

cause a reduction in QSUP • In either case, the designer must return to the system initial layout. 

Step 12: Objective - Check for possible cavitation in jet pump. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 

Information required - (a) jet pump supply head, HSUP 

(see Step 10), in feet of water; (b) jet pump suction 

head, HSUC (see Step 9), in feet of water; (c) jet 

pump suction velocity, VSUC (see Step 9), fps; (d) jet 

pump area ratio, R (see Step 5); (e) jet pump flow 

ratio, M (see Step 5); (f) minimum anticipated water 

depth over jet pump while operating, DEPMIN, ft; 

(g) atmospheric pressure, ATMOS , in feet of water; 

(h) vapor pressure of water, Vlu' , in feet of water; 

(i) jet pump supply flow rate, QSUP , gpm, as finally 

determined in the Step 2 through 11 iteration process; 

(j) area of opening at jet pump nozzle tip, ANOZ , from 

Step 11, in ft2. 

Rationale - The exact prediction of cavitation in the 

Pekor jet pump, especially when pumping solids, has not 

been experimentally determined at this time. For this 

reason, it is recommended that the designer check the jet 

pump operating point as determined in Steps 5-11 against 

cavitation criteria taken from Silvester and Mueller 

(1968) and Wakefield (1972). Although those criteria do 

not apply directly to the Pekor pump, they will serve to 

indicate whether the operating point is near a "danger 

zone" of possible cavitation~ 

Method - The criterion from Silvester and Mueller is 

expressed in the terminology of this report as: 

HSUP + DEPMIN 

ATMOS - VAP + HSUC - (v~~c 2

) + DEPMIN 

< [0.95(1 - Mx ; R)r 

74 

(35) 

119 A.ppendix A .. , Section 16 
735

Cavitation is assumed not to occur if this inequality is 

satisfied, 

The criterion as given in Wakefield's publication 

involves use of a graph. For purposes of this manual, 

the graph is eliminated and the following expression 

used: 

(Hsuc -~ + DEPMIN + ATMos)2g 

VNOz2 

> 0.046 - 0.126X + l.44X2 + 4.44x3 - 9.1SX4 

where 

VSUC/VNOZ 

(36) 

X 

VNOZ velocity of water jet at tip of nozzle, fps 

Again, cavitation is assumed not to occur if the inequality is satisfied. VNOZ may ~calculated from the 

following expression: 

VNOZ QSUP (37) (448,831) (ANOZ) 

If cavitation is indicated by either of these criteria, 

the designer has two alternatives: (a) decrease QSUC 

or (b) select a larger size jet pump. From Equations 13 

and 10, it is seen that QSUC is a direct function of 

EXCl , and that EXCl depends solely on EXC and NUM 

Therefore, choosing alternative (a) means returning to 

the initial system layout to see what can be altered to 

reduce EXCl and thereby decrease QSUC, Alternative 

(b) is feasible only if QSUC falls in the transition 

zone defined in the tabulation in Step 4, p 62. If alternative (b) is chosen, the designer should also return to the initial system layout to determine if 

changes in pipe sizes are necessary. 

Step 13: Objective - Calculate all expected energy losses in the 

booster pump discharge pipeline, 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet 

Information required - (a) Description of booster discharge pipeline, including inside diameter and length, 

both in feet, with equivalent length adjustments for 

75 

120 Appendix .A .. Section 16 
736

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 

valves, fittings, and bends; (b) hydraulic characteristics of booster discharge pipe; (c) total flow rate 

delivered by jet pump to booster pump, QDIS (see 

Step 6), gpm, (d) settling velocity, W, of d50 

sediment particle (see Step l); (e) maximum concentration of solids, CVMAX, in jet pump discharge pipeline 

(see Step 7); (f) specific gravity of sediment solids, 

SGSOL . 

Rationale - The methodology for calculating friction 

losses in pipelines conveying sand/water slurries was 

presented in Step 8 and will not be repeated here. 

Method - The velocity in the booster pump discharge pipeline, VDISB , fps, should be calculated on the basis 

of the total discharge of the jet pump plus the quantity 

of flushing water introduced into the booster pump. 

Therefore 

where 

QFL 

ADI SB 

VDISB (38) 

flushing water volumetric flow rate into 

booster, gpm 

inside area of booster pump discharge pipe, 

ft2 

Recommended values of QFL vary from pump to pump, but 

QFL may usually be assumed as 100 to 150 gpm. The expected maximum volumetric concentration of solids in the 

booster discharge pipeline, CVMAXB , may be calculated 

from: 

( QDIS ) CVMAXB = CVMAX QDIS + QFL (39) 

Using the relations from Step 8, and by substituting 

VDISB for V , the booster discharge pipe inside diameter, ft, for D , and CVMAXB for Cv, the head loss 

per unit length of pipeline, (~h/~L)m, can be 

calculated. 

Total head loss in the booster discharge pipeline, RMB , 

in feet of water, is calculated by the expression 

RMB = (~~) LDISB (40) 

m 

76 

121 Appendix A., Section 16 
737

where LDISB is the total equivalent length, ft, of 

the booster discharge pipeline. 

Step 14: Obj~ctive - Calculate the operating requirements to be 

placed on the booster pump. These requirements include 

the total dynamic head of the booster pump, TDHB, 

the flow rate of the booster pump, QDISB , and the 

specific gravity of the booster pump discharge, SGDISB 

Information required - (a) Total frictional head loss in 

booster discharge pipeline, HMB, in feet of water (see 

Step 13); (b) estimat,ed design pressure or vacuum at the 

booster pump suction flange, PHSUCB, in feet of water 

(see Step 8); (c) elevation of the end of the booster 

discharge pipeline, ZDIS, relative to water-surface 

datum, ft; (d) elevation of booster pump center line 

relative to water surface, ZBOO, ft; (e) maximum 

concentration of solids in the booster discharge pipeline, CVMAXB (see Step 13); (f) jet pump discharge flow 

rate, QDIS , gpm (see Step 6); (g) flushing water 

flow into booster pump, QFL , gpm (see Step 13); 

(h) specific gravity of sediment solids, SGSOL ; 

(i) manufacturers literature describing booster pumps. 

Method - The total dynamic head required of the booster 

pump, TDHB, is composed of the total head loss in the 

booster discharge pipeline, HMB, in feet of water; a 

design pressure or vacuum at the booster pump suction 

flange, HSUCB, in feet of water; and the difference in 

elevation between the center line of the pump and the 

discharge pipe end at the disposal site, ft. TDHB 

may be calculated in feet of water from:* 

TDHB RMB - PHSUCB + (ZDIS ZBOO) (41) 

Note - Kinetic (velocity) energy terms are not included 

in this calculation because their only contribution to 

TDHB is the negligible difference between velocity 

heads at the pump suction and pump discharge. 

At thts point, the designer should review the manufacturers' literature and make a preliminary selection of a 

class of booster pumps so that the reasonableness of 

the flushing water flow rate estimates, QFL, can be 

* Equation 41 must be modified for systems with multiple booster pumps. 

See paragraph 91 for details. 

77 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet 122 Appendix A.. Section 16 
738

verified. If possible, a more accurate value of QFL 

should be selected for subsequent use. The volumetric 

discharge flow rate of the booster pump_, QDISB , gpm, 

can be determined from the expression: 

QDISB QDIS + QFL ( 42) 

The maximum specific gravity of the booster pump discharge slurry, SGDISB , is calculated from the 

expression 

SGDISB CVMAXB(SGSOL) + (1 - CVMAXB) ( 43) 

Step 15: Objective - Calculate the required production flow rate 

of the clear water supply pump. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !I.lay Inlet 

Information required - (a) Jet pump supply water flow 

rate, QSUP , gpm, as determined in Step 5; (b) flushing water flow rate required by booster pump, QFL, gpm 

(Step 13). 

Rationale The production flow rate of the clear water 

supply pump is determined principally by the jet pump 

supply water requirements. Added to this will be the 

total flow rate requirement for jet pump cutting jets, 

QJET , if such jets are used. Finally, it may be 

possible in some cases to provide flushing water for the 

booster pump from the clear water supply pump. In such 

cases, this flow rate must also be added to the required 

clear water supply pump flow rate. Before finalizing a 

design using such a flushing water system, however, it 

would be advisable to contact the booster pump supplier 

about his specific requirements. 

Method - The value of QJET has not been determined, 

but as a general rule, the relationship 

QJET 0.2(QSUC) (44) 

will provide a realistic estimate. 

The required total volumetric flow rate of the supply 

pump, QSUPT, is given by the expression 

QSUPT QSUP + QJET + QFL (45) 

78 

123 A.ppendix A, Section 16 
739

Note - QJET and QFL should be included in this calculation only if they are to be provided by the supply 

pump. The ultimate feasibility of providing QFL with 

the supply pump will not be known until the supply pump 

discharge head is calculated and compared with the 

booster pump discharge head. 

It should be noted that in most cases the quantity QFL 

will be included in the pump suction water, but will be 

removed and introduced into the booster pump very near 

the supply pump discharge flange. Therefore, for the 

purpose of calculation, QFL is included in supply pump 

suction flow but not in the flow between supply pump and 

jet pump. 

Step 16: Objective - Calculate the required total dynamic head of 

the clear water supply pump. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 

Information required - (a) Inside areas of supply pump 

suction and jet pump supply pipes, ASUPS and ASUPD 

ft2; (h) inside diameters of supply pump suction and 

discharge pipes, ft; (c) equivalent lengths of supply 

pump suction and jet pump supply pipelines, LSUPS and 

LSUPD , ft; (d) description of hydraulic characteristics of supply pump suction and discharge pipes; (e) required total production flow rate of clear water supply 

pump, QSUPT , gpm (Step 15); (f) elevation of supply 

pump, ZSUP , above water-surface datum, ft; (g) jet 

pump supply head, HSUP (Step 10), in feet of water; 

(h) supply flow to the jet pump, QSUP , gpm (Step 11); 

(i) supply flow to jet cutting assists, QJET , gpm 

(Step 15); (j) expected flushing water requirement, QFL , 

gpm (Step 13). 

Rationale - The total dynamic head, or total head as it 

may be called, of the clear water supply pump represents 

the energy imparted by the supply pump to the liquid. 

This energy can take the form of a change in elevation, 

velocity, or pressure of the liquid being pumped. The 

sum of these changes expressed in feet of water is, by 

definition, the total dynamic head of the pump. For a 

centrifugal pump supplying water to a submerged jet pump, 

the change in elevation of water passing through the 

centrifugal pump is zero. The change in veloeity may be 

approximated by the velocity head in the centrifugal 

pump discharge pipe. The ehange in pressure is due to 

two factors: (a) the required supply head HSUP at 

the jet pump and (b) the total frictional losses in the 

centrifugal pump suction and discharge pipelines. 

Method - Use the method described in Step 

ing the rate of head loss per unit length 

_fluid flow ( the Darcy-Weisbach formula) . 

79 

8 for calculatof pipeline for 

This method 

124 Appendix A., Section 16 
740

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

should be applied separately to the centrifugal pump 

suction and discharge pipelines. Velocity in the suction pipeline, VSUPS , fps, can be calculated by: 

VS UPS QSUP + QJET + QFL 

(448.83l)(ASUPS) (46) 

Velocity in the jet pump supply pipeline, VSUPD , fps, 

can be obtained from: 

VSUPD QSUP + QJET (47) (448.83l)(ASUPD) 

As in Step 15, QJET and QFL should be included in 

these calculations only when they are to be provided by 

the supply pump. QFL is not included in VSUPD calculations since it is normally removed from the discharge 

pipeline shortly after leaving the supply pump. 

Using the appropriate values of velocity, inside diameter, 

and hydraulic characteristics, head loss rates per unit 

length should be calculated for the suction pipeline 

(llh/llL)wss and jet pump supply pipeline (llh/llL)wsn. 

Then, the total head loss in the supply pump suction 

pipeline, HWSS, in feet of water, can be calculated by: 

HWSS ( llh) x LSUPS 

/IL wss 

An important adjustment to include in LSUPS is an 

allowance for entrance losses into the suction pipe. 

The total head loss in the jet pump supply pipeline, 

HWSD, can be obtained in feet of water from: 

HWSD ( llh) x LSUPD 

/IL WSD 

The required total dynamic head of the supply pump, 

TDHS , in feet of water, is then: 

TDHS HSUP + HWSS + HWSD 

80 

(48) 

(49) 

(50) 

125 Appendix A., Section lG 
741

Step 17: Objective - Calculate the available net positive suction 

hea<l, NPSHA, at the supply pump suction flange. 

Information required - (a) Head loss in supply pump suction pipeline, HWSS (Step 16), in feet of water; 

(b) atmospheric pressure, ATMOS , in feet of water; 

(c) water vapor pressure, VAP , in feet of water; 

(d) maximum expected elevation of supply pump suction 

center line above free water surface, ZSUPM, ft; 

(e) velocity in supply pump suction pipeline, VSUPS , 

fps (Step 16). 

Rationale - The available net positive suction head 

represents the absolute pressure in the liquid at the 

supply pump suction flange above its vapor pressure. 

Different types of centrifugal pumps require different 

values of NPSHA at a given operating poi.nt in order 

to avoid cavitation within the pump itself, This required value is often denoted NPSHR. NPSHR varies for 

a given pump with the operating point. 

Method - ZSUPM should take into account low tide, low 

lake levels, seiches, surges, and the change in water 

surface due to waves propagating past the suction pipe. 

In other words, ZSUPM should be the elevation, ft, 

of the supply pump suction center line above the lowest 

water level, transient or otherwise, that could reasonably occur during regular pumping operations. The net 

positive suction head available, NPSHA, of the supply 

pump can be calculated in feet of water from the 

expression: 

NP SHA 

2 

ATMOS - VAP - HWSS - ZSUPM - vs~:s (51) 

Step 18: Obj~ctive - Select supply pump to drive jet pump system. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Information required - (a) The required total dynamic 

head of the supply pump, TDHS (see Step 16), in feet 

of water; (b) the required total flow of the supply pump, 

QSUPT, gpm (see Step 15); (c) the net positive suction 

head available at the supply pump suction flange, 

NPSHA (see Step 17), in fe.et of water; (d) manufacturers' 

literature for centrifugal water pumps. 

Method_ - The required operating point of the supply pump 

has been defined through calculation of TDHS , QSUPT , 

and NPSHA. Various pump curves from several manufacturers should be examined to locate a pump that can 

produce the desired operating point for the least shaft 

81 

126 Appendix A., Section 16 
742

horsepower input, and that has a required net positive 

suction head, NPSHR, at the overating point equal to 

or less than the value of NPSHA. 

Selecting a centrifugal pump inherently involves select--

ing a particular impeller diameter for that pump. The 

electric motor or diesel engine used to drive the pump 

should have a continuous horsepower rating not less than 

the maximum horsepower that the pump with the selected 

size of impeller will draw at "runout," or the maximum 

flow rate shown on the pump curve for that size impeller. 

For pumps that will be primed by a vacuum method, consideration should be given to specifying mechanical 

stuffing box seals instead of packing to reduce air 

leakage into the pump during priming. A horizontally 

split-case type of pump should be specified wherever 

possible to facilitate access to the impeller for repair 

or replacement. Corrosion-resistant materials should be 

specified for use in saltwater environments. 

Step 19: Objective - Select booster pump to deliver slurry to 

discharge site. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet 

Information required - (a) Required total dynamic head 

of the booster pump, TDHB (see Step 14,), in feet of 

water; (b) required total flow rate of the booster pump, 

QDISB , gpm (see Step 14); (c) specific gravity of 

booster pump mixture, SGDISB (see Step 14); (d) sediment 

d5o grain size, mm; (e) maximum concentration of solids 

in the booster discharge pipeline, CVMAXB (see Step 13); 

(f) manufacturers' literature on dredge pumps. 

Rationale - The term:lnology "booster pump" has been 

used--;::;:;describe the pump that has the responsibility 

of supplying the majority of energy needed to deliver the 

mixture of bypassed sand and water to the discharge site. 

In actuality, the pump selected will probably be a dredge 

pump, which is a centrifugal pump that is specifically 

designed with large internal clearances and specially 

hardened and strengthened parts to allow handling of 

solids. Selection of the dredge pump is essentially the 

same as selection of the clear water supply pump in 

Step 18. Tbe difference is that the presence of solids 

in the dredge pump has tbe combined effects of reducing 

the efficiency of the pump while increasing the horsepower required to convey a certain flow rate at a certain 

discharge pressure. Dredge pump performance curves are 

usually given for clear water pumping. Therefore, the 

information available from these curves must be corrected 

to account for tbe effects of solids. 

Method - The first step is to convert the total dynamic 

head of the booster pump, TDHB , which is in feet of 

82 

127 Appendix A., Section 16 
743

0.60 

"' w 

x 

:;, 

w 0.80 

0.90 

water, into feet of mixture, TDHBM. This is done by 

using the relationship: 

TDHB 

TDHBM = SGDISB (52) 

Next, the ratio of efficiency when pumping slurry, &'!IX 

to efficiency when pumping water, EW, is determined by 

entering Figure 35 with the sediment d50 grain size 

and determining the ratio of EMIX/EW that corresponds 

to CVMAXB . The total dynamlc head is then corrected 

for this decrease of efficiency by the relatlonship: 

TDHBME TDHBM 

EMIX 

EW 

Figure 35. Ratlo of efflclency mixture/efficiency water 

versus grain size (after Stepanoff 1969) 

(53) 

Select a pump by entering the manufacturer's pump performance curves for water with the required total dynamic 

head corrected for specific gravity and efficiency, 

TDHBME, and with the total flow required of the booster, 

QDISB. 

The input shaft horsepower indicated at this point on 

the manufacturer's curves for water will represent the 

83 

I-fo-n;ford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 128 Appendix A., Section 16 
744

power required to pump water, BHPW . This must also 

be corrected to account for the heavier mixture being 

pumped. Assuming that the dredge pump will be operating 

near its point of peak efficiency, the required horsepower to pump the mixture, BHPM, is given by the 

relationship 

BHPM BHPW(SGDISB) (54) 

Graphical Design Procedure 

85. This design procedure incorporates portions of the iteration 

design procedure. Such portions will not be repeated here but simply 

referred to. Therefore, familiarity with the iteration design procedure 

is a prerequisite to use of this procedure. Appendix C describes the 

derivation of the graphical design procedure and its relation to the 

iteration procedure. 

Steps 1 through 3: Perform Steps 1 through 3 as described in 

the iteration design procedure. 

Step 4: Objective - Generate a set of curves giving the required 

jet pump discharge head, HDIS , for a given value of jet 

pump suction flow, QSUC , and supply flow, QSUP . 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet 

Information require_c:l_ - (a) Minimum jet pump supply flow, 

QSUPmin (see Step 2); (b) required jet pump suction 

flow, QSUC (see Step 3); (c) description of jet pump 

discharge pipeline, including length and adjustments for 

valves, fittings, and bends (several pipe sizes may be 

considered at this point); (d) hydraulic characteristics 

of jet pump discharge pipe; (e) settling velocity, W, 

of sediment d50 particle diameter (see Step l); (f) specific gravity of solids, SGSOL ; (g) elevation of booster 

pump suction flange relative to water surface, ZBOO ; 

(h) estimated design pressure or vacuum at the booster 

pump suction flange, HSUCB (see discussion of this subject in Step 8 of the iteration design); (i) assumed maximum specific gravity of suction mixture, SGSUC, as 

discussed in Step 7 of the iteration design procedure. 

Rationale - The required discharge head at the jet pump 

discharge is a function of the discharge flow rate, solids 

concentration, pipeline characteristics, and conditions at 

the booster pump suction. By assuming various values for 

some or all of these parameters, required discharge heads 

84 

129 Appendix A .. Section 16 
745

Hereford Inlet to Cape }..fay Inlet 

can be calculated for a variety of discharge conditions. 

Doing this in a systematic manner will result in a table 

of values that can be used to generate sets of required 

discharge head curves. 

Method - If more than one diameter or material is being 

considered for the jet pump discharge pipeline, choose a 

size and type of pipe to begin calculations. Next, choose 

a starting value of jet pump supply flow, QSUP, equal 

to or somewhat less than QSUPmin . Also, choose a starting value of jet pump suction flow, QSUC, which is 

several hundred gallons per minute less than the QSUC 

value determined in Step 3. 

Using these starting values, perform the following 

calculations: 

QDIS QSUP + QSUC (55) 

VDIS QDIS (28 bis) (448.831) (ADIS) 

CVMAX jqsuc 

\QDIS 

SGSUC SGWAT) 

SGSOL - SCWAT (56) 

Apply these calculated values to the procedure outlined 

in Step 8 of the iteration design procedure for calculating the energy loss gradient in pipelines conveying sand/ 

water slurries. The result will be a value of (6h/6L) 

Continue with the remainder of Step 8 of the iteration m 

design procedure to obtain a value of the required jet 

pump discharge head, HDIS . Record this value together 

with the corresponding values of QSUP and QSUC. 

Keeping the same value of QSUP, increase the value of 

QSUC by an increment of 100 gpm or less and repeat the 

above procedure. Continue this process until QSUC is 

several hundred gallons per minute greater than the 

Step 3 value, recording each time the corresponding values 

of HDIS , QSUP, and QSUC. 

Next, increase QSUP by an increment of 100 gpm or less 

and begin the calculation procedure again with the value 

of QSUC used initially. Execute this entire procedure 

several times until QSUP is several hundred gallons 

per minute greater than QSUPmin. The result will be 

a set of values of required HDIS corresponding to 

particular values of QSUC and QSUP for a certain size 

85 

130 Appendix A._ Section 16 
746

500 

600 

700 

800 

llOO 

1200 

1300 

1400 

gpm 

(QSUPmin) 

and type of discharge pipe. This information can be 

summarized in tabular form. Table 1 shows the hypothetical results of a set of such calculations for the same 

system layout but with two different sizes of discharge 

pipe. 

The final task in this step is to use the tabulated information to generate a set of curves of QSUC versus 

HDIS . Figure 36 shows a set of such curves drawn using 

the information for the 6-in. discharge line in Table 1. 

Each curve represents a row from Table 1. To be compatible with the scale of the jet pump performance curves 

discussed in the next step, these curves should be drawn 

using axes with the following scales: 

Horizontal (QSUC): 1 in. 200 gpm 

Vertical (!!DIS): 1 in. 20 feet of water 

The curves should be drawn on or transferred to a transparent medium such as tracing paper so they can be used 

as overlays in the next step. 

Table 1 

Example: Required HDIS ' ft 

6-in. Discharge Pipe 

35.6 39.3 43.1 47.1 51.4 _J 62.1 

37.4 41. 6 45.9 50.4 60.4 68.3 

40.0 44.6 49.3 58.8 66.5 74.9 

43.3 48.2 57.1 64.8 73.0 81. 9 

Heterogeneous flow +!+ Homogeneous flow 

8-in. Discharge Pi Ee 

29.0 31. 0 33.0 34.9 36.8 38.7 

(QSUPmin) 29.9 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 40.1 

31.0 33.1 35.3 37.3 39.5 41. 6 

32.3 34.5 36.6 38.8 41.0 43.3 

'' QSUC from Step 3. 

Step 5: Objective - Correlate the curves of required HDIS from 

Step 4 with curves of actual jet pump performance. 

86 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 131 Appendix A., Section 16 
747

100 

80 

0: 

w 

.... 

<t 60 s: 

u.. 

0 

.... 

w 

w 

u.. 

0 40 0 

I 

20 

0 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

200 400 600 

QSUC, GPfvl 

800 

OSUP~ 

800 gpm 

700 

600 

500 

Figure 36. Example jet pump discharge 

pipeline curves for 6-in. pipe 

87 

132 

1000 1200 

Appendix A., Section 16 
748

Hereford Inlet to Cape 'May Inlet 

Information required - Curves from Step 4 drawn on transparent paper. 

Rationale - The information calculated in Step 4 is based 

solely on conditions in the jet pump discharge pipeline. 

The physics of operation of a jet pump are such that the 

values of three of its other operating parameters (HSUC , 

QDIS , and QSUC) also depend in part on conditions in the 

discharge pipeline. The purpose of this step, therefore, 

is to match what is required by the discharge piping system with what a particular jet pump is capable of producing 

under such conditions. The result of this step will be 

a number of possible operating points for the jet pump. 

Method - Plates 3-14 give curves of actual jet pump performance pumping a sand/water slurry. Plates 3-8 apply to 

a 4 x 4 x 6 jet pump, while Plates 9-14 are for a 6 x 6 x 8 

jet pump. Experience has shown that the characteristics 

of these two sizes of jet pumps will match the requirements of most sand bypassing situations. 

Each plate shows curves of QSUC versus HDIS for particular values of QSUP . Each plate gives a complete set 

of curves for one nozzle size in a certain jet pump. 

THE CURVES SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 

The limits as given are based on considerations which include cavitation, and operation outside of those limits 

entails the very real possibility of impaired system 

performance due to jet pump cavitation. Also, Plates 3-14 

apply only when pumping a sand/water slurry. They are not 

valid for pumping water or materials other than sand. In 

addition to the value of QSUP for each curve, the recommended design value of HSUP is also given. Lines of 

equal efficiency values are also shown to aid the designer 

in selecting the most efficient jet pump configuration for 

a particular operating situation. 

The technique in this step is simply to place the curves 

from Step 4 over Plates 3-14. The intersection of a curve 

from Step 4 that has a particular QSUP value with the 

curve on the plate that has the same QSUP value gives a 

potential operating point in terms of HDIS , HSUP , 

QSUC , and QSUP for the jet pump system. Figure 37 shows 

the example curves from Figure 36 superimposed on Plate l;. 

It is seen that two potential operating points have been 

identified by curve intersections. These operating points 

are as follows: 

a. QSUP 700 gpm 

HSUP 271 feet of water 

QSUC 350 gpm 

HDIS 42.5 feet of water 

Efficiency 14% 

88 

133 Appendix A., Section 16 
749

140 

120 

100 

er:; 

UJ 

~ 80 

s: 

u.. 

0 

Il.1J 

UJ 

u.. 

!!!' 60 Cl 

:r: 

40 

20 

0 

<l's 

QSUP= "', 

1000 

gpm 

900 

800 

700 

500 

400 

200 400 600 

QSUC,GPM 

QSUP= 

800 gpm 

700 

600 

500 

800 1000 

Figure 37. Example jet pump discharge pipeline curves for 6-in, 

pipe superimposed on Plate 4 

89 

1200 

Hereford Inlet to Cape J\.fay Inlet 134 Appendix A .. Section 16 
750

b. QSUP 800 gpm 

HSUP 357 feet of water 

QSUC 1,50 gpm 

HDIS 52.5 feet of water 

Efficiency 15% 

Superimposing the Step 4 curves on other plates will 

generate more potential operating points. In some cases, 

few or none of the curves on a plate will coincide with 

the Step 4 curves. This situation indicates, of course, 

that such a nozzle size in that particular jet pump is 

unsuitable for the bypass system operating requirements. 

In other cases, the intersections may occur near the 

limits of the curves shown on a plate. While the operating points thus defined are valid, the designer should 

make sure that his predictions of system operating requirements are correct before using such operating points in 

designing an actual bypass system. Small variations from 

the predicted values may force the jet pump into 

cavitation. 

The information for the operating points defined by this 

procedure can be summarized in tabular form. Table 2 

shows the results of superimposing the example curves of 

Figure 36 on Plates 3-14. 

Table 2 

Example: Potential Opera~ing Points, 6-in. Discharge Pip~ 

Jet Pump "" 

/; X /; X 6 

4 X 4 X 6 

4 X 4 X 6 

6 X 6 X 8 

Hereford Inlet to Cape \fay Inlet 

Nozzle Size QSUP HSUP QSUC HDIS Efficiency 

in. N'_111_ ft .S_£tl!_ ft % 

1.25 600 391 420 42.5 13 

1.50 700 271 350 1,2. 5 1/f 

1.50 800 357 450 52.5 15 

None 

The figures in Table 2 show that the example system 

design options with a 6-in. discharge pipe are limited 

in number and of poor efficiency. None of the possible 

operating points in Table 2 will give a QSUC value of 

500 gpm, which as noted in Table 1, was the assumed 

design value from Step 3. 

Figure 38 shows the curves of QSUC versus HDIS from 

Table 1 for an 8-in. discharge pipe for the same example 

system. Table 3 gives the results of superimposing these 

example curves on Plates 3-14. 

90 

135 /\ .. ppendix A .. Section 16 
751

60 

OSUP 

a: ~188 gpm w 

I- 40 1200 <( 1100 s: 

Ll. 

0 

IUJ 

UJ 

u.. 

<!!' 20 0 

:r. 

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 

OSUC,GPM 

Figure 38. Example jet pump discharge 

pipeline curves for 8-in. pipe 

Table 3 

Example: Potential Operating Points, 8-in. Discharge Pipe 

Nozzle Size QSUP HSUP QSUC HDIS Efficiency 

Jet Pump in~ gpm .ft gpm ft __ !__ __ ------ 4 X 4 X 6 2.00 llOO 180 580 34.5 25 

I, X 4 X 6 2.25 1200 86 320 30.5 27 

4 X 4 X 6 2.25 1300 101 375 33.0 24 

4 X 4 X 6 2.25 11,00 ll8 420 35.0 23 

6 X 6 X 8 1. 88 1200 299 660 37.0 12 

6 X 6 X 8 1.88 1300 354 800 42.0 12 

6 X 6 X 8 2.25 1!+00 207 500 36.5 12 

Step 6: Objective - Select a jet pump design operating point. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Information required (a) Potential operating points 

from Step 5, (b) assumed maximum specific gravity of 

suction mixture, SGSUCM, as discussed in Step 7 of the 

iteration design procedure. 

_Rationale - A number of potential jet pump operating 

points were determined in Step 5. This step requires 

a decision as to which of these points, if any, should 

91 

136 Appendix A., Section 16 
752

Hereford Inlet to Cape :',Jay Inlet 

be used.in further calculations. If further calculations show the chosen point to be unfeasible, then 

another can be selected based on the Step 5 results. 

Method - The first step is to look at the QSUC values 

of all the potential operating points. Those points with 

values of QSUC close to the value determined in Step 3 

should be noted for further consideration. 

The next step is to look at the remaining operating 

points to see whether some additional calculations with 

different values of QSUP would generate other operating 

points with QSUC values close to the Step 3 value. For 

instance, for the example being demonstrated, recall that 

QSUC from Step 3 was 500 gpm. Then, looking at Table 3, 

other possibilities for additional calculations are: 

a. 4 x 4 x 6 jet pump -

(1) 2.00-in. nozzle, QSUP 

(2) 2.25-in. nozzle, QSUP 

1000 gpm. 

1600 gpm. 

b. 6 x 6 x 8 jet pump - Efficiencies shown are 

relatively low; additional calculations would 

probably not be worthwhile. 

The designer should now return to Step 4 and perform the 

additional calculations indicated by this review. The 

resulting points together with the ones first noted constitute the group of potential design operating points. 

If the potential design operating points identified in 

this step have uniformly low efficiencies, or if the 

points with acceptable efficiencies lie near the limits 

of the applicable jet pump performance curves, the designer may want to reconsider certain aspects of his 

system layout before proceeding any further. It is important at this point to carry on only with what appears 

to be a feasible design. Step 5, if performed properly, 

will show a range of possibilities for a particular 

design. 

If the operating points within this range are inefficient 

or marginal, then the basic system layout may be at fault. 

Once the design point has been selected, the design values 

of QSUP, HSUP, QSUC, and HDIS are automatically 

determined. Values of QDIS and CVMAX needed for 

subsequent calculations can be determined from Equations 

55 and 56. 

Remaining calculations - The remainder of the graphical 

design procedure can be accomplished by performing Steps 

13 through 19 of the iteration design procedure. In 

effect, Steps 4, 5, and 6 of the graphical procedure have 

92 

137 Appendix A., Section 16 
753

replaced Steps 5 through 12 of the iteration design 

procedure. 

Additional Considerations for Multiple Jet or Booster Pumps 

Multiple jet pumps 

86. The steps in the two design procedures can be followed for 

systems in which more than one jet pump operates at a time, provided 

that certain hydraulic requirements are met. These requirements stem 

from two basic principles of pipeline flow at junctions: 

a. At a pipe junction, the total head in all branches of 

the junction must be equal. Thus, from Figure 39, 

vz 

Hl + ..J:. 2g 

vz 

H3 + _l 2g (57) 

b. Total flow away from the junction must equal total flow 

into the junction. Again, from Figure 39, 

(58) 

87. Figure 40 shows these two principles as applied to a system 

of two jet pumps without cutting assists operating simultaneously. The 

hydraulic requirements that would have to be met are as follows: 

a. Supply pipeline 

HSUP HSUPl HSUPA 

HSUP2 HSUPA - HWSD1

_

2 

QSUP QSUPl + QSUPZ 

where 

HSUP HSUPl, HSUPA, and HSUPZ are the total 

heads at the following respective locations: 

93 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 138 Appendix A., Section 16 
754

H7, V7 

I 

I ! 0

1

-fr-'>"=-o-,~-\-+-, _ --+j---~ 03 

H2, V2 H = PRESSURE HEAD 

V = FLOW VELOCITY 

HDIS2, OD!S2 

JETPUMPNO. 2 

HSUP2, OSUP2 

Hereford Tnlet to Cape May Inlet 

Q = VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE 

Figure 39. Junction of three pipes 

':'., HD/ST, OD/ST 8 ~ c,,' 

ci ci CJ;: CJ;: 

I • I I TO BOOSTER PUMP 

FROM SUPPLY PUMP 

HSUP1, OSUP1 

HWSD 1•

2 

Figure 40. Dual jet pump system 

94 

139 Appendix A., Section 16 
755

(1) In the supply pipeline immediately before the 

junction of jet pump Ill 

(2) At jet pump #1 (on the supply side) 

(3) In the supply pipeline immediately after the 

junction of jet pump #1 

(4) At jet pump #2 (on the supply side). 

HWSD1-2 is the head loss in the supply pipeline between 

jet pumps #1 and #2 

QSUP , QSUPl , and QSUPA are the volumetric flow rates 

at the same locations as the respective total heads. 

b. Discharge pipeline 

HDIS HDIS1 HD ISA 

HDIS2 HDISA + HMJ2

_

1 

QDIS QDIS1 + QDIS2 

where 

HDIS HDIS1, HDISA, and HDIS2 are the total heads 

at the following respective locations: 

(1) In the discharge pipeline immediately after the 

junction of jet pump /11. 

(2) At jet pump #1 (on the discharge side), 

(3) In the discharge pipeline immediately before the 

junction of jet pump #1. 

(4) At jet pump #2 (on the discharge side), 

HMJ2_1 is the head loss in the discharge pipeline between 

the junctions of jet pumps //2 and /IL 

QDIS , QDIS1, and QDIS2 are the volumetric flow rates 

at the same locations as the respective total heads. 

88. The end result of these requirements is to increase the complexity of iterative calculations to determine values of the jet pump 

operating parameters. The number of iterations can be reduced if as 

95 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 140 Appendix A., Section 16 
756

many system variables as possible are made into constants. Some ways 

of doing this are: 

a. Use the same size jet pump for all jet pumps. 

b. Use the same nozzle size in all jet pumps. 

c. Space jet pumps equal distances apart where possible. 

d. Choose pipe sizes to give similar flow velocities in 

all branches of a junction. 

89. The number of iterations can be reduced further by choosing 

values of EXCl for each jet pump that decrease with increasing distance to the booster pump. For instance, in Figure 40, jet pump //2 

should have a smaller value of EXCl than jet pump #1. 

Multiple booster pumps 

90. Multiple booster pumps located at intervals along the discharge pipeline require additional considerations not needed for a singlebooster system. Monitoring, control, and sequencing of booster operation 

become very important to prevent cavitation or water hammer, either of 

which can ruin an expensive pump. Designing for a positive pressure 

head, PHSUCB , at each booster suction will aid in preventing such 

problems as well as helping keep air out of the discharge system. Booster 

pumps should be spaced at intervals along the discharge pipeline such 

that their operating points are roughly the same. Each pump must be provided clear flushing water at a pressure greater than the booster dis·· 

charge pressure. After the initial hydraulic design, the entire bypass 

system should be analyzed for the effects of different possibilities, 

such as plugging a jet pump suction or stopping a booster pump 

unexpectedly. 

91. Two adjustments must be made to the hydraulic design procedure 

to allow for multiple booster pumps. First, total flow in the discharge 

pipeline will increase at each booster due to the addition of flushing 

water. This must be accounted for in determining flow rates, velocities, 

and solids concentrations at each booster. Second, the total dynamic 

head required of a booster pump will depend on conditions somewhat different from those considered in Equation 41 of the iteration design procedure. For example, if the first and second boosters in a pipeline are 

96 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :Vfay Inlet 141 Appendix A, Section 16 
757

numbered 1 and 2, Equation 41 becomes: 

(59) 

where HMB1_2 is the total frictional head loss in the discharge pipeline between boosters 1 and 2. Equation 59 should be used for all 

boosters in a multiple booster system except the final one, where 

Equation 41 applies. 

97 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 142 Appendix A., Section 16 
758

PART IV: SUMMARY 

92. This report is designed to be used by an engineer or group 

of engineers with a basic knowledge of coastal processes and a rudimentary knowledge of centrifugal pumping systems. Using this report, such 

a person or group will be able to perform the following tasks: 

a. Determine the general feasibility of a jet pump remedial 

sand bypassing system for a specific. problem. 

b. Develop the initial layout(s) for a jet pump sand bypassing system. 

c. Perform the basic hydraulic. design for such a system. 

93. A set of factors relative to tasks a and bare discussed. 

Detailed instructions are given for aspects of the initial layout such 

as determining the system effective operating time and capacity. A 

format consisting of schematic drawings is suggested for presenting the 

results of the initial layout. Examples of such drawings are shown. 

94. The designer is provided with two step··by-step procedures for 

performing task c. The first procedure, called the iteration procedure, 

consists of calculating in an iterative manner an operating point for 

the jet pump portion of the system. Then, the hydraulic characteristics 

of the total system are calculated linearly. The jet pump operating 

point reflects the results of the initial layout and is based upon the 

premises of having a minimum total flow in the system and of achieving 

a high jet pump efficiency. The second procedure utilizes a set of 

graphs to replace the iterative part of the first procedure. Use of 

these graphs gives a number of potential operating points for the jet 

pump portion of the system. One or more of these operating points is 

chosen by the designer to use in further calculations. 

9~. The specialized information resulting from use of this report, 

together with more routine design data, should allow the designer to 

estimate the approximate cost of a jet pump sand bypassing system relative to other solutions for a given problem. A subsequent report will 

provide information about the detailed design, construction, operation, 

and monitoring of a jet pump system, as well as design examples. 

98 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 143 Appendix A., Section 16 
759

REFERENCES 

Colebrook, C. F. 1939. "Turbulent Flow in Pipes, with Particular Reference to the Transition Region Between the Smooth and Rough Pipe Laws," 

Journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol 11, pp 133-156. 

Durand, R. 1953. "Basic Relationships of the Transportation of Solids 

in Pipes-Experimental Research," Proceedings, Minnesota International 

Hydraulics Convention, Minneapolis, pp 89-103. 

Fish, G. 1970. "The Solids-Handling Jet Pump," Proceedings, Hydrotransport 1, British Hydromechanics Research Association, Coventry, England, 

pp Ll-1 - 11-15. 

Gosline, J, E., and O'Brien, M. P. 1934. "The Water Jet Pump," University of California Publications in Engineering, Vol 3, No. 3, pp 167-190. 

Graf, W. H. 1971. Hydraulics of Sediment Transport, McGraw-Hill, 

New York. 

Graf, W. H., and Acaroglu, E. R. 1967. "Homogeneous Suspensions in 

Circular Conduits," Journal, Pipeline Division, American SocietL.£1. 

Civil Engineers, Vol 93, No. PL2, pp 63-69. 

Hydraulic Institute. 1965. "Hydraulic Institute Standards," New 

York, N. Y. 

Moody, L. F, 1944. "Friction Factors for Pipe Flow," Transactions of 

the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol 66, pp 671-677. 

Mueller, N. I!. G. 1964. "Water Jet Pump," Journal, Hydraulics Division, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 90, No. HY3, pp 83-113. 

Newitt, D. M., et al. 1955. 

zontal Pipes,t1 Transactions 

Vol 33, pp 93-110. 

"Hydraulic Conveying of Solids in Horiof the Institute of _Chemical Engineers, 

Office, Chief of Engineers. 1966, '~each Erosion Control and Shore 

Protection Studies," Engineer Manual 1110-2-3300, Washington, D. C. 

Reddy, Y. R., and Kar, S. 1968. "Theory and Performance of Water Jet 

Pump," Journal, Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 

Vol 94, No. HY5, pp 1261-1281. 

Silvester, R., and Mueller, N. H. G. 1968. "Design Data for the Liquid -

Liquid Jet Pump," Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol 6, No. 2, pp 129-162. 

Silvester, R., and Vongvisessomjai, S. 1970. "Characteristics of the 

Jet-Pump with Liquids of Different Density," Proceedings, World Dredging 

Conference, pp 293-315. 

Stepanoff, A. J. 1969. Gravity Flow of Bulk Solids and Transportation 

of Solids in Suspension, Wiley, New York. 

U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, CE. 1977. Sha~ Protection Manual, Washington, D. C. 

99 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 144 Appendix A., Section 16 
760

Wakefield, A. W. 1972. "Practical Solids - Handling Jet Pumps," Proceedings, Symposium on Jet Pumps and Ejectors, London, pp 183-202.~~ 

Zandi, I., and Govatos, G. 

Proceedings, Hydrotransport 

tion, Coventry, England, pp 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

1970. "Jet Pump in Slurry Transport," 

1, British Hydromechanics Research AssociaL2-17 - L2-32. 

100 

145 Appendix A .• Section 16 
761

APPENDIX A: NOTATION 

The following notation is used in a general sense in this report: 

CV Volumetric concentration of solids in a slurry 

D Inside diameter of a pipe 

H Pressure head 

hf Energy loss due to a pipe fitting 

L Length of straight pipe 

Q Volumetric flow rate 

V Flow velocity 

The following notation identifies specific quantities or 

parameters: 

ADIS 

ADI SB 

ALM 

AMIX 

ANOZ 

ASUC 

ASUPD 

A SUPS 

ATMOS 

Discharge pipe maximum inside area, ft 2 

2 Inside area of booster pump discharge pipe, ft 

Correction factor for absence of littoral materials 

Inside area of mixing chamber of jet pump, ft 2 

Area of opening at tip of jet pump nozzle, ft 2 

lnside area of jet pump suction, ft 2 

Inside of jet supply pipe, ft 2 area pump 

Inside area of supply pump suction pipe, ft 2 

Atmospheric pressure, feet of water 

B Coefficient in nozzle equation for QSUP, gpm/ft5/

2 

BHPM 

BHPW 

CVMAX 

CVMAXB 

d50 

DEPMAX 

DEPMIN 

E 

EMIX 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !-.fay Inlet 

Horsepower required by dredge pump pumping slurry 

Horsepower required by dredge pump pumping water 

Expected maximum volumetric concentration of solids in jet 

pump discharge pipeline 

Expected maximum volumetric concentration of solids in 

booster pump discharge pipeline 

Median diameter of sediment to be bypassed, mm 

Maximum anticipated water depth over jet pump while 

operating, ft 

Minimum anticipated water depth over jet pump while 

operating, ft 

Operating efficiency of jet pump 

Efficiency of dredge pump pumping slurry 

Al 

146 Appendix A., Section 16 
762

EOT 

EOT lit 

EW 

EXC 

EX Cl 

EXCMAX 

f 

g 

HD 

HDIS 

RMB 

Effective operating time of jet pump bypassing system over 

one-year operating period 

Effective operating time of jet pump bypassing system over 

interval 6t operating period 

Efficiency of dredge pump pumping water 

Required capacity of jet pump bypassing system, cu yd/hr 

Required capacity of one jet pump in bypassing system, 

cu yd/hr 

Maximum excavation rate of in situ material by one jet 

pump, cu yd/hr 

Dimensionless friction factor used in Darcy-Weisbach 

formula 

Dimensionless parameter in Durand relationship for 

critical velocity 

Acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec 2 

Number of working hours in an operating day 

Total energy head in the discharge pipeline at the jet 

pump, feet of water 

Total head loss in booster pump discharge pipeline, 

feet of water 

HMJ Total head loss in jet pump discharge pipeline, feet of 

water 

HSUC 

HSUP 

HWSD 

HWSS 

K 

LDISB 

LDISJ 

LSUC 

LSUPD 

LSUPS 

LSUPSA 

M 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Total energy head in the jet pump suction tube at the jet 

pump, feet of water 

Total energy head in the supply pipeline at the jet pump, 

feet of water 

Total head loss in jet pump supply pipeline, feet of water 

Total head loss in supply pump suction pipeline, feet of 

water 

Pipe fitting resistance coefficient 

Total equivalent length of booster discharge pipeline, ft 

Total equivalent length of jet pump discharge pipeline, ft 

Length of jet pump suction tube, ft 

Total equivalent length of jet pump supply pipeline, ft 

Total equivalent length of supply pump sue tion pipeline, 

ft 

Approximate length of supply pump suction pipeline, ft 

Jet pump flow ratio 

A2 

147 Appendix A., Section 16 
763

M Optimum jet pump flow ratio 

op 

n In situ porosity of sediment to be bypassed 

N Jet pump head ratio 

N max Largest possible value of N corresponding to a particular 

value of M 

NOD Number of operating days per year for jet pump bypassing 

NP SHA 

NPSHR 

NUM 

PB 

PHSUCB 

QDIS 

QDISB 

QFL 

QJET 

QSUC 

QSUP 

QSUP . min 

QSUPT 

R 

Re 

RMP 

RR 

SGDISB 

SGDISJ 

SGIN 

SGSOL 

SGSUC 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

system 

Available net positive suction head at supply pump suction 

flange, feet of water 

Required net positive suction head at supply pump suction 

flange, feet of water 

The number of jet pumps operated simultaneously in a jet 

pump bypassing system 

Correction factor for pump blockages 

Design pressure or vacuum head at booster pump suction 

flange, feet of water 

Average rate of net littoral influx to storage area(s) 

during interval tt operating period, cu yd/hr 

Jet pump volumetric discharge flow rate, gpm 

Booster pump volumetric discharge flow rate, gpm 

Flushing water volumetric flow rate into booster pump, gpm 

Volumetric flow rate through jet pump cutting jets, gpm 

Volumetric flow rate into jet pump suction, gpm 

Volumetric flow rate through jet pump nozzle, gpm 

Minimum required volumetric flow rate in discharge pipelines of jet pump bypassing system, gpm 

Supply pump required total volumetric flow rate, gpm 

Jet pump area ratio 

Reynolds number 

Correction factor for relocation of mobile jet pumps 

Correction factor for system repair and replacement 

Maximum specific gravity of booster pump discharge slurry 

Maximum specific gravity of jet pump discharge slurry 

In situ specific gravity of sediment to be bypassed 

Specific gravity of sediment solids 

Assumed average specific gravity of slurry entering jet 

pump suction 

A3 

148 Appendix A., Section 16 
764

SGSUCM 

SGWAT 

ST CAP 

STIN 

STOREi\t 

TDHB 

TDHBM 

TDHBME 

TDHS 

VAP 

VCRIT 

VDIS 

VDISB 

VHOM 

VNOZ 

vsuc 

VSUPD 

VS UPS 

Assumed maximum sustained specific gravity of slurry 

entering jet pump suction 

Specific gravity of ambient water 

Storage capacity of storage area, cu yd 

Initial condition of storage area, cu yd 

Storage volume available during interval l'.t, cu yd 

Total dynamic head required of booster pump, feet of water 

Total dynamic head required of booster pump in terms of 

mixture being pumped, feet of mixture 

Total dynamic head of booster pump corrected for decrease 

in pump efficiency due to presence of solids, feet of 

mixture 

Total dynamic head required of supply pump, feet of water 

Vapor pressure of water, feet of water 

Minimum velocity necessary to maintain solids in suspension in discharge pipelines, fps 

Velocity in jet pump discharge pipeline, fps 

Velocity in booster pump discharge pipeline, fps 

Velocity of transition between heterogeneous and 

homogeneous flow regimes, fps 

Velocity of water jet at tip of jet pump nozzle, fps 

Velocity of mixture in jet pump suction tube, fps 

Velocity in jet pump supply pipeline, fps 

Velocity in supply pump suction pipeline, fps 

W Settling velocity of the d

50 particle of sediment to be 

bypassed, fps 

X Ratio of VSUC to VNOZ as used in cavitation 

calculations 

ZBOO 

ZDIS 

ZSUP 

ZSUPM 

(th/ tL) m 

(t.h/1'.L)w 

Hereford Inlet to Cape J\.fay Inlet 

Elevation of booster pump center line relative to water 

surface datum, ft 

Elevation of end of booster discharge pipeline relative to 

water surface datum, ft 

Elevation of supply pump center line relative to water 

surface datum, ft 

Maximum expected elevation of supply pump suction center 

line above free water surface, ft 

Head loss per unit length of pipeline for slurry flow 

Head loss per unit length of pipeline for fluid flow 

A4 

149 Appendix A, Section 16 
765

(llh/llL)WSD 

(llh/llL)wss 

Lit 

V 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Head loss per unit length of pipeline for jet pump supply 

pipeline 

Head loss per unit length of pipeline for supply pump 

suction pipeline 

Time interval of the bypassing season, hr 

Equivalent roughness of pipe wall (Nikuradse roughness), ft 

Kinematic viscosity of fluid, ft 2 /sec 

A5 

150 Appendix A, Section 16 
766

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL EQUATIONS 

Colebrook-White Equation 

1. For the range of conditions covered by this report, the friction factor, f , used in the Darcy-Weisbach formula for energy loss in 

pipe flow can be found via an iterative solution to the Colebrook-White 

equation: 

where 

1 

If 

-2 log --+--

(

2.51 E ) 

Relf 3. 71D 

Re VD/v, the Reynolds number 

V average flow velocity in pipe, fps 

D inside diameter of pipe, ft 

v = kinematic viscosity of fluid, ft 2/sec 

(Bl) 

E = equivalent roughness of pipe wall, sometimes called "Nikuradse 

roughness,n ft 

2. Values of E for different pipe materials can be found in standard references on fluid flow in pipes. Values of v can be found in 

hydraulic handbooks or similar references. 

3. To solve Equation Bl by iteration, begin with an assumed value 

for f , say 0.007. Using this assumed value, solve the right-hand 

side of the equation. The result will be of the form: 

1 

If C (B2) 

where C is the value of the right-hand side of Equation Bl using the 

assumed value of f and the appropriate pipe characteristics and flow 

conditions~ 

4. Next, solve Equation B2 for f • If this value of f and the 

assumed one are reasonably similar (say within 0.0005 of each other), 

f has been determined. If not, repeat the iteration process using f 

from Equation B2 as the assumed value. The iteration should converge 

Bl 

Heret{mi Inlet to Cape May Inlet 151 Appendix A., Section 16 
767

to an acceptable degree of accuracy in a few such calculations. 

S, Obviously, this process is easily adapted to a computer, eliminating the need for a Moody diagram. 

Equivalent Lengths 

6. For pipe fittings not included in tables of equivalent lengths, 

the energy loss hf is often given by an equation of the form: 

v2 

K-2g (B3) 

where K is a resistance coefficient for a particular fitting type and 

size. 

7. For straight pipe, an equation in common use for calculating 

energy losses is the Darcy-Weisbach equation in the form: 

where 

L v2 

f--D 2g 

h

1 energy loss in straight pipe 

f friction factor 

L length of straight pipe 

D pipe inside diameter 

(B4) 

8. Equating Equations B3 and B4, an expression for an equivalent 

length can be obtained: 

L K·D 

F (BS) 

where L now represents the length of straight pipe of inside diameter 

D equivalent to a fitting with resistance coefficient K and the same 

nominal pipe size. 

9. For steel pipe and the range of flow velocities and pipe sizes 

commonly encountered in jet pump bypassing systems, Equation BS can be 

approximated by: 

B2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1.fay Inlet 152 Appendix A .. Section 16 
768

L (B6) 

10. Equation B6 will give an estimated equivalent length of steel 

pipe of inside diameter D for a fitting of the same nominal pipe size 

with resistance coefficient K. 

11. For pipelines made of material other than steel, the method 

of equivalent lengths is more difficult to apply. In such cases, it is 

suggested that losses for fittings be calculated by Equation B3. These 

losses can then be added to the losses for straight pipe calculated by 

the Darcy-Weisbach equation to obtain the total pipeline energy loss. 

B3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 153 Appendix A., Section 16 
769

APPENDIX C: DERIVATION OF GRAPHICAL DESIGN CURVES 

1. The purpose of this appendix is to show, briefly, how the design curves of Plates 3 through 14 (main text) were derived from 

equations outlined in the iteration design procedure. 

2. The dimensionless parameters describing the performance of a 

jet pump with a certain area ratio R are given by Equations 1 and 2: 

N 

!1 

HDIS - HSUC 

HSUP - HDIS 

QSUC 

QSUP 

( 1 bis) 

(2 bis) 

3. The relationship between these parameters is assumed to be of 

the form: 

N a•M + b (Cl) 

which is the equation for a straight line where a and b are constants 

The values of these constants can be obtained from the M versus N 

relations shown in Plate 2. 

L,, Substituting Equations 1 and 2 into Equation Cl, 

HDIS - HSUC = (QSUC) + b 

HSUP - HDIS a QSUP 

5. The relationship between QSUP, HSUP , and HSUC must 

satisfy Equation 33: 

(C2) 

QSUP B(ANOZ) l(HSUP - HSUC) (33 bis) 

From Equation 34, 

ANOZ f (R , AMIX) (C3) 

Cl 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 154 Appendix A., Section lG 
770

For a given jet pump size, AJl!IX is constant, For a given R value, 

B is constant (see tabulation on p 73 of main text). Therefore, for a 

given jet pump size and R value, 

QSUP f(HSUP , HSUC) (C4) 

6. Equation 31 gives a suggested expression for calculating HSUC 

HSUC (31 bis) 

For a given jet pump size, 

vsuc f(QSUC) (CS) 

7. Therefore, for a given jet pump size and assumed LSUC value, 

HSUC f(QSUC) (C6) 

Equation C4 can now be rewritten: 

QSUP f (HSUP , QSUC) (C7) 

or 

HSUP f (QSUP , QSUC) (CS) 

8. Substituting Equations C6 and CS into Equation C2, 

HDIS - f(QSUC) (

QSUC) a QSUP + b (C9) f(QSUP , QSUC) - HDIS 

9. Equation C9 is the basis for the design curves of Plates 3-14, 

It contains three variables (HDIS , QSUC , and QSUP) and two known 

constants (a and b). By holding one variable constant, a unique 

relationship is defined between the other two variables. The 

C2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape J\Iay Inlet 155 Appendix A., s~ction 16 
771

graphical design curves were generated by holding QSUP constant and 

solving for HDIS for different values of QSUC . Then, the value of 

QSUP was changed, and the process repeated. The only departure from 

the iteration design procedure was in assuming a certain LSUC value. 

However, this assumption can be shown to have a minimal effect on the 

calculated value of HDIS . 

10. The values of HSUP shown on t:he graphical design curves were 

calculated using a rearranged form of Equation 33: 

HSUP [ 

QSlJP ]2 + 

B (ANOZ )j HSUC (ClO) 

11. For a given jet pump size and R value, if HSUC is held constant in Equation ClO, then HSUP depends only on the value of QSUP. 

For each design curve shown in Plates 3-14, the value of HSUC at the 

curve midpoint was used as a constant in calculating HSUP from Equation ClO. Therefore, the value of HSUP given for each curve is exactly 

correct at the curve midpoint, with an increasing error toward either 

end of the curve. The magnitude of this error at the curve ends, in 

most cases, is in the range of 5 percent. For any design operating point, 

therefore, the error involved in using an HSUP value from the graphical 

design curves instead of one rigorously calculated from the iteration 

procedure will be much less than the error envelope of the entire design 

process. 

C3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 156 Appendix A .. Section 16 
772

ln accordance with letter from DAEN-RDC, DAEN-ASI dated 

22 July 1977, Subject: Facsimile Catalog Cards for 

Laboratory Technical Publications, a facsimile catalog 

card in Lihrary of Congress MARC format is reproduced 

below. 

Richardson, Thomas W. :;-:-1 A guide to the planning and hydraulic design of jet 

pump remedial sand bypassing systems : final report/ by 

Thomas W. Richardson, Ernest C. McNair, Jr. ( Hydraulics l 

Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station). -- Vicksburg, Miss. : The Station ; Springfield, I 

Va. : available from NTIS, [1981]. 

lll p. in various pagings : ill. ; 27 cm. -- (Instruction 

report / U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station; I 

HL-81-l) 

Cover title. 

"September 1981. 11 

"Prepared for Office, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army." I 

Bibliography: p. 99-100. 

l. Hydraulic engineering. 2. Hydraulic machinery. 

3. Jet pumps. 4. Sand. I. McNair, Ernest C., Jr. 

II. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Office of 

the Chief of Engineers. III. U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station. Hydraulics Laboratory. 

Richardson, Thomas W. 

A guide to the planning and hydraulic design • •• 1981. 

(Card 2) 

IV. Title V. Series: Instruction report (U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; HL-81-l. 

TA7,W34i no.HL-81-l 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 157 Appendix A., 
lkrcford!nktto<.'ap<').foy!nld 

INCREA.SE EITHER 

OSUP OR asuc 

' 

STEP 1 

STEP 2 

DETERMINE MINIMUM REQUIRED 

VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE IN 

SYSfEM lJISCHM1GE PIPING TO 

ASSURE CONVEYANCE OF SOLIDS 

IN SUSPENSION 

STEP 3 STEP 4 

SELECT A JET PUMP SIZE TO USE: 

IN SUIJSEQUENT CALCULATIONS 

STEP 5 

STEP 6 

CALCULATE DISCHARGE FLOW 

FROM JET PUMP 

STEP 7 

CALCULATE EXPECTED MAXIMUM 

SOLIDS CONCENTRATIO'.IJ IN JET 

PUMP D!SC'IARGE PIPE 

STEP B 

CALCULATE FIEOUIRED JET 

PUMP QISCHARGE;; HEAD 

STEP 9 

CALCULATE JET PUMP SUCTION 

HEAD 

ST

CALCULATE RE

SUPPLY HEAD 

SH

CALCULATE JET 

FLOW !-'ROM NO

STE

CALCULATE EN

BOOSTER PUMP 

STE

CALCULATE OP

MENTS OF BOOS

ST

CALCULATE REQ

FLOW RATE OF S
z 

3 

2.8 

2.61 \ 

,, I 2.2 

2 

1.8 

1.6 

1.4 

1.2 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

\ PEKOR 4x4

PUMPIN

o.,r•0096~ o.~:~ 

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 

M 

Hereford Inlet to Cape: ~Jay Wet 159 

1.2 
775

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

OSUC, GPM 

Ikreford fnkl t<> Cap~ \fa) lnld 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

4x4x6 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R =0.096 

A endix \., S<:~tion 16 

PLATE 3 
776

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 ).. 

u 

§ 

u 

~ 

~ 

140 ~ 

"' I 

\i: 7.Qsu.,,:i! 

" G':::0 ~ ~ 

0 

120 

~ 

'" 

~ 

100 

80 

60 

40 600 

20 

Hcr~ford fnlcl 1D Cape :\fa~. hlkt 

~ 

s:s,.. 

,;,~ 

OSUC, GPM 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

4x4x6 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R =0.138 

\ ~ndix ·LSc'ction 16 

PLATE 4 
777

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

oc 

w 

!;; 

"' ~ 

0 120 

m 

vi 

~ 

100 

80 

"''v 

60 

6'v 

40 ?q, 

20 

>-

" I ,,, 

* "' I 

I 

I 

asuc, GPM 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

4x4x6 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R =0.175 

App"ndi;,, \ .. S<:L'\1011 !6 

PLATE 5 
778

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

O.su. 

79'"0o~~ 

G',o* 

140 

"' w 

r 

"' " t 120 

fil 

~ "' 100 

80 

lforefordfnlctfoCape\fayfnld 

" <.., 

<.., 

~ 

§ 

QSUC, GPM 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

4x4x6 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R =0.202 

Appondi,;,\"S<1di0nl6 

PLATE 6 
779

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 Q6'oo 

,,~ 

1'0 7soo 

"' !;; 

" ~ 

0 

120 ,-

w 

w 

~ "' '.rq, 

100 

80 

fkrcfonl lnkt to Cnp¢ \lay lnkl 

,_ 

<._, 

~ c::; 

'C 

!;; 

OSUC, GPM 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

4x4x6 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R = 0.246 

\pp~ixlh .\ .. S¢~t1<!n 16 

PLATE 7 
780

"' w 

>-

" " ~ 

0 

~ 

'" 

~ 

240 

220 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

, 

,:;\o 

' ' 

O'--~~~..L~-""-'---'~~~~..L~~~--''--~~~..L~~~......JL-~~~--'-~~~--' 

0 200 400 600 800 

QSUC, GPM 

lki'i:fMdlnkttoC· e\favfnld 

1000 1200 1400 1600 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

4x4x6 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R=0.311 

-\ ~ndi,; \ .. S~dmn 16 

PLATE 8 
781

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

140 

~ 

w 

~ 

~ 

~ 120 

ill 

" 

~ 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

400 

lkrdbrd hikt !O Cape \lay Jnkt 

'soa 

1400 

1300 

1.?oo 

1100 

1000 

900 

Boo 

OSUC, GPM 

16<5 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

6x6x8 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R =0.096 

i\pp~nd1x .\ .. s~ction 16 

PLATE 9 
782

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

140 

<C 

w 

" :s 

fil 

120 

vi 

g 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

Osup 

2100 "'" 

Gp,i, 

<ooo 

!9i:,::, 

1800 

7?oo 

1600 

f$i:t, 

1400 

1300 

1200 

,_ 

~ /J 

'<' f:; 

OSUC, GPM 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

6x6x8 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R 0.138 

ffor~ford lnfotto Cap~ \lac·fokt -\ ,~nd1x: A. So,-tioa 16 

PLATE 10 
783

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

140 

er 

w 

'"" " " :,; 

@ 

120 

~ 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

O'--~~~-'-~~~__j'--~~~-'-~~~~'---°"~~-'='--"'~~'--'--~~-'-~~~--' 

0 200 400 600 800 

OSUC, GPM 

HercfurdinlcttoCa e\fo\ Inkt 161< 

1000 1200 1400 1600 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

6x6x8 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R 0.175 

-'\. endix,\.,Sectionl{i 

PLATE 11 
784

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 " 

~ ~ 

"' .. ?sup.=,, 

!f: 140 "' :?oo 

QC Gp!W 

w 

~ 370o 

"' ~ 

0 300o 120 

~ .?90o 

ui 

o 

:r <ao0 

100 

<'?0o 

2600 

BO 2s-oo 

<'40() 

2.Joo 

60 

2100 

20oo 

7900 40 

180() 

1700 

20 

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

0 200 400 600 800 

OSUC, GPM 

IkrcfonllnldtoCapi:,\faylnlct 

1000 1200 1400 lGOO 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

6x6x8 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R =0.202 

,\ 0mlix,\_S.,ctionl6 

PLATE 12 
785

"' w 

" ~ 

0 

fil 

0 '" :,: 

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

Osup 

3600 ":: 

GpM 

3500 

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~""----'~~-><-~..L.:'--~-=----"'---"'--~~ 

0 200 400 600 BOO 

QSUC, GPM 

1200 1400 1600 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

6x6x8 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R 0.246 

lkr~for<l lnldto Capc.\faJ Inlet i\ppcndix A. S~dion 16 

PLATE 13 
786

240 

220 

200 

180 ,. 

~ 

G "' C: It; 160 Osup 

"a'q, 

Gp"'7 

140 

er <:1soo w 

~ "'"lb " :s 120 >-

w 

w 

~ 

"' 0 

JC 

100 

..??oo 

80 3600 

"61::>o 

3-foo 

3..?oo 

60 "<tlo 

40 

20 

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-· 

0 200 400 

lkrd'ordl11k!10Ca ~:I.la, Inlet 

QSUC, GPM 

1600 

HDIS VERSUS QSUC 

6x6x8 PEKOR JET PUMP 

PUMPING SAND 

R=0.311 

·\ li:nd1xi\ .. :Scct1l'nl6 

PLATE 14 
787

World-wide sand bypassing systems: data report 

P.K. Boswood and R.J. Murray 

Queensland 

i' Government 

Environmental 

H~J\gljJJ<Rl.ay lnld 

Conservation technical report No. 15 (R20J 

ISSN 1037-4701 August 2001 
788

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report 

(Compiled 1997) 

PK Boswood and RJ Murray 

Coastal Services technical report R20 

Conservation technical report No. 15 

ISSN 1037-4701 August 2001 

Preface 

This report has been prepared by Mr Paul Boswood, Coastal Services Branch, Environmental and 

Technical Services, Environmental Protection Agency, and Mr Russell Murray, formerly Project Director, 

Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project. 

This repo1t was prepared in 1996/97 as background information for the assessment of bypassing systems 

for the Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project. The information contained within this report has 

been obtained from a number of sources. The authors wish to thank all those who have provided 

assistance. In particular, the advice and feedback from project personnel within the Queensland 

Environmental Protection Agency, NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, and Brown and 

Root as well as Queensland Transport, was greatly appreciated. 

Contents 

i. 

ii. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

List of symbols 

Dimensions and units 

Introduction 

Terminology 

Sand bypassing: general description 

World-wide sand bypassing systems 

Selected sand bypassing systems 

Bibliography 

Appendices 

Appendix A List of sand bypassing systems (as of 1997) 

Appendix B Data sheet: Nerang River Sand Bypassing System, Queensland, Australia 

Appendix C Data sheet: Boca Raton Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Florida, U.S.A. 

Appendix D Data sheet: Channel Islands Harbour Sand Bypassing System, California, U.S.A. 

Appendix E Data sheet: Dawesville and Mandurah Inlets Sand Bypassing System, Western 

Australia 

Appendix F Data sheet: Indian River Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Delaware, U.S.A. 

Appendix G Data sheet: Oceanside Harbour Sand Bypassing System, California, U.S.A. 

Appendix H Data sheet: South Lake Worth Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Florida, U.S.A. 

Disclaimer 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

19 

23 

31 

35 

39 

45 

50 

56 

While data in this report were collected, processed and compiled with care. the accuracy and reliability of this information is not 

guaranteed in any way by the Environmental Protection Agency. The data presented are subject to van·ations due to limitations of 

equipment and programs used. Neither the Queensland Government nor the Environmental Protection Agency accepts liability for 

any decisions or actions taken on the basis of this report. 

© State of Queensland. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. 

Copyright protects this publicalion. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act. reproduction by whatever means is 

prohibited without the prior written knowledge of The Environmental Protection Agency. 

Enquiries should be addressed to PO Box 155 Brisbane Albert Street, Qld 4002. 

Visit us on/ine at: www.env.qld.gov.au 

August 2001 

Recycled paper saves energy and resources. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 1 

Hereford In let to Cape 1fay Inlet 173 Appendix A., Section 16 
789

List of Figures 

Figure A 1: Locality of world-wide sand bypassing systems. 22 

Figure 81: Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan (Munday, 1995). 29 

Figure 82: Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System, System layout (Witt and Hill, 1987). 30 

Figure 83: Schematic of Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System (Witt and Hill, 1987). 30 

Figure C1: Boca Raton Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan (Coastal Planning and 

Engineering, 1996) 33 

Figure C2: Boca Raton Inlet Sand Bypassing System (Dombrowski and Mehta, 1993) 34 

Figure 01: Channel Islands Harbour Sand Bypassing System (Walker, 1991). 38 

Figure E1. Dawesville and Mandurah Inlets Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan (Moloney et al, 

1999). 42 

Figure E2: Layout of Dawesville Sand Bypassing System (Moloney et al, 1999). 43 

Figure E3: Layout of Mandurah Sand Bypassing System (Moloney et al, 1999). 43 

Figure E4: General arrangement of the Slurrytrak 300-65 HH used for sand bypassing at Dawesville 

and Mandurah Inlets (Moloney et al, 1999). 44 

Figure F1: Indian River Inlet Sand Bypassing System (Rambo et al, 1991). 48 

Figure F2: Indian River Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan (Rambo et al, 1991). 49 

Figure G1: Oceanside Harbour Sand Bypassing System locations (Patterson et al, 1991). 54 

Figure G2: Oceanside Harbour Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan ( Weisman et al, 1996). 55 

Figure G3: Oceanside Harbour Sand Bypassing System, Fluidiser locations (not to scale) ( 

Weisman et al, 1996). 55 

Figure H1: South Lake Worth Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan (Olsen Associates, 1996). 59 

Figure H2: South Lake Worth Inlet Sand Bypassing System (Yeend and Hatheway, 1988) 59 

List of Tables 

Table 1. List of selected bypassing systems 5 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 174 Appendix A .. Section 16 
790

i. List of symbols 

AC = asbestos cement. 

CD = Chart Datum. 

cyl. = cylinder. 

D50 = median sediment particle size. 

dia. = diameter. 

dir = wave direction. 

HOPE SDR-9 = high density polyethylene standard density rating. 

Hmax = maximum wave height. 

Hrs Op= hours operation. 

Hs = significant wave height. 

Hs(10%) = significant wave height exceeded 10% of the time. 

Hs(50%) = significant wave height exceeded 50% of the time. 

Hs,o = deep water significant wave height. 

ID= inside diameter. 

LWD = low water datum. 

MOPE= medium density polyethylene. 

MHHW = mean higher high water. 

MLLW = mean lower low water. 

MLW = mean low water. 

MSL = mean sea level. 

NW = north-west. 

pa. = per annum. 

PVC= polyvinyl chloride. 

S = south. 

SE = south-east. 

std dev. = standard deviation. 

SW = south-west. 

T = wave period. 

Tave= average wave period. 

Tp = spectral peak wave period. 

typ. = typical or typically. 

WNW = west of north-west. 

ii. Dimensions and units 

cy = cubic yard. 

ft= feet. 

gpm = gallons per minute. 

hp = horse power. 

hr= hour. 

km= kilometre. 

kV= kilovolt. 

kW = kilowatt. 

kWh = kilowatt hour. 

lps = litres per second. 

m = metre. 

m3 = cubic metre. 

m3 pa = cubic metres per annum. 

m3

/yr = cubic metres per year. 

mm = millimetre. 

s = second. 

yr= year. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 175 Appendix A., SeL-1ion 16 
791

1. Introduction 

The Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project is a joint project undertaken by the State Governments 

of Queensland and New South Wales in conjunction with the Gold Coast City Council and Tweed Shire 

Council. The main aims are to establish and maintain a navigable entrance to the Tweed River and to 

enhance and maintain the amenity of the southern Gold Coast beaches. 

The project involves two inter-related components, namely: 

• initial dredging of the Tweed River bar and entrance area and nourishment of the southern Gold Coast 

beaches between Snapper Rocks and North Kirra (Stage 1). 

• an artificial sand bypassing system, to operate in perpetuity (Stage 2). 

To aid project delivery, world-wide experience operating various sand bypassing systems has been 

examined for their potential application to this project, and to expand knowledge on existing bypass 

technology and problems encountered. 

This data report provides: 

• a non-exhaustive reference list as of 1997; 

• a short description of world-wide bypassing systems; and 

• a set of data sheets providing a detailed brief description of selected bypassing systems. 

It provides a reference source for the project team, consultants engaged for the project, potential contractors, 

regulating authorities, advisory bodies, the community and others with an interest in sand bypassing. 

2. Terminology 

This report summarises sand bypassing works undertaken around the world, with international references 

to these systems. Terminology used to describe key coastal works components will vary according to 

geographic location. This report uses the following terms for some of these key components: 

Training wall: coastal structure aligned along the inlet sides and extending seawards to stabilise an inlet 

entrance and maintain a channel. Sometimes referred to as a jetty or breakwater. 

Trestle: a structure extending seawards from the shore used for recreational rather than protective 

measures. Sometimes referred to as a jetty, pier, or wharf. 

Breakwater: a coastal structure used to protect open coast regions from waves. Extensively used in 

harbours or mariners. 

Weir Training Wall: a training wall with a depressed section of the wall usually near the beach to allow 

movement of sand into a controlled section of the channel. Usually associated with a sand trap to allow 

dredging in sheltered conditions. 

Revetment: A protective layer usually of rock or concrete placed over a bank, scarp or in front of foreshore 

development to protect it from wave attack and currents. 

3. Sand bypassing: general description 

Natural sand bypassing is the process where the longshore sand transport (littoral drift) along an open 

coast travels across inlets in the direction of the net sediment transport. For inlets where the tidal prism of 

the inlet is small compared to the transport rate along the coast, a bar will form across the entrance of the 

inlet to convey sand to the other side. Such bars can be hazardous to navigation. Breakwaters or training 

walls may be erected along the entrance banks and seawards to stabilise movement of the inlet, to 

produce new inlets or harbours, and to improve navigation. While the result may be an improved 

entrance channel in the short term, the training walls trap the littoral drift such that the updrift beach 

accumulates against the training wall, whilst the downdrift beach erodes due to a lack of sand supply. In 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Reporl • August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 4 

Hereford Inld to Cape May Inkt 176 Appendix A., Section 16 
792

the long term, this process may continue until the sand can once again naturally bypasses around the 

entrance, creating another entrance bar. 

To maintain a navigable entrance and neighbouring beach amenity, sand bypassing systems have been 

created to artificially bypass the littoral drift. A number of different systems have been developed and 

employed around the world. Most systems fall under one or a combination of the following generic types: 

1. water based mobile systems including maintenance dredging either of the channel or sand trap; 

2. land based mobile systems; and 

3. fixed systems such as a trestle- or breakwater-mounted. 

4. World-wide sand bypassing systems 

A reference list has been prepared from a wide number of sources of information and is presented in 

section 8 below. Appendix A lists the world-wide sand bypassing systems found from a non-exhaustive 

search of the cited references. The locality of these systems are shown in figure A 1. 

No list of sand bypassing systems (including this one) can be regarded as fully complete because 

different definitions of bypassing are used in different jurisdictions and by different investigators. The list 

covers major systems in operation, other systems trialed or operated for a limited time, and some 

systems in development phase as of 1997. 

5. Selected sand bypassing systems 

Based on this list, the available references, and the knowledge of project staff, a selection of sand 

bypassing systems was chosen for a more detailed summary to cover a range of various types of systems 

in operation. The list of selected bypassing systems considered for a more detailed summary is given in 

table 1. 

Table 1. List of selected bypassing systems. 

Plant location Countrv Type of bypass system 

Nerang River Australia Trestle and jet pump system (fixed). 

Entrance, 

Queensland 

Boca Raton, Florida USA Weir trainina wall and trap with conventional dredaina. 

Channel Islands USA Detached breakwater and sand trap with biannual 

Harbour, California dredaina and pumpina down coast of Port Hueneme. 

Dawesville, Western Australia Crawler excavator (mobile) and crawler mounted 

Australia pump system. 

Indian River Inlet, USA Jet pump and crane (mobile system). 

Delaware 

Oceanside Harbour, USA Jet pumps and fluidisers (experimental fixed system). 

California 

South Lake Worth USA Fixed hydraulic suction dredge with a rotating boom 

Inlet, Palm Beach (fixed). 

County, Florida 

A data sheet on each of these systems is given in appendices B to H. These data sheets provide a 

systematic description of key environmental and system parameters, a site description, and a specific 

reference list with some additional references not given in the bibliography. The measuring units provided 

in these appendices depends on the source of information and varies between metric and imperial. A 

description of unit abbreviations is provided in section 2. 

6. Bibliography 

1. Anders, F.J., Lillycrop, W.J., Gebert, J., 1990. Effects of Natural and Man-Made Changes at Indian 

River Inlet, Delaware, Proceedings of Third Annual National Beach Preservation Technology 

Conference, St. Petersburg, Florida, 14-16 Feb. 

2. Angas, M.W., 1961. Shark River Inlet By-Passing, Journal Waterways and Harbours Division, 

ASCE, Vol. 86(3), pp29-47. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 5 

Hereford Inlet to Cape l\fay Inlet 177 Appendix A .. Section 16 
793

3. Anonymous, 1978. Bypassing Sand at Coastal Inlets, Civil Engineering-ASCE, Vol. 48(3), pp57-60. 

4. Anonymous, 1979. Jet Pump Dredging System Corrects Littoral Drift Problems, World Dredging and 

Marine Construction, Vol. 15(7), pp28-29. 

5. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1966. Shore Protection, Planning And Design, 

Technical Report No. 4, 3rd Edition, June, 580p. 

6. Army Committee on Tidal Hydraulics, 1994. Indian River Inlet: An Evaluation by the Committee on 

Tidal Hydraulics, Washington, DC, July, 59p. 

7. Army Corps of Engineers, 1951. Bypassing Littoral Drift at a Harbor Entrance, Bulletin, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion Board, Vol. 5(3), pp1-14. 

8. Army Corps of Engineers, 1953. A Study of Sand Movement at South Lake Worth Inlet, Florida, 

Technical Memorandum No. 42, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion Board. 

9. Army Corps of Engineers, 1955. Status of Sand Bypassing Plant at Salina Cruz Harbor, Isthmus of 

Tehuantepec, Mexico, Bulletin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion Board, Vol. 9(1), pp 14-

16. 

10. Army Corps of Engineers, 1956. Beach Erosion at Durban, South Africa, Bulletin, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Beach Erosion Board, Vol. 10(1), pp11-20. 

11. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1996. Oceanside Sand Bypass Removal, San Diego 

County, California: Construction Solicitation and Specifications, Project No. DACW09-96-B-0024, 

Unrestricted P.L. 100-656, October. 

12. Army Engineer District, Charleston, 1976. Murrells Inlet Navigation Project, Georgetown County, 

South Carolina (Final environmental impact statement), SC, USA, November, 209p. 

13. Army Engineer District, Charleston, 1977. Little River Inlet Navigation Project, Brunswick County, 

North Carolina and Horry County, South Carolina: Revision (Final environmental impact statement}, 

SC, USA, June, 145p. 

14. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, 1984. Oceanside Harbor Experimental Sand Bypass System 

Monitoring Program - Littoral Zone Sediments, California, USA, December, 88p. 

15. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1977. Manteo (Shal/owbag) Bay North Carolina, General Design 

Memorandum Phase I, Plan Formulation, pp4-17. 

16. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1980. Manteo (Shal/owbag) Bay North Carolina, General Design 

Memorandum Phase II, Project Design, pp23-27. 

17. Ash, D.W., 1984. Importance of Sediment Size in Beach Nourishment and Sand Bypassing Projects: 

A Study on Long Island's South Shore, Professional Paper- Indiana State University, Terre Haute, 

Department Geography & Geology, Vol. 15, pp17-30. 

18. Bagley, L.M., Whitson, D.H., 1982. Putting the Beach Back at the Oceanside, Shore and Beach, Vol. 

50(4), October, pp24-32. 

19. Bailard, J.A., Inman, D.L., 1980. Opening and Maintaining Coastal Lagoon Inlet Channels Using 

Crater-Sink/Fluidization Techniques, International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Institution of 

Engineers, Australia, Sydney, Australia, March 23-28, pp248-249. 

20. Berlamont, J., Thienpont, M.,Verner, B., Van Bruwaene, A., Neyrinck, L., Maertens, L., 1983. Mud 

Capture Installation at the Sea Lock of Zeebrugge, Proceedings 8th International Harbour Congress, 

Antwerp. 

21. Bisher, D.R., West, F.W., 1993. Jet Pumps and Fluidisers Working Together: The Oceanside 

Experimental Sand Bypass System, Proceedings of Beach Preservation Technology 1993, Florida 

Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, Florida. 

22. Black, R.E., Hearn, C.J., 1987. Management of a Eutrophic Estuary: Modelling the Effects of a New 

Outlet to the Sea, Proceedings of Eighth Australasian Conference on Coastal and Ocean 

Engineering, Institution of Engineers Australia, Launceston, 30 November - 4 December, pp284-287. 

23. Bodge, K.R., Olsen, E.J., 1989. Navarre Navigation Project: Designing an Inlet for No Net Impact to 

Adjacent Shorelines, Coastal Zone '89: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean 

Management, Vol. 4, ASCE, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, July 11-14, pp3390-3402. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 6 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 178 Appendix A .. Section 16 
794

24. Boreham, P., 1991. Sand Bypassing at Bandy Creek Boat Harbour, Esperance, Using an Offshore 

Breakwater, "Coastal Engineering - Climate for Change", 10fh Australasian Conference on Coastal 

and Ocean Engineering, Water Quality Centre Publication No. 21, Auckland, 2-6 December. 

25. Brush, B.M., 1972. Coastal Sand Management System, Proceedings of Thirteenth Coastal 

Engineering Conference, ASCE, pp1503-1513. 

26. Bruun, P., 1961 Natural By-passing of Sand at Coastal Inlets, ASCE Transactions 126(4), pp823-854. 

27. Bruun, P., 1964. Offshore Dredging, Influence on Beach and Bottom Stability, The Dock and Harbour 

Authority, Vol. XLV, No.530. 

28. Bruun, P., 1965. By-Passing and Back-Passing with Special Reference to Conditions in Florida, 

Proceedings of Coastal Engineering Speciality Conference, ASCE, pp561-627. 

29. Bruun, P., 1966. Tidal Inlets and Littoral Drift, Vol. 2, Stability of Coastal Inlet, pp44-65. 

30. Bruun, P., 1967. By-Passing and Back-Passing with Reference to Florida, Journal of Waterways and 

Harbors Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. WW2, pp191-228. 

31. Bruun, P., 1967. Tidal Inlets Housekeeping, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 93 (HY5), 

pp167-184. 

32. Bruun, P., 1968. Tidal Inlets and Littoral Drift, Oslo: University Book Company. 

33. Bruun, P., 1973. Means of Controlling Littoral Drift to Protect Beaches, Dunes, Estuaries and Harbor 

Entrances, Proceedings of the 23rd International Navigation Congress, PIANC, Paper S11-2, 

Ottawa, pp149-187. 

34. Bruun, P ., 1973. Means of Controlling Littoral Drift to Protect Beaches, Proceedings of the 22nd 

International Congress, PIANC, S II, Montreal. 

35. Bruun, P ., 197 4. By-passing Sediments - Plants and Arrangements, The Dock and Harbour Authority, 

London, Vol. LV, No. 645, July. 

36. Bruun, P ., 1978. Stability of Tidal Inlets, Theory and Engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam and New York 

(500pp). 

37. Bruun, P., 1984. Discussion on Weisman et al., Maintaining tidal inlet channels by fluidisation, Journal 

Waterways, Harbours and Coastal Engineering Division, ASCE, 110(1), pp127-130. 

38. Bruun, P., 1989. Back-Passing Increases Frequency of Beach Nourishment, The Dock and Harbour 

Authority, Vol. LXX, No. 808, May, pp7-9. 

39. Bruun, P., 1990. Beach Nourishment, Improved Economy Through Better Profiling and Backpassing 

from Offshore Sources, Journal of Coastal Research, 6(2), pp265-277. 

40. Bruun, P ., 1990. Bypassing Plants and Arrangements - Prices on Transfers, Proceeds Skagen 

Symposium, September, Journal Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 9, pp936-951. 

41. Bruun, P., 1990. Port Engineering, Vol. 2, 4th Edition, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas, pp414-

437, 810-929. 

42. Bruun, P., 1991. Optimum Dredging Procedures for Artificial Nourishment of Beaches, Proceedings 

ASCE Conference on Water Resources Planning and Management and Urban Water Resources, 

ASCE, New Orleans, pp303-307. 

43. Bruun, P., 1992. Bypassing and Backpassing at Harbours, Navigation Channels and Tidal 

Entrances, Dredging and Port Construction, January, pp32-35. 

44. Bruun, P., 1993. An Update on Sand Bypassing Procedures and Prices, Journal Coastal Research, 

Special Issue No. 18, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, pp277-284. 

45. Bruun, P., Adams, J., 1988. Stability of Tidal Inlets: Use of Hydraulic Pressure for Channel and 

Bypassing Stability, Proceedings of Beach Preservation Technology '88, Florida Shore and Beach 

Preservation Association, Gainesville, Florida, pp325-336. 

46. Bruun, P., Gerritsen, F., 1959. Natural Bypassing of Sand at Coastal Inlets, Journal of the Waterways 

and Harbours Division, ASCE, 85(WW4), pp75-107. 

47. Bruun, P., Gerritsen, F., 1960. Stability of Coastal Inlets, Amsterdam, North Holland Publishing 

Company. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 7 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 179 Appendix A., Section 16 
795

48. Bruun, P., Willekes, G., 1992. Bypassing and Backpassing at Harbors, Navigation Channels and 

Tidal Entrances: Use of Shallow-Water Draft Hopper Dredges with Pump-out Capabilities, Journal 

Coastal Research, Vol. 8(4), pp972-977. 

49. Burke, C.E., Clausner, J.E., 1989. Potential Shoreline Erosion Control from Sand Bypassing and 

Nearshore Berms, Proceedings Eighth Annual Submerged Lands Management Conference, Texas 

General Land Office, Austin, Texas. 

50. Byrne, A.P., Rogers, M.P., Byrne, G., 1987. Dawesville Channel, Western Australia - Coastal 

Process Studies, Proceedings Eighth Australasian Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineering, 

Institution of Engineers Australia, Launceston, 30 November - 4 December, pp303-306. 

51. Caldwell, J.M., 1950. Bypassing Sand at South Lake Worth Inlet, Florida, Proceedings of First 

Conference on Coastal Engineering, University of California, pp320-325. 

52. Campbell, T.J., Keehn, S., 1995. Correcting Downdrift Beach Erosion with Existing Technology and 

Programs, Proceedings of the Ports '95 Conference on Port Engineering and Development for the 

21st Century, Vol. 2, ASCE, Tampa, Florida USA, pp1177-1182. 

53. Carver, R.D., Markle, D.G., Dubose, W.G., Jensen, R.E., 1987. Sloping Float Breakwater Study 

Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, Coastal Model Investigation, Report No. CERC-TR-87-5, Coastal 

Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, April, 222p. 

54. Chin, I., Yamada, M., Tsuchiya, Y., 1995. Formation of Dynamically Stable Sandy Beaches on the 

Amanohashidate Coast by Sand Bypassing, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on 

Coastal Engineering, Vol. 3, ASCE, Kobe, Japan, pp3478-3490. 

55. Clark, G.R., 1990. Sand Bypassing Techniques Can Solve Inlet Problems, International Dredging 

Review, July, pp10-12. 

56. Clausner, J., Gebert, J.A., Watson, K.D., and Rambo, G.A., 1992. Sand Bypassing at Indian River 

Inlet, Delaware, The CERCular, Vol. CERC-92-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

57. Clausner, J.E., 1986. Recent Advances in Sand Bypassing, Proceedings of the Third International 

Symposium on River Sedimentation, University of Mississippi, pp1181-1190. 

58. Clausner, J.E., 1988. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing at the Nerang River Entrance, Queensland, 

Australia, Beach Preservation Technology 88 Problems and Advancements in Beach Nourishment, 

Gainesville, Florida, March 23-25, pp345-355. 

59. Clausner, J.E., 1989. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing- Case Study I: Nerang River Entrance, Australia, 

Coastal Engineering Technical Note CETN 11-17, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

60. Clausner, J.E., 1989. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing, Nerang River Entrance, Australia, Dredging 

Research Program Technical Note DRP-3-01, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

61. Clausner, J.E., 1990. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing Plant, Indian River Inlet, Delaware, International 

Dredging Review, Vol. 9(2), February, pp10-11. 

62. Clausner, J.E., 1990. Submersible Pumps for Sand Bypassing, Dredging Research Information 

Exchange Bulletin Vol. DRP-90-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. 

63. Clausner, J.E., 1991. Fixed Sand Bypassing Plants -An Update, Dredging Research Program 

Technical Note DRP 111-03, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. 

64. Clausner, J.E., 1994. Controlled Tests of Eductors and Submersible Pumps, World Dredging, Mining 

& Construction. 

65. Clausner, J.E., Gebert, J.A., Rambo, G.A., and Watson, K.D., 1991. Sand Bypassing at Indian River 

Inlet, Delaware, Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '91 Conference, ASCE, New York. 

66. Clausner, J.E., Kieslich, M.J., 1990. An Overview of Sand Bypassing, Beneficial Uses of Dredged 

Material: Proceedings of the Gulf Coast Regional Workshop, 26-28 April 1988, Galveston, Texas, 

Technical Report D-90-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 8 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 180 Appendix A., Section 16 
796

67. Clausner, J.E., Melson, K.R., Hughes, J.A., Rambo, A.T., 1990. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing at Indian 

River Inlet, Delaware, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Dredging Seminar, Centre for Dredging 

Studies, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas. 

68. Clausner, J.E., Neilans, P.J., Welp, T.L., Bishop, D.D., 1994. Controlled Tests of Educ/ors and 

Submersible Pumps, Miscellaneous paper DRP-94-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, September. 

69. Clausner, J.E., Patterson, D.R., Rambo, G., 1990. Fixed Sand Bypassing Plants -An Update, Beach 

Preservation Technology 90, St Petersburg, Florida, Feb 14-16. 

70. Clausner, J.E., Welp, T., Bishop, D., 1993. Controlled Tests of Educ/ors and Submersible Pumps, 

Dredging Research Technical Notes DRP-3-05, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

71. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 1996. The Boca Raton Inlet Ebb Tidal Shoal Sand Transfer 

Project and Ongoing Interior Sand Transfer Program, Brochure, 25th International Conference on 

Coastal Engineering, Orlando, Florida, USA. 

72. Collins, A.G., Parks, J.M., Weisman, R.N., Adams, J.W., 1987. Anna Maria, Florida: Case Study of 

Sand Fluidization for Channel Maintenance, Shore and Beach, April, pp42-48. 

73. Coughlan P.M., Robinson, D.A., 1990. The Gold Coast Seaway Queensland, Australia, Shore and 

Beach, Vol. 58(1), January, pp8-16. 

74. Coughlan P.M., Robinson, D.A., 1991. The story of the Gold Coast Seaway, Mayday, Vol. 15(2), 

September - October. 

75. Coughlan, P.M., Robinson, D.A., 1988. Gold Coast Seaway- Its Impact on the Adjacent Coast, 

Proceedings of Second Australasian Port, Harbour and Offshore Engineering Conference, Institute of 

Engineers Australia, Brisbane, 25-27 October. 

76. Cowper, N., Cowper, N. Jr, 1990. The Submarine Sand Shifter-A Unique Development to 

Economically Maintain Navigable Entrances, Ports and Harbours Conference, Institution of Engineers 

Australia, Melbourne, 28-30 August, pp110-115. 

77. Cox, J.M., Maresca, P., Rosati Ill, J., 1996. Silent Inspector System Technical Manual, Technical 

report DRP-96-1, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC, February, 126p. 

78. de Groot, R., 1973. Restoring Beaches, Shore and Beach, Vol. 41 (1), pp28-32. 

79. Dimentberg, M., 1977. Sand Bypasses Giant Breakwater at Visak, International Dredging and Port 

Construction, Series II, Vol. IV, No. 9, pp31-33. 

80. Dolan, T.J., Castens, P.G., Sonu, C.J., Egense, A.K., 1987. Review of Sediment Budget 

Methodology: Oceanside Littoral Cell, California, Coastal Sediments '87, Proceedings of a Specialty 

Conference on Advances in Understanding of Coastal Sediment Processes, Vol. 2, ASCE, New 

Orleans, Louisiana, USA, May 12-14, pp1289-1304. 

81. Dombrowski, M.R., Mehta, A.J., 1993. Inlets and Management Practices: Southeast Coast of 

Florida, Journal Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 18, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, pp29-57. 

82. Eaton, R.O., 1955. Development of Methods for Bypassing Sand Across Inlets, Shore and Beach, 

Vol. 23(1), pp10-13. 

83. Engineering News-Record, 1985. Beach Protection Lessons Learned: Corps, Environmentalists 

Face Off Over Costs, Methods, Need, Vol. 214(17), April 25, p26. 

84. Engineering News-Record, 1987. Big Jetties Would Protect Inlet, Vol. 219(4), July 23, p15. 

85. Fairweather, V., 1981. Barrier Islands: Should Engineers Interfere with Nature?, Civil Engineering -

ASCE, Vol. 51 (5), pp64-67. 

86. Fernandez, J., Pina, G.G., Munoz, A., 1991. Sand Bypassing to 'Playa de Castilla' (Huelva Spain), 

Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, Delft, Netherlands, 

July 2-6, pp3183-3193. 

87. Finkl, C.W. Jr, 1993. Pre-Emptive Strategies for Enhanced Sand Bypassing and Beach 

Replenishment Activities in Southeast Florida: A Geological Perspective, Journal Coastal Research, 

Special Issue No. 18, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, pp59-89. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 9 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !vfay Inlet 181 Appendix A .. Section 16 
797

88. Fink!, C.W., 1996. What Might Happen to America Shorelines if Artificial Beach Replenishment is 

Curtailed - A Prognosis for Southeastern Florida and Other Sandy Regions Along Regressive 

Coasts, Journal Coastal Research, Vol. 12(1). 

89. Finkl, C.W. Jr., 1994. Management Strategies for Enhanced Sand Bypassing and Beach 

Replenishment in the Southeast Florida Coastal Zone: Potentials for Application of New 

Technologies, MTS 94: Challenges and Opportunities in the Marine Environment Conference 

Proceedings, Washington DC, 7-9 September, pp107-114. 

90. FitzGerald, D.M., 1983. Sediment Bypassing at Mixed Energy Tidal Inlets, Proceedings 18th Coastal 

Engineering Conference, Vol. 2, ASCE, Cape Town, Sth Africa, November 14-19, pp1094-1118. 

91. FitzGerald, D.M., Hayes, M.O., 1980. Tidal Inlet Effects on Barrier Island Management, Coastal 

Zone '80, Proceedings of the Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Vol. 3, Hollywood, 

Florida, November 17-20, pp2355-2365. 

92. Fitzgerald, D.M., Penland, S., Nummedal, D., 1984. Control of Barrier Island Shape by Inlet 

Sediment Bypassing: East Frisian Islands, West Germany, Marine Geology, Vol. 60(1-4), pp355-376. 

93. Foster, D., Thomas, A., Brindley, R., Blake, K., 1990. Sand Bypassing Using the Shore Parallel Trap, 

Ports and Harbours Conference, Institution of Engineers Australia, Melbourne, 28-30 August. 

94. Foster, D.N., 1978. Engineering Design Alternatives, Proceedings of Design for Tropical Cyclones 

Conference, James Cook University of North Queensland, Vol. 2, paper Y, Townsville, September, 

ppYI-YII. 

95. Foster, D.N., Wallace, B.C., 1983. Assessment of Operation Conditions of the By-passing Plant, 

Secret Harbour, Western Australia, Technical report No 83/06, University of New South Wales, 

Water Research Laboratory, Sydney, Australia. 

96. Gebert, J.A., Watson, K.D., Rambo, A.T., 1992. 57 Years of Coastal Engineering Practice at a 

Problem Inlet: Indian River Inlet, Delaware, Coastal Engineering Practice '92, ASCE Specialty 

Conference, Long Beach, California, March 9-11, pp503-519. 

97. Grad, P., 1986. Jet Pumps Keep Passage Clear of Tidal Sands, Engineers Australia, Vol. 58(17), 

September, p46. 

98. Hales, L. Z., 1995. Dredge Plant Equipment and Systems Processes, Summary Report for Technical 

Area 3, Report No. WESrTR/DRP-95-10, Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi, November, 85p. 

99. Hales, L.Z., 1984. Potential Effects of New Entrance Channel to Bolsa Chica Bay, California, on 

Unstabilized Adjacent Shorelines, Report No. CERC-MP-84-10, Coastal Engineering Research 

Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, October, 198p. 

100. Hall, J.V., 1952. Artificially Nourished and Constructed Beaches, Technical Memorandum No. 29, 

Beach Erosion Board, Corps of Engineers. 

101. Hall, J.V., Watts, G.M., 1957. Beach Rehabilitation by Fill and Nourishment, Transaction, ASCE, 

Paper No. 2853, pp155-177. 

102. Harris, R.W., Inman, D.L., Bailard, J.A., Oda, R.L., 1976. Study and Evaluation of Remedial Sand 

Bypassing Procedures, Contract Report WES-CR-H-76-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

103. Hayes, M.O., 1983. Role Of Geomorphological Processes In Inlet And Port-Entrance Sedimentation 

Problems: An Overview, International Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing 

Countries, Vol. 2, Colombo, Sri Lanka, March 20-26, pp1126-1138. 

104. Herbich, J.B., 1975. Coastal and Deep Ocean Dredging, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas, 

pp440-443. 

105. Herbich, J.B., 1992. Handbook of Dredging Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York. 

106. Herron, W.J., Harris, R.L., 1966. Littoral Bypassing and Beach Restoration in the Vicinity of Port 

Hueneme California, Proceedings of Tenth Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, pp651-675. 

107. Herron, W.J. Jr., 1960. Beach Erosion Control and Small Craft Harbor Development at Point 

Hueneme, Shore and Beach, Vol. 28(1), pp11-15. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 10 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1-fay Inlet 182 Appendix A., Section 16 
798

108. Hodgens, E., 1995. Sand Bypassing Operations at Canaveral Harbor, Florida, Coastal Zone: 

Proceedings of the Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, ASCE, Tampa, Florida, USA, 

pp529-530. 

109. Hodges, T.K., 1955. Sand Bypassing at Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, Bulletin, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, Vol. 9(2), pp1-6. 

110. Hunt, IA, 1959. Design of Seawalls and Breakwaters, Journal of the Waterways and Harbors 

Division, ASCE, WW3, #2172, September, 1959. 

111. Hutton, I.M., 1987. Dawesville Channel - Ocean Entrance, Proceedings of Eighth Australasian 

Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Institution of Engineers Australia, Launceston, 30 

November - 4 December, pp330-334. 

112. Inman, D.L., Harris, R.W., 1970. Crater-Sink Transfer System, Proceedings of Twelfth Coastal 

Engineering Conference, ASCE, Vol. II, pp919-933. 

113. Inman, D.L., unknown. Modern Concepts of Sand Bypassing, American Shore Beach Preservation 

Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, 8-9 October, No. 74-0264. 

114. Jaffe, B.E., Sallenger, A.H., List, J.H., 1989. Massive Sediment Bypassing of a Wide Tidal Inlet; Cat 

Island Pass, Louisiana, Trans Gulf Coast Assoc. Geo/. Soc. [Corpus Christi] 39, pp403-412. 

115. Jakobsen, P.R., Sandgrav, B., 1993. Modern Beach Nourishment in Denmark- How to Do It, 

Kystinspektoratet, Unpublished. 

116. Jarrett, J.T., 1978. Coastal Processes at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, Proceedings of Sixteenth 

Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, Vol. II, pp1257-1275. 

117. Jarrett, J.T., 1985. Design of navigation improvements for Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, Annual 

Meeting of the Association of Engineering Geologists: Site Selection, Characterisation, and Design 

Exploration (in conjunction with the International Symposium on Management of Hazardous 

Chemical Waste Sites), Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA, 9-10 October. 

118. Jarrett, J.T., Asce, M., 1978. Sediment Budget Analysis Wrightsville Beach to Kure Beach, North 

Carolina, Report No. CERC-REPRINT-78-3, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia, February, 22p. 

119. Jenkins, SA, Inman, DL, Bailard, J.A., 1980. Opening and Maintaining Tidal Lagoons and 

Estuaries, Proceedings of Seventeenth Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, pp1528-1547. 

120. Johnson, C.N., Hiipakka, LA, 1976. Sand Bypass and Shore Erosion Bridgman, Michigan, 

Proceedings of Fifteenth Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, pp1361-1376. 

121. Johnson, J.W., 1957. The Littoral Drift Problem at Shoreline Harbors, Journal of Waterways and 

Harbours Division, ASCE, Vol. 83, No. WWI, pp 1211-1 -1211-37. 

122. Jones, C.P., 1977. An Evaluation of Sand Bypassing Systems at Tidal Inlets In Florida, Masters 

Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 

123. Jones, C.P., Mehta, A.J., 1977. A Comparative Review of Sand Transfer Systems at Florida's Tidal 

Entrances, Coastal Sediments '77, Fifth Symposium of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean 

Division, ASCE, Charleston, South Carolina, November 2-4, pp48-66. 

124. Jones, C.P., Mehta, A.J., 1980. Inlet Sand Bypassing Systems in Florida, Shore and Beach, Vol. 

48(1), pp25-34. 

125. Kappa, S., 1976. How to 'irrigate a Harbor', World Dredging and Marine Construction, Vol. 12(10), 

September, p48. 

126. Kendall, T.R., 1992. Santa Cruz Harbor, California Shoaling Study Reconnaissance Report for 

Navigation Improvements (Reduction of Shoaling) at Santa Cruz Harbor Santa Cruz County, 

California, Technical Report No. COESPN/PEW-93-001, Army Engineer District, Sacramento, 

California, May, 468p 

127. Killoy, D.H., Scoellner, KA, Ediale, P.W., 1983. Variations in Planning Concepts for a Nigerian Port, 

PORTS 83, ASCE. 

128. Kobayashi, N., Karjadi, EA, 1994. Swash Dynamics Under Obliquely Incident Waves, Proceedings 

of 24th International Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, pp2155-2169. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 11 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 183 Appendix A., Section 16 
799

129. Kraus, N.C. (ed.), 1996. History and Heritage of Coastal Engineering: A Cof/ection of Papers on the 

History of Coastal Engineering in Countries Hosting the International Coastal Engineering 

Conference 1950-1996, ASCE. 

130. Kraus, N.C., Hanson, H., Harikai, S., 1985. Shoreline Change at Oarai Beach: Past, Present and 

Future, Proceedings of Nineteenth International Coastal Engineering Conference, Vol. 2, ASCE, 

Houston, Texas, USA, September 3-7, pp2107-2123. 

131. Lanan, GA, Dalrymple, RA, 1977. A Coastal Engineering Study of Indian River Inlet, Delaware, 

Sea Grant Program, Technical Report DEL-SG-5-77,810, University of Delaware, Department of Civil 

Engineering, Newark, 227pp. 

132. Layton, JA, 1987. Case History of a Puget Sound Bypass Operation, Coastal Sediments '87: 

Proceedings of a Specialty Conference on Advances in Understanding of Coastal Sediment 

Processes, Vol. 2, ASCE, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, May 12-14, pp1259-1273. 

133. Layton, JA, 1991. Case History of the Point Roberts Marina, Proceedings of the First International 

Conference on World Marina '91, ASCE, Long Beach, California, USA, September 4-8, pp99-108. 

134. Lee, C.E., 1968. Tidal Navigation Inlets, Shore and Beach, Vol. 36(1), pp27-30. 

135. Lennon, G.P., Kopaskie, KA, Weisman, RN., 1991. Predicting Incipient Fluidization of Fine Sands 

in Unbounded Domains, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ground Water in Practice, 

ASCE, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, July 29-August 2, pp34-39. 

136. Lennon, G.P., Weisman, RN., 1995. Head Requirement for Incipient Fluidization of Fine Sands in 

Unbounded Domains, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 121 (11), November, pp838-841. 

137. Lucas, G.P., Miller, C.W., 1986. Nerang River Entrance: Relocation and Training Works, Local 

Government Engineers' Association of Queensland Journal, Vol. 4(1), pp43-47. 

138. Lucas, S.S., Hanson, H., 1995. New Tool for the Coastal Toolbox - Modelling Sand Bypassing, 

Coastal Zone: Proceedings of the Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, ASCE, Tampa, 

Florida, USA, pp151-152. 

139. Lund, J.R, 1991. Optimisation of Maintenance for Coast Inlets with Uncertainty, Coastal Sediments 

'91: Proceedings of a Specialty Conference on Quantitative Approaches to Coastal Sediment 

Processes, ASCE, Seattle, Washington, USA, June 25-27, pp1152-1164. 

140. Macdonald, H.V., 1987. The Nerang River Entrance Stabilisation and Relationship to Marine 

Development, First International Marina Conference, Brisbane, 15-19 February. 

141. Magnuson, N.C., 1965. Planning and Design of a Low-Water Section Jetty at Masonboro Inlet, North 

Carolina, Proceedings of the Coastal Engineering Specialty Conference, ASCE, pp807-820. 

142. Magnuson, N.C., 1967. Planning and Design of a Low-Weir Section Jetty, Journal Waterways and 

Harbours Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. WW2, pp27-40. 

143. Magoon, O.T., Whalin, RW., Millard, M., 1977. Ocean Navigation, Proceedings of 24th International 

Navigation Congress, PIANC, Section II, Subject 2, Leningrad, pp179-187. 

144. Mardesich, J.A., 1971. The Design and Construction of an Underwater Dredge, Earthmoving Industry 

Conference, Society of Automotive Engineers, Central Illinois Section, Peoria, 111. 

145. McDonald, T.J., Strugeion, M.A., 1956. Sand Bypassing at a Virginia Tidal Inlet, Journal of 

Waterways and Harbours Division, ASCE, Vol. 82. 

146. McLouth, M.E., Lapolla, J., Bodge, K., 1994. Port Authority's Role in Inlet Management and 

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Dredging and 

Dredged Material Placement, Vol. 2, ASCE, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA, pp971-980. 

147. McNair, E.C. Jr., 1976. A Sand Bypassing System Using a Jet Pump, Proceedings of Fifteenth 

Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 11-17, pp1342-1360. 

148. Mehta, A.J., Montague, C.L., 1991. Management of Sandy Inlets, Coastal and Environmental 

Engineering Imperatives, Coastal Zone '91: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Coastal and 

Ocean Management, Vol. 1, ASCE, Long Beach, California, USA, July 8-12, pp628-642. 

149. Middleton, S.R., 1958. Financing of Sand Bypassing Operations, Journal of Waterways and 

Harbours Division, ASCE, Vol. 84. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 12 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 184 Appendix A .. Section 16 
800

150. Middleton, S.R., 1959. Installation and Operation of Fixed Sand Bypassing Plant at Lake Worth Inlet, 

Florida, Shore and Beach, Vol. 27(1), pp35-36. 

151. Miller, C.W., Lucas, G.P., 1987. Construction of Gold Coast Seaway, Southern Engineering 

Conference Living with Water, Institution of Engineers Australia, Surfers Paradise, 7-8 August. 

152. Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, 1983. Experimental Sand Bypass System at Oceanside Harbor, 

California - Phase 1: Data Collection and Analysis, Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Los 

Angeles. 

153. Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, 1984. Experimental Sand Bypass System at Oceanside Harbor, 

California - Phase 3: Final Concept, Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 

154. Mota, 0.1.B., Valle, A.J.S.F., Miranda, F.C.C., 1983. Littoral Problems In The Portuguese West 

Coast, Proceedings of the 18th Coastal Engineering Conference, Vol. 3, ASCE, Cape Town, Sth 

Africa, November 14-19, pp1950-1969. 

155. Nelson, W.G., Main, M.B., 1985. Criteria for Beach Nourishment: Biological Guidelines for 

Sabellariid Worm Reef, Report No. TP-33, Florida Sea Grant Coll., Gainesville, July, 40p. 

156. Nersesian, G.K., Bocamazo, L.M., 1992. Design And Construction of Shinnecock Inlet New York, 

Coastal Engineering Practice '92, ASCE, Long Beach, California, USA, Mar 9-11, pp554-570. 

157. Nightingale, G .S., 1987. The Gold Coast Seaway, Association of Australian Port and Marine 

Authorities 12th Hydrographic Surveyors Meeting, 19 August. 

158. Olsen Associates Inc., 1996. South Lake Worth In/et, Palm Beach County, Florida, Brochure, EastCoast Field Trip, 25th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Orlando, Florida, USA. 

159. Owens, E.H., 1976. Process and Morphology Characteristics of Two Barrier Beaches in the 

Magdalen Islands, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, Proceedings of 15th Coastal Engineering 

Conference, ASCE, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 11-17. 

160. Parker, N.E., 1979. Weir Jetties - Their Continuing Evolution, Shore and Beach, Vol. 47(4), October, 

pp15-19. 

161. Parks, J., 1989. Fluidization: Channel Maintenance & Sand Bypassing, Coastal Zone '89: 

Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Vol. 5, ASCE, Charleston, 

South Carolina, USA, July 11-14, pp4665-4673. 

162. Parks, J., 1989. New 'Soft' Technologies for Coastal Applications: Fluidization for Inlet Sand 

Bypassing, and Beachface Dewatering for Beach Widening and Stabilisation, Oceans '89, Part 1: 

Fisheries; Global Ocean Studies; Marine Policy & Education; Oceanographic Studies, IEEE, Seattle, 

Washington, USA, September 18-21, p96. 

163. Parks, J., 1991. Implementing Cost-Effective Environmentally Safe "Harbor of Refuge" Marinas, 

Proceedings from the Second International Symposium on Coast Ocean Space Uti/ (COSU II), Long 

Beach, California, USA, April 2-4, p185(9). 

164. Parks, J., 1991. Pumping In and Pumping Out: Case Histories of Fluidized Sand Bypassing for 

Channels and Beachface Dewatering for Beaches, Coastal Zone '91: Proceedings of the 7th 

Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Vol. 1, ASCE, Long Beach, California, USA, July 8-

12, pp193-203. 

165. Parks, J.M., 1991. New 'Dredging' Technology for Inlets and Beaches. Move Sand to the Pump, 

Coastal Sediments '91: Proceedings of a Specialty Conference on Quantitative Approaches to 

Coastal Sediment Processes, ASCE, Seattle, Washington, USA, June 25-27, pp1943-1954. 

166. Patterson, D.R., Bisher, D.R., Bradeen, M.R., 1991. Oceanside Experimental Sand Bypass the Next 

Step, Coastal Sediments '91: Proceedings of a Specialty Conference on Quantitative Approaches to 

Coastal Sediment Processes, ASCE, Seattle, Washington, USA, June 25-27, pp1165-1176. 

167. Pekar, G.B., 1977. Sand Bypassing at Mexico Beach, Florida, Shore and Beach, Vol. 45(1), pp29-

30. 

168. Penland, S., unknown. Influence of a Jetty System on Tidal Inlet Stability and Morphology: Fort 

George Inlet, Florida, Louisiana State University, Dept. of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana, 

USA, pp665-689. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 13 

Hereford Inlet to Cap~ i\.fay Inlet 185 Appendix A .. Section 16 
801

169. Perlin, M., 1977. A Numerical Model to Predict Beach Planforms in the Vicinity of Littoral Barriers, 

Masters Degree Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. 

170. Perlin, M., Dean, R.G., 1978. Prediction of Beach Planforms with Littoral Controls, Proceedings of 

the Sixteenth International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, August, 

pp1818-1838. 

171. Permanent International Association of Navigation Congress (PIANC), 1973. Proceedings of the XX/II 

Conference Ottawa, S 11-S 2. 

172. Perry, F.C. Jr., Seabergh, W.C., Lane, E.F., 1978. Improvements for Murrells Inlet, South Carolina: 

Hydraulic Model Investigation, Technical Report No. H-78-4, US Army Engineers Waterways 

Experiment Station Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA, April, 339 p. 

173. Polglase, R.H., 1987. The Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System, Proceedings of Eighth 

Australasian Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Institution of Engineers Australia, 

Launceston, December 1-4, pp196-200. 

174. Pope, J., 1991. Ebb Delta Shoreline Response to Inlet Stabilization, Examples from the Southeast 

Atlantic Coast, Coastal Zone '91: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean 

Management, Vol. 1, ASCE, Long Beach, California, USA, July 8-12, pp643-654. 

175. Pound, M.D., Witt, R.W., 1987. Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System, Southern 

Engineering Conference Living with Water, Institution of Engineers Australia, Surfers Paradise, 

August 7-8. 

176. Pound, M.D., Witt, R.W., 1987. Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System, Proceedings of 

Eighth Australasian Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Institution of Engineers 

Australia, Launceston, December 1-4, pp222-226. 

177. Prestedge, G.K., Bosman, D.E., 1994. Sand Bypassing at Navigation Inlets: Solution of Small Scale 

and Large Scale Problems, Seventh Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation 

Technology, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, Florida. 

178. Purpura, J.A., 1977. Performance of a jetty-weir inlet improvement plan, Coastal Sediments '77, Fifth 

Symposium of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, ASCE, Charleston, South Carolina, 

November 2-4, pp330-349. 

179. Purpura, J.A., Beechley, B.C., Baskette, C.W. Jr, Roberge, J.C., 1974. Performance of a Jetty-Weir 

Inlet Improvement Plan, Proceedings Fourteenth Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, Vol. II, 

pp14 70-1490. 

180. Queensland Transport, 1994. Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System Workshop, 

Discussion Paper, Marine Business Centre, 1 August. 

181. Rambo, G., Clausner, J.E., 1989. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing, Indian River Inlet, Delaware, Dredging 

Research Program Information Exchange Bulletin Vol. DRP-89-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

182. Rambo, G., Clausner, J.E., 1989. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing, Indian River Inlet, Delaware, Dredging 

Research Program Technical Note, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. 

183. Rambo, G., Clausner, J.E., Henry, R.D., 1991. Sand Bypass Plant Indian River Inlet, Delaware, 

Proceedings of the 1991 National Beach Preservation Technology Conference, American Shore and 

Beach Preservation Association, Charleston, South Carolina. 

184. Rambo, G., Clausner, J.E., Henry, R.D., 1992. Sand Bypass Plant, Proceedings National 

Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

185. Rao, R.P.R., Reddy, B.J., 1981. Surf Observations off the Visakhapatnam Beach, Proceedings of 

19th /AHR Congress, Vol. 3, New Delhi, India, February 1-7, pp161-172. 

186. Rayner, A.C., 1964. Beach and Inlet Stabilisation, Shore and Beach, Vol. 32(2), pp9-11. 

187. Richards, D.R., Clausner, J.E., 1988. Feasibility of Sand Bypassing Systems for Reducing 

Maintenance Dredging in the St. Marys River Entrance Channel, Miscellaneous Paper HL-88-9, U.S. 

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Reporf • August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 14 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 186 Appendix A .. Section 16 
802

188. Richardson, T.W., 1977. Systems for Bypassing Sand at Coastal Inlets, Coastal Sediments '77, Fifth 

Symposium of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, ASCE, Charleston, South Carolina, 

November 2-4, pp67-84. 

189. Richardson, T.W., 1980. Portable Sand Bypassing System for Small Harbors, Proceedings of Ninth 

World Dredging Conference, WODCON IX, World Dredging Association, Vancouver, pp589-600. 

190. Richardson, T.W., 1987. Unique Design Aspects of a Large-Scale Experimental Sand Bypassing 

System, United States - The Netherlands Meeting on Dredging and Related Technology (3rd), 

Charleston, South Carolina, September 10-14, p280-286. 

191. Richardson, T.W., 1991. Sand Bypassing, in: Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering Vol. 2 

Offshore Structures, Marine Foundations, Sediment Processes, and Modelling, J.B. Herbich, ed., 

Gulf Publishing, Houston, Texas, pp809-828. 

192. Richardson, T.W., Howell, G.L., 1986. Potential Applications of SCADA Technology to Dredge 

Monitoring, Control, and Automation, Proceedings WODA Xlth Work Dredging Congress, Brighton, 

U.K., pp405-416. 

193. Richardson, T.W., Mc Nair, E.C. Jr., 1981. A Guide to the Planning and Hydraulic Design of Jet 

Pump Remedial Sand Bypassing Systems, WES Instruction Report HL-81-1, U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

194. Roellig, DA, Hiipakka, L.W., 1978. Mitigation of shore damage in the Great Lakes, Coastal Zone 

'78, ASCE, San Francisco, California, USA, March 14, pp1671-1679. 

195. Rolland, M.C., 1951. Sand Bypassing Plant at Salina Cruz, Mexico, Proceedings of Second 

Conference on Coastal Engineering, Council on Wave Research, U.S.A., pp177-186. 

196. Roy, S.P., Stephens, WA, 1980. Geological Controls on Process-Response, S.E. Australia, 

Proceedings Seventeenth Coastal Engineering Conference, Vol. 1, ASCE, Sydney, Australia, March 

23-28, pp913-933. 

197. Sanderson, W.H., 1976. Sand Bypassing with Split-Hull Self-Propelled Barge Currituck, Proceedings 

of Specialty Conference on Dredging and Its Environmental Effects, ASCE, Mobile, Alabama, 

January 26-28, pp163-172. 

198. Savage, R.P., 1957. Sand Bypassing at Port Hueneme, California, Technical Memorandum No. 92, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineering, Beach Erosion Board. 

199. Schwartz, R.K., Musailowski, F.R., 1977. Nearshore Disposal: Onshore Sediment Transport, 

Coastal Sediments '77, Fifth Symposium of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, ASCE, 

Charleston, South Carolina, November 2-4, pp85-101. 

200. Schwartz, R.K., Musialowski, F.R., 1980. Transport of Dredged Sediment Placed in the Nearshore 

Zone - Currituck Sand-Bypass Study (Phase I), Technical Paper No. CERC-TP-80-1; U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 55p. 

201. Scott, HA, 1969. Ponce de Leon Inlet Stabilisation Project, Shore and Beach, Vol. 37(1), pp4-9. 

202. Seabergh, W.C., 1983. Physical Model Study of Weir Jetty Design, Coastal Structures '83: 

Proceedings of Specialty Conference on the Design, Construction, Maintenance & Performance of 

Coastal Structures, ASCE, Arlington, USA, March 9-11, pp876-893. 

203. Senour, C., Bardes, J.E., 1959. Sand Bypassing Plant at Lake Worth Inlet, Florida, Journal of 

Waterways Harbours Division, ASCE, Vol. 84(1), pp69-87. 

204. Seymour, R.J., Castel, D., 1985. Episodicity in Longshore Sediment Transport, Journal of Waterway, 

Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 111 (3), May, pp542-551. 

205. Shelley, P.E. (ed.), 1980. Control of Sand Accumulation by Crater-Sink/Fluidisation, Proceedings of 

Dredging and Sedimentation Control - 1980, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Office of Naval 

Research, pp 1-21 /1-28. 

206. Slurry Systems Ply Ltd., 1986. Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System. Technical 

Summary, prepared for Gold Coast Waterways Authority, 6p. 

207. Snetzer, R.E., 1969. Jetty-Weir Systems at Inlets in the Mobile Engineer District, Shore and Beach, 

Vol. 37(1), pp28-32. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 15 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 187 Appendix A .. Section 16 
803

208. Stauble, D.K., Da Costa, S.L., Monroe, K.L., Bhogal, V.K., Vassai, G., 1987. Sediment Dynamics of 

a Sand Bypass Inlet, Coastal Sediments '87, Proceedings of a Speciality Conference on Advances in 

Understanding of Coastal Sediment Processes, Vol. 2, ASCE, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, May 

12-14, pp1624-1639. 

209. Stauble, D.K., Hoel, J., 1986. Physical and Biological Guidelines for Beach Restoration Projects, 

Part 2, Physical Engineering Guidelines, Report No. SGR-77, Florida Sea Grant Coll., Gainesville, 

June, 112p. 

210. Stauble, D.K., Nelson, W.G., 1983. Beach Restoration Guidelines: Prescription for Project Success, 

American Shore & Beach Preservation Association I Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association 

Joint Meet, Boca Raton, September 28-30, pp137(20). 

211. Tornberg, G.F., 1968. Sand Bypassing Systems, Shore and Beach. Vol. 36(2), pp27-33. 

212. Uda, T., Naito, K., Kanda, Y., 1991. Field Experiment on Sand Bypass off the lioka Coast, Coastal 

Engineering in Japan, Vol. 34(2), Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, Japan, December, pp205-

221. 

213. Uezono, A., Yajima, M., Yauchi, T., Yamada, F., 1982. Application of Sand Bypass Method in 

Amano-Hashidate, Coastal Engineering in Japan, Vol. 25, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, 

Japan, p287. 

214. Vincent, G.E., Gamot, J.P., 1957. Defense des Port Maritimes Contre l'Ensablement, Les Energies De 

La Mer, France, pp590-599. 

215. Wakefield, A.W., 1986. Challenging the dredging concept?, Port Development International, 

December, pp47-51 

216. Wakefield, A.W., 1986. The Handling of Sand Deposits and Littoral Drift by Submerged Jet Pumps 

with Reference to the Nerang River Project, Hydrotransport 10, Proceedings of 10th International 

Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes, Innsbruck, Austria, October 29-31, pp123-

141. 

217. Wakefield, A.W., 1992. Jet Pump Developments for Dredging and Sand Bypassing, Dredging & Port 

Construction, Vol. 19(12), pp32-35. 

218. Wakefield, A.W., 1992. Hybrid Jet-Centrifugal Pump Systems in Dredging and Sand Bypassing, 

XII/th World Dredging Congress Dredging for Development, pp275-295. 

219. Wakefield, A.W., 1993. Beyond Shut-off-Why the Solids-Handling Jet Pumps Stabilises Pipeline 

Flow, Hydrotransport 12, Bruges, September, pp37-56. 

220. Wakefield, A.W., 1993. The Economics of Fixed Sand Bypassing by Embedded Jet Pump Hybrid 

Systems, with Case Studies, International Conference on Slurry Handling and Pipeline Transport, 

BHR Group, Vol. 6(12), pp277-303. 

221. Wakefield, A.W., 1994. Sand Bypassing By Embedded Jet Pump Hybrid Systems, Seventh Annual 

National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation 

Association, Tallahassee, Florida. 

222. Wakefield, A.W., Vaidyanathan, P.A., 1994. A Low Cost Dredging Tool for Minor Port Authorities 

Particularly for Handling Littoral Drift, Proceedings Indian National Dock, Harbour, and Ocean 

Engineering Conference, Central Water and Power Research Station, Puna, India, June 8-10, 12 p. 

223. Wakefield, A.W., Vaidyanathan, P.A., 1994. Appendix to Paper: -A Low Cost Dredging Tool for 

Minor Port Authorities Particularly for Handling Littoral Drift, Indian National Dock, Harbour and 

Ocean Engineering Conference, Central Water & Power Research Station, Puna, India, 8-10 June, 

16 p. 

224. Wakeling, H.L., Cox, N.J., Ghosh, S., O'Connor, BA, 1983. Study of Littoral Drift at Paradip, India, 

International Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing Countries, Vol. 2, Colombo, 

Sri Lanka, March 20-26, pp1192-1206. 

225. Walker, J.R., Lesnick, J.R., 1990. Impacts of Ocean Entrances on Beaches in Southern California, 

Proceedings of the Third Annual National Beach Preservation Technology Conference, Florida Shore 

and Beach Preservation Association, St. Petersburg, Florida, pp203-217. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 16 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 188 Appendix A., Section 16 
804

226. Walker, J.R., 1991. Downdrift Effects of Navigation Structures on the California Coast, Coastal Zone 

'91: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Vol. 1, ASCE, Long 

Beach, California, USA, July 8-12, pp1889-1903. 

227. Walker, J.R., Dunham, J.W., 1977. Lake Worth Inlet- Case Study, Coastal Sediments '77, Fifth 

Symposium of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, ASCE, Charleston, South Carolina, 

November 2-4, pp602-621. 

228. Walker, J.R., Enson, C.F., Kashuba, T., 1987. Sand Bypass System at Oceanside California, 

Proceedings of Coastal Zone '87, ASCE, Seattle, Washington, May 26-29, pp1243-1246. 

229. Walther, M.P., Douglas, B., FitzPatrick, K., 1992. Sebastian Inlet Sand Transfer Performance, 

Proceedings of Fifth Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Florida Shore 

and Beach Preservation Association, St Petersburg, Florida, pp293-309. 

230. Walther, M.P., Sasso, R.H., Lin, P., 1989. Economics of Sand Transfer, Proceedings of Beach 

Preservation Technology '89, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Tampa, Florida, 

pp199-206. 

231. Walton, TL, 1989. Sand-Bypassing Simulation Using Synthetic Longshore Transport Data, Journal 

of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115(4), pp576-577. 

232. Ward, DL, Knowles, S.C., 1987. Coastal Response To Weir Jetty Construction At Little River Inlet, 

North And South Carolina, Coastal Sediments '87, Proceedings of a Specialty Conference on 

Advances in Understanding of Coastal Sediment Processes, Vol. 1, ASCE, New Orleans, Louisiana, 

USA, May 12-14, pp1078-1093. 

233. Waterloopkundig Laboratorium, 1952. History and Description of Hydraulic Model Investigations, Delft, 

Holland. 

234. Watson, K.D., Clausner, J.E., Henry, R.D., 1993. Beach Response to Sand Bypassing at Indian 

River Inlet, Delaware, Hilton Head Island Symposium, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 6-9 June. 

235. Watts, G.M., 1962. Mechanical Bypassing of Littoral Drift at Inlets, Journal of Waterways and 

Harbours Division, ASCE, Vol. 88, No. WW1, pp88-99. 

236. Watts, G.M., 1965. Trends in Sand Transfer Systems, Proceedings of Coastal Engineering Specialty 

Conference, ASCE, pp799-804. 

237. Watts, G.M., Fisher, C.H., Parker, N.E., Weggel, J.R., 1981. Coastal Erosion Caused by Harbor 

Works and Corrective Measures, XXVth International Congress, Section II, Subject 5, PIANC, 

Edinburgh, Scotland. 

238. Weggel, J.R., 1981. Weir Sand Bypassing Systems, Special Report No. 8, U.S. Army Coastal 

Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, April. 

239. Weggel, J.R., 1983. The Design of Weir Sand Bypassing Systems, Coastal Structures '83, A 

Specialty Conference on the Design, Construction, Maintenance and Performance of Coastal 

Structures, ASCE, pp860-875. 

240. Weggel, J.R., Douglass, SL, Tunnell, J.E., 1988. Sand-Bypassing Simulation Using Synthetic 

Longshore Transport Data, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 114(2), 

ASCE, March, pp146-160. 

241 Weggel, J.R., Vitale, P., 1981. Sand Transport Over Weir Jetties and Low Groins, Symposium on 

Coastal Physical Modelling, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, August. 

242. Weisman, R.N., Collins, A.G., Parks, J.M., 1980. Stabilization ofTidal Inlet Channels by Fluidization, 

Proceedings of World Dredging Conference, WODCON IX, pp573-587. 

243. Weisman, R.N., Collins, A.G., Parks, J.M., 1982. Maintaining Tidal Inlets Channels by Fluidization, 

Journal of Waterways, Harbours and Coastal Engineering Division, ASCE, 108(4), pp526-538. 

244. Weisman, R.N., Lennon, G.P., 1994. Design of Fluidizer Systems for Coastal Environment, Journal 

of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 120(5), Sept-Oct, pp468-487. 

245. Weisman, R.N., Lennon, G.P., Clausner, J.E., 1992. A Design Manual for Coastal Fluidization 

Systems, Proceedings of Coastal Engineering Practice '92, Speciality Conference, ASCE, Long 

Beach, California, March 9-11, pp862-878. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 17 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Tnl~t 189 Appendix A., Section 16 
805

246. Weisman, R.N., Lennon, G.P., Clausner, J.E., 1996. A Guide to the Planning and Hydraulic Design 

of Fluidizer Systems for Sand Management in the Coastal Environment, Dredging Research 

Program, Technical Report No. DRP-96-3, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, July. 

247. Wicker, C.F. (ed.}, 1965. Evaluation of Present State of Knowledge of Factors Affecting Tidal 

Hydraulics and Related Phenomena, Report No. 3, Committee on Tidal Hydraulics, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, May. 

248. Wiegel, R.L., 1959. Sand Bypassing at Santa Barbara, California, Journal of Waterways and 

Harbours Division, ASCE, Vol. 85, No. WW2, Part 1, pp1-30. 

249. Wiegel, R.L., 1994. Ocean Beach Nourishment on the USA Pacific Coast, Shore and Beach, Vol. 

62(1), January, p11. 

250. Wiland, L.J., 1990. Great Lakes Port Operators Discuss Dredging to Counteract Low Water Levels, 

International Dredging Review, Vol. 9(4), April, pp10-11. 

251. Williams, G.L., Clausner, J.E., 1994. Comparison of two Eductors for Sand Bypassing, Proceedings 

of Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Placement Part 1 (Dredging 

'94), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 

252. Williams, G.L., Clausner, J.E., Neilans, P.J., 1994. Improved Eductors tor Sand Bypassing, 

Dredging Research Program, Technical Report No. DRP-94-6, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Waterways Experiment Station, Mississippi, November. 

253. Wilson, K.C., 1995. Suction Design Considerations for Sand Bypassing/Backpassing Systems, 

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 11 (4), pp1329-1335. 

254. Witt, C.L., 1987. Gold Coast Seaway: An Overview of the Project's Design and Construction and Its 

Subsequent Performance, Proceedings of 20th Queensland Harbour Boards Association Engineers' 

Conference, Gladstone, Australia, 5-6 October. 

255. Witt, C.L., Hill, P.C., 1987. Gold Coast Seaway: An Overview of the Project's Design and 

Construction and Its Subsequent Performance, Proceedings of Eighth Australian Conference on 

Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Institution of Engineers Australia, Launceston, 1-4 December. 

256. Witt, R., 1993. The Nerang Experience with Sand Bypassing, BRUUN Workshop on Beach 

Nourishment and Sand Bypassing, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 28-29 January. 

257. Witt, W.H., 1986. Nerang River Entrance: Sand Bypassing System, Local Government Engineers' 

Association of Queensland Journal, Vol. 4(1), pp48-51. 

258. Yajima, M., Uezono, A., Yauchi, T., Yamada, F., 1983. Application of Sand Bypassing to 

Amanohashidate Beach, Coastal Engineering in Japan, Vol. 26, December, pp151-162. 

259. Yeend, J.S., Hatheway, D.J., 1987. Inlet Dredging Production as a Function of Sea State, Coastal 

Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Vol. 1, ASCE, 

Seattle, Washington, USA, May 26-29, pp1200-1206. 

260. Yeend, J.S., Hatheway, D.J., 1988. Quantification of Longshore Sand Transport and Sand 

Bypassing at South Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, Florida, Proceedings of 21st Coastal 

Engineering Conference, Vol. 3, ASCE, Costa del Sol, Malaga, Spain, June 20-25, pp2772-2783. 

261. Zurmuhlen, F.H., 1957. The Sand Transfer Plant at Lake Worth Inlet, Proceedings of Sixth 

Conference on Coastal Engineering, pp457-462. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • /SSN 1037-4701 • 18 

Hereford Inlet to Cape: May In1ct 190 Appendix A .. Section 16 
806

Appendix A 

List of sand bypassing systems (as of 1997). 

Plant location Countrv TvPe of byi:,assina svstem [and reference] 

1. Amanohashidate Japan Investigation and trial only [54,258]. 

coast 

2. Bandy Creek Australia Natural bypassing around entrance with offshore 

Harbour, Esperance, breakwater to prevent sediment returning (constructed 

Western Australia 1989) [24]. 

3. Boca Raton, Florida USA Weir training wall and trap with conventional dredging 

[71,81]. 

4. Bridgman, Michigan USA Small quantities by hydraulic bypassing from accretion 

(Lake Michigan) fillet with remainder of nourishment from mined sand 

from dunes (1971-1973) [120]. 

5. Canaveral Harbour, USA Conventional dredging from nearshore borrow area 

Florida (recommended plan as of 1995) [108]. 

6. Channel Islands USA Detached breakwater and sand trap with biannual 

Harbour, California dredging and pumping down coast of Port Hueneme 

[106,211,226]. 

7. Dawesville, Western Australia Crawler excavator (mobile) and crawler mounted 

Australia pump system [22,50,111]. 

8. Durban South Maintenance dredging of entrance and trap updrift of 

Africa breakwater (installed 1982). Considering fixed system 

of jet pumps as of 1996 [10,129,191]. 

9. East London Port South Maintenance dredging of trap [129]. 

Africa 

10. East Pass, Florida USA Weir training wall and trap with conventional dredging 

(1969-1985) [207]. 

11. Fire Island, New York USA Maintenance dredging of bay shoals [41]. 

12. Ft. Pierce, Florida USA Maintenance dredging of bay shoals [41]. 

13. Great Lakes USA Mobile system consisting 200 mm jet pump with 

cutting assists, flotation buoy, and two propulsion jets 

connected by flexible hose to two land-based trailers 

supporting pumping and control equipment to travel 

between harbours (constructed in 1978) [189]. 

14. Hillsboro Inlet, USA Weir training wall and trap with 36 cm floating 

Florida hydraulic dredge (mobile) [81,109]. 

15. Houston, Corpus USA Dredging of bay and ocean shoals with disposal 

Christie, Texas offshore [41]. 

16. Hvide Sande Denmark Maintenance dredging of entrance, as well as 

nourishment from offshore borrow site. Booster 

station in entrance for pumping during summer [115]. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 19 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :!I.fay Inlet 191 Appendix A., Section 16 
807

Plant location Country Type of bypassing system [and reference] 

17. Indian River Inlet, USA Single jet pump and crane (mobile system) 

Delaware [1,6,56,61,65,67,69,96,131, 181,182,183,234,240]. 

18. Jupiter Inlet, Florida USA Conventional dredging of trap (constructed 1966) in 

Inlet [81]. 

19. Lake LaVista USA Demonstration of sand fluidisation system in 1986 

Channel, Anna Maria [72]. 

Island, Florida. 

20. Lake Worth Inlet, USA Electrically driven moveable suction head suspended 

Florida from a boom (1960-1990); and maintenance dredging 

of entrance [150,191,203,211,227,261]. 

21. Little River Inlet, USA Weir in both training walls for bypassing. Weirs 

South Carolina covered, to be opened when required [174]. 

22. Mandurah Inlet, Australia Crawler excavator (mobile) and crawler mounted 

Western Australia pump system [22,50,111]. 

23. Marina di Carrara Italy A 250mm suction pipe dredge mounted and swivels 

on a fixed circular concrete trestle off the updrift side 

of the harbour breakwater (installed 1972) [188,191]. 

24. Masonboro Inlet, USA Weir training wall and trap with conventional dredging 

North Carolina (commenced 1966) [141,201,211]. 

25. Mexico Beach, USA Two fixed jet pumps operating from crater 

Florida (constructed 1976). Replaced by floating dredge in 

1978 [167]. 

26. Murrells Inlet, South USA Weir training wall and trap with conventional dredging 

Carolina (mobile) [12,172]. 

27. Nagapattinam (Bay India Pump on trestle pier with shutters [41]. 

of Bengal) 

28. Navarre Beach, USA Considering moveable dredge plant as of 1989 [23]. 

Florida 

29. Nerang, Queensland Australia Ten jet pumps along a trestle (fixed) (commenced 

(Gold Coast Seaway) 1986) [58,59,60,137,140,173, 175,176,180,191,206, 

216,256,257]. 

30. New Pass, Florida USA Maintenance dredging of ocean shoal [41]. 

31. New River Inlet, USA Sidecasting dredge with split hull barge for deposition 

North Carolina within 2m depth (experiment, 1976) [199,200]. 

32. Oceanside Harbour, USA Jet pumps and fluidisers (experimental fixed system, 

California 1989 to 1996) [11,14,18,21,80,152,153,166,226,228, 

246]. 

33. Oregon Inlet, North USA Cutter-suction pipeline dredge operating in openings 

Carolina in proposed entrance walls (in consideration, 1985) 

[53,116,117]. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • /SSN 1037-4701 • 20 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 192 Appendix A., Section 16 
808

Plant location Country Type of bypassing system [and reference] 

34. Paradip, Orissa (Bay India Moveable plant on trestle with additional maintenance 

of Bengal) dredging [41]. 

35. Perdido Pass, USA Weir training wall and trap with conventional dredging 

Alabama (construction commenced in 1968) [207]. 

36. Playa de Castilla Spain Trailing suction hopper dredge dredging shoals 

beach (Huelva Spain) trapped by updrift dike, and pumping via 2 km long 

steel submeroed pipeline to downdrift beaches [861. 

37. Point Roberts USA/ Small-scale land based equipment bypassing beach 

Marina, Strait of Canada sand by truck (mobile) [132,133]. 

Georgia (northern border 

Puget Sound), 

Washington 

38. Ponce de Leon Inlet, USA Weir training wall and trap with conventional dredging 

Florida [201]. 

39. Port Everglades, USA Nourishment from offshore borrow site, and 

Florida maintenance dredging [41]. 

40. Portland, Victoria Australia Sand shifter system operated from breakwater or from 

barge [129]. 

41. Prince Edward Island Canada Trailer-mounted jet pump and telescoping hydraulic 

crane (mobile, commenced 1982) [191]. 

42. Richards Bay South Maintenance dredging of trap [129]. 

Africa 

43. Rudee Inlet, Virginia USA Weir training wall and trap with conventional dredging 

Beach, Virginia (1968-1972). Two jet pumps on flexible hose (semimobile) installed in 1972 at trap, supplemented by 

maintenance dredging [188]. 

44. Santa Barbara, USA Maintenance dredging of harbour [211,226,248]. 

California 

45. Santa Cruz, USA Annual maintenance dredging of entrance channel 

California (commenced 1965 with floating pipeline dredge) 

[126,188]. 

46. Sebastian Inlet, USA Maintenance dredging of channel sand trap with 

Florida periodic transfer to downdrift beaches (commenced in 

1989) [229]. 

47. Shinnecock Inlet, USA Design/construct of inlet including bypass system in 

New York process as of 1992 [156]. 

48. South Lake Worth USA Fixed hydraulic suction dredge with a rotating boom 

inlet, Palm Beach (fixed) [8,51,158,191,260]. 

County, Florida 

49. St. Lucie, Florida USA Weir training wall and trap with conventional dredging 

(proposed as of 1987) [41]. 

50. Torsminde Denmark Maintenance dredging of entrance, as well as 

nourishment from offshore borrow site [115]. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 21 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 193 Appendix A .. Section 16 
809

Plant location Countrv Tvoe of bvoassina svstem rand reference] 

51. Twin Lakes Harbour, USA Fixed plant (commenced 1972) [41]. 

Santa Cruz, 

California 

52. Ventura, California USA Detached breakwater (constructed 1972) and sand 

trap with annual dredging (bypassing and some 

backpassing) [226]. 

53. Visakhapatnam (Bay India Detached breakwater trap and transfer by pipeline 

of Bengal) across entrance to harbour [41,79,185]. 

Figure A1: Locality of world-wide sand bypassing systems. 

,,..,,, 

INSET B: Florida, USA 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :\fay Inlet 

NOTE: 

1. Locations of sand bypassing systems are indicative only. 

2. For system description refer to corresponding number in Appendix A 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 22 

194 Appendix A., Section 16 
810

Appendix B 

Data sheet: Nerang River Sand Bypassing System, Queensland, Australia. 

Location: 

Problem: 

Wave climate: 

Inlet characteristics: 

Inlet usage: 

Sediment 

characteristics: 

Drift rate: 

Beach erosion rate: 

Type of bypass: 

Hereford Inkt to Cape May Inlet 

The Nerang River flows to the sea through a broad shallow tidal estuary 

called the Broadwater, meeting the Pacific Ocean between the southern 

end of South Stradbroke Island and the Southport Spit The entrance is 

located at the northern end of the City of Gold Coast, south-east 

Queensland, Australia. 

The progressive movement of the entrance northwards at a rate of 20 - 40 

m per year has involved accretion of the Southport Spit and erosion of the 

southern tip of South Stradbroke Island. Hazardous navigation through the 

changing entrance shoals, and the possible threat of breakthrough at the 

South Stradbroke Island township of Currigee in the future, lead the 

Queensland Government to train and stabilise the river mouth between 

September 1984 to May 1986. The construction included revetments and 

breakwaters, opening of a new entrance and closure of the old entrance, 

creation of Wavebreak Island and Broadwater channels, and installation of 

a fixed bypass system. 

Based on recorded wave data offshore from Southport in approx. 40 m 

depth for 1987 - 1994: 

modal Hs(50%) = -1 m 

Hmax = 9.98 m during Tropical Cyclone Roger 

The majority of the waves range in height of Hs = 0.25 - 3.0 m (99 %) with 

65 % of the data occurring within Hs = 0.5 - 1.25 m. The wave period 

(spectral peak) ranges typically between 3 and 15 s (99 %) with 65 % of the 

data within Tp = 7 - 11 s. 

The wave climate is influenced by the predominant south-easterly swells 

with intense storms associated with low pressure systems and tropical 

cyclones approaching from the north. 

Nerang River: catchment= 480 km2

; semidiurnal mean spring tide range= 

1.3 m extending to a limit of 21 km upstream from the mouth. 

Recreational boating, fishing, and commercial vessels (for recreational 

hire). 

D50 = 0.27 mm for the intertidal sands on adjacent beaches (ranges from 

0.2 to 0.3 mm along the profile). 

Net northerly transport= 500,000 m3

/yr (-654,000 cy/yr) (Beach Protection 

Authority, 1981 ). 

Gross transport= 655,000 m3/yr (-857,000 cy/yr). 

Northerly transport= 575,000 m3

/yr (-752,000 cy/yr). 

Southerly transport= 80,000 m3

/yr (-105,000 cy/yr). 

The bypass system was constructed in conjunction with the training of the 

entrance and so there was no erosion as a result of the entrance. Before 

training of the inlet, there was a progressive movement of the entrance 

northwards at a rate of 20 - 40 m per year. 

Ten jet pumps along a trestle (fixed). 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 23 

195 Appendix A., Section 16 
811

Bypass system 

components: 

Outlet type: 

Bypass rate: 

Degree of bypassing: 

(e.g. all, 50%, etc.) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Clear water intake from Broadwater through a 4 ft (-1.2 m) dia. concrete 

pipe; low pressure pump station with two 150 kW (200 hp) turbines (total 

780 lps, 10,300 gpm); 24 inch (600 mm) dia. AC pipeline 2,300 ft (-700 m) 

long to the control building; high pressure jet water supply pumps housed in 

control station consisting of two 560 kW (750 hp) Centrifugal pumps (total 

770 lps, 10,200 gpm); 14 inch (450 mm) coal tar epoxy lined water supply 

pipeline; 6 inch (150 mm) feed pipelines to jet pumps; ten 3.5 inch (90 mm) 

Genflo sand bug jet pumps with rate of 135 cy/hr (-100 m3

/hr) spaced 30 m 

apart along a 490 m long trestle; an elevated 23 inch (600 mm) dia. slurry 

pipe flume (1,214 ft or approx. 370 m long), on a 2.5 % slope to gravity feed 

into a density adjusting slurry pit which is a conical 189 cy (145 m3

) hopper; 

discharge pump housed in control station consisting of a 71 O kW (950 hp) 

Centrifugal pump (total 489 lps, 6,500 gpm). 

The jet pumps are lowered up to 11 m below mean sea level and create a 

trap of length 270 m. The trestle consists of a timber deck supported on 

steel piles. The jet pumps run on rails attached to the steel support piles to 

allow for installation and removal for maintenance work. 

The operations are controlled by an automatic programmable logic 

controller. A nuclear density meter and electromagnetic flow meter are 

installed in the discharge line for the control of the flow rate and slurry solids 

concentration by the automatic system, and for operation monitoring 

records. 

The system is powered by an 11 kV underground cable. 

406 mm (16 inch) dia. polyurethane lined steel pipe discharging at 

approximately the high water level, approx. 400 m north of the northern 

breakwater. Three outlet locations were considered in the design of the 

system, the further most discharge point being approx. 1,710 ft (-520 m) 

north of the northern training wall. The discharge pipe passes through steel 

sleeve tubes in the rock training walls for protection, and passes beneath 

the channel with pile supports. 

Design Parameters: 

Average rate= 500,000 m3

/yr; peak annual rate= 750,000 m3

; nominal 

transport capacity= 300 m3/hr; maximum 5 day transport= 100,000 m3; 

maximum monthly transport= 200,000 m3

; maximum sand trap capacity= 

40,000 m3

. 

The system was designed for the operation of 4 to 7 jet pumps with nominal 

capacities of 335 to 580 m3

/hr and an operating performance of 3.15 

kWh/m3

. Operational experience has indicated the use of 3 to 5 jet pumps 

to be more effective. 

Designed for 100 % bypassing, however an unknown quantity of sand 

bypasses the trestle. No dredging of the entrance channel has been 

required. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 24 

196 Appendix A. Section 16 
812

Costs: 

Funding: 

Contract type: 

Owner: 

Operator: 

Supervisor of 

operations: 

Staffing: 

Operating cycle: 

Environmental 

constraints: 

Environmental 

management issues: 

Construction of bypass system and ancillary works (Jan 1985 - June 1986): 

$8,134,000 (AUD). 

Operating expenses since commencement of bypassing: (July to June) 

ITEM 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 

Electricity 183,400 152,100 167,600 140,200 241,000 

Salaries and Wages 90,700 93,400 95,000 102,800 95,700 

Repair and Maintenance 111,900 100,100 184,000 318,800 266,200 

TOTAL($) 386,000 345,600 446,600 516,800 602,900 

ITEM 

Electricity 

Salaries and Wages 

Repair and Maintenance 

TOTAL($) 

State Government. 

94/95 

221,847 

104,054 

360,544 

686,445 

95/96 96/97 

154,421 163920 

119,573 112,204 

397,438 459,165 

671,432 735,289 

Contract to design and construct. Operations and maintenance conducted 

by owner. A contract was let for the management of the structure as a 

fishing platform by the general public. In 1992, a painting contract was let 

for the complete painting requirements for the offshore structure. 

State Government, Queensland Department of Transport. 

State Government, Queensland Department of Transport. 

State Government, Queensland Department of Transport, Marine Services 

Section. 

Total of 3 people: an operator, assistant operator, and labourer working a 

normal daytime shift. 

The system runs automatically overnight, and sometimes weekends, to take 

advantage of cheaper electricity rates. The operator selects the appropriate 

jet pumps (depending on sand supply in each crater and the presence of 

debris) and commences pumping in the afternoon to run through the night. 

The system automatically performs an initial warm up and flushing of the 

lines, before the valves to the jet pumps are opened and bypassing 

commences. 

No known constraints. Bypassing takes place at night and the discharge 

point is on an undeveloped part of an island, therefore having no direct 

effect on beach users. 

A monitoring programme is undertaken to examine the performance and 

impacts of the entire project. This includes undertaking hydrographic 

surveys, aerial photography, sand bypassing records, visual observation of 

beach and surf zone conditions, wave recording, and the recording of water 

levels in the Nerang River and the Broadwater. 

Commencement date of May, 1986. 

bypassing: 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 25 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May In let !97 Appendix A .. Section 16 
813

Performance: 

(include any leakage to 

inlet, formation of 

entrance bar, etc.) 

Present plant status: 

(as of 1996) 

References: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

ITEM 

m3 Pumped 

kWh rs 

kWhr/m3 

Hrs Op 

m3

/hr 

$/m3 

ITEM 

m3 Pumped 

kWh rs 

kWhr/m3 

Hrs Op 

m3/hr 

$/m3 

Summary of Sand Bypassing Statistics (July to June) 

89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 

378,756 440,287 376,841 286,974 569,013 

2,077,111 2,101,010 1,859,789 1,608,946 2,434,098 

5.48 4.77 4.93 5.61 4.28 

1839 1568 1433 1210 1642 

206 281 263 237 347 

1.02 0.78 1.18 1.95 1.06 

Summary of Sand Bypassing Statistics (Continued) 

94/95 95/96 96/97 

570,293 408,917 563,831 

2,250,130 1,566,335 2,146,236 

3.95 3.83 3.81 

1518 1117 1539 

376 366 366 

1.20 1.64 1.30 

For the financial years (July to June) up to 1989/90, the system had 

delivered 138,236 m3 (85/86), 544,002 m3 (86/87), 464,435 m3 (87/88), and 

392,821 m3 (88/89J, For the 1997/98 financial year the system pumped a 

total of 587,869 m . The system operates with 3 to 5 jet pumps achieving 

capacities in the range of 330 to 540 m3

/hr depending on factors such as 

weather, blockages, density of sand and slurry, and sand supply to the 

traps. As of September 1998, a bypassing rate of approx. 420 m3

/hr has 

been able to be maintained owing to continual improvements to the 

efficiency of the system. 

The system was originally designed to create a long continuous sand trap of 

270m length under the trestle. However, in practice, individual steep slope 

craters (typically 1 :1 to 1 :1.5) have formed around each jet pump. 

There has been an unknown quantity of sand bypassing the trestle and 

building a bar formation, but no maintenance dredging of the channel 

between or seaward of the walls has been required. There has been some 

build-up of sand requiring dredging at the Broadwater end of the entrance. 

There has been some significant scouring of the channel from strong ebb 

currents which has exposed the discharge pipe. The pipe has subsequently 

been supported by piles. The ebb tidal bar is forming further offshore then 

prior to the works but is not a problem for navigation. Some occasional 

growth of the sand spit around the southern training wall and into the 

entrance occurs and there is a progressive sand build-up in the nearshore 

areas to the north of the entrance. 

The jet pumps are subject to clogging from debris especially during and 

after storm events. This has resulted in the plant not being operational 

during storms as originally envisaged. Key components of the jet pumps 

have undergone severe wear and have been through a series of 

improvements to reduce the problem. Difficulties are also encountered in 

retrieving the jet pumps for maintenance works owing to the limited working 

area for the crane. 

Successful. Still in operation. 

Beach Protection Authority, 1986. Nerang River Entrance Stabilisation, 

Brochure. 

Beach Protection Authority, 1981. Gold Coast Longshore Transport, 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 26 

198 Appendix A. Section 16 
814

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay hilet 

Queensland Dept. of Environment and Heritage, November. 

Beach Protection Authority, 1994. Wave Data Recording Program, Gold 

Coast, 1987-1994, Conservation data report No.W14. 1, Queensland Dept. of 

Environment and Herttage, August, 24p. 

Clausner, J.E., 1988. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing at the Nerang River 

Entrance, Queensland, Australia, Beach Preservation Technology 88 

Problems and Advancements in Beach Nourishment, Gainesville, Florida, 

March 23-25, pp345-355. 

Clausner, J.E., 1989. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing Case Study I: Nerang 

River Entrance, Australia, Coastal Engineertng Technical Note CETN II 

17, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. 

Clausner, J.E., 1989. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing, Nerang River Entrance, 

Australia, Dredging Research Program Technical Note DRP-3-01, U.S. 

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Clausner, J.E., Patterson, DR, Rambo, G., 1990. Fixed Sand Bypassing 

Plants An Update, Beach Preservation Technology 90, St Petersburg, 

Florida, Feb 14-16. 

Coughlan P.M., Robinson DA, 1990. The Gold Coast Seaway 

Queensland, Australia, Shore and Beach, Vol. 58(1), January, pp8-16. 

Coughlan P.M., Robinson DA, 1991. The story of the Gold Coast Seaway, 

Mayday, Vol. 15(2), September October. 

Coughlan, P.M., Robinson, DA, 1988. Gold Coast Seaway- Its Impact on 

the Adjacent Coast, Proceedings of Second Australasian Port, Harbour and 

Offshore Engineering Conference, Institute of Engineers Australia, 

Brisbane, 25-27 October. 

Cowper, N., Cowper, N. Jr, 1990. The Submarine Sand Shifter - A Unique 

Development to Economically Maintain Navigable Entrances, Ports and 

Harbours Conference, Institution of Engineers Australia, Melbourne, 28-30 

August, pp110-115. 

Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, 1976. Nerang River Entrance Stabilisation: 

Report on Model Investigation, M1259, Delft, The Netherlands, September. 

Driver, J., 1990. Tidal Height Monitoring Nerang River Entrance 

Stabilisation, 7th Australian Hydrographic Workshop, October. 

Gold Coast Waterways Authority, The Gold Coast Seaway, Brochure. 

Grad, P., 1986. Jet Pumps Keep Passage Clear of Tidal Sands, Engineers 

Australia, Vol. 58(17), September, p46. 

Lucas, G.P., Miller, C.W., 1986. Nerang River Entrance: Relocation and 

Training Works, Local Government Engineers' Association of Queensland 

Journal, Vol 4(1), pp43-47. 

Macdonald, HV, 1987. The Nerang River Entrance Stabilisation and 

Relationship to Marine Development, First International Marina Conference, 

Brisbane, 15-19 February. 

Miller, C.W., Lucas G.P., 1987. Construction of Gold Coast Seaway, 

Southern Engineering Conference Living with Water, Institution of 

Engineers Australia, Surfers Paradise, 7-8 August. 

Munday, D.P., 1995. Coastal Response to the Nerang River Inlet 

Stabilisation, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, Bachelor of Applied 

Science (Geology) honours thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 

Brisbane, Australia. 

Nightingale, G.S., 1987. The Gold Coast Seaway, Association of Australian 

Port and Marine Authorities 12th Hydrographic Surveyors Meeting, 19 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 27 

199 Appendix A., Section 16 
815

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

August. 

Pattearson, C.C., Groves, L., 1981. Wave Penetration and Rubble Mound 

Breakwater Stability Model Studies for Tidal Inlet Training Works, 

Proceedings of Fifth Australian Conference on Coastal and Ocean 

Engineering, Institution of Engineers Australia, Perth, 25-27 November, 

pp59-63. 

Polglase, R.H., 1987. The Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System, 

Proceedings of Eighth Australasian Conference on Coastal and Ocean 

Engineering, Institution of Engineers Australia, Launceston, 1-4 December, 

pp196-200. 

Pound, M.D., Witt, R.W., 1987. Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing 

System, Sou/hem Engineering Conference Living with Water, Institution of 

Engineers Australia, Surfers Paradise, 7-8 August. 

Pound, M.D., Witt, R.W., 1987. Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing 

System, Proceedings of Eighth Australasian Conference on Coastal and 

Ocean Engineering, Institution of Engineers Australia, Launceston, 1-4 

December, pp222-226. 

Queensland Department of Harbours and Marine, 1974. Report by the 

Working Committee on Long Term Planning of the Area Between Jumpinpin 

Bar and the Nerang River Bridge, Queensland, Australia. 

Queensland Department of Harbours and Marine, 1987. Water Level 

Monitoring Report: The Broadwater/Nerang River. Tide Section, 

Queensland, Australia, August. 

Queensland Department of Harbours and Marine, 1988. Water Level 

Monitoring Report: Supplement to the Broadwater/Nerang River. Tide 

Section, Queensland, Australia, December. 

Queensland Government Hydraulics Laboratory, 1980. Nerang River 

Entrance Breakwater Stability Model, Report MB, Brisbane, Australia, 

March. 

Queensland Government Hydraulics Laboratory, 1980. Nerang River 

Entrance Wave Penetration Model, Report M9, Brisbane, Australia, March. 

Queensland Transport, 1994. Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing 

System Workshop, Discussion Paper, Marine Business Centre, 1 August. 

Queensland Transport, Safer Access to the Ocean: The Gold Coast 

Seaway, The Nerang River Mouth Stabilisation and Sand Bypass System -

Innovative and Unique, Brochure. 

Slurry Systems Ply Ltd., 1986. Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing 

System : Technical Summary, prepared for Gold Coast Waterways 

Authority, 6p. 

Wakefield, A.W., 1986. Challenging the dredging concept?, Port 

Development lntemational, December, pp47-51 

Wakefield, A.W., 1986. The Handling of Sand Deposits and Littoral Drift by 

Submerged Jet Pumps with Reference to the Nerang River Project, 

Hydrotransport 10, Proceedings of 10th International Conference on the 

Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes, Innsbruck, Austria, Oct 29-31, 

pp123-141. 

Witt, C.L, 1987. Gold Coast Seaway: An Overview of the Project's Design 

and Construction and Its Subsequent Performance, Proceedings of 20th 

Queensland Harbour Boards Association Engineers' Conference, 

Gladstone, 5-6 October. 

Witt, C.L, Hill, P.C., 1987. Gold Coast Seaway: An Overview of the 

Project's Design and Construction and Its Subsequent Performance, 

Proceedings of Eighth Australian Conference on Coastal and Ocean 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • /SSN 1037-4701 • 28 

200 .A • .ppi;:ndix A,. Se-ction 16 
816

Engineering, Institution of Engineers Australia, Launceston, 1-4 December. 

Witt, R., 1993. The Nerang Experience with Sand Bypassing, BRUUN 

Workshop on Beach Nourishment and Sand Bypassing, University of 

Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 28-29 January. 

Witt, W.H., 1986. Nerang River Entrance: Sand Bypassing System, Local 

Government Engineers' Association of Queensland Journal, Vol. 4(1), 

pp48-51 

Figure B1: Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan (Munday, 1995). 

QLO 

_., 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Byron Bay 

1<m 

Soutl"I Stradbroka !stand 

cu,rigee 

Surfers Paradsa 

50 

Th• 

-::::.fl isian<llJ 

'/ Seaway Tr 

Seaworkl 

\ Dept. Transport 

Th• 

Sl)it 

SOU"ll-t?ORT 

2l!OO'OOO 

0 2 

km 

Main BMi:h 

Broadbeac:h 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Repoti • August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 29 

201 A.ppendix A .. Section 16 
817

Figure B2: Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System, System layout (Witt and Hill, 1987). 

SOUTH 

PAC1FIC 

OCEAN 

/// 

/ / 

/ 

BASIN 

--;;;/ _..,,. _..,,.--..... __ __ _..,,.~;;~;::.._..,,. -- --- _,.,..---"'°~~_..,,. 

_..- _,.,.. ..---=-~----- Entram::e location prior _,.,.. _,....... to wall construction. 

---

SOUTH CHANNEL 

THE BROADWATER 

Figure B3: Schematic of Nerang River Entrance Sand Bypassing System (Witt and Hill, 1987). 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 30 

Hereford Inlet to Cape [I.fay Inlet 202 Appendix A.. Section lG 
818

Appendix C 

Data sheet: Boca Raton Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Florida, U.S.A. 

Location: 

Problem: 

Wave climate: 

Inlet characteristics: 

Inlet usage: 

Sediment 

characteristics: 

Drift rate: 

Beach erosion rate: 

Type of bypass: 

Bypass system 

components: 

Outlet type: 

Bypass rate: 

Degree of bypassing: 

(e.g. all, 50%, etc.) 

Costs: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 

Boca Raton Inlet is a natural entrance connecting Lake Boca Raton to the 

Atlantic Ocean. The inlet is situated within the City of Boca Raton in the 

south-eastern region of Palm Beach County, Florida, USA, between South 

Lake Worth Inlet (23 km to the south) and Hillsboro Inlet (9 km to the north). 

Erosion of the southern beaches and the creation of an ebb shoal at the 

entrance becoming a hazard to navigation. 

No published information available for this site, however refer to the Data 

Sheet for South Lake Worth Inlet (Appendix H) which is 23 km to the north 

of this site, for some general idea of conditions. 

Tide range= approx. 2.5 ft (-0.75 m). 

Small craft from southern Palm Beach and northern Broward counties. 

Not known. 

Net southerly drift= 93,000 m3

/yr (-122,000 cy/yr). 

Transport is to the north for nine months and to the south for three months 

of the year during winter. 

1975 1979: following extension of the training walls, the beach 

immediately south of the inlet receded by 187 ft (-57 m). 

August 1985 - August 1995: following the 1985 nourishment which widened 

the southern beach (3,400 ft or 1036 m length) on average 75 ft (-23 m), 

the same beach had receded approx. 138 ft (-42 m) by August 1995. 

(Coastal Planning & Engineering, 1996) 

Weir training wall and channel trap with conventional dredging (mobile). 

1972: 335 hp, 8 inch (-200 mm) hydraulic pipeline dredge and small 

tugboat. 

1975: northern training wall extended seawards 180 ft (-55 m). 

1980: construction of a 65 ft (-20 m) long weir section in the northern 

training wall at 180 ft (-55 m) in from the seaward end of the wall; added a 

second engine to the tug; modifications to the dredge and spoil pipelines to 

facilitate the dredging of the inshore portions of the ebb tidal shoal. 

1985: South Boca Raton Ebb Shoal Dredging/Feeder Beach Project placed 

221,000 cy (-169,000 m3

) of sand from the ebb tidal shoal to a 3,400 ft 

(-1,036 m) length of beach south of the inlet. 

1996: A second replenishment project is planned. The Boca Raton Inlet 

Ebb Tidal Shoal Sand Transfer Project provides for the dredging of another 

252,000 cy (-193,000 m') of sand from the ebb tidal shoal to be placed on 

a 3,960 ft (-1.2 km) length of beach south of the inlet. 

Pipe discharge from dredge directly on to southern beach via approx. 200 

mm PVC pipe. 

Average bypass rate = 32,000 m3

/yr (-41,850 cy/yr). 

34 % artificial bypassing; 47 % natural (Dombrowski and Mehta, 1990). 

1972: purchase cost= $140,000 (US) for dredge and tugboat (Coastal 

Planning & Engineering, 1996). 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Reporl • August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 31 

203 Appendix A., Section 16 
819

Funding: 

Contract type: 

Owner: 

Operator: 

Supervisor of 

operations: 

Staffing: 

Operating cycle: 

Environmental 

constraints: 

Environmental 

management issues: 

Commencement date of 

bypassing: 

Performance: 

(include any leakage to 

inlet, formation of 

entrance bar, etc.) 

Present plant status: 

(as of 1996) 

References: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

1972: City of Boca Raton 

All inlet/beach maintenance projects and monitoring activities are funded 

jointly by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (75 %) and 

the City of Boca Raton (25 %) (Coastal Planning & Engineering, 1996). 

Operated by the City of Boca Raton. 

Prior 1972: private ownership. 

After 1972: City of Boca Raton. 

City of Boca Raton. 

Experienced dredge master, employed by the City of Boca Raton. 

3 people. 

The dredge is not certified for ocean operations and so cannot proceed past 

the end of the walls. Works within the entrance proceed with, and are 

governed by, the sand, wave, and current conditions. Operates during 

winter and intermittently during summer. 

Not known. 

Narrow inlet with heavy usage by recreational vessels. Heavy beach usage. 

Dredge and tug commenced in 1972. 

The plant only bypasses 34 % of the southerly drift with 47 % naturally 

bypassing around the ebb tidal shoal. A further 18 % is retained by the 

northern training wall, and 1 % is deposited on the flood shoal. Strong 

currents exist within the narrow inlet and a bar offshore from the entrance 

requires dredging by other equipment occasionally. 

The amount of artificial bypassing did not stop erosion of the southern 

beach, while the natural bypassing had made navigation of the ebb shoal 

hazardous. The beach nourishment project of 1985 using sand from the 

ebb shoal, provided on average 30 % (28,000 m3

/yr based on a 6 year 

return period for nourishment works) of the annual littoral drift to the 

southern beach, resulting in a total of 111 % (103,000 m3

/yr) of the net 

southerly drift being bypassed both artificially and naturally. 

(Dombrowski and Mehta, 1993) 

Still in operation. 

Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 1996. The Boca Raton Inlet Ebb 

Tidal Shoal Sand Transfer Project and Ongoing Interior Sand Transfer 

Program, Brochure, 25th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, 

Orlando, Florida, USA. 

Dombrowski, M.R., Mehta, A.J., 1993. Inlets and Management Practices: 

Southeast Coast of Florida, Journal Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 

18, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, pp29-57. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 32 

204 Appendix A., Section 16 
820

Figure C1: Boca Raton Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan (Coastal Planning and Engineering, 

1996) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape P.fay Inlet 

BOCA RATON 

IMLET MAMAGEMEMT PLAN 

IMPLEMENT A TIOM PROJECT 

PALM BEACH COUNTY, fLORIDA 

-- CVLF OF J.JC.<ICO 

ATvwnc 

OCE:,W 

1996 

60C< R.HON INLEi 

sour~ PROJECT l,MJl 

I. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • /SSN 1037-4701 • 33 

205 Appendix i-\.., Section 16 
821

Figure C2: Boca Raton Inlet Sand Bypassing System (Dombrowski and Mehta, 1993) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

u 

(100%) 

0 

Splllway Ba1ln 

Weir Jany 

N 

1 

150 300m 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Reporf • August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 34 

206 Appendix A .... Section 16 
822

Appendix D 

Data sheet: Channel Islands Harbour Sand Bypassing System, California, U.S.A. 

Location: 

Problem: 

Wave climate: 

Inlet characteristics: 

Inlet usage: 

Sediment 

characteristics: 

Drift rate: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

The artificial Channel Islands Harbour was constructed in 1960 and is 

situated 1.6 km to the north-west of Port Hueneme (pronounced "Why-neemee") in the City of Oxnard in Ventura County, California, USA. The 

harbour is approx. 60 miles (-96 km) Northwest of Los Angeles facing the 

Santa Barbara Channel. The area is the coastal edge of the Oxnard Plain, 

an abandoned flood plain of Santa Clara River which is bound by the 

Sulphur mountains to the south and the Santa Monica mountains to the 

north. The Ventura and Santa Clara Rivers are to the north. 

With the construction of the artificial Port Hueneme in 1938, the southerly 

drift was halted causing accretion behind the upcoast breakwater and 

severe erosion downcoast at Ormond Beach threatening Federal, industrial, 

and residential property. The sand which began to naturally bypass the 

harbour was lost from the littoral system to Hueneme submarine canyon. 

Channel Islands harbour was constructed to trap sand which was being 

diverted offshore into the Hueneme submarine canyon, and to supply sand 

by mechanical bypassing to Ormond Beach and other downdrift beaches. 

Both the sea and swell are predominantly from the west and north-west 

owing to restrictions caused by Point Conception and offshore islands. The 

breaking wave heights common to this shoreline range from 3 8 ft (-0.9 

2.4 m). Some local short duration winter storms and limited amount of 

summer swell from the South Pacific, produce short periods of northward 

transport. Wave periods of 14 s or greater often occur in this region 

(Herron and Harris, 1966). 

The significant wave conditions used as a basis for design of the offshore 

breakwater using hindcast data from 1936 - 1938 were : 

dir = 280° (WNW); T = 6 - 13 s; Hs = 9.4 - 15.7 ft (-2.8 - 4.8 m) at the 

structure. 

dir = 215° (SW); T = 7 s; Hs = 10.3 ft (-3.1 m) at the structure. 

dir = 175° (S); T = 7 s; Hs = 8.1 ft (-2.5 m) at the structure. 

(Herron and Harris, 1966) 

The man-made harbour has a width of approx. 500 ft (-150 m) and an 

entrance depth of 20 ft (-6 m) (MLLW). 

Channel Islands: small-craft (serves up to 1,100 small craft). The harbour 

is an access point for the islands offshore (i.e. Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa 

Rosa, and San Miguel Islands). 

(Port Hueneme: deep water US Navy and commercial facility.) 

The Oxnard Plain consists of alluvial deposits of sand, silt and clay. 

Net southerly drift= -1,000,000 m3

/yr (Walker, 1991) or 1,200,000 cy/yr 

(Herron, and Harris, 1966) 

Sources: Santa Clara River= 800, 000 cy/yr (-612,000 m3/yr); Ventura 

River= 100,000 cy/yr (-76,500 m3/yr); littoral drift= 270,000 cy/yr (-206,000 

m3/yr) (Herron, and Harris, 1966) 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 35 

207 Appendix A., Section 16 
823

Beach erosion rate: 

Type of bypass: 

Bypass system 

components: 

Outlet type: 

Bypass rate: 

Degree of bypassing: 

(e.g. all, 50%, etc.) 

Hereford Inlet to Cap~ May Inlet 

Between 1940 (completion of Port Hueneme) and 1961 (establishment of 

permanent bypass system) approx. 1,000 ft (-765 m) beach recession 

occurred in the vicinity of the City of Port Hueneme (south of the Port), 

tapering to no shoreline retreat approx. 7, 000 ft (-2.1 km) downcoast. 

During this period almost 4,000,000 cy (-3,058,000 m3) of sand was placed 

on this stretch of beach between 1940 and 1954. Approximately 500 acres 

of industrial, residential and agricultural land was lost of a total volume of 

21,000,000 cy (-16, 100,000 m3). 

(Herron, and Harris, 1966) 

Updrift offshore breakwater sheltered trap with conventional hydraulic 

pipeline dredging using floating plant moored in and near the entrance, 

behind the breakwater. 

1953 -1954: dredged 4,000,000 cy (-3,058,000 m3

) from the fillet upcoast 

of Port Hueneme Harbour northern breakwater, and pumped under the 

harbour to southern beach. Project cancelled after only 2,000,000 cy 

(-1,500,000 m3) was bypassed owing to difficulties in dredging in the surf. 

Dec 1958 - Oct 1960: construction of Channel Islands Harbour entrance 

training walls (finished Sep 1959), and the offshore breakwater (finished 

Oct 1960). The offshore breakwater is situated in 30 ft (-9 m) depth 

(MLLW) and is 2,300 ft (-700 m) long with the southern end in line with the 

southern training wall. 

Feb 1960 - Jun 1961: initial dredging of Channel Islands Harbour 

(3]08,500 cy or -2,835,400 m3

) and sand trap (2,627,000 cy or -2,000,000 

m·J was bypassed to Ormond Beach by pipeline beneath both Channel 

Islands and Port Hueneme Harbours. 

Jun 1963 - Sep 1963: first biennial dredging of the trap, bypassing 

1,986,000 cy (-1,520,000 m\ 

Apr 1965 - Se~ 1965: biennial dredging and bypassing of 3,527,000 cy 

(-2,697,000 m ). The larger quantity was dredged to increase the capacity 

of the trap owing to overfilling and leakage into the entrance since the first 

dredging project. 

Apr 1967 - Sep 1967: biennial dredging and bypassing of approx. 

3,000,000 cy (-2,300,000 m\ Again, the large quantity was to increase the 

trap capacity. 

It was intended that future biennial bypassing would be reduced to between 

2.0 and 2.5 million cy (-1,500,000 - 1,900,000 m\ 

(Herron, and Harris, 1966) 

Walker (1991) reports that the annual bypassing rate has been about 

1,000,000 m3 (-1,300,000 cy) with the majority of the sand going to Ormond 

Beach and a minor amount going to the beach between the two harbours 

and backpassed to the updrift beach. 

Pipeline underneath both the Channel Islands and Port Hueneme Harbours 

to discharge on Ormond Beach. 

Average bypass rate= 1,000,000 m3

/yr (-1,300,000 cy). Approximately 

14,500,000 m3 (-19,000,000 cy) was bypassed over the first 14 years of 

operation (Walker, 1991). 

The majority of the sand reaching the Channel Islands Harbour has been 

bypassed. Walker (1991) suggests that a annual loss of 600,000 m3 to the 

Mugu Canyon is occurring. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 36 

208 Appendix A., Section 16 
824

Costs: 

Funding: 

Contract type: 

Owner: 

Operator: 

Supervisor of 

operations: 

Staffing: 

Operating cycle: 

Environmental 

constraints: 

Environmental 

management issues: 

Commencement date of 

bypassing: 

Performance: 

(include any leakage to 

inlet, formation of 

entrance bar, etc.) 

Present plant status: 

(as of 1996) 

References: 

Hereford Inlet to Capi:: Lv1ay Inlet 

1953 -1954: $1,837,865 (US) for total 4,000,000 cy. 

Dec 1958- Oct 1960: $669,000 (US) for training wall construction; 

$3,351,000 (US) for offshore breakwater construction 

Feb 1960 - Jun 1961 :$1,250,000 (US) for bypassing from sand trap. 

Jun 1963 - Sep 1963: $951,000 (US) for bypassing. 

Apr 1965 - Sep 1965: $1,092,000 (US) for bypassing. 

Apr 1967 - Sep 1967: $500,000 (US) for bypassing. 

The estimated average annual cost of sand bypassing only, including 

depreciation and maintenance, was $0.38 (US) Icy. 

(Herron, and Harris, 1966) 

US Army Corps of Engineers. 

A contract is let for each biennial project. 

US Army Corps of Engineers. 

Contract dredger. 

US Army Corps of Engineers. 

Dredge crew. 

Biennial during summer months. 

Not known. 

Entrance is heavily used for navigation. Beaches are heavily used and 

backed by beachfront houses and apartments. 

February, 1960 with the initial dredging of the harbour and sand trap. 

The bypass system has performed well with all sand reaching the trap being 

bypassed (Herron and Harris, 1966). 

Still in operation. 

Herron, W.J., Harris, RL, 1966. Littoral Bypassing and Beach Restoration 

in the Vicinity of Port Hueneme California, Proceedings of Tenth 

Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, pp651-675. 

Walker, J.R., 1991. Downdrift Effects of Navigation Structures on the 

California Coast, Coastal Zone '91: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on 

Coastal and Ocean Management, Vol. 1, ASCE, Long Beach, California, 

USA, July 8-12, pp1889-1903. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 37 

209 Appendix A., Section 16 
825

Figure D1: Channel Islands Harbour Sand Bypassing System (Walker, 1991). 

VENTURA 

~ PIERPONT GROIN 

~ FlELO I 

BREAKWATERS 

~· 

CIW'tOC!l:Al£ 

'l......l. ... 

-0 

0 

,:, r~ 0 

('> 

VENTURA KEYS 

I 

VENTURA 

HARBOR 

CHANNEL ISLANDS 

HARBOR 

BEACH 

FLUCTUATIONS 

.. - CHANNEL ISLANDS 

HARBOR 

GILIPMC!l:Al£ 0 

0 21CL .,. - PORT HUENEME 

VENTURA COUNTY SHORELINE 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 38 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ii.fay Inlet 210 Appendix A. Section 16 
826

Appendix E 

Data sheet: Dawesville and Mandurah Inlets Sand Bypassing System, Western 

Australia. 

Location: 

Problem: 

Wave climate: 

Inlet characteristics: 

Inlet usage: 

Sediment 

characteristics: 

Drift rate: 

Beach erosion rate: 

Type of bypass: 

Bypass system 

components: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

The Dawesville and Mandurah inlets connect the Peel-Haivey inlet system 

to the Indian Ocean. Mandurah is approx. 65 km south of Perth, Western 

Australia. Dawesville is approximately 15 km south west of Mandurah. 

Severe algae pollution was caused by poor circulation and increased 

phosphate levels from agricultural land run-off exacerbated by the low 

ocean tide range and shoaling single entrance at Mandurah. The 

construction of the new Dawesville inlet was implemented to increase the 

flushing and salinity of the Peel-Haivey Inlet system. 

Predominantly south-westerly swell. 

a. Dawesville: Inlet width= 200 m; depth= 4.5 - 6.5 m below mean sea 

level at seaward end; water exchange I tidal cycle = 16.5 x 106 m3 

(summer) and 17.1 x 106 m3 (winter); diurnal tides. 

b. Mandurah: Inlet width= 90 m; depth limited by rock sill to 3 m below CD. 

Design navigation channel is 30 m wide by 2.5 m deep. 

a. Dawesville: fishing industry and recreational boating. 

b. Mandurah: fishing industry and recreational boating. 

Clean marine sand. 

a. Dawesville: net northerly rate= 85,000 m3/yr. 

b. Mandurah: The littoral drift is understood to vary between 100,000 and 

200,000 m3

/yr from west to east without significant reversals in direction. 

Most of the drift occurs in quantities of 10,000 to 30,000 m3 during the 

winter storm events. 

a. Dawesville: In 1992, 107,000 m3 of sand excavated from the channel was 

placed north of the channel. Between 1992 and 1993 there was a net loss 

of 90,000 m3

. Since 1993 the volume of sand north of the channel has 

fluctuated between 100,000 m3 and 150,000 m3 less than in 1992. 

b. Mandurah: 

Mobile land based system consisting of a crawler excavator feeding a 

crawler mounted screen and pump system called the "Slurrytrak" (system 

operates both Dawesville and Mandurah). 

1. Cat 245 Excavator with 3m3 bucket digging on beach and feeding 

"Slurrytrak" inlet hopper. 

2. "Slurrytrak" consists of inlet hopper with sieves, gravity feeding to a 

reciprocating tray feeder on to a inclined cleated conveyor with belt 

weighometer. Conveyor feeds to a linear motion scalping screen on top of 

agitation hopper which is fed with water (middle and lower). Centrifugal 

slurry pump fed from bottom of hopper pumps a slurry with approx. 45% 

sand content by weight through discharge pipe (MDPE and some flexible 

sections). System is self propelled with diesel motor. 

3. Clearwater supplied by separate pump via a 315 mm OD Class 12 

MDPE pipe from inlet. 

At the Mandurah Inlet, a 75 m groyne was constructed in 1986 - 87 approx. 

300 - 350 m west of the western entrance training wall to allow for the 

dredging of a large trap between the groyne and breakwater without 

affecting the public beach to the west of the groyne. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 39 

211 Appendix A .. Section 16 
827

Outlet type: 

Design bypass rate: 

Degree of bypassing: 

(e.g. all, 50%, etc) 

Costs: 

Funding: 

Contract type: 

Owner: 

Operator: 

Supervisor of 

operations: 

Staffing: 

Operating cycle: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

At the Dawesville Inlet, a spur groyne was constructed projecting updrift 

(approx. south) off the southern training wall to create a sand trap behind it. 

A 315 mm OD Class 12 MDPE discharge pipe to downdrift beaches for 

both inlets. 

a. Dawesville: channel crossing by 2 fixed pipes trenched in bottom; 0.5km 

to discharge. 

b. Mandurah: channel crossing by HDPE line weighted; 1 km to discharge. 

a. Dawesville: up to 85,000 m3 pa. 

b. Mandurah: up to 110,000 m pa. 

Desired to be 100%. At Mandurah a bar still exists seawards of the 

entrance and there is some channel infill during winter storm events. At 

Dawesville, the trap is not capturing 100% of the sand with accumulation 

offshore of the trap in depths of -5 m to -8 m CD (approx. 150,000 m'}. 

In general, bypass operation costs about $3/m3 and monitoring and 

management costs approx. $1/m3

. 

g,_ Dawesville: 

Bypassing costs (July to June): 

Year Volume (m3

) 

1995/96 22,000 

1996/97 39,000 

1997/98 85,000 

TOTAL 146,000 

AVERAGE 49,000 

IL Mandurah: 

Bypassing costs (July to June): 

Year Volume (m3

) 

1995/96 55,000 

1996/97 156,000 

1997/98 86,000 

TOTAL 296,000 

AVERAGE 99,000 

Cost($) 

68,000 

103,000 

280,000 

451,000 

150,000 

Cost($) 

179,000 

426,000 

262,000 

868,000 

289,000 

West Australian State Government Department of Transport. 

5 year design, construct and operate. Paid per cubic metre (weighed); plus 

payment per re-establishment; plus guarantee of minimum quantity for each 

establishment (15,000 m3 from Dawesville; 20,000 m3 from Mandurah). 

Contractor. 

Local contractor for 5 years. 

Department of Transport. 

2 full-time. 

Up to approx. 48 weeks/year (including maintenance periods) with plant 

alternating between Dawesville and Mandurah. System is envisaged to 

operate at each location 2 to 3 times per annum with re-establishments 

directed by supervisor. System has actually operated 1 to 2 times per year 

at each site. Minimum quantity for each session as to be 15,000 m3 

(Dawesville) and 20,000 m3 (Mandurah). Periods of higher sediment inflow 

at each site are generally not synchronous. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 40 

212 Appendix A .. Section 16 
828

Environmental 

constraints: 

Environmental 

management issues: 

Commencement date of 

bypassing: 

Performance: 

(include any leakage to 

inlet, formation of 

entrance bar, etc) 

Present plant status: 

(as of 1999) 

References: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Rock lobster fishing requirement demands a navigation depth of 2.5m LWD 

from 1 November; main sand infill occurs in winter. 

Not known. 

December 1995. 

2-' Dawesville: trap is not collecting design quantity and is not filling to 

expected volume; it is believed that there is leakage. Channel has 

remained relatively stable. Between 1994 and 1996 accretion occurred 

offshore from the sand trap in depths of-5 m to -8 m CD (approx. 150,000 

m\ reducing sand accumulation in the trap. Offshore bathymetry has 

since stabilised. 

~ Mandurah: bar decreasing in volume. The target depth of 2.5 m CD 

has not been achieved continuously, but access has been provided to most 

vessels most of the time. Problems stem from insufficient trap capacity 

during winter storm events. Sand trap has been extended. 

Still in operation. 

Black, R.E., Hearn, C.J., 1987. Management of a Eutrophic Estuary: 

Modelling the Effects of a New Outlet to the Sea, Proceedings of Eighth 

Australasian Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Institution of 

Engineers Australia, Launceston, 30 November - 4 December, pp284-287. 

Bruun, P., 1993. Final Report on possible Sand Bypassing Arrangements 

and other Improvements for Maritime Facilities in Western Australia. 

Byrne, A.P., Rogers, M.P., Byrne, G., 1987. Dawesville Channel, Western 

Australia - Coastal Process Studies, Proceedings of Eighth Australasian 

Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Institution of Engineers 

Australia, Launceston, 30 November - 4 December, pp303-306. 

Clough Engineering Group, 1989. Peel Inlet and Harvey Estuary 

Management Strategy: Dawesvil/e Channel Mechanical Sand Bypassing 

System, Preliminary Investigation, report, Perth, Australia. 

Clough Engineering Group, Slurry Systems, 1989. Peel Inlet and Harvey 

Estuary Management Strategy: Dawesvil/e Channel Mechanical Sand 

Bypassing System, Feasibility Study, report, Perth, Australia. 

Department of Marine and Harbours Western Australia, 1987. Peel Inlet 

and Harvey Estuary Management Strategy: Dawesville Channel 

Engineering Investigations, Report no. DMH 5/88, Perth, Australia. 

Department of Transport - Western Australia, 1994. Expressions of Interest 

for Design, Provision and Operation of a Mechanical Sand Bypass Dredging 

System at the Dawesville and Mandurah Channel Ocean Entrances, 

September. 

Department of Transport - Western Australia, 1998. Dawesvi//e Channel -

Hydrographic Monitoring 1998, Transport Report 394, November. 

Foster, D.N., Nittim, R., 1985. Sedimentation Aspects of the Proposed 

Harvey Estuary to Ocean Channel - Stage 1, University of New South 

Wales, Water Research Laboratory, Technical Report No. 85/01, Australia. 

Hutton, I.M., 1987. Dawesville Channel Ocean Entrance, Proceedings of 

Eighth Australasian Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineering, 

Institution of Engineers Australia, Launceston, 30 November 4 December, 

pp330-334. 

Moloney, B., Shand, S., Paul, M.J., 1999. Dawesville Channel and 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 41 

213 Appendix A., Section 16 
829

Mandurah Ocean Entrance Sand Bypassing and Monitoring, 14th 

Australasian Coastal and Ocean Engineering Conference and ih 

Australasian Port and Harbour Conference, Institution of Engineers 

Australia, Perth, 14 - 16 April, pp444-449. 

Riedel and Byrne, 1987. Dawesvil/e Channel: Coastal Engineering Studies, 

Report no. R149, Perth, Australia. 

Schwartz, R.A., 1986. Physical Modelling of/he Proposed Dawesvil/e 

Channel Ocean Entrance, Environmental Dynamics Working Paper WP-86-

031, University of Western Australia, Centre for Water Research, Ned lands, 

Western Australia. 

Winders, Barlow & Morrison, 1989. Dawesvil/e Channel Sand Bypassing 

Breakwater Option, Report no. 3989, Spring Hill, Victoria, Australia. 

Figure E1: Dawesvil/e and Mandurah Inlets Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan (Moloney et al, 1999). 

O 5000 10000m 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 42 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 214 Appendix A.. Section 16 
830

Figure E2: Layout of Dawesvil/e Sand Bypassing System (Moloney et al, 1999). 

10 Indian 

Ocean 

I 

(

10 Deposition 

Area 

~ ) 

ipur 

Figure E3: Layout of Mandurah Sand Bypassing System (Moloney et al, 1999). 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 43 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 215 Appendix A .. Section 16 
831

Figure E4: General arrangement of the Slurrytrak 300-65 HH used for sand bypassing at Dawesvil/e and 

Mandurah Inlets (Moloney et al, 1999). 

PR! MARY HOPPER 

F'~':lPHOCATHJ(. 

F-~, FEEDER 

Hereford Inlet to Cape P.fay Inlet 

SLURRY DISCHARGE OUTLET 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 44 

216 Appendix A.. Section 16 
832

Appendix F 

Data sheet: Indian River Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Delaware, U.S.A. 

Location: 

Problem: 

Wave climate: 

Inlet characteristics: 

Inlet usage: 

Sediment 

characteristics: 

Drift rate: 

Beach erosion rate: 

Type of bypass: 

Bypass system 

components: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !vlay Inlet 

Indian River Inlet, Delaware situated on the Atlantic coast approx. 10 miles 

(-16km) north of Ocean City, Maryland, USA, connects Indian River Bay 

and Rehoboth Bay to the Atlantic Ocean. 

Construction and training of the 500 ft (-150 m) wide inlet in 1938-1940 to 

stabilise the existing channel (which was prone to migrating within a 2 mile 

(-3.5 km) region, as well as closing occasionally) has resulted in the 

gradual erosion of the beach adjacent the northern training wall, threatening 

the Route 1 state highway which runs parallel to the coast line. 

Not known. Calculation of the annual longshore sediment transport rate 

was based on the use of Phase Ill WIS (Wave Information Study nearshore 

hindcast wave data) statistics utilising data from WIS Atlantic Coast Station 

65 (Gebert et al, 1992). 

Wall centre line to wall centre line spacing= 500 ft (-150 m); semidiurnal 

tide; mean tide range= -4 ft (-1.2 m); spring tide range= -5 ft (-1.5 m); 

design channel depth= 15 ft (-4.5 m) MLW; channel dredged to 14 ft (-4.2 

m) MLW in 1938 (Anders et al, 1990); existing channel depth= typ. 40 - 90 

ft (12 27 m) MLW. Channel currents in excess of9 ft/s (-2.7 m/s) 

(Anders et al, 1990). 

Indian River Bay and Rehoboth Bay: mean tide ranges= 2.1 ft (-0.64 m) 

and 1.0 ft (-0.3 m) respectively; combined surface area= 29 square miles 

(-75 km\ total tributary area = 250 square miles (-647 km2). 

(Gebert et al, 1992) 

Small commercial and recreational vessels (Gebert et al, 1992, p506). 

Medium sand (Gebert et al, 1992). Typical grain size of the order of 0.4 

mm (Anders et al, 1990). 

Net northerly drift of 110,000 cy/yr (-84,000 m3

/yr) based on WIS data, 

analysis of historic beach profile and hydrographic survey data, and beach 

erosion data (Clausner et al, 1992). 

From WIS study: 160,000 cy/yr (-122,000 m3

/yr); std dev. = 90,000 cy/yr 

(69,000 m3

/yr) 

(Gebert et al, 1992). 

In the region 200 ft (-60 m) to 1800 ft (-550 m) north of the training wall the 

shore position has receded 150 - 194 ft (-45 - 59 m) from November 1984 

to October 1989 (Gebert et al, 1992, table 1). 

Single jet pump mounted 135 ton capacity rated crawler crane with 120 ft 

(-37 m) boom (mobile system) operating from southern beach. 

Clear water 12 inch (-305 mm) HOPE SDR-9 (9.9 inch or-250 mm ID) 

supply line from inlet (approx. 20 m from pump house); water supply pump 

(8 cyl. motor, 400 hp) in pump house on southern side; Genflo eductor with 

2.5 inch (63 mm) nozzle and 6 inch (150 mm) mixing chamber with rate of 

200 cy/hr (-153 m3

/hr) positioned in swash zone using Crawler crane; 12 

inch (305 mm) HOPE SDR-13.5 (10.8 inch or -274 mm ID) discharge line; 

discharge booster pump (12 cyl. motor, 600 hp but running typ. at 400 hp) 

in pump house; HOPE pipe across Route 1 bridge extending up to a 

maximum distance of 1,500 ft (457 m) north of the inlet. 

The jet pump creates an 18 ft (-5.5 m) deep and 48 ft (-14.6 m) diameter 

crater. The crane can create a trench of three crater diameters length 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 45 

217 Appendix A., Section 16 
833

Outlet type: 

Bypass rate: 

Degree of bypassing: 

(e.g. all, 50%, etc.) 

Costs: 

Funding: 

Contract type: 

Owner: 

Operator: 

Supervisor of 

operations: 

Staffing: 

Operating cycle: 

Environmental 

constraints: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1-fay Infot 

before requiring repositioning. Collection occurs over a stretch of the 

southern beach from 100 - 400 ft (30 - 120 m) south of the inlet. 

12 inch (305 mm) HOPE SDR-13.5 (10.8 inch or -274 mm ID) pipe 

discharging directly onto the beach within 1,500 ft (457 m) north of the inlet. 

Design rate = 200 cy/hr (-153 m3!hr); 100,000 - 110,000 cy/yr (76,000 -

84,000 m3

/yr). Following experience and system operating enhancements, 

approx. 330 cy/hr (-250 m3

/hQ can be achieved. The suggested maximum 

capacity is 552 cy/hr (-422 m /hr). Pumping concentration of approx. 40% 

by weight. 

Suitable for sites where maximum bypass rate< 150,000 m3

/yr (Watson et 

al, 1993). 

Proposed to bypass all the northwards transport. However, the system is 

limited by the quantity of sand reaching the collection area. Strong flow 

conditions maintains (and are in fact scouring) the inlet depth. 

Final cost of plant construction: $1.7 million (US) 

Estimated operating and maintenance: $290,000 (US) (includes annualised 

replacement costs). The actual operating costs for 1990 to 1996 are given 

in Performance below. 

Shared between the State of Delaware and the Federal Government of 

USA. Federal Government contributes 40.755%. 

State performs work for Federal Government. 

State of Delaware. 

State of Delaware, which has a state dredging program. 

State of Delaware; oversight by US Army Corps of Engineers. 

Total of 3 people: a primary operator, operator's assistant, and crane 

operator. The staff are supervised by an experienced dredge master (off 

site) who covers several projects. 

5 day (7.5 hr day) week (37.5 hr week) with a 2 day weekend shutoff, 

operating 9 months per year. 

1 hr (min) to 7 hr (max.) operation per day. The system operates only 40 % 

of available days owing to limitations of the amount of littoral material 

transported and trapped within reach of the system (Watson et al, 1993). 

Social: the beach north and south of the inlet is a state park and used by 

tourists during the summer season. Bypassing is not allowed in summer 

between Memorial Day (late May) and Labour Day (early September). 

However, State park service have allowed bypassing during summer 

months within 100 - 200 ft (30 - 60 m) south of the training wall provided 

that the area is fenced off and marked with warning signs and buoys. 

Cold weather conditions and location mean that week day beach usage 

during the operational window in winter is low; but anglers use the training 

wall. Surfers also surf adjacent to both breakwaters during the operating 

season. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 46 

218 Appendix A .. Section 16 
834

Environmental 

management issues: 

Commencement date of 

bypassing: 

Performance: 

(include any leakage to 

inlet, formation of 

entrance bar, etc.) 

Present plant status: 

(as of 1996) 

References: 

Hereford Inlet to Capo;;": May Inlet 

The northern beach is a nesting spot for the piping plover, an endangered 

species of bird, during March through August. Guidelines follow that if a 

nest is sighted, the discharge operation will stay several hundred feet away, 

and walkovers will be built to allow young birds to cross the discharge pipe 

(Rambo et al, 1991). 

January, 1990. 

Summary of sand bypassing statistics (Watson et al, 1993) 

m3 bypassed 

[cy] 

No. Days Bypassing 

No. Mths Bypassing 

Avg Production (m3

/day) 

[cy/day] 

Avg Days/Month Bypassing 

1990 1991 1992 Total (90-92) 

86,000 63,000 51,700 200,700 

[112,700] [82,335] [67,670] [262,700] 

71 55 60 186 

11 9 9 29 

1,225 1,150 850 1075 

[1,600] [1,500] [1,100] [1,400] 

6.45 6.11 6.7 6.41 

Short term rate remains about 200 m3/hr. The higher bypassed amount for 

1990 was a result of the initial large volume of trapped sand, and bypassing 

during summer. As stated by Watson et al (1993), "apparently the system 

is only able to capture about 60 to 80% of the estimated net northerly drift, 

though the variable nature of littoral transport in this area makes this 

conclusion very preliminary". 

The rates and operating costs from Feb 1990 to May 1996 for each 

calendar year (Jan - Dec) as detailed in the additional data for operating 

expenses were: 

Year cy Pumped m3 Pumped cost/cy cost/m3 

1990 112,700 86,000 $1.00 $1.30 

1991 82,330 63,000 $1.70 $2.20 

1992 67,670 51,700 $1.85 $2.40 

1993 67,800 51,800 $2.50 $3.25 

1994 84,570 64,660 $1.65 $2.15 

1995 68,750 52,560 $2.30 $3.00 

1996 (partial) 31,550 24,100 $3.00 $3.90 

Still in operation. 

Anders, F.J., Lillycrop, W.J., Gebert, J., 1990. Effects of Natural and ManMade Changes at Indian River Inlet, Delaware, Proceedings of Third Annual 

National Beach Preservation Technology Conference, St. Petersburg, 

Florida, 14-16 Feb. 

Clausner, J.E., 1990. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing Plant, Indian River Inlet, 

Delaware, International Dredging Review, Vol. 9(2), February, pp10-11. 

Clausner, J.E., Gebert, J.A., Rambo, GA, and Watson, K.D., 1991. Sand 

Bypassing at Indian River Inlet, Delaware, Proceedings of Coastal 

Sediments '91 Conference, ASCE, New York. 

Clausner, J., Gebert, JA, Watson, K.D., and Rambo, GA, 1992. Sand 

Bypassing at Indian River Inlet, Delaware, The CERCular, Vol. CERC-92-1, 

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Clausner, J.E., Melson, K.R., Hughes, J.A., Rambo, A.T., 1990. Jet Pump 

Sand Bypassing at Indian River Inlet, Delaware, Proceedings of the 23rd 

Annual Dredging Seminar, Centre for Dredging Studies, Texas A & M 

University, College Station, Texas. 

Clausner, J.E., Patterson, D.R., Rambo, G., 1990. Fixed Sand Bypassing 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • /SSN 1037-4701 • 47 

219 Appendix A., Section 16 
835

Other data: 

Plants - An Update, Beach Preservation Technology 90, St Petersburg, 

Florida, Feb 14-16. 

Gebert, J.A., Watson, K.D., Rambo, A.T., 1992. 57 Years of Coastal 

Engineering Practice at a Problem Inlet: Indian River Inlet, Delaware, 

Coastal Engineering Practice '92, ASCE Speciality Conference, Long 

Beach, California, March 9-11, pp503-519. 

Rambo, G., Clausner, J.E., 1989. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing, Indian River 

Inlet, Delaware, Dredging Research Program Information Exchange Bulletin 

Vol. DRP-89-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Rambo, G., Clausner, J.E., 1989. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing, Indian River 

Inlet, Delaware, Dredging Research Program Technical Note, U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Rambo, G., Clausner, J.E., Henry, R.D., 1991. Sand Bypass Plant Indian 

River Inlet, Delaware, Proceedings of the 1991 National Beach Preservation 

Technology Conference, American Shore and Beach Preservation 

Association, Charleston, South Carolina. 

Watson, K.D., Clausner, J.E., Henry, R.D., 1993. Beach Response to Sand 

Bypassing at Indian River Inlet, Delaware, Hilton Head Island Symposium, 

Hilton Head, South Carolina, 6-9 June. 

Indian River Inlet Sand Bypass Plant operating expenses from February, 

1990 to May, 1996. 

Sand Bypass Plant capital replacement schedule for 1996. 

Sand Bypass Plant standard operating procedures. 

Figure F1: Indian River Inlet Sand Bypassing System (Rambo et al, 1991). 

1 WI\HR SUCTtONED FnDH· INLET 

2 w,TER ruHPED ro rnucron 

3 EDUCTOR EXCAVATES SANO 

OtSCIIAll6t 

6 

4 CRANE DEPLOYS EOUCTOR 

. 5 SLURRY RETURNS TO PUMP 

6 SLURRY PUMPED /\S FILL. 

INDIAN RIVER INLET, DEL. SAND BY- PASSING PLANT 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 48 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 220 Appendix A. Section 16 
836

Figure F2: Indian River Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan (Rambo et al, 1991). 

DELAWARE 

\ 

IND/AN 

RIYE;R 

INLIT 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 49 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1vlay Inlet 221 Appendix A .. Section 16 
837

Appendix G 

Data sheet: Oceanside Harbour Sand Bypassing System, California, U.S.A. 

Location: 

Problem: 

Wave climate: 

Inlet characteristics: 

Inlet usage: 

Sediment 

characteristics: 

Drift rate: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Oceanside Harbour is situated on the west coast of California, USA, approx. 

80 miles (-130 km) south-east of Los Angeles and 30 miles (-48 km) north 

of San Diego. The harbour is bordered by Santa Margarita River 6,600 ft 

(-2 km) to the north, and San Luis Rey River 2,400 ft (-730 m) to the south. 

The City of Oceanside is located to the south of the harbour, and the US 

Naval Base of Camp Pendelton is located immediately north of the harbour. 

The harbour services both the U.S. Navy Del Mar boat basin, constructed in 

1942, and the City of Oceanside Small-Craft Harbour, constructed in 1963 

(with sand dredged from the harbour used to nourish Oceanside Beach). 

The construction of the harbour complex has interrupted the littoral 

transport which has resulted in accretion along the northern breakwater, 

shoals developing in the entrance, and erosion to the beaches to the south 

(specifically Oceanside beach). The region is also affected by a large gross 

transport resulting in shoals entering the harbour from both the north and 

south. 

Camp Pendleton surf and weather station (depth= 32 ft or 9.75 m MLLW): 

highest measured Hs = 10.8 ft (-3.3 m) with T = 17.8 s 

Hs(50%) = 3.5 ft (-1.1 m); Hs(10%) = 5 ft (-1.5 m) based on 7 years of 

data. 

California coastal data collection program, near Oceanside Pier (depth= 32 

ft or 9.75 m MLLW): 

highest measured Hs = 8.3 ft (-2.5 m) with T = 14 to 16 s 

Hs(50%) = -2.0 ft (-0.6 m); Hs(10%) = -4.0 ft (-1.2 m) based on 3 years of 

data. 

Typically, the Oceanside wave climate consists of: 

Northern hemisphere swell: Hs,o < 1 Oft (-3 m); T = 12 - 18 s; Dir= 260° to 

270° (November to April). 

Southern hemisphere swell: Hs,o < 4 ft (-1.2 m); T = 18- 21 s; Dir= S to 

SE (May to October). 

Local sea: Hs = 2 - 5 ft (-0.6 -1.5 m); Tave= 7 s; Dir= predominantly NW 

(all year). 

Eastern North Pacific tropical cyclones approaching from the south to 

south-west (May to November) seldom produce large waves that reach the 

site. Largest waves at Oceanside occurred in 1939 producing a significant 

breaking wave height= 24 ft (-7.3 m) {> 100- 200 yr recurrence interval). 

(Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, 1983) 

Tide range: 5.6 ft (-1.7 m) from MHHW to MLLW, or 3.78 ft (-1.15 m) from 

MHW to MLW (Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, 1983). 

U.S. Navy and public small-craft. 

North fillet: D50 = 0.21 mm 

Entrance channel: D50 = 0.18 mm 

Net southerly drift= 100,000 -250,000 cy/yr (-75,000 -190,000 m3

/yr) 

Gross transport rate= 1,200,000 cy/yr (-917,000 m3

/yr) 

(Weisman, 1996) 

Based on predicted longshore transport rates by three different studies, 

Dolan et al (1987) presented the following averages: 

Gross northerly transport= 546,000 cy/yr (-417,000 m3

/yr) 

Gross southerly transport= 740,000 cy/yr (-565,000 m3

/yr) 

Net southerly transport= 194,000 cy/yr (-150,000 m3

/yr) 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 50 

222 Appendix A .. Se-ction 16 
838

Beach erosion rate: 

Type of bypass: 

Bypass system 

components: 

Outlet type: 

Bypass rate: 

Degree of bypassing: 

(e.g. all, 50%, etc.) 

Costs: 

Funding: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Camp Pendleton to the north of the harbour continues to accrete, while 

Oceanside to the south is eroding. 

Experimental system of jet pumps and fluidisers to be constructed in 

phases (fixed). Main system location in harbour entrance; secondary 

capture location at northern breakwater. 

Phase I: single jet pump (Pekor 6x6x8 inch or 150x150x200 mm, capacity 

of 330 cy/hr (-250 m3

/hr)) and crane at north breakwater for bypassing 

sand from the north fillet; two jet pumps (Pekor 4x4x6 inch or 1 OOx 1 OOx 150 

mm, capacity of 230 cy/hr (-175 m3

/hr)) in the entrance adjacent the south 

breakwater with deployment fluidisers attached to jet pump support beams; 

mobile hoist barge with pumps (supply pump of 750 hp and main booster 

pump of 1,050 hp) and controls moving between the north and south jetty 

riser structures; undersea pipelines to riser structures; cross harbour 

pipeline; shore booster station (pump of 1,050 hp) used during bypassing of 

north fillet; discharge line. The hoist barge was a contractor modification 

due to earthquake/stability concerns regarding jack-up (as designed). 

Phase II: Addition of 150 ft (-45 m) fluidiser oriented shoreward and 

parallel to the south breakwater at entrance to feed shoreward entrance jet 

pump, and 200 ft (-60 m) fluidiser oriented seaward and parallel to the 

south breakwater at entrance to feed seaward entrance jet pump. The 

fluidisers are supported on 25 30 ft (-7.6- 9.1 m) spaced steel 12 inch 

(-305 mm) dia. piles driven in 20 - 22 ft (-6.1 6.7 m). The fluidisers are 

SDR 11 HDPE pipes with 1/8 inch (-3 mm) holes every 2 inches (-50 mm) 

aligned horizontally, with flanged connections at 50 ft (-15 m) lengths. A 

valve was introduced into the system to supply firstly to the fluidisers, and 

then the jets (the supply pump could not support the operation of both the 

fluidisers and jets at the same time). To improve jet recovery problems, the 

jets were attached to a 63 ft long (-19 m) strongback (I section) pivoted at a 

support pile. A fluidiser was attached to this to ease deployment/recovery 

problems. Phase II contract included operation and maintenance. 

Phase Ill (cancelled): Addition of two 200 ft (-60 m) fluidisers to feed sand 

from the tip of the southern breakwater to both entrance jet pumps; 

lengthen existing shoreward fluidiser another 145 ft (-44 m); increase 

entrance jet pumps to 6x6x8 inch (150x150x200 mm); add separate pump 

to power fluidisers. 

(Weisman et al, 1996, and Clausner et al, 1990). 

14 inch (-355 mm) HOPE discharge pipe extending 11,000 ft (-3.3 km) to 

the south along the beach with 3 discharge points along the length. 

Ultimately, the system was expected to bypass 250,000 cy/yr (-190,000 

m3

/yr) at the entrance and 150,000 cy/yr (-115,000 m3/yr) from the north 

fillet (Clausner et al, 1990). 

Design rate= 200 cy/hr (-153 m3

/hr) (Weisman et al, 1996) 

Only in experimental stages, full bypassing not achieved. It was not 

designed to achieve full bypassing. 

Estimated first construction cost of $5,000,000 (US) with a planned project 

life of5 years. Actual costs= $15,000,000 (US) approx. 

Phase I: Federal Government of USA. 

Phase II: Federal Government of USA. 

Phase Ill: Federal with contributions from State and Local Governments. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 51 

223 Appendix A., Section 16 
839

Contract type: 

Owner: 

Operator: 

Supervisor of 

operations: 

Staffing: 

Operating cycle: 

Environmental 

constraints: 

Environmental 

management issues: 

Commencement date of 

bypassing: 

Performance: 

(include any leakage to 

inlet, formation of 

entrance bar, etc.) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Phase I: designed by consultant for the owner; fixed price construction 

contract. 

Phase II: contractor C & W Diver Services Inc. under contract with 

payments for maintenance of owners equipment and hire rate for pumping. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (capital equipment, excluding barge owned 

by contractor). 

Contracted out. Phase II contractor C & W Diver Services Inc. under 

contract with payments for maintenance of owners equipment and hire rate 

for pumping. 

US Army Corps of Engineers (LA District). 

Total of 4 people: main operator to control the SCADA system (Supervisory 

Control and Data Acquisition); a mechanic overseeing component 

operations and manual operation of pumps in case of SCADA failure; a 

shore booster pump operator; and observer at the discharge point 

(Clausner et al, 1990). 

Design Plan: 5 days a week, for up to 10 hours per day. 

Summer months (April - September): bypass from entrance jet pumps 

Winter months (October - March): bypass from northern fillet. 

(Clausner et al, 1990) 

Actual: bypassing only carried out for one year, with approx. 2 weeks only 

from northern fillet. 

No mining allowed of the north fillet on Camp Pendelton U.S. Marine Corps 

Base Property (rejected by the local base commander) and no mining of the 

fillet between the south breakwater and San Luis Rey River Groin (rejected 

by the City of Oceanside) (Weisman, 1996). 

North breakwater bypass system was placed on the breakwater beyond the 

intertidal zone without permanent structures as required by Marine Corps 

restrictions (Walker et al, 1987). 

Concerns regarding the nesting of the Lesser Tern restricted the 

operational window to the winter months. 

Required to carefully monitor the effects of the system on fauna, fish, 

plankton, grunion, and other marine species (Walker et al, 1987). Beach 

outlet required supervision during operation due to 'quick' sand and public 

usage. Outlet pipes were required to traverse rock walls seaward of 

beachfront condominiums and lifeguard station at pier, exposing them to 

wave action. 

Phase I: June, 1989 (to August, 1990) 

Phase II: November, 1991 

Phase Ill: Cancelled (insufficient funds) 

Phase I (June 1989 to August 1990 excluding January 1990 to April 1990): 

Total bypassed= 18,300 cy (-13,990 m3); overall average= 63 cy/hr (-48 

m3/hr); total operational hours= 744; pumping sand hours= 305; minimum 

monthly pumping hours= 2; maximum monthly pumping hours = 55. 

Phase II (December 1991 to December 1992 inclusive): 

Total bypassed= 106,000 cy (-81,000 m3); overall average= 95 cy/hr (-73 

m3/hr) (58% increase from Phase I); pumping sand hours= 1,128; total 

system downtime and maintenance hours = 607; minimum monthly 

pumping hours= 35; maximum monthly pumping hours= 126. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 52 

224 Appendix A .. Section 16 
840

Present plant status: 

(as of 1996) 

References: 

Hereford Inltot to Cape May Inlet 

The major problems were associated with clogging and plugging of the 

fluidisers with sand, and the covering of the craters with kelp which reduced 

the amount of sand being pumped by the jets. The key problem with this 

project was that the shoals were forming from transport from both the south 

and the north, covering a large area to bypass. 

(Weisman et al, 1996) 

Other significant problems: 

(a) difficult conditions for maintenance divers due to long period swell 

producing a surge in entrance; 

(b) inability to access equipment except by using divers; 

(c) system was in the entrance adjacent to the navigation channel, 

providing some constriction to navigation; 

(d) funding was not guaranteed for multiple-year operations; 

(e) funding was not available (budgets not confirmed) until 1 to 2 months 

after start of operational window; 

(f) equipment was designed to operate at two sites; 

(g) expensive booster station. 

Entrance of harbour had been dredged for many years by conventional 

suction dredge. Owing to insufficient funding to continue with phase Ill, the 

system was closed in 1996 pending removal. At September 1996, 

documentation was being finalised to call for tenders to remove all of the 

system. The barge had been removed, and capital equipment on it sold. 

Tenders closed 6 November 1996 for the approx. $3 million (US) removal 

of the bypass system including pipes on breakwaters and to jet pumps, 

cross channel discharge pipe, support piles, pipe rack, south and north riser 

structures for jack-up barge, fluidisers, jet pumps. Optional items for 

removal included the discharge pipe line from the beach south of San Luis 

Rey River Groin. Items to remain include the booster pump station, 

discharge pipe between the southern breakwater and San Luis Rey River 

Groin, and pipes under the southern breakwater spur. 

Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, 1984. Oceanside Harbor 

Experimental Sand Bypass System Monitoring Program - Littoral Zone 

Sediments, California, USA, December, 88p. 

Bagley, L.M., Whitson, D.H., 1982. Putting the Beach Back at the 

Oceanside, Shore and Beach, Vol. 50(4), October, pp24-32. 

Bisher, D.R., West, F.W., 1993. Jet Pumps and Fluidisers Working 

Together: The Oceanside Experimental Sand Bypass System, Proceedings 

of Beach Preservation Technology 1993, Florida Shore and Beach 

Preservation Association, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Clausner, J.E., Patterson, D.R., Rambo, G., 1990. Fixed Sand Bypassing 

Plants - An Update, Beach Preservation Technology 90, St Petersburg, 

Florida, Feb 14-16. 

Dolan, T.J., Castens, P.G., Sonu, C.J., Egense, A.K., 1987. Review of 

Sediment Budget Methodology: Oceanside Littoral Cell, California, Coastal 

Sediments '87, Proceedings of a Specialty Conference on Advances in 

Understanding of Coastal Sediment Processes, Vol. 2, ASCE, New 

Orleans, Louisiana, USA, May 12-14, pp1289-1304. 

Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, 1983. Experimental Sand Bypass System at 

Oceanside Harbor, California - Phase 1: Data Collection and Analysis, 

Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 

Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, 1984. Experimental Sand Bypass System at 

Oceanside Harbor, California - Phase 3: Fina/ Concept, Prepared for U.S. 

Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 

Patterson, D.R., Bisher, D.R., Bradeen, M.R., 1991. Oceanside 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • /SSN 1037-4701 • 53 

225 Appendix A .. Section 16 
841

Experimental Sand Bypass the Next Step, Coastal Sediments '91: 

Proceedings of a Speciality Conference on Quantitative Approaches to 

Coastal Sediment Processes, ASCE, Seattle, Washington, USA, June 25-

27, pp1165-1176. 

Richardson, T.W., 1987. Unique Design Aspects of a Large-Scale 

Experimental Sand Bypassing System, United States - The Netherlands 

Meeting on Dredging and Related Technology (3rd), Charleston, South 

Carolina, September 10-14, p280-286. 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1996. Oceanside Sand 

Bypass Removal, San Diego County, California: Construction Solicitation 

and Specifications, Project No. DACW09-96-B-0024, Unrestricted P.L. 100-

656, October (including plans). 

Walker, J.R., Enson, C.F., Kashuba, T., 1987. Sand Bypass System at 

Oceanside California, Proceedings of Coastal Zone '87, ASCE, Seattle, 

Washington, May 26-29, pp1243-1246. 

Weisman, R.N., Lennon, G.P., Clausner, J.E., 1996. A Guide to the 

Planning and Hydraulic Design of Fluidizer Systems for Sand Management 

in the Coastal Environment, Dredging Research Program, Technical Report 

No. DRP-96-3, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, July. 

Figure G1: Oceanside Harbour Sand Bypassing System locations (Patterson et al, 1991). 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Sys/ems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 54 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 226 l-\ppendix /\_,. Section 16 
842

Figure G2: Oceanside Harbour Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan ( Weisman et al, 1996). 

Sc:c:lein feet 

l:10 500 7SO 1000 

CAUFORNIA 

OceansidePACIF7C OCt:AN 

Sc:alell'lktn 

0 

-:20 -40 1iO 

Seal• i" miles 

0 

- 20 -40 

San Diego 

MFJ<ICO 

l'ACIF7C OCEAN 

Figure G3: Oceanside Harbour Sand Bypassing System, Fluidiser locations (not to scale) ( Weisman et 

al, 1996). 

\\i~'!~ 

~- w~ 

Sand Transport 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • /SSN 1037-4701 • 55 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet 227 Appendix A.. Section 16 
843

Appendix H 

Data sheet: South Lake Worth Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Florida, U.S.A. 

Location: 

Problem: 

Wave climate: 

Inlet characteristics: 

Inlet usage: 

Sediment 

characteristics: 

Drift rate: 

Beach erosion rate: 

Type of bypass: 

Bypass system 

components: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inkt 

South Lake Worth (Boynton) Inlet is an artificial entrance located in Palm 

Beach County, Florida, USA, connecting Lake Worth to the Atlantic Ocean. 

The two adjacent inlets are Boca Raton Inlet 23 km to the south, and Lake 

Worth Inlet 25 km to the north. 

The inlet was constructed in 1927 to provide tidal circulation thereby 

improving the water quality of the Lake. The training walls halted the net 

southerly transport resulting in erosion of the adjoining southern beach, and 

also shoaling of the entrance channel from sand moving around the 

northern training wall. The erosion downdrift threatened upland structures 

and Highway A 1 A. 

Varies seasonally; influenced by the sheltering effects of the Bahamas. 

Strong north-east storms in winter produce the net southerly drift, while 

more persistent southerly waves generated by local winds occur during 

summer. Tropical storms and occasionally hurricanes also affect the area 

(Walker and Dunham, 1977). 

Width varies from 90 m at the entrance to 40 m; depth = 3.0 m (MSL); 

spring tide range= 3.3 ft (-1.0 m); semidiurnal tides; flood channel flows= 

5 ft/s (-1.5 mis). 

Small commercial and recreational craft. 

60 % shell; 40 % medium to course sand with significant fractions of quartz 

and feldspars. Grain size bypassed is slightly in excess of 0.3 mm. 

Net southerly drift= 134,000 - 172,000 m3

/yr (Dombrowski and Mehta, 

1990). 

Mean recession rate to approx. 4000 m south of the inlet= 0.9 m/yr with the 

existing bypass system (Dombrowski and Mehta, 1990). 

Fixed hydraulic suction dredge with a rotating boom. 

Initial plant (installed 1937): 8 inch (-200 mm) suction line; 6 inch (-150 

mm) diesel centrifugal pump (65 hp); 1200 ft (-365 m) of 6 inch (-150 mm) 

discharge line crossing the inlet via the highway bridge. An A-frame derrick 

on the roof of the pump house enabled the intake to be swung in a 

horizontal arc as well as raising and lowering. The bypass plant was 

situated on the northern training wall approx. 50 ft (-15 m) from the 

seaward end. 

Upgrade, 1948: 10 inch (-250 mm) intake mounted on a swinging boom of 

30 ft (-9.1 m) radius with a flexible rubber sleeve at the centre of the turning 

radius; jet attached to side of intake for agitating sand; 8 inch (-200 mm) 

diesel centrifugal pump (600 rpm); 1200 ft (-365 m) of 8 inch (-200 mm) 

discharge line. The bypass plant can create a circular trench of 8 - 10 ft 

(-2.4 - 3.0 m) depth and 30 ft (-9.1 m) length with a sand fill capacity of 

-800 m3 (-1050 cy). 

(Caldwell, 1950; Dombrowski and Mehta, 1990). 

Upgrade, 1967 (present plant): 125 m curved extension to the northern 

breakwater (curved to the south); 20 m extension to southern breakwater; 

training wall constructed from the inlet to Lake Worth; plant relocated 36 m 

seaward of the 1937 position (or approx. 100 ft (-30 m) seaward of the 

MHW line on the north breakwater); 12 inch (-300 mm) suction intake line; 

diesel Caterpillar engine pump (400 hp) rated to pump 4,000 gpm with 20% 

solids in suspension; 10 inch (-250 mm) discharge line. 

(Yeend and Hatheway, 1988; Dombrowski and Mehta, 1990). 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 56 

228 Appendix A., Section 16 
844

Outlet type: 

Bypass rate: 

Degree of bypassing: 

(e.g. all, 50%, etc.) 

Costs: 

Funding: 

Contract type: 

Owner: 

Operator: 

Supervisor of 

operations: 

Staffing: 

Operating cycle: 

Environmental 

constraints: 

Environmental 

management issues: 

Commencement date of 

bypassing: 

Performance: 

(include any leakage to 

inlet, formation of 

entrance bar, etc.) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 

Discharge pipe on to southern beach to deposit between 60 and 150 m 

south of the inlet. The pipeline crosses the inlet by the highway bridge. 

Average bypass rate= 53,500 m3

/yr; pumping capacity= 110 m3lhr 

(Dombrowski and Mehta, 1990). 

35 % artificial bypassing; 45 % natural (Dombrowski and Mehta, 1990). 

Initial plant (installed 1937): installation cost= $15,000 (US). 

Upgrade, 1948: installation costs = $15,000 - 20,000 (US, 1950 prices). 

(Caldwell, 1950) 

Upgrade, 1967 (present plant): not known 

The unit price for sand bypassing is $8 - 9 /m3 (US) (Bruun, 1993). 

Initial plant (installed 1937): South Lake Worth Inlet District and a property 

owner. 

Upgrade, 1948: Palm Beach County. 

(Caldwell, 1950) 

Not known. 

Publicly owned. 

Palm Beach County. 

Not known. 

2 people for maintenance and operation (Caldwell, 1950). 

All year round, the operating period being governed by the rate of infill of the 

bypassing trap. Peak pumping periods occur during September to March 

(Yeend and Hatheway, 1988). In Caldwell (1950) the plant operated 2 to 3 

hours during calm weather, while during periods of north-east weather, 

pumping for 18 hours still did not match the transport rate. 

Not known. 

Beaches on both sides of entrance are heavily used. 

Original plant: 1937 (ceased operation 1942 - 1945 during World War 2). 

The plant only bypasses 35 % of the southerly drift with 45 % naturally 

bypassing via the inlet ebb tidal shoal and bypass bar which attaches to the 

beach approx. 600 - 900 m south of the inlet. A further 11 % is retained by 

the northern training wall, and 7 % is deposited on the flood and ebb shoals 

(2 % of the material entering the flood shoal is dredged and placed on the 

southern beach). 

The limitation of reach and capacity prevent a full 100 % bypassing. On 

only a fifth of occasions does the crater fill faster than dredged (Olsen, 

1996). The original design had been for a system with a large boom 

mounted on rails to give greater trap capacity. 

The strong velocities produced by the narrow entrance have scoured the 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 57 

229 Appendix A., Section 16 
845

Present plant status: 

(as of 1996) 

References: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 

channel to a hard bottom. A bar exists seaward of the entrance. 

Still in operation. 

Bruun, P., 1993. An Update on Sand Bypassing Procedures and Prices, 

Journal Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 18, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 

pp277-284. 

Caldwell, J.M., 1950. Bypassing Sand at South Lake Worth Inlet, Florida, 

Proceedings of First Conference on Coastal Engineering, University of 

California, pp320-325. 

Dombrowski, M.R., Mehta, A.J., 1993. Inlets and Management Practices: 

Southeast Coast of Florida, Journal Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 

18, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, pp29-57. 

Middleton, S.R., 1959. Installation and Operation of Fixed Sand Bypassing 

Plant at Lake Worth Inlet, Florida, Shore and Beach, Vol. 27(1), pp35-36. 

Olsen Associates Inc, 1996. South Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, 

Florida, Brochure, East-Coast Field Trip, 25th International Conference on 

Coastal Engineering, Orlando, Florida, USA. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1953. A Study of Sand Movement at South 

Lake Worth Inlet, Florida, Technical Memorandum No. 42, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Beach Erosion Board. 

Walker, J.R., Dunham, J.W., 1977. Lake Worth Inlet - Case Study, Coastal 

Sediments '77, Fifth Symposium of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean 

Division, ASCE, Charleston, South Carolina, November 2-4, pp602-621. 

Yeend, J.S., Hatheway, D.J., 1988. Quantification of Longshore Sand 

Transport and Sand Bypassing at South Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach 

County, Florida, Proceedings of 21st Coastal Engineering Conference, Vol. 

3, ASCE, Costa del Sol, Malaga, Spain, June 20-25, pp2772-2783. 

Zurmuhlen, F.H. 1957. The Sand Transfer Plant at Lake Worth Inlet, 

Proceedings of Sixth Conference on Coastal Engineering, pp457-462. 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • /SSN 1037-4701 • 58 

230 Appendix A .. Section 16 
846

Figure H1: South Lake Worth Inlet Sand Bypassing System, Locality plan (Olsen Associates, 1996). 

· Sau/II Lalt~ 

==""'"""--'- War/II Inlet 

--

~ (!} 

RUNllO 

AU.I BEAO! COUNT'I 

OClcAN !NI.ET 

?ARK '-~~~~-~-ORIOA~~~....i 

!.WITlN COUNTY 

SOUTH I.AK!: WORTH !NI.ET 

BAOWARO COUNTY 

A Tl.ANTIC OCEAN 

Figure H2: South Lake Worth Inlet Sand Bypassing System (Yeend and Hatheway, 1988) 

... 

=~- " 

SAND 

rR.AP 

Hereford Inlet to Cape I\.fay Inlet 

World-wide Sand Bypassing Systems: Data Report• August 2001 • ISSN 1037-4701 • 59 

231 Appendix A., Section 16 
847

US Army Corps 

of Engineers 

Philadelphia District 

NEW JERSEY 

SHORE PROTECTION STUDY 

New Jersey Department 

of Environmental 

Protection 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet 

Volume- 3 Appendix 
848

VOLUME3 

APPENDIX B: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

APPENDIXC: CLEAN AIR ACT ANALYSIS 

APPENDIX D: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE COORDINATION 

APPENDIX E: CULTURAL RESOURCES 

APPENDIX F: REAL ESTATE PLAN 

APPENDIX G: SECTION -1 PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE 

APPENDIX G: SECTION -2 COMMENTS AND CORPS RESPONSES 

APPENDIX H: PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN 
849

Appendix B. 

Economic Analysis 
850

New Jersey Shore Prok-ction Study 

Hereford Inlet to CaJJe May Inlet Feasibility Study 

APPENDIX B: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Em'ironmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis 
851

New Jersey Shore Prok-ction Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

APPENDIXB-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Title Number 

1.0 Introduction 

2.0 Socioeconomic Resources l 

2.1 Population and Land Use 1 

2.2 Employment and Income 4 

2.3 Regional Economy and Development 6 

3.0 Historical Damages 10 

3.1 Recent Storms 10 

4.0 Economic Analysis 12 

4.1 Structure Inventory 13 

4.2 Storm Damage Modeling 16 

4.3 Erosion Damage Analysis 17 

4.4 Wave-Inundation Damage Analysis [9 

4.5 Emergency/Clean-Up Costs 20 

5.0 Economic Benefit Evaluation 20 

5.1 Without Project Conditions - North Wildwood 20 

5.11 Damage Zone Structures 20 

5.12 Infrastructure and Improved Property Damages 22 

5.1.3 Summary of Damages 23 

5.1.4 Emergency/Clean-Up Costs 23 

5.1.5 Back Bay Impact 23 

5.2 Without Project Conditions - Wildwood, Wildwood Crest 

& Lower Township 24 

5.2.1 Accreted Area 24 

5.2.2 Damage Zone Structures 24 

5.2.3 Accreted Area Damage Summary 28 

5.2.4 Amusement Pier Damages 29 

5.3 Estimated Total Without Project Damages 29 

6.0 Benefit Analysis 30 

6.1 With Project Alternatives 30 

6.11 Storm Damage Reduction 30 

6.1.2 Local Costs Forgone Benefits ~~ 

.).) 

6.2 Optimization 35 

6.3 Incidental Benefits 38 

6.3. l Recreation Benefits 38 

6.3.2 Benefits During Construction 40 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis 
852

New Jersey Shore Prok-ction Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

7.0 Selected Plan Combination 41 

41 

42 

44 

7.1 Interest During Construction 

7.2 Average Annual Costs 

7 .3 Benefit-Cost Summary 

8.0 Risk and Uncertainty Analysis 45 

Table B-1 

Table B-2 

Table B-3 

TableB-4 

Table B-5 

Table B-6 

Table B-7 

Table B-8 

Table B-9 

Table B-10 

Table B-11 

Table B-12 

Table B-13 

Table B-14 

Table B-15 

Table B-16 

TableB-17 

Table B-18 

Table B-19 

Table B-20 

Table B-21A 

Table B-218 

Table B-22 

Table B-23 

Table B-24 

Table B-25 

Table B-26 

Table B-27 

List of Tables 

Page 

Title Number 

Population Density 3 

Employment Comparison 4 

Unemployment Rate Comparison 5 

Study Area Unemployment Rate Comparison 5 

Income Comparison 6 

Proposed Residential Dwellings 7 

Housing Units by Usage Category 7 

Significant Residential Development Projects 9 

Major Non-Residential Space 9 

Cape May Toll Volumes 10 

North Wildwood Historical Damage Events 11 

Study Area Delineation 12 

Physical Characteristics Obtained for Building Inventory 14 

Summary of Depreciated Structure Values 14 

Excerpt ofCOSTDAM Model Structure File 16 

Excerpt of Depth Damage Curves 17 

Expected Annual Damage (EAD) Input File Example 19 

Without Project Structures Affected - North Wildwood 21 

Without Project Average Annual Structure Damage 

- North Wildwood 21 

Without Project Damages by Structure Type - North Wildwood 22 

Without Project Infrastructure Damage by Storm 

Frequency - North Wildwood 22 

Total Without Project Average Annual Infrastructure 

and Improved Property Damage - North Wildwood 22 

Without Project Damages North Wildwood 23 

Without Project Emergency Costs - North Wildwood 23 

Without Project Structures Affected - Wildwood 25 

Without Project Structures Affected - Wildwood Crest 26 

Without Project Structures Affected - Lower Township 27 

Without Project Damages - Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, 

and Lower Township 28 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Envil1lnmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis 
853

Table B-28 

Table B-29 

Table B-30 

Table B-31 

TableB-32 

Table B-33 

Table B-34 

Table B-35 

Table B-36 

Table B-37 

Table B-38 

Table B-39 

Table B-40 

Table B-41 

Table B-42 

Table B-43 

Table B-44 

Table 8-45 

Table B-46 

Table B-47 

Figure B-1 

Figure B-2 

Fit,>ure B-3 

Figure B-4 

Figure B-5 

Figure 8-6 

Figure B-7 

Figure B-8 

Figure 8-9 

Figure 8-10 

Figure B-11 

Figure B-12 

Figure B-13 

New Jersey Shore Prok-ction Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Without Project Damages by Structure Type - Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township 

Without Project Pier Damage - North Wildwood and 

Wildwood 

Without Project Damages by Community 

Storm Damage Reduction Benefits - North Wildwood 

Storm Damage Reduction Benefits Wildwood 

Storm Damage Reduction Benefits Wildwood Crest 

Plan Alternative Screening Wildwood and Wildwood Crest 

Pier Plan Alternative Screening North Wildwood and 

Wildwood 

Beachfill Local Costs Forgone - North Wildwood 

Plan Alternatives by Backpass Method North Wildwood 

Reduced Maintenance Local Costs Forgone - Wildwood 

and Wildwood Crest 

Summary of AA8, AAC, NB, 8CR for the Selected Plan 

Recreation Benefit 

Benefits During Construction - Selected Plan 

Interest During Construction - Selected Plan 

Average Annual Project Construction Cost - Selected Plan 

Average Annual Monitoring Costs - Selected Plan 

Benefits and Costs for the Selected Plan 

Summary of Risk and Uncertainty Analysis HSDR Benefits 

Summary of Risk and Uncertainty Sensitivity Analysis BCR 

List of Figures 

28 

29 

29 

30 

31 

31 

32 

32 

34 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

49 

50 

Page 

Title Number 

Study Area 2 

Winter and Summer Population 3 

lli~~~p~~~oo 4 

Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units 8 

Inventory Map and Photo Example 15 

Foundation Footprint Compromised Comparison 18 

Wave-Inundation Graphic 20 

Without Project Structures Affected - North Wildwood 21 

Without Project Structures Affected - Wildwood 25 

Without Project Structures Affected - Wildwood Crest 26 

Without Project Structures Affected- Lower Township 27 

North Wildwood Estimated Structure Damage by 

Plan Alternative 31 

The Wildwoods - Total Structure Damage by Storm Frequency 48 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis 
854

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLET 

SHORE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY 

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The following sections detail the economic analysis performed to evaluate the damages and 

potential damage reduction for the developed areas along the oceanfront from Hereford Inlet to 

Cape May Inlet. North Wildwood, Wildwood, and Wildwood Crest are three of the four 

municipalities contained within the barrier island located between the Hereford and Cape May 

Inlets. These three communities along with sound-side West Wildwood form a shore region 

known as the Wildwood5 'Five Mile Island, or simply the Wildwood5. Figure 1 shows the three 

communities and a portion of a very small Lower Township community called Diamond Beach 

which will also be reviewed in this document. Benefit categories to be evaluated include 

reduction in storm, wave, and inundation damages, and increased recreation value. The basic 

underlying assumptions used an FY2014 discount rate of3-1h%, June 2007 price level, a 50-year 

period of analysis, and a base year of 2016. Project benefits for the tentatively selected plan 

(TSP) were updated to a March 2014 price level by applying a combination of the EM 1110-2-

1304 CWCCIS Index and the McGraw Hill Engineering News Record Building Cost and 

Construction Cost Indices for comparison with the selected plan cost estimate. 

2.0 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 

2.1 Population and Land Use 

The study area is located in a coastal community in Cape May County, New Jersey along the 

Atlantic Ocean. Within the USACE - Philadelphia District boundaries, Cape May County is one 

of the four counties including Atlantic, Ocean, and Monmouth counties located along the New 

Jersey coast. Cape May County is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean on the east and south, 

borders the Delaware Bay on the west, and Atlantic County on the north. The county covers 454 

square miles, with almost 60% consisting of usable land area and the remainder being marshes 

and flood plains. Two main transportation arteries in the county are the Garden State Parkway 

and US Route 9. Other major nearby roads which allow residents and visitors to access the area 

include State Routes 47 and 50, the Black and White Horse Pikes, and the Atlantic City 

Expressway. North Wildwood, Wildwood, and Wildwood Crest with a combined land area of 

4.1 square miles cover approximately five linear miles along the coast. 

The three municipalities ranked six, seven, and eight respectively on the list of the ten largest 

municipalities in Cape May County. As shown in Table B-1, Wildwood was the most densely 

populated of the three communities with 4,096 people per square mile. More vacationers flock 

to Wildwood and North Wildwood than to Wildwood Crest as indicated by the estimated 

summer population in Figure 2. The Wile/woods is a popular destination for vacationers seeking 

sunbathing, water sports, amusements, and recreational fishing among other leisure activities. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Pagel 
855

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

SCALE INFER 2,500 5,000 

Figure B-1 

NE\~' JERSEY SH:QR:E PROTECT!Ofr.t 

PEAStB!UTY STIJ.D Y 

HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY tN.LET 

THE WILDWOOD$ 

CAPE MAY COUNTY, NJ 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page2 
856

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Municinalitv 

North Wildwood 

Wildwood 

Wildwood Crest 

7he Wildiroods 

Table B-1 

POPULATION DENSITY-2010 

Total Square 

Miles 

Ponulation 

1.7 4,041 

1.3 5.325 

u 3,270 

4 l 12,636 

Persons 

Per 

SauareMile 

2,377 

4,096 

2,973 

9,446 

Source: Cape Aloy County Plannmg Department 

-~:fiim¥!:ij::J: ~; ·~1mm.r~r.=i:'!i :r1,r.1J?m~~i;li ~~~!.f~ 

::;,nii 

Source: Cape Aloy County Planning Deparlmenr Figure B-2 

The year-round population of many coastal communities has increased as baby-boomers started 

to retire and housing development increased. The Wildwoodv experienced substantial growth in 

population throughout most of the 20th century. The steepest increase in population for 

Wildwood occurred in the decade between 1920 and 1930, while the steepest increase for North 

Wildwood occurred between 1940 and l 950 and occurred for two decades in Wildwood Crest 

between 1940 and 1960. Wildwood experienced a sharp decline in population over the period 

from 1950 to 1970, population soared back up through 1980, dipped again through 1990 and 

spiked through 2000 nearly to the level of its peak population in the 1950s. As shown in Figure 

B-3, Wildwood and Wildwood Crest are two communities that had increased year-round 

population for the ten years between 1990 and 2000. During this time period North Wildwood 

population growth remained relatively flat. Year-round population decreased slightly in all three 

municipalities during the initial years of the 21st century. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment-Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 3 
857

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Source: Cope A1oy Coun(v Plonning Deportment Figure B-3 

2.2 Employment and Income 

The tourism industry is one of the most important industries in the State of New Jersey and in 

Cape May County. Tourism generates 32,000 or one out of every three jobs in the county. The 

economy of Cape May County and the adjacent coastal counties relies to some extent on a 

transient workforce to supply tourism industry employees, especially in the summer. Businesses 

in communities along the coast have augmented their workforce with foreign employees during 

the busy summer months. The importance of seasonal employment in Cape May County 

contributes to its higher unemployment rate when compared to that of the entire state as shown in 

Table B-2. The data show lower unemployment rates in each successive northern coastal county. 

Employers within the service industry and the public sector account for many of the jobs in the 

county. Morey's Amusement Pier, the City of Wildwood, and the City of North Wildwood are 

among the top employers in Cape May County. The recent economic downturn in the financial 

services and retail industries has also negatively impacted employment in the region. Those 

industries have recently posted job losses in New Jersey. 

Year-2012 

Unemplovmcnt Rate 

Unemploved 

Emploved 

Table B-2 

EMPLOYMENT COMPARISON - 2012 

STATE COASTAL COUNTY 

New Jersev Calle Mav Atlantic Ocean 

9.5 13.4 13.5 10.3 

-B5Jl00 7,793 18.377 27.944 

4,158,000 50,397 136,125 244,125 

Source: lj.S. Deportment of lobar· Bureau of Labor Stat1st1cs 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis 

Monmouth 

8.9 

29,904 

304,904 

Page4 
858

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Cape May County has consistently experienced higher unemployment rates than state and 

national levels. A study area may qualify for a national economic development (NED) benefit if 

it is found to have substantially and persistently unemployed or underemployed labor resources. 

This condition would exist: (a) if the unemployment rate for the most recent consecutive 12 

month period averages 6 percent or more; and (b) ifit is 50% above the national rate of 

unemployment for three of the preceding four calendar years, 75% above the national rate of 

unemployment for two of the preceding three calendar years, or 100% above the national 

unemployment rate for one of the preceding two calendar years. A comparison of 

unemployment rates for the five years beginning 2008 through 2012, as shown in Table B-3, 

indicates that although the unemployment rate in Cape May County exceeds that of the United 

States by more than two points for each of the five years in the time series, it does not meet the 

criteria to qualify for the unemployed or underemployed labor resource benefit. 

Table B-3 

RECENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE COMPARISON 

UNITED STATES, NEW JERESEY AND CAPE MAY COUNTY 

2008-2012) 

Year United States New Jersey Cape May Countv 

2008 5.8 5.5 8.0 

2009 9.3 9.0 II.I 

2010 9.6 9.6 12.2 

2011 8.9 9.4 12.6 

2012 8.1 9.5 13.4 

Source: C.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statlst1cs 

The much higher unemployment rate in the study area of the Wile/woods, as shown in Table B-4, 

is indicative of its relative reliance on seasonal employment. The unemployment data updated 

for the most recent year shows the continued affect of the recession and possibly impacts from 

the devastating super-storm in 2012. The regional coastal economy had also been enhanced by a 

healthy construction industry with new development, "tear-downs" and renovations - a trend in 

which older structures are purchased, demolished, and replaced with much more expensive 

houses. The continued decline in manufacturing and the recent decrease in financial services 

employment resulting from the reduction in mortgage applications and the tightened credit 

market have also resulted in higher unemployment. However, certain subcategories within the 

service sector such as healthcare and educational services remain strong. 

Table B-4 

STUDY AREA EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES COMPARISON - 2012 

North Wildwood Wildwood Wildwood Crest 

Unemplovment Rate 21.6 30.6 24.6 

Unemployed 618 1,036 598 

Employed 2,238 2.351 1.829 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor -- Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental As.,essment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Pages 
859

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

As displayed in Table B-5, per capita income in both the State of New Jersey and Cape May 

County exceeds that of the United States. New Jersey and Cape May County's per capita 

incomes are about 25% and 12% more, respectively, than the U.S. per capita income. Per capita 

income in Wildwood Crest is about 10% more than the U.S. while that of North Wildwood and 

Wildwood falls below the national level. Per capita income in Wildwood nearly doubled and 

increased at a faster rate than that of the state over the first decade of this century. Median 

household income and median home value were lower in Wildwood when compared to the 

nation, the state and the other communities in the Wildwoods. The lower median home value 

may have existed in Wildwood rather than in the other communities because residents may pay a 

premium to live in areas away from high traffic volume and commercial activity. 

Table B-5 

INCOME COMPARISON -2010 

Municipality Per Capita 

Median 

Household 

Median Home 

Value' 

United States $27,334 $51,914 $188,400 

New Jersey 34.858 69,811 357,000 

Cape May County 33,571 54.292 337,300 

North Wildwood $31,748 $45,041 $384.900 

Wildwood 25.118 32.783 288.000 

Wildwood Crest 40,032 46.111 398,400 

Source: Aew Jersey Departme/11 of Labor & L'.S. Census Bureau 

2.3 Regional Economy and Development 

Tourism, referencing 2006 data, was the top industry in Cape May County with over $4.8 billion 

in revenues generated from accommodations, food, retail, entertainment, and transportation. 

Cape May County is second only to Atlantic County in tourism dollars. Annual tourism revenue 

of Cape May and Atlantic Counties is more than three times the revenue produced by Ocean and 

Monmouth Counties. The popularity of the Jersey shore draws many visitors from neighboring 

states as well as from inland areas within the state. The summer seashore destinations' proximity 

to major population centers is ideal for attracting visitors especially with high fuel prices. A 

large percentage of tourists are repeat visitors who return each summer. Cape May County 

welcomes approximately 19 million visitors annually. More than three quarters of visitors come 

from outside New Jersey and the weakened value of the dollar is expected to attract more 

international visitors to the county as well. 

The constrnction industry has also been important to the regional economy. Constrnction within 

some commercial sectors such as healthcare and education facilities has maintained a steady 

pace. However, residential constrnction has decreased significantly nationally and in the region 

since 2006. As shown in Table B-6, the number of proposed residential site plans plummeted by 

more than half from 2005 to 2006 and dropped more precipitously in 2007. The greatest number 

of dwellings proposed during the ten year period from 2003 to 2012 was developed in the City of 

Wildwood. The Wile/woods has a relatively limited area for new development and most of the 

new development occurs in the form ofrenovations and/or replacements. Historically, cyclical 

declines in housing starts have experienced several years of reductions. Currently, the slow but 

1 Median home value of owner-occupied housing units (2000 & 2010) 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page6 
860

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

steady upturn in the U.S. economy following the deep 2008-2009 recession provides 

encouragement for housing starts going forward. 

TableB-6 

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS IN SITE PLANS 

Munici >ality 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 2011 2012 

North Wildwood 245 414 356 70 4 0 2 26 

Wildwood 840 441 1074 732 7 IO 147 

ildwood Cresl 117 607 345 12 () () () 0 

The Wildwoods L202 1,462 l,775 814 II 0 IO 173 

~\'ource: Cape May Coun(v Planning Department 

Table B-7 displays the number of housing units by usage category for the three coastal cities of 

the Wildwood1·. In 2010, seasonal and/or rental housing units represent a large percentage of 

housing units in the coastal counties of New Jersey. Almost half of the seasonal and/or rental 

properties in New Jersey are located in Cape May County and 47% of dwellings in the county 

are vacation homes. Consistent with other popular summer destinations, the majority of housing 

units in the Wildwoods are vacant and categorized as seasonal, recreational, and occasional use 

units. Therefore, condominiums, townhouses, and vacation homes dominate the housing stock. 

TableB-7 

HOUSING UNITS BY USAGE CATEGORY (2010) 

North Wildwood Wildwood Wildwood -

Usage Category Housing Housing Housing 

Units Percenta2e Units Percenta2e Units p 

Occupied 2,047 23.2% 2,251 32.9% 1,532 27.5% 

Owner L282 14.5% 798 11.7% I.Oil 18.2% 

Renter 765 8.7% 1,453 21.2% 521 9.4% 

I Vacant 

For Rent 

6,793 

504 

76.8% 

5.7% 

4,592 

l.138 

67.1% 

16.6% 

~ 30 

For sale onlv 91 1.0% 188 2.7% 130 2.3° 

Rented or sold. nol 

occunied 19 0.2% 35 0.5% 34 0.6% 

For seasonaL recreational 

or occasional use 6,116 69.2% 3,035 44.4% 3.468 62.3% 

Other vacant 63 0.7% 196 2.9% 98 1.8% 

TOTAL 8,840 100.0% 6,843 100.0% 5,569 100.0% 

Source: US. Census Bureau 

Figure 4, Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units, shows a concentration of more affordable 

housing located in Wildwood. According to data from the 2008-2012 American Community 

Survey (ACS) estimates, none of the housing units in Wildwood were valued at or above one 

million dollars. One third of the owner-occupied units in the City of Wildwood were valued 

below $200,000. Conversely, approximately 6% of the homes were valued at less than $200,000 

in either North Wildwood or Wildwood Crest. House market values skyrocketed for the first 

five or six years of the new century and have only recently declined slightly in shore 

communities. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page7 
861

100 

Value Band: 

Figure B--1 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Value ofOwne1·-0ccupied Housing Units 

'.:!00 300 400 500 600 

Number orIJnits 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

1 - Less than $50,000 

2 - $50,000- 99,999 

3 $100,000 149,999 

4 - S/50,000- 199.999 

5 $200.000-299,999 

6 - $300,000 499,999 

7 - S500.000 - 999,999 

8 - $1,000.000 or more 

700 

Highlights in major commercial development include the completion of a $70 million convention 

center in Wildwood in 2002. Portions of Wildwood have also been designated as an Urban 

Enterprise Zone (UEZ). This program encourages business investment and job creation through 

various incentives. Merchandise can be purchased at a reduced sales tax as a benefit to 

patronizing shops in these special zones. 

Most new development projects in all three communities cater to the tourism industry and are 

characterized as hotel/motel or multifamily dwellings such as condominiums as shown in the 

following listings from 2006 and 2012 data. Another new residential development with almost 

70 new units located in Diamond Beach (Lower Township) was under construction during the 

time of this study. Table B-8 lists significant development projects built recently during the 

study period. These projects are apparently located outside the inventoried ocean block of the 

study area. No significant non-residential development within the study area occurred in the 

more recent timeframe of2012; therefore Table B-9 shows data for 2006 only. Non-residential 

development of 5,000 square feet or more is reported as significant by the county. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Pagc8 
862

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Municiuality 

Year- 2006 

North Wildwood 

Table B-8 

SIGNIFICANT RESIDENTIAL 

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS - 2006 & 2012 

Proiect Name Dwellin2Tvue 

Champagne Island Resorts Hotel/Motel 

,vorth Wildwood Subtotal 

Wildwood The Riviera Hotel/Motel 

Wildwood The Riviera Multi Family 

Wildwood Martinique Resorts MultiFamilv 

Wildwood Anchor Beach Condo MultiFamilv 

Wildwood Petunia, LLC Multi Familv 

Wildwood Westgate Village MultiFamilv 

IVildwood Sub rota/ 

Wildwood Crest Sanzone Condos Multi Family 

Wildwood Crest Subtotal 

The Wildwoods 

Year- 2012 

North Wildwood Hawaiian Beach Resort Multi Family 

North Wildwood Subtotal 

Wildwood Grand Wildwoodian MultiFamilv 

Wildwood Suh lo/al 

Source: Cape Afay County Planning Department 

Table B-9 

MAJOR NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE - 2006 

Municipalitv Proiect Name Descri11tion 

North Wildwood Champagne Island Resort Co1mnercial 

North Wildwood The Beach House Co nunercial 

Wildwood Anchor Beach Condominium Conunercial 

Source: Cape :\fay Coun(y Planning Department 

# of Units/Lots 

24 

2./ 

86 

288 

254 

I 30 

22 

13 

693 

13 

13 

789 

22 

22 

138 

138 

60 

Square Feet 

16.275 

9,H2 

' 6.000 

Each summer tourists flock to Cape May County's beaches, boardwalks, promenades, and 

amusement piers for day trips and extended vacations. The county is also a popular birding 

destination for tourists seeking to catch a glimpse of the migratory birds that stop along the 

shoreline. A two-mile boardwalk with four amusement piers, water parks, roller coasters, arcade 

and carnival games, and shopping characterizes Wildwood. The Wildwoods has received many 

distinctions and positive ratings from publications and organizations such as "America's Best 

Beaches", "Top Tourist Town in the Northeast", and "Best Sports Beach". Recently, a survey 

conducted by the New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium (NJMSC) to determine New Jersey's 

top ten beaches ranked Wildwood as the best with approximately 14 percent of the vote. 

Wildwood won top honor in a field of over 60 beaches from Cape May to Monmouth Counties. 

Wildwood Crest and North Wildwood ranked second and fourth, respectively. According to the 

NJMSC, Wildwood Crest was chosen as the best location for a family vacation in a special 

category of the survey. 

This re~ion of the coast is also well known for its "Doo Wop" motels and hotels which feature 

mid 2011 century style architecture. It's a decorative style that incorporates bright colors, 

boomerang shapes, and angled walls and roofs. The name originated from the popular music 

enjoyed by many in the 1950s. Many shore communities have increased the number of offseason festivities to entertain a growing population and to draw more tourists throughout the 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page9 
863

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

year. The Wildwood1· have marketed this seashore location and garnered attention as an 

increasingly popular destination for conventioneers. The Wildwood Convention Center has been 

a catalyst for drawing non-seasonal visitors to Five Mile Island and neighboring coastal 

communities. Table B-10 shows double-digit increases in toll volumes since 1970 in each 

decade up to 2000 for which round-trip volumes were available. 

1970 

92.4-U 

96.736 

131.512 

692,249 156-233 

Mav 986.735 521,234 280.945 

June 1,228,834 754,290 41:l.122 

Jul' 1.631.363 1.085.620 705.272 

Au•ust 1.610,985 1.474,358 1.222.330 763.402 

Se tembcr 1.078,875 597.582 616,200 383.952 

October 780.884 602.155 349.060 163,288 

November 632.448 485,524 285.900 127.515 

December 598.975 441,973 267,530 118.150 

Total 10,929,778 8,985,866 6,091,319 3,./32,569 

%Chane 22% 48% 77% 

Source: Cape Alay Countv Planning Department 

3.0 HISTORICAL DAMAGES 

3.1 Recent Storms 

The shoreline of the Wildwood~ has been characterized by severe erosion near Hereford Inlet in 

North Wildwood in the northeastern portion of the island and generous accretion toward the 

south of the island in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. This accretion in the south from the down 

drift transport of sand has resulted in nontraditional damages such as clogged and damaged 

outfall pipes, subsequent standing water on the beach, and internal drainage problems of water 

overflow into local streets. Meanwhile, residents at the northeastern end of the island have 

endured loss of land and dune encroachment. Several damage causing storms occurred in the 

late 1980s, early 1990s, 2011, and most recently in 2012. Hurricane Sandy made landfall on the 

New Jersey shore in late October in 2012 causing millions of dollars of damage to residential, 

commercial and public property in coastal communities, debris and sand dispersal, and extensive 

damage and disruption to utilities and transportation systems. Superstorm Sandy, as it has been 

called, registered the third highest observed stage at the Atlantic City tidal station in the 100 

years from 1912 to 2012. Shore communities north of the storm's landfall received the most 

devastating damage during this event. Although the Wildwood~ fared better than barrier island 

towns up the coast, beach erosion and coastal structure damage were incurred. 

North Wildwood: Local officials were contacted to determine the extent of historical damage. 

Table B-11 displays an example of the most damaging events for which information was 

available. In general, the beach in North Wildwood has eroded significantly over the years while 

the beach in the middle and southern end of the island has accreted. According to emergency 

management officials in North Wildwood, much of the beach loss has occurred on the oceanfront 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 10 
864

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

between 2nd Avenue and 19th Avenue. No recent structural or content damage to buildings has 

been recorded from ocean wave or inundation infiltration. A damaging storm occurred in 

February 2003 in which concrete walkways on Allen Drive at the Anglesea Beach Colony 

collapsed. One or two houses on Ocean Avenue received some water in the ground 

floor/basement from the bay (8-foot tide) during this same event. Street flooding from the bay is 

common in North Wildwood. In 2008, the Mother's Day northeaster from May 12 through 13 

caused minor flooding when the ocean extended beyond the beach, below the boardwalk, and 

over the streets. An amusement pier bulkhead was severely damaged during this storm event. 

Erosion in front of Surfside Pier was so severe that the pier owner constructed a bulkhead to 

protect against continued storm damage. In October 2012, the borough experienced beach 

erosion and damage to shoreline structures such as bulkheads and boardwalks from Superstorm 

Sandy. Repairs to oceanfront protective structures and replacement of sand and required 

walkovers are estimated to be approximately $3 million. 

Mav 2008 

Oct. 2012 30-ycar Bulkheads and boardwalk 

*Dollar loss in September 2007 dollars 

Wildwood: Damage in Wildwood has mostly affected infrastructure. Outfall pipe damage 

creates street flooding and vehicle damage. A large beach has been the major problem area from 

the oceanfront causing outfalls to back up into the community. Some commercial structures 

have received damage recently. Businesses were inundated by a storm event in August 2012 

when there was no time to deploy sandbags. Amusement piers and rides that are on the beach, 

and unprotected may be vulnerable to oceanfront damage. The west side of town floods from the 

bay similarly to North Wildwood. The magnitude of Hurricane Sandy affected the entire region 

including the City of Wildwood. According to published reports, 400 residences were damaged 

and almost 800 businesses were impacted. Nevertheless, the wide beaches provided a critical 

buffer to mitigate some of the damage to the oceanfront structures. 

Wildivood Crest: The southern portion of the island has wide beaches and has experienced 

inconvenience, and expenses associated with having a wide beach. The beach has grown at 

about 80- 100 feet per year. Wildwood Crest has had to extend its outfall pipes. Outfalls were 

extended several years ago at a cost of approximately $400,000. The town has sought permits to 

extend the outfalls again. The municipality has also built walkways for the convenience of 

recreational users with gear who must walk many yards to reach the water's edge. The 

municipality experienced erosion as the result of a severe storm more than five years ago. 

Superstorm Sandy caused damage to sand fences, walkways, and access ramps on the oceanfront 

in addition to bay front bulkhead and railing damage. Also, it was reported that property damage 

was sustained by nearly 100 residences and approximately 250 businesses. 

Superstorm Sandy: The storm left millions of dollars of damage to east coast communities from 

the Mid-Atlantic to New England when it made landfall north of Atlantic City in late October 

2012. The nature of the storm destroyed property in the shore counties north and northeast of the 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 11 
865

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

landfall zone and, to a lesser extent, in the counties south and southwest. In New Jersey from 

north to south, nine counties were impacted by the hurricane: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Union, 

Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, and Cape May. Atlantic, Ocean, Monmouth, and 

Hudson Counties were hardest hit by Superstorm Sandy. Published reports assert that about 1 % 

of the approximately 300,000 residential structures damaged by this significant storm will 

require elevating. 

The study area of the Wildwoods is in Cape May County and located approximately 60 miles 

south of the storm's landfall. Beach erosion and back-bay inundation were the major damage 

mechanisms experienced on Five Mile Island. Overall, the protective be1m, dune, and bulkhead 

took the brunt of storm waves and erosion and buffered oceanfront structures in the erosionsusceptible northern section of the study area. The deepest flooding occurred from the bay 

(Grassy Sound) to New Jersey and 151

h Avenues. According to local officials, no ocean-block 

structures were washed away, and demolition of structures was not required as a result of 

Hurricane Sandy. This confirmation along with review of post-Sandy aerial photography 

indicates that structures in the potential benefits pool remain in the analysis. 

4.0 ECONOMIC ANAL YSJS 

The study area was delineated based on physical setting, hydraulic characteristics, and economic 

factors. The oceanfront communities of the Wildwood1· were analyzed by community from the 

representative beach profiles as shown in Table B-12. Overall, the study area is less than 6 miles 

in length. The U.S. Coast Guard base is buffered by hundreds of feet of beach and the 

surrounding vegetation of the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge. It was, therefore, not further 

considered in the damage analysis. Damages and benefits in subsequent project formulation 

tables prior to determination of the tentatively selected plan (TSP) combination are based on a 

June 2007 price level for comparison to costs which were provided in a June 2007 price level. 

Table B-12 

STUDY AREA DELINEATION 

Community Cell Profile Length (ft) From To 

North Wildwood 1 WW02 3,549 2" Street 15" Street 

North Wildwood 2 WW03 2,959 15m Street 26'' Street 

Wildwood 3 WW07 6.965 26" Street Cresse Street 

Wildwood Crest 4 WWlO 4.585 Cresse Street Rambler Road 

Wildwood Crest/ 

Lower Township 5 wwu 5.835 Rambler Road Memphis Ave 

Lower Township 6 WW15 1.090 Memphis Avenue Madison Avenue 

Coast Guard Base 7 WW17 6.267 Madison Avenue Cape May Inlet 

The communities have proactively approached shoreline maintenance to protect residential, 

commercial, and public property from the impact of storm-related encroachment. Consideration 

of local and state-sponsored projects to preserve the baseline without project conditions is 

inherent in the analysis. Provision of beach material in North Wildwood and outfall pipe 

maintenance and extension in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest along with limited availability of 

developable land and adherence to floodplain management plans indicate the stability of the 

barrier island's local and state-sponsored maintenance program. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental A.,sessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 12 
866

4.1 Structure Inventory 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

A structure database was compiled containing information pertinent to the calculation of 

hurricane and storm damage for the study area. Initially in 2005 and 2007, the inventory focused 

on North Wildwood, the erosion prone portion of the study area; because field conditions 

established that the beaches in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest were extremely wide, in excess of 

1,500 and 1, lOO feet, respectively. The inventory was later expanded in 2010 to include 

structures in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest to evaluate the extent of potential damage to 

reaches without dunes and assess the impact of sand backpassing. The inventory of structures 

has not changed since the fieldwork was conducted in the study area. 

Available digital aerial photos, street centerlines, and footprints of structures derived from a 

geographic information system were reviewed, and unique identification numbers were assigned 

to each structure. Data collected in the field, listed in Table B-13, included address, quality and 

construction type, number of stories, and occupancy type. A handheld computer with a digital 

map of the study area was used to code structure characteristics on electronic forms. 

Photographs of each inventoried structure were taken for in-office verification. Figure B-5 

displays an example of a map and photo. Additional data such as first floor elevations, ground 

elevations, footprint area, and foundation type (pile or slab) were also obtained for each 

inventoried structure. Professional surveyors conducted the elevation survey on a structure by 

structure basis. 

The construction characteristics of each building were entered into the Marshall & Swift 

Valuation Service software to calculate depreciated replacement cost value. Table B-14 displays 

total and mean residential and non-residential structure values by foundation type for the study 

area. The inventory consists of approximately 60% commercial and 40% residential structures. 

The associated content value of each residential structure is assumed to be 25% of the structural 

replacement cost. This assumption is based on previous studies that established content value to 

be about 40% of structural value in primary homes and 15 to 20% of structural value in 

secondary/vacation homes. The study area consists of a combination of rental or vacation 

homes, and year round residential homes. However, nearly 70% of the residential structures are 

vacation and rental homes, and typically the contents of structures with these types of 

occupancies are insured at a much lower percent, therefore, a conservative weighted content-tostructure value of 25% was adopted. Field observations and site-specific interviews with local 

residents during the conduct of the Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study, which 

included a portion of the Wildwood1·, substantiate that the ratio is suitable. Also, information 

from a local insurer confirmed that personal property in secondary homes is typically insured at a 

lower percentage than that of primary residences. Typically applied in urban areas, affluence is 

an inundation reduction benefit defined as an increase in residential content-to-structure value 

ratio in relation to future increases in residential income. The benefit is based on the prevention 

of damages to potentially increased content values of residential structures in the future. 

Affluence is a minor potential benefit which has not been claimed by the District in any coastal 

studies. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 13 
867

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table B-13 

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OBTAINED 

FOR BUILDING INVENTORY 

l.) Type - Residential, Commercial, etc. 

2.) Usage 

3.) Town 

4.) S tructurc Size 

4.) Numberof Stories 

5.) Basement/Foundation 

6.) Exterior Material 

7.) RoofMaterial 

8.) Quality 

9.) Condition 

10.) Garage/Shed 

ll.) Ground Elevation 

12.) First Floor Elevation 

13.) Total Units 

14.) Distance from Reference Line 

Table B-14 

SUMMARY OF DEPRECIATED STRUCTURE VALUES 

Tvoe (North Wildwood) Structures Value (SOOO) Mean 

Pile 

Residential 99 $43.179 $436 

Commercial 63 $108,965 $1.730 

Subtotal 162 $152,14./ 

I Slab 

Residential 18 $22.403 $1,245 H 

Commercial 13 $22,993 $1.769 

Sub rota/ 31 S./5,396 

Total 193 S197,5./0 

Trnc <Wildwood) Structures Value ($000) Mean 

Pile 

Residential 0 $0 $0 

Connncrcial 11 I $28,034 $2.549 

Subtotal 11 $28,034 

Slab 

Residential 28 $5594 $200 

Commercial 97 $37,115 $383 

Sub rota/ 125 S./2, 709 

Total 136 $70, 7./3 

Tv1ie (Wildwood Crest) Structures Value (SOOO) Mean 

Pile 

Residential 0 $0 $0 

Connucrcial 24 $186,917 $7,788 

Subtotal 2./ $186,917 

Slab 

Residential 46 $32.223 $700 

Commercial 59 $201,155 $3,409 

Subtotal I /()5 $233,378 

Total 129 S./20.295 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 14 
868

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Figure B-5 

~I:~~ ~~~~ .. ~~~~~#~":"':.}[i:~ 

C~~.i~;.~~'f ,4;~!J,iTf, 1~ 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 15 
869

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

COSTDAM (COastal STorm Damage Assessment Model), developed by Wilmington District, 

was used to estimate erosion, wave, and inundation damage to the structures in the database. 

The economic model incorporates pertinent structure characteristics such as location, ground and 

first floor elevations, structure and content values and foundation type along with coastal storm 

parameters such as wave zone, erosion zone, and water level by distance from the 

shore/reference line. The COSTDAM model and methodologies have been applied and 

approved for six studies conducted previously along the coast of New Jersey. The model has 

been approved for continued use for this study as discussed in Section 5.5.1 of the main report. 

A description of the program's damage estimation methodology is provided in the following 

paragraphs. 

4.2 Storm Damage Modeling 

Damages (for without and with project conditions) were calculated for seven frequency storm 

events (5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, and 500 year events) for erosion, wave and inundation damage to 

structures, infrastructure and improved property. The calculations were performed using 

COSTDAM and EAD. COSTDAM reads an ASCH 'Control' file which contains the storm 

frequency parameters for each cell and an ASCII 'Structure' file which contains the information 

database of each structure. An excerpt from the structure file is shown in Table B-15. 

COSTDAM checks if a structure has been damaged by wave attack, based on the relationship 

between a structure's first floor elevation and the total water elevation that sustains a wave. Then 

COSTDAM checks for erosion damage at a structure. Finally, COSTDAM calculates inundation 

damages if the water elevation is higher than the first floor elevation based on FlA depth-damage 

curves adjusted for increased salt-water damageability. Examples of these curves are shown in 

Table B-16. To avoid double counting, if damage occurs by more than one mechanism, 

COSTDAM takes the maximum damage of any given mechanism (wave, erosion, or inundation) 

and drops the rest of the damages from the structure's total damages. 

Table B-15 

EXCERPT OF COSTDAM STRUCTURE FILE 

102.0 152.4 7.4 1.:1 1818 454Sl7MT2 3 I 

2 228.8 242.8 6.5 LO 1384 346S03S04 3-1 

276.1 287.3 6.9 2.2 758 190Sl7MT2 3 1 

4 271.3 287.0 

Columns 1-3 contain the Reach lD. 

Columns 4-9 contain the Structure lD. 

Colunms I 0-19 are blank. 

6.6 2.6 

Columns 20-27 contain the distance to the front of the structure. 

Columns 28-35 contain the distance to middle of structure. 

Columns 36-40 contain the ground elevation. 

Columns 41-44 contain distance between the first floor and grom1d. 

Columns 45-53 contain stmcture replacement cost value. 

Colnnms 54-62 contain content replacement cost value. 

Columns 63-65 contain stmclurc depth damage curves. 

Columns 66-68 contain content depth damage curves. 

Colunms 69-70 contain a code to make the stmctnre "active". 

Columns 71-72 contain the damage category 

279 70S03S04 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis 

3-] 

Page 16 
870

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table B-16 

EXCERPT OF DEPTH DAMAGE CURVES 

S03 (2 story. no basement. residential structure) 

# of Rows (free fonnat) 

13 

Depth Damage (expressed as a decimal) (free format) 

-2 0 

-I .01 

0 .JO 

I .24 

2 .30 

3 .36 

4 .39 

5 .42 

6 .47 

7 .49 

8 .56 

9 .64 

10 .67 

Sl5 (I story. masonry, no basement, commcreial structure) 

# of Rows (free fonnat) 

13 

Depth Damage (expressed as a decimal) (free fonnat) 

-1 0 

-1 .OJ 

0 .05 

I .21 

2 .29 

3 .38 

4 .46 

5 .48 

6 .53 

7 .55 

8 .59 

9 .67 

lO .73 

4.3 Erosion Damages 

The distance between the reference (profile) line and the oceanfront and back walls were 

measured in ArcGIS using georeferenced mapping of the study area. This technique reduces the 

amount of human error and photographic distortion. For the structure damage/failure analysis, it 

was assumed that a structure is destroyed at the point that the land below the structure is eroded 

halfway through the structure's footprint if the structure is not on a pile foundation. If the 

structure is on piles, the land below the structure must have eroded through the entire footprint of 

the structure before total damage is claimed. Prior to this, for both foundation types, the percent 

damage claimed is equal to the linear proportion of erosion under the structure's footprint relative 

to the total damage point. Figure 6 graphically depicts the relationship between percent damage 

and percent of footprint compromised. The damage relationship was developed during the initial 

assessment of storm erosion damage susceptibility on the Delaware and New Jersey coasts, has 

been applied regionally, and is considered a reasonable method to estimate aggregate erosion 

damages to the structure types represented in this coastal environment. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 17 
871

Erosion-Pile & Slab Foundation 

l'el"eentofFontpdnt('ompl"ombe;l 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

The communities' participation in the National 

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) ensures that 

requirements are met to build structures with first 

floors beyond the base flood elevation. NFIP 

effective dates are in 1979 for North Wildwood 

and in 1980 for both Wildwood, and Wildwood 

Crest. It is likely that structures closest to the 

oceanfront are newer and elevated. According to 

local officials, piling depth requirements are 

contingent upon several factors, vary for each 

property, and pile depth data on a structure by 

structure basis was not available at the time of 

Figure B-6 study commencement. Furthermore, if the data 

were available it could be addressed qualitatively only because structure pile depth is not a 

variable in the modeled calculation of hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits. 

In addition to estimating erosion damage to structures, damage to the land the structures are on 

or improved property was calculated. The improved property value was determined by 

comparing market value of the near shore land to the cost of filling in the eroded land for 

reutilization and using the more conservative estimate. The cost of filling/restoring the improved 

property is based on the different depths, widths and cubic yards of erosion produced by each 

storm event. The cost of filling/restoring eroded improved property was determined to be less 

expensive than market value of near shore land. The cost was prorated for the width of each cell 

to estimate total land erosion damage. 

Erosion damage to infrastructure was also calculated. An erosion damage curve was developed 

for damage to infrastructure within the erosion limits. Values for roads, sidewalks, storm drains, 

electrical lines, and other utilities were estimated using standard engineering criteria. The 

judgment was made that all infrastructure damaged would be replaced in-kind. The replacement 

cost does not necessarily relate to the number of structures in the area. Road and utilities 

replacement costs consisted of fixed and variable costs based on ranges of feet of 

replacement/repair. In general, the unit replacement cost of roads decreased with greater 

quantities eroded reflecting economies of scale. Distance from the reference line and feet of 

erosion per event for each road and associated utilities were used to determine damage 

susceptibility. Once damages were calculated for infrastructure for the storm events the expected 

annual damages were calculated by using the Hydrologic Engineering Center's (REC) Expected 

Annual Damage (EAD) program. The EAD program determines expected average annual 

damage by relating the dollar value of damage for different event magnitudes to the percent 

chance of exceeding those events. A sample EAD input file is shown in Table B-17. 

Draft F1nal Feasibility Report & Enrinmmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 18 
872

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table B-17 

EAD INPUT FILE EXAMPLE 

TT HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET (THE WILDWOODS) (NAVDBB) 

TT FEASIBILITY PHASE JUNE 2007 P.L. ($000) 

TT EROSION DAMAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING COND. INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE 5-500 YR 

Jl 50 2007 2012 06 2007 

J2 3.500 

CN 3 

PN 1 

RN 

FR 

DG 

DG 

DG 

ER 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

INFRA 

WITHOUT 

1 

2 

3 

BDWLK PIERS 

PROJECT CONDITIONS 

20 10 

379.6 496.3 

0. 0 0.0 

0. 0 0.0 

(REVISED) 

5 2 

559.4 595.2 

0.0 0.0 

0.0 0. 0 

4.4 Wave-Inundation Damages 

1 .5 . 2 

4126.0 5967. 5 7048.0 

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 

0. 0 0.0 0.0 

A structure in the COSTDAM model is considered damaged by a wave when there is sufficient 

force (from a 3-foot high breaking wave) in the total water elevation to completely destroy a 

structure. Figure B-7 illustrates the various components of waves. Partial wave damages are not 

calculated; instead the structure is subjected to inundation damages. Large masonry structures 

like high-rise condominiums are not expected to experience failure by wave damage. The wave 

attack damage relationship developed by Wilmington District for Atlantic coast studies was 

adopted for use in the New Jersey coast hurricane and stonn damage reduction analyses of seven 

projects. Since waves cause similar types of damage as inundation, assessing damage prior to 

full wave impact on a structure would, in essence, duplicate the inundation damage estimate. 

Percentages of total depreciated replacement cost used to calculate damage by the depth-damage 

function curves for inundation damage reflect various characteristics of a structure. The depthdamage curves display the percent damaged at various stages relative to the first floor. The 

curves used to estimate inundation damage to structures were derived from well-established FIA 

(Federal Insurance Administration) depth-damage curves and previous studies of saltwater areas 

are applicable for this study. The distinguishing characteristics are construction type and the 

number of stories in a structure. The FIA curves were developed by sampling the various types 

of structures and contents at New Jersey seashore communities in Cape May and Atlantic 

counties. Curve percentages were compared to survey data of the additional damage that 

corrosive saltwater would cause. An example of the frequency at which damage begins and the 

damage mechanism for the Wildwood1· is shown below. 

rt 

Communitv Frequcncv Tvve 

North Wildwood 5YR Flooding 

Wildwood 5YR Flooding 

Wildwood Crest/Lower Township 50YR Flooding 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 19 
873

Figure 13-7 

4.5 Emergency/Clean-Up Information 

New Jerse)' Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

FE;\Ll) 

Elevallona: 

Wave Runup 

--- Wave Cre.st 

---.. ~-M-- FloodSt.lUwater 

NG VD/Mean 

Sea Level 

Clean-up costs for individual structures are based on the time for clean-up and additional meal 

and travel costs, Travel and meal costs are conservatively included as opposed to evacuation 

costs because most residential structures and many commercial structures are occupied on! y on a 

seasonal basis, and oftentimes, not by the structure's owner, Clean-up costs are applied to those 

structures affected by a particular storm event 

Emergency and clean-up costs were calculated for North Wildwood, The cost of emergency 

public services during or immediately after storm events was analyzed using information 

provided by the municipality, As a point of reference, the municipality reported damages for the 

December 1992 event with associated elevations that correspond to a 25-year event Damage 

frequency curves were developed and extrapolated for major flood events consistent with the 

damage frequency distribution for buildings, and historic data, 

5.0 ECONOMIC BENEFIT EVALUATION 

5.1 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS - NORTH WILDWOOD 

5.1.l Damage Zone Structures 

The number of structures affected and total damages by damage zone or damage frequency for 

structures in North Wildwood is presented in Table B-18, Damage from the different 

mechanisms (wave, erosion, or inundation) decreases between storm events because structures 

may be susceptible to more damage from a different mechanism at different storm frequencies, 

However, overall damage from all damage mechanisms increases with higher intensity storms, 

Structural damage below the 5-year event is negligible, Storms equivalent to a 2-year event have 

occurred in which no structural damages were reported, 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment-Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 20 
874

New Jersey Shore ProtL'Ction Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

North Wildwood 

Strnctures 

Wave Damage 

Erosion Damage 

Inundation Damage 

Total Damage 

Table B-18 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

STRUCTURES AFFECTED AND 

TOTAL DAMAGE BY FREQUENCY 

5-YR 

1 

0 

0 

$140 

$ 140 

(Dollars in thousands) 

10-yr 20-YR 50-YR 

I l 64 

0 0 $485 

0 0 0 

$152 $165 $15,349 

$ 152 $ 165 $15,834 

Without Pr~ject Structures Alliccted and 

Total Damage Ily Frequency 

(North \\'ildwood) 

FigureB-8 

Table B-19 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

100-YR 

[48 

$54,954 

$3,395 

$36,774 

$95,123 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

AVERAGE ANNUAL STRUCTURE DAMAGE 

(Dollars in thousands) 

200-YR 

160 

$136,861 

$17,167 

$6,418 

$160,446 

50(1."fR 

Average 

Annual 

Location Cell Erosion Wave Inundation Dama2e 

North Wildwood 1 $23 $919 $269 $1,211 

North Wildwood 2 $97 $502 $401 $1,000 

Total $ 120 $1,421 $ 670 $2,2] \ 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental As.,essment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis 

500-YR 

176 

$180,796 

$10,175 

$7,263 

$198,234 

Page21 
875

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table B-20 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL 

AVERAGE ANNUAL STRUCTURE DAMAGE 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Average 

Annual 

Location Cell Residential Commercial Dama2e 

North Wildwood I $316 $895 $1,211 

North Wildwood 2 $247 $753 $1,000 

Total $ 563 $1.648 $2,211 

5.1.2 Infrastructure and Improved Property Damages 

Total infrastructure damages by frequency are shown in Table B-21A The without project 

average annual damages (AAD) for the infrastructure such as roads, storm drains, the boardwalk, 

piers, bulkheads, and improved property are displayed in Table B-218, 

Cate2ory 

lnfrnstmcture 

Boardwalk 

Bulkhead 

Tora/ 

Table B-21A 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

TOTALINFRASTRUCTUREDAMAGESBYFREQUENCY 

(Dollars in thousands) 

5-YR 10-YR 20-YR 50-YR 100-YR 

$L440 $3,350 $3,418 $3,852 $15,089 

() 0 0 0 5,540 

0 0 () () ],239 

$1,440 $3,350 $3,418 $3,852 $21,868 

Table B-21B 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

AVERAGE ANNUAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND 

IMPROVED PROPERTY DAMAGES 

(Dollars iu thousands) 

Total 

$ 226 

200-YR 

$18,173 

5,540 

1,239 

$24,952 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis 

500-YR 

$22,124 

5,540 

],239 

$28,903 

Pagc22 
876

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

5.1.3 Summary of Damages 

Total estimated average annual damages in North Wildwood by location/cell and damage 

mechanism are $3,070,000 as presented in Table B-22. Average annual damages to structures 

only are estimated to be $2,211,000. 

Table B-22 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

WITHOUT PROJECT 

TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGE 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Improved 

Location Cell Structure Infrastructure Prouertv 

North Wildwood I $1,211 $185 $24 

North Wildwood 2 $1,000 $646 $4 

Total $2.211 $ 831 $ 28 

5.1.4 Emergency/Clean-Up Costs 

Average 

Annual 

Dama2e 

$1,420 

$1,650 

$3.070 

The number of structures affected and the estimated costs for each storm event are presented in 

Table B-23 for North Wildwood. Average annual emergency and clean-up costs for all affected 

individuals and public entities are $103,000, combined. Total expected average annual damage 

under without project conditions including emergency costs is $3,173,000. 

North Wildwood 

Strnctures 

Individual Clean-up Costs 

Mw1icipal Emergency Costs 

Table B-23 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

EMERGENCY/CLEAN-UP COSTS 

(Dollars in thousands) 

5-YR 10-YR 20-YR 50-YR 

l l 1 64 

$1 $1 $3 $65 

$11 $92 $141 $826 

5.1.5 Back Bay Flooding 

100-YR 200-YR 500-YR 

148 160 176 

$351 $812 $1,786 

$2,410 $4,122 $6.005 

Storm damage resulting from infiltration of waves, beach erosion, and inundation from the ocean 

shoreline was the focus of the proposed plan recommended by the study. Many barrier islands, 

including the Wildwoods, are traditionally subject to the impacts of bay flooding from any 

combination of storm events and high tides. This phenomenon was not evaluated as part of this 

study. As an example, the model was run for the stages associated with the back-bay (stillwater) 

inundation. The result represents inundation damages specific only to the oceanfront/nearshore 

structures in the database that would not be eliminated by a project on the oceanfront of North 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment-Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page23 
877

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Wildwood. These back-bay residual damages for these structures total $153,000 in average 

annual damages. 

5.2 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS - WILDWOOD, WILDWOOD 

CREST & LOWER TOWNSHIP 

5.2. l Accreted Area 

The study area at the Wildwood~ is a dynamic system, characterized by the movement of sand 

down-shore from North Wildwood to the beaches in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. This 

redistribution of sand from North Wildwood has created an on-shore borrow area of built-up 

accreted sand in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest which has caused water to pond at clogged 

outfalls, and increased costs for beach maintenance and outfall pipe extension. At the beginning 

of the study, initial review of field conditions in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest indicated that 

beach width was in excess of 1,500 and 1,100 feet, respectively. Therefore, the study focused on 

the highly eroded oceanfront of North Wildwood. 

In addition to the down drift structures south of North Wildwood, property located on the piers 

seaward of the proposed project may be susceptible to damage from hurricanes and storms. 

Three piers in North Wildwood and Wildwood have extensions sloping down near beach level 

and are not uniformly elevated on tall piles as in other shore communities like Atlantic City. 

Structures located in these areas were reviewed to determine potential damages and the impact of 

extending various plan alternatives around the piers. 

5.2.2 Damage Zone Structures 

The number of structures affected and total damages by damage zone or damage frequency for 

structures in Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township are presented in Tables B-24 

through B-26. To avoid double counting, if damage is incurred by more than one of the potential 

three mechanisms (wave, erosion, or inundation), the COSTDAM program takes the maximum 

damage of any one given mechanism, and disregards the lower damages estimated by the two 

other mechanisms. Overall damage from all damage mechanisms increases with higher 

intensity storms. 

The problems of clogged outfall pipes and street flooding are an on-going challenge which has 

required continuous maintenance by Wildwood. Many of the nearshore structures in Wildwood 

are commercial activities and several have first floors with elevations at grade or slightly above, 

that are located within the modeled 5-year inundation profile area in terms of distance from the 

shoreline and inundation susceptibility. Wildwood has no dune system to impede over-berm flow 

of floodwaters; therefore the model carries the water elevation inland. The difference between 

historical observations and modeled results could be caused by a combination of factors. 

Officials and business owners implement mitigation measures such as sandbag placement and 

constructing building closures. When there has been no time to deploy protective measures 

damage has occurred in Wildwood. Businesses experienced with frequent potentially damaging 

storm events also may have employed storm proofing and modifications to property to reduce the 

impacts of flooding. Natural landscaping may also act as a barrier to infiltration of water into 

buildings. These variables are not model parameters. 

Dratl Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page24 
878

Wildwood 

Strnctures 

Wave Damage 

Erosion Damage 

Inundation Damage 

Total Damage 

New Jersey Shore ProtL'Ction Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

TableB-24 

WILDWOOD 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

STRUCTURES AFFECTED AND 

TOTAL DAMAGE BY FREQUENCY 

5-YR 

32 

0 

0 

$1.797 

$1.797 

(Dollars in thousands) 

10-vr 20-YR 50-YR 

47 54 63 

0 0 0 

0 0 () 

$3,650 $5,543 $9,298 

$3,6j(l $5,543 $9,298 

Without Project Structures AITectedand 

Totul Damage By }'requency 

{Wildwood) 

.~0-YR 100-YR 

:Frequrncy 

Figure B-9 

100-YR 200-YR 500-YR 

[15 125 131 

0 $48,306 $51,()36 

() $70 $1,603 

$29,236 $3.933 $3,578 

$29,236 $52,309 $56,217 

500-YR 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page25 
879

Wildwood Crest 

New Jersey Shore ProtL'Ction Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table B-25 

WILDWOOD CREST 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

STRUCTURES AFFECTED AND 

TOTAL DAMAGE BY FREQUENCY 

Dollars in thousands 

5-YR 

() 

0 

() 

0 

$ 0 

10-vr 20-YR -YR 

() () 19 

0 0 0 

() 0 0 

0 () $5,598 

$ 0 $ 0 $5,598 

\Y ithout Project Structures AITected and 

Totlll Dumage By Frequency 

(Wihh\'OOd Crest) 

50·YR 

:Frequency 

Figure B-10 

100-YR 200-YR 500-YR 

81 100 

$[.406 $20,881 

$29,497 $22,301 

$17,299 $53,059 

$48,202 $96.241 

200-YR 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page26 
880

Lower Township 

Strnctures 

Wave Damage 

Erosion Damage 

Inundation Damage 

Total Damage 

New Jersey Shore ProtL'Ction Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table B-26 

LOWER TOWNSHIP 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

STRUCTURES AFFECTED AND 

TOTAL DAMAGE BY FREQUENCY 

5-YR 

() 

0 

0 

0 

$ 0 

(Dollars in thousands) 

10-vr 20-YR 50-YR 

() () 1 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 $2,153 

$ 0 $ () $2,153 

Without Project Structures Affected and 

Tota!Damuge By Frequency 

(Lower Towns.hip) 

.Frequency 

100-YR 

2 

$0 

$0 

$3,826 

$3,826 

!mn,datwn Darm);!e ----+-ToW Dainia,,;e I 

200-YR 500-YR 

5 II 

$12,605 $12,605 

$4,566 $12.318 

$15,675 $62,169 

$32,846 $87,092 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page27 
881

New Jersey Shore Prokction Study 

Hereford Inlet to Ca[Je May Inlet Feasibility Study 

5.2.3 Accreted Area Damage Summary 

Expected average annual damages by location/cell and damage mechanism for structures and 

other damage elements in the communities within the potential backpass area are presented in 

Table B-27. A breakdown of damage by structure type for Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and 

Lower Township is shown in Table B-28. Average annual damages to structures only are an 

estimated $3,081,000 of the $5, [24,000. 

Table B-27 

WILDWOOD, WILDWOOD CREST, LOWER TOWNSHIP 

WITHOUT PROJECT 

TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGE 

/Dollars in thousands) 

Average 

Location Cell 

Wildwood 3 

Wildwood Crest 4 

Wildwood Crest 5 

Lower Townshin 6 

Total 

Impro,·ed 

Erosion Wave Inundation Infrastructure Pronertv 

$4 $298 $U92 $L306 $0 

$15 $5 $198 $498 $4 

$288 $178 $482 $212 $11 

$49 $82 $290 $12 $0 

$ 356 $ 563 $2,162 $2,028 $ 15 

Table B-28 

WILDWOOD, WILDWOOD CREST, LOWER TOWNSHIP 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL 

AVERAGE ANNUAL STRUCTURE DAMAGE 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Average 

Annual 

Location Cell Residential Commercial Dama!!e 

Wildwood 3 $52 $1,443 $1,495 

Wildwood Crest 4 $0 $218 $ 218 

Wildwood Crest 5 $518 $429 $ 947 

Lower Township 6 $406 $15 $ 421 

Total $ 976 $2.105 $3.081 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis 

Structure Annual 

Subtotal Dama2c 

$1.494 $2,800 

$ 218 $ 720 

$ 948 $1,171 

$421 $ 433 

$3Jl81 $5,124 

Page 28 
882

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

5.2.4 Amusement Piers Damages 

A major attraction of the Wile/woods are the amusement piers which offer an assortment of mild 

to high thrill rides, kids' rides, game booths, and concessions, as well as waterparks. The unique 

nature of analyzing damage to the amusement piers required a separate database for the pier 

structures. Amusement pier ride replacement cost values were provided by the pier operator and 

depreciated using an amusement ride depreciation schedule. Specialized depth damage curves 

from similar activities were used in the inundation analysis. Estimated average annual damage 

to the amusement pier rides is $122,000. Table B-28 presents a breakdown of the damage 

estimate by community/pier and damage category. 

Location 

North Wildwood 

Wildwood 

Wildwood 

Total 

TableB-29 

NORTH WILDWOOD & WILDWOOD 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

AVERAGE ANNUAL PIER DAMAGES 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Pier Erosion Wave Inundation 

Surfside $27 $7 $0 

Mariner's Landing $44 $1 $0 

Adventure $3 $12 $28 

S 74 S 20 S 28 

5.3 ESTIMATED TOTAL DAMAGES 

Average 

Annual 

Dama2e 

$ 34 

$ 45 

$ 43 

S 122 

Total estimated without project average annual damage for all categories in North Wildwood, the 

eroding portion of the study area, and Wildwood and Wildwood Crest, the down-drift accreting 

area, is $8,194,000. Table B-30 presents a breakdown of the damage estimate by community. 

TableB-30 

WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 

TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGES 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Total 

North Wildwood $3,070 

Wildwood 2,800 

Wildwood Crest/ 2,324 

Lower Township 

Tola! $8,194 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Pagc29 
883

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

6.0 BENEFIT ANALYSIS 

6.1 WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

6.1.1 Storm Damage Reduction 

Expected damages for several different project alternatives were calculated using the same 

methodologies and databases as previously detailed in the without project conditions. The 

benefits from the project alternatives were estimated by evaluating damage to structures under 

with and without project conditions. Potential damage reduction to infrastructure, improved 

property, and other auxiliary categories is expected to parallel reduced damage to structures and, 

therefore, was not calculated for the matrix of alternatives. The eroded shoreline in North 

Wildwood was analyzed first Plan alternatives A-N are aligned with the current beach profile 

landward of the amusement pier structures and, therefore, would not protect those structures 

from storm damage. Table B-31 and Figure B-11 di splay the results of the storm damage 

reduction analysis for the oceanfront and nearshore structures in North Wildwood. 

The plan alternative selected to alleviate the severe erosion in North Wildwood includes the 

construction of a dune with a height of 16 feet (NA VD) and a berm with a width of 75 feet 

Dredging and backpassing were two options analyzed for acquiring sand for the project The 

backpass option was reviewed and selected in an effort to maximize benefits and employ a 

systems approach to combine protecting property and infrastructure at the northern end of the 

island with improving beach conditions in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest/Lower Township. 

The plan would also provide storm damage reduction benefits for the southern Five Mile Island 

communities. The presence of a wide feeder beach provides adequate sand to form protective 

dunes in the cells of the study area that lack this additional height buffer. Tables B-32 and B-33 

display the results of the storm damage reduction analysis for the oceanfront and nearshore 

structures in Wildwood, and Wildwood Crest, respectively. 

Table B-34 compares the aggregate incremental benefits from constructing a consistent dune of 

various heights in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest/Lower Township. 

Plan Project Tvpe 

A 12' Dune. 115' Berm 

B 14' Dime, 95' Benn 

C 16'Dtme. 75' Benn 

D 12' Dime, 140' Benn 

E 14' Dune. 120' Benn 

F 16' Dunc, 100' Benn 

G 12' Dune. 165' Benn 

H 14' Dunc. 145' Berm 

I 16' Dime, 125' Benn 

J 18' Dm1c. SO'Bcnn 

K 18' Dime. 105' Benn 

L 20' Dunc, 85' Benn 

M 20· Dune. 110' Berm 

N 20' Dm1e. 160' Berm 

Table B-31 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION BENEFITS 

BY PLAN ALTERNATIVE 

Without Pro,ject With Project Storm Damage 

Storm Damages Storm Dama2es Reduction Benefits 

$2,211,000 $1,887,000 $324,000 

$2,21[,000 $L137.000 $1.074,000 

$2,2l!,OOO $687,000 $1,524,000 

$2,211.000 $1,287,000 $924,000 

$2,211,000 $975,000 $1,236,000 

$2,211.000 $531,000 $1,680.000 

$2,211,000 $Ll80,()00 $1,()31,000 

$2,211,000 $644.000 $1,567,000 

$2.211.000 $459.000 $ l,752,000 

$2.211.000 $461,000 $1,750,000 

$2,21 ],()()() $212.000 $1,999.()00 

$2,211,000 $203,000 $2,008,000 

$2,211,000 $197.000 $2.014.000 

$2,211,000 $121,000 $2.090,000 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis 

Percent 

Reduced 

15% 

49% 

69% 

42% 

56% 

76% 

47% 

71% 

79% 

79% 

90% 

91% 

91% 

95% 

Page JO 
884

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

$0 

Plan Proicct Tyne 

AA 12' Dune 

BB 14' Dune 

cc 16' Dunc 

$500,000 

North Wildwood Structure Damage 

$1.000,000 $1,'iO(LOOO 

Structure Damage 

Figure B-12 

Table B-32 

WILDWOOD 

S2,000,000 

STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION BENEFITS 

BY PLAN ALTERNATIVE 

Without Pro,ject With Projl'Ct Storm Damage 

Storm Dama!!es Storm Dama!!cs Reduction Benefits 

$1,494,000 $432,000 $1,062,000 

$1.494,000 $222,000 $L272,000 

$1.494.000 $12LOOO $1373,000 

Table B-33 

WILDWOOD CREST/LOWER TOWNSHIP 

STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION BENEFITS 

o==~=;=~~~~=i=~~~==BYPLANALTERNATIVE 

Plan Pro'ect Tv e 

AA 12· Dune 

BB 14' Dune 

cc 16' Dunc 

With Project 

Storm Dama es 

$653,000 

$452.000 

$306,000 

Storm Damage 

Reduction Benefits 

$512,000 

$713.000 

$859,000 

Draft F1nal Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis 

$2j00.000 

Percent 

Reduced 

71% 

85% 

92% 

Percent 

Reduced 

44% 

61% 

74% 

Page 31 
885

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Plan I 

AA I 

BB I 

cc I 

Table B-34 

WILDWOOD AND WILDWOOD CREST/LOWER TOWNSHIP 

AAB, AAC, NET BENEFITS & BCR BY PLAN ALTERNATIVE 

Pro icct Tvue I AAB I AAC I Net Benefits I 

BYPASS 

12' Dunc I $L574,000 I $112,000 I $L462,000 I 

14' Dunc I $1,986.000 I $173,000 I $1.813.ooo I 

16' Dune I $2,231,000 I $245,ooo I $1,986,000 I 

*.1.ilay not add exactly due to roundmg 

BCR 

14.05 

11.-18 

9.11 

An interim analysis was conducted to determine the impact ofbackpassing sand to North 

Wildwood without construction of the complete project with a protective dune of any height in 

Wildwood and Wildwood Crest/Lower Township. The reduced berm without inclusion of the 

dune component of the proposed plan alternative would result in an estimated 6% increase in 

without project average annual damage to structures from $3,081,000 to $3,263,000. 

Plan C with a 16-foot dune and a 75-foot berm was used as a base plan to extend protection to 

the relatively low-lying amusement piers. The 100-foot berm seaward of the piers is essentially 

the same as the 75-foot berm landside of the piers at the boardwalk parallel to the shoreline to 

support the dune. Plans Cl, C2, and C3 were developed to detennine whether additional 

beachfill to protect the piers would be incrementally justified. Table B-35 shows the resulting 

incremental average annual costs to expand protection around the ends of the piers. The benefits 

include the maximum potential storm damage reduction benefits to pier infrastructure. A steel 

sheet pile barrier around the piers was also evaluated and is presented. These options were 

eliminated from the analysis due to the limited benefit potential and prohibitively high cost to 

extend protection around the piers. 

Table B-35 

NORTH WILDWOOD AND WILDWOOD PIERS 

AAB AAC, NET BENEFITS & BCR BY PLAN ALTERNATIVE 

l'lan I Pro icct Tyne I AAB I AAC I Net Benefits I BCR 

BYPASS (,/-YR Nourishment Cvcle) 

Cl I 12' Dunc, 100' Berm I $400,000 I $857.ooo I ($457,oooi I 0.47 

C2 I 14' Dnne, 100' Berm I $401,000 I $1, us.ooo I ($734,oooi I 0.35 

C3 I 16' Dunc. 100· Berm I $497.ooo I $L4IO.ooo I ($913,oooJ I 0.35 

STEEL SHEET PILE 

II s I I Steel Sheeting I $497,ooo I $1.658,000 I ($1,161,000) I 0.30 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page32 
886

6.1.2 Local Costs Forgone Benefits 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Benefits of coastal storm management projects include reductions in non-physical damages as 

well as reductions in physical damages to homes, commercial buildings, public property and 

critical infrastructure. The Coastal Storm Risk Management National Economic Development 

(NED) Manual (2011) includes reduced costs for public protective measures or local costs 

forgone, as it is referred to in this document, as a benefit category. This benefit captures future 

costs that would be expended by the state and local municipalities to protect coastal property in 

the absence of a plan of protection. The local costs forgone benefits described in the following 

paragraphs are expected to be realized with implementation of any proposed project. 

The beaches of the Wi1c./woods have been historically protected and maintained through state and 

local government-sponsored beachfill projects in North Wildwood to allay erosion, daily outfall 

maintenance to remove sand and place barriers around water that ponds at clogged outfalls, and 

construction projects in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest to extend outfall pipes beyond the 

accreted shoreline. In 2009, the State of New Jersey constructed a beachfill project of over one 

million cubic yards of sand at the northern section of the Wildwood~ to control erosion with 

subsequent emergency sand placements after other storm events. The future without project 

condition was based on the expectation that the state would continue to partner and provide 

protection to the communities. The implementation of a federal project will preclude this action 

and provide a savings from public protective measures to the State of New Jersey and the local 

municipalities. 

Savings to the State of New Jersey and local communities could potentially be, depending upon 

the source of material, an estimated average annual $954,000 as a result of the beachfill and 

nourishment components of a proposed plan. Table B-36 displays this savings for North 

Wildwood. Acquisition of sand from Hereford Inlet via dredging would ignore the systems 

approach to the problems of congested outfalls and eliminate realization of local costs forgone 

benefits to Wildwood or Wildwood Crest (shown in Table B-38). Therefore, the option to 

dredge material from Hereford Inlet was removed from further consideration. 

Local costs forgone were included in the average annual benefits for the backpass alternatives in 

Table B-37 because the protective dune and berm will be constructed with the accreted beach 

material from Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. The expected range of the remaining berm 

widths after implementation of the tentatively selected plan (TSP) will vary with the beach 

profile from 3 00 to l ,l 00 feet. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Pagc33 
887

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table B-36 

NORTH WILDWOOD 

LOCAL COSTS FORGONE 

UNDER WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 

PW 

North North 

Year Willlwood p,vFactor ,\'ildwood 

l $0 0.%6184 SC 

2 $0 0.933511 

3 $0 0.901943 

4 $0 0.871442 

5 so 0.841973 

6 $9.750.000 0.813501 $7,931.63 

7 $0 0.785991 $( 

8 $0 0.759412 $( 

9 $( 0.733731 s 

El sol 

<nffi 

$( 

15 $( 0.5%891 $( 

16 $9.750.000 0.576706 $5.622.881 

17 $0 0.557204 $( 

l8 $0 0.538361 

19 $0 0.520156 

20 $0 0.502566 

21 $0 0.485571 

22 $0 0.469151 $( 

23 $0 0.453286 SC 

24 $0 0.437957 SC 

25 $0 0.423147 $( 

2(, $9,750,000 0.408838 $3,986J6 

27 $0 0.395012 $( 

28 $0 0.381654 SC 

29 $0 0.368748 SC 

30 $0 0.356278 SC 

31 $0 0.344230 SC 

32 $0 0.332590 SC 

33 $0 0.321343 SC 

34 $() 0.310476 SC 

35 $0 0.299977 SC 

36 $9.750.000 0.289833 "7 R?SS 

37 $0 0.280032 

38 so 0.270562 

39 $0 0.261413 

40 $0 0.252572 

41 $0 0.244031 

42 $0 0.235779 

43 $0 0.227806 

44 $( 0.220102 

45 SC 0.212659 

46 $9,750,000 0.205468 $2,003.3 

47 $() 0.198520 

48 $0 O. l9l806 

49 $0 0.185320 

50 $0 0.179053 

fotal Present Worth; 

(50 years 1ttJ 3.500% (fY14)): 

' 

0 

~ Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page34 
888

6.2 OPTIMIZATION 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Optimization of the alternatives is based on maximizing storm damage reduction to structures, 

which is the priority benefit category. Project induced benefits were considered during 

optimization. Storm damage reduction to infrastructure and improved property, and recreation 

were not used in the optimization process. Benefits which will accrue for those categories will be 

evaluated for the selected plan alternative. Initial and nourishment costs for the various project 

alternatives are annualized for comparison to the average annual benefits for each project 

alternative. Initial construction and periodic nourishment costs are annualized over a SO-year 

period of analysis at an FY14 discount rate of 3-Y,%. Monitoring, major rehabilitation, and real 

estate costs will be included for the selected plan alternative. The average annual costs are 

subtracted from and com pared to average annual benefits to calculate net benefits and the 

benefit-cost ratio and select the optimal plan, which maximizes net benefits. Theoretically, the 

plan of improvement identified as the most efficient use of funds is the one in which benefits 

exceed cost by the maximum amount. The average annual benefits and costs, net benefits and 

benefit-cost ratio for storm damage reduction are included in Table B-37 for the backpass option. 

Plan C, a 16'dune and 75' berm, is the alternative with the greatest net benefits in each periodic 

nourishment cycle evaluated. Engineering judgment in assessing nourishment cycle 

performance, recent historical rates of erosion, the lower risk of occurrence of a potentially 

damaging storm event with a shorter periodic nourishment cycle and the negligible difference 

between the 4 and 5-year cycle net benefits led to the selection of Plan C within the 4-year 

nourishment cycle group. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page35 
889

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table B-37 

NORlH WILDWOOD 

AAB, AAC, NET BENEFITS & BCR BY PLAN ALTERNATIVE (BACKP ASS) 

Plan Proiect T>1Je 

A 12' Dune, 115' Berm 

B 14' Dune, 95' Berm 

C 16' DllllC, 75' Berm 

D 12' Dune, 140' Berm H'"'"''"· une. I 00' Bern1 

une, 165'Berm 

)une, 145' Berm 

Dune, 125' Berm 

J 18' Dune, 80'Berm 

K 18' l)une, I 05' Berm 

L 20' Dune, 85' Berm 

M 20' Dune, 11 O' Berm 

N 20' Dune, 160' Berm 

~Dune, 115'Bem1 

· Dune. 95' Berm 

'l)une, 75' Berm 

D 12' Dune, 140' Berm 

E 14' l)une. 120' Berm 

F l6'Dune, lOO'Berm 

G 12' Dune, 165' Benn 

H 14' l)une, 145' Berm 

I 16' Dune. 125' Berm 

J 18' l)une, 80' Benn 

K 18'Dunc. 105'Bcrm 

L 20' Dune, 85' Berm 

M 20' Dune, 11 O' Berm 

N 120'Dtme. l60'Berm 

A 12' Dune, 115' Berm 

13 14' Dune, 95'Berm 

C 16' Dune, 75' Berm 

D 12' Dune. 140' Berm 

E 14'Dune, l20'Berm 

F JG' Dune, 100' Berm 

G 12' ThtUe. 165' I3cm1 

H 14' Dune, 145' Benn 

I 16' Dune. 125' Benn 

J 18' Dune, 80' Berm 

K 18' Dune, 105' Bem1 

L 20' Dune, 85' Berm 

M 20' ThtUe, I IO' Berm 

N 20' Dtme, 160' Berm 

AAB AABw/LCF AAC 

3-Y R Nourishment C:vcle 

$324,000 $1,278.000 $2,007,000 

$1,074,000 $2,028,000 $2,030,000 

$1,524,000 $2,478,000 $2,056,000 

$924,000 $1,878,000 $2,481,000 

$1,236,000 $2,190,000 $2,503,000 

$1,680,000 $2,634,000 $2,543,000 

$1,031,000 $1,985,000 $3,012,000 

$1,567,000 $2,521,000 $3,035,000 

$1,752,000 $2,706,000 $3,064,000 

$1,750,000 $2,704,000 $2,577,000 

$1,999,000 $2,953,000 $3,095,000 

$2,008,000 $2,962,000 $3,140,000 

$2,014,000 $2,968,000 $4,182,000 

$2.090,000 $3,044,000 $6,367,000 

4-Y R Nourishment C:Vcle 

$324,000 $1,278,000 $1,781,000 

- $2,028,000 $1,803,000 

$1,524,000 $2,478,000 $1,831,000 

$924,000 $1,878,000 $2,223,000 

$1,236,000 $2,190,000 $2,257,000 

$1,680,000 $2,634,000 $2,285,000 

$1,031,000 $1,985,000 $2,703,000 

$1.567,000 $2,521,000 $2,727,000 

$1,752,000 $2,706,000 $2,755,000 

$!.750.000 $2.704.000 $2,319,000 

$1,999,000 $2,953,000 $2,794,000 

$2.008.000 $2,962,000 $2,834,000 

$2,014,000 $2,968,000 $3,776,000 

$2,090,000 $3,044,000 $5,735,000 

5-YR Nourishment q,cfe 

$324,000 $1,278,000 $1,784,000 

$1,074.000 $2,028.000 $1,796,000 

$1,524,000 $2,478,000 $1,823,000 

$924,000 $1,878,000 $2,201,000 

$1.236,000 $2,190,000 $2,224,000 

$1,680,000 $2,634,000 $2,255,000 

$1,031.000 $1,985,000 $2.696.000 

$1,567.000 $2,521,000 $2,719,000 

$1,752,000 $2,706,000 $2,747,000 

$1,750,000 $2,704,000 $2,284,000 

$1,999,000 $2,953,000 $2,781,000 

$2,008,000 $2,962,000 $2,819,000 

$2,014,000 $2,968,000 $3,747,000 

$2,090,000 $3,044,000 $5,787,000 

*1Votes: Dune e/evailon mJ£et /\'AVi) 88 

June 2007 pnce lel'el and FYJ 4 - 3.500% discount rate 

Figures include local cost forgone (LCF) 

Net Benefits 

($729,000) 

($2,000) 

$422,000 

($603,000) 

($313,000) 

$91,000 

($1,027,000) 

($514,000) 

($358,000) 

$127,000 

($142,000) 

($178,000) 

($1,214,000) 

($3,323,000) 

($503,000) 

$225,000 

$647,000 

($345,000) 

($67,000) 

$349.000 

($718,000) 

($206,000) 

($49,000) 

$385,000 

$159,000 

$128,000 

($808,000) 

($2,691,000) 

($506,000) 

$232.000 

$655,000 

($323,000) 

($34,000) 

$379.000 

($711,000) 

($198,000) 

($41,000) 

$420,000 

$172,000 

$143,000 

($779,000) 

($2,743,000) 

Figures excluded mfi-astructure, improved propert;ir', and emergency costs 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis 

BCR I 

I 0 641 

1 0011 

1.211 I 

0.76[ 

0.87 [ 

1 0411 

06611 

0 83 i 

0 881 

105 i 

0 95 1! 

0 941i 

0.71 i 

04Sli 

oni 

1!2i 

us! 

0 841 I 

o.97 I 

LIS I 

0.73 1! 

0.921 

0.98 

1171i 

106! I 1.051 

0.791 I 

0.53' 

i 

0.72! 

1u I 

1.361 

oss I 

0.981 

uil 

0 74i 

0.93 I 

~ ~:1 

1061 

I.OS i 

0.79[ 

0.53 i 

Pagc36 
890

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table B-38 

WILDWOOD AND WILDWOOD CREST/LOWER TOWNSHIP 

LOCAL COSTS FORGONE 

UNDER WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 

nv 

Wildwood P\-Y \\.'1ldwood 

Year \\1ldwood Crest P\YFactor \\-11dwood Crest 

$59Jl00 S5lXl,(IOO 0.966184 $57.(105 $483,0 

$59.000 $0 0.933511 $55.077 

$59.000 $0 0.901943 $53,215 

~'95,000 $0 0.871442 $82787 $( 

$59,000 $0 0.841973 $49.676 $( 

$59,000 $500,000 0.813501 $47.997 $406.75( 

S59.000 so 0.785991 $46-373 $( 

$59,000 $0 0.759412 $44.805 

9 S59.000 $0 0.733731 $4\290 

10 S59,000 $0 0.708919 $41.826 

11 $59,000 $800JX>O 0.684946 $40,412 S5479 

12 $59,000 $0 0.661783 $39.045 

n $59.000 $0 0.639404 s:n,ns 

14 $95.000 $0 0.617782 $58.689 

15 S59.000 $0 0.596891 $35,217 

16 $59.000 S500,000 0.576706 $34,026 $28835 

17 $59,000 $0 0.557204 $<2875 $( 

18 $59,000 $0 0.538361 $31,763 $( 

19 $59,000 so 0.520156 $30,689 S< 

20 $59.000 $0 0.502566 $29,651 $( 

21 $59,000 $500,000 0.485571 $28,649 S2427 

22 $59,000 $0 0.469151 $27,680 

23 S59,000 $0 0.453286 $26,744 

24 $95,000 so 0.437957 $41,606 

75 $59.000 so 0.4231-t-7 $24,966 

26 $59.000 $800.000 0.408838 $24,121 $327J) 

27 $59,000 $0 0.395012 $23,306 

28 $59.000 $0 0.381654 $22518 

29 $59.000 so 0.368748 $21.756 

30 $59,000 so 0.356278 $21.020 

31 $59.000 $500,000 0.3442~0 $20.310 Sl72,l 

32 $59,000 so 0.332590 $19,623 

33 $59.000 $0 0.321343 $18,959 

34 $95,000 $0 0.310476 $29.495 

35 $59,000 so 0.299977 $17,699 

36 '590ml $500,000 0.289833 $17.100 '1JA916I 

37 $59,000 so 0.280032 $16,522 

38 $59,0(Kl so 0.270562 $15,963 

39 S59,0lKl $0 0.261413 S15,423 

40 $59,000 so 0.252572 $14_902 

41 S59Jl00 $8<Xl.OOO 0.244031 $14398 $195.:J 

42 $59.000 $0 0.235779 $13,911 

43 S59,000 so 0.227806 $13,441 

44 $95.000 so 0.220102 $20.910 

45 $59,000 so 0.212659 S12547 

46 $59,000 $5(X).(100 0.205468 $1212, $1027. 

47 $59,000 so 0.198520 $1!,713 

48 $59,0<Xl so 0.191806 $11,317 

49 $59,000 $(] 0.185320 $10.934 

50 S59,0(Kl $0 0.179053 S!O.SM 

Total Present Worth: Sl.472.,361 $2.,910,CJ' 

CR.F (50 wars (rll 3.500% (FY14)): 0.('42634 

Ax $63,000 $124.0( 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Asses.,ment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page37 
891

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table B-39 presents a summary of the combined selected plan by community. The estimated 

average annual benefits include storm damage reduced and local costs forgone or reduced 

maintenance costs from a 16' dune and 75' berm in North Wildwood with excess sand conveyed 

from Wildwood and an engineered 16' dune and enduring berm to supplement oceanfront 

protection in Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township. The estimated costs include 

initial construction, periodic nourishment, and interest during construction. 

Table B-39 

NORTH WILDWOOD, WILDWOOD, AND WILDWOOD CREST/LOWER TOWNSHIP 

SUMMARY OF AAB, AAC, NET BENEFITS AND BCR FOR THE SELECTED PLAN 

H Community Cell Selected Plan AAB AAC Net Benefits BCR 

North Wildwood 1-2 16' Dune. 75' Berm $2,478.000 $1.831.000 $647.000 1.4 

Wildwood 3 16'Dune $1,243.000 $117.000 $1.126,000 10.6 

Wildwood Crest/ 4-6 16' Dunc $674,000 $132.000 $542,000 5.1 

Lower Township 

The Wildwoods 1-6 16' Dm1c. 75' Benn: $4.395.000 $2.080,000 $2.315.000 2.1 

JG' Dune 

6.3 INCIDENTAL BENEFITS 

6.3.1 Recreation Benefits 

Beaches are consistently the number one travel destination in New Jersey. Tourist dollars 

contribute directly and indirectly to the regional economy. In 2008, the New Jersey Division of 

Travel and Tourism reported that travel and tourism generated 359,000 jobs in the state with a 

total payroll of $11.8 billion. 

The Rutgers State University completed in 1994, for previous New Jersey coastal studies, a 

contingent valuation method survey for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

and Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine willingness to pay for 

the existing beach and an enhanced beach. This was done on a regional basis, encompassing the 

major beach communities of the New Jersey Atlantic coast such as the communities of Absecon 

Island, Seven Mile Island, Brigantine, as well as Stone Harbor and Avalon which is just north of 

the Wildwoods. The survey was designed in accordance with the NED Procedures Manual 

Recreation 11 (A Guide for Using the Contingent Value Methodology in Recreation Studies). 

The original report is included as an attachment to this appendix. The survey consisted of 1,063 

interviews of a random sample of recreational beach users. The interviews were conducted in 

person on the beach. The survey scope was intended for use with all South Jersey shore 

feasibility studies. The Wildwoods is also close, both qualitatively and geographically, to Stone 

Harbor therefore, it is reasonable that survey results can be representative of the conditions on 

the island. 

Beachgoers were asked to indicate how important different factors were in deciding whether to 

visit a New Jersey beach. Respondents voiced similar desires. The primary factors of 

consideration were the quality of the beach scenery, the maintenance of the beach, the width of 

the beach, the number of lifeguards, and the family-friendliness of the beach. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page38 
892

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

The survey also used a density measure developed in cooperation with the Corps to determine if 

crowding was a problem. It was found that over 60% of the time there was at least several yards 

of space between beach towels or blankets, and only 7% of the time was it very crowded (only 2 

feet between towels). Further it was determined that crowding was not considered a very 

important issue to the majority ofbeachgoers by asking respondents how important being alone 

is and how important is it to be with a large number of people. As might be expected, areas with 

more crowding tended to be frequented by people who like large numbers. People who like to be 

alone frequented areas that tended to have little crowding. 

To estimate the value of the beach, as it exists currently, an iterative bidding process was 

applied. Beachgoers were first asked if a day at the beach would be worth $4.00 to each member 

of their household. Based on their answers, they were then asked progressively higher or lower 

amounts until the amount they value the beach was determined. Using this method it was found 

that the average value of a day at the beach is $4.22. 

Beachgoers were asked how much more they were willing to pay if the beach were widened. 

While the majority was unwilling to pay any extra, approximately 16% of Stone Harbor 

beachgoers were willing to pay, on average, $2.47 more per visit. This would be equivalent to 

an average of $0.39 for all beachgoers. This willingness to pay value for Stone Harbor was 

adopted because it is the nearest beach to North Wildwood. This value was indexed to a June 

2007 price level from an October 1994 price level for the purposes of this study. Since access to 

the beaches of the Wile/woods· is free, the number of visitor days was obtained from City of North 

Wildwood estimates and by comparing beach size within the project area of North Wildwood 

with that of Stone Harbor. The total number of visitor days for the beach within the project area 

is estimated at 1,000,000. 

Benefits were not found to accrue from increased capacity because crowding was found not to be 

a significant factor and the selected plan involves conveying accreted sand from Wildwood and 

Wildwood Crest. Removal of sand from the down drift areas is not expected to negatively affect 

the recreation experience because the beaches are extremely wide and require beachgoers to 

walk quite some distance to reach the water's edge. In addition, alleviating the negative impacts 

of ponding is expected to improve the appearance of the beach. Benefits do, however, arise from 

an increase in the value of the recreational experience in North Wildwood. 

Benefits resulting from this increase in recreational experience were calculated by multiplying 

the average daily value per beachgoer by the number of visitor days within the project area. This 

gives total recreational benefits of $580,000, as displayed in Table B-40. 

Communi 

Table B-40 

RECREATION VISITOR DAYS & BENEFITS 

(June 2007 Price Level) 

Visitor Da s Da Value Total Value 

North Wildwood 1,000,000 0.58 

There is a very low risk and uncertainty to the recommendation for the selected plan of 

improvement from the derivation of the recreation benefits by utilizing the somewhat dated 

Rutgers University Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) report as a key input. This report was 

contracted by the Philadelphia District to Rutgers University, and was spearheaded by a 

professor with substantial CVM expertise. The Rutgers University effort entailed a large random 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page39 
893

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

sample of interviews with approximately 1000 New Jersey beachgoers. The initial starting point 

for a visitor day beach experience valuation of $4.22 from the Rutgers report was within the 

lower range of valuation that could be expected to be applied from an alternate recreation benefit 

evaluation technique, Unit Day Values. The incremental increase in the willingness to pay, 

applied as the basis for benefits for an improved recreational experience with a widened with 

project condition beach berm, was a modest $0.69 per person per day (2014 PL). Also, the 

recreation benefits are strictly a secondary incidental project purpose for this study and were not 

used in the formulation/optimization process. The selected plan has positive BCRs for all the 

communities within the project area (without recreation benefits): North Wildwood (1.4); 

Wildwood (10.6); Wildwood Crest/Lower Township (5.1 ); and the Total Project (2.1). The 

recreation average annual benefits of $693,000 represent only 11 % of the total project average 

annual benefits of $6,253,000. The impact of adding the recreation benefits at the end of the 

formulation process resulted in the project Benefit-Cost Ratio being adjusted slightly upward 

from 2.1 to 2.3. 

6.3.2 Benefits During Construction 

The proposed project will be constructed over nine months with an additional month before and 

after construction for mobilization and demobilization. Portions of the beach will be fully 

nourished before the project is completed in its entirety. The portions of the beach nourished 

early in the construction phase will provide storm damage reduction benefits. Table B-41 shows 

the monthly benefits during construction (BOC) and the resulting estimated average annual 

benefit of$86,000. 

Table B-41 

BENEFITS DURING CONSTRUCTION (BOC) 

Discount Rate: 3.500'Yo 

Price Level: Jmi-2007 

onstruction Monthly Interest Total 

Month Work Benefit Factor Benefit 

Mob $0 1.026137 $0 

2 1hc Wild"uods 113,000 1.023199 $115.622 

3 1he Wild"uods l 13.000 1.020270 $115.291 

4 1hc Wild"uods 206.000 1.017349 $209,574 

1he Wild\\DOds 206.000 1.014437 $208,974 

6 1he Wild\\Uods 310.000 l.Oll533 $313.575 

7 1he Wild"uods 326,000 1.008637 $328,816 

8 1hc Wild\\uods 363.000 1.005750 $365,087 

9 Demob 364.000 1.002871 $365,045 

Total Benefits During Construction: $2.021.983 

Capital Recovery Factor (50yrs. (iiG.500% (FYl4)): 0.042634 

BDC (Rounded): $86 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Asses.,ment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Pagc40 
894

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

7.0 SELECTED PLAN COMBINATION 

Plan C (16' dune, 75' berm) meets the NED criteria of maximization of net benefits within the 

4-year periodic nourishment cycle band and, therefore, is the selected plan for North Wildwood. 

The backpass method of delivering sand to North Wildwood and the implementation of Plan CC 

(16' dune) in Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township will provide additional benefits 

to those communities. Costs and benefits for the combined selected plan are shown at a March 

2014 price level and 3.500% discount rate in the following tables. 

7.1 Interest During Construction 

Table B-42 displays the calculations for interest during construction. The duration of 

construction for the project is estimated at nine months. It is assumed the construction costs 

would be evenly distributed over this period. 

Table B-42 

INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION (IDC) 

Annual Discount Rate (FYI 4 ): 3.500% 

Monthly Interest Factor (FY14): 0.00287 

Price Level: Mar-14 

JDC- 9 Months Interest Factor Total Cost 

Month I $5.185,854 0.026137 $135,542 

Month 2 $2,052,449 0.023199 $47.615 

Month 3 $2,052,449 0.020270 $41,604 

Month 4 $2,052,149 0.017349 $35,609 

Month 5 $2,052.449 0.()14437 $29.632 

Month 6 $2,052,449 0.0[1533 $23,671 

Month 7 $2,052.-149 0.008637 $17,728 

Month 8 $2,052,449 0.005750 $11.802 

Month 9 $2,052,449 0.002871 $5.892 

Total First Cost: $21,605,444 

Total [m,T;stment Cost: $349,094 

Rounded: $349,000 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Analysis Pagc41 
895

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

7.2 Average Annual Costs 

Table B-43 displays the calculations for average annual costs. Additional average annual project 

costs include expenditures for monitoring as shown in Table B-44. 

Table B-43 

BEACHFILL & NOURISHMENT 

PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS 

Base Year: 2016 

Discount Rate (FYI 4): 3.500% 

Price Le,el: Mar-14 

TYPE YEAR COST PW FACTOR PW COST 

First Cost 0 2(1-331,933 l.000000 20.331,933 

Real Estate 0 L273,51 l 1.000000 1273,511 

JDC 0 349.094 1.000000 349.094 

Periodic Nourishment 4 5.952.431 0.871442 5.187,200 

Periodic Nourishment 8 5,952.431 0.759412 4,520,345 

Periodic Nourishment 12 6.191,877 0.661783 4.097,681 

Periodic Nouris!uucnt 16 6,191.877 0.576706 3.570,892 

Periodic Nourishment 20 6,191.877 0.502566 3J 11,826 

Major Rehabilitation 24 7.920,450 0.437957 3,468.818 

Periodic Nourislnncnt 28 6,191,877 0.381654 2,363,157 

Periodic Nourishment 32 6.191.877 0.332590 2,059.355 

Periodic Nourisluucnt 36 6,191.877 0.289833 1,794.609 

Periodic Nourishment 40 6.191,877 0.252572 1.563.898 

Periodic Nourislunent 44 6.191,877 0.220102 1.362.846 

Periodic Nourisluncnt 48 6,191,877 0.191806 1.187,642 

Total Cost $56,242,805 

Capital Reco,ery Factor (3.500%, 50 yrs): 0.042634 

A,eragc Annual Costs: $2,397,839 

Ro1111ded: $2,398,000 

Draft F1nal Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page42 
896

TJ.l}E 

ivionitoring 

~fonitoring 

Monitoring 

ivlonitoring 

ivlonitoring 

ivfonitoring 

Monitoring 

!Vlonitoring 

Monitoring 

1fonitor:ing 

?\fonitoring 

?vfonitoring 

Monitoring 

Monitoring 

Monitoring 

lvlonitoring 

IVIonitoring 

l'vionitoring 

lvfonitoring 

Jvfonitoring 

~'lonitoring 

tvlonitoring 

>efonitoring 

?\fonitoring 

l.'vlonitoring 

lVIonitoring 

?vtonitoring 

1\fonitoring 

Monitoring 

"1\,fonitoring 

Monitoring 

Monitoring 

l\fonitoring 

?vionitoring 

Monitoring 

Monitoring 

?vionitoring 

l\fonitoring 

Monitoring 

i\fonitoring 

?'vlonitoring 

~fonitoring 

:\lonitoring 

Monitoring 

Monitoring 

ivlonitoring 

Monitoring 

l'vlon itoring 

Monitoring 

Ivlonitoring 

?v1onitoring 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

TableB-44 

I\.IONITORING COSTS 

PRESENT WORTII COST A,'iALYSIS 

Base Year: 2016 

Discount Rate (FY14): 3.500% 

YEAR COST PW FACTOR 

0 l.000000000 

214.500 0.%6183575 

150,000 0.933510700 

90.500 0.901942706 

215.500 0.871-142228 

146.000 0.841973167 

90.500 0.813500644 

90,500 0.785990%1 

215.500 0.759411556 

146,000 0.733730972 

10 90,500 0.708918814 

11 90,500 0.684945714 

12 215,500 0.661783298 

lJ 146.000 0.639404153 

14 90.500 0.617781790 

15 90.500 0.596890619 

!6 215,500 0.576705912 

17 14".000 0.557203779 

18 90.500 0.53836ll40 

!9 90.500 0.520155690 

20 215.500 0.502565884 

21 14".000 0.485570903 

22 90.500 0.469150631 

2., 90,500 0.453285634 

24 215.500 0.4]7957134 

25 14o.OOO 0.423146989 

26 90.500 0.408837671 

27 90.500 0.395012242 

28 2!5,500 0.?,81654340 

29 146.000 0.368748155 

30 90.500 0.356278411 

3! 90,500 0.344230348 

32 215,500 0.332589709 

33 146.000 0.321342714 

34 90.500 0.310476052 

35 90.500 0.299976862 

36 2!5,500 0.289832717 

37 146.000 0.28003!610 

38 90.500 0.270561942 

39 90.500 0.261412505 

40 215.500 0.2525724"8 

41 14o,OOO 0.244031370 

42 90.500 0.235779102 

43 90,500 0.227805895 

44 215.500 0.220102314 

45 146,000 0.212659241 

46 90,500 0.205467866 

47 90,500 0.!985!9677 

48 2!5.500 0.191806451 

49 146.000 0.185320243 

50 90.500 0.179053375 

$6,874.500 TOTAL 

PW COST 

0 

207,246 

140,027 

81.626 

187,796 

122,928 

73,622 

71,132 

163,653 

107J25 

64,157 

61.988 

142.614 

93},53 

55,909 

54,019 

[24,280 

81,352 

48,722 

47.074 

108.303 

70,893 

42.458 

41,022 

94,380 

61.779 

37,000 

35,749 

82,247 

53.837 

32,243 

31.153 

71.673 

4".916 

28,098 

27.!48 

62459 

40.885 

24A86 

23,658 

54,429 

35,629 

21,338 

20.6!6 

47,432 

31,048 

18.595 

17,966 

41.334 

27.057 

16.204 

$3.276.658 

Capital Recovery Factor(50 Years (ijJ. 3.500°/c,) 0<04263371 

A VHV\GE AN"NUAL MONITORING COSTS: $139.696 

Rounded: $!40.000 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 43 
897

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

7.3 Benefit-Cost Summary 

Annualized costs are displayed by category in Table B-45. The selected plan is expected to 

provide $6,253,000 in storm damage reduction and other NED benefits. 

Table B-45 

BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR THE SELECTED PLAN 

DISCOUNT RATE (FY14) 3.50% 

PERIOD OF ANAL YS!S 50 YEARS 

PRICE LEVEL March 2014 

BASE YEAR 2016 

A VERA GE ANNUAL BENEFITS: 

Storm Damage Reduction 

Local Costs Forgone 

Recreation 

Benefits During Construction 

4,095,000 

1,363,000 

693,000 

102,000 

TOT AL NED BENEFITS $6,253,000 

TOTAL COSTS: 

Initial Construction Costs 

(including Real Estate) 

Interest During Construction 

Periodic Nourishment (cycles 1, 2) 

Periodic Nourishment (other cycles) 

Major Rehabilitation (year 24) 

Average Annual Construction Costs 

Average Annual Monitoring Costs 

Average Annual OMRR&R Costs 

TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS 

NET BENEFITS 

BENEFIT-COST RA TIO 

$21,605,000 

349,000 

5,952,000 

6,192,000 

7,920,000 

$ 2,398,000 

140,000 

150,000 

$ 2,688,000 

$ 3,565,000 

2.3 

BENEFIT-COST RATIO (computed at 7%) 1.9 

RESIDUAL DAMAGES $5,818,000 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Pagc44 
898

8.0 RISK AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Modeling a complex and dynamic coastal environment is subject to various changes and over 

time there is variation in economic conditions as well as hydraulic and hydrological parameters. 

Detailed information has been collected to the extent defined by the scope of work for the 

feasibility analysis. The analysis used statistical modeling techniques that took into account 

probability of occurrence of storm events, mechanism of storm damages, and resources that take 

into account regional labor and construction rates. 

Approach: Potential sources of risk and uncertainty were reviewed, a damage level risk matrix 

was developed, and an extensive sensitivity analysis was conducted. The variables included 

structure elevations and square footage, discount rate, depreciated replacement cost value, 

content-to-structure percentage as well as other components of the damage analysis. The level of 

uncertainty of several components was considered to be low because data was collected with a 

relatively high degree of precision. 

Assumptions: The previously provided best estimates of coastal storm parameters and economic 

parameters serve as the mean condition. The economic risk and uncertainty analysis used the 

new control files from the Empirical Simulation Technique (EST), which was explained in the 

H&H Risk and Uncertainty Methodology Section of this report, as model inputs for the 

COSTDAM modeling while performing a sensitivity analysis by varying key economic 

parameters that could affect AAD, AAB, Net Benefits and BCRs. Discount rate, depreciated 

replacement cost value, content-to-structure percentage, and the curves for stage damage were 

varied for the economic portion of the analysis. The risk and uncertainty evaluation was also 

performed over a 50-year period of analysis, at the plan formulation discount rate and price level. 

Background: Seven frequency storm events (5, 10, 20, 50, 100,200, and 500 year events) from 

the SBEACH model were provided for calculation of erosion, wave and inundation damage to 

structures, infrastructure and improved property. The calculations were performed using 

COSTDAM (COastal STorm Damage Assessment Model). COSTDAM reads an ASCII 

'Control' file which contains the storm frequency parameters for each cell and an ASCII 

'Structure' file which contains information for each structure. Additional files were created to 

evaluate the lower and upper 90% confidence interval curve values for the H&H parameters and 

the economic variables. 

Methodology: The economic risk and uncertainty analysis used the new control files from the 

EST-generated 90% confidence interval bands as model input to determine the "low" and "high" 

risk damage scenarios while varying key economic parameters. The economic parameters were 

varied independently and in a multiple-factor sensitivity analysis together with the 90% 

confidence interval bands determined in the H&H analysis. The following economic 

components of the analysis were adjusted in the sensitivity analyses: 

• It is recognized that the discount rate is likely to change. The federal discount rate is 

established annually and according to law is not allowed to vary by more than one quarter 

of one percentage point in any fiscal year. The discount rate was varied by -V• from the 

baseline rate in effect at the time of the risk and uncertainty analysis for the "low" risk 

scenario and by +v. for the "high" risk scenario; 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Pagc45 
899

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

• The Marshall & Swift Valuation Service was used for estimating depreciated replacement 

cost values from a combination of structure characteristics such as square footage, 

construction material, foundation type, and systems. The current depreciated 

replacement cost values serve as the mean value for each structure. Typically, 

depreciated replacement cost values have been modified by+/- 10% in a sensitivity 

analysis to determine the "low" and "high" risk scenarios. This approach was employed 

to examine the effects on net benefits of the lower and upper 90% confidence interval 

bands determined in the H&H analysis. Depreciated replacement cost values were also 

varied for the most likely case scenario independently from the revised H&H parameters; 

• The content-to-structure percentage was established using existing percentages from 

previous studies on the topic. Empirical data established a content value to be 

approximately 40% of structure value in primary homes and 15 to 20% of structure value 

in vacation homes. Nearly 70% of the residential structures in North Wildwood are 

vacation or rental homes. A conservative weighted content-to-structure value of25% 

was adopted because it was determined that use of a 40% content-to-structure ratio would 

overestimate damage potential in a predominately vacation coastal community. The 

current content-to-structure value ratio of 25% for district coastal studies represents the 

mean. A sensitivity to show the impact of varying the ratio to 10% for the "low" risk 

scenario and 40% under the "high" risk scenario was performed. The content-to-structure 

ratio was also varied for the most likely scenario independently from the EST low and 

high H&R model results; and 

• The stage damage curves for the mean condition were varied by a reasonable level to 

determine the results' sensitivity to changes in this inundation damage variable. 

Reasonable levels of variation were obtained by prorating the original stage damage 

curves by percentage of change for minimum and maximum saltwater curves empirically 

observed in another coastal area. The significant coastal hydraulics parameters which 

determine erosion and wave damage vulnerability were addressed within the SBEACH 

and EST models which are incorporated in the storm damage analysis through revised 

control files, the engineering component of the program. These critical response 

parameters include, as explained in the H&H Risk and Uncertainty Methodology Section 

of this report, sea level rise (SLR), eroded beach volume, shoreline retreat, wave height 

above dune, and other variables. Sea level rise of approximately 0.66 feet is incorporated 

during development of the ocean stage frequency analysis which is integrated with the 

coastal engineering parameters of the model as it calculates damages for each year over 

the period of analysis. 

The combined impact of these changes was applied to the new input files from the EST lower 

and upper limit 90% confidence interval curves to determine a range of average annual damage 

for the without project condition and the selected plan. 

The COSTDAM model evaluates structure erosion based on the presence of piles for all 

structures that are identified with a pile foundation. If a structure is on piles, the land below the 

structure must have eroded through the entire footprint of the structure before total damage is 

claimed. Prior to this, the percent damage claimed is equal to the linear proportion of erosion 

under the structure's footprint relative to the total damage point. Pile depths were not evaluated 

as part of this analysis because actual pile depth or range is not a model parameter. Therefore, 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page 46 
900

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

the R&U for this variable could not be addressed within the confines of the COSTDAM model. 

In addition, pile depth for each inventoried structure was not readily available from the 

municipalities. Pile depth varies for each structure and is dependent upon soil conditions, 

structure characteristics, and regulations in place at the time the structure was built. Also, 

variation in the first floor elevation surveys was not evaluated. The level of uncertainty in the 

parameters of structure first floor elevation and square footage is considered low. Professional 

surveyors conducted the elevation survey on a structure by structure basis and the square footage 

was derived from a geographic information systems (GIS) database. 

Due to the effects oflong term erosion resulting in a receding shoreline an additional model was 

set up to evaluate the damage effect of long term erosion which includes the impact of sea level 

rise. Long term erosion is a dynamic process, however. From a historical perspective this 

process has been checked at a certain point through local intervention to preclude further erosion 

as the natural erosion process approaches the footprint of a structure such as a bulkhead. For 

modeling purposes the natural long term erosion process is assumed not to retreat beyond the toe 

of the bulkhead. The limit of this condition is realized approximately five years from the base 

year. This retreat occurs at different rates in different sections of the North Wildwood 

oceanfront and was taken into account in the sensitivity analysis. The additional modeling 

allowed assessing expected average annual (EAD) damages for the 50-year period of analysis, 

weighing in future damages for the range of exceedance probabilities in the computation of 

EAD. Long term erosion potential is most pronounced in the area adjacent to Hereford Inlet. 

The landfall of Hurricane Sandy was one critical parameter in determining which portions of the 

shore would be most damaged. A plethora of other storm characteristics, shoreline conditions, 

property location, damage susceptibility, and many other factors combined to establish the level 

of damage experienced. Areas north of Sandy's landfall received the most destructive impact of 

the storm, while the areas south of landfall were affected to a lesser extent. The uncertainty and 

risks associated with coastal storms was clearly displayed in the fall of 2012 when Sandy hit. 

Commitments to following resilient rebuilding techniques and assigning appropriate risk 

premiums in flood insurance policies over time have been adopted. A concerted effort has also 

been continued in some areas and begun in others to protect the shoreline and implement 

sustainable solutions that can reduce damage. Hurricane Sandy's impact will be felt for many 

years as stakeholders prepare for the eventuality of future storms. 

Figure B-13 indicates the potential damage level to oceanfront and nearshore structures by 

overlaying a hypothetical future storm comparable to Superstorm Sandy with a landfall south of 

the study area. It displays potential total damages under future conditions without and with the 

tentatively selected plan for inventoried structures. 

Table B-46 displays a range of hurricane storm damage reduction benefits from a low of 

$1,043,000 to a high of $34,123,000, compared to the most likely scenario benefit of $4,030,000 

(shown in Table B-38). The result of incorporating the cost component of the selected plan, 

including discount rate variation, in the sensitivity analysis is shown in Table B-47. Net benefits 

of the different scenarios range from $2,825,000 to $33,035,000 for ten of the twelve 

sensitivities. The two scenarios with the lowest net benefits are outweighed by the costs which 

were not varied. 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B: Economic Analysis Page~? 
The Wildwoods 

Total Damage By Frequency 

Frequency 

r-- -woi'Tom!Dmnage --==·:~~~-;.,~~-!;~;;~~~

Figure B-13 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment- Appendix B: Economic Analysis 
Combined 

Low 

Reduction 

S81 

$499 $459 

$LQ:!IJ 

@A & ffacataian· \'emiti1i'1 .\'ote~· 

Table B-46 

SlJMMARY OF RISK AND l;~CERTAl~TY Al\AL

EST 

Lo\\er 

$99 

S866 

$580 

----- $!._~~5 

Al\NL\LIZED IISDR BE:'\EFI

PLA'.\ C: 16' DVNE; 75' BERM~ NORT

PLA~ CC: 16' DC:'!E- WILDWOOD & W

(In $000, 4.125% Discount Rate; June 2007 

c:sR SDRCV mx; 

10% -10% :\lin 

Sl 290 SI 319 $1 462 

SU80 $1 590 $1 275 

$L59l $L629 SI 810 

------ $_4.409 -- lt_~_J9 -- ___ 54,_547 

Combined Law-}ST Lower [,mut 90%Conjident.:i! Interi·a!, 10% Contenr-ro-Strur:wre R<Jllo, /(f;i[)ecre,ise m Structure Depr

ESTl.mwr- fI&lf J,owerL11mt 90%Co,ifidence lmerwilPoramdas 

CSRJO"J, - Corit,mt-tn-Sfruc/111<1 R<1t10 !0%ofStructure [)epreciated Replacement Cos/ Vahle 

SDRCV-JO~o - Structure Deprecwted Replacement Cost Vulue ])ecreased hy JO% 

DDCllfiJ< -Af1111mum Depth-Danwge Curve .Ho~t Ukdy -,\lean Com/i!wn Sc,marw 

SDRCF+10%-Structure lNprech,tedRep/acemem Cou Vulue Increased by 10% 

DDCMa.x -,Vfaxmmm Depth-Damage Curve 

CSR.JO% - Conlent-10-SlnH;Wre Rano -i0%,:ifStructure Depreciated Replacement Cost Value 

f:ST Upper - H&H 1.,;pper Lumt 90'YoConjidenue Interval Parnmeters 

Combinctl Higli- EST C'pper L11111t 90% Confidence Jnterw:ii, 40% Content-lo-StructureRa/10, l0%lncrease 111 St!W/Wre Depre

Columm nwy not,1dd exacl{v due to rounding; d1.1count raw sem111v1ty not mduded in the above /able 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & EnYironmental Assessment- Appendix B: Economic Analysis 
Most 

Likely 

Scenario 

Catce:orY 

Storm Damage Reduction: $5.042 

Benefits During Construction: 93 

Recreation: 580 

TotalAAB: $5,715 

Avg. Arnt Construction Costs: $2.178 

Avg. Ann. Monitoring Costs: 119 

TotalAAC: $2,297 

Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.5 

Net Benefits: $3.418 

Table B-47 

SUMMARY OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 

ANNUALIZED NED BENEFITS AND COSTS FO

PLAN C: 16' DUNE; 75' BERM - NORTH WILDW

PLAN CC: 16' DUNE - WILDWOOD AND WILDWOOD 

Stmcture Depreciated 

Replacement Cost Content-to~Strncturc 

Discount Rate Value Ratio 

3Yii% 4%% ~l0% +JO% 10% -10% 

$5.042 $5.042 $-1.539 $5.547 $4,-160 $5.756 

89 97 8-1 1()2 82 106 

580 580 580 580 580 580 

$5.711 $5.719 $5.203 $6,229 $5,122 $6,442 

$2.519 $2,602 $2.178 $2,178 $2,178 $2,178 

ll9 119 119 119 119 119 

$2,638 $2.721 $2,297 $2,297 $2,297 $2,297 

2.2 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.2 2.8 

$3,()7_3 _$2.9_28 --~06 _ $3.9_32 _$2.825 _l,,l,H_5_ 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment - Appendix B: Economic Anal.ysis 
904

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Appendix B - Supplement 

Contingent Value Method (CVM) 

Recreation Analysis 

Draft Final Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment -Appendix B- CVM Recreation Analysis Supplement 
905

REPORT ON FIVE SURVEYS 

FOR THE UNITED STA TES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

ABSECON ISLAND AND SEVEN MILE ISLAND, NEW JERSEY 

STONE HARBOR, AV ALON, ATLANTIC CITY, LONGPORT, MARGA TE, VENTNOR 

SURVEYS OF BEACH USERS, BUSINESSES, AND HOMEOWNERS 

The Forum for Policy Research and Public Service 

Rutgers University, Camden 

Data Analysis and Report: Ross Koppel, Ph.D. 

November, 1994 

In the summer of 1994, The Forum for Policy Research and Public Service of Rutgers University 

(Camden) administered three surveys to samples of beach users, of businesses and of 

homeowners in the New Jersey communities of Stone Harbor, Avalon, Atlantic City, Longport, 

Margate, Ventnor. 

The surveys examine respondents' valuations of the beach, the desired characteristics and 

facilities of a beach, the perceived impact of the beach on prope1iies and businesses, and a variety 

of demographic measures. 

Survey Administration: 

The beach user survey was administered to a random sample of over one thousand people. 

Interviewers were trained to visually segment the beach into strata starting at the ocean. Strata 

were sampled according to their density (number of people). In addition, interviewers were 

trained to seek representative weightings of gender, age, and group size. Review of demographic 

data, of the beach use pattern data (distance from ocean and distribution of people) and of 

interviewer codes reveals no significant systematic skew or bias. 

The homeowner survey was at first administered face-to-face. The process was laborious 

because so many residents were not at home (i.e., we met renters instead of owners, or 

homeowners were in their a non-shore house, at work, or on the beach). In consultation with the 

Corps, it was decided that we would use telephone interviews. 

The business survey was generally administered face-to-face. At off-peak hours, business 

managers and owners are usually "in" and available. 
906

Pretesting 

Each of the research instruments was pretested on its target population. Each survey went 

through several iterations. Fortunately, because the populations were large, we were able to 

modify the questionnaires and retest them on new respondents. Each iteration of the three main 

questionnaires (beach users, homeowners, and businesses) were pretested on samples of25 to 55 

people. As with our other surveys, the sample presented here does not incorporate any of the 

responses from the pretest questionnaire. 

Role of the Corps 

We would like to thank the members of the Economics and Social Analysis Branch of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Philadelphia District) for their help in developing the research 

instruments. They provided several examples of questionnaires used by earlier researchers in 

addition to useful background papers and methodological guides from previous researchers and 

from Corps documents. They also maintained a willingness to consider our efforts at survey 

improvement or enhancement. We appreciated their reviews of the many versions of each of the 

interview schedules that were eventually approved and administered. More important, we also 

appreciated their suggestionsand refinements to each document. 

Training, Supervision and Additional Research 

The interviewers were initially trained by Dr. Ross Koppel. Mr. Stephen Kucharski supervised 

the interviewers, coordinated their work, and provided additional training. Mr. Kucharski was 

also responsible for the SPSS data formatting, for supervising data entry, and for collection of 

additional data from State, Federal and local sources. 

Structure of This Report 

I. In the first section, we analyze the responses to the Beach Users Survey from respondents at 

the six communities on Absecon and Seven Mile Island (N 1063). 

Frequency distributions and crosstabulations of every item by several key variables have been 

calculated and are found in the appendix. They are also presented on disk. The following is a 

list 

of the crosstabulations we have calculated. Every variable is crosstabulated by: 

Weather (Sunny vs. All Other) 

Density of Beach Use (Categories l and 2 ["Light Use"] vs. 3, 4, 5 ["Full or More Crowded"]) 

Community location (Stone Harbor, Avalon, Atlantic City, Longport, Margate, Ventnor) 

Yearly Visit Pattern (Visit Every Year; Most or Some Years; First Visit) 

Days On Beach (Few -- 1-14; Many -- 15-30; Most -- 31-98) 
907

Own or Rent Property at Shore 

Year of Purchase [for owners] ("New" 1985-1994; "Old" 1900 to 1984) 

Resident Status (Permanent; Staying for at least a week; Staying less than a week) 

Income (Less than $49,999; $50,000 and over) 

Education (High School or less vs. Some College or more) 

Age (categorized in two formats because the age breakdowns for residents is skewed sharply 

to the right -- they tend to be over 60 years old) 

Age-I (under 60 vs. 60 and older) 

Age-2 (under 40 vs. 40 and older) 

As noted, the Appendix presents these crosstabulations for every question in the questionnaire. 

These data are also provided on disk in SPSS system files. 

II. The second section presents the data from the interviews with Business Managers and 

Owners in the six towns in Absecon and Seven Mile Island. As with the previous findings, the 

appendix provides a range of crosstabulations in hard copy, and the accompanying disk files 

(SPSS system files) contain both the crosstabs and a full copy of the data. 

The Survey of Businesses is a comparatively small sample (N =156). After review of the data, 

we have calculated and provide the following two crosstabulations (for every variable): 

Business Schedule (Open all year vs. Open summer only) 

No. of Employees (0-9 vs. 10-125) 

III. The Survey of Homeowners is comprised of two samples: 

1. a survey of homeowners from face-to-face interviews and via telephone interviews with 

residents; and 

2. the subset of beach users who owned homes in the shore communities. (This latter group 

received a separate battery of questions from within the beach users' survey.) 

Wherever possible and logical, we combine results from the two instruments. The sample size of 

the direct survey of homeowners is 251; the sample size of homeowners who were interviewed 

on the beach is 370. The combined sample size is 621. As with all the data, an SPSS file on disk 

is also provided. 

The following crosstabulations were calculated for the homeowners' data: 

Age (under 60 vs. 60 and older) 

Education (High School or less vs. Some College or more) 

YearofPurchase("New" 1985-1994; "Old" 1900to 1984) 

Number of Blocks from Beach (1 or less vs more than 1) 
908

Length of Stay (Permanent Resident vs. other) 

IV. In the fourth section we use the beach valuation data from the surveys of beach users, 

businesses and homeowners to calculate a combined valuation figure for the beach and its impact 

on the communities. 

V. The survey of Brigantine Beach users comprises the fifth section. This survey is somewhat 

shorter than the general beach users survey and addresses issues requested by the Corps. Many 

of the questions, however, are identical to those used in the other questionnaires. 

The sample size is 255, and SPSS files on disk are provided. 

VI. A complete copy of all questionnaires is included in section VI. 

The Beach Users Survey 

The Business Owners/Managers Survey 

The Homeowners Survey 

The Brigantine Beach Users Survey 

Appendix 1 (Book "A") -- Frequency Distributions of: 

1.1. The Beach Users Survey 

1.2. The Business Owners/Managers Survey 

1.3. The Homeowners Survey 

1.4. The Brigantine Beach Users Survey 

Appendix 2 -- Cross Tabulations (See full listing below) 

Appendix 3 -- Digital: SPSS files of all data 
909

APPENDIX TABLE SETS CROSSTABULATION OF SURVEY DATA 

APPENDIX 

BOOK NO. 

BEACH USERS 

LOCATION (SIX COMMUNITIES' BEACHES) BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

SHORE VISITING PATTERNS BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: Every year (1 ); Most or some years (2,3); First visit ( 4) 

2 BEACH USER DENSITY BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: Few (1,2) vs. Crowded 

2 WEATHER BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: Sunny (1) vs. All other (2,3,4) 

2 DAYS SPENT ON THE BEACH BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: Few (1 to 14); Many (15 to 30); Most (31 to 98) 

3 OWN HOME V. RENT BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

3 YEAR OF HOME PURCHASE BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: "New" --1985 to 1994; "Old" --1900 to 1984 

[for homeowners only] 

3 RESIDENT STATUS BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: Permanent (l); All Summer to More than a week (2 to 5); Few days (6,7) 

4 EDUCATION BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: High School or less (1,2,3,4) vs. Some College or more (5,6,7) 

4 INCOME BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: Income: Less than $49,999 (l); $50,000 and over 

5 AGE BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded in two formats: 

Age-I: under 60 vs. 60 and older 

Age-2: under 40 vs. 40 and older 
910

BUSINESS OWNERS AND MANAGERS 

6 BUSINESS SCHEDULE BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Open all year vs. Open summer only 

6 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: Few (0 to 9) vs. Many (10 to 125) 

HOMEOWNERS 

7 AGE BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: under 60. vs 60 and older 

7 LENGTH OF STAY BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: Permanent Resident vs. All other categories 

7 EDUCATION BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: High School or less (1,2,3,4) vs. Some College or more (5,6,7) 

7 YEAR OF HOME PURCHASE BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: "New" -- 1985 to 1994; 

"Old" -- 1900 to 1984 

7 DISTANCE FROM BEACH (No. of Blocks) BY ALL OTHER VARIABLES 

Recoded: One or less vs. More than one 
911

1 SURVEY OF BEACH USERS 

ON ABSECON ISLAND AND SEVEN MILE ISLAND, NEW JERSEY 

STONE HARBOR, AV ALON, ATLANTIC CITY, LONGPORT, MARGA TE, VENTNOR 

Introduction 

The analysis in this section generally follows the survey instrument. All of the substantive items 

in the survey are reviewed except a few concerning homeowners, which are fully discussed 

inSection III, in the review of homeowner data. 

Administration of the lnterviews 

Month 

The Survey was conducted during the summer of 1994. Over two-thirds of the interviews were 

administered in July. See Table 1. 

Table l 

MONTH OF THE INTERVIEW 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

JUNE 6 133 12.5 12.5 12.5 

JULY 7 731 68.8 68.8 81.3 

AUGUST 8 182 17. l 17.1 98.4 

SEPTEMBER 9 17 1.6 16 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

Valid cases 1063 Missing cases 0 

Daya/Week 

Intentionally, each day of the week was not equally represented in the sample. That is, if each 

day of the week were to account for exactly one-seventh of the sample, then the weekend would 

reflect 28.57% of the sample. Our sampling of the week, however, seeks to reflect the actual 

beach usage patterns. Thus, as can be seen in Table 2, the weekend accounts for 36.4% of the 

sample, ratherthan 28.57% of the sample. 

7 
912

Table 2 

DAY OF THE WEEK 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

SUNDAY 159 15.0 15.0 15.0 

MONDAY 2 61 5.7 5.7 20.7 

TUESDAY 3 97 9.1 9.1 29.8 

WEDNESDAY 4 205 19.3 19.3 49.l 

THURSDAY 5 141 13.3 13.3 624 

FRIDAY 6 172 16.2 16.2 78.6 

SATURDAY 7 228 21.4 21.4 100.0 

------- -------

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

Time of Interview 

Our earliest interview occurred at 09:45; our last interview was at 18:05. Most of the interviews 

were conducted in the afternoon. A full listing of the interview times is found in the Appendix. 

Air Temperature 

The median and modal temperature was 85 degrees Fahrenheit Ninety-eight percent of the days 

were between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit (See Appendix for full listing.) 

Water Temperature 

The median water temperature was 65 degrees Fahrenheit The low was 54 degrees F, the high 

was 75 degrees F. Note that the interviewers were instructed to request both air and water 

temperature readings from the life guards. They were not always exact 

Wind Speed 

The median wind speed was 4.5 mph. The low was 0, the high was 15. Undoubtedly, there were 

days with higher wind speeds. But the beach tends to be less populated at such times. Note that 

as with temperature readings, the interviewers were also instructed to ask the life guards about 

wind speeds. 

Weather 

Almost three-fifths (59.6%) of the sample was collected during sunny weather; and about a 

quarter (23.8%) was collected on partly cloudy days. Our sampling focus, of course, was beach 

users, who tend to be on the beach in better weather. (See Table 3.) 

8 
913

Table 3 

TYPE OF DAY 

Value Label 

SUNNY 

PARTLY CLOUDY 

CLOUDY 

RAINY 

Valid Cum 

Value Frequency Percent Percent 

634 59.6 59.6 59.6 

2 253 23.8 23.8 83.4 

3 149 14.0 14.0 97.5 

4 27 2.5 2.5 100.0 

------- ------- ------- Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

Density of People on the Beach 

We used a density measure developed for this study in cooperation with the Corps. As seen in 

Table 4, the beaches were seldom very crowded (about 7% of the time). Our scale and findings 

are: 

Table 4 

Frq Pct 

1. PEOPLE SCATTERED ABOUT BEACH, BEACH MOSTLY EMPTY: 148 13.9 

2. ON AVERAGE, SEVERAL YARDS BETWEEN TOWELS/BLANKET: 518 48.7 

3. ON AVERAGE, SEVERAL FEET BETWEEN TOWELS/BLANKETS: 317 29.8 

4. ON AVERAGE, DENSE, ONLY A FOOT OR TWO BETWEEN TOWELS/BLANKETS: 

54 5.1 

5. ON AVERAGE, VERY DENSE, LITTLE ROOM TO WALK 26 2.4 

Totals 1063 100.0% 

Distribution of People on the Beach 

The distribution of beach users reflects a standard bell shape. Table 5 displays the figures. 

9 
914

Table 5 

Frq Pct 

WATER l. MOST AT WATER; REST DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY: 41 3.9 

2. MOST ATWATER; REST TENDING UP BEACH 12 11 

3. MOST ATWATER; REST TENDING MID BEACH 287 27.0 

EQUAL: 4. EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED: UP, MID AND WATERSIDE: 452 42.5 

MID: 5. MOST lN MIDDLE; REST EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED 140 13.2 

6. MOST lN MIDDLE; REST TENDING WA TERSlDE 92 8.7 

7. MOST IN MIDDLE; REST TENDING UP BEACH: 12 11 

UP: 8. MOST UP BEACH; REST EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED: 9 .8 

9. MOST UP BEACH; REST TENDING TO MIDDLE: 14 1.3 

l 0. MOST UP BEACH; REST TENDING TO WATERSIDE: 4 .4 

Totals 1063 100.0% 

Location: Communities 

The communities of Stone Harbor and Avalon (Seven Mile Island) are reflected with samples of 

293 and 250, respectively. Thus, the island is "represented" via a combined sample of 543 -- or 

51 % of our total sample. Absecon Island encompasses the communities of Atlantic City, 

Longport, Margate, and Ventnor. The samples are: 125, 132, 126, and 137, respectively-- or 

49% of our total sample. 

Table 6 indicates the information in conventional format. 

Table 6 

LOCATION OF BEACH 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

STONE HARBOR 293 27.6 27.6 27.6 

AVALON 2 250 23.5 23.5 511 

ATLANTIC CITY 3 125 11.8 11.8 62.8 

LONGPORT 4 132 12.4 12.4 75.3 

MARGATE 5 126 11.9 11.9 87.1 

VENTNOR 6 137 12.9 12.9 100.0 

------- ------- -------

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

10 
915

SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS 

Visiting Patterns: Yearly Visits 

Over three-quarters of the beach users (76.2%) visit the shore every year. Only 2.5% report that 

it was their first visit. 

Table 7 

DO YOU VISIT NEW JERSEY BEACHES? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

EVERY YEAR 810 76.2 76.2 76.2 

MOST YEARS 2 123 11.6 11.6 87.8 

SOME YEARS 3 102 9.6 9.6 974 

FIRST VISIT 4 27 2.5 2.5 99.9 

40 .1 .1 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

Days Spent on Beach 

The median number of days on the beach during the summer is 18. The minimum is one 

(presumably, the day of the interview) and the maximum for the "season" is 98. The median, not 

surprisingly, however, may be deceptive. The data show the expected "lumpiness" of vacation 

schedules. About one-third spend between 7 and 15 days on the beach. 16% spend less than 7 

days on the beach. An additional I 0% spend over 70 days on the beach. 

The reader must keep in mind that the respondents are trying to calculate both their schedules and 

probable good "beach days" -- See Appendix Table for full distribution. 

Residence at the Shore 

We asked respondents if they owned a home or rented a property at the shore. About two-thirds 

(67.5%) owned or rented. Of those with some type of residence at the shore, 51. 7% (370) are 

owners, and 48.3% (346) are renters. 

11 
916

Number of people in Beach Outing 

We asked respondents how many people usually accompanied them to the beach. (The question 

read: "On the average, including yourself, how many people typically go to the beach with 

you?") Less than 7% went alone, about one-fifth went with one other person (a party of two), 

another fifth went with two other people, and another fifth went with three other people. The 

median number was three. Less than 9% went with more than five people (party of six). 

Table 8 

NUMBER OF PEOPLE GO TO BEACH WITH 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

71 6.7 6.7 6.7 

2 236 22.2 22.3 29.0 

3 227 21.4 21.4 50.4 

4 216 20.3 20.4 70.8 

5 121 11.4 11.4 82.2 

6 70 6.6 6.6 88.9 

7 25 2.4 2.4 91.2 

8 24 2.3 2.3 93.5 

9 7 .7 .7 94.1 

10-15 46 4.3 4.3 98.5 

16-50 16 1.5 1.5 100.0 

-1 4 .4 Missing 

------- -------

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

Which Beach? 

Almost nine-tenths (87.8%) of the respondents told us the usual beach they visited was the beach 

on which we conducted the interview. Most of the remaining 12.2% visited nearby New Jersey 

beaches. Less than 2% listed non-New Jersey beaches. 

Table of "other" beaches in Appendix 

Beach Tags 

Our pretest sensitized us to the number of people who avoid purchasing beach tags. We 

therefore asked the questions about beach tags in two parts: 

12 
917

To the question: "Do you usually have to buy a beach tag to use this beach? 85.1 % responded 

"Yes" and 14.9% responded "No." 

Table 9 

DO YOU USUALLY HA VE TO BUY A BEACH TAG? 

Value Label 

YES 

NO 

Valid Cum 

Value Frequency Percent Percent 

1 904 85.0 85. l 85.l 

2 158 14.9 14.9 100.0 

-1 1 .1 Missing 

------- ------- ------- Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

"If yes: We asked, "Do you have a tag, and if so what kind is it?" We received the following: 

Table 10 

DO YOU HA VE A TAG, WHAT KIND? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

SEASON 1 675 63.5 74.6 74.6 

WEEK 2 150 14.1 16.6 91.2 

WEEKEND 3 3 .3 .3 91.5 

DAY 4 21 2.0 2.3 93.8 

NO PAY/NO TAG 5 56 5.3 6.2 100.0 

158 14.9 Missing 

------- ------- ------- Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

Note that 6.2% of the sample indicated they were "cheaters." Note also the high proportion of 

season and weekly pass holders. This is consistent with our other data on length of stay. 

13 
918

Desired Characteristics of a Beach 

The next sixteen questions are within a battery of items on desired characteristics of a beach. 

Respondents were read the following statement: 

"There are several reasons why you might choose to visit New Jersey's beaches. Please indicate 

how important each of the following reasons is to you?" The following answer codes were also 

read: 1-not at all important; 2-slightly important; 3-moderately important; 4-very important; 

5-extremely important; 6- NA 

The questions and results are presented below: 

a. To be with a large number of people 

This was generally not a prominent reason for coming to the beach. Less than 7% called it very 

important and only about 10% called it extremely important. 

Table 11 

TO BE WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORT ANT 515 48.4 48.4 48.4 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 160 15.1 15. l 63.5 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 201 18.9 18.9 82.4 

VERY IMPORT ANT 4 73 6.9 6.9 89.3 

EXTREMELY IMPORT ANT 5 108 10.2 10.2 99.4 

NA 6 6 .6 .6 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

14 
919

b. To experience the visual qualities of the beach sceneiy 

Respondents report that this is a compelling reason. Over three-quarters said this was veiy 

important or extremely important. 

Table 12 

EXPERIENCE VISUAL QUALITIES OF BEACH? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 1 31 2.9 2.9 2.9 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 35 3.3 3.3 6.2 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 191 18.0 18.0 24.2 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 308 29.0 29.0 53.2 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 5 498 46.8 46.8 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

c. To socialize with family, friends and others 

This reason was of importance. Almost two-thirds called it veiy important or extremely 

important. 

Table 13 

SOCIALIZE WITH FAMILY, FRIENDS & OTHERS 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 1 82 7.7 7.7 7.7 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 67 6.3 6.3 14 0 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 228 21.4 21.5 35.5 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 299 28.1 28.2 63.7 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 5 383 36.0 36.1 99.8 

NA 6 4 .4 .1 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

d. To relax 

Relaxation emerges as a prime reason to visit the beach. Almost nine-tenths list this as veiy 

important or extremely important. 

15 
920

Table 14 

TO RELAX 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 1 12 11 11 11 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 9 .8 .8 2.0 

MOD ERA TEL Y IMPORT ANT 3 87 8.2 8.2 10.2 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 180 16.9 16.9 27.1 

EXTREMELY IMPORT ANT 5 775 72.9 72.9 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

e. To participate in beach activities (swim, surf, etc) 

About 30% are not interested in active beach activities. The remaining 70% divide somewhat 

equally in defining these activities as moderately- very- or extremely important 

Table 15 

TOP ARTICIP ATE 1N BEACH ACTIVITIES? 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 195 18.3 184 184 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 128 12.0 12.1 304 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 269 25.3 25.3 55.7 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 233 21.9 21.9 77.7 

EXTREMELY IMPORT ANT 5 237 22.3 22.3 100.0 

-1 .1 Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

16 
921

f. To enjoy being alone 

Solitude is "extremely" desired by a quarter of the sample, and very important to another fifth. 

Only 18% called solitude "not at all important." 

Table 16 

TO ENJOY BEING ALONE 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 192 18.1 18.1 18.1 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 120 I L3 I L3 29.4 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 292 27.5 27.5 56.8 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 197 18.5 18.5 75.4 

EXTREMELY IMPORT ANT 5 257 24.2 24.2 99.5 

NA 6 5 .5 .5 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

g. There is little or no cost to enjoy the beach 

This is a major factor, noted by over three-quarters of the respondents. 

Table 17 

LITTLE OR NO COST TO ENJOY BEACH 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 154 14.5 14.5 14.5 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 110 10.3 10.3 24.8 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 264 24.8 24.8 49.7 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 198 18.6 18.6 68.3 

EXTREMELY IMPORT ANT 5 328 30.9 30.9 99.2 

NA 6 9 .8 .8 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

17 
922

h. It is a wide enough beach to enjoy many activities 

Almost 85% said a wide beach was important. Most claim it is very important or extremely 

important. (Note, this question is also addressed in the comparison photos of replenished 

beaches vs. non-replenished beaches. Note also that older persons tended not to want wider 

beaches because of the difficulty of walking across the sand.) 

Table 19 

IT BEACH WIDE ENOUGH BEACH TO ENJOY MANY ACTIVITIES 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 91 8.6 8.6 8.6 

SLIGHTLY IMPORT ANT 2 73 6.9 6.9 15.4 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 222 20.9 20.9 36.3 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 299 28.1 28.l 64.4 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 5 376 35.4 35.4 99.8 

NA 6 2 .2 .2 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

i. It is a nice family-oriented beach 

More than 90% find this important. Over half say it is extremely important. 

Table 20 

IT IS A NICE FAMIL Y-ORlENTED BEACH 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 51 4.8 4.8 4.8 

SUGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 43 4.0 4.1 8.9 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 137 12.9 12.9 21.8 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 274 25.8 25.8 47.6 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 5 553 52.0 52.1 99.7 

NA 6 3 .3 .3 100.0 

-1 2 .2 Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

18 
923

j. It is well protected by lifeguards 

Not surprisingly, protection by lifeguards is a major factor. Almost four-fifths call it very 

important or extremely important 

Table 21 

IT IS WELL PROTECTED BY LIFE GUARDS 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORT ANT 1 50 4.7 4.7 4.7 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 44 4.1 4.1 8.9 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 130 12.2 12.3 21.1 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 218 20.5 20.5 41.7 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 5 618 58.1 58.2 99.9 

NA 6 1 .1 .1 100.0 

-1 2 .2 Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

k It is well maintained 

A well maintained beach is viewed as important as one protected by lifeguards. Over 96% call 

this factor important to extremely important 

Table 22 

IT IS WELL MAINTAINED 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORT ANT 21 2.0 2.0 2.0 

SLIGHTLY IMPORT ANT 2 19 1.8 1.8 3.8 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 111 104 104 14.2 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 267 25.1 25.1 39.3 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 5 645 60.7 60.7 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

19 
924

I. There is good fishing 

Fishing does not emerge as important to most of the sample. Less than 30% seem to care about 

this activity at the beach. 

Table 23 

THERE IS GOOD FISHING 

Value Label Value Frequency 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 1 620 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 129 

MOD ERA TEL Y IMPORT ANT 3 137 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 67 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 5 78 

NA 6 32 

Total 1063 

m. It is close to where I am staying at the shore 

Proximity is critical. Only 6% fail to call it important. 

Table 24 

IT IS CLOSE TO WHERE I AM STAYING 

Value Label Value Frequency 

NOT AT ALL IMPORT ANT 43 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 21 

MODERATELY IMPORT ANT 3 131 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 270 

EXTREMELY IMPORT ANT 5 570 

NA 6 27 

8 

Total 1063 

20 

Percent 

58.3 

12.1 

12.9 

6.3 

7.3 

3.0 

100.0 

Percent 

4.0 

2.0 

12.3 

25.4 

53.6 

2.5 

.1 

100.0 

Valid 

Percent 

58.3 

12.1 

12.9 

6.3 

7.3 

3.0 

100.0 

Valid 

Percent 

4.0 

2.0 

12.3 

25.4 

53.6 

2.5 

. 1 

100.0 

Cum 

58.3 

70.5 

83.3 

89.7 

970 

100.0 

Cum 

4.0 

6.0 

18.3 

43.7 

97.4 

99.9 

100.0 
925

n. It is close to my permanent residence 

Proximity of the beach to permanent residence is significantly less important than proximity of 

the beach to a temporary shore location. 

Table 25 

IT IS CLOSE TO MY PERMANENT RESIDENCE 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 166 15.6 15.6 15.6 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 97 9.1 9.1 24.7 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 210 19.8 19.8 44.5 

VERYlMPORTANT 4 222 20.9 20.9 65.4 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 5 338 31.8 318 97.2 

NA 6 30 2.8 2.8 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

o. There is enough parking 

Parking emerges as a central concern for many beach users. Three-fifths call it very important or 

extremely important. There is, also, understandably, at least a sixth of the sample who do not 

drive to the beach and for whom parking is irrelevant. 

Table 26 

THERE IS ENOUGH PARKING 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 166 15.6 15.6 15.6 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 75 7.1 7.1 22.7 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 192 18.1 18.1 40.7 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 252 23.7 23.7 64.4 

EXTREMELY IMPORT ANT 5 364 34.2 34.2 98.7 

NA 6 14 1.3 1.3 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

21 
926

p. There are adequate snack bars and shops 

Because so many respondents have homes, rental units, or hotel rooms near the beach, the 

importance of snack bars and shops is often Jess critical than it would be to a more transient 

population. Nevertheless, less than 30% say it is "not important at all." It is possible that this 

question should be separated into two: one for snack bars or restaurants, and one for shops that 

sell non-food items. 

Table 27 

THERE ARE ADEQUATE SNACK BARS & SHOPS 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORT ANT 312 29.4 29.4 29.4 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 141 13.3 13.3 42.6 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 239 22.5 22.5 65.l 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 173 16.3 16.3 814 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 5 196 18.4 18.4 99.8 

NA 6 2 .2 .2 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

Note: The question about snack bars and shops is the last of the battery. The next group of 

questions comprise the first of the beach valuation series. 

PERCEIVED VALUE OF THE BEACH 

We employed the Corps' previously tested series of questions to elicit the respondents' perceived 

dollar value for a day at the beach. The introductory wording is: 

"The next questions will help us measure the value society places on beaches. We do this 

by asking about the dollar value of enjoyment for a day on the beach. These estimates 

reflect only personal values and will not influence beach fees. Beach fees are set by 

towns; our research is for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers." 

Then, the first question is: 

"Previous studies reveal that, on average, people would be willing to pay about $4.00 per 

22 
927

day per person to use a beach in New Jersey. Do you feel that a day using a New Jersey 

beach would be worth $4.00 to each member of your household?" 

If the respondent says "Yes," he/she is asked about higher figures (e.g., $5.00, $6.00, or more). If 

the respondent says "No," he/she is asked about $3.00, $2.00 or less. If the respondent indicates 

zero, he/she is asked: 

"Which of the following statements best describes the reasons for your response: 

Not enough information 

Did not want to place a dollar value 

Object to the way the question was presented 

That is what it is worth to me 

(Other) 

Analysis of this series of questions requires combining the responses from all of the items within 

it. When we do that, we find that the mean perceived value is $5.04 -- for those with non-zero 

responses; and is $4.22 if those with zero responses are included. The frequency distribution 

( combining all questions in the series) is: 

Table 28 

Dollar Value Frequency 

Offered 

0 167 

$.05-.50 30 

1.00 83 

1.50 

2.00 220 

3.00 129 

4.00 114 

5.00 129 

6.00 84 

7.00 7 

8.00 6 

10.00 49 

12.50 

15.00 3 

20.00 3 

25.00 2 

]00 00 1 

300.00 1 

23 
928

Mean w/ zeros $4.22; Mean without zeros= $5.04 

Those not willing to pay any amount (the zero responses) indicated the following explanations: 

Table 29 

REASONS FOR NOT ANSWERING 

Pct Pct Answering 

of Total This Question 

Not enough information .3% 18% 

Did not want to place a dollar value 2.0 12.7 

Object to the way the question 

was presented .2 1.2 

That is what it is worth to me 2.5 16.3 

(Other, see below) 10.3 65.7 

NA 84.8 2.4 

Answers to the "other" category were (in order, from most frequent to least frequent): 

Taxes should pay for beach 

Should be free/public land 

It's natural; cost inappropriate 

rm a resident/land owner 

I refuse 

Other 

Impact of Cost on Number o_fVisits 

Pct of those answering 

this "other" category 

3 

45% 

21 

18 

7 

6 

The next question was built on the final answer to the bidding process above. Respondents were 

asked: 

If an entry fee of __ [the amount respondent indicated in above question] were charged, how 

would that affect the number of visits you would make to New Jersey's beaches? 

More than now_ If more, how many more visits __ 

Same as now 

Fewer than now. If fewer, how many fewer visits __ 

24 
929

Not surprisingly, very few respondents (1%) said "more than now." Most said "same as now" 

(74. l %); and 25% reported "fewer than now." 

Of the I% (10 people) who said "more than now," two people estimated they would make one 

more visit, two estimated they would make two more visits, and five estimated they would make 

five more visits. 

Of the 25% who said "fewer than now," the median was 9.5 fewer visits. The "low" was one 

fewer visits, and the "high" was 78 fewer visits (See Table 30) 

25 
930

Table 30 

IF FEWER, HOW MANY FEWER VISITS? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

5 .5 2.1 2.1 

2 21 2.0 8.6 10.7 

3 13 1.2 5.3 16.0 

4 7 .7 2.9 18.9 

5 38 3.6 15.6 34.6 

7 18 1.7 7.4 42.0 

8 2 .2 .8 42.8 

9 3 .3 1.2 44.0 

10 36 3.4 14.8 58.8 

11 3 .3 1.2 60.1 

12 7 .7 2.9 63.0 

13 2 .2 .8 63.8 

14 5 .5 2.1 65.8 

15 14 1.3 5.8 71.6 

16 2 .2 .8 72.4 

19 .1 .4 72.8 

20 18 1.7 7.4 80.2 

22 2 .2 .8 81.l 

25 5 .5 2.1 83.1 

28 1 .1 .4 83.5 

30 9 .8 3.7 87.2 

32 3 .3 1.2 88.5 

35 3 .3 1.2 89.7 

36 1 .1 .4 90.1 

37 .1 .4 90.5 

40 3 .3 1.2 91.8 

42 5 .5 2.1 93.8 

45 3 .3 1.2 95.1 

48 .1 .4 95.5 

49 6 .6 2.5 97.9 

50 .1 .4 98.4 

56 2 .2 .8 99.2 

68 .1 .4 99.6 

78 .1 .4 100.0 

820 77.1 Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

26 
931

Perceived Value Cl{ Wider Beaches: Re5ponse to Photo 

The next group of questions seeks to ascertain the perceived value of wider beaches -- an obvious 

result of beach replenishment. Respondents are shown a photograph of a beach and of a wide 

beach. They are asked the following: 

Interviewer: Show photographs of the two beaches -- "A" with sand replenishment; "B" without 

sand replenishment. Ask: This survey is part of a study to assess the costs and benefits 

associated with beach sand replenishment. 

Would you be willing to pay: More_ Less_ The Same_ than [amount respondent stated in 

earlier beach valuation question] if the NJ beach you usually visit were widened like the beach in 

Photo B [Bottom Photo]? 

If more, how much more than [amount stated in earlier question] 

If less, how much less than [amount stated in earlier question] 

About one-sixth of the sample (16%) were willing to pay more for a wider beach. A small 

fraction (3.4%) would pay less for a wider beach. And most (80.6%) would pay the same. 

Some of these results are associated with the age distribution of the sample. Older people tend to 

view wide beaches as an obstacle rather than as a benefit. Also, the photograph supplied by the 

Corps appears to offer a comparison of two rather wide beaches. It is possible that respondents, 

unaware of the impact of erosion and winter storms, felt the beach without replenishment was 

sufficient for summeractivities. 

Valuation of wider beach: Those willing to pay more suggested a median figure of $1.00 --with 

a low of $.50 and a top value of $100.00. (See Table 30 for the distribution.) It must be 

remembered that the figures here are "added" to the valuations established earlier. In general, 

one could add the one dollar median to the average $5.04 valuation established above -- to arrive 

at a "total" average value of $6.04. 

Table 30 presents the frequency distribution for the "additional" dollars. 

27 
932

Table 30 

IF MORE, HOW MUCH MORE 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

.00 1 .1 .6 .6 

.50 5 .5 3.0 3.6 

LOO 79 7.4 47.9 51.5 

150 3 .., .J L8 53.3 

2.00 44 4.1 26.7 80.0 

3.00 11 LO 6.7 86.7 

4.00 2 .2 1.2 87.9 

5.00 12 11 7.3 95.2 

7.00 2 .2 1.2 96.4 

l0.00 3 .., .J 1.8 98.2 

12.00 .1 .6 98.8 

50.00 .1 .6 99.4 

100.00 J .6 lOO.O 

898 84.5 Missing 

Total 1063 l00.0 100.0 

Of the few people (under 3%) wishing to pay less for a wider beach, the median figure is also 

$1.00. 

Conceptually, these people would like to subtract a dollar from their earlier valuation of a day at 

the beach. Note that the range varies from fifteen cents to $4.00. 

28 
933

Table 31 

IF LESS, HOW MUCH LESS 

Value Label Value Frequency 

.00 .1 

.15 .1 

.25 .1 

.50 4 .4 

1.00 9 .8 

2.00 10 .9 

3.00 4 .4 

4.00 3 .3 

1030 96.9 

Total 1063 

A Wider Beach, Fees and the Number of Visits 

Valid 

Percent 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

12.1 

27.3 

30.3 

12.1 

9.1 

Missing 

100.0 100 0 

Cum 

Percent 

3.0 

6.1 

9.1 

21.2 

48.5 

78.8 

90.9 

100.0 

This next question builds on the above question about the value of a wider beach. It was asked 

of those who indicated that they were willing to pay more (or, for a very few, who wanted to pay 

less) for wider beaches. The question reads: 

If a beach fee of [the amount stated in the question above] were charged, how would that affect 

the number of visits you would make to New Jersey's beaches? 

More than now_ If more, how many more visits 

Same as now 

Fewer than now. If fewer, how many fewer visits __ 

The first tier ofresponses indicate little change: 

Table 32 

N. Pct. Adj. Pct. 

MORE THAN NOW 4 .4 2.0 

SAME AS NOW 153 14.4 77.7 

FEWER THANNOW 40 3.8 20.3 

NOT APPLICABLE 866 81.5 

100.0 

Because the question only affects less than one-fifth (18.5%) of the sample, results should be 

approached with some caution. 

29 
934

The very few (three valid responses) who say "more than now" indicate that they would visit the 

beach one to ten "additional" times. 

The 3.8% who say "less than now" indicate that they would visit the beach, on average, 4 fewer 

times each season. See Appendix for distribution. 

t,·osion and the Beach 

The earlier group of questions concerned wider beaches. This next question addresses the issue 

of erosion and the role of the beach. The question reads: 

This next question is not about widening beaches, but about maintaining beaches --

stopping them from eroding away. How important is it to you that there be a beach here 

at all? 

The responses indicate that almost all of the sample understand the role of the beach. Less than 

one percent call the beach not important, and three-quarters call it very- or extremely important 

(See Table 33). 

30 
935

Table 33 

JMPORTANCE OF BEACH AT ALL? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 10 .9 .9 .9 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 37 3.5 3.5 4.4 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 113 10.6 10.7 15.1 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 224 21.1 21.1 36.2 

EXTREMELY IMPORT ANT 5 675 63.5 63.6 99.8 

NA 6 .1 .1 100.0 

-1 3 .3 Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

We then asked if respondents would "stop coming to this area if it did not have a beach"? More 

than four-fifths (83%) said "yes, they would stop coming. 

Establishing an Erosion Protection Fund 

Some of the more interesting theoretic debates pertain to the perceived value of a common good, 

in this case a beach. The question reads: 

Imagine there were a fund established for New Jersey beach protection against erosion. If 

you were to make a voluntary once-a-year contribution to this fund, even if you did not 

use the beach, what would be the maximum yearly amount that you would be willing to 

give? 

Keep in mind that this contribution would be in addition to any daily fees that you might 

pay? 

Less than one-fifth (18.6%) indicated that they would contribute nothing. Among those who 

would contribute some money, the median amount is $50. The range is from less than one dollar 

to $10,000. Most responses are between $10.00 and $200.00. See appendix for frequency 

distribution. 

31 
936

Table 34 

REASONS FOR NOT CONTRIBUTING 

Those who would not contribute (18.6%) suggested that: 

Pct of Total 

They did not have enough information 4.2% 

They did not want to place a dollar value 2.0 

"Zero" was what it is worth to them 2.8 

Or a range of reasons, of which the most 

common were: 

Beach fees should pay 

Taxes should pay 

Other 

Cost of Trip to Beach 

1% 

3% 

5% 

We asked respondents the perceived relative value of a trip to the beach. The question reads, 

"All in all, how expensive do you consider a trip to the beach"? Most respondents defined the 

beach as a very good buy. Table 35 reflects the responses: 

Table 35 

HOW COSTLY THINK TRIP TO BEACH? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

VERY EXPENSNE 31 2.9 2.9 2.9 

SOMEWHAT EXPENSIVE 2 207 19.5 19.5 22.4 

SOMEWHAT INEXPENSIVE 3 333 31.3 31.3 53.7 

VERY INEXPENSIVE 4 492 46.3 46.3 100.0 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

32 
937

DEMOGRAPHICS 

The last set of questions are provided to evaluate the sample and allow crosstabulations. The 

data reflect a robust representation of the beach users. 

Employment Status 

Table 36 

PRESENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS 

Valid 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent 

EMPLOYED FULL TIME 624 58.7 58.7 

EMPLOYED PART TIME 2 106 10.0 10.0 

NOT EMPLOYED 3 27 2.5 2.5 

RETIRED 4 119 11.2 11.2 

FULL TIME HOMEMAKER 5 113 10.6 10.6 

STUDENT 6 70 6.6 6.6 

OTHER 7 4 .4 .4 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

OTHER (EMPLOYMENT STATUS) 

Frq Pct 

DISABILITY I .!% 

SELF EMPLOYED 3 .3% 

Marital Status 

Almost two-thirds (65%) are married. Singles represented 34%. 

Cum 

Percent 

58.7 

68.7 

71.2 

82.4 

93.0 

99.6 

100.0 

Keep in mind that the interviewers were instructed to interview people who appeared to be 18 

years old or older. (See the "age"question, below.) 

Household Income, Before Taxes 

Questions about income is one of the more delicate items in any survey. In our surveys, only 

10% refused to answer. The data suggest that respondents were reasonably truthful. (The 

median response is $40,000 through $49,999; higher than the national median but not unexpected 

for vacationers who can rent or who own shore properties. 

33 
938

Table 37 

WHICH BEST DESCRIBES TOTAL INCOME? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

UNDER $10,000 1 54 5.1 5.6 5.6 

$10,000 TO $19,999 2 45 4.2 4.7 104 

$20,000 TO $29,999 3 84 7.9 8.8 19.1 

$30,000 TO $39,999 4 128 12.0 134 32.5 

$40,000 TO $49,999 5 169 15.9 17.7 50.2 

$50,000 TO $74,999 6 183 17.2 19.1 694 

$75,000 TO $99,999 7 127 11.9 13.3 82.6 

$100,000 AND OVER 8 166 15.6 174 100.0 

-1 107 10. l Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

Number of People in Household this Year 

The median number of household members was between two and three. 

Table 38 

HOW MANY PEOPLE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NO. OF PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD I 139 13.1 13.3 13.3 

2 318 29.9 304 43.7 

3 213 20.0 204 64.l 

4 215 20.2 20.6 84.6 

5 102 9.6 9.8 944 

6 32 3.0 3.1 974 

7 15 14 1.4 98.9 

8 5 .5 .5 99.3 

9 I .1 .1 994 

10 4 4 4 99.8 

12 2 .2 .2 100.0 

-1 17 1.6 Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

34 
939

Education 

Over half the sample had at least some college. 

Table 39 

HOW MUCH EDUCATION HA VE YOU COMPLETED? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NO SCHOOL 1 6 .6 ,6 ,6 

GRADE SCHOOL (6 YRS) 2 8 .8 .8 L3 

SOME HIGH SCHOOL (7-11) 3 20 19 19 3.2 

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 4 201 18.9 18.9 22.1 

SOME COLLEGE (13 TO 15) 5 311 29.3 29.3 51.5 

COLLEGE GRADUATE (16) 6 330 31.0 31.l 82.6 

POST GRADUATE (OVER 16) 7 185 17.4 17.4 100.0 

-1 2 .2 Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

Race/Ethnicity 

The sample was overwhelmingly white. Whites represented 95.6% of the sample. African 

Americans represented only 19% of the sample, and Latinos comprised only 1%. While these 

ratios do not reflect the region, they do appear to approximate beach usage in the communities 

in which we conducted the research. 

Table 40 

DESCRIPTION OF RACIAL OR ETHNIC BACKGROUND 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

WHITE OR CAUCASIAN l 1015 95.5 95.6 95.6 

BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN 2 20 19 19 97.5 

LATINO 3 11 LO LO 98.5 

ASIAN 4 13 12 1.2 99.6 

NATIVE AMERICAN 5 2 .2 .2 100.0 

-1 2 .2 Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 [00.0 

35 
940

Age 

The model category is age 30 to 39. Over half of the age distribution is under 39. (Compare this 

to the population of homeowners -- which is significantly older.) 

Table 41 

WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR AGE GROUP? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

10 TO 19 32 3.0 3.0 3.0 

20 TO 29 2 237 22.3 22.4 25.4 

30 TO 39 3 300 28.2 28.3 53.7 

40 TO 49 4 236 22.2 22.3 75.9 

50 TO 59 5 131 12.3 12.4 88.3 

60 TO 69 6 95 8.9 9.0 97.3 

70+ 7 29 2.7 2.7 100.0 

3 .3 Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

Clarity Question 

The last close-ended question asked about the wording in the our survey. Only 0.4% of the 

sample claimed that the wording was unclear. 

Table 42 

CLARITY: HOW DID YOU FIND THE WORDING? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

VERY CLEAR 367 34.5 41.1 41.1 

CLEAR 2 451 42.4 50.5 916 

MODERATE 3 71 6.7 8.0 99.6 

UNCLEAR 4 3 ,., .3 99.9 ·-' 

VERY UNCLEAR 5 .l . l 100.0 

170 16.0 Missing 

Total 1063 100.0 100.0 

36 
941

General Comments 

One-sixth of the respondents offered additional comments or suggestions regarding New Jersey's 

ocean beaches. 

The major themes were: 

-- Additional efforts should be made to clean up the beaches. 

-- The beach fees are needed 

-- The beach fees are resented 

-- Beach replenishment is needed 

-- Taxes should pay for beach replenishment 

The appendix and the SPSS data disks contain a complete listing. 

Crosstabulations 

Crosstabulations of every item by several key variables have been calculated and are found in the 

appendix. Every variable iscrosstabulated by: 

Weather (Sunny vs. All Other) 

Density of Beach Use (Categories l and 2 ["Light Use"] vs. 3, 4, 5 ["Full or MoreCrowded"]) 

Community location (Atlantic City, Longport, Margate, Ventnor) 

Yearly Visit Pattern (Visit Every Year; Most or Some Years; First Visit) 

Days On Beach (Few -- 1-14; Many -- 15-30; Most -- 31-98) 

Own or Rent Property at Shore 

Year of Purchase [for owners] ("New" 1985-1994; "Old" 1900 to 1984) 

Resident Status (Permanent; Staying for at least a week; Staying less than 8 days) 

Income (Less than $49,999; $50,000 and over) 

Education (High School or less vs. Some College or more) 

Age ( categorized in two formats because the age breakdowns for residents is skewed sharply 

to the right -- they tend to be over 60 years old) 

Age-1 (under 60 vs. 60 and older) 

Age-2 (under 40 vs. 40 and older) 

37 
942

ll SURVEY OF BUSINESSES 

STONE HARBOR, AV ALON, 

ATLANTIC CITY, LONGPORT, MARGATE, AND VENTNOR 

In appraising the value of a beach, previous research has generally focused on beach users. In 

our survey of shore businesses, we seek to extend the analysis to include this population ( of 

business 

owners and managers) that also benefits from beaches and beach replenishment. 

The Survey 

The Survey was administered to 157 businesses in the six shore communities identified by the 

Corps Stone Harbor, Avalon, Atlantic City, Longport, Margate and Ventnor. The interviews 

were conducted in July and August of 1994. 

Location 

The location of the interviews (the distribution among the six communities) generally reflects the 

density of businesses in thevarying towns. Thus, for example, there are few business interviews 

in Longport, but a substantial number in Stone Harbor. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the 

locations: 

Table 1 

LOCATION OF JNTERVIEW 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

Stone Harbor 

Avalon 

Atlantic City 

Longport 

Margate 

Ventnor 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

38 

41 

24 

5 

24 

24 

Total 157 

Proximity to the Beach 

24.2 

26.1 

15.3 

3.2 

15.3 

15.3 

.6 

100.0 

24.4 24.4 

26.3 50.6 

15.4 66.0 

3.2 69.2 

[5.4 84.6 

15.4 100.0 

Missing 

100.0 

Because proximity to the beach is usually desirable for a business and because we ask 

businesspersons about the value of the beach for their businesses, we recorded the number of 

38 
943

blocks to the beach from each business property. 

Four businesses (2.6%) were less than one bock from the beach; about a quarter (24.5%) were 

within one block. Most of the businesses (52.3%) were within two blocks of the beach. (See 

Table 2 for a full listing.) 

Table 2 

BLOCKS NUMBER OF BLOCKS TO THE BEACH 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

0 4 2.5 2.6 2.6 

33 21.0 21.9 24.5 

2 42 26.8 27.8 52.3 

3 47 29.9 311 83.4 

4 16 10.2 10.6 94.0 

5 2 1.3 1.3 95.4 

6 1 .6 .7 96.0 

8 2 1.3 u 97.4 

10 1 .6 .7 98.0 

12 .6 .7 98.7 

20 .6 .7 99.3 

25 1 .6 .7 100.0 

6 3.8 Missing 

Total 157 100.0 100.0 

T)pe (?/ Business 

The sample consists of the expected range of retail establishments. The sample is: 

Clothing, shoes, jewelry, tee shirts 16 

Restaurants, bars, fast foods 15 

Food Markets 6 

Home repair and hardware 5 

Hotel and motels 4 

Hairdressers, nail shops 

Realtors 

Cleaners and tailors 

3 

4 

3 

ALSO: bait and tackle shop, art gallery, bank, bike store, camera shop, book store, tv repair (2), 

tv cable dealer, cab service, limo service, car rental agent, baby furniture, furniture (2), liquor 

store, yam store, video stores (2), sports supplies (2), pest and bug removal, museum, library, 

39 
944

insurance agents (2), law office, pottery shop, surf shop, and drug stores (2). 

Seasonal or Year-Round 

Two-thirds of the businesses were open all year -- see Table 3. 

Table 3 

IS BUSINESS OPEN ALL YEAR OR ONLY DURING SUMMER 

Valid 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

ALL YEAR 105 66.9 67.3 

SUMMER SEASON 2 51 32.5 32.7 

.6 Missing 

Total 157 100.0 100.0 

Valid cases 156 Missing cases 

SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS 

Role of Beach 

Cum 

67.3 

100.0 

Our first substantive question asked businesspersons to estimate the percentage of customers who 

were at the shore because of the beach. 

The businesspeople recognize the overwhelming role of the beach to their economic existence. 

The median estimate was that three-quarters of the customers were "due" to the beach. A third of 

the sample indicated that between 90% to 100% of the customers were attributable to the 

presence of the beach. Table 4 presents a complete listing. (See next page for Table 4.) 

40 
945

Table 4 

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR CUSTOMERS AT SHORE BECAUSE OF BEACH 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

PERCENT OF CUSTOMERS 0 .6 .7 .7 

"DUE" TO BEACH .6 .7 1.3 

4 .6 .7 2.0 

5 3 1.9 2.0 3.9 

8 .6 .7 4.6 

10 7 4.5 4.6 9.2 

15 .6 .7 9.8 

20 9 5.7 5.9 15.7 

25 6 3.8 3.9 19.6 

30 5 3.2 3.3 22.9 

35 2 1.3 L3 24.2 

40 2 L3 L3 25.5 

50 17 10.8 11.1 36.6 

55 1 .6 .7 37.3 

60 2 L3 L3 38.6 

65 2 L3 L3 39.9 

70 7 4.5 4.6 44.4 

75 11 7.0 7.2 51.6 

80 14 8.9 9.2 60.8 

85 5 3.2 3.3 64.1 

90 23 14.6 15.0 79.1 

95 11 7.0 7.2 86.3 

98 2 L3 L3 87.6 

99 2 L3 L3 88.9 

100 17 10.8 11.1 100.0 

-1 4 2.5 Missing 

Total 157 100.0 100.0 

Valid cases 153 Missing cases 4 

Impact of Erosion 

The next question addresses the perceived impact of beach erosion on business income. The 

question reads: 

41 
946

If the beach were to erode away completely, how would this affect your business? Would it lose: 

1. a quarter of its income 

3. three-quarters of its income 

5. all of its income 

2. a half of its income 

4. almost all of its income 

6. other 

The results indicate that the question is almost too threatening to consider. Although the above 

question reveals that businesspersons are aware of the role of the beach in bringing customers, 

businesspeople are frequently Jess willing to examine the consequences of total erosion. Table 5 

(frequencies) and Table 6 (responses within the "other" category) reveal the inconsistency. Only 

4.5% insist that total erosion with have no affect. But at least one-fifth claim the impact of total 

beach erosion would be less than 25% of their business income. (Note that about half of the 

sample report that they would lose at least half of their business income if there were total 

erosion.) 

Table 5 

HOW WOULD EROSION AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

A QUARTER OF ITS INCOME 28 17.8 18.1 18.1 

HALF OF ITS INCOME 2 33 21.0 21.3 39.4 

THREE-QUARTERS OF ITS INCOME 3 26 16.6 16.8 56.1 

ALMOST ALL OF ITS INCOME 4 25 15 9 16. I 72.3 

ALL OF ITS INCOME 5 17 10.8 11.0 83.2 

OTHER 6 26 16.6 16.8 100.0 

-1 2 1.2 Missing 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Table 6 

"OTHER" RESPONSE TO HOW EROSION AFFECTS BUSINESS 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

134 854 854 85.4 

LOSS PERCENTAGE 10% 2 1.3 1.3 86.6 

15% 2 1.3 1.3 87.9 

2/3 .6 .6 88.5 

20% .6 .6 89.2 

42 
947

5% 2 1.3 1.3 90.4 

60% .6 .6 91.1 

80% .6 .6 91.7 

90% .6 .6 92.4 

DON'T KNOW .6 .6 93.0 

NOT SPECIFIED 2 1.3 1.3 94.3 

NO AFFECT 7 4.5 4.5 98.7 

UNCERTAIN 2 1.3 1.3 100.0 

Total 157 100.0 100.0 

Business and the Existence of a Beach 

The next question is a follow-up item. It reads: "How important is it to your business that there 

be a beach here at all?" The results are in line with the earlier question. While over threequarters call it very- to extremely important, a fifth are less sure. 

Table 7 

HOW IMPORT ANT IS IT TO YOUR BUSINESS THAT THERE BE A BEACH AT ALL 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 9 5.7 5.8 5.8 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 2 8 5.1 5.1 10.9 

MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 16 10.2 10.3 21.2 

VERY IMPORTANT 4 36 22.9 23.1 44.2 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 5 87 55.4 55.8 100.0 

.6 Missing 

Total 157 100.0 100.0 

Taxes and Replenishment 

Beliefs about tax allocations may influence respondents attitudes toward beach replenishment. 

We wanted to know if businesspersons believed that local taxes are used in any federal/US. 

Army Corps of Engineer projects. The question reads: 

"Do you know if any of the local taxes go toward replacing the sand lost to storms or 

waves?" Yes Think so No 

The results suggest that most believe that their local taxes are not directed toward beach 

43 
948

replenishment. See Table 8 

Table 8 

DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OF THE LOCAL TAXES GO TO BEACH REPLENISHMENT 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

yes 24 15.3 15.4 15.4 

think so 2 24 15.3 15.4 30.8 

no 3 108 68.8 69.2 100 0 

.6 Missing 

Total 157 100.0 100.0 

The reader is cautioned, however, that the question is potentially flawed. It is not absolutely 

clear how to interpret the responses. "No," for example, could mean that the respondent does not 

know iflocal taxes are used for beach replenishment, or "no" could mean he/she does not believe 

that local taxes are used for beach replenishment. 

The pattern of the data suggest that we may be overly cautious. Given the distribution of "think 

so" vs. "no," it appears that "no" probably does mean "no." Nevertheless, it is important to 

maintain some doubt. 

Paying More Taxes For a Wider Beach 

In a format similar to that used with the beach users' study, we contrasted photographs of a beach 

with sand replenishment with one without send replenishment. 

One-quarter (25.3%) reported that they would be willing to pay more taxes for a wider beach. 

(And three-quarters said they did not want to pay increased taxes for a wider beach.) 

44 
949

Table 9 

WOULD YOU PAY MORET AXES FOR WIDER BEACH 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

more 39 24.8 25.3 25.3 

no 2 115 73.2 74.7 100.0 

3 .9 Missing 

Total 157 100.0 100.0 

Valid cases 154 Missing cases 3 

Those who reported they were willing to pay more taxes were asked "how much more." 

The "additional" taxes ranged from 1 % to 200%. The median increase is 9%. (See Table 10 

next page.) 

45 
950

IF MORE, HOW MUCH MORE? Table 10 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent 

PERCENT AGE INCREASE 1.00 I .6 

2.00 4 2.5 

5.00 2 1.3 

8.00 .6 

10.00 6 3.8 

17.00 I .6 

2000 3 1.9 

25.00 3 1.9 

200.00 .6 

135 86.0 

Total 157 100.0 

(No respondents indicated how much less they would like to give.) 

An Annual Fund for Erosion Protection 

Valid 

Percent 

4.5 

18.2 

9.1 

4.5 

27.3 

4.5 

13.6 

13.6 

4.5 

Missing 

100.0 

Cum 

4.5 

22.7 

318 

36.4 

63.6 

68.2 

818 

95.5 

100.0 

As with the beach users survey, we also asked businesspersons if they would contribute to a fund 

for NJ. beach erosion protection. 

Almost a third (29.2%) offered no additional funds -- the .00 in Table 11. The range of non-zero 

responses was from $5.00/yr to $10,000/yr. The median of all responses (i.e., with zeros 

included) is approximately $75/yr. The median of all positive responses is approximately 

$175/yr. 

Table 11 

YEARLY CONTRIBUTION TO A GENERAL FUND 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

.00 35 22.3 29.2 29.2 

5.00 .6 .8 30.0 

10.00 .6 .8 30.8 

25.00 5 3.2 4.2 35.0 

50.00 8 5.1 6.7 41.7 

100.00 37 23.6 30.8 72.5 

150.00 2 1.3 1.7 74.2 

200.00 11 7.0 9.2 83.3 

46 
951

250.00 .6 .8 84.2 

300.00 l .6 .8 85.0 

500.00 6 3.8 5.0 90.0 

750.00 .6 .8 90.8 

1000.00 9 5.7 7.5 98.3 

1500.00 .6 .8 99.2 

10000.00 .6 .8 100.0 

-LOO 37 23.5 Missing 

------- ------- Total 157 100.0 100.0 

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS 

Age of Business 

The median age of businesses in our sample was 10 years. The minimum was under one year 

(first season/year), and the longest running business was 100 years. Table 11 displays the 

distribution. 

Table 11 

HOW OLD IS BUSINESS? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

YEARS IN BUSINESS 0 1 .6 .6 .6 

1 6 3.8 3.9 4.5 

2 4 2.5 2.6 7.1 

3 9 5.7 5.8 12.9 

4 10 6.4 6.5 19.4 

5 10 6.4 6.5 25.8 

6 9 5.7 5.8 31.6 

7 10 6.4 6.5 38.1 

8 6 3.8 3.9 41.9 

9 4 2.5 2.6 44.5 

10 12 7.6 7.7 52.3 

11 4 2.5 2.6 54.8 

12 6 3.8 3.9 58.7 

13 2 13 13 60.0 

14 2 13 13 613 

15 4 2.5 2.6 63.9 

16 .6 .6 64.5 

17 4 2.5 2.6 67.1 

18 3 1.9 1.9 69.0 

47 
952

20 5 3.2 3.2 72.3 

22 3 1.9 1.9 74.2 

23 2 1.3 1.3 75.5 

24 2 1.3 1.3 76.8 

25 2 1.3 1.3 78.1 

26 2 1.3 1.3 79.4 

27 1 .6 .6 80.0 

28 2 1.3 1.3 81.3 

30 8 5.1 5.2 86.5 

36 .6 .6 87.1 

38 2 1.3 1.3 88.4 

40 5 3.2 3.2 91.6 

45 2 1.3 1.3 92.9 

49 1 .6 .6 93.5 

50 6 3.8 3.9 97.4 

60 .6 .6 98.1 

70 .6 .6 98.7 

73 .6 .6 99.4 

100 .6 .6 100.0 

-1 2 1.2 Missing 

------- -------

Total 157 100.0 100.0 

Number ~f Employees 

The businesses ranged in size from no employees Gust owner) to 125 employees. The median 

was 5 employees -- about half had fewer employees and half had more than 5 employees. 

Table 12 

HOW MANY PEOPLE EMPLOYED AT THIS BUSINESS 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 

0 1 .6 .7 .7 

13 8.3 8.6 9.3 

2 15 9.6 9.9 19.2 

3 15 9.6 9.9 29.1 

4 17 10.9 11.3 40.4 

5 17 10.9 11.3 51.7 

6 10 6.4 6.6 58.3 

7 6 3.8 4.0 62.3 

48 
953

8 8 5.1 5.3 67.5 

9 3 1.9 2.0 69.5 

10 4 2.6 2.6 72.2 

11 .6 .7 72.8 

12 6 3.8 4.0 76.8 

13 .6 .7 77.5 

14 2 1.3 1.3 78.8 

15 8 5.1 5.3 84.1 

20 .6 .7 84.8 

23 .6 .7 85.4 

25 7 4.5 4.6 90.1 

26 .6 .7 90.7 

28 2 1.3 1.3 92.1 

30 5 3.2 3.3 95.4 

35 .6 .7 96.0 

40 3 1.9 2.0 98.0 

50 1 .6 .7 98.7 

60 .6 .7 99.3 

125 .6 .7 100.0 

-1 5 3.2 Missing 

------- ------- ------- Total 156 100.0 100.0 

Valid cases 151 Missing cases 5 

49 
954

Education Level of Manager/Owner 

Most owners or managers had some college or more schooling. Less than a quarter had a high 

school education or fewer years of education. 

HOW MUCH EDUCATION HA VE YOU COMPLETED? 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent 

GRADE SCHOOL 2 2 l.3 13 l.3 

SOME HIGH SCHOOL 3 6 3.8 3.9 5.2 

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 4 30 19.1 19.6 24.8 

SOME COLLEGE 5 46 29.3 30.1 54.9 

COLLEGE GRADUATE 6 64 40.8 41.8 96.7 

POST GRADUATE 7 5 3.2 3.3 100.0 

-1 4 2.2 Missing 

Total 157 100.0 100.0 

Valid cases 153 Missing cases 4 

In the appendix, are crosstabulations of every variable in the businesspersons survey by the 

following two variables: 

Business Schedule (Open all year vs. Open summer only) 

No. of Employees (0-9 vs. 10-125) 

50 
955

UL SURVEY OF HOMEOWNERS 

We interviewed 251 homeowners in the six shore communities on Absecon and Seven Mile 

Island. The questionnaire focused on the perceived affects of beach erosion on property values, 

on perceived tax allocations, on use of the beaches, and on perceptions of sand replenishment 

efforts. 

The primary sample for the homeowners study is comprised of respondents we interviewed in 

their homes in face-to-face interviews and via phone interviews (N 251 ). A second sample is 

comprised of homeowners we interviewed as part of the beach users survey, i.e., beach users who 

owned homes in the nearby communities. In the beach user questionnaire we included a series of 

questions that are identical to questions in the homeowners' survey (N = 370). We present the 

combined results below. 

The Surveys: Comparing the Samples 

One task is to compare the two samples -- to contrast the similarities and differences so that the 

combined results can be better understood. 

The 251 homeowners were interviewed in the summer of 1994, the same time as the beach user 

survey. While there are some systematic differences between the two samples, the similarities 

predominate. The major difference appears to be age: homeowners interviewed at their homes 

are, on average, older than homeowners interviewed on the beach. 

Because few readers are interested in the methodological concerns of comparing samples, our 

discussion of the similarities and differences of the two samples is found at the end of this 

section -- after the review of the substantive findings. The specific data comparing the two 

samples on demographic and other characteristics are presented in that methodological 

subsection, in Tables Ml to Ml 1. 

FINDINGS 

The Cost of Erosion 

Our first substantive question seeks to ascertain the homeowners' perceived cost of erosion. The 

question reads: 

If the beach were to erode away completely, how would this affect the value of your 

property? Would it lose: 

a quarter of its value_ a half of its value 

51 
956

three-quarters of its value_ almost all of its value 

all of its value other 

The samples are very consistent. Both homeowners interviewed at their homes (hereafter 

homeowners) and homeowners interviewed on the beach (hereafter homeowners o-t-b) reported 

that their properties would lose much of the value in the event of total beach erosion. Review of 

Table 1 reveals that approximately two-thirds of both samples say their homes would lose at least 

75% of the value. 

Table 1 

HOW WOULD VALUE OF HOUSE CHANGE 

Homeowners 

Homeowners 0-T-B 

percent percent 

A QUARTER OF ITS VALUE 22.1 25.8 

A HALF OF ITS VALUE 5.6 11.1 

3/4 OF ITS VALUE 32.l 32.8 

ALL OF ITS VALUE 12.9 15.3 

ALMOST ALL OF ITS VALUE 4.8 4.2 

OTHER 22.5 108 

(N=251) (N=370) 

Summary of "Other" Category (Percentages for total samples): 

percent percent 

ABOUT HALF TO THREE-QUARTERS 

NO AFFECT 

NO IDEA 

Allocation of Taxes 

5.0 3.0 

7.0 5.0 

9.0 3.0 

We asked respondents if any of their local taxes are allocated toward replacing the sand lost to 

storms or waves. About three-fifths of the homeowners (both samples) indicated that local taxes 

were not allocated to beach replenishment. Another quarter said the "think so." 

52 
957

Table 2 

TAXES TO REPLENISHMENT? 

YES 

THINK SO 

NO 

Homeowner 

percent 

17.2 

26.4 

56.4 

Homeowner 

0-T-B 

percent 

12.8 

26.0 

61.1 

Note: As discussed in the first section, the reader is cautioned that the wording of this question is 

potentially ambiguous. It is possible that respondents are not telling us about the allocation of 

taxes, but rather about their familiarity with the allocation process. 

Taxes/Payments for a Wider Beach 

In a question format similar to that discussed in the first section, we asked respondents if they 

would be willing to pay more taxes for wider beaches. 

Less than one-fifth (in either sample) felt that wider beaches were worth the cost of additional 

taxes or payments. Table 3 presents the results for both the homeowners and the homeowners 

o-t-b. The similarity in the responses is striking. 

Table 3 

PAY MORE TAXES/PAYMENTS FOR WIDER BEACH 

Homeowner 

Homeowner 0-T-B 

percent percent 

WILLING TOP A Y MORE 17.5 17.5 

NOT WILLING TOP A Y MORE 81.2 79.9 

WILLING TO PAY LESS 1.3 3.1 

Those willing to pay more, were asked "how much more?" 

lt is difficult to compare the two samples because the follow-up questions were asked somewhat 

differently for each of the samples. For the homeowners, the question was direct (e.g., "how 

much more"). But for the homeowners o-t-b, the question was related to an earlier valuation 

question; respondents were essentially asked "how much more than you were willing to spend in 

[an earlier question]". Equally significant, the homeowner sample was asked the question in 

terms of additional taxes, whereas the homeowner o-t-b sample were asked the question in terms 

of additional payments. (In later economic analysis, we disaggregate the two groups.) 

53 
958

Table 4 

"ADDITIONAL" TAXES/PAYMENT FOR WIDERBEACH 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Median 

Homeowner 

Homeowner 0-T-B 

percent percent 

0.1% 

200.0% 

10.0% 

$0.50 

$100.00 

$6.72 

Keeping Beaches Where They Are 

Our next item switches focus to ask not about widening the beach, but rather about the danger of 

serious erosion. The question reads: 

This next question is not about widening beaches, but about maintaining beaches --

stopping them from eroding away. How important is it to you that there be a beach here 

at all? 

1-not at all important; 2-slightly important; 3-moderately important; 4-very important; 

5-extremely important; 6- NA] 

Again, the results for both samples are consistent. Almost four-fifths call it "extremely 

important" Under 3% call it not important. 

Table 5 

IMPORTANCE OF BEACH AT ALL? 

Homeowner 

percent 

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 2.4 

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT .8 

MODERATELY IMPORT ANT 4.8 

VERY IMPORTANT 23.5 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 68.1 

NA .4 

54 

Homeowner 

0-T-B 

percent 

.3 

.3 

2.4 

16.7 

79.8 
959

Fund Against NJ Beach Erosion 

The last substantive question we examined asks respondents if they would contribute to a general 

fund for beach protection. The question reads: 

Imagine there were a fund established for New Jersey beach protection against erosion. If 

you were to make a voluntary once-a-year contribution to this fund, even if you did not 

use the beach, what would be the maximum yearly amount that you would be willing to 

give? 

Keep in mind that this contribution would be in addition to any taxes and daily fees that 

you might pay? 

The results of this question reflects some divergence between the samples. One possible cause of 

the differences is the questionnaire structure and length. Given the different contexts, however, 

we are impressed with the similarities. These are open-ended questions; no guides are offered, 

and the respondents knew that the questions were hypothetical. 

The median offered to the "fund" is $25 to $46.00. The maximum (in each case offered by one 

person) is $10,000.00 to $20,000.00. The typical high offer is $100 to $300.00. (The full 

distributions are in the appendix tables.) 

Table 6 

GIVE MONEY TO A FUND FOR N.J. BEACHES 

Minimum 

Percent offering $0.00 

Maximum 

Median with zero offers included 

Median with only non-zero offers included 

Non-Contributors 

Homeowner 

percent 

0.00 

42.2% 

$20,000.00 

$25.00 

$380.00 

Homeowner 

0-T-B 

percent 

0.00 

19.4% 

$10,100.00 

$46.00 

$79.00 

We asked those who refused to give dollar values why they refused. The responses are: 

55 
960

Table 7 

WHAT STATEMENT DESCRIBES YOUR REASON FOR NOT CONTRIBUTING 

Homeowner 

Homeowner 0-T-B 

percent percent 

NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION 11.6 4.2 

NOT WANT TO PLACE $ VALUE 5.2 14 

OBJECT TO PRESENTATION A 0.0 

WHAT IT'S WORTH TO ME 6.0 .7 

OTHER 22.7 12.7 

Reasons in the "other" category include: "can't afford more," "taxes should cover the cost," and 

"businesses should pay." 

56 
961

Summwy 

As seen in the previous surveys, homeowners in both samples appear to appreciate the 

importance of erosion and the need for beach replenishment. While they may not want (nor want 

to pay for) wider beaches, they certainly do not wish to see the water any closer to their homes 

than it is currently. 

In general, the similarity of the responses between the two samples is striking. 

COl'vlP ARING THE SAMPLES: HOMEOWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS ON THE BEACH 

The data below are provided for those who wish to contrast the two samples. 

Age 

As noted, homeowners interviewed in their homes were generally older than the homeowners 

interviewed on the beaches. See Table Ml. 

AGE 

10 to 19 

20 to 29 

30 to 39 

40 to 49 

50 to 59 

60 to 69 

70+ 

Table Ml 

Homeowner 

Homeowner 0-T-B 

Percent Percent 

3.3 3.0 

4.1 14.l 

11.0 20.9 

16.7 26.4 

17.9 16.8 

25.6 14.7 

21.5 4.7 

(N=25l)(N=370) 

Homeowners interviewed at home (column on the left) were generally more elderly (and near 

elderly), i.e., 60 - 69 and those 70 or older. 

57 
962

Visiting Patterns 

The homeowners interviewed in their homes and the homeowners interviewed on the beaches 

( o-t-b) had almost identical visitingpatterns. 

TableM2 

HOW OFTEN DO YOU COME TO NJ BEACHES? 

EVERY YEAR 

MOST YEARS 

SOME YEARS 

FIRST YEAR HERE 

Days on the Beach 

Homeowner 

percent 

95.2 

4 

1.6 

0.0 

Homeowner 

o-t-b 

percent 

96.7 

2.7 

0.0 

0.5 

Not all of the homeowners interviewed in their homes visited the beach; 16.8% never went to the 

beach. In contrast, and by definition, all of the homeowners we interviewed on the beach spent at 

least one day on the beach. Thus, there is some basic difference in the two samples. On the 

other hand, if you compare the median days on the beach of the two samples for those who visit 

the beach at least once, they are very close: 38 days vs. 39 days (see Table M3). 

TableM3 

MEDIAN NUMBER OF DAYS ON THE BEACH 

Med. no. of days 

Homeowners who go to beach 38 

Homeowners interviewed on the beach 39 

(The median for homeowners interviewed in their homes, when including the 16.8% who never 

visit the beach, is 22 days.) 

Period cJf Time Spent at the Shore 

We asked respondents about the portion of the summer they spent at their NJ. shore residences. 

Results, overall, are somewhat similar for the two groups. Those interviewed on the beach are 

less likely (by 5%) to be permanent residents, and are less likely to spend the entire summer at 

the shore. 

58 
963

Table M4 

HOW LONG ARE YOU STA YING AT THE SHORE 

Homeowner 

Homeowner 0-T-B 

percent percent 

PERMANENT RESIDENT 45.6 40.3 

HERE ALL SUMMER, ALL 43.2 34.4 

WEEKENDS, ALL SUMMER 4.0 17.4 

HERE FOR TWO WEEKS 6.4 4.5 

HERE FOR ONE WEEK .8 l.7 

HERE FOR WEEKEND ONLY .3 

HERE FOR THE DAY ONLY l .4 

Buy House 

We asked homeowners when they purchased their houses. The most recent were bought this 

summer. The least recent was 1900. The median year for home purchases by homeowners was 

1978; The median purchase year for homeowners o-t-b was 1983. The difference is consistent 

with other patterns reflecting the older status of the homeowners interviewed in their homes. 

We also asked them if the house was inherited or purchased. No noteworthy difference emerges. 

Table MS 

INHERITED OR BOUGHT 

INHERITED 

BOUGHT 

Income and Race 

Homeowner 

percent 

9.3% 

90.7% 

Homeowner 

0-T-B 

percent 

11.5% 

88.5% 

The homeowners and homeowners o-t-b appear to be quite similar in income distribution (Table 

M6) and race/ethnicity (Table M7). The median income is $50,000 to $74,999. The sample is 

overwhelmingly white. 

59 
964

TableM6 

Homeowner 

INCOME Homeowner 0-T-B 

percent percent 

UNDER $10,000 4.7 3.2 

$10,000 TO $19,999 7.4 2.8 

$20,000 TO $29,999 7.4 5.6 

$30,000 TO $39,999 9.5 6.9 

$40,000 TO $49,999 11.l 105 

$50,000 TO $74,999 19.5 218 

$75,000 TO $99,999 12.6 19.0 

$100,000 AND OVER 27.2 30.2 

TableM7 

ETHNIC/RAClAL 

Homeowner 

Homeowner 0-T-B 

percent percent 

WHITE 94.4 98.9 

BLACK 3.9 .3 

LATINO .8 .5 

NA TlVE AMERICAN A 0 

Education 

Homeowners appear to have a higher percentage of post graduate degrees. Overall, however, the 

education distributions are similar. 

TableM8 

EDUCATION 

GRADE SCHOOL (0-6) 

SOME HIGH SCHOOL (7-11) 

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 

SOME COLLEGE (13-15) 

COLLEGE GRADUATE (16) 

POST GRADUATE (16+) 

Homeowners 

Homeowners 0-T-B 

percent percent 

A 

24 

25.1 

19.0 

32.0 

20.6 

60 

.3 

1.0 

1.7 

16.3 

24.6 

32.9 
965

E)nployment Status 

Homeowners interviewed at their homes are more than twice as likely to be retired than those 

interviewed on the beach (44.6% vs. 19%). Correspondingly, those interviewed on the beach are 

more likely to be employed. These differences are obviously related to the age distribution. 

TableM9 

EMPLOYMENT ST ATVS Homeowner 

Homeowner 0-T-B 

EMPLOYED FULL TIME 

EMPLOYED PART TIME 

NOT EMPLOYED 

RETIRED 

FULL-TIME HOMEMAKER 

STUDENT 

OTHER 

DISABILITY 

Location 

percent 

27.6 

11.6 

2.0 

44.6 

10.4 

3.8 

1.2 

percent 

52.6 

10.4 

4.2 

19.0 

9.7 

3.8 

.3 

.3 

The samples differ somewhat in the proportions associated with each of the towns. 

Table MIO 

LOCATION ON THE BEACH 

Homeowner 

percent 

STONE HARBOR 31.9 

AVALON 33.9 

ATLANTIC CITY 10.4 

LONGPORT 17.9 

MARGATE 1.6 

VENTNOR 4.4 

The differential is due to several factors: 

Homeowner 

0-T-B 

percent 

14.5 

20.8 

12.6 

9.7 

23.5 

18 7 

1. Communities differ in the average age of their residents and the differing age groups had 

differential use rates for the beach. 

61 
966

2. Some beaches are more popular than others they have a net in-flow of residents from other 

towns. 

3. We sampled homeowners on the beach with a different methodology than that used for 

contacting homeowners in their homes. The beach survey was designed to interview one-half of 

the sample on each of the two islands -- and it achieved that ratio. 

4. Some communities have much higher ratios of homeowners than others during the summer. 

62 
967

Marital Status 

About seven-tenths of both samples are married. 

Table Ml l 

MARRIED OR SINGLE 

Homeowner 

Homeowner 0-T-B 

MARRIED 

SINGLE 

percent 

70.3 

29.7 

percent 

68.7 

31.3 

Number(~/ People in Permanent Residence 

Those interviewed in their homes tend to have slightly smaller households than homeowners 

interviewed on the beach. The median number of people in the household for homeowners (in 

homes) was 2; 

The median number of people in the household for homeowners 0-T-B was 2.7. 

Comparison of Samples: Summary 

While those interviewed at home are, on average, older and less likely to be in the labor force, 

many issues under analysis in this study homeownership and shore visiting patterns -- remain 

quite similar across a range of comparisons. The similarities include date of purchase, method of 

acquiring house (inherited or purchased), income, marital status, time spent at the shore, 

race/ethnicity. 

OTHER REFERENCE DATA 

Distance.from the Beach 

We recorded the location of each house in relation to the beach. Typically, wealthier homes are 

closer to the beach. Most homes were within two blocks of the beach. 

A caution is noted, however, that these six communities are on barrier islands; they are typically 

only a few blocks wide (with some exceptional portions). Thus, the fact that most homes are not 

far from the beach should not be interpreted as an indication of great wealth. 

63 
968

Table Ml2 

NUMBER OF BLOCKS TO THE BEACH? (Homeowner Survey Only) 

Valid Cum 

Value Label Value Frequency percent percent 

1 1 .4 .4 .4 

81 32.3 32.8 33.2 

2 88 35.1 35.6 68.8 

3 47 18.7 19.0 87.9 

4 13 5.2 5.3 93.1 

5 7 2.8 2.8 96.0 

6 3 1.2 1.2 97.2 

7 .4 .4 97.6 

10 4 1.6 1.6 99.2 

15 .4 .4 99.6 

20 .4 .4 100.0 

-1 4 1.6 Missing 

Total 251 100.0 100.0 

Total 251 100.0 100.0 

Valid cases 244 Missing cases 7 

64 
969

N. PERCENED VALUE AND DOLLARS 

In the previous sections we presented the findings from our surveys on the beaches, in homes, 

and in businesses. In this section we try to link key survey findings on the individual's value of 

beaches to dollar estimates for the communities. 

In this briefreview we can only sketch some of the possible analyses. We hope these examples, 

however, help suggest some directions for economic use of the survey data. 

BEACH USERS AND PERCEIVED VALUE OF A DAY AT THE BEACH 

A series of questions in the beach user questionnaire engages the respondent in a process to 

determine the perceived value of a day at the beach. We derived two figures from that process: 

1. The mean value of a day at the beach based on all beach users, including those who 

provided a "zero" value. The mean was $4.22 

2. The mean value of a day at the beach based on all beach users who provided values 

greater than "zero" -- those who indicated a positive value. This mean was $5.04 

Which measure to use? Once a perceived value of a day at the beach is determined, the next 

step is to multiply that value by the number of beach users. But which measure is more 

appropriate? Those with zero values, or only those with positive values? We argue that the best 

measure is the lower figure ($4.22) because it incorporates in it the 16% of beach users who 

assign a zero value in the bidding process. That is, it already reflects those who might have to be 

"subtracted" from the higher mean of $5.04. Thus, the more conservative figure will be used in 

the next step. 

Important Note on Beach Tags and Beach Fees: Much of the previous research incorporating 

this valuation procedure did not involve beaches with beach tags or beach fees. It is most 

probable that without a beach tag fee we would have derived a higher valuation for a day at the 

beach (and fewer respondents suggesting a zero contribution). Thus, users of these data are 

urged to consider the downward impact of these beach fees. Five of the six beaches we surveyed 

had beach tags/beach fees. 

Number of Beach Users: Data on the number of beach users at six communities are derived 

from the several tourism boards and chambers of commerce. For five of our communities, the 

best usage figures are obtained from the sale of beach tags. Atlantic City, which is the only 

community without beach tags, reports what it insists are reliable estimates of beach usage. 

To derive a common denominator for the data, we convert each of the beach tag sales figures to 

65 
970

daily estimates. Thus, weekly tags are multiplied by 7 (days), and season tags are multiplied by 

98 (days). 

Estimate of Beach Days for Beach Tag Communities 

Community 

Margate 

Ventnor 

Stone Harbor 

Avalon 

Longport 

Subtotal 

Season Tags 

28,400 

28,985 

22,700 

41,961 

8,883 

130,929 

Weekly Tags 

4,699 

29,900 

11,l 00 

17,160 

1,490 

64,349 

To derive the total number of days: 

130,929 X 98 = 12,831,042 

64,349 X 7 = 450,443 

Subtotal 13,281,485 

To this we correct by the average number of beach tag cheaters (6.2%) ascertained in the beach 

users survey (see Table 10, Section I). 

13,281,485 x 106.2% = 14,104,937 beach user days. 

Atlantic City: To the above figure we must add the beach user figures from Atlantic City, the 

one community without beach tags. Atlantic City informs us that the average daily number of 

beach users is 100,000. Multiplied by the 98 days in the official season 9,800,000 beach user 

days. 

(Note that there is no "cheater" correction for the Atlantic City data because there are no beach 

tags.) 

Combining the two figures yields: 23,904,937 beach user days. 

The.final product: Multiplying the number of beach user days by the mean value of a beach 

day ($4.22) generates a figure of $100,878,834.00. That is, the beach users' valuation of the 

beach is almost $101 million each season. Moreover, this figure only reflects the "official" 

66 
971

season. The beach is used much more than the 98 days of our analysis. Also, the $10 l million 

does not reflect the value of the beach for children, who do not buy beach tags. Arguably, many 

children value the beach more than many adults. 

The Value of A Wider Beach 

About one-sixth of the beach users (16%) were willing more to pay for a wider beach. (A few 

[3.4%] are willing to pay for a narrower beach.) Among those willing to pay for a wider beach, 

the median additional amount (added to perceived value of a day at the beach) was $1.00. Thus 

if beach widening were undertaken, one could conceivably add $1.00 for 16% of the beach 

user-days. (And subtract $1.00 for 3.4% of the beach user' valuations.) 

The arithmetic of that calculation is straightforward: 

To add money for a wider beach: 

No. of beach user-days (from above): 23,904,937 X .16 = 3,824,789 X $1.00 $3,824,789 

To subtract money for an (unwanted) wider beach: 

No. of beach user-days (from above): 23,904,937 X .034 812,768 X $1.00 = $812,786 

The net gain: 

$3,824,789 (more for a wider beach) less 812,786 (less for a wider beach) 

Net value increase= $3,012,003 for a wider beach. 

Note that although few want to pay taxes for wider beaches, the beach user survey reveals that 

almost all respondents say they want wide beaches. 

67 
972

A Special Fund.for New Jersey Beach Erosion Protection 

Over four-fifths (81.4%) of the respondents indicated they would contribute on an annual basis 

(beyond taxes) to a special fund for beach erosion protection, even if they did not use the beach. 

The median contribution offered was $50.00 (with a low of a few cents and a high of $10,000). 

Because the question includes the phrase, "even if you did not use the beach," it is unclear which 

groups could be included (or excluded) in the analysis. All visitors to New Jersey? All 

Americans? lfwe take the $50 figure plus the 81.4% contribution rate as a guide to the number 

who would contribute, we can theoretically extrapolate to any known population. For example, 

New Jersey is fifth-ranked state in total tourism dollars. If 81.4% of tourists contributed $50.00 

each, the resulting figure would be extraordinary. Alternately, one could limit the population to 

beach users in the state. Here, again, the dollar values would still be remarkable. 

BUSINESSES AND THE VALUE OF THE BEACH 

We have two questions/measures in the business survey that reflect the value of the beach to 

businesses. 

The first asks the owners/managers to estimate the percentage of their customers who are in the 

area because of the beach. The median estimate is 75% of customers. 

The second measure represents a different approach. It asks business owners/managers to 

estimate the affect on business income if the beach were to erode away. The result is very similar 

to the first: the median loss estimate is 75% of income. 

Number c/ Businesses: The next obvious step is to determine the number of businesses in the 6 

communities. This information was obtained from the six chambers of commerce and city 

offices. The data are: 

Community No. of Businesses 

Atlantic City 2,940 

Ventnor 627 

Margate 539 

Longport 215 

Stone Harbor 672 

Avalon 85 

Total 5,078 

68 
973

Value of Business Receipts: U.S. Department of Commerce data indicate that the average retail 

business's receipts are $2,675,270 (Adjusted from Table 861, Statistical Abstract of the United 

States. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C. 1991). As a heuristic exercise, we 

assume that the average beach community business is taking in only one-quarter of that amount; 

thus the average receipts would be $668,817. 

Continuing the example, and assuming that the 5,078 businesses take in the average receipts of 

$668, 175., then the total value of receipts is $3,396,255,265. 

Ifwe accept the owners/managers' estimates of the value of the beach for their businesses equals 

75%, then one way of deriving the value of the beach is to "earmark" 75% of the receipts: 

.75 X $3,396,255,265 $2,447,191,448. 

That is, using a modest set of assumptions, and employing either of the survey-derived estimates 

of the beaches' importance to local businesses (erosion loss or customers draw), indicates that the 

value of the beach to businesses could be calculated at almost $2.5 billion. Further analysis 

would require obtaining business receipt data and/or business tax data. 

More Taxes/or a Wider Beach 

As with beach users, business owners and managers were asked if they would be willing to pay 

more taxes for a wider beach. One quarter (25.3%) stated that they would be willing to pay more 

taxes for such enhancement. The median increase in taxes offered was 9%. (The minimum 

percentage increase was 1 %, the maximum percentage increase was 200%.) Obviously, if 

one-quarter of all shore businesses were willing to pay 9% more in taxes for wider beaches, the 

impact would be considerable. 

Again, further analysis would require obtaining business receipt data and/or business tax data. 

A Special Fundfor New Jersey Beach Erosion Protection: 

As with beach users, business owners and managers were asked if they would be willing to 

contribute on an annual basis (beyond taxes) to a special fund for beach erosion protection, even 

if they did not use the beach. Seven-tenths of the businesses claimed they would 

contribute. The minimum offered was $5.00; the maximum offered was $10,000. The median 

contribution offered (of those 70% offering contributions) was approximately $175.00 

Unlike the example of the beach users, we do know the number of businesses in the six 

communities. Multiplying the 5,078 businesses by the contribution ratio of 70% 3,555. 

Multiplying 3,555 (number of businesses contributing) by the median contribution of $175.00 

69 
974

indicates that the total fund contribution is $622,125. 

HOMEOWNERS AND THE VALUE OF THE BEACH 

Much of the same methodology used in understanding the value of the beach for businesses can 

be employed with homeowners. That is, while homeowners do not have receipts, they did 

estimate the cost of erosion to the value of their homes, and they did indicate their 

willingness to support wider beaches and erosion prevention funds. 

Cost of erosion 

Each homeowner was asked to estimate the value of his/her property if the beaches were to suffer 

major erosion -- were to erode away completely. The median response was "three-quarters of its 

value." Below, we list the median value of homes and the number of homes in the six target 

communities. 

Community 

Atlantic City 

Ventnor 

Margate 

Longport 

Stone harbor 

Avalon 

Median House Price 

$73,400 

137,700 

176,800 

201,800 

285,600 

285,700 

Total 

Total No. of Homes 

13,453 

6,645 

7,904 

3,300 

7,266 

1,474 

40,042 

Multiplying each community's median house price by the number of houses, and summing the 

figures yields a total home value of almost 6.5 billion dollars ($6,462,126,000). 

If, based on the survey's median estimate, three-quarters of the value were to be lost due to total 

beach erosion, than the loss would equal over 4.8 billion dollars -- $4,846,594,500. 

Tcrcesjor a Wider Beach 

Homeowners were also asked if they would be willing to pay more taxes for a wider beach. 

About a sixth (17.5%) indicated that they were willing to pay more taxes for such enhancement. 

The median of additional taxes offered was 10%. The minimum was 0.1% and the maximum 

was 200% additional taxes. 

70 
975

A Special Fund for New Jersey Beach Erosion Protection: 

Last, homeowners were also asked if they would be willing to contribute on an annual basis to a 

special fund for beach erosion -- even if they did not directly benefit from it. Seven-tenths said 

they would contribute to such a fund. The median contribution for those 

offering a contribution was $229.50 

Ifwe do the math, the additional contributions to the fund are: 

40,042 homes X .70 (contribution ratio) 28,029 X $229.50 (themedian contribution) 

$6,432,655. Thus, homeowners indicate that they would be willing to contribute an additional 

$6.4 million for a general fund against beach erosion. 

71 
976

Summary and Linking of Estimates 

Many factors (e.g., employment and its multipliers, tourism expenditures, beach fees, and rental 

income) determine the value of the beach to a community or region. This report has focused on 

several measures obtained from our surveys. It is clearly beyond the scope of this report to 

ascertain exact dollar figures for the total value of the beach. We have, however, attempted to 

sketch some of the possible economic analyses and computations that can be based on the 

survey data and/or on the survey data in concert with other data. 

Below, we combine the figures we have derived to provide partial estimates of the value of the 

beach -- estimates that would not be possible without the survey data: 

Beach Users 

The beach users' valuation of the beach (official season days only). $100,878,834 

Net tax increase for a wider beach .. 3,012,003 

Contributions to a beach erosion fund ($50 X 81.4% of sample) Specific value.. undetermined 

Businesses 

Value of beach to businesses (percent of customers or loss if total erosion).... 2,447,191,448 

Businesses willing to pay more taxes for wider beach (25 .3% of businesses @ median of 9% 

increase).... undetermined 

Businesses willing to contribute to a beach erosion fund .. 622,125 

Homeowners 

Cost of erosion to homeowners (their estimate ofloss).. .. ........ 4,846,594,500 

(Note: Unlike the other figures in this list, this number is not repeated annually.) 

Homeowners willing to pay more for a wider beach ......... 

Homeowners willing to contribute to a beach erosion fund .. 

Total annual value= $2.659 billion 

Total one-time value= $4.847 billion 

undetermined 

6,432,655 

The data indicate that the annual added value of the beach, based only on these survey estimates, 

is $2.659 billion. 

This figure does not include any estimate of: beach users contributions to a beach erosion fund; 

additional taxes that businesses say they would pay for a wider beach; or additional taxes 

72 
977

that homeowners say they are willing to pay for wider beaches. Note also that our calculations 

do not include the funds paid to the municipalities for beach fees. The undetermined monies 

could well dwarf the sums listed above. 

Last, the $2.659 billion annual figure does not reflect the $4.8 billion that homeowners estimate 

as their loss to erosion. 

Clearly the importance of the beach -- as perceived by its users and as estimated by businesses 

and homeowners -- is enormous. The data presented in this report should allow analysts to more 

fully and accurately estimate the true value of this resource. 

73 
978

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 
979

Appendix C. 

Clean Air Act Calculations 
980

General Conformity Review and Emission Inventory 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Table 2. Pollutant Emissions from Employee Vehicles 

Assumptions: 

NOx 

Average trip distance (1 way) is 30 miles. 

Every member of the work crew drives their own vehicle. 

Mob/Demob work crew comprised of 12 people. 

Mob/Demob work crew works 20 days. 

Beach construction work crew comprosed of 12 people. 

Beach construction work crew works 248 days with 3 shift changes. 

Average NOx vehicle emission factor is 0.96 g/mile. 

Average VOC vehicle emission factor is 0.84 g/mile. 

Mob/Demob Work Crew 

12 workers* 2 hips/ day *20 days* 30 miles/trip* 0.96 g of NOx/mile 

NOx emissions from the Mob/Demob work crew= 0.015 tons 

Beach Construciton Work Crew 

12 workers* 6 trips/ day *248 days* 30 miles/trip* 0.96 g of NOx/mile 

NOx emissions for beach work crew = 0.57 tons 

Total NOx resulting from employee vehicles= 0.582 tons. 

voe 

Mob/Demob Work Crew 

20 workers* 2 trips/ day* 5 days* 30 miles/ trip * 0.84 g of voe; mile 

VOC emissions from the Mob/Demob work crew= 0.006 tons 

Beach Construction Work Crew 

12 workers * 2 trips/ day *385 days * 30 miles/ trip * 0.84 g of VOC/ mile 

VOC emissions for beach work crew= 0.257 tons 

Total VOC resulting from employee vehicles= 0.263 tons. 

Table 3. Total Estimated Pollutant Emissions from Construction Equipment and Employee 

Vehicles 

Nox= 86.8 Tons 

VOCs= 3.3 Tons 
981

General Conformity Review and Emission Inventory 

Hefeford to Cape May Feasibility Study 

Table 1. Project Emission Sources and Estimated Power 

Load Factor (LF) represents the average percentage of rated horsepower used during a source's operational profile 

Hp-hr=# of engines*Hp*LF*hrs of operation 

Emis»ions (r,) = PoW('f Dt>mand (Hp-hr)"'" Emission hiclor (g Nox or VOC/Hp-hr) 

Emission& (tons)"' Emissions (g)"' (1 ton/907180 g) 

I I I #of Load Total Emissions Factors Total Emissions (Tons) 

Equipment/Engine Cat~orv ! I engines Hp Factor Hours Hp-Hours Nox voes Nox VOCs 

I I I 

Crane, hvdrau!ic truck mounted 14 ton 130 0.43 589 32 925 9.5 0.2 0.34479205 0.007259 

Boat outboard 18'riverrunner CAP13501bs 115 0.29 800 26,680 9.7 0.37 0.28527525 0.010882 

Generator set oortable, 10KW 19 0.74 5 501 77 344 9.5 0.2 0.80994794 0.017052 

Generator set skid mtd 300KW l ! 428 0.74 4,800 1520256 9.5 0.2 15.9201393 0.335161 

Water 

Lioht 

Tractor 

set 

pump. 

crawler 

Trailer 

submersible 

Mtd, 

dozer 

4-1000W, 

310Hri 

aoitator 

w/6KWGen 

LGP.w/15.3CYb!ade 

dredoe pump, 

Man 

TOYO 

Mast winch 

150 hp 

310 

150 

12 

0.80 

0.21 

0.68 

9640 

5 

4 

501 

800 

627564 9.5 0.2 

~ 

355 

Truck hi hwav. 4x2, 25,000 lbs GVW 210 1.00 24 5,040 8-16 0.76 0,04533433 0.004222 

Truck hi hwav.6x4 50,000!bsGVW ! 310 1.00 270 83700 10.72 0.67 0,98906942 0.061817 

Truckhwv.crew 1 TonPickuo,4X4 ! 180 1.00 6290 1,132200 10-33 0.54 12.8922882 0.673943 

ton PickuP, 4X4 130 1.00 2,024 10.33 0.54 2,99613043 0.156623 

trailer mtd ! 45 0.43 210 9.5 0.2 0.04255302 0.000896 

I 

Total Ho-Hours 8,020,165 I 

for 3 shifts/day (total of 6 trips/day). 

Load Factors and Emissions Factors were obtained from emissions estimates provided for USACE (2013) and USEPA (2004) 

Page 1 of 1 

TOTAL: 86.2 3.0 
982

Appendix D. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Planning Aid Report 

2b Report 
983

PLANNING AID REPORT 

HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET FEASIBILITY STUDY 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 

U.S. 

FISH & WILDLIFE 

SERVICE 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Ecological Services, Region 5 

New Jersey Field Office 

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 

February 2008 

AppcndixD. 
984

U,S. FIBII & WILDLIPE SERVICE 

United States Department of the Interior 

JnRcp\yllcfcrlo: 

~ 

2007-FA-0316 

Minas M. Arabatzis, Chief 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

New Jersey Field Office 

Ecological Services 

927 North Main Street, Building D 

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 

Tel: 609/646 9310 

Fax: 609/646 0352 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice 

Plam1ing Division, Philadelphia District 

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers 

Wanamaker Building- 100 Pem1 Square East 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 - 3390 

Attn: Beth Brandreth 

Dear Mr. Arabatzis: 

FEB O 12008 

Enclosed is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) planning aid report (PAR) on the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District (Corps) Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Feasibility Study, Cape May County, New Jersey. The information presented in this PAR 

addresses potential bene:ficial or adverse impacts on fish a11d wildlife resources from proposed 

shore protection along the five-mile-long barrier island. This repo1i has been prepared pursuant 

to the Scope-of-Work and Fiscal Y ear-2007 and 2008 interagency agreement between the Corps 

and the Service. 

This PAR is provided as technical assistance and does not constitute the report of the Secretary 

of the Interior pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 

Stat. 401; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). This PAR is valid only for the described conditions and must 

be revised if changes to the proposed project take place prior to initiation. 

The infonnation presented in this PAR is also provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 

ofl 973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to ensure the protection of 

endangered and tlu·eatened species and the Migratory Bird Treaty Ac1 of 1918 (MBTA) (40 Stat. 

755; 16 U.S.C. 703-712), as amended. These comments do not preclude future review and 

comments by the Service on any forthcoming enviri:nurnmtal documents pursuan1 to the National 

Enviromnental Policy Act of l 969 (NEPA) (83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 el seq.), as amended. 

FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

The federally listed (threatened) piping plover ( Charadrius melodus) nests on the beaches in tbe 

vicinity ofN01ih Wildwood, U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN site, and Cape May National Wildlife 

Refuge; and are Jrnown to forage along tbe beaches ofvVildwood Crest and Lower Township. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet Appendix D. 
985

On a rare note, one pair previously nested in Wildwood Crest in 1998. Piping plovers nest on 

sandy beaches above high-tide line on mainland coastal beaches, sand flats, and barrier island 

coastal beaches. The nesting sites are typically located on gently sloping foredunes, blowout 

areas behind primary dunes, washover areas cut into or between dunes, ends of sandpits, and on 

sites with deposits of suitable dredged or pumped sand. 

Coastal development for residential and commercial uses, and the subsequent stabilization of the 

once sl1ifting and dynamic ecosystem, have resulted in the degradation and alteration of natural 

beaches to such an extent along the Atlantic coast that many beaches no longer provide suitable 

habitat for piping plovers. Disturbance by humans and the direct loss of nests have become 

major contributing factors to the population decline of the piping plover (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1996a). 

Dredged spoil deposition has tl1e potential to create sub-optimal piping plover nesting habitat, 

provided the material is deposited prior to nesting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996a). As a 

result, piping plovers could expand their nesting range within the project area after nourishment 

is completed. This occurred as a result of Corps - New York District beach nourishment projects 

in Monmouth County, New Jersey in July 2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Prior to 

initial beach nourishment in 1994, piping plovers were not documented in that project area for at 

1 east a decade. 

The project may also create habitat for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), a federally 

listed (threatened) plant (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b). Seabeach amaranth is an annual 

plant, endemic to Atlantic coastal plain beach, primarily occurring on overwash flats at the 

accreting ends of barrier beach islands and lower foredunes of non-eroding beaches. The species 

occasionally establishes small temporary populations in other areas, including bayside beaches, 

blowouts in foredunes, and sand and shell materials placed as beach replenishment or dredge 

spoil. Occurrences ofseabeach amarant11 are known within fue proposed project area, the 

species has recently naturally recolonized coastal sites within New York and Maryland. 

Therefore, it is possible that seabeach amaranfu may become naturally reestablished within the 

project area during the project life. Colonization of seabeach amaranth occurred in July 2000 

after a Corps - New York District beach nourishment project in Monmouth County, New Jersey 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

Other than fue piping plover and scab each amaranth, the federally and State-listed roseate tern 

(Sterna dougallii) (occasional transient) and State-listed peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) are 

known to use the project area. In addition, the Federal candidate species red knol ( Calidris 

canutus ru(a) is !mown to stopover in Delaware Bay and Hereford lnlel during spring 

(northward) migration where they feed mainly on the eggs of horseshoe crabs (Limulus 

poliphemus) to build fa! reserves for the 3,000 kilometer flight to the arctic breeding grounds 

and to ensure survival if they anive when food availability is low (New Jersey Depmimcnt of 

Enviromm:ntal Protecti011 2007). The crucial impmiance of Delaware Bay and Hereford Inlet 

must be considered when evaluating potential project impacts. Red kllots also use Hereford Inlet 

and Delaware Bay during fall migration for feeding and roosting (New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protectio11 2007). 

2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet AppendixD. 
986

The lead Federal agency for a project has the responsibility, under Section 7(c) of the ESA, to 

prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) if the proposal is a major construction project that 

requires an Environmental Impact Statement or if the proposal may affect a federally listed 

species. 111erefore, the Corps must prepare a BA to address potential project-related adverse 

impacts to the piping plover and sea beach amaranth. 111e assessment should contain infonnation 

concerning the piping plover and seabeach amaranth within the action area and an analysis of 

any potential effect of the proposed action on these species. We strongly reconunend including 

potential effects on the red knot in the BA as the red knot could become federally listed species 

in the future. 111e BA may be incorporated into the Corps NEPA documentation. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must be consulted regarding Essential Fish 

Habitat, as required under Section 305 (b)(2) of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882). The NMFS must also be consulted regarding the 

ESA due to the potential presence of the federally listed ( endangered) Kemp's 1idley sea turtle 

(Lepidochef;ys kempii), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and leatherback sea turtle 

(f)ermocherys coriacea), and the federally listed (threatened) loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta 

caretta) and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) within the project area and any borrow areas. 

Appendix A provides a current list of federally listed (endangered and threatened) and candidate 

species in New Jersey. 

Any questions regarding this PAR or federally listed endangered or threatened species should be 

directed to Ron Popowski. Mr. Popowski is deaf and uses video relay service. He can be 

reached at (877) 467-4877, extension 42421 or e-mail at Ron_Popowski@nvs.gov. The Service 

looks forward to continued cooperation with the Corps in the planning stages of the proposed 

project. 

Enclosure 

3 

H,Jrcford Inkt to Cape :ti.fay Inlet 

Sincerely, 

J. Eiic Davis Jr. 

Supervisor 

AppendixD. 
987

LITERATURE CITED 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Status of the Red knot ( Calidris 

canutus n1fa) in the Western Hemisphere. Prepared for U.S. Department of the h1terior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ. 287 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Piping plover ( Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast 

population, revised recovery plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 5, Hadley, MA. 245 pp. 

__ . 1996b. Recovery plan for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) Rafinesgue. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Atlanta, GA. 70 pp. 

__ . 2002. Biological opinion on the effects of completion of sections I and II of the Atlantic 

Coast of New Jersey beach erosion control project Sea B1ight to Manasquan, Momnouth 

County, New Jersey on the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and seabeach amaranth 

(Amaranthus pumilus). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 5, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ. 124 pp. 

4 

Hereford Inkt to Cape May Inlet Appendix D. 
988

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Philadelphia District, U.S. Am1y Corps of Engineers (Corps) was authorized to conduct a 

feasibility study to investigate stom1 damage reduction, beach restoration, and water quality 

improvement alternatives within Hereford Inlet, North Wildwood and Cape May Inlet, Lower 

Township project area (project area), Cape May County, New Jersey. The length of the project 

area is approximately seven miles long and exhibits several different coastal issues. The North 

Wildwood portion of the project area is prone to moderate to severe erosion, leaving tl1e 

sun"Ounding community vulnerable to storm damages. Meanwhile, tl1e beaches of Wildwood and 

Wildwood Crest have been accreting large quantities of sand resulting in a large, low, flat beach 

offering little habitat value and resulting in human health and water quality concerns due to 

clogged outfall pipes on the beach. Potential alternatives cun-ently being considered for the project 

include "bypassing" sand from Wildwood to No1ih Wildwood and changing the beach 

configuration in Wildwood by increasing berm height or adding a dune. Within the project area no 

work is plam1ed for either the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge or the U.S. Coast Guard's 

LORAN site. 

In this planning aid report (PAR), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Sen1ice) identifies fish and 

wildlife resources in the vicinity of the five-mile-Jong barrier island bordered to the north by 

Hereford Inlet and to the south by Cape May Inlet (formerly Cold Spring Inlet), discusses potential 

impacts on those resources from erosion control activities, identifies opportunities for fish and 

wildlife habitat improvements, and updates the current state oflrnowledge concerning the proposed 

activities and their potential beneficial or adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources, including 

federally listed species. 

The federally listed (threatened) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) nests on the beaches within 

the project area in the vicinity of No1ih Wildwood, U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN site, and Cape 

May National Wildlife Refuge; and are lmown to forage along the beaches of Wildwood Crest and 

Lower Township. Piping plovers nest on sandy beaches above the high-tide line on mainland 

coastal beaches, sand flats, and barrier island coastal beaches. The Service views this beach 

nourislm1ent project, specifically at North Wildwood, as an opportunity to enhance nesting habitat 

for piping plover, shorebirds, and colonial nesting waterbirds, including the Federal candidate red 

la10t (Calidris canutus n!fa), and the State-listed (endangered) black skimmer (Rynchops niger) 

and least tern (Sterna antillarum). 

In addition to piping plover, shorebirds, and colonial nesting waterbirds, the project may also 

create habitat for sea beach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), a federally listed (threatened) plant 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b). Seabeacb amaranth is an ammal plant, endemic to 

Atlantic coastal plain beaches, primarily occurring on ove1wash flats at the accreting ends of 

banier beach islands and lower foredunes of non-eroding beaches. Occurrences of seabeach 

amaranth are ]mown within the proposed project area. The species has recently naturally 

recolonized coastal sites within New York and Maryland; therefore, it is possible that seabeach 

amaranth may become naturally reestablished within the project area during the life of the project. 

Colonization of seabeach amaranth occurred in July 2000 after a New York District Corps beach 

nourishment project in Momnouth County, New Jersey (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). To 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet AppendixD. 
989

minimize potential adverse impacts associated with renomislm1ent activities along the Atlantic 

Coast in New Jersey, the Service developed a streamlined biological opinion to assess and evaluate 

project impacts to piping plovers and seabeach amaranth. 

ln December 2005, tl1e Service developed a Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO), in 

accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as 

amended,16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), on the effects of beach nourishment, renourishment, 

stabilization, and restoration projects funded, permitted, or conducted by the Corps along the 

Atlantic Coast of New Jersey on the federally listed (tlu·eatened) species piping plover and 

seabeach amaranth. The purpose of the PBO is to expedite review of Corps funded and pem1itted 

Program activities. 

In closing, this PAR ends with reconnnendations for beach c01mnunities, borrow areas, and beach 

habitat enl1ancements. In order to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts on State-listed 

and federally listed threatened and endangered species within project area, the Service 

reconnnends incorporating nine measures into project planning. The PAR also includes eight 

recommendations for borrow areas; and six recommendations for habitat enhancement. 

11 

Hereford Inkt to Cape :\fay Inlet AppendixD. 
990

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ . 

LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................... v 

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... v 

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. vi 

I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 

IL PROJECT AREA ..................................................................................................................... . 

Ill. METHODS AND PROCEDURES .............................................. : ......................................... . 

IV. BEACH COMMUNITIES ....................................................................................................... 3 

A. A VIAN AND OTHER WILDLIFE RESOURCES .......................................................... 3 

1. Shorebirds and Colonial Nesting Waterbirds.............................................................. 3 

2. "'aterfowl ........................................................................................................................ 4 

3. Raptors ............................................................................................................................. 4 

4. Other "'ildlife... .... .. .... ...... .... ...... .. .. .. ... ..... .. .... . ... . . .. ........ .... ... .. ... . . ... . .... ... . ... .... ................ 4 

B. FEDERALLY LISTED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES UNDER 

SERVICE JURISDICTION........................................................................................ 5 

1. Piping Plover..................................................................................................................... 5 

a. Species Description ................................................................................................... 5 

b. Life History............................................................................................................... 5 

c. Population Status....................................................................................................... 6 

d. Continuing Threats.................................................................................................... 8 

2. Red Knot............................................................................................................................ 9 

a. Species Description................................................................................................... 9 

b. Life History............................................................................................................... 9 

c. Population Status ....................................................................................................... 1 0 

3. Seabeach Amaranth .......................................................................................................... 12 

a. Species Description ................................................................................................... J 2 

b. Life History ............................................................................................................... 12 

c. Population Status ....................................................................................................... J 4 

d. Continuing Threats .................................................................................................... 14 

iii 

lkreford Inlet to Cape }..'fay Inlet Appendix D. 
991

C. FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION ............................ 16 

D. STATELISTEDSPECIES ................................................................................................. 16 

1. Black Skimmer .................................................................................................................. 17 

2. Least Tern .......................................................................................................................... 18 

3. Coordination with the State ............................................................................................. 19 

V. BORROW AREAS .................................................................................................................... 20 

A. MARINE FINFISH .............................................................................................................. 20 

B. BENTHIC RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 21 

VI. PROJECT IMI'ACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATIVE MEASURES ................. 22 

A. PIPING PLOVER ................................................................................................................ 22 

B. SEABEACHAMARANTH ................................................................................................. 24 

C. RED KNOT, BLACK SKIMMER, AND LEAST TERN ................................................ 24 

D. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 25 

E. MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................. 25 

F. BEACH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT ............................................................................. 26 

G. BORRO"' AREAS .............................................................................................................. 27 

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 28 

A. BEACH COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................. 28 

B. BEACH HAilITAT ENHANCEMENT ............................................................................. 29 

C. BORRO"' AREAS .............................................................................................................. 29 

VIII. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 30 

A. LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................. 30 

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................ 36 

iv 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet AppendixD. 
992

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Project Area - Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, 

Cape May County, New Jersey ......................................................................... 2 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Summary of Piping Plover Productivity Estimates for the 

U.S. Atlantic Coast, 1994-2003 ......................................................................... 7 

Table 2 Known Vegetative Associates of Seabeach Amaranth ................................................ 13 

Table 3 Re-colonization Dates of Seabeach Amaranth in Five States ...................................... 14 

Table4 Number of Black Skimmers at New Jersey Nesting Sites: 1999-2006 ....................... 17 

Table 5 Number of Adult Least Terns at New Jersey Nesting Sites: 1999-2006 ..................... 18 

Table6 Federally Managed Fish Species within the Project Area ........................................... 20 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 

V 

JO Appendix D. 
993

Appendix A 

AppendixB 

Appendix C 

Appendix D 

Appendix E 

Hereford Inlet lo Cape May Inlet 

APPENDICIES 

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and 

Candidate Species in New Jersey 

Colonial Nesting Birds and Shorebirds within Hereford Inlet 

to Cape May Inlet Project Area (prepared by New Jersey 

Audubon Society) 

State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species in New Jersey 

Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping 

Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid 

Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Guidelines for Managing Fireworks in the Vicinity of Piping 

Plovers and Seabeach Amaranth on the U.S. Atlantic Coast 

vi 

11 AppendixD. 
994

I. INTRODUCTION 

The purpose ofthis U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) study is to investigate storm damage 

reduction, beach restoration, and water quality improvement alternatives within the Hereford 

Inlet, North Wildwood to Cape May Inlet project area (project area), Lower Township, Cape 

May County, New Jersey (Figure 1). The project area exhibits several different coastal issues. 

The North Wildwood portion of the project area is prone to moderate to severe erosion, leaving 

the surrounding community vulnerable to storm damages. The beaches of Wildwood and 

Wildwood Crest have been accreting large quantities of sand, resulting in human health and 

water quality concerns due to clogged outfall pipes on the beach. Potential alternatives currently 

being considered for the project include "bypassing" sand from Wildwood to North Wildwood 

and changing the beach configuration in Wildwood by increasing berm height or adding a dune. 

In this planning aid report (PAR), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) identifies fish and 

wildlife resources in the vicinity of the five-mile-long barrier island bordered to the north by 

Hereford Inlet and to the south by Cape May Inlet (formerly Cold Spring Inlet), discusses 

potential impacts on those resources from erosion control activities, identifies opportunities for 

fish and wildlife habitat improvements, and updates the current state of knowledge concerning 

the proposed activities and their potential adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources. 

II. PROJECT AREA 

The length of the project area is approximately seven miles, including the five-mile-long barrier 

island from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet located in coastal Cape May County, New Jersey. 

Municipalities, Boroughs, and Townships on the island include North Wildwood, Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest, West Wildwood, Diamond Beach, and Lower Township (Figure 1 ). The TwoMile Beach Unit oftl1e Cape May National Wildlife Refuge (CMNWR) managed by the Service 

and a natural area within the U.S. Coast Guard LORAN site are located at the northern boundary 

of Cape May Inlet within Lower Township (Figure 1 ). Hereford Inlet opens to the Atlantic 

Ocean and is located between Stone Harbor Point and North Wildwood. The inlet contains a 

scour hole, located along the southern end of the seawall at Angelesea in North Wildwood. The 

scour hole possibly resulted from dredging of fill materials for the Townsends Inlet to Hereford 

Inlet or another beach nourishment project. At this time, no detailed infonnation has been 

provided regarding the physical and biological characteristics of the scour hole. 

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 

This PAR incorporates infom1ation compiled from the Service's New Jersey Field Office library 

and office files, personal communications, the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP) database, CMNWR, New Jersey Audubon Society (NJAS), and the Corps' 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study Project Management Plan (U.S. Am1y Corps 

of Engineers 2005). The database was reviewed for infonnation regarding federally listed 

species, State-listed species, and other fish and wildlife in the vicinity of Hereford Inlet to Cape 

Hereford Inlet to Cape r-.fay Inlet 12 Appendix D. 
N Cape 0 LI f1 t y 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet. N.J 

Fi!'{ll'Ht'f'. '°fl'rojii"cfl'irea - Hereford Inlet to Cape May Intei: Cape May Co
996

May Inlet. In addition, personal communications were held with personnel from the CMNWR, 

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW); New Jersey Bureau ofShellfisheries; New 

Jersey Bureau ofMaiine Fisheries; and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

Representatives of the Corps, the NJDEP, and the Service conducted a site visit of the project 

area on October 30, 2007. The discussion during the site visit concluded with support to move 

forward the necessary steps to reconfigure the North Wildwood beach to withstand potential 

storm damage. The interagency study team detennined that beach enhancements such as the 

creation of gently sloping foredunes within project area would benefit piping plover ( Charadrius 

melodus) and other beach nesting birds. 

IV. BEACH COMMUNITIES 

A. A VIAN AND OTHER WILDLIFE RESOURCES 

1. Shorebirds and Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 

Migratory shorebirds are a Federal trust resource responsibility of the Service. Wetland areas in 

the vicinity of the five-mile-long barrier island provide high quality habitats for a variety of 

migratory shorebirds. Shorebirds that use beach areas and associated estuarine wetlands in the 

vicinity of the proposed project area include the federally listed (threatened) piping plover and 

Federal candidate species red knot (Calidris canutus n1fa), American oystercatcher (Haematopus 

palliatus) ( currently proposed as a State species of special concern), short-billed dowitcher 

(Limnodromus griseus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), semipalmated plover 

( Charadrius semipalmatus ), killdeer ( C. vociferous), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres ), 

dunlin (Calidris alpina), sanderling (C. alba), least sandpiper (C. minutilla), pectoral sandpiper 

( C. melanotos ), semipalmated sandpiper ( C. pusilla), stilt sandpiper ( C. himantopus ), western 

sandpiper (C. mauri), spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius), willet (Tringa semipalmatus), and 

greater yellowlegs (T melanoleuca). During the 2007 nesting season, Service biologists 

observed piping plovers foraging within the intertidal zone of the project area (Egger,USFWS, 

pers. comm. 2007). 

The colonial nesting waterbirds present within the project area include the State-listed 

(endangered) least tern (Sterna antillarum) and black skimmer (Rynchops niger); State-listed 

(threatened) little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) and yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa 

violacea); State species of special concern common tern (Sterna hirundo), tricolored heron 

(Egretta tricolor), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and breeding population threatened blackcrowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). Other colonial species include double-crested 

com10rant (Phalacrocorax auritus), great egret (Ardea albus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), great 

black-backed gull (Larus marinus), herring gull (L. argentatus), laughing gull (L. atricilla), ringbilled b,'llll (L. delawarensis), glossy ibis (Plegadisfalcinellus), Forster's tern (Stemaforsteri), 

gull-billed tern (S. nilotica), and royal tern (S. maxima). 

A list of colonial nesting birds ai1d shorebirds prepared by the NJAS for the Hereford Inlet to 

Cape May Inlet project area is provided in Appendix B. 

3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ?,..fay Inlet 14 AppcndixD. 
997

2. Waterfowl 

Migratory waterfowl are also a Federal trust resource responsibility of the Service and are 

protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703-

712), as amended. The project area is within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture's New Jersey 

Waterfowl Focus Area (South Coast Atlantic Focus Area) under the North America Waterfowl 

Management Plan. Areas adjacent to the project area, including CMNWR are important resting 

and feeding areas for migratory waterfowl on the Atlantic flyway and provide habitat for Atlantic 

brant (Branta bernicla), Canada goose (B. canadensis), American black duck (Anas rubripes), 

northern pintail (A. acuta), blue-winged teal (A. discors), green-winged teal (A. crecca), mallard 

(A. platyrhynchos), gadwall (A. strepera), American wigeon (A. americana), Northern shoveler 

(A. clypeata), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), bufflehead (B. albeola), oldsquaw 

( Clangula hyemalis), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), greater scaup (A. marila), wood duck (Aix 

sponsa), hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), 

and tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus). 

3. Raptors 

Rap tors that occur in the project area include the State-listed (endangered) peregrine falcon 

(Fa/co peregrinus ); State-listed ( endangered) short-eared ow I (Asia jlammeus); State-listed 

(threatened) osprey (Pandion haliaetus), barred owl (Strix varia), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter 

cooperiz), and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). The osprey feeds primarily on fish in the 

back bays and inlets of the project area. The red-shouldered hawk and Cooper's hawk migrate 

over the study area in the spring and fall; however, these transient visitors rarely stay within the 

area for any significant length of time. 

4. Other Wildlife 

The five-mile-long barrier island area also supports numerous other wildlife species. Avifauna 

include the boat-tailed grackle (Quiscalus major), sharp-tailed sparrow (Ammodramus 

caudacutus), seaside sparrow (A. maritimus), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), tree swallow 

(Tachycineta bicolor), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), and red-winged blackbird 

(Agelaius phoeniceus). 

The northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin) is also known to inhabit 

marshes, tidal flats, and beaches in New Jersey estuaries. The terrapin has been subject to recent 

population declines due to entrapment in crab pots and a reduction in nesting habitat. N 01ihern 

diamondback terrapins occur primarily in emergent wetlands and shallow water habitat and feed 

on crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates (Palmer and Cordes 198 8). During the winter, 

terrapins bunow into the mud of tidal creeks and ponds to hibernate either individually or in 

groups. Terrapins mate in the spring and lay their eggs in sandy substrates above the levels of 

high tides. Predation of eggs and hatch lings represent the major source of natural mortality in 

most terrapin populations. Eggs and juveniles are preyed upon by raccoons (Procyon lotor), 

crows (Corvus sp.), and gulls (Larus sp.) (Palmer and Cordes 1988). 

Mammals known to occur within the vicinity of project area include raccoon, gray squirrel 

(Sciurus carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus 

4 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 15 Appendix D. 
998

floridanus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus 

virgin/anus). 

B. FEDERALLY LISTED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES UNDER SERVICE 

JURISDICTION 

1. Piping Plover 

The piping plover was listed as a protected species under the ESA in 1986. Along the Atlantic 

Coast the species is federally designated as threatened. The piping plover has been State-listed 

as endangered in New Jersey since 1984 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996a). 

The Atlantic Coast population breeds on coastal beaches from Newfoundland and southeastern 

Quebec to North Carolina and primarily overwinters from North Carolina to Florida. In New 

Jersey, piping plovers nest on the coastline of Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, and Cape May 

counties (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Detailed background infonnation regarding 

piping plover, including species biology, life history, recovery criteria and actions, and 

management issues are provided in the Service's Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) on the 

effects ofbeach nourishment, renourishment, stabilization, and restoration projects funded, 

pennitted, or conducted by the Corps along the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey on piping plover 

and seabeach amaranth (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). A summary is provided below. 

a. Species Description 

Piping plovers are small, sandy-colored territorial shorebirds, approximately 7 inches in length 

(Palmer 1967; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985; 1996a). The bird's name was derived from 

its call, which resembles plaintive bell-like whistles that are often heard before the birds are seen. 

Breeding adults have orange legs, a black ring around the base of the neck and across the 

forehead, and an orange bill with a black tip. The female's neck band is often incomplete and is 

usually thinner than the male's neck band. In winter, the black band completely disappears, and 

adults and juveniles look similar, with pale yellow legs and a solid black bill. Chicks have 

speckled gray, buff, and brown down feathers, black beaks, orange legs, and a white collar 

around the neck. 

b. Life History 

Piping plovers inl1abit New Jersey beaches between March and August, aniving at their breeding 

grounds in late March through early April (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). After choosing 

mates and establishing ten-ito1ies, piping plovers scrape depressions in the sand to forn1 a nest 

and lay their eggs (Bent 1929; Burger 1987; Cairns 1982; Patterson 1988; Flemming et al. 1990; 

Maclvor 1990; Strauss 1990). The birds nest above the high tide line, usually on sandy ocean 

beaches and banier islands, but also on gently sloping foredunes, blowout areas behind p1imary 

dunes, washover areas cut into or between dunes, the ends of sandspits, and deposits of suitable 

dredged or pumped sand (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996a; 2005). The nests are frequently 

lined with shell fragments and often located near small clumps of vegetation such as beachgrass 

(Ammophila spp.) (Patterson 1988; Flemming et al. 1990; Macivor 1990). Plovers will lay their 

5 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 16 AppendixD. 
999

eggs (up to 4) from mid-April through late June or early July and may renest more than once 

during the season if earlier clutches are lost (Wilcox 1959; Cairns 1977; Maclvor 1990). T11e 

eggs are well camouflaged and blend extremely well with their surroundings. Both the male and 

female will incubate the nest for about 30 days. After the eggs hatch, the chicks may be present 

on the beaches with their parents until the end of August when they are ready to fly (Patterson 

1988; Goldin 1990; Maclvor 1990; Howard et al. 1993). 

Piping plover adults and chicks feed on marine macroinvertebrates such as wonns, fly larvae, 

beetles, crustaceans, and mollusks (Bent 1929; Cairns 1977; Nicholls 1989). Feeding areas 

include the intertidal zone of ocean beaches, ocean washover areas, mudflats, sandflats, wrack 

lines ( organic ocean material left by high tide), and the shorelines of coastal ponds, lagoons, and 

salt marshes (Gibbs 1986; Coutu et al. 1990; Hoopes et al. 1992; Loegering 1992; Goldin 1993; 

Elias-Gerken 1994). 

c. Population Status 

The Atlantic Coast population increased from 957 pairs in 1989 to 1,676 pairs in 2003, but the 

increase has been unevenly distributed. Between 1989 and 2003, the New England 

subpopulation increased by 481 pairs, while the New York-New Jersey subpopulation gained 

only 211 pairs. The Southern and Atlantic Canada subpopulations gained only 4 pairs and 23 

pairs, respectively (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). While rapid overall population growth 

between 1991 and 1995, driven largely by the New England subpopulation, was encouraging, 

growth in the later half of the decade was more modest, with an essentially flat population trend 

from 1997 to 2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). T11e New York-New Jersey 

subpopulation experienced a net decrease of 45 pairs between 1996 and 1998, followed by 

several years of steady gains accounting for a net increase of 192 nesting pairs (greater than 50% 

increase) over a 6-year period (1998-2003) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice 2004). 

Productivity needed to maintain a stationary population for Atlantic Coast piping plovers is 

estimated at 1.24 fledged chicks per pair (Melvin and Gibbs 1994). Small populations may be 

highly vulnerable to extinction due to variability in productivity and survival rates; therefore, the 

average productivity for a stationary population may be insufficient to assure a high probability 

of species survival. To compensate for small populations, the recovery plan establishes 

productivity goals needed to assure a secure 2,000-pair population at 1.5 chicks per pair in each 

of the four recovery units, based on data from at least 90% of each recovery unit's population. 

Table 1 provides a summary of piping plover productivity from 1994 to 2003. The 10-year 

(1994-2003) average productivity for piping plovers in the U.S. Atlantic Coast portion of their 

range is 1.32 chicks per pair. Peak productivity in the U.S. was observed in 1994 and 1999 when 

average productivity approached or exceeded the recovery plan productivity goal of 1.5 chicks 

per pair. However, productivity in 1997, 2000, and 2003 was considerably lower, 1.16, 1.17, and 

1.24 chicks per pair, respectively, and well below or just reaching the 1.24 chicks per pair 

required to maintain a stationary population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). While 

weather events were major contributors to egg and chick losses in these years (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1998), such periodic natural events are inevitable, and they underscore the need 

6 

Hereford Inl0t to Cape May Inlet 17 AppendixD. 
1000

to reduce the species vulnerability by increasing the breeding population and protecting the 

species against human caused factors tliat impinge on productivity. 

Mirroring the regional population trends, productivity rates have been unevenly distributed, with 

other recovery units lagging substantially behind New England. Average productivity from 1994 

to 2003 in the New York-New Jersey Recovery Unit was 1.19 chicks per pair. In the New YorkNew Jersey Recovery Unit, over tl1e past l O years the 1.24 chicks per pair productivity needed to 

maintain a stationary population has been attained only four times, in 1994, 1999, 2001, and 

2002. Nearly all pairs in tl1e recovery unit for which productivity is unknown nested in New 

York (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). 

Table 1. Summary of Piping Plover Productivity Estimates for the U.S. Atlantic Coast, 

1994-2003 

AVERAGE YOUNG .FLEDGED PER PAIR 

1994 to 

STATE/REGION 1994 19~5 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2003 

AVG 

Maine 2.00 2.38 1.63 1.98 1.47 1.63 1.60 1.98 1.40 1.28 1.69 

New Hampshire 0.60 2.40 2.67 2.33 2.14 0.14 1.00 1.58 

Massachusetts I.SO 1.62 1.35 1.33 1.50 1.60 1.09 1.49 1.14 1.26 1.40 

Rhode Island 2.00 1.68 1.56 1.34 1.13 1.79 1.20 1.50 1.95 1.03 1.48 

Connecticut 1.47 1.35 1.31 1.69 1.05 1.45 1.86 1.22 1.87 1.30. 1.45 

NEW ENGLAND 1.81 1.67 1.40 1.39 1.46 1.62 1.18 1;53 1.26 1.24 1.44 

New York J.34 0.97 l.14 1.36 1.09 1.35 1.11 1.27 1.62 1.15 l.26 

New Jersey 1.l 6 0.98 1.00 0.39 1.09 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.17 0.92 1.07 

NY-NJ REGION 1.25 0.97 1.07 1.02 1.09 135 1.19 1.28 1.49 1:07 1.19 

Delaware 2.50 2.00 0.50 1.00 0.83 1.50 1.67 1.50 1.17 2.33 1.46 

Maryland 2.41 1.73 1.49 1.02 1.30 1.09 0.80 0.92 1.85 1.56 1.36 

Virginia 1.65 1.00 1.54 0.71 1.01 1.21 1.42 1.52 1.19 1.90 1.33 

North Carolina 0.36 0.45 0.86 0.23 0.61 0.48 0.54 0.50 0.17 0.46 0.46 

SOUTHERN 1.37 1.06 1.34 0.68 0.99 1.04 1.09 1.22 1.27 L63 1.17 REGION 

U.S. TOTAL 1.56 1.35 1.30 1.16 1.27 1.45 1.17 1.40 1.34 1.24 1.32 

EASTERN 1.25 1.69 1.72 2.10 1.84 1.74 1.47 1.77 1.18 i.62 1.62 

CANADA 

7 

Hereford Inlet to Cape \Iay Ill kt 18 AppendixD. 
1001

d. Continuing Threats 

Continuing tl1reats to Atlantic Coast piping plovers in the breeding pmiion of their range include 

habitat loss and degradation, disturbance by humans and pets, increased predation, oil spills, and 

herbivory. These detailed descriptions of threats are provided in the revised recovery plan (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Se1vice 1996a) and PBO (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 

Habitat loss results from development as well as from beach stabilization, beach nourishment, 

and other physical alterations to the beach ecosystem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996a). 

Commercial, residential, and recreational development reduce the amount of suitable habitat 

available for nesting and feeding. Structures such as seawalls, jetties, b>roins, and bulld1eads 

promote stabilization of the beach and rapidly promote natural succession, decreasing the sandy, 

sparsely vegetated habitat required for nesting. Predation on chicks and eggs is intensified by 

development because predators such as foxes (Vulpes vulpes), rats (Ratti~~ norvegicus), raccoons 

(Procyon lotor); domestic dogs (Canisfamiliaris), domestic cats (Felis silvestris) and gulls 

(Larus spp.), thrive in developed areas and are attracted to beaches by food scraps and trash 

(Riepe 1989; Jenkins and Nichols 1994; Elias-Gerken 1994; Jenkins and Niles 1999; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1996a; Canale 1997). 

Human disturbance of nesting birds includes foot traffic, sunbathing, kite flying, pets, fireworks 

displays, beach raking, construction, and vehicle use. These disturbances can result in crushing 

of eggs, failure of eggs to hatch, and death of chicks (Wilcox 1959; Tull 1984; Bmger 1987; 

Patterson et al. 1991 ). Excessive disturbance may cause the parents to desert the nest, exposing 

eggs or chicks to the summer sun and predators (Welty 1982; Bergstrom 1991). Piping plovers 

are vulnerable to domestic animals before and after the eggs hatch. Adult plovers will stagger 

and act as if they have a broken wing to distract predators from their nest or chicks. Flightless 

chicks are no match for an agile cat or dog that instinctively sees a chick as something to hunt or 

chase. Camouflaged chicks can also become trapped in tire ruts and be run over by recreational 

or municipal vehicles. 

While removal of human-created trash on the beach is desirable to reduce predation threats, the 

indiscriminate nature of mechanized beach-cleaning adversely affects piping plovers and their 

habitat. In addition to danger of directly crushing piping plover nests and chicks and the 

prolonged disturbance from the machine's noise, this method of beach-cleaning removes tl1e 

birds' natural wrack line feeding habitat (Eddings and Melvin 1991; Howard et al. 1993), and 

shell fragments, a prefened feature of nesting habitat. 

Intensive management, including municipal beach management plans (BMP) to protect piping 

plovers from disturbance by beach recreationists, pets, and beach-cleaning operations have been 

implemented at many New York-New Jersey plover nesting sites in recent years. The Service 

and NJDFW are cunently working with several coastal municipalities 1o develop and implement 

BMPs. Piping plover protection in this recovery unit is highly dependent on the efforts of State 

and local govenunent agencies, conservation organizations, and private landowners. 

8 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 19 Appendix D. 
1002

2. Red knot 

The Service has designated the red !mot as a candidate for ESA protection. The n!fa subspecies 

of red knot winters near the tip of South America and begins its long journey north in midFebruary. By the time birds arrive, they have depleted their fat reserves and must refuel before 

continuing their migration to their Arctic breeding grounds. The birds rely heavily on the eggs 

of horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) to replenish their energy. At the end of May or the 

beginning of June, the birds depart tl1e mid-Atlantic coast on the last leg of their journey, arriving 

in the Arctic in early mid-June. 

a. Species Description 

The red knot is a medium-sized shorebird about 9 to 11 inches (in) (23 to 28 centimeters) in 

length with a propmiionately small head, small eyes, short neck, short tibia, and stout tarsus. 

The black bill tapers steadily from a relatively thick base to a relatively fine tip; bill length is not 

much longer than head length. Legs are typically dark gray to black, but sometimes ,greenish in 

juveniles or older birds in non-breeding plumage (Harrington 2001 ). During the breeding 

season, the plumage of the red knot is distinctive and easily recognizable. The face, breast, and 

upper belly are a rich rufous-red, while the.lower belly and under tail-covert region are lightcolored with dark flecks. Upperparts are dark brown with white and rufous feather edges; outer 

primary feathers are dark brown to black (Davis 1983; Harrington 2001). Females are similar to 

males, though rufous colors are typically less intense, with more buff or light gray on dorsal parts 

(Niles et al. 2005). Non-breeding plumage is dusky gray above and whitish below. Juveniles 

resemble non-breeding adults, but the feathers of the scapulars and wing coverts are edged with 

white and have narrow, dark subtenninal bands, giving the upperparts a scalloped appearance 

(Davis 1983). Body mass varies seasonally, with lowest mean mass during early winter (125 

grams (gm)) and highest mean values during spring (205 gm) and fall (172 gm) migration 

(Harrington 2001; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2007). 

b. Life History 

Each year red knots travel approximately 30,000 kilometers (Ian) between wintering grounds in 

southern South America and breeding areas within the Canadian Arctic. Although a small 

population is believed to overwinter in northern Brazil, most red knots winter in soutl1ern South 

America along the coast of Patagonia, from approximately San Antonio Oeste, Argentina, 

southward to the eastern coast ofTieJTa de! Fuego in Chile and Argentina (Harrington 2001; 

Baker et al. 2004; MmTison et al. 2004). In austral South American wintering areas, red knots 

are found principally in intertidal marine habitats, especially near coastal inlets, estuaries, and 

bays, or along restinga fom1ations (an inte1iidal shelf of densely-packed dirt blown by strong, 

offshore winds) (HmTington 2001 ). 

During mi6rration, red ]mots undertalce long flights that may span tl1ousands of kilometers 

without stopping. At some stages of migration, very high proportions of entire populations may 

use a single migration staging site to prepare for long flights. Migrating red knots are principally 

found in marine and estuarine habitats (Harrington 2001). Dming the spring migration, red knots 

stop over for a period of approximately two to tlu·ee weeks along the Atlantic coast of the United 

9 

Hereford Inlet to Cape tfay Inlet 20 Appcndix.D. 
1003

States to rebuild energy reserves needed to complete the journey to the Arctic and arrive on the 

breeding grounds in good condition (Harrington 1996; Baker et al. 2004). Historically, the 

Delaware Bay region of Delaware and New Jersey has supported the largest known spring 

migration concentration of red ]mots and is the last major stopover area used by red knots 

migrating to Arctic breeding areas (Harrington 1996). In the southeastern and mid-Atlantic 

United States, red knots forage along sandy beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, and peat banks. 

In wintering and migration habitats, red ]mots commonly forage on bivalves, gastropods, and 

crustaceans (Harrington 2001). An exception occurs each May when the majority of red knots 

departing South America arrive within the Delaware Bay of Delaware and New Jersey to feed on 

eggs of horseshoe crabs (Wander and Dunne 1982; Harrington 1996, 2001; Niles et al. 2005). 

1n addition to the large flocks ofred knots found in the Delaware Bay, red knots are found in 

lesser numbers elsewhere along the Atlantic Coast, including the project area during the spring 

migration, which may be related to these other areas having lesser numbers of breeding 

horseshoe crabs (Niles et al. 2005). 

On the breeding grounds, the red knot's diet consists mostly of terrestrial invertebrates, though 

early in the season, before insects and other macroinvertebrates are active and accessible, red 

!mots will eat grass shoots, seeds, and other vegetable matter (Harrington 2001). 

c. Population Status 

The range of C. c. rufa during migration extends along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of 

North, Central, and South America, from the Canadian arctic to the soutl1ermnost extent of South 

America. With the exception of a few key wintering areas in South America and the spring 

migratory stopover site in Delaware Bay, little comparative infonnation is available regarding 

the historical versus current distribution of the subspecies throughout its range. 

Assessing the population size of wide-ranging migratory species such as the red knot is difficult. 

Counts on the expansive Arctic breeding areas are not feasible. Morrisson et al. (2001) compiled 

published and unpublished counts of shorebirds by season and region to generate a coarse flyway 

population estimate for North America breeding shorebirds. Populations were detennined by 

summing maximum counts at various sites within a region. Using this metl10d the red knot 

population was estimated at approximated 170,000 birds for the period of the late 1980s to early 

1990s. However, the anthors included the central flyway population of approximately 20,000 

red knots (Morrison et al. 2001). While the origins of the central flyway red knots are uncertain, 

these birds are generally thought to be C. c. roselaari (Harrington 2001; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2003; Niles et al. 2005). Morrison et al. 2001 estimated the eastern North America 

flyway population of C. c. ri!fa for the pe1iod of the late 1980s to early 1990s at approximately 

150,000 birds, and noted that based on information through 1999, the population could be 

substantially lower. 

Vlhile the peak count of red !mots observed at Delaware Bay is often described as the population 

estimate for the Bay, raw data from aerial surveys are not useful in estimating total populations 

of shorebirds in the Bay due to unknown turnover and detection rates (U.S. Fisl1 and Wildlife 

10 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 21 AppendixD. 
1004

Service 2003). The shorebird survey methods used in the Delaware Bay can, however, be used 

to evaluate trends of migrating red knots. The aerial surveys provide comparative annual counts 

of numbers of red knots observed once per week during a 5-week survey period in May to early 

June (Clark et al. 1993 ). Peak aerial survey counts of migrating red knots on the Delaware Bay 

between 1982 and 1998 varied considerably, with highest recorded peaks of95,360 and 94,460 

birds occurring in 1982 and 1989, respectively, and lowest peak counts of 16,859 and 19,445 

birds occurring in 1983 and 1996. 

During the period of 1982 to 1998, aerial survey counts were somewhat cyclic where high peak 

years were generally followed by 1 to 2 years of declining peak counts followed by several years 

of rebounding peak counts (Dunne et al. 1983; Clark et al. 1993; Niles et al. 2005). However, 

from I 999-2004 red knot numbers in the Delaware Bay declined, reaching an all-time low peak 

count of 13,315 birds in 2004 (Niles et al. 2005). The 2005 peak count increased to 15,345; 

however, the peak count for 2006 dropped to 13,445 (Niles et al. 2005). Thus, although 2005 

showed an increase, there has been an overall decline in the counts at Delaware Bay in recent 

years. Insufficient information is available to determine trends of migrating C. c. nifa in other 

areas of the Atlantic coastal United States. 

Although many counts of spring migrant red knots have involved the Delaware Bay, as noted 

above, this provides an index of the status of the species using the Bay but does not necessarily 

represent the total population of spring migrants along the eastern seaboard. In 2005, for 

example, the peak aerial count for Delaware Bay was 15,345 red knots (Niles et al. 2005). 

However, in May 2005, an aerial survey for red knots along Virginia's barrier islands recorded 

an estimated 9,150 knots (Watts and Truitt 2005), and a peak count of approximately 20,000 red 

knots was reported on the same survey date from ground counts of an Atlantic coastal site in 

New Jersey, where most Delaware Bay red !mots are believed to congregate at a nighttime roost 

(Sitters 2005). Thus, more red knots were accounted for during the spring 2005 migration than 

are reflected by the Delaware Bay peak aerial count for that year (Niles et al. 2005). 

As noted above, the peak counts of red knots at Delaware Bay declined each year from 1999 to 

2004. In 2004, following 5 years ofreduced horseshoe crab harvest in the bay, the availability of 

horseshoe crab eggs on principal shorebird foraging beaches increased over previous years. In 

2005 the peak count of migrant red ]mots in the Delaware Bay was 15,345, an increase over the 

2004 peak of 13,315 and the first increase in the annual count for Delaware Bay since 1999 

(Niles et al. 2005). Further, although red !mots departed from the Delaware Bay in 2005 about 5 

days later on average than in previous years, the majority of red knots reached satisfactory body 

weights (threshold departure mass) prior to departure (Minton and Taylor 2005). The 2006 

surveys by the Canadian Wildlife Service of the principal South American wintering areas 

indicate that although the counts are at historic lows, there was only a minimal difference in the 

number observed in 2006 as compared to 2005. Taken together, this infom1ation from Delaware 

Bay and at key wintering areas suggests the possibility that the declining trend may have halted. 

While these numbers indicate that no further decline has occurred, numbers of red knots remain 

low and there has been no indication ofrecovery. The change in horseshoe crab management and 

the upturn in availability of eggs in 2004, and the finding that the majority of red knots reached 

satisfactory body weights prior to departure from Delaware Bay, also suggests that the conditions 

have changed in comparison to the 1997 to 2002 period used for the model of annual survival. 

11 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 22 AppendixD. 
1005

3. Seabeach Amaranth 

In 1993, seabeach amaranth was added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants as a federally listed (threatened) species. The listing was based upon the elimination of 

seabeach amaranth from two-thirds of its historic range, and continuing threats to the 55 

populations that remained at the time (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Since its 

rediscovery in New Jersey in 2000, one seabeach amaranth plant was found at the USCG 

LORAN site in 2003 and six plants in 2004. 

a. Species Description 

Seabeach amaranth is an annual species and a member of the Amaranth family (Amaranthaceae). 

Upon gennination, the plant initially fom1s a small, unbranched sprig, but soon begins to branch 

profusely, forming a low-growing mat. Seabeach amaranth's fleshy stems are prostrate at the 

base, erect or somewhat reclining at the tips, and pink, red, or reddish in color. The leaves of 

seabeach amaranth are small, rounded, and fleshy, spinach-green in color, with a characteristic 

notch at the rounded tip. Leaves are approximately 1.3 to 2.5 cm in dian1eter and clustered 

towards the tip of the stem (Weakley and Bucher 1992). The foliage of seabeach amaranth turns 

deep red in the fall (Snyder 1996). Plants often grow to 3 0 cm in diameter consisting of 5 to 20 

branches, but occasionally reach 90 cm in diameter, with 100 or more branches. Flowers and 

fruits are inconspicuous, borne in clusters along the stems. Seeds are 2.5 millimeters (mm) in 

diameter, dark reddish-brown, and glossy, borne in low-density, fleshy, indehiscent utricles 

(bladder-like seed capsules or fruits), 4 to 6 mm long (Weakley and Bucher 1992). The seed 

does not fill the utricle, leaving an air-filled space (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b ). 

b. Life History 

Individual plants live only one season, with only a single opportunity to produce seed. The 

species over-winters entirely as seeds. Germination of seedlings begins in April and continues at 

least through July. Reproductive maturity is detennined by size rather than age, and flowering 

begins as soon as plants have reached sufficient size. Even very small plants can flower under 

certain conditions. Flowering typically commences in July and continues until the death of the 

plant. Seed production begins in July or August and usually peaks in September. Seed 

production likewise continues until the plant dies. Senescence and death occur in late fall or 

early winter (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b ). 

Seabeach amaranth seems capable of essentially indeterminate growth (Weakley and Bucher 

1992). However, predation and weather events, including rainfall, hun·icanes, and temperature 

extremes, have significant effects on the length of the species reproductive season. As a result of 

one or more of these influences, the flowering and fruiting period can be tern1inated as early as 

June or July (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). 

Seabeach amaranth is native to Atlantic coast bani er island beaches from Massachusetts to South 

Carolina. The species' primary habitat consists of overwash flats at accreting ends of barrier 

islands, and lower foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches. This species 

occasionally establishes small, temporary, and casual populations in secondary habitats including 

12 

Hereford Inlet to Cape i\foy Inlet 23 Appendix D. 
1006

sound side beaches, blowouts in foredunes, and sand or shell dredge spoil or beach nourishment 

material (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

Seabeach amaranth occupies a nanow beach zone that lies at elevations from 0.2 to 1.5 m above 

mean high tide, the lowest elevations at which vascular plants regularly occur. Seaward, the 

plant grows only above the high tide line, as it is intolerant of even occasional flooding during 

the growing season. The species is, therefore, dependent on a tenestrial, upper beach habitat that 

is not flooded during the 6,rowing season. This zone is absent on beaches that are experiencing 

high rates of erosion. Seabeach amaranth is never found on beaches where the foredune is 

scarped by undennining water at high or storm tides (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

Seabeach amaranth usually occurs on a pure silica sand substrate, occasionally containing shell 

fragments. The habitat of seabeach amaranth is sparsely vegetated with ammal herbs and, less 

commonly, perennial herbs (mostly grasses) and scattered shrubs. The number and type of 

seabeach amaranth's vegetative associates have been found to vary with specific habitat type 

(i.e., overwash flat, accreting barrier island end, or lower foredune) (Chicone Undated). The 

most constant associates of seabeach amaranth, with which the species almost always co-occurs, 

are sea rocket ( Caldle edentula) and seabeach spurge ( Chamaesyce polygon/folia) (Weakley and 

Bucher 1992). Known vegetative associates of seabeach amaranth in New Jersey are given in 

Table 2. 

Seabeach amaranth does not occur on well-vegetated sites, particularly where perennials have 

become strongly established (Weakley and Bucher 1992). Pauley et al. (1999) documented a 

negative con-elation between seabeach an1aranth and several dominant foredune species. A 

particularly strong negative association has been reported between seabeach amaranth and beach 

grasses U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b ). However, a positive con-elation has been 

observed between seabeach amaranth and sea rocket, an annual (Hancock 1995). 

Table 2. Known Vegetative Associates of Seabeach Amaranth. 

New Jersey 

(U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

2002) 

sea rocket ( Caldle edentula) 

seabeach spurge (Chamaesyce polygon/folia) 

Russian thistle (Salsola kali) 

American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata) 

Beach clotbur (Xanthium echinatum) 

seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens) 

goosefoot (Chenopodium spp.) 

crab grass (Digitaria sanguinalis) 

sand grass (Triplasis purpurea) 

seabeach sandwort (Honkenya peploides) 

seabeach orach (Atriplex cristata) 

wild bean (Strophos(vles spp.) 

seabeach knotweed (Polygonum glaucum) 

13 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :May Inlet 24 Appendix D. 
1007

c. Population Status 

Seabeach amaranth is limited by its habitat requirements to a very nanow strip ofbanier islands 

and mainland oceanfront beach strands along the Atlantic coast. The original range of this 

species extended from Cape Cod in Massachusetts to central South Carolina, a stretch of coast 

approximately 1,600 km (1,000 miles) long. This stretch conelates with a geographic range of 

low tidal amplitude. Tidal amplitude and the relative importance of tidal versus wave energy in 

shaping coastal morphology are thought to limit the geographic range of seabeach amaranth, 

rather than availability of sandy beach substrates or sea water temperatures. The range of 

seabeach amaranth is characterized by islands developed by high wave energy, low tidal energy, 

frequent overwash, and frequent breaching by humcanes with resulting fonnation of new inlets 

(Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

Seabeach amaranth is considered globally rare (G2) by the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program 

(New Jersey Natural Heritage Program 2007). 111e current known range of naturally occurring 

seabeach amaranth is Water Mill Beach on Long Island, New York to Debidue Beach in South 

Carolina (Young 2001; Hamilton 2000). Historic records of seabeach amaranth are known from 

nine States. Largely due to human activities, the species was eliminated from seven of these 

States by the 1980s, r=aining only in North and South Carolina. Seabeach amaranth is still 

considered extirpated from two States: Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Since 1990, the 

species has re-occupied five States from which it had previously been extirpated. Table 3 gives 

the dates of rediscovery and the last previously known occurrence of the plant in each State. 

To date, theories of seabeach amaranth's return to the northern part of its range remain 

speculative. Sites in these five States may have been re-colonized by long-distance transport of 

seeds by wind or cunents. At some sites, seeds may have been long buried in sediments used in 

beach nourishment projects. This hypothesis requires that seeds can remain viable after 

prolonged off-shore burial, an unknown factor. 

Table 3. Re-colonization Dates of Sea beach Amaranth in Five States. 

, State Date Rediscovered Date of Last Previously Known Occurrence 

New York July 1990 1950 (Van Schoik and Antenen 1993) 

New Jersey July 2000 1913 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b) 

Delaware August 2000 1875 (McA voy 2000) 

Maryland August 1998 1967 (Ramsey et al. 2000) 

Virginia September 2001 1973 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b) 

d. Continuing Threats 

The primary threats to seabeach amaranth are the adverse alterations of habitat caused by beach 

erosion and shoreline stabilization. Although seabeach amaranth does not persist on eroding 

beaches, erosion is not a threat to the continued existence of the species under natural conditions. 

Hcr~ford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

14 

25 AppendixD. 
1008

Erosion in some areas is balanced with habitat fomrntion elsewhere, such as accreting inlets and 

overwash areas, resulting in an equilibrium that allows the plant to survive by moving around in 

the landscape. In the geologic past, seabeach amaranth has persisted through even relatively 

rapid episodes of sea level rise and barrier island retreat. A natural barrier island landscape, even 

a retreating one, contains localized accreting areas, especially in the vicinity of inlets (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1996b). 

Even minor structures such as dune stabilization by planting vegelalion and ve1iical sand 

accretion caused by sand fences appear to be detrimental to seabeach amaranth and contradictory 

toils life history strategy. Seabeach amaranth only very rarely occurs when sand fences and 

vegetative stabilization have taken place and, in these situations, is present only as rare, scattered 

individuals or short-lived populations (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

Beach nourishment can have positive site-specific impacts on seabeach amaranth. Seabeach 

amaranth has colonized several nourished beaches, and has thrived in some sites through 

subsequent re-applications of fill material (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993; 2002). 

However, on the landscape level, beach nourishment is similar to other beach stabilization efforts 

in that it stabilizes the shoreline and curtails the natural geophysical processes of barrier islands. 

These effects are detrimental to the range-wide persistence of the species. In addition, beach 

nourishment may cause site-specific adverse effects by crushing or burying seeds or plants 

deeper, or by altering the beach profile or upper beach micro-habitats in ways not conducive to 

seabeach amaranth colonization or survival. 

Intensive recreational use ofbeaches such as off-road vehicle (ORV) can threaten seabeach 

amaranth populations, both through direct damage and mortality of plants, and by impacting 

habitat. Light pedestJian traffic, even during the growing season, usually has little effect on 

seabeach amaranth (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Substantive impacts generally occur 

only on narrow beaches, or beaches which receive heavy recreational use. ORV uses on the 

beach during the growing season can have detrimental effects on the species, as the fleshy sterns 

of this plant are btittle and easily broken. Plants generally do not survive even a single pass by a 

truck tire (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

Beach grooming may also have contributed to the previous extirpation of seabeach amaranth 

from that part of its range. Motorized beach rakes, which remove trash and vegetation from 

bathing beaches, do not allow seabeach amaranth to colonize long stretches of beach (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1996b). In New Jersey, plants were found along a nearly continuous length 

of beach, noticeably interrupted by stretches that are routinely raked. Intensive management, 

including BMPs to protect seabeach amaranth from disturbance by beach recreationists and 

beach-cleaning operations have been implemented at many New York-New Jersey piping plover 

and seabeach amaranth sites in recent years. 

Predation by webwonns ( caterpillars of small moths) is another source of mortality and lowered 

fecundity and may decrease seed production by more than 50% (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

Five species ofwebwonns so far identified that feed on seabeach amaranth are all native species, 

their use ofbanier islands has probably been altered by changes in the coastal plain landscape 

(i.e., extensive ai,,rricultural use), the development of barrier islands, and the introduction of 

15 Hereford Inlet to Cape :i\.fay Inlet 26 AppcndixD. 
1009

weedy plants that can also serve as host plants. All five webwom1s are "weedy" species, 

probably much more abundant now than they were in pre-Columbian times. For this reason, the 

level of predation that seabeach amaranth is experiencing is likely unnaturally high (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1996b ). Web worm herbivory is probably a contributing, rather than a 

leading factor in the decline ofseabeach amaranth. However, in combination with extensive 

habitat alteration, severe herbivory could threaten the existence of the species (Weakley and 

Bucher 1992). 

New threats to seabeach amaranth have been documented since the species was listed in 1993. 

These factors are lesser threats than habitat modification, but may increase the risk of extinction 

by compounding the effects of other, more severe threats. 

Several additional herbivores of seabeach amaranth have been observed including deer, eastern 

cottontail, and migratory song birds (Van Schoik and Antenen 1993 ). There is also strong 

circumstantial evidence for seabeach amaranth herbivory by grasshopper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002). In addition, a cluster of New Jersey plants appeared to have been damaged by a 

congregation ofloafing gulls (Larus spp.), based upon feathers and droppings. As with 

webworrns, the abundance of these newly documented predators on barrier islands is increased 

by human activities. 

Asiatic sand sedge ( Carex kobomugi) has been suggested as another potential threat to seabeach 

amaranth. This sedge is strongly rhizomatous and dune-forming (National Park Service and 

Maryland Natural Heritage Program 2000). Asiatic sand sedge was introduced to the east coast 

(New Jersey to Virginia) from east Asia in the 1930s for erosion control and as a sand stabilizer. 

Asiatic sand sedge may be detrimental to seabeach amaranth by direct competition and by 

reducing habitat suitability through sand stabilization and dune building. 

C. FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION 

Several species of federally listed (endangered and threatened) sea turtles including the Kemp's 

ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), 

leatherback sea turtle (Dermoche~)!s coriacea), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretto caretta), and green 

sea tmtle ( Che Ionia mydas) may occur in waters tlu·oughout the study area. These tmtles feed 

primarily on mollusks, crustaceans, sponges, and a variety of marine grasses and seaweeds. In 

addition, the leatherback sea turtle may occupy the coastal waters of New Jersey foraging for 

jellyfish. These sea turtles may be found in New Jersey waters from late spring to mid-fall. The 

NMFS must be contacted regarding potential impacts, resulting from the proposed project, on 

federally listed species under its jurisdiction. The NMFS may be contacted at 74 Magruder 

Road, Highlands, New Jersey 07732; (732) 872-3023. 

D. ST ATE LISTED SPECIES 

A variety of State-listed endangered and threatened species inhabit or have been known to occur 

in the coastal and estuarine ecosystem within the study area. The State-listed (endangered) black 

skimmer and least tern nest in colonies on sandy islands in the bays and on beaches near inlets 

within the project area. 

16 Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 27 App,mdix D. 
1010

1. Black Skimmer 

The State-listed (endangered) black skimmer nests within the project area. Piping plovers often 

nest within or in close proximity to skimmer colonies and least tern colonies. As with least terns, 

seabeach amaranth would also benefit from the presence of black skimmer colonies since 

restrictions on public access dming the nesting season provides protected areas where plants can 

become established. 

Total black skimmer nU!!1bers within colonies in New Jersey for the 8-year period of 1999 to 

2006 are shown in Table 4 (New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Pro.gram 2001, 2002, 

2003). All black skimmer nesting sites in New Jersey during this 8-year period were located 

within the Corps Philadelphia District Program Area. In addition, during summer of2007 a total 

of 1,627 black skimmer adults, 719 peak adults, and 709 fledges were recorded at Champagne 

Island, just north of the project area (Todd Paver, NJDFW, pers. comm. 2007). Black skitmner 

information for the 2007 nesting seasons is not yet available. 

Table 4. Number of Black Skimmers at New Jersey Nesting Sites: 1999-2006 . 

... '."t:ri:1:~~t:;c~;,i>t'.f"'i1:t1 11'9~ :2000; .;2001,¥;2.o.02°;. :2003: :20041 · 2oos1 2oot 

Sedge 2 

East Point Island 

Pettit 

North Clam 

Barrel Island 

Island Beach State Park 

Dike 

Mordecai Island 

East Sedge Island 

Hester Island 

Holgate 

Marshelder Island 

Middle Sedge 

Tow Island 

Egg Island 

Ocean City North 

Stratlunere Natural Area 

Stratlunere Bay Island 

Stone Harbor Point 

Hereford Inlet (Champagne 

Island) 

Coast Guard EECEN 

Tota'! Number of Birds 

Number of Active Colonies 

2 

34 

150 

2 

250 

1613 

568 

2621 

8 

2 

4 

250 

125 

70 

56 

25 

1459 

634 

103 

2728 

10 

2 6 2 

2 

8 

79 

89 48 

302 316 795 900 

75 15 12 

29 55 24 

130 425 275 

180 86 4 

46 38 

18 60 13 2 

12 

1212 496 

562 463 73 

465 147 153 

870 397 1337 1000 1831 704 

204 247 1619 

Il 

2755 2186 2892 1711 2998 2593 1 

7 12 10 7 7 6 1

Stone Harbor Pomt and Champagne Island totals \~.1cre not summed because they represent the same md1viduals who nested and 

foiled at Stone Harbor Pointancl then renc._,::;ted at Chmnpagni.; 1sland. Data collected and compiled by NJDEP, Division offish 

c1nd \Vildlifr-· Endangered <md Nongamc Species Program 

17 Hereford Inlet to Cape II.fay Inlet 28 AppendixD. 
1011

2. Least Tern 

Piping plovers often nest in association with States listed ( endangered) least tern colonies, 

presumably benefiting from the aggressive behaviors ofterns in driving away predators and have 

often bad higher success than those nesting out of tern colonies (Burger 1987). Total least tern 

numbers within colonies in New Jersey for the 8-year period of 1999 to 2006 and a sununary of 

sites within and outside the Pro6'Tam Area are shown in Table 5 (Canale 2000; New Jersey 

Endangered and Nongame Species Program 2001, 2002, 2003; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2005). Least tern info1mation for the 2007 nesting seasons was not available. In addition, 

Seabeach amaranth also benefits from the presence ofleast tern colonies, since restrictions on 

public access in the nesting areas provide protected areas where plants can become established 

(Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

Table 5. Number of Adult Least Terns at New Jersey Nesting Sites: 1999-2006. 

Newark Airport 

Sandy Hook: 

Coast Guard 

Critical Zone 

Gunnison 

North Beach 

Hidden Beach 

Fee Beach 

South Fee Beach 

Sea Bright - North 

Monmouth Beach - North 

Momnouth Beach - South 

Seven Presidents Park 

Long Branch 

Belmar Shark River Inlet 

Sea Girt - Wreck Pond 

Sea Girt - NGTC 

Subtotal - Sites ,Outside 

Philadelphia Program 

Area 

Gull Island 

Island Beach State Park -

Dike 

Barnegat Light 

Holgate 

North Brigantine Natural 

Area 

Lon!c,'POrt- Seaview Harbor 

Marina 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }..fay Inlet 

26 

24 

118 

8 

82 

87 

842 

26 

1213 

25 

6 

20 

22 

46 

35 

195 

33 

233 

82 

9 

15 

690 

67 

100 

4 

18 

29 

40 * 22 

36 77 95 6 

75 77 21 

14 17 53 28 13 20 

51 23 74 5 70 

109 145 71 24 5 16 

178 182 110 12 34 6 

9 4 II 

38 74 104 82 161 109 

281 343 256 80 

12 8 

70 86 176 52 140 

128 

57 151 48 25 57 

24 21 191 153 64 

197 48 26 2 

756 816 1351 910 644 520 

•· 

64 221 

17 32 

34 6 19 11 9 

70 60 120 60 42 

28 23 16 3 42 

16 155 

AppendixD. 
1012

Ocean City - North 195 379 354 215 12 

Ocean City - Center 191 67 15 12 19 18 31 

Carson's Inlet St. Park 7 12 

Strathmere Upper 22 9 

Township 

Townsends Inlet 28 57 90 36 31 25 

Avalon - North 5 5 

Avalon - Dunes 158 135 142 293 213 110 20 161 

Champagne Island 5 64 19 

Stone Harbor Point 98 90 37 57 255 65 86 263 

N. Wildwood- Hereford ln. 105 490 345 342 202 

USCG-LSU 4 84 152 41 4 

USCG - TRACEN 50 4 

Cape May City - Poverty 66 207 19 47 

Beach 

Cape May Meadows - TN C 30 132 16 38 34 30 150 128 

Cape May Point State Park 10 21 118 84 

Magnesite Plant 16 5 

Manumuskin River * 28 

Preserve _jj 

Subtotal ...cSites within' r , 753; 1025; lu 751/. 11?; 1

1/~r; <'!}~ .·· . ·· 1423 

. Philallelp111~:JJistriit .··' • ... :,,,.< 

' \ l/;cc ·,· ',. :o: ... l'r~J!r'a;,uirea . .. .. fl './. · .. ,. > ' { . ' 

1! '.TotalNuniber'ofBirds ; , 1966; 1ns· 1510 1938' · .2610.' 2024, 1569•· ,1943 

1, Nuniber'ofiColonies · il6., '. 21·, 21:· 26 , . .zg., ,,-,'o 25'. .,· .24' 1,\,, 24 

* Birds actively nestmg, but not counted 

Data collected and compiled by NJDEP, Division of Fish and Wildlife- Endangered and Nongame Species Program. 

3. Coordination with the State 

The Service recommends that the Corps consider species of special concern and State-listed 

species (Appendix C) in project planning. The Service's PBO (Service 2005) contains 

conservation recommendations for least tern and black skimmer. The New Jersey Di vision of 

Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program (ENSP) and New Jersey Division 

of Parks and Forestry Natural Heritage Program (NJNHP) may be contacted for further 

inforn1ation regarding State-listed endangered and threatened species. 

The NJNHP maintains the most up-to-date infonnation on Federal candidate species and Statelisted species in New Jersey and may be contacted at the following address: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Natural Heritage Pro6>Tam 

Division of Parks and Fores try 

CN 404 

Trenton, New Jersey 08625 

(609) 984-1339 

19 

30 Appendix D. 
1013

Additionally, infonnation on New Jersey's State-listed wildlife species may be obtained from the 

following office: 

A. MARINE FINFISH 

David Jenkins, Chief 

Endangered and Nongame Species Program 

New Jersey Division offish and Wildlife 

CN 400 

Trenton, New Jersey 08625 

(609) 292-9400 

V. BORROW AREAS 

Shore zones and estuaries provide migratory pathways and spawning, feeding, and nursery areas 

for many commercial and sport fish, as well as comprising the primary habitat for many forage 

fish. Such bathymetric contours provide important structure for a variety of commercially and 

recreationally important finfish species. Shoal areas along the Atlantic coast are highly 

productive for finfish. Fishing grounds are concentrated near these productive shoal areas. 

Coastal waters within the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet project area support significant 

commercial and recreational fisheries (Corbett, NJDFW, pers. comm. 2007). Commercially 

important species include: Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), Atlantic menl1aden 

(Brevoortia tyrannus), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), 

summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), yellowtail flounder (Limandaferruginea), scup 

(Stenotomus c!uysops), tautog (Tautoga onitis), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and white perch 

(Marone americana). Commercial fishermen are not allowed to target American shad (Alosa 

sapidissima) in the ocean but they are allowed to keep a small percent as bycatch. Important 

recreational fisheries within nearshore of the project area include many of the above-mentioned 

species plus Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), striped bass (Marone saxatilis), red hake 

(Urophycis chuss), silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis), and northern kingfish (Menticirrhus 

saxatilis). 

Portions of the project area have also been designated as essential fish habitat under the 

Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882) for a 

number of federally managed species (Table 6): 

Table 6. Federally Managed Fish Species within the Project Area (Karen Greene, pers. 

comm. 2007). 

Species Life Stage 

Atlantic hcffing (Clupea harenfi;us) juveniles and adults 

black sea bass (Centropristis striata) iuveniles and adults 

bluefish (Poma/omus saltatrix) juveniles and adults 

butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) larvae, eggs and juveniles 

cobia (Rachycentron canadum) all life stages 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet ~o Appendix D. 
1014

king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) all life stages 

monkfish (Lophius americanus) eggs and larvae 

red hake ( Urophycis chuss) eggs, larvae and juveniles 

scup (Stenotomus cluysops) juveniles and adults 

Spanish mackerel all life stages 

(Scomberomorus maculatus) 

summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) larvae, juveniles and adults 

windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus) all life stages 

winter flounder all life stages 

(Pseudopleuronectes americanus) 

witch flounder eggs 

( G~yptocephalus cynoglossus) 

clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) juvenile, adults 

little skate (Raja erinacea) juvenile, adult 

winter skate (Raja ocellata) juvenile, adult 

Atlantic angel shark (Squatina dumerili) all life stages 

Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon adult 

terraenovae) 

dusky shark ( Carcharhinus obscurus) neonate/early juvenile 

sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) all life stages 

sand tiger shark ( Odontaspis taurus) neonate/early juvenile and adult 

scalloped hammerhead shark late juvenile/subadult 

(Sphyrna lewini) 

tiger shark ( Galeocerdo cuvieri) neonate/early juvenile 

B. BENTHIC RESOURCES 

Benthic macroinvertebrates are important food organisms in the marine and estuarine 

environment, and along with primary producers, perform a crucial role in supporting other fonns 

offish and wildlife. Approximately 58 species ofbenthic organisms have been identified from 

Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet (Chaillou and Scott 1996). Benthic organisms of interest in 

the shallow ocean waters and adjacent inlets and bays of the project area include Atlantic surf 

clam (Spisula solidissima), hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), and soft clam (Mya arenaria). 

In 2003, the regions south of Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Cape May Inlet accounted for only 

10.2% of the total estimated standing stock of surf clams in New Jersey territorial waters. 

Preliminary data collected in 2007 indicate that the estimated standing stock in this region is now 

only 4% (Nonnant, NJDFW, pers. comm. 2007). In 1999, this region had 25% of estimated 

standing stock in New Jersey territorial waters. In 2003, 60.6% (by weight) of New Jersey 

molluscan landings were surf clams and 73.9% on total surf clam east coast harvest was landed 

in New Jersey. Approximately 246,000 bushels were harvested from New Jersey territorial 

waters in 2003 with 17.5% of harvest coming from this region. There has been a major decline 

of surf clams State-wide as well as in Federal waters off the Delmarva Peninsula. There has 

been virtually no harvest in New Jersey te1Tit01ial waters in the last two years (Nomrnnt, 

NJDFW, pers. comm. 2007). 

21 Heri!ford Inlet to Cape :\fay Inlet 32 Appendix D. 
1015

VI. PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

A. PIPING PLOVER 

The Corps' activities occurring on or adjacent to sites currently occupied by federally listed 

species could have direct adverse effects. Beach nourishment generally involves operation of a 

pipeline to pump sand onto the targeted beach and subsequent contouring of the pumped sand by 

earth-moving equipment. Even in areas where sand placement will only occur seaward of the 

present high-tide line, significant disturbance of the upper beach from equipment and crews can 

be expected. Therefore, beach nourishment during the nesting/growing seasons would likely 

result in significant adverse effects to piping plovers where they occur. 

In addition, other Corps activities, if conducted during the nesting season, could result in 

disturbance to nesting piping plovers or their young. Operation of equipment and crews on 

beaches in support of these maintenance and operation activities could destroy or diminish 

habitat suitability or kill or injure plover adults, nests, or young. 

It can be anticipated that, following initial construction of the Federal nourishment projects, 

similar creation of potentially suitable habitat for piping plovers will occur in areas where they 

are currently absent. It should be noted that although the Corps nourishment projects will create 

sandy beach habitat that may attract piping plovers, the habitat created can be expected to be of 

lesser quality than habitat that is formed through natural coastal process such as overwash. 

Nevertheless, subsequent renourishment events throughout the coastal areas have the potential to 

benefit piping plovers by maintaining sandy beach habitat over the life of the project. 

While the Federal nourishment projects have potential to create habitat for piping plovers, habitat 

creation alone will not create a beneficial effect for piping plover if the habitat is suboptimal and 

does not provide foraging habitat for plover chicks or if disturbance from municipal and 

recreational users cannot be managed to avoid loss of nests or chicks. 

To ensure the continued protection of piping plover over the life of the project, the Service 

recommends that the Corps reinitiate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA: 

• at least 135 days prior to beginning any beach nourishment associated with the project to 

allow 90 days for fonnal consultation and 45 days for issuance of a BO; and 

• at least 135 days p1ior to any beach maintenance activities (e.g., beach renourishment) for 

the life of the project (i.e., 50 years). 

Piping plover nesting activity may occur due to creation of suitable habitat as a result of the 

project. Therefore, to ensure the protection of piping plovers during the nesting and brood 

reaiing periods from April 1 to Au6,ust 15, the Service recommends that ai1 endangered species 

BMP be developed for each municipality within the project area prior to initiation of dredging 

and beach nourishment. At a minimum, the BMP must adhere to the Service's "Guidelines for 

Managing Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast 

to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the ESA" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) (Appendix D) 

22 Hereford Inlet to Cape I\fay Inlet 33 Appendix D. 
1016

and the Service's 1997 Fireworks Guidelines (Appendix E). The Service recommends that the 

BMP specifically include, but not be limited to: 

(1) coordination with NJDEP-ENSP to detennine whether piping plovers are actively nesting in 

the project area; 

(2) establishment and identification (e.g., fencing and signing) of protective zones around piping 

plover nests; 

(3) ORV (recreational and essential state/municipal) restrictions during the piping plover nesting 

and brood rearing periods (April 1 to August 15); 

( 4) monitoring of piping plovers during the nesting and brood rearing period (April 1 to August 

15); 

(5) prohibition of kite flying from April I to August 15; 

(6) protection of piping plover nests, chicks, and adults from native and domestic predators; 

(7) prohibiting oflaunching of fireworks within 1,, mile of nesting areas; 

(8) restrictions of beach management and maintenance activities (e.g., beach raking) during the 

nesting season; and 

(9) mechanisms for enforcement of item 1-8 above. 

Establishment of protective zones and other protective measures developed within the plan 

would be coordinated with the Service and the ENSP. If off-road vehicles (ORV) access the 

beach on the project site and if piping plovers nest adjacent to the project site, the Guidelines 

apply to ORV use. The management plans must be submitted to the Service and ENSP for 

review and comment prior to project initiation to detennine if further consultation pursuant to 

Section 7 of the Act will be required. 

In the event that piping plovers or other beach nesting birds do nest or expand their nesting areas 

within the project area, the Service reco1mnends that the Corps develop educational materials 

(e.g., brochures, informational signs) or provide funds for public education and outreach. 

Development ofinfomrntional materials would educate beach users about beach nesting birds; 

thereby reducing disturbance to nesting areas. Public education would also promote public 

support for protecting beach nesting birds. 

Finally, the Service recommends that the Corps develop and implement a shorebird monitoring 

program, in cooperation with the Service, to monitor the use of the nourished beaches for 

shorebirds, particularly piping plovers. This shorebird monitoring program should be designed 

to identify and report use of the project area beaches by shorebirds, particularly the piping 

plover, for the life of the project. Shorebird monitoring within the project area, except within 

cunently !mown piping plover locations, is not conducted by ENSP. Monitoring of enhanced 

23 Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 34 AppendixD. 
1017

beach areas that are currently not surveyed by ENSP would be the responsibility of the project 

proponent (i.e., Corps). 

B. SEABEACH AMARANTH 

Impacts to the beach zone providing potentially suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth from 

Corps activities are expected to be significant. Any seeds dispersed into previously unoccupied 

areas from nearby populations would likely be buried if occurring within the project impact area. 

Additionally, any undetected seabeach amaranth plants or seedlings would likely be buried or 

crushed. 

It can be anticipated that, following initial construction of the Federal nourishment projects, 

similar creation of potentially suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth will occur in areas where 

habitat is currently absent. Subsequent renourishment events throughout the coastal areas may 

benefit seabeach amaranth by maintaining sandy beach habitat over the life of the project. 

To ensure that seabeach amaranth will not be adversely affected by project activities, the Service 

recommends conducting surveys prior to initiation of the project. If plants are found, the Corps 

should establish a protective zone with a minimum 3-meter buffer around any seabeach amaranth 

site identified and avoid construction-related pedestrian and vehicular traffic; placement, 

movement, or maintenance of pipelines; stockpiling of construction materials and equipment; 

and pumping, placement, or distribution of sand within such zones. The Corps should refer to 

the Service's PBO (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005) for additional conservation measures 

and recommendations to protect seabeach amaranth. 

C. RED KNOT, BLACK SKIMMER AND LEAST TERN 

The types of impact and the potential benefits of beach nourishment projects to red knot, least 

tern, and black skimmer are similar to these for piping plovers as described above. 

Avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to red knot, least tern, and black skimmer from projectrelated activities, especially with respect to timing, should be incorporated in project planning 

and in post-nourislunent monitoring and management. In addition to the direct positive benefits 

that such protection would afford to these species, piping plovers nesting within or adjacent to 

protected tern colonies may benefit from the defensive behaviors against avian predators that are 

typical of this colonial species. 

To avoid potential impacts from construction, schedule and implement beach nou1islunent and 

associated project activities to avoid construction within 300 meters ofleast tern and/or black 

skimmer colonies during the nesting season. The least tern nesting season is generally early June 

through September. 

To protect these species over the project life, include protection of red knot, least terns and black 

skimmers within endangered species BMPs. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape fvfay Inlet 

24 

35 AppcndixD. 
1018

The Service recommends contacting the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered 

and Nongame Species Program (ENSP) and New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry Natural 

Heritage Program (NJNHP) for further infonnation and guidance regarding State-listed 

endangered and threatened species. 

D. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 

Federally listed species are afforded protection under the ESA pursuant to Section 7(a)(2), which 

requires every Federal agency, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action it 

authorize, funds, or carries out, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Project-related 

activities could adversely affect the piping plover and seabeach amaranth. The lead Federal 

agency for a project has the responsibility under Section 7(c) of the ESA to prepare a BA if the 

project is a construction project that requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the 

project may affect a federally listed species. In accordance with the ESA, the Corps must 

prepare a BA to address potential project-related adverse impacts to the piping plover and 

seabeach amaranth. 

The BA should contain infonnation concerning listed or proposed species that may be present in 

the action area and an analysis of any potential effects of the proposed action on such species. 

The following may be considered for inclusion in a BA of the proposed project, although actual 

contents are at the discretion of the Federal authorizing agency: 

(1) results of field surveys to determine iflisted species are present or occur seasonally; 

(2) views ofrecognized experts on the species; 

(3) literature review; 

(4) analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action on the species; and 

(5) analysis of alternative actions. 

The BA may be consolidated with procedures for interagency coordination required by other 

statutes such as the FW CA or the NEPA However, satisfying the requirements of these other 

statutes does not in itself relieve a Federal agency of its obligation to comply with the BA 

procedures of the ESA. The results of a BA may be incorporated into an EIS. If the BA 

indicates that no listed or proposed species are present or will be affected, and the Service 

concurs, in writing, with the assessment, then no fonnal consultation pursuant to Section 7 will 

be required. 

E. MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITIES 

In order to prevent future misunderstanding regarding the protection of piping plovers and 

seabeach amaranth, tl1c Service recommends that the Corps notify each municipality within the 

project area individually regarding potential restrictions on recreational activities and beach 

Hc-reford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

25 

36 AppendixD. 
1019

management (e.g., beach raking and municipal vehicle traffic) if seabeach amaranth sites are 

identified and/or piping plovers expand their nesting areas as a result of the proposed project. In 

addition, each municipality should receive a copy of the aforementioned Guidelines to become 

familiar with potential recreational activity and beach management restrictions. The purpose of 

notifying municipalities in advance is to clarify the responsibilities of the municipalities that 

would be benefiting from the proposed Federal project. If municipalities are unwilling to 

cooperate with the Corps and the Service regarding piping plover and seabeach amaranth 

management, the Corps should consider eliminating the municipalities from the proposed 

project. 

The purpose of developing a BMP for each municipality is to provide a framework for 

cooperation among local beach managers, NJDEP, and the Service in the stewardship of 

federally and State-listed endangered and threatened beach-nesting birds and flora occurring on 

New Jersey's beaches. The goal of a BMP is to provide for long-term protection and recovery of 

listed species populations, while recognizing the need for storm protection, recreation, and public 

works. Each plan includes descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of local beach managers, 

the NJDEP, and the Service in the protection and management of listed species. Upon 

completion, management plans are approved by the appropriate governmental body, such as a 

town com1cil, and a memorandum of agreement is signed by all parties. 

Plans are developed with full input oflocal officials and staff directly responsible for beach 

management activities including mechanical beach raking, trash removal, life guards, law 

enforcement, and recreational uses to reflect a beach's operational needs. Plans address a wide 

range of issues, including symbolic fencing for protection and management oflisted species, 

trash collection and beach clean-ups, beach raking, sand fencing, vegetation management, 

predator control, enforcement of pet laws, and State Coastal Zone management rules, operation 

of vehicles on the beach, designation of portions of beach as protected management zones for 

listed species, and the role oflocal site managers in endangered species management. 

F. BEACH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT 

Beach fill and dune creation provides an opportunity to enhance fish and wildlife habitat. 

However, any proposed beach creation activities must be closely reviewed in regard to their 

effects on habitats (e.g., shallow water habitat) within the project area. In addition, other 

accompanying adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources, which may occur as a result of 

project implementation, must be considered in project planning. 

Plaiming activities for beach fill and dune creation should include an evaluation of potential 

habitat enhancement for beach nesting birds. Wide beaches with gentle slopes generally provide 

good quality habitat for beach nesting birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996a). Creation of 

low, wide dunes with washover areas provides adequate foraging and nesting habitat. Dune 

configurations that are in-egular (e.g., staggered and discontinuous) may ath·act beach nesting 

birds. In addition, native dune grasses should be planted in sufficient quantity to provide 

stabilization, but also minimal enough not to prevent nesting opportunities. Fencing systems to 

trap sai1d and create dunes should be open to allow passage of juvenile shorebirds between and 

ainong the dunes. A broken, zig-zag pattern of fencing parallel to the shore or a Y-typc fencing 

26 Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 37 AppendixD. 
1020

pattern perpendicular to shore are two examples of open fencing systems. The Service 

recommends the Corps coordinate with the Service for any dune and beach enhancement or 

restoration activities in beach-nesting bird or seabeach amaranth habitat. 

Additionally, the Service recommends the use of perpetual deed restrictions or conservation 

easement to protect newly created beach and adjacent beach habitat for beach nesting shorebirds. 

G. BORROW AREAS 

Similar to other dredging, extraction of material from borrow areas has been documented as 

causing enviromnental impacts that may adversely affect fish and other marine species 

populations and the food chains on which they depend. Kantor (1984) provides a review of 

dredging impacts specific to New Jersey. These impacts can generally be subdivided into those 

affecting the water column and those affecting the bottom substrate. Adverse water quality 

impacts from material extraction include increased turbidity, changes in temperature and oxygen 

demand, and release or resuspension of toxins and bacteria. These factors may cause direct 

mortality to fish and shellfish, disrupt fish migrations, hamper fish and shellfish spawning, make 

shellfish unsuitable for human consumption, and reduce primary productivity. Settling of 

suspended sediment may result in smothering of shellfish and other benthic organisms 

downcurrent from the project site. 

Bottom impacts include removal of existing benthic communities, change in circulation patterns, 

and modification of patterns of sediment deposition. Extraction from borrow areas may create 

bottom depressions with reduced flushing. These depressions can accumulate fine-grained 

sediments and organic material, including contaminants. Reduced flushing, combined with 

decomposition of organic materials, can lead to low oxygen conditions in such depressions. 

Originally occurring or different benthic forms may eventually recolonize the area of extraction 

depending on the water quality and substrate present. 

The type of equipment used and the time of year extraction occur may greatly influence the 

nature and extent of potential adverse impacts in the water column. For example, the use of 

hydraulic dredging reduces Service concerns regarding short-tenn adverse impacts on water 

quality at and near the site of dredging, but hydraulic dredging may impact eggs and young fish 

or other slow-moving organisms unable to avoid entraimnent. The entrainment of sea turtles has 

also been docmnented as an adverse impact of hydraulic dredging (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1991 ). The NMFS has jurisdiction over endangered and threatened sea turtles and 

should be contacted ifhydraulic dredging is proposed. Conversely, mechanical dredging has 

greater impacts on turbidity and dissolved oxygen at the dredge site, but, if conducted during 

periods oflow seasonal biological productivity, adverse impacts to organisms can be minimized. 

Potential alternatives to offshore bo1Tow sites currently being considered for the project include 

bypassing sand from Wildwood to North Wildwood and changing the beach configuration in 

Wildwood by increasing benn height or adding a dune. These alternatives would avoid adverse 

impacts to finfish and other maiine resources. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 

27 

38 App,mdixD. 
1021

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. BEACH COMMUNITIES 

In order to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts on State-listed and federally listed 

threatened and endangered species within project area, the Service recommends incorporating 

the following measures into project planning. 

1. Reinitiate consultation with the Service to ensure protection of the piping plover: 

a. at least 135 days prior to beginning of any beach nourishment associated with the 

project to allow for 90 days for fonnal consultation and 45 days for issuance of a 

BO; and 

b. at least 135 days prior to any beach maintenance activities (e.g., beach 

renourishment) for the life of the project (i.e., 50 years). 

2. Conduct surveys and establish protective zones around any identified seabeach amaranth 

sites to ensure that seabeach amaranth will not be adversely affected by project activities 

3. Contact NJDFW's ENSP and NJNHP's Natural Heritage Program in considering State 

species of special concern and State-listed species in project planning (Appendix C). 

4. Prepare a BA to address potential project-related adverse impacts to piping plover, 

seabeach amaranth, and the candidate species red knot. Consult with the Service 

pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA prior to initial beach nourishment. 

5. Require municipalities within the project area to develop and implement an endangered 

species BMP (should piping plovers expand their current nesting areas as a result of this 

project) for each municipality within the project area and prior to project initiation, in 

accordance with the Service "Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping 

Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the 

ESA" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996a) and the Service's 1997 Fireworks 

Guidelines (Appendix E). 

6. Develop and provide funds for info1mational materials, public education and outreach, 

should piping plovers and other beach nesting shorebirds expand their nesting areas 

within the project area. 

7. Implement a shorebird monitoring prof,'Tam, in cooperation with the Service and ENSP, 

to monitor the use of nourished beaches for shorebirds, particularly piping plovers. 

8. Notify each municipality within the project area regarding recreational and beach 

maintenance restrictions if seabeach amaranth sites are identified and/or piping plovers 

expand their nesting areas as a result of the project. 

Hereford Inlet to Cap~ ~fay Inlet 

28 

39 AppcndixD. 
1022

9. Refer to the Service's 2005 PBO for additional recommendations, including beach habitat 

enhancement to protect listed species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 

B. BEACH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT 

Incorporate the following recommendations into project pla!ll1ing to create additional shorebird 

habitat and protect or enhance any existing habitat. 

1. Review and evaluate any proposed beach creation activity in regard to potential effects 

on other habitats within the project area. 

2. Include shorebird habitat enhancement plans for beach fill and dune creation activities. 

3. Establish native dune grasses in sufficient quantity to provide dune stabilization and 

nesting opportunities for beach nesting birds. 

4. Design dune fencing systems that allow passage of juvenile shorebirds between and 

among the dunes and allow more natural dunes to form with adequate storm protection. 

5. Obtain a perpetual deed restriction or conservation easement for the newly-created beach 

and adjacent beach areas. 

6. Continue to coordinate with the Service and ENSP for any dune and beach enhancement 

or restoration activities in beach-nesting bird or seabeach amaranth habitat. 

C. BORROW AREAS 

1. Rely primarily on the components of the benthic diversity indices (i.e., species diversity, 

species richness, and the distribution of the number of individuals among the species), 

rather than on the diversity indices alone, in evaluating benthic habitat quality. 

2. Evaluate any bonow site alternatives that would minimize adverse impacts to surf clam 

communities through continued coordination with the New Jersey Bureau of 

Shellfisheries and the Service. 

3. Conduct each renourishment phase in a limited section of the bonow area(s) and alternate 

locations for each subsequent renourishment cycle. 

4. Avoid creating excessively deep, poorly flushed (anoxic) pits at the bonow sites. 

5. Avoid dredging during shellfish or finfish spawning activities (the typical spawning 

period and early life stages of winter flounder are between January 1 and May 31 ). 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 29 40 Appendix D. 
1023

6. Use hydraulic-pipeline dredging rather than hopper dredging in order to minimize 

turbidity at the bon-ow sites and minimize the potential entrainment of federally listed sea 

turtles. 

7. Contact the NMFS regarding potential adverse impacts on federally listed (threatened or 

endangered) sea turtle and marine mammal species under its jurisdiction. 

8. Coordinate with the New Jersey Bureau of Marine Fisheries regarding the selection of 

borrow sites. 

VIII. REFERENCES 

A. LITERATURE CITED 

Baker, A.J., P.M. Gonzalez, T. Piersma, L.J. Niles, I.LS. do Nascimento, P.W. Atkinson, N.A. 

Clark, C.D.T. Minton, M.K. Peck, and G. Aarts. 2004. Rapid population decline in red 

knots: fitness consequences of decreased refueling rates and late arrival in Delaware 

Bay. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B271: 875-882. 

Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American shorebirds. U.S. Natural Museum Bulletin 

146: 236-246. 

Bergstrom, P.W. 1991. Incubation temperatures of Wilson's plovers and killdeers. Condor 91: 

634-641. 

Burger, J. 1987. Physical and social determinations of nest-site selection in piping plover in 

New Jersey. The Condor 89: 811-818. 

Cairns, W.E. 1977. Breeding biology of piping plovers in Southern Nova Scotia. M.S. Thesis. 

Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 115 pp. 

__ . 1982. Biology and behavior of piping plovers. Wilson Bulletin 94: 531-545. 

Canale, S.B. 1997. 1997 piping plover nesting summary. New Jersey Division of Fish and 

Wildlife, Trenton, NJ. 29 pp. 

__ . 2000. Numbers of adult least terns at New .Jersey nesting sites: 1990-2000. New Jersey 

Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ. 2 pp. 

Chaillou, J.C. and L. Scott. 1996. Evaluation ofbenthic macrofaunal resources at potential sand 

boJTow sources: Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, Cape May County, New .Jersey. 

Versar, Incorporated. Columbia, MD. 16 pp. + appendices. 

30 Hereford Inlet to Cape M.ay Inlet 41 AppcndixD. 
1024

Chicane, R. Jr. Undated. A Survey of Amaranthus pumilus in Horry and Georgetown Counties, 

South Carolina, September and October, 1998. Undergraduate Independent Study 

Program, Biology Depaiiment, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC. 7 pp. + 

figures. 

Clark, IZ.E., L.J. Niles and J. Burger. 1993. Abundance and distribution of migrant shorebirds 

in Delaware Bay. The Condor 95: 694-705. 

Coutu, S.D., J.D. Fraser, J.L. Mcconnaughey, and J.P. Loegering. 1990. Piping plover 

dish·ibution ai1d reproductive success on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Unpublished 

report submitted to the National Park Service, Cape Hatteras, NC. 67 pp. 

Davis, T.H. 1983. Red knot. m: J. Fan-and, Jr., Editor. The Audubon Society Master Guide to 

Birding, Volume 1. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, NY. 3 pp. 

Dunne, P., D. Sibley, C. Sutton, and W. Wander. 1983. 1982 aerial shorebird survey of 

Delaware Bay. Records of New Jersey Birds 8(4): 68-75. 

Eddings, K.J. and S.M. Melvin. 1991. Biology and conservation of piping plovers at Breezy 

Point, New York, 1991. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Newton Corner, MA. 38 pp. 

Elias-Gerken, S.P. 1994. Piping plover habitat suitability on Central Long Island, New York 

Barner Islands. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 

Blacksburg, VA. 24 7 pp. 

Fle1mning, S.P., R.D. Chiasson, and P.J. Austin-Smith. 1990. Piping plover nest-site selection 

in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Unpublished document. Department of Biology, 

Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 31 pp. 

Gibbs, J.P. 1986. Feeding ecology of nesting piping plovers in Maine. Unpublished report to 

Maine Chapter, The Nature Conservancy, Topsham, ME. 21 pp. 

Goldin, M.R. 1990. Reproductive ecology and management of piping plover ( Charadrius 

melodus) at Breezy Point, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York - 1990. 

Unpublished report. U.S. Depaiiment of the Interior, National Park Service, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Long Island, NY. 16 pp. 

__ . 1993. Effects of humai1 disturbance and off-road vehicles on piping plover reproductive 

success ai1d behavior at Breezy Point, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York. 

Master of Science Thesis. University of Massachusetts Department of Forestry and 

Wildlife Management, Amherst, MA. 128 pp. 

Hamilton, R.D. II. 2000. Cultured Amaranthus trai1splanted to the wild; Amaranthus seeds 

sown in 1999; SC SeabeachAmaranth Populations. Unpublished data. Waddell 

Mariculture Center. Bluffton, SC. 3 pp. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 31 42 Appendix D. 
1025

Hancock, T.E. 1995. Ecology of the threatened species seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus 

pumilus Rafinesque). M.S. Thesis. University of North Carolina at Wilmington. 

Wilmington, NC. 28 pp. 

Harrington, B.A. 1996. The flight of the red knot. W.W. Norton and Company. New York, 

NY. 192 pp. 

__ . 2001. Red knot ( Calidris canutus). m: A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of 

North America, No. 563. Cornell laboratory of Ornithology and the Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Pages 1-32. 

Hoopes, E.M, C.R. Griffin, and S.M. Melvin. 1992. Relationships between human recreation 

and piping plover foraging ecology and chick survival. Unpublished report. University 

ofMassachusetts, Amherst, MA. 77 pp. 

Howard, J.M., R.J. Safran, and S.M. Melvin. 1993. Biology and conservation of piping plovers 

at Breezy Point, New York. Unpublished report. Department of Forestry and Wildlife 

Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 34 pp. 

Jenkins, C.D. and A. Nichols. 1994. Piping plover survey and threat assessment, piping plover 

threat assessment and management. Federal Aid Report, Projects No. XIV and XIV-B. 

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ. 17 pp. 

__ and L. Niles. 1999. Keeping the piping plover in New Jersey's future. New Jersey 

Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ. IO pp. 

Kantor, R.A. 1984. A review of the potential environmental effects of dredging in New Jersey's 

tidal waters with recommendations on seasonal restrictions. Draft report. 55 pp+ 

appendices. 

Loegering, J.P. 1992. Piping plover breeding biology, foraging ecology, and behavior on 

Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 24 7 pp. 

MacTvor, L.H. 1990. Population dynamics, breeding ecology, and management of piping 

plovers on Outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. M.S. T11esis. University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst, MA. I 00 pp. 

McAvoy, W.A. 2000. Amaranthuspumilus Raf. (Seabcach amaranth, Amaranthaceae) 

Rediscovered in Sussex County, DE. Barlonia. In press. 

Melvin, S.M and J.P. Gibbs. 1994. Viability analysis for the Atlantic Coast population of1Jiping 

plovers. Unpublished report to the U.S. Department oflnterior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Sudbury, MA. 16 pp. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape r-..fay Inlet 32 43 Appendix D. 
1026

Minton, C. and S. Taylor. 2005. Delaware bay shorebird migration - daily logs 2005. New 

Jersey Department ofEnvir01m1ental protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Trenton, 

NJ. http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/ensp/delbaylog05.htm. Accessed January 25, 

2008. 

Morrison, R.I.G., RE. Gill, Jr., B. A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G. W. Page, C. L. Gratto-Trevor, 

and S.M. Haig. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Occasional 

Paper No. 104. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 64 pp. 

__ , R.K. Ross, and L.J. Niles. 2004. Declines in wintering populations of red knots in 

Southern South America. The Condor 106: 60-70. 

National Park Service and Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 2000. Seabeach amaranth 

restoration, Assateague Island National Seashore, study plan for project funded by 

threatened and endangered species approved recovery plan component ofNational Park 

Service Natural Resources Preservation Program FY00-02. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Assateague Island National Seashore, Berlin, MD. 15 pp. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Status of the Red knot (Calidris 

canutus rufus) in the Western Hemisphere. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 5, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ. 287 pp. 

New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program. 2001. Black skimmer and least tern 

nesting summaries, 1991-2001. Unpublished data. New Jersey Department of 

Enviromnental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ. 17 pp. 

__ . 2002. Black skimmer and least tern nesting sunm1aries, 2002. Unpublished data. New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, 

NJ. 2pp. 

__ . 2003. Black skimmer and least tern nesting summaries, 2003. Unpublished data. New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, 

NJ. 3 pp. 

New Jersey Natural He1itage Program. 2007. Biological and Conservation Database. New 

Jersey Department ofEnviromnental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry, Trenton, 

NJ. 

Nicholls, J.L. 1989. Distribution and other ecological aspects of piping plovers (Charadrius 

melodus) winte1ing along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, 

Auburn, AL. 150 pp. 

Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, A.J. Baker, R.I.G. Monison, D.E. Hernandez, K.E. Clark, 

B.A. Hanington, M.K. Peck, P.M. Gonzalez, K.A. Bem1ett, K.S. Kalasz, P.W. Atkinson, 

N.A. Nigel, and C.D.T. Minton. 2005. Status of the red lmo1 (Calidris canutus n!fa) in 

the Western Hemisphere. Draft repo1i. New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 33 44 Appendix D. 
1027

Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program, 

Trenton, NJ. 270 pp. 

Palmer, R.S. 1967. Piping plover. In: Stout, G.D. (editor), The Shorebirds of North America. 

Viking Press, NY. 270 pp. 

Palmer, W .M. and C.L. Cordes. 1988. Habitat suitability index models: diamondback terrapin 

(nesting) - Atlantic coast. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Biological Report Number 82 (10.151 ). I 8 pp. 

Patterson, M.E. 1988. Piping plover breeding biology and reproductive success on Assateague 

Island. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, 

VA. 131 pp. 

__ , J.D. Fraser, and J .W. Roggenbuck. 1991. Factors affecting piping plover productivity on 

Assateague Island. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(3): 525-531. 

Pauley, E.F., M.B. Dietsch, and R.E. Chicane, Jr. 1999. Survival, growth, and vegetation 

associations of the tbreatenedArnaranthuspurnilus (seabeach amaranth) on a South 

Carolina barrier island. Association of Southeastern Biologists Annual Meeting, April 

1999. Wilmington, NC. Ip. 

Ramsey, S., W.R. Tyndall, and C. Lea. 2000. The federally threatened Arnaranthus purnilus 

Raf. (seabeacb amaranth, Amaranthaceae) rediscovered on Assateague Island after 31 

years. Castanea 65: 165-167. 

Riepe, D. 1989. Environmental assessment, management plan for the threatened piping plover 

(Charadrius rnelodus), Breezy Point District, Gateway National Recreation Arca. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Brooklyn, NY. 26 pp.+ appendices. 

Sitters, H.P. 2005. preliminary report on observation during May 2005 ofred knots in the 

Atlantic marshes near Stone Harbor, New Jersey and radio-tracking red knots in 

Delaware bay. Unpublished report to the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species program. 

Trenton, NJ. 7 pp. 

Snyder, D. 1996. Field survey for populations of Amaranthus purnilus in New Jersey. State of 

New jersey, Department of Enviromnental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry, 

office of Natural Lands Management, Natural Heritage program. Trenton, NJ. 18 pp. 

Strauss, E. 1990. Reproductive success, life history patterns, and behavioral variation in 

populations of piping plovers subjected to human disturbance (1982-1989). Ph.D. 

Dissertation. Tufts University, Medford, MA. 143 pp. 

34 Hereford Inl~t to Cape 1,fay Inlet 45 Appendix D. 
1028

Tull, C.E. 1984. A study of nesting piping plovers ofKouchibouguac National Park 1983. 

Unpublished report. Parks Canada, Kouchibouguac National Park, Kouchibouguac, 

New Brunswick. 85 pp. 

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. 2005. Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet feasibility study project 

management plan. Department of the Anny, Corps of Engineers, new York District, 

New York, NY. 47 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Detennination of endangered and threatened status for 

piping plover. 50 FR 50726-50734. 

__ . 1991. Brigantine h1let to Great Egg Harbor Inlet reach, New Jersey shore protection 

reconnaissance study. Planning aid report. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ. 26 pp+ appendices. 

__ . 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; detennination of seabeach 

amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) to be a threatened species. 58 FR l 8035-18042. 

__ . 1994. Guidelines for managing recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat 

on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to avoid take under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Northeast Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, 

Hadley, MA. 19 pp. 

__ . 1996a. Piping plover ( Charadrius melodus ), Atlantic Coast population, revised recovery 

plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. 245 pp. 

__ . 1996b. Recovery Plan for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) Rafinesque. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 55 pp.+ appendices. 

__ . 1998. 1997 status update: U.S. Atlantic Coast piping plover population. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sudbury, MA. 8 pp. 

__ . 2002. Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pwnilus) life history, status, and threats. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pleasantville, NJ. 28 pp. 

__ . 2003. Delaware Bay shorebird - horseshoe crab assessment report and peer review. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Publication R9-03/02. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 99 pp. 

__ . 2004. 2002-2003 status update: U.S. Atlantic Coast piping plover population. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sudbury, MA. 8 pp. 

__ . 2005. Biological opinion on the effects of Federal beach nourishment activities along 

the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey within the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District on the piping plover ( Charadrius melodus) and seabeach amaranth (A maranthus 

pumilus). 

Hereford Inlet to Cap~ May Inlet 

35 

46 Appendix D. 
1029

Van Schoik, R. and S. Antenen. 1993. Amaranthus pumilus - Long Island, New York. Final 

report submitted by the Long Island Chapter of The Nature Conservancy to the New 

York State Department of Environmental Conservation, NY. 13 pp. 

Wander, W. and P. Dunne. 1982. Species and numbers of shorebirds on the Delaware 

Bayshore of New Jersey- Spring 1981. Occasional Paper No. 140. Records of New 

Jersey Birds 7(4): 59-64. 

Watts, B.D. and B.R. Truitt. 2005. Result of aerial surveys conducted at low tide for red knots 

along the outer beach zone of the Virginia barrier islands from the Virginia/Maryland line 

to the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. Unpublished data provided to the New Jersey 

Department of Environment Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and 

Nongame Species program. Trenton, NJ. I pp. 

Weakley, A., and M. Bucher. 1992. Status survey of seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pwnilus 

Rafinesque) in North and South Carolina, second edition (after Hurricane Hugo). Report 

to North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, North Carolina Department of 

Agriculture, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Asheville Field Office, U.S. Depaiiment of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 149 pp.+ appendices. 

Welty, J.C. 1982. The life of birds. Sauders College Publishing, Philadelphia, PA. 754 pp. 

Wilcox, L. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the piping plover. Auk 76: 129-152. 

Young, S.M. 2001. Final Report, Amaranthus pumilus, seabeach amaranth, Global Positioning 

Satellite Survey - Long Island 2000. Unpublished report. New York Natural Heritage 

Program., Lathain, New York. 4 pp.+ appendices. 

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 

Heather Corbett, 2007. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish 

and Wildlife, New Jersey Bureau of Marine Fisheries, Trenton, NJ 

Stephanie Egger, 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, 

Pleasantville, NJ 

Karen Greene, 2007. National Marine Fisheries Service, Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands, NJ 

JeffNonnant, 2007. New Jersey Depaiiment of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and 

Wildlife, New Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries, Trenton, NJ 

Todd Pover, 2007. New Jersey Department ofEnviromnental Protection, Division of Fish and 

Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program, Trenton, NJ 

36 Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 47 AppcndixD. 
1030

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

APPENDIX A 

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species, 

and Candidate Species in New Jersey 

48 App<;)"ndixD. 
1031

FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED 

AND THREATENED SPECIES 

IN NEW JERSEY 

An ENDANGERED species is any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. 

A THREATENED species is any species that is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

REPTILES 

BIRDS 

MAMMALS 

Bl~~ whale*'. 

Finbaok whale* 

STATUS 

ser brevirostrum E 

DermocheZys coriacea 

Caretta caret/a 

Charadrius melodus 

Sterna dougallii dougallii 

T 

E 

T 

E 

E 

T 

T 

E 

Picoides borealis E+ 

Fe/is concolor couguar E+ 

E 

E+ 

E+ 

Balaenoptera musculus E 

Balaenoptera physalus E 

Humpbackwl1ale* Megaptera novaeangliae E 

Right whale* Balaena glacialis E 

Sei whale* Balaenoptera borealis E 

Sperm whale* Physeter macrocephalus E 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 49 Appendix D. 
1032

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Alasmidonta heterodon 

INVERTEBRATES 

Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis 

Lycaeides melissa samuelis 

Neonympha m. mitchellii 

Nicrophorus americanus 

Jsotria medeoloides 

PLANTS 

* 

** 

H elonias bullata 

Rhynchospora lmieskemii 

Schwalbea americana 

Aeschynomene virginica 

Amaranthus pumilus 

E endangered species PE proposed endangered 

T threatened species PT proposed threatened + presumed extirpated** 

Except for sea turtle nesting habitat, principal responsibility for these species is 

vested with the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Current records indicate the species does not presently occur in New Jersey, 

although the species did occur in the State historically. 

Note: For a complete listing of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, refer 

to 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. 

For further infonnation, please contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

New Jersey Field Office 

927 N. Main Street, Building D 

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 

Phone: (609) 646-9310 

Fax: (609) 646-0352 

STATUS 

E 

T 

E+ 

E+ 

E+ 

T 

T 

T 

E 

T 

T 

Revised 08/09/2007 

Hereford Inlet to Cap<.! May Inlet 50 Appe11dixD. 
1033

H~reford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

APPENDIXB 

Colonial Nesting Birds and Shorebirds within 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Project Area 

(prepared by New Jersey Audubon Society) 

51 AppendixD. 
Colonial Nesting Birds and Shorebirds - Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Estuary and nearshore coastal waters, including associated beach, dune, salt marsh, mudflats an

Compiled by Don Freiday 

Very rare species (occuring less than annually) are excluded from this list 

Nests - Y means known to currently nest 

C - common: always seen, more than 20 individuals per day 

F - fairly common: usually seen, 5 to 20 individuals per day 

U - uncommon: seen in limited numbers, 1-4 per day 

S - scarce: usually present, but not seen daily 

R - rare: seen only a few times a season 

Species Common Name 

PHALACROCORACIDAE (Cormorants) Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant 

ARDEIDAE (Herons, Egrets and Bitterns) 

Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern 

lxobrychus exilis Least Bittern 

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron 

Ardea alba Great Egret 

Egretta !hula Snowy Egret 

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron 

Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron 

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron 

Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 

THRESKIORNITHIDAE (Ibis and Spoonbills) 

Threskiornithinae 

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 

Nests Wint

u u 

s 

F 

y R y 

y 

y 

y u 

y 

y 

52 
Species Common Name Nests Wi

CHARADRIIDAE (Plovers and Lapwings) Charadriinae 

Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover 

Pluvialis dominica American Golden-Plover 

Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover 

Charadrius melodus Pipina Plover y 

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer y 

HAEMATOPODIDAE (Oystercatchers) 

Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher y 

RECURVIROSTRIDAE (Avocets and Stilts) 

Recurvirostra americana American Avocet 

SCOLOPACIDAE (Sandpipers and Allies) 

Scolopacinae 

Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper ? 

Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper 

Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs 

Tringa semipalmata Willet y 

T ringa flavipes Lesser Yellowleos 

Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper 

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel 

Umosa haemastica Hudsonian Godwit 

Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit 

Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone 

Calidris canutus Red Knot 

Calidris alba Sanderling 

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper 

Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper 

Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Baird's Sandpiper 

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper 

Calidris m aritirn a Purple Sandpiper Calidris alpina Dunlin 

Hereford Inlet 10 Cape May Inlet 53 
Species Common Name Nests Wi

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper 

Calidris himantopus Stilt Sandpiper 

Tryngites subruficollis Buff-breasted Sandpiper 

Umnodromus griseus Short-billed Dowitcher Umnodromus scolopaceus Lona-billed Dowitcher 

Gallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe 

Scolopax minor American Woodcock 

Phalaropodinae 

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope 

LARIDAE (Gulls) 

Larus atricilla Lauahing Gull y 

Larus philadelphia Bonaparte's Gull 

Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull 

Larus argentatus Herring Gull y 

Larus glaucoides Iceland Gull 

Larus fuscus Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus hyperboreus Glaucous Gull Larus marinus Great Black-backed Gull y 

Rissa tridactyla Black-legged Kittiwake 

STERNIDAE (Terns) 

Sternula antillarum Least Tern y 

Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed Tern y 

Hydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern 

Chlidonias niger Black Tern 

Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern 

Sterna hirundo Common Tern y 

Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern y 

Thalasseus maximus Royal Tern y 

Thalasseus sandvicensis Sandwich Tern 

RYNCHOPIDAE (Skimmers) Rynchops niger Black Skimmer y 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1-fay Inlet 54 
1037

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

APPENDIXC 

State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species 

in New Jersey 

55 Appendix D. 
1038

Conserve 

Wildlife New Jersey's Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

Endangered Speciei. are those whose prnspects for survival ln New Jersey are !n Immediate danger because of a loss or change m hab!tat, over·exploltatlon, predation, competition, dJsease, 

c:11sturbance or cont<1mlnation. Assistance l.s needed to prevent future extlnct1on In New Jersey. 

Ttrreatened Sper:/es are those who may become endangered Jf cond!tmns surrounding them begin to or continue to det1morate. 

There are other classlf1cat1ons for wlldUfe as well, Including Stable, Species of Sneclal Concern Soeqa! Concern and Un.derterm1ned, 

Species names In thehelow t;,b!es link to~contalnlng 1dent!f1cation, habitat and status and i;-onservatlon informatton, AddlUona!ly, m 2003 twelve species were highlighted a$ part of 

the celebration of the 30th ann/versary of the NJ Endangered Species Conservation Act. See the "2003 SPf!GiflS of thR Month" Ofl9E! for mon~ information. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet AppendixD. 
1039

Uslupdatadl/11/04 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 57 AppendixD. 
1040

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inkt 

APPENDIXD 

Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in 

Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the 

U.S. Atlantic Coast to 

Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the 

Endangered Species Act 

58 ApptmdixD. 
1041

GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIBS 

IN PIPING PLOVER BREEDING 

HABITAT ON TI-IE U.S. ATIANTIC COAST TO AVOID TAKE UNDER SECTION 9 OF 

Tiffi Th1DANGERED SPECIES ACT 

Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wrlcilife Service 

April 15, 1994 

The following information is provided as guidance to beach managers and property ovmers 

seeking to avoid potential violations of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 

1538) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 17) that could occur as the result of 

recreational activities on beaches used by br=ling piping plovers along the Atlantic Coast. 

These guidelines were developed by the Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service), -with assistance from the U.S. Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Team. The 

guidelines are advisory, and failure to impl=ent them does not, of itself, constitute a 

violation of the law. Rather, they represent the Service's best professional advice to beach 

managers and landowners regarding the management options that will prevent direct 

mortality, harm, or harassment of piping plovers and their eggs due to recreational activities. 

Some [and managers have endangered species protection obligations under Sectioff7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (see section I below) or under Execirtive Orders 11644 and 119891 

that go beyond adherence to these guidelines. Nothing in this document should be construed 

as lack of endorsement of arlclitional piping plover protection measures implemented by these 

land managers or those who are voluntarily undertaking stronger plover protection measures. 

This document contains four sections: (I) a brief synopsis of the legal requirements that afford 

protection to nesting piping plovers; (II) a brief surrimary of the life history of piping plovers 

and potential threats due to recreational activities during the breeding cycle; (III) guidelines 

for protecting piping plovers from recreational activities on Atlantic Coast beaches; and (IV) 

literature cited. 

1 Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands and Executive Order 

11989, Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands pertain to lands under custody of the S=etaries 

of Agriculture, Defense, and Interior (except for Indian lands) and certain lands under the 

custody of the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 59 AppendixD. 
1042

3 

Seclion 10 also allows permits to be issued for take that is "incidental lo, and not the purpose 

of, canying out an otherwise lawful activity" if the Service determines thal certain conditions 

have been met. All appliamt for an incidental take permit must prepare a conservation plan 

that specifies the impacts of the take, steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate 

the impacts, funding that will be available to implement these steps, alternative actions to the 

take that the applicant considered, and the reasons why such alternatives are not being 

utilized. 

Section 7 of the ESA may be pertinent to beach managers and landowners in situations that 

have a Federnl nexus. Section 7 requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service (or 

National Marine Fisheries Service for JIIBrine species) prior to authorizing, funding, or 

carrying out activities that may affect listed species. Section 7 also requires that these 

agencies use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species. Section 7 

obligations have caused Federal land management agencies to implement piping plover 

protection measures that go beyond those required to avoid take, for example by conducting 

research on threats to piping plovers. Other examples of Federal activities that may affect 

piping plovers along the Atlantic Coast, thereby triggering Section 7 consultation, include 

permits for beach nourishment or disposal of dredged material (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers) and funding of beach restoration projects (Federnl Emergency Management 

Authority). 

Piping plovers, as well as other migratory birds such as least terns, common terns, American 

oystercatchers, laughing gulls, herring gulls, and great black-backed gulls, their nests, and 

eggs are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703~712). 

Prohibited acts include pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, 

collecting, or attempting such conduct. Violators may be fined up to $5000 and/or 

imprisoned for up to six months. 

Almost all States within the breeding range of the Atlantic Coast piping plover population list 

the species as State threatened or endangered (Northeast Nongmne Technical Comrnittee 

1993). Various Jaws and regulations may protect State-listed species from take, but the 

Service has not ascertained ci1e adequacy of the guidelines presented in this documeot to meet 

the requirements of any State law. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~.fay Inl(::t 60 AppendixD. 
1043

Strauss 1990). Nests are usually fowid in areas with little or no vegetation although, on 

occasion, piping plovers will nest under stands of American beachgrass (Ammophila 

~) or other vegetation (Patterson 1988, Flemming el al. 1990, Maclvor 1990). 

Plover nests may be very difficult to detect, especially during the 6-7 day egg-laying phase 

when the birds generally do not incubate (Goldin 1994). 

5 

Plover foods consist of invertebrates such as marine worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans or 

mollusks (Bent 1929, Cairns 1977, Nicholls 1989). Feeding areas include intertidal portions 

of ocean beaches, washover areas, mudflats, sanclflats, wrack lines4

, and shorelines of coastal 

ponds, lagoons or salt marshes (Gibbs 1986, Coutu et al. 1990, Hoopes et al. 1992, Loegering 

1992, Goldin 1993). Studies have shown that the relative importance of various feeding 

habitat types may vary by site (Gibbs 1986, Coutu et al. 1990, McConnaughey et al. 1990, 

Loegering 1992, Goldin 1993, Hoopes 1993) and by stage in the breeding cycle (Cross 1990). 

Adults and chicks on a given site may use different feeding habitats in varying proportion 

(Goldin et al. 1990). Feeding activities of chicks may be particularly important to their 

survival. Cairns (1977) found that piping plover chicks typically tripled their weight dLL.'"111g 

the first two weeks post-hatching; chicks that failed to achieve at least 60% of this weight 

gain by day 12 were unlikely to survive. During courtship, nesting, and brood rearing, 

feeding territories are generally contiguous to nesting territories (Cairns 1977), although 

instances where brood-rearing areas are widely separated from nesting territories are not 

uncommon (see Table 1). Feeding activities of both adults and chicks may occur during all 

hours of the day and night (Burger 1993) and at all stages in the tidal cycle (Goldin 1993, 

Hoopes 1993). 

THREATS FROM NONMOTORIZED BEACH ACTIVITIES 

Sandy beaches that provide nesting habitat for piping plovers are also attrdctive recreational 

habitats for people and their pets. Nonmotorized recreational activities can be a source of 

both direct mortality and harassment of piping plovers. Pedestrians on beaches may crush 

4 Wrack is organic material including seaweed, seashells, driftwood and other materials 

deposited on beaches by tidal action. 

Hereford Inle! to Cape ~fay Inlet 61 Appendixn 
1044

7 

and intertidal zone. These movements place chicks in the paths of vehicles driving along 1he 

berm or through the intertidal zone. Chicks stand in, walk, and run along tire ruts, a.'ld 

sometimes have difficulty crossing deep ruts or climbing out of them (Eddings et al. J 990, 

Strauss 1990, Howard et al. 1993). Chicks sometimes stand motionless or crouch as vehicles 

pass by, or do not move quickly enough to get out of the way (Tull 1984, Hoopes et al. 1992, 

Goldin 1993). Wire fencing placed around nests to deter predators (Rimmer and Dehlinger 

1990, Melvin et a!. 1992) is ineffective in protecting chicks from vehicles because chicks 

typically leave the nest wi1hin a day after hatching and move extensively along the beach to 

feed (see Table 1). 

Vehicles may also significantly degrade piping plover habitat or disrupt normal behavior 

patterns. TI1ey may harm or harass plovers by crushing wrack into the sand and making it 

unavailable as cover or a foraging substrate, by creating ruts that may trap or impede 

movements of chicks, and by preventing plovers from using habitat that is o1herwise suitable 

(Macivor 1990, Strauss 1990, Hoopes et al. 1992, Goldin 1993). 

III. GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTING PIPING PLOVERS FROM 

RECREATIONAL DISTURBANCE 

The Service recommends the fo!lowing protection measures to prevent direct mortality or 

harassment of piping plovers, their eggs, and chicks. 

MANAGEMENT OF NONMOTORIZED RECREATIONAL USES 

On beaches where pedestrians, joggers, sun-bathers, picnickers, fishermen, boaters, horseback 

riders, or other recreational users are present in numbers that could harm or disturb incubating 

plovers, their eggs, or chicles, areas of at least 50 meter-radius around nests above the high 

tide line should be delineated vhth warning signs and symbolic fencing5. Only persons 

engaged in rare species monitoring, management, or research activities should enter posted 

areas. These areas should remsin fenced as long as viable eggs or unfledged chicks are 

present. Fencing is intended lo prevent accidental crushing of nests and repeated flushing of 

5 "Symbolic fencing" refers to one or two strands of light-weight string, tied between posts to 

delineate areas where pedestrians and vehicles should not enter. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 62 Appendix D. 
1045

Pets should be leashed and wider control of their owners at all times from April l to August 

31 on beaches where piping plovers are present or have traditionally nested. Pets should be 

prohibited on these beaches from April I through August 31 if, based on observations and 

experience, pet owners fail to keep pets leashed and under control. 

Kite flying should be prohibited within 200 meters of nesting or territorial adult or unfledged 

juvenile piping plovers between April 1 and August 31. 

Fireworks should be prohibited on beaches where plovers nest from April 1 until all chicks 

are fledged. 

MOTOR VEHICLE MANAGEMENT 

The Service recommends the following minimum protection measures to prevent direct 

mortality or harassment of piping plovers, their eggs, and chicks on beaches where vehicles 

are permitted. Since restrictions to protect unfledged chicks often impede vehicle access 

along a bani er spit, a number of management options affecting the timing and size of vehicle 

closures are presented here. Some of these options are contingent on implementation of 

intensive plover monitoring and management plans by qualified biologists. It is 

recommended that landowners seek concurrence with such monitoring plans from either the . 

Service or the State v.~ldlife agency. 

Protection ofNests 

All suitable piping plover nesting habitat should be identified by a qualified biologist and 

delineated with posts and warning signs or symbolic fencing on or before April 1 each year. 

All vehicular access into or through posted nesting habitat should be prohibited. However, 

prior to hatching, vehicles may pass by such areas along designated vehicle corridors 

established along the outside edge of plover nesting habitat. Vehicles may also park outside 

delineated nesting habitat, if beach width and configuration and tidal conditions allow. 

Vehicle corridors or parking areas should be moved, constricted, or temporarily closed if 

territorial, courting, or nesting plovers are disturbed by passing or parked vehicles, or if 

disturbance is anticipated because of unusual tides or expected increases in vehicle use during 

weekends, holidays, or special events. 

9 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 63 AppendixD. 
1046

11 

Protection of Chicks 

Sections of beaches where unfledged piping plover chicles are present should be temporarily 

closed to all vehicles not deemed essential. (See the provisions for essential vehicles below.) 

Areas where vehicles are prohibited should include all dune, beach, and intertidal habitat 

with.in the chicks' foraging range, to be determined by ci1hIT of the following methods: 

1. The vehicle free area should extend 1000 meters on each side of a line drawn 

through the nest site and perpendicular to the long axis of the beach. The resulting 

2000 meter-,,~de area of protected habitat for plover chicks should extend from the 

ocean-side low water line to the bay-side low water line or to the farthest extent of 

dune habitat if no bay-side intertidal habitat exists. However, vehicles may be allowed 

to pass through portions of the protected area that are considered inaccessible to plover 

chicks because of steep topography, dense vegetation, or other naturally-occurring 

obstacles. 

QR 

2. TI1e Service QR a State wildlife agency that is party to an agreement under Section 

6 of the ESA provides written concll!Tence with a plan that: 

A Provides for monitoring of all broods during the chick-rearing phase of the 

breeding season and specifies the frequency of monitoring. 

B. Specifies the minimum size of vehicle-free areas to be established in the 

vicinity of unfledged broods based on the mobility of broods observed on the 

site in past years and on the frequency of monitoring. Unless substantial data 

from past years show that broods on 8 site stay very close to their nest 

locations, vehicle-free Meas should extend at least 200 meters on each side of 

the nest site during the first week following hatching. The size and location of 

the protected area should be adjusted in response to the observed mobility of 

the brood, but in no case should it be reduced to le-5s than 100 meters on each 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ;\fay Inlet 64 Appendix 0. 
1047

2) Without intensive monitoring: Restrictions should begin on May 15 (the earliest 

probable hatch date). If the nest is discovered after May 15, then restrictions should 

start immediately. 

If hatching occurs earlier than expected, or chicks are discovered from an unreported nest, 

restrictions on vehicles should begin immediately. 

If ruts are present that are deep enough to restrict movements of plover chicks, then 

restrictions on vehicles should begin at least 5 days prior to the anticipated hatching date of 

plover nests. If a plover nest is found with a complete clutch, precluding estimation of 

hatching date, and deep ruts have been created that could reasonably be expected to impede 

chick movements, then restrictions on vehicles should begin immediately. 

Essential Vehicles 

13 

Because it is impossible to completely eliminate the possibility that a vehicle will accidently 

crush an unfledged plover chicks, use of vehicles in the vicinity of broods should be avoided 

whenever possible. However, the Service recognizes that life-threatening situations on the 

beach may require emergency vehicle response. Furthermore, some "essential vehicles" may 

be required to provide for safety of p--destrian recreationists, law enforcemen~ maintenance of 

public property; or access to private dwellings not otherwise accessible. On large beaches, 

maintaining the frequency of plover monitoring required to minimize the size and duration of 

vehicle closures may n=sitate the use of vehicles by plover monitors. 

Essential vehicles should only travel on sections of beaches where unfledged plover chicks 

are present if such travel is absolutely necessary and no other reasonable travel routes are 

available. All steps should be taken to minimize number of trips by essential vehicles 

through chick habitat areas. Homeowners should consider other means of access, eg. by foot, 

water, or shuttle services, dwi.ng periods when chicks are present 

The following procedures should be followed to minimize the probability that chicles \\~ll be 

crushed by essenlial (non-emergency) vehicles: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ?..fay Inlet 65 Appendix D. 
1048

15 

In some unusual circumstances, Service or State biologists may recognize situations where 

this guidance provides insufficient protection for piping plovers or their nests. In such a case, 

the Service or the State wildlife agency may provide written notice to the landovmer 

describing additional measures recommended to prevent take of piping plovers on that site. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 66 AppendixD. 
1049

l7 

Cross, RR 1989. Monitoring, management and research of the piping plover at 

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished report. Virginia Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries. 80 pp. 

Cross, RR 1990. Monitoring, management and research of the piping plover at 

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished report. Virginia Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries. 68 pp. 

Cross, RR and K. Terwilliger. 1993. Piping plover flushing distances recorded in annual 

surveys in Vrrginia 1986-1991. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 5 

pp. 

Delaware Dep:rrtrnent of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1990. Delaware 

Piping Plover Manag=ent Plan. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control. 5 pp. 

Eddings, KS., C.R Griffin, and S.M Melvin. 1990. Productivity, activity patterns, limiting 

factors, and management of piping plovers at Sandy Hook, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, New Jersey. Unpublished report. Department of Forestry and 

Wildlife Management, University of Massachusetts, Arnherst. 79 pp. 

Flemming, S.P., RD. Chiasson, and P.J. Austin-Smith. 1990. Piping Plover nest-site 

selection in New Bruns,vick and Nova Scotia. Unpublished document. Dept. of 

Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada 31 pp. 

Gibbs, J.P. 1986. Feeding ecology of nesting piping plovers in Maine. Unpublished report 

to :Maine Chapter, The Naiure Conservancy. Topsham, Maine. 21 pp. 

Goldin M, C. Griffin and S. Melvin. 1990. Reproductive and foraging ecology, human 

disturbance, and management of Piping Plovers at Breezy Point, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, New York, 1989. Progress report. 58 pp. 

Goldin, MR l 990. Reproductive ecology and management of piping plovers (Charadrius 

~) at Breezy Point, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York - 1990. 

Unpublished report. Gr1eway National Recreation Area, Long Island, New York 16 

pp. 

Goldin, MR 1993. Effects of human disturbance and off-road vehicles on piping plover 

reproductive success and behavior at Breezy Point, Gateway National Recreation Area, 

New York. MS. TI1esis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 128 

pp. 

Her.:ford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 67 Appendix D. 
1050

19 

Nicholls, J.L. 1989. Distribution and other ecological aspects of Piping Plovers (Chara::ldus 

me/odus) wintering along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. MS. T11esis. Auburn 

University, Auburn, Alabama 150 pp. 

Northeast Nongame Technical Committee. 1993. Legal categories of rare species in the 

northeastern states. Northeast Nongame Technical Committee, Northeast Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 22 pp. 

Patterson, ME. 1988. Piping plover breeding biology and reproductive success on 

Assateague Island MS. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 

Blacksburg, Vlfginia 131 pp. 

Patterson, M.E., J.D. Fraser, and J.W. Roggenbuck. 1991. Factors affecting piping plover 

productivity on Assateague Island Journal of Wilcllife Management. 55(3): 525-531. 

Rimmer, D.W., and RD. Dehlinger. 1990. Use of predator exclosures to protect piping 

plover nests. Journal of Field Ornithology. 61: 217-223. 

Shaffer, F. and P. Laporte. 1992. Rapport synthese des recherches relatives au pluvier 

siffl= (Charadrius ~) effectuees aux Iles-de-la-Madeleine de 1987 a 1991. 

Association quebecoise des groupes d'omithologues et Service canadien de la faune. 

78 pp. 

Strauss, E. 1990. Reproductive success, life history patterns, and behavioral variation in a 

population of Piping Plovers subjected to human disturbance (1982-1989). Ph.D. 

dissertation. Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts.-

Tull, C.E. 1984. A study of nesting piping plovers of Kouchibouguac National Park 1983. 

Unpublished report. Parks Canada, Kouchibouguac National Park, Kouchibouguac, 

New Bnmswick 85 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Endangered and Threatened Status for the Piping Plover; Final Rule. 

Federal Register 50 (238): 50726-50734. 

U.S. Fish and Wilcllife Service. 1993. 1993 Status Update; U.S. Atlantic Coast Piping 

Plover. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and \Vilcllife Servic.e, Sudbury, Massachusetts. 

7 pp. 

Welty, J.C. 1982. The life of birds. Sauders College Publishing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

754 pp. 

Wilcox, L. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the piping plover. Auk. 76: 129-152. 

Hereford Inlet 1o Cape lvlay Inlet GR Applc!ndlx D. 
1051

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

APPENDIXE 

Guidelines for Managing Fireworks in the Vicinity of 

Piping Plovers and Seabeach Amaranth 

on the U.S. Atlantic Coast 

69 Appendix D. 
1052

GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING FIREWORKS IN THE VICINITY OF PIPING PLOVERS 

AND SEABEACH AMARANTH ON THE U.S. ATLANTIC COAST 

February 4, 1997 

The following is provided as guidance to Federal agencies, landowners, cmmnercial fireworks 

companies, and fireworks event sponsors seeking to avoid adverse effects on piping plovers and 

scabeach amaranth. They are intended to advise Federa.1 agencies that conduct, fund, or 

authorize fireworks activities regarding the measures needed to avoid adverse effects on listed 

species, thereby averting the need for formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). These practices also constitute the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 

(Services's) best professional advice to non-Federal entities on avoiding take of piping plovers 

under Section 9 of the ESA. 

These guidelines supplement information about protection of piping plovers from a variety of 

recreational activities, provided in the Service's April 15, 1994 Guidelines for Managing 

Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid 

Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (appended)1. 

Seabeach amaranth, a threatened plant species protected under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), occurred historically along coastal beaches from southern Massachusetts to South 

Carolina. At the present time it is found only on Long Island, New York; North Carolina; and 

South Carolina. Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service prior 

to authorizing, funding, or carrying out activities that directly or indirectly affect listed plants; 

this requirement is applicable to permits related to fireworks events that are issued by the U.S. 

Coast Guard. 

Potential Impacts Related to Fireworks Displays 

Direct Impacts 

Fireworks are highly disturbing to piping plovers. Fireworks early in the breeding season may 

cause plovers conducting comiship activities to abandon their territories. Direct injury can be 

caused by the explosions or debris, and piping plovers and terns (which often nest adjacent to or 

near plovers) will often abandon their nests and broods during fireworks displays, exposing eggs 

and chicks to weather and predators. If a flightless chick were to become pennanently separated 

from its parents during the confusion, mortality would be almost ce1iain. 

1 Copies of the 1994 Guidelines for general recreational activities are also available, on 

request, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wier Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776, Attn: Am1e 

Hecht; telephone 508-443-4325; fax 508-443-2898. 

Her~ford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 70 Appendix D. 
1053

Several situations where fireworks caused severe adverse effects on least terns, colonial nesting 

birds often fow1d in the vicinity of piping plovers, serve as indicators of the effects that 

pyrotechnics can exert on beach-nesting birds. An August 1993 fireworks display in New Jersey 

caused pennancnt abandonment of a least tern colony located more than 250 111 away, and a 1994 

New Jersey fireworks display caused temporary abandonment and displays of distress by terns 

within a colony located more than 3/4 mile away. Incidents in New York where piping plovers 

were disturbed by fireworks also caused prolonged disturbance to least terns and black skimmers 

nesting nearby. 

Seabeach amaranth can be directly affected by launch activities if they occur in areas where the 

plants may be crushed or damaged by launch personnel or equipment. 

Indirect Impacts 

In addition to adverse effects from the noise and lights of the pyrotechnics, commercial 

fireworks displays often draw large crowds that may pose threats to nearby plovers. These 

crowds may be situated at some distance from the actual launch site, for example, across an inlet. 

Potential indirect impacts that may adversely affect piping plovers include: spectators walking 

through and/or throwing objects (including illegal pyrotechnics) into plover nesting and broodrearing areas; additional off-road vehicle patrols by public safety personnel; increased boat 

landings by spectators on relatively remote stretches of beach; low-flying aircraft, including 

helicopter patrols and personal spectator aircraft; additional trash (which attracts predators). 

Signs and symbolic fences that are adequate for the purpose of alerting daytime beach users to 

locations of plover breeding areas are often insufficient to prevent accidental entry by fireworks 

spectators wandering in the dark. 

Potential indirect adverse effects on seabeach amaranth include trampling or crnshing of 

unprotected plants by pedestrian or vehicular traffic on the beach. 

Measures for A voiding and Monitoring Direct and Indirect Impacts 

of Fireworks Events 

Direct Impacts 

Fireworks displays including launch areas and debris fallout areas should be located to avoid 

disturbance of breeding piping plovers. In general, the Service recommends that the launch site 

be located a minimum of 3/4 mile from the nearest plover nesting and/or foraging area. Access 

routes for personnel deploying the fireworks and other public safety personnel (including fire 

prevention/suppression and law enforcement officers) should confonn with the vehicle 

management recommendations contained in the Guidelines.for Managing Recreational Activities 

in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of 

the Endangered Species Act. Launch sites should also be located to prevent trampling any 

seabeach amaranth plants. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :ti.lay Inlet 71 AppendixD. 
1054

Indirect Impacts 

Event sponsors should plan and implement measures to assure that spectators will not walk 

tlu·ough and/or throw objects into plover nesting and brood-rearing areas. Sufficient law 

enforcement and other personnel must also be on-site during these events to enforce plover 

protection measures and prevent use of illegal fireworks in the vicinity of the birds. 

1. Plover habitats in the vicinity of where spectators may congregate should be intensively 

surveyed by qualified biologists2 for at least four days prior to the event to locate nests, adult 

plovers, chicks, and/or post-fledged juveniles. For events prior to July 1, surveyors should 

also search for territorial and/or courting adults that have not yet established nests or may be 

preparing to re-nest. In New York, potential habitat for seabeach amaranth should be 

surveyed to locate any seabcach amaranth plants. 

2. Plover habitats should be symbolically fenced in accordance with the Service's Guidelines 

for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic 

Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (see pages 7-8). 

Seabeach amaranth plants should be symbolically fenced to provide a minimum 3 meter 

buffer zone around individual plants or groups of plants. 

3. Additional protection measures recommended to avoid impacts that may occur when the 

large crowds are drawn to the beach at night include3

: 

a. Close parking lots and beach access points in the vicinity of breeding plovers. 

b. Increase the size of symbolically fenced areas around plover nesting areas to provide 

extra buffers between birds and pedestrians that may be on the beach. The size of buffers 

should be appropriate for the size of the anticipated crowd; for large crowds, buffers 

should be expanded from the standard 50 meters to a total of 100 meters from established 

nests. 

2 State wildlife agencies and private enviromnental groups often conduct plover monitoring 

activities and can be consulted for available infonnation about plover breeding locations. However, 

intensity of surveys needed to avoid adverse effects from fireworks events will often exceed those 

routinely conducted by these wildlife agencies/organizations. Anangements and conunitments for 

added surveys for these events are the responsibility of the pem1itting agencies and/or event 

sponsors. It is recommended that these ati-angements be made well in advance of the potential event, 

due to limited availability of qualified personnel. 

3 For extremely large fireworks events, additional protection measures may be needed, including: 

issuing air traffic advisory for all aircraft to remain> 1000' above sensitive areas; issuing ma1iners 

advisory telling boaters not to land in sensitive areas; boat patrols; extensive advanced publicity 

advising spectators where they should go to watch the fireworks and about closed areas; training 

about protection needs of rare plants and/or animals for law enforcement personnel. 

H~reford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 72 Appendix D. 
1055

c. Increase the visibility of fencing using reflectorized tape or by substituting snowfences, 

plastic orange highway construction fences, or wire mesh fences for string fencing, as 

string fences are very difficult to see at night. Snowfences and highway constmction 

fences should be removed the uext day if there is any chance that they will impede chick 

movements. 

d. Fence and post foragiug territories of unfledged chicks, as delineated by a qualified 

biologist, especially in areas where large crowds are anticipated and/or if the day of the 

event is especially hot (since heat often deters chick foraging during the daytime, 

increasing the birds' reliance on evening feeding). 

e. Provide adequate numbers ( consistent with anticipated umnbers of spectators) of 

monitors and law enforcement personuel in the vicinity of plover breeding areas or 

seabeach amaranth locations to patrol feuced areas from the time when spectators begin 

congregating on the beach until the crowd disperses after the event. Assure that monitors 

and enforcement persounel receive accurate current inforrnatiou about the locations of 

threatened birds and plants so that they can minimize auy disruptions from their owu 

activities. 

£ Prohibit all pets on the beach during the event and ensure compliance with this 

prohibition. 

4. Remove any trash or litter from the beach immediately following the event. However, any 

trash located within fenced areas should be left until daylight and then removed by or under 

the supen1ision of plover monitors. Further, vehicles should not be used at night to remove 

trash within 100 meters of unfledged plover chicks. 

5. In order to gauge the effectiveuess of the measures 3 and 4, the following data should be 

collected: 

a. Locations and status of all adult plovers, nests, and chicks within 1/4 mile of spectator 

viewing areas should be determined by a qualified biologist on the day of the event and 

agaiu on the following day. 

b. Counts of human and dog tracks that intersect the perimeter of symbolically fenced areas 

before and after the event. 

c. Counts of auy persons actually observed inside symbolically fenced areas dming the 

event. 

d. Counts of any instances of illegal pyrotechnics used on the beach during the event. 

Hereford Inlet lo Cap~ 1..'lay Inlet 73 Appendix D. 
1056

e. Counts of trash/litter items inside symbolically fenced areas before and after the 

event. For very large areas or areas that have substantial amounts of trash before 

the event, trash counts may be conducted in sample plots. 

f Count of breaks in symbolic fences. 

6. Except when responding to an actual emergency situation, all law enforcement, fire 

department, public works, fireworks deployment, and other vehicles in the vicinity of 

breeding plovers should only be operated in conformance with the Service's 

Guidelines.for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat 

on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species 

Act (see discussion of Essential Vehicles, pages 13-14). 

Herl!ford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 74 App~ndixD. 
1057

DRAFT 

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT 

SECTION 2(b) REPORT 

HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET 

FEASIBILITY STUDY 

CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW .JERSEY 

U.S. 

FISH & WILDLIFE 

SERVICE 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Ecological Services, Region 5 

New Jersey Field Office 

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 

Preparer: Frederick C. Deppe 

Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist: Ron Popowski 

Acting Project Leader: Eric Schrading 

August2013 

Hereford Inlet to Cape J\.fay Inlet 75 Appendix D. 
1058

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

New Jersey Field Office 

Ecological Services 

927 North Main Street, Building D 

Pleasantvil!e, New Jersey 08232 

Tel: 609/383 3938 

Fax: 609/646 0352 

http:f/www .fws.gov/norlheast/njfie1doffice/ 

L TC Cluis Becking 

District Engineer, Philadelphia District 

U.S. Anny Corps ofEnginecrs 

Wanamaker Building - 100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 - 3390 

Attn: Beth Brandreth 

Dear LTC Becking: 

AUG l 5 2013 

Enclosed is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) draft report prepared pursuant to Section 

2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 

et seq.) on the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District (Corps) Hereford Inlet to Cape 

May Inlet Feasibility Study, Cape May County, New Jersey. The information presented in this 

draft FWCA Section 2 (b) report addresses potential beneficial or adverse impacts on fish and 

wildlife resources from proposed shore protection along the five-mile-long barrier island. This 

report has been prepared pursuant to the Scope-of-Work and Fiscal Y ear-2007 and 2008 

interagency agreement between the Corps and the Service. 

The following comments are provided pursuant to Section 2(b) of the FWCA. Comments are also 

provided under authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as am.ended; 

16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.), and the Migratory Bird Act Treaty of 1918 (40 Stat. 775, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 703-712), and are consistent with the intent of the Service's Mitigation Policy ( Federal 

Register, Vol. 46, No. 15, Jan. 23, 1981). 

FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED AND ENUANGERED SPECIES 

The federally listed (threatened) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) nests on the beaches of 

Hereford Inlet including (Stone Harbor Point and North Wildwood from Central Avenue to the 

intersection of JohnF. Kcm1edy Beach Drive and 2nd Avenue), on the U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN 

site, and on Cape May National Wildlife Refuge; and are known to forage along the beaches of 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. Piping plovers are not listed as "historical" within the 

project area as erroneously stated on page 2.3 of the Corps' draft feasibility report. On the Atlantic 

coastal beaches within the project area, piping plovers last nested in North Wildwood and 

Wildwood Crest in the 1990's, and the Service has no current or historical records of nesting in 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 76 AppendixD. 
1059

Wildwood. Piping plovers nest on sandy beaches above high-tide line on mainland coastal 

beaches, sand flats, and barrier island coastal beaches. The nesting sites are typically located on 

gently sloping foredunes, blowout ureas behind primary dunes, washover areas cut into or between 

dunes, ends of sandpits, and on sites with deposits of suitable dredged or pumped sand. 

Coastal development for residential and commercial uses, and the subsequent stabilization of the 

once shifting and dynamic ecosystem, have resulted in the degradation and alteration of natural 

beaches to such an extent along the Atlantic coast that many beaches no longer provide suitable 

habitat for piping plovers. Disturbance by humans and the direct loss of nests have become major 

contributing factors to the population decline of the piping plover (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1996a). 

Dredged spoil deposition has the potential to create piping plover nesting habitat, although this is 

sub-optimal, provided the material is deposited prior to nesting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1996a). As a result, piping plovers could expand their nesting range within the project area after 

nourishment is completed. This occurred in 1997 as a result of Corps - New York District beach 

nourishment pr~jects in Monmouth County, New Jersey (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

Prior to initial beach nourishment in 1994, piping plovers were not documented in that project area 

for at least a decade. 

The project may also create habitat for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), a federally listed 

(threatened) plant (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b ). Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant, 

endemic to Atlantic coastal plain beach, primarily occurring on oveiwash flats at the accreting 

ends of barrier beach islands and lower foredimes of non-eroding beaches. The species 

occasionally establishes small temporary populations in other areas, including bayside beaches, 

blowouts in foredunes, and sand and shell materials placed as beach replenishment or dredge spoil. 

Previous occurrences ofscabeach amaranth are known within the proposed project area (i.e., the 

U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN Unit in 2003-2004) and may become naturally reestablished within 

the project area during the project life. Colonization of seabeach amaranth in New Jersey occurred 

in July 2000 after a Corps - New York District beach nourishment project in Monmouth County, 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Prior to the 2000 rediscovery, this species had last been 

documented in New Jersey in 1913 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b ). 

Other than the piping plover and seabeach amaranth, the federally a11d State-listed roseate tern 

(Sterna dougallii) (occasional transient) and State-listed peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) are 

ln1own to use the project area. In addition, red knots ( Calidris canutus rtifa), a Federal candidate 

species, are known to stopover in the project area during spring (northward) and fall (southward) 

migration where they feed mainly on the spat of mussels and other invertebrates to build fat 

reserves to complete their migration. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must be consulted regarding Essential Fish 

Habitat, as required under Section 305 (b)(2) of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882). The Nl\1.FS must also be consulted regarding the ESA 

due to the potential presence of the federally listed ( endangered) kemps ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and ieatherback sea turtle 

(Dermochrdys coriacea), and the foderally listed (threatened) loggerhead sea turtle (Coretta 

2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlei 77 AppendixD. 
1060

caretta) and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) within the project area and any borrow areas. 

Appendix A provides a current list of federally listed ( endangered and threatened) and candidate 

species in New Jersey. 

TI1e Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan and is pleased to submit 

this dtaft FWCA Section 2(b) report as technical input to the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Feasibility Study. Should you have any questions, please contact Ron Popowski at 

Ron]opowski@fws.gov. 

Enclosure 

CC: Ralph Tiner, RO 

Karen Green, NMFS 

Todd Pover, NJCWF 

Dave Jenkins, ENSP 

Bill Dixon, NJDEP Bureau of Coastal Engineering 

LITERATURE CITED 

Eric Schradu 

Acting Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast 

population, revised recovery plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 5, Hadley, MA. 245 pp. 

__ . 1996b. Recovery plan for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) Rafinesque. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Atlanta, GA. 70 pp. 

___ . 2002. Biological opinion on the effects of completion of sections I and II of the Atlantic 

Coast of New Jersey beach erosion control project Sea. Bright to Manasquan, Monmouth 

County, New Jersey on the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and seabeach amaranth 

(Amaranthuspumilus). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 

5, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ. 124 pp. 

3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ).fay Inlet 78 AppendixD. 
1061

DRAFT 

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT 

SECTION 2(b) REPORT 

HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET 

FEASIBILITY STUDY 

CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 

Prepa1·ed for: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Philadelphia District 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Ecological Services, Region 5 

New Jersey Field Office 

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 

Preparer: Frederick C. Deppe 

Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist: Ron Popowski 

Acting Project Leader: Eric Schrading 

Hereford Inlet to Cape l\fay Inlet 79 AppendixD. 
1062

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Philadelphia District, U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) was authorized by Congress 

under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), to conduct a feasibility study 

to investigate storm damage reduction, beach restoration, and water quality improvement 

alternatives from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet within the municipalities of North Wildwood, 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township, Cape May County, New Jersey (project area). 

The length of the project area is approximately seven miles long and exhibits several different 

coastal issues. The North Wildwood portion of the project area is prone to moderate to severe 

erosion, leaving the surrounding community vulnerable to stonn damages. Meanwhile, the beaches 

of Wildwood and Wildwood Crest have been accreting large quantities of sand resulting in a large, 

low, flat beach offering little habitat value and resulting in human health and water quality 

concerns due to clogged outfall pipes on the beach. The preferred alternative currently being 

considered for the project is "bypassing" sand through hydraulic back passing from Wildwood to 

North Wildwood and changing the beach configuration in Wildwood by increasing berm height 

and adding a dune. Within the project area, no work is planned for either the Cape May National 

Wildlife Refuge or the U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN site, or along Hereford Inlet beyond the jetty 

at the intersection of Beach Avenue and znd Avenue in North Wildwood. 

In this draft Section 2(b) report of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ( 48 Stat. 401, as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. et. seq) (FWCA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) identifies fish 

and wildlife resources in the vicinity of the 5-mile-long barrier island bordered to the north by 

Hereford Inlet and to the south by Cape May Inlet (formerly Cold Spring Inlet); discusses potential 

impacts on those resources from proposed project activities (including federally listed species); 

identifies opportunities for fish and wildlife habitat improvements; and updates the current state of 

knowledge con.cernil1g the proposed activities. 

The federally listed (threatened) piping plover ( Charadrius melodus) nests on the beaches of 

Hereford Inlet including (Stone Harbor Point and North Wildwood from Central Avenue to the 

intersection of John F. Kennedy Beach Drive and 2nd Avenue), on the U.S. C'.oast Guard's 

LORAN site, and on Cape May National Wildlife Refuge; and are known to forage along the 

beaches of Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. On the Atlantic coastal beaches within the 

project area, piping plovers last nested in North Wildwood and Wildwood Crest in the 1990's, and 

the Service has no current or historical records of nesting in Wildwood. Piping plovers nest on 

sandy beaches above high-tide line on mainland coastal beaches, sand flats, and barrier island 

coastal beaches. The nesting sites are typically located on gently sloping foredunes, blowout areas 

behind primary dunes, washover areas cut into or between dunes, ends of sandpits, and on sites 

with deposits of suitable dredged or pumped sand. The Service views this beach nourishment 

project, specifically at North Wildwood, as an opportunity to enhance nesting habitat for piping 

plover, shorebirds, and colonial nesting waterbirds; target species for habitat enhancement include 

the Federal candidate red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), and the State-listed (endangered) black 

skimmer (Rynchops niger) and least tern (Sterna antil!arum). 

In addition to piping plover, shorebirds, and colonial nesting waterbirds, the project may also 

create habitat for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), a federally listed (threatened) plant 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 80 AppendixD. 
1063

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b ). Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant, endemic to Atlantic 

coastal plain beaches, primarily occurring on overwash flats at the accreti11g ends of barrier beach 

islands and lower foredunes of non-eroding beaches. Occurrences of seabeach amaranth are known 

from 2003-2004 within the U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN unit. The species has also recently 

naturally recolonized coastal sites within New York and Maryland; therefore, it is possible that 

seabeach amaranth may become naturally reestablished within the project area during the life of 

the project. Colonization of seabeach amaranth occun-ed in July 2000 after a New York District 

Corps beach nour.ishment prQject in Monmouth County, New Jersey (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002). Prior to the 2000 rediscovery, this species had last been documented in New Jersey 

in 1913 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b). 

fu December 2005, the Service issued a Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO), in accordance 

with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), on the effects of beach nourishment, renourishment, stabilization, and restoration 

projects funded, permitted, or conducted by the Corps along the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey on 

the federally listed (threatened) species piping plover and seabeach amarantlt The purpose of the 

PBO is to expedite review of Corps funded and permitted Program activities, and to account for 

landscape-level causes of incidental take (e.g., from preclusion of natural habitat formation). 

In closing, this draft FWCA Section 2(b) report provides recommendations for beach communities, 

borrow areas, and beach habitat enhancements. In order to avoid and minimize potential adverse 

impacts on State-listed and federally listed threatened and endangered species within the project 

area, the Service recommends incorporating five measures into the project. This draft FWCA 

Section 2(b) report also includes seven recommendations for habitat enhancement and nine 

recommendations for borrow areas. 

ii 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ?\fay Inlet 81 Appendix D. 
1064

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i 

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... v 

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. , .................... v 

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 

A. SELECTED BEACH NOURISHMENT PLAN ............................................................... 2 

B. SELECTION OF ONSHORE BORROW AREAS .......................................................... 4 

C. BACK-PASSING ...................................... , .......................................................................... 4 

Ill. STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................................... 5 

IV. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ......................................................................................... 5 

V. FEDERALLY LISTED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES lJNDER 

SERVICE JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................... 7 

A. PIPING PLOVER ............................................................................................................ 7 

1. Species Description ................................................................................................. 7 

2. Life History .............................................................................................................. 7 

3. Population Status .................................................................................................... 8 

4. Continuing Threats ................................................................................................. 8 

B. RED KNOT ...................................................................................................................... 10 

1. Species Description ................................................................................................. 10 

2. Life History .............................................................................................................. 10 

3. Population Status .................................................................................................... 11 

4. Continuing Threats ................................................................................................. 12 

C. SEABEACH AMARANTH ............................................................................................ 12 

1. Species Description ................................................................................................. 12 

2. Life History .............................................................................................................. 13 

3. Population Status .................................................................................................... 14 

4. Continuing Threats ................................................................................................. 15 

iii 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 82 AppendixD, 
1065

VI. OTHER FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES ................................................................... 16 

A. FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES UNDERNMFS JURISDICTION 

1. Turtles ............................................................................................................................... 16 

2. Fish ................................................................................................................................... 17 

B. STATE LISTED SPECIES 

1. Black Skimmer .................................................................................................................. 18 

2. Least Tern .......................................................................................................................... 19 

3, Evening Primrose .............................................................................................................. 19 

4. Coordination with the State ............................................................................................. 19 

C. AVIAN AND OTHER WILDLIFE RESOURCES 

1. Shorebirds and Colonial Nesting Waterbirds ................................................................ 20 

2. Waterfowl .......................................................................................................................... 21 

3. Raptors ............................................................................................................................... 21 

4. Other Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 21 

VII. BORROW AREAS 

A. BENTHIC RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 22 

B. COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT ...................................................................... 22 

VIII. PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

A. PIPING PLOVER, SEA BEACH AMARANTH, RED KNOT ....................................... 23 

B. BEACH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT ............................................................................. 24 

C. BORROW AREAS .............................................................................................................. 25 

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. BEACH COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................. 26 

B. BEACH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT ............................................................................. 26 

C. BORROW AREAS ......................................................... ._ ...... ._ ......................................... 27 

X.REFERENCES 

A. LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................. 29 

iv 

Hereford Inlet to Cape '.\fay Inlet 83 AppendixD. 
1066

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................... 36 

Figure l 

Figure 2 

Appendix A 

Appendix B 

AppendixC 

AppendixD 

AppendixE 

Appendix I<' 

AppendixG 

Appendix H 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Project Areas - Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, 

Cape May County, NJ ............................................................................ 1 

Location of Cape May NWR in relation to project area ..................... 6 

APPENDICES 

Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened Species and 

Candidate Species in New Jersey 

Project Plan showing Project Area 

State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species in New Jersey 

Colonial Nesting Birds and Shorebirds within Hereford Inlet to Cape 

May Inlet Project Area (prepared by New Jersey Audubon Society) 

Status of the Red Knot (Calidris ca11utus rufa) in the Western 

Hemisphere 

Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping 

Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid 

Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act 

Guidelines for Managing Fireworks in the Vicinity of Piping 

Plovers and Seabcach Amaranth on the U.S. Atlantic Coast 

Piping Plover Nesting Results in New Jersey: 2012 

(prepared by New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program) 

V 

84 Appendix D. 
1067

I. INTRODUCTION 

The purpose ofthis U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) project, authorized under the 

Water Resources Development Act 1986 (PL 99-662), is to provide storm damage 

reduction, beach restoration, and water quality improvements within the Hereford Inlet, 

North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest Borough, Lower Township to Cape May 

Inlet, Cape May County, New Jersey (project area) (Figure I). Although the project area 

extends from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, no activities will .be conducted within 

Hereford Inlet north of the jetty, at the Cape May Inlet, on the Cape May N atio11al 

Wildlife Refuge (CMNWR), or on U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN facility. The project area 

exhibits several different coastal issues. The North Wildwood portion of the project area 

is prone to moderate to severe erosion, leaving the stmounding community vulnerable to 

storm damages. The beaches of Wildwood and Wildwood Crest have been accreting 

large quantities of sand, resulting in human health and water quality concerns due to 

clogged outfall pipes on the beach. The selected plan being proposed for the project 

involves "back-passing" sand using mobile hydraulic dredges located in the surf zones 

from Wildwood to North Wildwood and changing the beach configuration in Wildwood 

by increasing berm height and adding a dune. 

Hereford lnfet to Cape May Inlet. NJ 

Atlantic 

Ocean 

.,.,c:J•ICJl--===--Mi!ss 

0 o.s 1 2 3 4 

Figure 1: Project Area - Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Cape May County, 

New Jersey 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 85 AppendixD. 
1068

This draftFWCA Section2(b) report, submitted to the Corps by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) identifies fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of the fivemile-long barrier island bordered to the north by Hereford Inlet and to the south by Cape 

May Inlet (formerly Cold Spring Inlet); discusses potential impacts on those resources 

from proposed project activities; identifies opportunities for fish and wildlife habitat 

improvements; and updates the current state of knowledge concerning the proposed 

activities. 

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLAN 

A. SELECTED BEACH NOURISHMENT PLAN 

The selected plan consists of a dune and berm constrncted using sand obtained from an 

onshore borrow source located near the southem end of Five Mile Island (the 

Wildwoods). The pr~ject area extends approximately 4.5 miles from Hereford Inlet to 

Cape May Inlet and encompasses the municipalities ofNorth Wildwood. Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest and Lowt.-r Township (Appendix B). The southernmost beach section, 

which is managed by the Service as the CMNWR, is not included in the initial 

construction. Dimensions of the proposed project are a+ 16 foot NA VD 88 dune, with a 

25 foot crest on a 75 foot-wide berm that is 6.5 feet in elevation from No1th Wildwood to 

the northern border of Wildwood. In Wildwood and Wildwood Crest the project will 

consist ofa dune only, constructed to the elevation of+l6 feet NA VD 88 on top of the 

existing benn. Side slopes for the dune will be in a 1 foot vertical: 5 foot horizontal ratio. 

The plan includes installing approximately 64 acres of dune grass, 28,000 linear feet of 

sand fence, 44 extended crossovers, 7 new pedestrian crossovers, 7 extended handicap 

crossovers, 6 new handicap crossovers, 8 existing vehicle crossover extensions and 5 new 

vehicular crossovers. 1be Corps proposes to hydraulically pump sand from the Wildwood 

and Wildwood Crest onshore borrow areas via an 8-inch pipe to the North Wildwood 

placement area using mobile back-passing technology. The sand quantity is estimated at 

1,362,000 cubic yards, which includes a design quantity of 1,057,000 cubic yards and 

advanced nourishment of 305,000 cubic yards. 

Periodic sand nourishment is included in project design to maintain the integrity ofthc 

design beach template over the project life and will be conducted in 5 year intervals. 

Without periodic nourishment, ongoing erosion would compromise the design template 

and reduce storm protection. Nourishment requirements were determined by considering 

losses resulting from diffusion of the design beach fill platform and natural background 

erosion. The diffusion component refers to "spreading out'' losses that occur because the 

design beach is wider than adjacent beach area.<;. Background erosion refers to the 

average long-term rate of shoreline erosion that occurs along the project reach. 

Background erosion rates were detennined through an analysis to detcnnine potential 

longshore sediment; this analysis was done to ascertain possible post-dredging infilling 

rates of the borrow area along the beaches of Wildwood and Wildwood Crest Longshore 

or littoral transport can both supply and remove sand from coastal areas. To determine 

the balance of sediment losses and gains for an area such as the borrow area, net, rather 

than gross, transport rates are required. Net longshore transport refers to the difference 

2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inkt 86 Appendix D. 
1069

between volume of material moving in one direction along the coast and that moving in 

the opposite direction. The time period analyzed using available data was from 1986 to 

1998. As part of the investigation, potential longshore transport rates due to waves were 

computed. Data indicate that generally, there is a net southward transport within the study 

area that may vary from 370,000 to 440,000 cubic yards per year. The trends in the 

estimates for the net longshore transport show that southward transport is almost double 

northward transport. The rates computed can be used as a potential infilling rate for the 

borrow area along the beaches of Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. 

All data gathered should be viewed as representative of average conditions over 

a span of 12 years from 1986 to 1998. It can be expected that changes in longshore 

sediment transport could happen in a seasonal manner and could contribute significantly 

to both the short- and long-term infilling rates ofthe borrow areas. It would be 

anticipated 1hat shortly after removing any sand from a borrow area that there would be a 

short-term accelerated infilling rate of sand coming from the north followed by a period 

more representative of the long-te1m average infilling rate. The selected plan 

recommends that any removal of sand from the borrow area be done over as wide of an 

area as possible within the borrow area as opposed to removing sand in a small 

concentrated area; this practice will help maintain the natural coastal processes in the 

area. 

The constructed beach fill template typically varies from the design template because of 

working limitations of equipment used to place and shape the fill. After placement, 

sorting of the fill by W'<tves and currents will naturally shape the constructed fill profile to 

an equilibrium form consistent with the design template. To account for these factors, th.e 

construction template is developed based on the "overbuilding method." 

The overbuilding method involves placing the required design sand quantity at the 

proposed be1m elevation, but with a berm width greater than the design width. The 

seaward slope of the constmctfon berm is generally equal to or steeper than the natural 

existing equilibrium slope. The constructed berm is "overbuilt" in the sense that it is 

wider than the intended design berm. Coastal processes readjust the profile to a natural 

equilibrium state. Much of the overbuilt berm sand moves offshore to form the intended 

design profile. The advanced nourishment quantity (1.3 million cubic yards) is also 

included in the overbuilt construction berm template. 

Beach fill construction using the overbuilding method often leaves the impression that 

much of the project sand has been lost soon after construction due to mpid readjustment 

of the construction profile. However, rather than being "lost," this offshore movement of 

sand is an indication that the construction profile is functioning as intended to naturally 

form the design template. 

The selected project plan incorporates the use of only onshore borrow areas. The Corps 

also evaluated, but rejected, the use of offshore borrow areas to nourish North Wildwood. 

Primarily Hereford Inlet was examined as it has been used in past authorized Federal 

projects. Rejection of Hereford Inlet and other offshore locations was based on several 

3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 87 AppendixD. 
1070

factors, particularly overabundance of sand along beaches in Wildwood and Wildwood 

Crest. Use of any offshore bonuw location that would cause accretion of sand is an issue 

in the Wi!dwoods, leading to even wider beaches, and is unacceptable to those 

municipalities. 

As the Service has noted during planning for other Corps projects, the use of Hereford 

Inlet would impact the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), and could indirectly 

affect nearby piping plover nesting beaches by changing the inlet's sediment dynamics. If 

plans should change and additional borrow sites, specifically offshore locations, are 

needed, additional coordination with the Service will need to be conducted. 

B. SELECTION OF ONSHORE BORROW AREAS 

The Corps chose back-passing from a beach borrow source as the preferred method of renourishment. There is a surplus of sand in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest that has been 

accumulating through natural processes and as a result of existing hard stabilization 

structures. By adding more sand to the island from an offshore source the project would 

have contributed to a problem that the local communities have been concerned ·with over 

the past 10-15 years (e.g., clogging of the stonn water outfall system, and excessively 

large beaches). Back-passing ameliorates both problems. 

C. BACK-PASSING 

Sediment back-passing involves the removal of sand from a source area to a sink with 

mechanical means, usually in the opposite direction oflong-shore transport. This can be 

accomplished with scraping and truck hauling the material to the deposition site or with 

mobile hydraulic back-passing techniques. The latter is being proposed for the Hereford 

Inlet to Cape May Inlet project. Mobile hydraulic sediment back-passing will involve the 

use of 1 to 2 crawler cranes deploying a submersible/ centrifugal pump in the surf zone to 

remove sand from a source area, pump it through an 8-inch wide pipeline to a sink area, 

and shape the material into a dune and berm for storm damage reduction. 

A conceptual layout of a sediment back-pass system for the Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet project is shown on pages 5-10 and 5-11 of the Corps Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet Feasibility Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013). The system would involve 

a crawler crane mounted with an eductor pump on a 100-foot-long boom excavating 

material from the beach in Wildwood and Wildwood Crest and be attached to an 8-inchw.ide High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) with a series of boosters that would be 

transporting the material to the design locations. 

Craters are a byproduct of the creation of slw-ry material that is excavated and pumped to 

a deposition area on the beach. Craters will be approximately 15 feet in diameter and 5 

feet deep. Each crater created from the mobile dredge contains roughly 11 cubic yards of 

fill material. The distance the sand will have to travels also impacts design 

considerations, and booster pumps stationed on the beach will likely be required. These 

pumps are stationed every few thousand feet along the beach depending on the grain size 

4 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 88 AppendixD. 
1071

of the material and the distance that material has to be pumped. Based on preliminary 

estimates, it is likely that 2-3 booster pumps connected by 8-inch-wide HDPE pipelines 

will be required to move the material from the borrow area. 

III. STUDY AREA 

The project area includes North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and Lower 

Township (Figure 1 ). Locations within the study area that no work or dredging will be 

conducted are the two-mile beach unit of the CMNWR; the U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN 

site located adjacent to Cape May Inlet within Lower Township at the southern end of the 

project area; Cape May Inlet; Hereford Inlet; Stone Harbor; and areas north of the groin 

on 2nd A venue (Figure 2). Hereford Inlet opens to the Atlantic Ocean and is located 

between Stone Harbor Point and North Wildwood. The inlet contains a scour hole, 

located along the southern end of the seawall at Anglesea in North Wildwood. The scour 

hole possibly resulted from dredging of fill materials for the Townsends Inlet to Hereford 

Inlet or another beach nourishment projects. At this time, the Service would like to 

remind the Corps that dredging of Inlets may impact Coastal Barrier Resource Act 

(CBRA) (96 Stat. 1653, 16 U.S.C. 3504) areas and even though the Corps is not 

proposing to dredge any inlets for this project, future projects that involve borwwing 

from Inlets associated with CBRA should be avoided. 

IV. METHODS AND PROCEDURES · 

This draft FWCA report incorporates information compiled from files, reports and 

personal communications from the Service's New Jersey Field Office, the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) database, CMNWR, New Jersey 

Audubon Society (NJAS), as well as, the Corps' Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Feasibility Study Project Management Plan {U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2005) and 

the Corps' Feasibility Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013). The database was 

reviewed for information regarding federally listed species, State-listed species, and other 

fish and wildlife in the vicinity of Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet. In addition, personal 

communications were conducted with personnel from the CMNWR, New Jersey Division 

of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW), New Jersey Bureau of Shell.fisheries, New Jersey Bureau 

of Marine Fisheries, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Representatives 

of the Corps, the NJDEP, and the Service conducted a site visit of the project area on 

October 30, 2007. The discussion during the site visit concluded with support to 

reconfigure the North Wildwood beach to provide storm protection for the proposed 

project area. The interagency study team determined that beach enhancements such as the 

creation of gently sloping foredunes within the project area would benefit piping plover 

and other beach nesting birds. 

5 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 89 Appendix D. 
1072

N 

A 

0.5 2 Miles 

-Figure 2: Location of Cape May NWR in relation to project area. 

6 

I-kreford Inkt to Cape May Inlet 90 Appendix D. 
1073

V. FEDERALLY LISTED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES UNDER SERVICE 

JURISDICTION 

A. PIPING PLOVER 

1. Species Description 

Piping plovers are small, sandy-colored territorial shorebirds, approximately 7 inches in 

length (Palmer 1967; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985; 1996a). The bird's name was 

derived from its call, which resembles plaintive bell-like whistles that are often heard 

before the birds are seen. Breeding adults have orange legs, a black ring around the base 

of the neck and across the forehead, and an orange bill with a black tip. The female's 

neck band is often incomplete and is usually thinner than the male's neck band. In winter, 

the black band completely disappears, and adults and juveniles look similar, with pale 

yellow legs and a solid black bill. Chicks have speckled gray, buff, and brown dov.n 

feathers, black beaks, orange legs, and a white collar around the neck. 

2. Life History 

New info1mation confirms inter- and intra-annual fidelity of piping plovers to migration 

and wintering sites (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2009). Observations reported that six of259 

banded piping plovers observed more than once per winter moved across boundaries of 

seven continental U.S. regions. Of216 birds observed in different years, only eight 

changed regions between years, and several of these shifts were associated with late 

summer or early spring migration periods (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2009). Local movements 

are more conunon. In South Carolina surveys doc1unented many cross-inlet movements 

by wintering banded piping plovers as well as occasional movements ofup to 18 

kilometers by approximately 10% of the banded population; larger movements within 

South Carolina were seen during fall and spring migration (Maddock et al. 2009). 

Similarly, eight banded piping plovers that were observed in two locations during 2006-

2007 surveys in Louisiana and Texas were all in close proximity to their original 

location, such as on the bay and ocean side of the same island or on adjoining islands 

{Maddock 2008). 

Piping plovers inhabit New Jersey beaches between March and August, arriving at their 

breeding grounds in late March through early April (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2005a). After choosing mates and establishing territories, piping plovers scrape 

depressions in the sand to fonn a nest and lay their eggs (Bent 1929; Burger 1987; Cairns 

1982; Patterson 1988; Flemming et al. 1990; Macivor 1990; Strauss 1990). The birds 

nest above the high tide line, usually on sandy ocean beaches and barrier falands, but also 

on gently sloping foredunes, blowout areas behind primary dunes, washover areas cut 

into or between dunes, the ends of sandspits, and deposits of suitable dredged or pumped 

sand (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996a; 2005a). The nests are frequently lined with 

7 

Hereford InJet to Cape Pl.fay Inlet 91 AppendixD, 
1074

shell fragments and often located near small clumps of vegetation such as beachgrass 

(Ammophila breviligulata) (Patterson 1988; Flemming et a[. 1990; Maclvor 1990). 

Plovers will lay their eggs (up to 4) from mid-April through late June or early July and 

may re-nest dllting the season if earlier clutches are lost (Wilcox 1959; Cairns 1977; 

Macivor 1990). The eggs are well camouflaged and blend extremely well with their 

surroundings. Both the male and female will incubate the nest for about 30 days. After 

the eggs hatch, the chicks may be present on the beaches with their parents until the end 

of August when they are ready to fly (Patterson 1988; Goldin 1990; Macivor 1990; 

Howard et al. 1993). 

Piping plover adults and chicks feed on marine macroinvertebrates such as worms, fly 

larvae, beetles, crustaceans, and mollusks (Bent 1929; Cairns 1977; Nicholls 1989). 

Feeding areas include the intertidal zone of ocean beaches, ocean washover areas, 

mudflats, sand flats, wrack lines ( organic ocean material left by high tide), and the 

shorelines of coastal ponds, lagoons, and salt marshes (Gibbs 1986; Coutu et al. 1990; 

Hoopes et al. 1992; Loegering 1992; Goldin 1993; Elias-Gerken 1994). 

3. Population Status 

One hundred twenty-one (121) pairs of piping plovers nested in New Jersey in 2012, a 

9% increase compared to 2011 (11 l pairs) (NJENSP 2012). The statewide population 

trend had been flat over the previous four years (111, 105, 108, and 111 pairs from 2008-

2011, respectively). Despite the increase in nesting pairs in 2012, the population 

remained about average for the years since federal listing (119 pairs) and substantially 

below the peak of 144 pairs in 2003 (Appendix H). The total number of adults recorded 

for the entire nesting season (243) was nearly the same as the count dming the daterestricted survey conducted June 1-9 (236). However, the number of pairs tallied during 

the entire nesting season (121) was higher than those counted during the date-restricted 

census (106), which is a typical survey result in New Jersey. The low percentage of pairs 

monitored by NJDFW was the result of less suitable habitat conditions. The southern 

region of the state, which encompasses the project area (Stone Harbor Point to Cape May 

Point) recorded even lower productivity,just 0.22 fledglings per pair (18 pairs). Flooding 

was the leading cause of nest failure statewide, accounting for just over a third (35%) of 

the failed nests. Abandonment and predation each accounted for about a quarter of the 

nest failures (24% and 23%, respectively). The exact cause of failure could not be 

determined for 18% of the :failed nests. Nest abandonment was relatively high and there 

was no apparent pattern as to the causes on a statewide basis. 

4. Continuing Threats 

Continuing threats to Atlantic Coast piping plovers in the breeding portion of their range 

include habitat loss and degradation, disturbance by humans and pets, increased 

predation, oil spills, and herbivory. These detailed descriptions of threats are provided in 

the revised recovery plan, (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996a) and PBO (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2005a). In the project area piping plover are primarily subject to human 

interference in multiple forms and predation. According to the North Wildwoods BMP, 

8 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 92 AppendixD. 
1075

human disturbance amounts to vehicular use, beach management, maintenance, and 

nourishment, and recreational activities including the use of fireworks and flying of kites. 

Predation in the area consists of preexisting species and species drawn to the area because 

of human use or proximity oflocal residents (New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). 

One emerging threat to piping plover within the project area is climate change (especially 

sea-level rise) and is likely to affect Atlantic Coast piping plovers throughout their life 

cycle. This threat requires further study to ascertain effects on piping plovers and/or their 

habitat, as well as the need for specific protections to prevent or mitigate impacts that 

could otherwise increase overall risks to the species. 

Habitat loss results from development as well as from beach stabilization, beach 

nourishment, and other physical alterations to the beach ecosystem (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1996a). Commercial, residential, and recreational development reduce 

the amount of suitable habitat available for nesting and feeding. Structures such as 

seawalls, jetties, groins, and bulkheads promote stabilization of the beach and rapidly 

promote natural succession, decreasing the sandy, sparsely vegetated habitat required for 

nesting. Predation on chicks and eggs is intensified by development because predators 

such as foxes (Vulpes vulpes), rats (Rattus norvegicus), raccoons (Procyon lotor); 

domestic dogs (Canisfamiliaris), domestic cats (Felis silvestris) and gulls (Larus spp.) 

thrive in developed areas and are attracted to beaches by food scraps and trash (Riepe 

1989; Jenkins and Nichols 1994; Elias-Gerken 1994; Jenkins and Niles 1999; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1996a; Canale 1997). Piping plovers are vulnerable to domestic 

animals before and after the eggs hatch. Adult plovers will stagger and act as if they have 

a broken wing to distract predators from their nest or chicks. Flightless chicks are no 

match for an agile cat or dog that instinctively sees a chick as something to hunt or chase. 

Camouflaged chicks can also become trapped in tire ruts and be run over by recreational 

or municipal vehicles. 

Human disturbance of nesting birds includes but is not limited to, foot traffic, sunbathing, 

kite :flying, pets, fireworks displays, beach raking, construction, and vehicle use. These 

disturbances can result in crushing of eggs, failure of eggs to hatch, and death of chicks 

(Wilcox 1959; Tull 1984; Burger 1987; Patterson et al. 1991). Excessive disturbance may 

cause the parents to desert the nest, exposing eggs or chicks to the summer sun and 

predators (Welty 1982; Bergstrom 1991). While removal ofhuma11-created trash on the 

beach is desirable to reduce predation threats, the indiscriminate nature of mechanized 

beach-cleaning adversely affects piping plovers and their habitat. In addition to danger of 

directly crushing piping plover nests and chicks and the prolonged disturbance from the 

machine's noise, this method of.beach-cleaning removes the birds' natural wrack line 

feeding habitat (Eddings and Melvin 1991; Howard et al. 1993), and shell fragments, a 

preferred feature of nesting habitat. 

Intensive management, including municipal beach management plans (BMP) to protect 

piping plovers from disturbance by beach recreationists, pets, and beach-cleaning 

operations have been implemented at many New Jersey plover nesting sites in recent 

9 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 93 AppendixD. 
1076

years. The Service and NJDFW are currently working with several coastal municipalities 

to develop and implement BMPs. Piping plover protection in the New Jersey recovery 

unit is highly dependent on the efforts of State and local government agencies, 

conservation organizations, and private landowners. 

N01ih Wildwood is actively implementing an approved BMP dated August 2009 that 

covers red knot, seabeach amaranth, and State-listed species in addition to piping plovers. 

The Service appreciates the cooperation of North Wildwood in preparing and 

implementing this plan for the protection of these federally and State-listed species. 

B. RED KNOT 

1. Species Description 

The red knot is a medium-sized shorebird about 9 to 11 inches (23 to 28 centimeters) in 

length with a proportionately small head, small eyes, short neck, short tibia, and stout 

tarsus. The black bill tapers steadily from a relatively thick base to a relatively fine tip; 

bill length is not much longer than head length. Legs are typically dark gray to black, but 

sometimes greenish in juveniles or older birds in non-breeding plumage (Harrington 

2001). During the breeding season, the plumage of the red knot is distinctive and easily 

recognizable. The face, breast, and upper belly are a rich rufous-red, while the lower 

belly and under tail-covert region are light-colored with dark flecks. Upperparts are dark 

brown with white and rufous feather edges; outer primary feathers are dark brown to 

black (Davis 1983; Harrington 2001). Females are similar to males, though rufous colors 

are typically less intense, with more buff or light gray on dorsal parts (Niles et al. 2005). 

Non-breeding plumage is dusky gray above and whitish below. Juveniles resemble nonbreeding adults, but the feathers of the scapulars and wing coverts are edged with white 

and have narrow, dark subterminal bands, giving the upperparts a scalloped appearance 

(Davis 1983). Body mass varies seasonally, with lowest mean. mass during early winter 

(125 grams (gm)) and highest mean values during spring (205 gm) and fall (172 gm) 

migration (Harrington 2001; New Jersey Depaiiment of Environmental Protection 2007). 

2, Life History 

Each year red knots travel up to 19,000 miles between wintering grounds (in South 

America and the southern United States) and breeding areas within the central Canadian 

Arctic. In non-breeding locations (wintering and migration stopover areas), red knots are 

found principally in intertidal marine habitats, e-specially near coastal inlets, estuaries, 

and bays, foraging and roosting along sandy beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, and 

peat banks. (Harrington 2001) 

During migration, red knots undertake long flights that may span thousands of miles 

without stopping. At some stages of migration, very high proportions of entire 

populations may use a single migration staging site to prepare for the next long flight 

(Harrington 2001). During the spring and fall migrations, red knots stop over along the 

Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the United States to rebuild energy reserves needed to 

10 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1-fay Inlet 94 Appc:ndixD: 
1077

complete the journey. The Delaware Bay supports the largest known spring migration 

concentration of red knots (50 to 80 percent of the total population) and is the last major 

stopover area used by red knots during spring migration before departing for Arctic 

breeding areas (Brown et al. 2001). In the southeastern and mid-Atlantic United States, 

red knots forage along sandy beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, and peat banks. 

In wintering and migration habitats, red knots commonly forage on bivalves, gastropods, 

and crustaceans (Harrington 2001). An exception occurs each May when the majority of 

red knots arrive in Delaware Bay to feed on the eggs of horseshoe crabs (Limulus 

polyphemus) (Wander and Dunne 1982; Harrington 1996, 2001; Niles et al. 2008). 

In addition to the large flocks of red knots found in the Delaware Bay, red knots are 

fmmd in lower densities during the spring and fall migration elsewhere along the Atlantic 

Coast, including the project area. 'The NJDEP Landscape Project maps show red knot 

habitat from Cape May Inlet north to East Washington Avenue in Lower Township, and · 

in North Wildwood from New York Avenue on Hereford Inlet extending to around 23rd 

Street on the ocean side beach. In this northern area, red knot usage is concentrated along 

Hereford Inlet and the Atlantic side beach to 13111 Avenue; however red knots have been 

observed using beaches all the way through to 23rd Street. This area is used primarily by 

fall migrants (August - December). In 2008 several hm1dred red knots were reported from 

North Wildwood and Avalon throughout the fall, and small numbers (up to 60 red knots) 

remained until February (Pitts pers. comm. 2013). Upwards of 1,500 knots used Avalon 

through at least late November 2011 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011 ). 

3. Population Status 

In breeding habitats, red knots are thinly distributed across a huge and remote area of the 

Arctic. Despite some localized survey efforts, (e.g., Niles et al. 2008), there are no 

regional or comprehensive estimates of breeding abundance, density, or productivity 

(Niles et al. 2008). Few regular surveys are conducted in fall because southbound red 

knots tend to be less concentrated than during winter or spring. 

Some survey data are available for most of the red knot's wintering and spring stopover 

areas. For a few key areas, long-term data sets have been compiled using consistent 

survey methodology. Because there can be considerable annual fluctuations in red knot 

counts, these longer-term trends are more meaningful. At several key sites, the best 

available data show that numbers of red knots declined and remain low relative to counts 

from the 1980s, although the rate of decline appears to have leveled off since the late 

2000s. An1ong these sites with documented declines are the Tierra del Fucgo wintering 

area in southern Argentina and Chile and the Delaware Bay spring stopover site. At both 

of these important sites, red knot counts since the mid-2000s have been roughly 75 

percent lower than they were during the 1980s (G. Morrisonpers. comm. 2012; A. Dey 

pcrs. comm. 2012; Clark et al. 2009, Kochenberger 1983, Dunne et al. 1983, Wander and 

Dunne, 1982). See also (Appendix E) 

11 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inkt 95 AppendixD. 
1078

4. Continuing Threats 

Overharvest of the horseshoe crab, leading to decreasing food supplies (horseshoe crab 

eggs) in the Delaware Bay, is the best supported explanation for the red knot population 

declines that occurred in the 2000s (Niles et al. 2008). Because the horseshoe crab fishery 

is now managed, with harvest limits explicitly tied to red not population targets, the 

current crab harvest is no longer a threat to the red knot. However, horseshoe crab 

populations have not fully rebmmded, and the crab egg food resource is not yet fully 

secure. The red knot also faces other threats to its food resources from bivalve diseases 

and parasites, marine invasive species, sediment placement (e.g., beach nourishment, 

dredge material disposal), ORV use, and climate change (e.g., ocean acidification and 

wanning coastal waters). Climate change also threatens the red knot by potentially 

disrupting the timing of its annual cycle ( causing "asynchronies") relative to favorable 

food and weather conditi.ons along the migration route and on the Arctic breeding 

grounds. 

In addition, the red knot faces ongoing and emerging threats from habitat loss caused by 

shoreline stabilization and coastal development, and accelerating sea level rise. 

Mechanical beach raking and invasive or overly dense beach vegetation can also degrade 

nonbreeding habitats. In addition, many key nonbreeding habitats are in close proximity 

to oil extraction or transport operations, and would be impacted by a spill in these areas. 

Red knots have been killed by red tides along the Gulf coast, and are especially 

vulnerable to hannful algal blooms due to their shellfish diet. In the Arctic, red knots 

face habitat loss and potentially increasing predation of eggs and chicks brought about by 

climate change. 

Red knots arc exposed to disturbance from recreational and other human activities 

throughout their nonbreeding range, for example from pedestrians, dogs, vehicles, boats, 

aircraft, and heavy equipment. Excessive disturbance has been shown to preclude 

shorebird use of otherwise preferred habitats and can impact energy budgets. Both of 

these effects are likely to exacerbate other threats to the red knot, such as habitat loss, 

reduced food availability, and asynchronies in the annual cycle. Finally, red knots are 

hm1ted for sport and food in some Caribbean and South American countries. Threats to 

habitat and from disturbance are the most significant within the project area. 

C. SEABEACH AMARANTH 

I. Species Description 

Seabeach amaranth is an annual species and a member of the Amaranth family 

(Amaranthaceac ). Upon germination, the plant initially forms a small, unbranched spdg, 

but soon begins to branch profusely, forming a low-growing mat. Seabeach amaranth's 

fleshy stems are prostrate at the base, erect or somewhat reclining at the tips, and pink, 

red, or reddish in color. 'The leaves of seabeach amaranth are small, rounded, and fleshy, 

spinach-green in color, with a characteristic notch at the rounded tip. Leaves are 

approximately 1.3 to 2.5 centimeters (cm) in diameter and clustered towards the tip of the 

12 

Hereford Inlet to Cape II.fay Inlet 96 Appendix D, 
1079

stem (Weakley and Bucher 1992). The foliage of seabeach amaranth turns deep red in the 

fall (Snyder 1996). Plants often grow to 30 cm in diameter consisting of 5 to 20 branches, 

but occasionally reach 90 cm in diameter, with 100 or more branches. Flowers and fruits 

are inconspicuous, borne in clusters along the stems. Seeds are 2.5 millimeters (mm) in 

diameter, dark reddish-brown, and glossy, borne in low-density, fleshy, indchiscent 

utricles (bladder-like seed capsules or fruits), 4 to 6 mm long (Wealdey and Bucher 

1992). The seed does not fill the utricle, leaving an air-filled space (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1996b). 

2. Life History 

Individual plants live only one season, with only a single opportunity to produce seed. 

The species over-winters entirely as seeds. Germination of seedlings begins in April and 

continues at least through July. Reproductive maturity is determined by size rather than 

age, and flowering begins as soon as plants have reached sufficient size. Even very small 

plants can flower under certain conditions. Flowering typically commences in July and 

continues until the death of the plant. Seed production begins in July or August and 

usually peaks in September. Seed production likewise continues until the plant dies. 

Senescence and death occur in late fall or early winter (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1996b). 

Seabeach amaranth seems capable of essentially indeterminate growth (Weakley and 

Bucher 1992). However, predation and weather events, including rainfall, hurricanes, and 

temperature extremes, have significant effects on the length of the species reproductive 

season. As a result of one or more of these influences, the flowering and fruiting period 

can be terminated as early as June or July (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). 

Seabeach amaranth is native to Atlantic coast barrier island beaches from Massachusetts 

to South Carolina. The species' primary habitat consists of overwash flats at accreting 

ends of barrier islands, and lower foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches. 

This species occasionally establishes small, temporary, and casual populations in 

secondary habitats including sound side beaches, blowouts in foredunes, and sand or shell 

dredge spoil or beach nourishment material CW eakley and Bucher 1992). 

Seabcach amaranth occupies a narrow beach zone that lies at elevations from 0.2 to 1.5 m 

above mean high tide, the lowest elevations at which vascular plants regularly occur. 

Seaward, the plant grows only above the high tide line, as it is intolerant of even 

occasional flooding during the growing season. 'The species is, therefore, dependent on a 

terrestrial, upper beach habitat that is not flooded during the growing season. This zone is 

absent on beaches that are experiencing high rates of erosion. Seabeach amaranth is never 

found on beaches where the foredune is scarped by undermining water at high or storm 

tides (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

Seabeach amaranth usually occurs on a pure silica sand substrate, occasionally containing 

shell fragments. The habitat of seabeach amaranth is sparsely vegetated with annual herbs 

and, less commonly, perennial herbs (mostly grasses) and scattered shrubs. The number 

13 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1-fay Inlet 97 ApJ)endixD. 
1080

and type of seabeach amaranth's vegetative associates have been found to vary with 

specific habitat type (i.e., overwash flat, accreting barrier island end, or lower foredune) 

(Chicone undated). The most constant associates of seabeach amaranth, with which the 

species almost always co-occurs, are sea rocket ( Cakile edentula) and seabeach spurge 

(Chamae5yce polygonifolia) (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

Seabeach amaranth does not occur on well-vegetated sites, particularly where perennials 

have become strongly established (Weakley and Bucher 1992). Pauley et al. (1999) 

documented a negative correlation between seabeach amaranth and several dominant 

foredune species. A particularly strong negative association has been reported between 

seabeach amaranth and beach grasses (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service l 9%b ). However, 

a positive correlation has been observed between seabeach amaranth and sea rocket, an 

annual (Hancock 1995). 

3. Population Status 

Seabeach amaranth is limited by its habitat requirements to a very narrow strip of barrier 

islands and mainland oceanfront beach strands along the Atlantic coast. The original 

range of this species extended from Cape Cod in Massachusetts to central South Carolina, 

a stretch of coast approximately 1,600 km (1,000 miles) long. This stretch correlates with 

a geographic range of low tidal amplitude. Tidal amplitude and the relative importance of 

tidal versus wave energy in shaping coastal morphology are thought to limit the 

geographic range of seabeach amaranth, rather than availability of sandy beach substrates 

or sea water temperatures. The range of seabeach amaranth is characterized by islands 

developed by high wave energy, low tidal energy, frequent overwash, and frequent 

breaching by hurricanes with resulting formation of new inlets (Weakley and Bucher 

1992). 

Seabeach amaranth is ranked as globally rare (G2) by NatureServe and listed as 

endangered by the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program (NJNHP) (2010). The current 

known range of naturally occurring seabeach amaranth is Water Mill Beach on Long 

Island, New York to Debidue Beach in South Carolina (Young 2001; Hamilton 2000). 

Historic records of seabeach amaranth are known from nine States. Largely due to human 

activities, the species was eliminated from seven of these States by the 1980s, remaining 

only in North and South Carolina. Seabeach amaranth is still considered extirpated from 

two States: Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Since 1990, the species has re-occupied five 

States from which it had previously been extirpated. Currently while the seabeach 

amaranth occurs on many New Jersey beaches there is no evidence of the plant within the 

projeet area since 2004 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2012). 

To date, theories of seabeach amaranth's return to the northern part ofits range remain 

speculative. Sites in New Jersey may have been re-colonized by long-distance transport 

of seeds by wind or currents. At some sites, seeds may have been long buried in 

sediments used in beach nourishment projects. This hypothesis requires that seeds can 

remain viable after prolonged off-shore burial, an unknown factor. 

14 

Herd'ord Inlet to Cape ~1ay Inlet 98 AppendixD. 
1081

4. Continuing Threats . 

The primary threats to seabeach amaranth are the adverse alterations of habitat caused by 

beach erosion and shoreline stabilization. Although seabeach amaranth docs not persist 

on eroding beaches, erosion is not a threat to the continued existence of the species under 

natural conditions. Erosion in some areas is balanced with habitat formation elsewhere, 

such as accreting inlets and ovcrwash areas, resulting in an equilibrium that allows the 

plant to survive by moving around in the landscape. In the geologic past, seabeach 

amaranth versisted through even relatively rapid episodes of sea level rise and barrier 

island retreat. A natural barrier island landscape, even a retreating one, contains localized 

accreting areas, especially in the vicinity ofinlets (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b). 

Even minor structures such as dune stabilization by planting vegetation and vertical sand 

accretion caused by sand fences appear to be detrimental to scabeach amaranth and 

contradictory to its life history strategy. Seabeach amaranth only very rarely occurs when 

sand fences and vegetative stabilization have taken place and, in these situations, is 

present only as rare, scattered individuals or short-lived populations (Weakley and 

Bucher 1992). 

Beach nourishment can have positive site-specific impacts on seabcach amaranth. 

Seabcach amaranth has colonized several nourished beaches, and has thrived in some 

sites through subsequent re-applications of fill material (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1993; 2002). However, on the landscape level, beach nourishment is similar to other 

beach stabilization efforts in that it stabilizes the shoreline and curtails the natural 

geophysical processes of barrier islands. These effects are detrimental to the range-wide 

persistence of the species. In addition. beach nourishment may cause site-specific adverse 

effects by crushing or burying seeds or plants deeper, or by altering the beach profile or 

upper beach micro-habitats in ways not conducive to seabeach amaranth colonization or 

survival. 

Intensive recreational use of beaches can threaten seabeach amaranth populations, both 

through direct damage and mortality of plants, and by impacting habitat ORV uses on 

the beach during the growing season can have detrimental effects on the species, as the 

fleshy stems of this plant are brittle and easily broken. Plants generally do not survive 

even a single pass by a truck tire (Weakley and Bucher 1992). Light pedestrian traffic, 

even during the growing season, usually has little effect on seabcach amaranth (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1993). Substantive impacts generally occur only on narrow beaches, 

or beaches which receive heavy recreational u5e. 

Beach grooming may also have contributed to the previous extirpation of seabeach 

amaranth ii:om that part of its range. Motorized beach rakes, which remove trash and 

vegetation from bathing beaches, do not allow seabeach amaranth to colonize long 

stretches of beach (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b). In New Jersey, plants were 

found along a nearly continuous length of beach, noticeably interrupted by stretches that 

are routinely raked. Intensive management, including BMPs to protect seabeach amaranth 

from disturbance by beach recreationists and beach-cleaning operations have been 

15 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 99 Appendix D. 
1082

implemented at many New York-New Jersey piping plover and seabeach amaranth sites 

in recent years. 

Predation by webworms (caterpillars of small moths) is another source of mortality and 

lowered fecundity and may decrease seed production by more than 50% (Weakley and 

Bucher 1992). Five native species ofwebworms have been identified to feed on seabcach 

amaranth. These webworms use of barrier islands has probably been altered by changes 

in the coastal plain landscape (i.e., extensive agricultural use), the development of barrier 

islands, and the introduction of weedy plants that can also serve as host plants. All five 

webworms are "weedy" species, probably much more abundant now than they were in 

pre-Columbian times. For this reason, the level of predation that seabeach amaranth is 

experiencing is likely unnaturally high (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b ). 

Webwonn herbivory is probably a contributing, rather than a leading factor in the decline 

of seabeach amaranth. However, in combination with extensive habitat alteration, severe 

herbivory could threaten the existence of the species (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

Several additional herbivores ofseabeach amaranth have been observed including deer, 

eastern cottontail, and migratory song birds (Van Schoik and Antenen 1993). There is 

also strong circumstantial evidence for scabcach amaranth hcrbivory by grasshopper 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). In addition, a cluster of New Jersey plants 

appeared to have been damaged by a congregation ofloafing gulls (Larus spp.), based 

upon feathers and droppings. As with webwonns, the abundance of these newly 

documented predators on barrier islands is increased by human activities. 

Asiatic sand sedge ( Carex kobomug1) has been suggested as another potential threat to 

seabeach amaranth. This sedge is strongly rhizomatous and dune-forming (National Park 

Service and Maryland Natural Heritage Program 2000). Asiatic sand sedge was 

introduced to the east coast {New Jersey to Virginia) from East Asia in the 1930s for 

erosion control and as a sand stabilizer. Asiatic sand sedge may be detrimental to 

seabeach amaranth by direct competition and by reducing habitat suitability through sand 

stabilization and dune building. 

In the project are there are no known occun-ences of seabeach amaranth, but should the 

species again recolonize the area the threats that would most impact it would come from 

human use both for maintenance and recreational use of the beach, and from climate 

change which could change the position of the current high tide lines and bring more 

storms washing away suitable habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2005b, 2012). 

VI. OTJIER FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES 

A. FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION 

1. Turtles 

Several species of federally listed ( endangered and threatened) sea turtles including the 

Kemp's ridley sea turtle (J,epidochelys kempil), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys 

16 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 100 AppendixD. 
1083

imbricata), leatherback sea turtle (Dermachelys coriacea), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta 

caretta), and green sea turtle (Chelania mydas) may occur in waters throughout the study 

area. These turtles feed primadly on mollusks, crustaceans, sponges, and a variety of 

madne grasses and seaweeds. In addition, the leatherback sea turtle may occupy the 

coastal waters of New Jersey foraging for jellyfish. These sea turtles may be found in 

New Jersey waters from late spring to mid-fall. 

2.Fish 

There are five distinct population segments (DPSs) of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus) listed as threatened or endangered. Atlantic sturgeon originating from the 

New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, South Atlantic and Carolina DPSs are listed as 

endangered, while the Gulf of Maine DPS is listed as threatened (77 FR 58 80; 77 FR 

5914; February 6, 2012). The marine range ofall five DPSs extends along the Atlantic 

coast from Canada to Cape Ca11averal, Florida. 

Atlantic sturgeon spawn in their natal river, with spawning migrations generally 

occurring during Febiuary-Marcb in southern regions, April-May in Mid-Atlantic 

regions, and May-July in Canadian regions (Murawski and Pacheco 1977; Smith, 1985; 

Bain 1997; Smith and Clugston 1997; Caron et al. 2002). Young remain in the 

river/estuary IB1til approximately age 2 and at lengths of30-36 inches before emigrating 

to open ocean as subadults (Holland and Yelverton 1973; Dovel and Berggen 1983; 

Dadswell 2006; ASSRT 2007). After emigration from the natal river/estuary, subadults 

and adult Atlantic sturgeon travel within the madne environment, typical1y in waters 

between 16 to 164 feet in depth, using coastal bays, sounds, and ocean waters (Vladykov 

and Greeley 1963; Murawski and Pacheco 1977;'Dovel and Berggren 1983; Smith 1985; 

Collins and Smith 1997; Welsh et al. 2002; Savoy and Pacileo 2003; Stein et al. 2004; 

Laney et al. 2007; Dunton et al. 2010; Erickson et al. 2011). 

The Atlantic sturgeon occurs in the project area and falls under NMFS protection. The 

Atlantic sturgeon moves into estuary environments during the spring and summer and 

exits into the open ocean during the fall. There are no known aggregations of the sturgeon 

in the project area south of Hereford Inlet, and it is unlikely any fish will be impacted by 

the onshore back-passing of sand (Lynn Lankshen, pers. comm. 2013). 

The NMFS must be contacted regarding potential impacts, resulting from the proposed 

project, on federally listed species under its jurisdiction. The NMFS may be contacted at: 

74 Magruder Road, Highlands, New Jersey 07732; (732) 872-3023. 

B. STATE LISTED SPECIES 

A vadety of State-listed endangered and threatened species inhabit or have been known 

to occur in the coastal and estuadne ecosystem within the study area. 'fhe State-listed 

( endangered) black skimmer and least tern nest in colonies on sandy islands in the bays 

and on inlet beaches within the project area, and a State-listed (endangered) plant evening 

17 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 101 AppendixD. 
1084

primrose (Oenothera humifusa) inhabits sandy dune environments along New Jersey 

beaches. 

1. Black Skimmer 

The State-listed ( endangered) black skimmer nests within the project area. Piping plovers 

often nest within or in close proximity to skimmer colonies and least tern colonies. As 

with least terns, seabeach amaranth would also benefit from the presence of black 

skimmer colonies since restrictions on public access during the nesting season provides 

protected areas where plants can become established. 

The black skimmer nests on open sandy beaches, inlets, sandbars, offshore islands, and 

dredge disposal islands that are sparsely vegetated and contain shell fragments. The 

growth of dense vegetation may cause colony relocation. Skimmers also frequently nest 

on wrack mats ( deposit~ of dead sea grasses and other vegetation) on marsh islands in the 

back bays; however, these colonies are typically much smaller than the beach colonies. 

Black skimmers forage in shallow-water tidal creeks, inlets, and ponds. Similar coastal 

and estuarine habitats are used throughout the year. 

In the early 1800s, the black skimmer was a common breeder along the New Jersey coast. 

Egg collecting and hunting decimated skimmer populations in the state by the early 

1900s. Protection afforded by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) (40 Stat 

775, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 703-712) enabled skimmer numbers to rebound. By the late 

1970s, the black skimmer had declined and concern arose over its status in the state. 

Consequently, the black skimmer was listed as an endangered species in New Jersey in 

1979. The majority of the state's population remains in two to three large colonies that 

are threatened by habitat loss or human activity. The New Jersey Natural Heritage 

Program considers the black skimmer to be "demonstrably secme globally," yet 

"imperiled in New Jersey because of rarity" (New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection 1992). Each year, the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program 

(ENSP) monitors the state's black skimmer population. Nesting colonies are enclosed and 

patrolled by personnel. Counts of adults and young are conducted to monitor population 

size and productivity. Despite annual fluctuations, the State's breeding population has 

remained relatively stable since the time of its original listing, although the number of 

active colonies has declined significantly. Human disturbance, beach raking, tidal 

flooding, and predation continue to threaten nesting skimmers and their habitat. 

All black skimmer nesting sites in New Jersey during an 8-year period were located 

within the Corps Philadelphia District Program Area. In addition, during the summer of 

2007, a total of 1,627 black skimmer adults, 719 peak adults, and 709 fledges were 

recorded at Champagne Island, just north of the project area (Todd Pover, pers. comm. 

2007). 

18 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 102 AppendixD. 
1085

2. Least Tern 

New Jersey least tern nest colonies of a few to several hundred pairs are found primarily 

along barrier island beaches or mainland beach strands. Bare sandy areas or areas 

sparsely vegetated with such typical beach vegetation as sea rocket, American beach 

grass (Ammophila breviligulata ), beach clotbur (Xanthium echinatum), and seaside 

spurge (Euphorbia polygonijolia) that are just beyond the reach of normal spring tides are 

preferred. Nesting colonies are also fo1U1d on sandy dredge disposal sites, especially after 

recent deposition before the establishment of dense vegetation. Least tems may also nest 

near sand and gravel pits where sand piles from mining operations provide suitable 

nesting habitat. Nesting on gravel rooftops has occurred in Florida, Mississippi and other 

locations (Fisk 1975, Jackson and Jackson 1985) but has not been documented in New 

Jersey. The birds typically forage in bays, lagoons, estuaries, rivers and lakes along the 

coast. 

Through most of the 19th Century, the least tern was a common breeder along the New 

Jersey coast. However, as was true for so many of coastal birds, by the eady 20th 

century, egg collecting and hunting for the millenary trade had decimated least tern 

populations. Protection afforded by the MBTA of 1918 and changing fashion trends 

enabled least tern numbers to rebound, but new coastal development and the elevated 

recreational use of beaches in the 1940's led to another population decline. Populations 

stabilized in recent decades as management measures were implemented, but recently, 

populations have begun declining again, due primarily to predation losses and increases 

in losses to coastal flooding. 

Piping plovers often nest in association ·with State-listed least tern colonies, presumably 

benefiting from the aggressive behaviors of terns in driving away predators, and have 

often had higher success than those nesting out of tern colonies (Burger 1987). In 

addition, sea.beach amaranth also benefits from the presence ofleast tem colonies, since 

restrictions on public access in the nesting areas provide protected areas where plants can 

become established (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 

3. Evening Primrose 

The seabeach evening primrose is a state listed ( endangered) plant that inhabits New 

Jersey beaches and dune areas. The project area is a significant site for seabeach evening 

primrose, which has been consistently documented in beach surveys of North Wildwood, 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and Two Mile Beach (Kelly pers. comm. 2013). 

4. Coordination with the State 

The Service recommends that the Corps consider species of special concern and Statelisted species (Appendix C) in project pla1ming. The Service's PBO (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2005a) contains conservation recommendations for least tern and black 

19 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 103 AppcndixD. 
1086

skimmer. The NJENSP and NJNHP may be contacted for further information regarding 

State-listed endangered and threatened species. 

The NJNHP maintains the most up-to-date infonnation on Federal candidate species and 

State-listed species in New Jersey and may be contacted at the following address; 

Natural Heritage Program 

Division of Parks and Forestry 

CN404 

Trenton, New Jersey 08625 

(609) 984-1339 

Additionally, information on New Jersey's State-listed wildlife species may be obtained 

from the following office: 

David Jenkins, Chief 

Endangered and Nongame Species Program 

New Jersey Division offish and Wildlife 

CN400 

Trenton, New Jersey 08625 

(609) 292-9400 

C. AVIAN AND OTHER WILDLIFE RESOURCES 

1. Shorebirds and other Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 

Migratory shorebirds are protected lll1der the MBT A and are a Federal trust resource 

responsibility of the Service. Wetland areas in the vicinity of the project area provide 

high quality habitats for a variety of migratory shorebirds. Shorebirds that use beach 

areas and associated estuarine wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed project area 

include the piping plover and red knot, American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) 

(State species of special concern), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), blackbellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), 

killdeer (C. vociferous), ruddy tumstone (Arenaria interpres), dunlin (Calidris alpina), 

sanderling (C. alba), least sandpiper (C. minutilla), pectoral sandpiper (C. melanotos), 

semipalmated sandpiper (C. pusilla), stilt sandpiper (C. himantopus), western sandpiper 

(C. mauri), spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius), willet (Tringa semipalmatus), and 

greater yellowlegs (T. melanoleuca). During the 2007 nesting season, Service biologists 

observed piping plovers foraging within the intertidal zone of the project area (Egger 

pers. comm. 2007). 

Colonial nesting waterbirds present within the project area include the State-listed 

(endangered) least tern and black skimmer; State-listed (threatened) little blue heron 

(Egretta caerulea) and yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa violacea); State species 

of special concern common tem (Sterna hirundo), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), 

great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and breeding population threatened black-crowned 

20 

Hereford Inlet io Cape !\fay Inlet 104 Appendix D. 
1087

night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). Other colonial species include double-crested 

connorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), great egret (Ardea albus), snowy egret (Egretta 

thula), great black-backed gull (Larus marinus), herring gull (L. argentatus), laughing 

gull (L. atricilla), ring-billed gull (L. delawarensis), glossy ibis (Plegadisfalcinellus), 

Forster's tern (Sternaforsteri), gull-billed tern (S. nilotica), and royal tern (S. maxima). 

A list of colonial nesting birds and shorebirds prepared by the NJAS for the Hereford 

Inlet to Cape May Inlet project area is _provided in Appendix D. 

2. Waterfowl 

Migratory waterfowl are also a Federal trust resource responsibility of the Service and are 

protected under the MBT A. The project area is within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture's 

New Jersey Waterfowl Focus Area (South Coast Atlantic Focus Area) under the North 

America Waterfowl Management Plan. Areas adjacent to the project area, including 

CMNWR are important resting and feeding areas for migratory waterfowl on the Atlantic 

flyway and provide habitat for Atlantic brant (Branta bernicla), Canada goose (B. 

canadensis), American black duck (Anas rubripes), northern pintail (A. acuta), bluewinged teal (A. discors), green-winged teal (A. crecca), mallard (A. platyrhynchos), 

gad wall (A. strepera), American wigeon (A. americana), northem shoveler (A. clypeata), 

common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), bufflehead (B. albeola), oldsquaw (Clangula 

hyemalis), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), greater scaup (A. marila), wood duck (Aix 

spansa), hooded merganser (Lophodyles cucullatus), red-breasted merganser (.Mergus 

serrator), and tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus). 

3. Raptors 

Raptors that occur in the project area include the State-listed ( endangered) peregrine 

falcon (Falco peregrinus ); State-listed ( endangered) short-eared owl (Asia flammeus ); 

State-listed ( endangered) red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus); State-listed (threatened) 

osprey (Pcrndian haliaetus), barred owl (Strix varia), and Coopt--r's hawk (Accipiter 

cooperii). The osprey feeds primarily on fish in the back bays and inlets of the project 

area. The red-shouldered hawk and Cooper's hawk migrate over the study area in the 

spring and fall; however, these transient visitors rarely stay within the area for any 

significant length of time. 

4. Other Wildlife 

The five-mile-long barrier island area also supports numerous other wildlife species. 

Avifauna include, but are not limited to, the boat-tailed grackle (Quiscalus major), sharptailed spanow (Ammodramus caudacutus), seaside span-ow (A. maritimus), eastern 

kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), n01thern bobwhite 

(Colinusvirginianus), and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). The northern 

diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin) is also known to inhabit marshes, 

tidal flats, and beaches in New Jersey estuaries. The terrapin has been subject to recent 

population declines due to entrapment in crab pots and a reduction in nesting habitat. 

21 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 105 .Appendix D. 
1088

Northern diamondback terrapins occur primarily in emergent wetlands and shallow water 

habitat and feed on crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates (Palmer and Cordes 

1988). During the winter, terrapins bmTow into the mud of tidal creeks and ponds to 

hibernate either individually or in groups. Terrapins mate in the spring and lay their eggs 

in sandy substrates above the levels of high tides. Predation of eggs and hatchlings 

represent the major source of natural mortality in most terrapin populations. Eggs and 

juveniles are preyed upon by raccoons, crows (Corvus sp.), and gulls (Palmer and Cordes 

1988). 

Mammals known to occur within the vicinity of project area include raccoon, gray 

squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern cottontail 

(Sylvilagusjloridanus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and white-tailed deer 

( Odocoileus virginianus ). 

VII. BORROW AREAS 

A. BENTHIC RESOURCES 

Bentbic macroinvertebrates are important food organisms in the marine and estuarine 

environment, and along with primary producers, perform a crucial role in supporting 

other forms of fish and wildlife. Approximately 58 species of benthic organisms have 

been identified from Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet (Chaillou and Scott 1996). 

Benthic organisms of interest in the shallow ocean waters of the project area inchtde 

Atlantic surf clam (Spisula solidissima), hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), and soft 

clam (Mya arenaria). In 2003, the regions south of Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet acc9untcd for only 10.2% of the total estimated standing stock of surf clams in New 

Jersey territorial waters. Preliminary data collected in 2007 indicate that the estimated 

standing stock in this region is now only 4% (Normant pers. comm. 2007). In 1999, this 

region had 25% of estimated standing stock in New Jersey territorial waters. In 2003, 

60.6% (by weight) of New Jersey molluscan landings were surf clams and 73.9% of the 

total surf clam east coast harvest was landed in New Jersey. Approximately 246,000 

bushels were harvested from New Jersey territorial waters in 2003, with 17.5% of harvest 

coming from this region. There has been a major decline of surf clams state wide as well 

as in Federal waters off the Delmarva Peninsula. There has been virtually no harvest of 

surf clams in New Jersey territorial waters in many years (Norrnant pers. comm. 2007). 

B. COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE ACT 

The purpose of the CBRA is to minimize the loss of human life; wasteful expenditures of 

Federal revenues; and damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated 

with coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts of the United States. To accomplish this purpose; CBRA 

established the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), a system of 

relatively undeveloped coastal barriers and associated aquatic habitat that is delineated on 

a set of official maps that arc maintained by the Service. Most new Federal expenditures 

22 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 106 AppendixD. 
1089

and financial assistance, including Federal funding for dredging and beach nourishment 

projects, arc prohibited within System units of the CBRS. 

Please note that Federal agencies arc required to consult with the Service prior to 

committing funds for projects or actions within or affecting the CBRS. The Service 

developed an online mapper that depicts the approximate boundaries of the CBRS to 

assist Federal agencies in complying with the provisions of CBRA. The CBRS mapper 

and additional information on the CBRA consistency consultations process for proposed 

projects can be found on the Service's CBRA website at: http://www.fws.gov/cbra. 

VIIL PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

The following is a summary of the potential project impacts and recommended mitigative 

measm·es to avoid and/or minimize adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources. 

A. PIPING PLOVER, SEABEACH AMARANTH, AND RED KNOT 

In 2005, the Service finalized a PBO for the Corps' funding or authorizing of beach 

nourishment in Ocean, Atlantic, and Cape May cotmties. The PBO reflects extensive 

coordination and cooperation between the Corps and the Service to minimize adverse 

effects to the piping plover and seabeach amaranth. The Service appreciates the Corps' 

ongoing cooperation in implementing the PBO to date. 

As described in a Streamlined Biological Opinion (SBO) for Cape May City (November 

6, 2011), an informal consultation for the Wildwoods (March 30, 2012), and a Biological 

Opinion for Avalon (December 15, 2011), back-passing (neither hydraulic nor via trucks) 

was not contemplated in the PBO. Some effects ofback-passing (e.g., at the sand 

placement site) are similar for back-passing and other types of beach nourishment. 

However, other effects are unique to back-passing, such as long-shore vehicle traffic or 

pipe placement, and borrow area impacts including creation of temporary pits, vehicle 

use, and persistent narrowing of the beach. To date, these unique effects have been 

considered project-by-project concurrent with each SBO (or other type of consultation) 

involving back-passing. Given the likely trend toward increasing use of back-passing in 

the Corps' public works and regulatory programs, the Service recommends that our 

agencies work cooperatively to update and amend the PBO to include this practice. We 

further recommend that the PBO revision include enhanced coordination with the Federal 

Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) due to FEMA's increasing role in beach 

nourishment in New Jersey. Finally, the Service will publish a listing detemrination for 

the red knot by September 30, 2013. If the red knot is proposed for listing, we 

recommend that the revised PBO also address conservation measures, effects, and any 

anticipated incidental take for this species under the Corps' beach nourishment program. 

Specific to the proposed Cape May Inlet to Hereford Inlet project, we do not anticipate 

adverse effects to piping plovers or seabeach amaranth based on the proposed limits of 

disturbance, specifically that no work will occur in any of the following locations: in or 

adjacent to the CMNWR, in the USCG Loran Support Unit, in the Cape May Inlet, along 

23 

Hereford Inlet to Cape lviay Inlet 107 AppcndixD. 
1090

Hereford Inlet in North Wildwood (past the groin at the intersection of 2nd Avenue and 

John F. Kennedy Beach Boulevard), in Stone Harbor Borough, or in Hereford Inlet {i.e., 

no dredging) including Champagne Island (if/when present). If project plans change or if 

piping plovers or seabeach amarnnth colonize the proposed work areas, further 

assessment of effects and. conservation measures will be necessary under the PBO. Even 

if these species remain absent from the proposed ,vork areas, streamlined consultation 

will be necessary under the PBO. In addition, we recommend early coordination between 

the Corps and the Service to develop conservation measures and evaluate effects to the 

red knot specific to the proposed Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet project, even prior to 

the revision of the PBO. Significant numbers of red knots currently utilize a portion of 

the proposed work area during the fall migration season, and may be affected by the 

prqject including disturbance and changes in habitat. 

Finally, we recommend the continued implementation of the North Wildwood BMP, with 

continued and enhanced cootdination among the City of North Wildwood, the NJDFW, 

and the Service on issues such as enforcement of the City's dog ordinance and vehicle 

management. We also recommend timely revision of the plan following the schedule 

agreed upon by all parties. 

B. BEACH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT 

Regular cycles of beach nourishment along North Wildwood's oceanfront beach have the 

potential to create and enhance habitat for the red knot, seabeach amaranth, and Statelisted plant species. Perpetuation of wider beach in this area may also attract beach 

nesting birds such as piping plover, least tern, black skimmer, and American 

oystercatcher. 

Planning activities for beach fill and dune creation should include ru1 evaluation of 

potential habitat enhancement for beach nesting birds. Wide beaches with gentle slopes 

generally provide good quality habitat for beach-dependent birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1996a). Creation oflow, wide dunes with washover areas provides suitable 

foraging and nesting habitat, and dune configurations that are irregular (e.g., staggered 

and discontinuous) can enhance bird habitat In addition, native dune grasses should be 

planted in sufficient quantity to provide stabilization, but also minimal enough not to 

impair habitat. In addition, only native, non-woody vegetation should be used. Fencing 

systems to trnp sand and create dunes should be open to allow passage of shorebirds 

between and among the dunes, and to allow for the perpetuation of the dynamic beach 

conditions favored by listed species. A broken, zig-zag pattern of fencing parallel to the 

shore or a Y-type fencing pattern perpendicular to shore are two examples of open 

fencing systems. The Service recommends the Corps coordinate with the Service and the 

ENSP regarding the potential for habitat enhancements as the project plans continue to be 

refined. Refer to the Service's 2005 PBO for additional recommendations., including 

beach habitat enhancement to protect listed species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2005a) (Appendix F) and (Appendix G). 

24 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 108 Appendix D. 
1091

Additionally, the Service recommends the use of perpetual deed restrictions or 

conservation easement to protect newly created beach and adjacent beach habitat for 

listed species (see PBO conservation measure #7). 

C. BORROW AREAS 

Similar to other dredging, extraction of material from borrow areas has been documented 

as causing environmental impacts that may adversely affect fish and other marine species 

populations and the food chains on which they depend. Kantor (l 984) provides a review 

of dredging impacts specific to New Jersey. These impacts can generally be subdivided 

into those affecting the water column and those affecting the bottom substrate. Adverse 

water quality impacts from material extraction include increased turbidity, changes in 

temperature and oxygen demand, and release or resuspension of toxins and bacteria. 

These factors may cause direct mortality to fish and shellfish, disrupt fish migrations, 

hamper fish and shellfish spawning, make shellfish unsuitable for human consumption, 

and reduce primary productivity. Settling of suspended sediment may result in 

smothering of shellfish and other benthic organisms down current from the project site. 

Bottom impacts include removal of existing benthic communities, change in circulation 

patterns, and modification of patterns of sediment deposition. Extraction from borrow 

areas may create bottom depressions with reduced flushing. These depressions can 

accumulate fine-grained sediments and organic material, including contaminants. 

Reduced flushing, combined with decomposition of organic materials, can lead to low 

oxygen conditions in such depressions. Originally occurring or different benthic forms 

may eventually recolonize the area of extraction depending on the water quality and 

substrate present. 

The tY}1e of equipment used and the time of year extra<.,iion occur may greatly influence 

the nature and extent of potential adverse impacts in the water colllmn. For example, the 

use of hydraulic dredging reduces Service concerns regarding shorUennadverse impacts 

on water quality at and near the site of dredging, but hydraulic dredging may impact eggs 

and young fish or other slow~moving organisms unable to avoid entrainment. The 

entrainment of sea turtles has also been documented as an adverse impact of hydraulic 

dredging (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991 ). The NMFS has jurisdiction over 

endangered and threatened sea turtles and should be contacted if hydraulic dredging is 

proposed. Conversely, mechanical dredging has greater impacts on turbidity and 

dissolved oxygen at the dredge site, but, if conducted during periods of low seasonal 

biological productivity, adverse impacts to organisms can be minimized. 

According to the official CBRS map for Hereford Inlet (Stone Harbor Unit NJ-09/NJ-09P 

dated July 12, 1996), proposed sand borrow areas described in the Corps draft feasibility 

study under the National Economic Development alternative which is the alternative that 

reasonably maximizes net economic benefits are located within System UnitNJ-09 of the 

CBRS. Any proposed Federal action designed to nourish beaches located outside the 

System using beach material taken from within the System does not meet the criteria for 

a section 6(a)(6)(G) exception of the CBRA. 

25 

Hereford Inlet to Capt.': ?.fay Inlet 109 AppendixD. 
1092

The preferred alternatives to offshore borrow sites being considered for the project is 

bypassing sand from Wildwood to N01th Wildwood by back-passing and changing the 

beach configuration in Wildwood by increasing berm height or adding a dune described 

as plan C in the Corps draft feasibility study. This alternative would avoid adverse 

impacts to finfish and other marine resources and negate the need to borrow from 

Hereford Inlet. 

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. BEACH COMMUNITIES 

In order to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts on State-listed and federally 

listed threatened and endangered species within project area, the Service recommends 

incorporating the following measures into project planning. 

1. Work collaboratively with the Service to update and amend the PBO to include 

back-passing (both hydraulic and vehicle based), enhanced coordination with 

FEMA, and the red knot. 

2. Specific to the proposed Hereford to Cape May Inlet project, we do not anticipate 

adverse effects to piping plovers or seabeach amaranth based on the proposed 

limits of disturbance; if project plans change or if piping plovers or seabeach 

amaranth colonize the proposed work areas, further assessment of effects and 

conservation measures will be necessary under the PBO. Even if not present in the 

work areas, streamlined consultation for these species will be necessary under the 

PBO. (Specifically the PBO calls for initiation of streamlined consultation 6 

months prior to the start of work). In addition, we recommend early coordination 

regarding the red knot. 

3. Contact NJDFW' s ENSP and NJNHP' s in considering State species of special 

concern and State-listed species in project planning (Appendix C). 

4. Implement the North Wildwood BMP, with continued and enhanced coordination 

among the City of North Wildwood, the NJDFW, and the Service. Revise the plan 

following the schedule agreed upon by all parties. 

5. Refer to the Service's 2005 PBO for additional recommendations, including 

beach habitat enhancement to protect listed species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2005a) (Appendix F) and (Appendix G). 

B. BEACH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT 

Incorporate the following recommendations into project planning to create additional 

shorebird habitat and protect or enhance any existing habitat. 

26 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 110 AppendixD. 
1093

1. Review and evaluate any proposed beach creation activity in regard to potential 

effects on other habitats within the project area 

2. Include habitat enhancement for listed species in plans for beach fill and dune 

creation activities. 

3. Coordinate with the Service and NJDEP on planting of any vegetation on dunes 

for dune stabilization. 

4. Avoid the introduction of invasive and non-native plant species and consult with 

the Service and NJDEP on management of the dune system. 

5. Design dune fencing systems that allow passage of juvenile shorebirds between 

and among the dunes and allow more natural dunes to form with adequate storm 

protection, and to allow for the perpetuation of natural beach processes. 

6. Obtain a perpetual deed restriction or conservation easement for the newlycreated beach and adjacent beach areas, as per the PBO. 

7. Continue to coordinate with the Service and ENSP for any dune and beach 

enhancement or restoration activities in listed species habitat. 

C. BORROW AREAS 

1. Rely primarily on the components of the benthic diversity indices (i.e., species 

diversity, species richness, and the distribution of the number of individuals 

among the species), rather than on the diversity indices alone, in evaluating 

benthic habitat quality. 

2. Evaluate any borrow site alternatives that would minimize adverse impacts to surf 

clam communities through continued coordination with the New Jersey Bureau of 

Shellfisheries and the Service. 

3. Conduct each renourishn1ent phase in a limited section of the borrow area(s) and 

alternate locations for each subsequent renourishment cycle. 

4. Avoid creating excessively deep, poorly flushed (anoxic) pits at the borrow sites. 

5. Avoid dredging during shellfish or finfish spawning activities (the typical 

spawning period and early life stages of winter flounder are between January 1 

and May31). 

6. Use hydraulic-pipeline dredging rather than hopper dredging iI1 order to minimize 

turbidity at the borrow sites and minimize the potential entrainment of federally 

listed sea turtles. 

27 

Hereford lnlet to Cap<! May Inlet 111 Appendix D. 
1094

7. Contact the NMFS regarding potential adverse impacts on federally listed 

(threatened or endangered) sea turtle and marine mammal species under its 

jurisdiction. 

8. Coordinate with the New Jersey Bureau of Marine Fisheries regarding the 

selection of borrow sites. 

9. Consult with the Service conceming borrow areas pursuant to the CBRA. 

28 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 112 AppendixD. 
1095

X. REFERENCES 

A. LITERATURE CITED 

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic 

Sturgeon. (Acipenser oxyrinchus). Report to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

Bain, M.B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: common and 

divergent life history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:347-358. 

Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American shorebirds. U.S. Natural Museum 

Bulletin 146: 236-246. · 

Bergstrom, P.W. 1991. Incubation temperatures of Wilson's plovers and killdeers. 

Condor 91: 634-641. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill editors. 2001. The U.S. shorebird 

conservation plan, 2nd edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, 

Manomet, MA. 

Burger, J. 1987. Physical and social determinations of nest-site selection in piping plover 

in New Jersey. The Condor 89: 811-818. 

Cairns, W.E. 1977. Breeding biology of piping plovers in Southern Nova Scotia. M.S. 

Thesis. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 115 pp. 

___ . 1982. Biology and behavior of piping plovers. Wilson Bulletin 94: 531-545. 

Canale, S.B. 1997. 1997 piping plover nesting summary. New Jersey Division of Fish 

and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ. 29 pp. 

Caron, F., D. Hatin, and R. Fortin. 2002. Biological characteristics of adult 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) in the Saint Lawrence River estuary and 

the effectiveness of management rules. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:580-

585. Dadswell, M.J. 1984. Status of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser 

brevirostrum, in Canada. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 98 (1):75-79. 

Chaillou, J.C. and L. Scott. 1996. Evaluation ofbenthic macrofaunal resources at 

potential sand borro,v sources: Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, Cape May 

County, New Jersey. Versar, Incorporated. Columbia, MD. 16 pp.+ appendices. 

Chicone, R. Jr. Undated. A Survey ofAmaranthus pumilus in Horry and Georgetown 

Counties, South Carolina, September and October, 1998. Undergraduate 

Independent Study Program, Biology Department, Coastal Carolina University, 

Conway, SC. 7 pp.+ figures. 

29 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :\fay Inlet 113 AppcndixD. 
1096

Clark, K.E., R.R. Porter, and J.D. Dowdell. 2009. The shorebird migration in Delaware 

Bay. New Jersey Birds 35(4):85-92 

Collins, MR. and T.l.J. Smith. 1997. Distribution of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in 

South Carolina North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:995-1000. 

Coutu, S.I)., J.D. Fraser, J.L. Mcconnaughey, and J.P. Loegering. 1990. Piping plover 

distribution and reproductive success on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. 

Unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service, Cape Hatteras, NC. 67 

pp. 

Dadswell, M. 2006. A review of the status of Atlantic sturgeon in Canada, with 

comparisons to populations in the United States and Europe. Fisheries 31 :218-

229. 

Davis, T.H. 1983. Red knot. In: J. Farrand, Jr., Editor. The Audubon Society master 

guide to birding, volume 1. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, NY. 3 pp. 

Dovel, W.L. and T.J. Berggren. 1983. Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson River estuary, 

New York. New York Fish and Grune Journal 30:140-172. 

Durate, P., D. Sibley, C. Sutton, and W. Wander. 1983. 1982 aerial shorebird survey of 

Delaware Bay. Records of New Jersey Birds 8(4): 68-75. 

Dunton, K.J. and A. Jordan, K.A. McKown, D.O. Conover,M.G. Frisk. 2010. Abundance 

and distribution of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) within the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean, determined from five :fishery-independent surveys. Fish. Bull. 

108(4):450---465. 

Eddings, K.J. and S.M. Melvin. 1991. Biology and conservation of piping plovers at 

Breezy Point, New York, 1991. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 38 pp. 

Elias-Gerken, S.P. 1994. Piping plover habitat suitability on Central Long Island, New 

York Barrier Islands. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University, Blacksburg, VA. 247 pp. 

Erickson, D:L., A. Kahnle, M. J. Millard, E. A. Mora, M. Bryja, A. Higgs, J. Mohler, M. 

Dufour, G. Kemtey, J. Sweka, E. K. Pikitch. 2011. Use of pop-up satellite 

archival tags to identify oceanic-migratory patterns for adult Atlantic sturgeon, 

Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Mitchell, 1815. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 27:356-365. 

Fisk, E.J. 1975. Least tern: beleagured, opportunistic, and roof-nesting. Amer. Buds 

29:15-16. 

30 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 114 Appendix D. 
1097

Flemming, S.P., R.D. Chiasson, and P.J. Austin-Smith. 1990. Piping plover nest-site 

selection in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Unpublished document. 

Department of Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 31 pp. 

Gibbs, J.P. 1986. Feeding ecology of nesting piping plovers in Maine. Unpublished 

report to Maine Chapter, The Nature Conservancy, Topsham, ME. 21 pp. 

Goldin, M.R. 1990. Reproductive ecology and management of piping plover (Cltaradrius 

melodus) at Breezy Point, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York- 1990. 

Unpublished report. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Gateway National Recreation Area, Long Island, NY. 16 pp. 

Gratto-Trevor, C., D. Amirault-Langlais, D. Catlin, F. Cuthbert, J. Fraser, S. Maddock, E. 

Roche, and F. Shaffer. 2009. Winter distribution of four different piping plover 

breeding populations. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 pp. 

Hamilton, RD. IL 2000. Cultured Amaranthus transplanted to the wild; Amaranthus 

seeds sown in 1999; SC seabeach amaranth populations. Unpublished data. 

Waddell Mariculture Center. Bluffton, SC. 3 pp. 

Hancock, T.E. 1995. Ecology of the threatened species seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus 

pumilus Rafinesque). M.S. Thesis. University ofNorth Carolina at Wilmington. 

Wilmington, NC. 28 pp. 

Harrington, B.A. 1996. The flight ofthc red knot. W.W. Norton and Company. New 

York, NY. 192pp. 

__ . 2001. Redknot(Calidris canutus). Pages 1-32 m: A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. 

The birds ofNorth America, No. 563. Cornell laboratory of Ornithology and the 

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA 

Holland, B.F., Jr. and G.F. Yelverton. 1973. Distribution and biological studies of 

anadromous fishes offshore North Carolina. North Carolina Department of 

Natural and Economic Resources, Division of Commercial and Sports Fisheries, 

Morehead City. Special Scientific Report 24:1-132. 

Hoopes, E.M, C.R. Griffin, and S.M. Melvin. 1992. Relationships between human 

recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and chick survival. Unpublished 

report. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 77 pp. 

Howard, J.M., R.J. Safran, and S.M. Melvin. 1993. Biology and conservation of piping 

plovers at Breezy Point, New York. Unpublished report. Department of Forestry 

and Wildlife Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 34 pp. 

Jackson, J.A. and B.J.S. Jackson. 1985. Status, dispersion, and population changes of the 

Least Tern in coastal Mississippi. Colon. Waterbirds 8:54-62 

31 

Her~ford Inlet to Cape :rviay Inlet 115 Appendix D. 
1098

Jenkins, C.D. and A. Nichols. 1994. Piping plover survey and threat assessment. piping 

plover threat assessment and management. Federal Aid Report, Projects No. XIV 

and XIV-B. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ. 17 pp. 

__ and L. Niles. 1999. Keeping the piping plover in New Jersey's future. New Jersey 

Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ. 10 pp. 

Kantor, R.A. 1984. A review of the potential environmental effects of dredging in New 

Jersey's tidal waters with recommendations on seasonal restrictions. Draft report. 

55 pp + appendices. 

Kochenberger, R. 1983. Survey of shorebird concentrations along the Delaware bayshore. 

Peregrine Observer spring 1983. New Jersey Audubon Publications. 

Laney, R.W., J.E. Hightower, B.R. Versak, M.F. Mangold, W.W. Cole Jr., and S.E. 

Winslow. 2007. Distribution, habitat use, and size of Atlantic sturgeon captured 

during cooperative winter tagging cruises, 1988-2006. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 56: 000-000. 

Loegering, J.P. 1992. Piping plover breeding biology, foraging ecology, and behavior on 

Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland. M.S. Thesis. Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute.and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 247 _pp. 

Maclvor, L.H. 1990. Population dynamics, breeding ecology, and management of piping 

plovers on Outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. M.S. Thesis. University of 

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 100 pp. 

Maddock, S., M. Bimbi, and W. Golder. 2009. South Carolina shorebird project, draft 

2006-

2008 piping plover summary report. Audubon North Carolina and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Charleston, South Carolina. 135 pp. 

Maddock, S. B. 2008. Wintering piping plover surveys 2006-2007, East Grand Terre, 

Louisiana to Boca Chica, Texas, December 20, 2006-J annary 10, 2007, final 

report. Unpublished report prepared for the Canadian Wildlife Service, 

Environment Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. iv+ 66 pp. 

Murawski, S. A and A. L. Pacheco. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on Atlantic 

sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus (Mitchill). National Marine Fisheries Service 

Technical Series Report 10:1-69. 

National Park Service and Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 2000. Seabeach amaranth 

restoration, Assateague Island National Seashore, study plan for project ftmded by 

threatened and endangered species approved recovery plan component of 

National Park Service Natural Resources Preservation Program FY00-02. U.S. 

32 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet 116 Appendix D. 
1099

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Assateague Island National 

Seashore, Berlin, MD. 15 pp. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1992. Strathmere Natural Area 

management plan. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division 

of Parks and Forestry, Office of Natural Lands Management, Trenton, NJ. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Status of the red knot 

(Calidris canutus rufus) in the Western Hemisphere. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, New Jersey Field Office, 

Pleasantville, NJ. 287 pp. 

New Jersey Department of Envirorunental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife: 

Endangered Species Program and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. North 

Wildwoods Beach Management Plan 29pp. 

New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program (NJENSP). 2012. Piping plover 

nesting results in New Jersey: 2012. Unpublished data. New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton NJ. 8 pp. 

Nicholls, J.L. 1989. Distribution and other ecological aspects of piping plovers 

(Charadrius melodus) wintering along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. M.S. Thesis. 

Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 150 pp. 

Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, A.J. Baker, R.l.G. Morrison, D.E. Hernandez, K.E. 

Clark, B.A. Harrington, M.K. Peck, P.M. Gonzalez, K.A. Bennett, K.S. Kalasz, 

P.W. Atkinson, N.A. Nigel, and C.D.T. Minton. 2005. Status of the red knot 

(Calidris canutus rufa) in the Western Hemisphere. Draft report. New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, 

Endangered and Nongame Species Program, Trenton, NJ. 270 pp. 

Niles, L., A. Sitters, P. Dey, A. Atkinson, K. Baker. 2008. Status of the red knot (Calidris 

canutus rufu.~1 in the Western Hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology, 36: l • 185. 

Palmer, R.S. 1967. Piping plover. 270 pages In: Stout, G.D. (editor), The shorebirds of 

North America. Viking Press, NY 

Palmer, W.M. and C.L. Cordes. 1988. Habitat suitability index models: diamondback 

tenapin (nesting)--Atlantic coast. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Biological Report Number 82 (10.151). 18 pp. 

Patterson, M.E. 1988. Piping plover breeding biology and reproductive success on 

Assateague Island. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University, Blacksburg, VA. 131 pp. 

33 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 117 AppendixD. 
1100

__ , J.D. Fraser, and J.W. Roggenbuck. 1991. Factors affecting piping plover 

productivity on Assateague Island. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(3): 525-

531. 

Pauley, E.F., M.B. Dietsch, and RE. Chicone, Jr . .1999. Survival, growth, and vegetation 

associations of the threatenedAmaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) on a 

South Carolina barrier island. Association of Southeastern Biologists Ammal 

Meeting, April 1999. Wilmington, NC. 1 p. 

Riepe, D. 1989. Environmental assessment, management plan for the threatened piping 

plover (Charadl'ius melodus), Breezy Point District, Gateway National Recreation 

Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Brooklyn, NY. 26 

pp. + appendices. 

Savoy, T. and D. Pacileo. 2003. Movements and important habitats of subadult Atlantic 

sturgeon in Connecticut waters. Transactions oftbe American Fisheries Society 

132:1-8. 

Smith, T.I.J. 1985. The fishery, biology, and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser 

oxyrhynchus, in North America. Environmental Biology ofFishes 14(1 ):61-72. 

___ . and J.P. Clungston. 1997. Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, 

Acipenser oxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 

48:335-346. 

Snyder, D. 1996. Field survey for populations of Amaranthus pumilus in New Jersey. 

State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks 

and Forestry, Office of Natural Lands Management, Natural Heritage Program. 

Trenton, NJ. 18 pp. 

Stein, A.B., K.D. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004. Atlantic sturgeon marine 

distribution and habitat use along the n01ibeastem coast of the United States. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:527-537. 

Strauss, E. 1990. Reproductive success, life history patterns, and behavioral variation in 

populations of piping plovers subjected to human disturbance (1982-19&9). Ph.D. 

Dissertation. Tufts University, Medford, MA. 143 pp. 

Tull, C.E. 1984. A study of nesting pi ping plovers of Kouchibouguac National Park 1983. 

Unpublished report. Parks Canada, Kouchibouguac National Park, 

Kouchibouguac, New Brunswick. 85 pp. 

US. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet feasibility study 

project management plan. Department of the Army, Corps ofEngineers, New 

York District, New York, NY. 47 pp. 

34 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 118 l\ppendix D. 
1101

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. 2013. Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet draft feasibility 

study. Department of the Atmy, Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, 

Philadelphia, PA. 165pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Determination of endangered and threatened status 

for piping plover. 50 f'R 50726-50734. 

__ . 1991. Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet reach, New Jersey shore 

protection reconnaissance study. Planning aid report. U.S. Department oflnterior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ. 26 pp + 

appendices. . 

__ . 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; detennination of seabeach 

amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) to be a threatened species. 58 FR l 8035-18042. 

__ . 1996a. Piping plover ( Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast population, revised 

recovery plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, 

MA. 245pp. 

___ • 1996b. Recovery Plan for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) Rafinesque. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 55 pp.+ 

appendices. 

__ . 2002. Sea beach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) life history, status, and threats. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pleasantville, NJ. 28 

pp. 

__ . 2005a. Biological opinion on the effects of Federal beach nourishment activities 

along the Atlantic Coast ofNew Jersey within the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 

Philadelphia District on the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and seabeach 

amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). 

--··.- 2005b. Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) Five year review. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC. 41pp. 

__ . 2009. J>iping plover (Chatadrius melodus) Five year review. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. 214 pp. 

__ .2011. Draft biological opinion on the effects of backpassing on the federally listed 

(threatened) piping plover (charadrius melodus) and seabeach amaranth 

(amaranthus pumilus) in Avalon Borough Cape May County New Jersey. 

___ . 2012. Survey and monitoring report for the federally listed (threatened) plant 

seabeach amaranth (amaranthas pumilus) from Sea Bright to Manasquan, 

35 

I-foreford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 119 AppcndixD. 
1102

Monmouth county, New Jersey with additional information on Ocean, Atlantic, 

and Cape May counties, New Jersey. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pleasantville, NJ. 12 pp. 

Van Schoik, R. and S. Antcnen.1993. Amaranthus pumilus - Long Island, New York. 

Final report submitted by the Long Island Chapter of The Nature Conservancy to 

the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, NY. 13 pp. 

Vladykov, V.D. and J.R. Greeley. 1963. Order Acipenseroidea. Pages 24-60 in Fishes of 

the Western North Atlantic. Memoir Sears Foundation for Marine Research l(Part 

III). xxi + 630 pp. 

Wander, W. and P. Dunne. 1982. Species and numbers of shorebirds on the Delaware 

Bayshorc ofNew Jersey Spring 1981. Occasional Paper No. 140. Records of 

New Jersey Birds 7(4): 59-64. 

Weakley, A. and M. Bucher. 1992. Status survey of seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus 

pumilus Rafinesque) in North and South Carolina, second edition (after Hurricane 

Hugo). Report to North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, North Carolina 

Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Ashevi11e Field Office, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 149 

pp. + appendices. 

Welsh, S. A., Michael F. M, J.E. Skjeveland, and A. J. Spells. 2002. 

Distribution and movement of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the 

Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 25(1)1: 101-104. 

Welty, J.C. 1982. The life of birds. Sauders College Publishing, Philadelphia, PA. 754 

pp. 

Wilcox, L. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the piping plover. Auk 76:129-152. 

Young, S.M. 2001. Final Report, Amaranthus pumilus, seabeach amaranth, Global 

Positioning Satellite Survey - Long Island 2000. Unpublished report. New York 

Natural Heritage Program, Latham, New York. 4 pp. + appendices. 

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 

Dey, A. 2012. Principal Zoologist. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 

Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered & Nongame Species Program, 

Millville, NJ. 

Egger, S. 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, 

Pleasantville, NJ. 

Kelly, J. 2013. Botanist .. Round Mountain Ecological LLC. Whitehouse Station, NJ. 

36 

Hereford Inlet to Cape lvfay Inlet 120 AppendixD. 
1103

Lankshen, L. 2013. National Marine Fisheries Service, Sandy Hook Laboratory, 

Highlands, NJ. 

Morrison, G. 2012. Scientist Emeritus. Shorebirds, Environment Canada, National 

Wildlife Research Centre, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario. 

Nonnant, J. 2007. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish 

and Wildlife, New Jersey Bureau of Shellfishedes, Trenton, NJ. 

Pitts, B. 2013. Assistant Zoologist New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Pxotection, 

Division of Fish & Wildlife, Endangered & Nongame Species Program 

Assunpink Wildlife Management Area, Robbinsville, NJ. 

Pover, T. 2007. Project Manager, Conserve Wildlife Foundation ofNew Jersey, Trenton, 

NJ. 

37 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :May Inlet 121 Appendix D. 
1104

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

APPENDIX A 

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species, 

and Candidate Species in New Jersey 

122 AppendixD. 
1105

FISHES 

REPTILES 

BIRDS 

MAMMALS 

FEDERALLY LISTED AND CANDIDATE 

SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Acipenser brevirostrum 

Acipenser oxyrinchus 

Clemmys muhlenbergii 

Caretta caretta 

Charadrius melodus 

Calidris canutus rufa 

Sterna dougallii dougallii 

Picoides borealis 

Puma concolor couguar 

Myotis sodalis 

Canis lupus 

Sciurus niger cinereus 

Alasmidonta heterodon 

INVERTEBRATES 

Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis 

Lycaeides melissa samuelis 

Neonympha m. mitchellii 

Nicrophorus americanus 

Isotria medeoloides 

PLANTS He lonias bullata 

Rhynchaspora knieskernii 

STATUS 

E 

PE 

T 

PE 

T 

C 

E 

E+ 

E+ 

E 

E+ 

E+ 

E 

T 

E+ 

E+ 

E+ 

T 

T 

T 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !-.fay Inlet 123 AppendixD. 
1106

E 

T 

C 

p 

* 

+ 

Endangered Species 

Threatened Species 

Candidate Species 

Proposed Species 

Dichanthelium hirstii C 

Schwalbea americana E 

Aeschynomene virginica T 

T 

Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its ran e. 

Any species that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant ortion of its range. 

Species that appear to warrant listing. Although these 

species receive no substantive or procedural protection 

under the Endangered Species Act, Federal agencies and 

other planners are encouraged to consider these species in 

environmental lannin . 

A species for which a proposed rule to list as endangered 

or threatened has been ublished in the Federal Re ister. 

Except for sea turtle nesting habitat, principal responsibility for these species is 

vested with the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Presumed extirpated from New Jersey. 

Note: For a complete ti:~ting of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, refer 

to 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. For a complete listing of taxa under review as 

candidate species, refer to http://www.jws.gov/endangered/ 

For further information, please visit our website at: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffiee/endangered/ 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :\fay Inlet 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

New Jersey Field Office 

927 N. Main Street, Building D 

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 

Phone: (609) 646-9310 

Fax: (609) 646-0352 

124 

Revised l/2/2013 

Appendix 0. 
1107

FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES 

IN NEW JERSEY 

CANDIDATE SPECIES are species that appear to warrant consideration for addition to the 

federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Although these species receive no 

substantive or procedural protection under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service encourages federal agencies and other planners to give consideration to these 

species in the environmental planning process. 

SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa ··-

Hirsts'~ic grass --·-----~. j}ichanthelium hirstii --·--·-···-··-

Revised January 18, 2013 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 125 AppendixD. 
1108

APPENDIXB 

Project Plans showing Project Area 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 126 AppendixD. 
1109

Hereford Inlet to Cape JI.fay Inlet 127 Appendix D. 
1110

j 

'-' 

lforeford Inlet to Cape 1-fay Inkt 128 Appendixn 
1111

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

APPENDIXC 

State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species 

in New Jersey 

129 AppendixD. 
1112

Conserve 

Wildlife New Jersey's Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife 

'*"'-'kM'/~toc&.~~~t~xi· n,•oumvffl.:\& V.Witi:i 

~~&&:oa:~~,t;.!611'1it#ifil 

DEP Adopts Updated Threatened and Endangered Species List, Revises 

Species Listings Based on Latest Science - DEP News Release, 2/23/12 

Endangered Species are those whose prospects for survival in New Jersey are in 

immediate danger because of a loss or change in habitat, over-exploitation, 

predation, competition, disease, disturbance or contamination. Assistance ls needed 

to prevent future extinction in New Jersey. 

Threatened Species are those who may become endangered if conditions 

surrounding them begin to or continue to deteriorate. 

There are other classifications for wildlife as well, Including Stable, S~j~_Qf_S~l<ll 

Concern and Undetermined. 

Species names in the below tables link to PDF documents containing identification, 

habitat and status and conservation information. For more detailed descriptions, 

photographs, and range maps of New Jersey's endangered, threatened, and special 

concern species, please refer to the Consewe Wildlife Foundation of NJ's on-line field 

guid§. 

[

---·----··------·-- . --·---·----··-···--··----·----·····--··---··--·---·----------·--··----··----·· 1 

BIRDS r·----·----·------------·-----------------···-···1 -----·-----·----···-----------··-·------------ 1 Endangered Threatened 

G) ABitter~. r Botaurus lentig/nDSDS BR ~bolink BR l Dolichonyx oryzivorus BR merican BR I I~---

r:1 Eagle bald BR fHaliaeetus l Eagle, bald NB r;/a/iaeetus leucocephalus · j ieucocephalus BR - I ~; 

f .E§ml1. ".Falco peregrinus BR. -1 J;gret. cattle. BR-·-· 1 Bubu/cus. ibis BR -----

peregrine BR ! ' 

~o~~=~k~R I Accipiter gentilis BR I JSestrel. [\merican j Falco spatverius 

I ~k<l- --t Podl/ymbu, podlceps ,a 1 '-'~,-homed " }romophlla,;,estn,-e, --

l !jarrier, l Circus cyaneus BR . I fm.b.!::b.filQn, f Nycticorax nycticorax BR 

1 northern BR I bla.ck-crowned BR I 

r H~~k. reg_: j Buteo lineatus BR 1Night-heron~yctanassa violacea , shouldered BR yellow-crownfil! j /VJ 

'~-----~----------------------- . --~-------

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 130 AppendixD. 
1113

JKn;t,-red NB ---] Ca/idris canutus NB --1 Q§Rr.QY BR --------1 Pandion haliaetus BR ____ -1 

fl Owl,;hort---- r::o f/a. mmeus BR .. --Tow. ~. barred ----lstrix varia --------------J ~BR !""'' 1~~ r 

fe1over, piptQ9** ! Charadrius me/odus•• ! .Owl, long-eares! r Asia otus 

i Rail, black BR I Lateral/us jamalcensis aR l Rail, b!acJ.; NB ~era/lus jamaicensis NB I ~ggjQfil,_ ----f aatramia /ongicauda ------!~BR -T::imod~mus savannarum --

[®Jilsst. ·------·rLami1s /udovicianus NB ---)§Q?.ITQW,_ ,----r Passerculus sandwichensis I 

j loggerhead NB I' j §avannah BR I DR 

r-----~----------··--- ----------r,------------, I ~kimmer. blacJ.; I Rynchops niger · ~~~~ecker, red- I Melanerpes erythrocepha/us I 

,~ --1 Ammodramus henslowii - ------------------------------j 

r Sparr~ --r;:oo.ecetes gramfneus BR I vesper BR I r 

r:;-----~--·--------

1 Jem, least I Sternu/a antillarum __ 

j Tern, roseate~Stema douga/Jfi•• 

1

-·-·---------·----r-----·---------·---------·- ~, golden-winged Vermivorn chrysoptera B~1 

BR 

! Wren, sedge jGistothorus p/atensis I 

f. 

·---,-----·---------· ·-------------------- . -··--------------~ .. Federally endangered or threatened 

j BR - Breeding population only; NB - non-breeding population only _____ _J 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 131 AppendixD. 
1114

f-----, coriacea•• ··--·-. ----1 

r ~~ggerhead, Atlanfic l Ceretta caretta .. 

fil!l?~~ ·~- ·· ! Lep~Y!_ kempii** - J 

**Federally endangered or threatened JI ------·-·--··---------·---·---·----------·-·-·-----------·----------

1·--------------INVERTEBRATEi ------] 

1··----··----E~d~ngered-------·--1-----------,.hreatened-------·· 1 

r=~merican -- - \ ~!:~fc~~':;;..j~~~s~~~a~gonfly) · }=plthece spinosa -

r~==~l~.ti~~~!:eastern-- ····~~~~~~1s:~~ d. ---· 1 ~1~::~·n~f nner··--· rip~:;i:··---- - \ Copper, bronze --Gycaena hy/Jus 1 ~~:~~~·,~rpoon · ... I :~~;r:s·----

1. ] A/asmidonta I . T,:: . I floater, brook (mussel) J varicosa ______ J~sted (butterfly) J Cal/ophrys 1rus __ _ 

C ILasmigona l Emerald, Kennedy's ] Somatochlora I ~~,er. green {mussel) I subviridis ----· (dragonfly) ... kennedyi _____ _ 

r:t lt ·1 (d g fl ) I Tachopteryx I Floater. triangle I A/asm/donta , ,..ea al • gray ra on Y thoreyi (mussel) undulate 

1 ~fte:i~~~~ell's l ~~~~~~r.~a m. 1 r~~i~:rtfy)silver-bordered 1 :~~= selene · 1 

r;=loppe,, ""'JM (b,tt,rtl,)l:=- arogos !~:::'::~; '"'"" . Tc,1opt.,,., amata 1 

~~~~~}~~=-~~l~~·:=·F¢_:&,,,J 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ?\.fay Inkt 132 A.ppendix D. 
1115

I Al;smldonta ~~musse~ yellow -F, · I heterodon•• __ Ifu:i11.~ - _ Lamps1/1s canosa 

I 1Y1.J!9l<. §.L\i9JtW..?J@I f Leptodea ochracea i!fil!.s .fill!} 11 

f.eondmusseL eastern II L'gu . 5 t I LIILY!ifilill I m1a na u a 

f 

s~~k;;;~;xool<, --!Opti/og~mphus--

(dragonfty) I asperses 

IY'fuit~e~l<e~--1.--~----.--

l _______ ... , ______________ I (butterfly} __ - __ ! Pont1a protod1ce ____ _ 

**Federally endangered or threatened 

,---· 

i MAMMALS 

r----------------------

1-;;-------~-endangeTred -----------

i 1lfilJI!diana •• Myotis soda/is** 

I

-...... -·--·-·-···----·-·--·---··-,--·---· .... . Bobggj Lynx rufus 

1···· ·-··-··-----·- --··------·-1 ··--··-·-· I Whale, North Atlantic right** Eubalaena glacialis .. 

r--------------~------

1 

Wh le blue.. Ba/aenoptera a ' musculus•• 

I Wh le fn** r Ba/aenoptera 1 • a ' 1 l physalus•• 

r;I -----------]' -·----·-----·--- •• Megaptera 

1 . t.!@.,J.lll~ ·---------~novaeang/iae•• ____ _ 

I Wh le ei.. Balaenoptera I a ' 5 · borea/is.. j r-·--·-----·------·····---··· ---, --····-----------------------

I 1 Whale,spern} •• Physeter macrocephafus"* j 

,--·---·-·-----··-------- r-·-·----·-·--·--·--· I Woodrat, Allegheny ! Neotoma magister 1·-------·-**Federally Endangered--------·------

, -··-·---··--------·--------------_J 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 133 Appendix D. 
1116

f 

------------------·------·--·--------·····---~ FISH 

· f · --------- Endangered --------------

151urgeon, Atlantic•• f"Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus•• 

rs;rgeon, shortnose •• ! Acfpenser brevirostrum•• 

r

------------------------

1 _______ **Federally Endangered _______ _ 

List updated 412/12 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 134 /\ppendix D. 
1117

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

APPENDIXD 

Colonial Nesting Birds and Shorebirds within 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Project Area 

(prepared by New Jersey Audubon Society) 

135 AppendixD. 
Colonial Nesting Birds and Shorebirds - Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Estuary and nearshore coastal waters, including associated beach, dune, salt marsh, mudflats an

Compiled by Don Freiday 

Very rare species (occuring less than annually) are excluded from this list 

Nests - Y means known to currently nest 

C - common: always seen, more than 20 individuals per day 

F - fairly common: usually seen, 5 to 20 individuals per day 

U - uncommon: seen in limited numbers, 1-4 per day 

S - scarce: usually present, but not seen daily 

R - rare: seen only a few times a season 

Species Common Name 

PHALACROCORACIDAE (Cormorants) 

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant 

Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant 

ARDEIDAE (Herons, Eorets and Bitterns) 

Botaurus !entiginosus American Bittern 

lxobrvchus exilis 1 Least Bittern 

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron 

-~-----

Ardeaalba Great Eoret 

Egretta thula Snowv Egret 

Eoretta caerulea Little Blue Heron 

Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron 

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 136 

Nests Winter 

u u 

s 

F 

y R 

y 

y 

y 
Nvcticorax nvcticorax Black-crowned Nioht-Heron y l u 

Nvctanassa violacea YeHow-crowned'Ni,:;ht-Heron y 

I 

THRESKIORNITHIDAE (Ibis and 

Spoonbllls) 

Threskiornlthinae 

Pleoadis falcinellus I Glossv ibis y 

I I 

Soecies Common Name Nests I Winter 

CHARADRIIDAE (Plovers and Laowinos) 

Charadriinae 

Pluvialis souatarola Black-bellied Plover I F 

I Pluvialis dorninica American Golden-Plover 

Charadrius semipalrnatus Semipalmated Plover 

Charadrius melodus Pioina Plover y 

1 Charadrius vociferous Killdeer y u 

HAEMATOPODIDAE (Ovstercatchers) 

I Haematoous oalliatus American Ovstercatcher y F 

I RECURVIROSTR!DAE (Avocets and 

I Stilts) 

! Recurvirostra americana American Avocet 

SCOLOPACIDAE (Sandoioers and Alllesl i Scoloeacinae 

I Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper ? 

Trinoa solitaria Solitarv Sandoioer 

Tringa me!anoleuca Greater YelJowleos F Trinoa semioalmata Willet y R 

Trinaa flavipes Lesser Yellowleos s 

Bartramia Jonoicauda Uoland Sandoioer 

Hereford Inkt to Cape May Inlet 137 
' Numenius ohaeoous I Whimbrel ! I 

Limosa haemastica Hudsonian Godwit 

, Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit R 

Arenaria interores , Ruddv Turnstone C 

Calidris canutus Red Knot s 

Calidris alba Sanderlina C 

Calidris pusilla Semioatmated Sandoioer 

Calidris mauri Western SandoiPer 

Calidris minutilla Least Sandoioer R Calidris fuscicollis White-rumped Sandpiper 

I Calidris bairdii j Baird's Sandpiper 

, Calidris melanotos : Pectoral Sandpiper 

Calidris maritime 1 Purple Sandoioer u Calidris aloina Dunlin C 

LJpecies i 

, Common Name Nests Winte

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandoioer 

Calidris himantoous Stilt Sandoioer 

Trvnaites subruficollis Buff-breasted Sandoioer 

Limnodromus griseus Short-bllled Dowitcher R 

Limnc:5dromus scolooaceus Lona-billed Dow\tcher R 

Gallinaoo delicate Wilson's Snipe R 

Scolopax minor i American Woodcock R 

Pha!arooodinae ! 

( Phalaror1us tricolor Wilson's Phalarooe 

j , 

LARIDAE (Gulls) Larus atricilla : Laughing Gull y R 

hLarus Philadelphia Bonaoarte's Gull u 

, Larus delawarensis Rino-billed Gull C 

Larus araentatus Herrina Gull y C 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !I.fay Inlet 138 
Larus Qlaucoides i Iceland Gull I R Larus fuscus \ Lesser Black-backed Gull R 

Larus hvoerboreus Glaucous Gull ! R 

Larus marinus , Great Black-backed Gull y C 

Rissa tridachla Black-leaaed Kittiwake ! R 

I 

STERNIDAE (Terns) 

Sternula antil!arurn Least Tern y 

Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed Tern y 

Hvdrooroane casoia Casoian Tern 

Chlidonias niaer Black Tern 

Sterna douaallii Roseate Tern Sterna hirundo Cornman Tern y 

Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern y s 

Thalasseus maximus Raval Tern y 

Thalasseus sandvicensis Sandwich Tern 

RYNCHOPIDAE /Skimmers\ Rynchoos nii:ier Black Skimmer y 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 139 
1122

APPENDIXE 

Status of the Red Knot ( Calidris canutus rufa) in the Western Heimsphere. 

Hereford Inlet to Cupe May Inlet 140 AppendixD. 
1123

STATUS OF THE RED KNOT (CALIDRIS CANUTUS RUFA) IN THE 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

LA WREN CE J. NILES, HUMPHREY P. SITTERS, AMANDA D. DEY, PHILIP W. 

ATKINSON, ALLAN J. BAKER, KAREN A. BENNETT, ROBERTO CARMONA, 

KATHLEEN E. CLARK, NIGEL A. CLARK, CAfilvIEN ESPOZ, PATRICIA M. GONZALEZ, 

BRIAN A. HARRINGTON, DANIELE. HERNANDEZ, KEVIN S. KALASZ, RICHARD G. 

LATHROP, RICARDO N. MATUS, CLIVE D. T. MINTON, R. L GUY MORRISON, MARK 

K. PECK, WILLIAM PITTS, ROBERT A. ROBINSON, AND INES L. SERRANO 

Abstract. The population of the rufa subspecies ofthe Red Knot (Calidris canutus), which breeds 

in the cenu:al Canadian Arctic and mainly winters in Tie1Ta del Fuego, has declined dramatically 

over the past 20 yr. Previously estimated at 100, 000-15 0,000, the population now numbers 

18,000-33,000 (18,000 if just the Tiena del Fuego birds are C c. rufa, more if the Red Knots of 

uncertain subspecific status that winter in northern Brazil (7,500) or Florida (7,500) are also C. c. 

rufa). Counts show that the main Tie1Ta del Fuego wintering population dropped from 67,546 in 

1985 to 51,255 in 2000, 29,271 in 2002, 31,568 in 2004, but only 17,653 in 2005 and 17,211 in 

2006. 

Demographic studies covering 1994-2002 showed that the population decline over that period 

was related to a drop in annual adult survival from 85% during 1994---1998 to 56% dl!ring 1999-

2001. Population models showed that if adult survival remained low, C. c. rufa would go extinct 

within about 10 yr. After 2002, the, population held up in 2003--2004, but plunged again by 

nearly 50% in 2005 increasing the likelihood of extinction within the next decade. Despite 

intensive studies, the reasons for the population decline and reduced adult sul'vival are 

imperfectly known. 

During northward migration, most C. c. ruja stopover in Delaware Bay where they feed mainly 

on the eggs of horseshoe crabs CUmulus polyphemus) and lay down fat and protein reserves both 

to fuel the 3,000 km fl ightto the arctic breeding grounds and ensure their survival after they 

arrive at a time when food availability is often low. The crucial importance of Delaware Bay is 

demonstrated by studies that show that Red Knots with lower mass in Delaware Bay have lower 

survival than heavier birds and that from 1998-2002 the proportion of birds there at the end of 

May weighing more than the estimated departure mass of 180 g declined by >60%. This might 

be the result of the progressive failure of the food supply in Delaware Bay and/or a trend for 

birds to arrive there later and/or in poorer condition. In years when Red Knots experience 

reduced food availability and arrive late, the result may be an exacerbation of the effects of each 

of these deleterious factors. The main identified threat to the C. c. rufa population is the reduced 

availability of horseshoe crabs eggs in Delaware Bay arising from elevated harvest of adult crabs 

for bait in the conch and eel fishing industries. Since 1990 the crab population has declined 

substantially. Although significant uncertainty regarding the extent of the decline of the 

horseshoe crab population remains, there is general agreement that horseshoe crab stocks have 

declined to a level where increased management of the fishery is necessary and appropriate. The 

decline in crabs has led to a decrease in the density of eggs available to shorebirds. Because of 

the crab's delayed maturity, demographic models indicate that even if further exploitation of 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 141 AppcndixD. 
1124

crabs ceases immediately, it will be some years before the horseshoe crab population recovers to 

its former level. Although clear evidence, as in 2003 and 2005, shows that the reduced 

availability of eggs is already having an impact in some years on the Red Knots ability to gain 

mass in Delaware Bay, it is likely that other threats to C. c. tu.fa exist and that these are the cause 

of some birds arriving in the bay late and/or in poor condition. It is not known what these are, but 

they could be related to Bahia Lomas, the main wintering site in Tierra del Fuego (because the 

largest reduction in recent years has occurred there and because northward migration from Bahia 

Lomas along the Atlantic coast of Argentina has taken place 1-2 wk later since year 2000). If it 

is proved that something leads Red Knots to anive late in Delaware Bay and/or in poor 

condition, this does not diminish the importance of the Delaware Bay food resource. If anything, 

it is increased because it is of critical importance in enabling the birds to recover quickly and 

reach the breeding grounds on time and in good reproductive condition. Actions being taken to 

improve feeding conditions for Red Knots and other shorebirds in Delaware Bay include beach 

closures to prevent disturbance and exclosures to reduce competition from gulls. However, 

although these measures help, they are no substitute for a recovered horseshoe crab population. 

Actions to conserve horseshoe crabs have included reduced harvest quotas, more efficient use of 

crabs as bait, closure of the harvest in certain seasons and places and the designation of a 

sanctuary off the mouth of Delaware Bay. The latest information indicates that the crab 

population may have stabilized, but there is no evidence of recovery. 

Studies in Avian Biology No. 36:1-185 

2 STUDIES IN AVIAN BIOLOGY NO. 36 

Another Red Knot subspecies, C. c. roselaari, breeds in Alaska and is pres urned to include those 

Red Knots that winter on the Pacific coast of the United States and Mexico. Two other Red 

Knot wintering populations are of uncertain subspecifi c status--one in the southeastern U.S. 

(mainly Florida) of about 7,500 and one on the north coast of Brazil also of about 7,500. These 

populations have not been the subject ofregular systematic surveys, but it is not thought that 

either has suffered the same catastrophic decline as the C c. rufa that winter in Tierra del Fuego. 

Substantial proportions of both pass through Delaware Bay during northward migration, but 

banding shows that these are distinct populations without interchange with the Tierra del Fuego 

birds. Moreover, genetic studies show that no exchange of genes has occurred between the 

southeastem U.S. and the TietTa del Fuego birds for at least 1,200 yr. Some progress has been 

made toward understanding why the Tierra del Fuego population has suffered a major decline, 

but the northern wintering birds have apparently remained more stable. It appears that 

physiological constraints mean that the southern birds, which mostly make a long, non-stop fl 

ight to Delaware Bay from at least northem Brazil, are more reliant on soft, easily-digested 

horseshoe crab eggs in Delaware Bay than the northern winterers, many of which feed on blue 

mussel (Mytilus edulis) spat or surf clams (Donax variablis) on the Atlantic coast ofNew Jersey. 

Evidence from Patagonia suggests that, for a reason that remains obscure, n01thward migration 

of Tierra del Fuego birds has become 1-2 wk later since the year 2000 and this has probably led 

to more Red Knots aniving late in Delaware Bay. Late arriving birds have been shown to have 

the ability to make up lost time by increasing their mass at a higher rate than usual provided they 

have sufficient food resources. However, late-arriving Red Knots failed to do this in 2003 and 

2005 when egg availability was low. Although C. c. rufa Red Knots are spread thinly across a 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 142 AppendixD. 
1125

large area of the Canadian Arctic during the breeding season, for the rest of the year they occur 

mainly in large flocks at a limited number of key coastal wintering and staging sites. This 

review describes each of these sites and the threats the birds face ranging from oil pollution to 

disturbance and reclamation for development. 

Overall the goal of conservation activities throughout the flyway should be to increase the C. c. 

rufa population to at least the number of25 yr ago-100,000-150,000 by 2015. Given the 

uncertain genetic relationships between the three main wintering populations we suggest the 

following population increases: (1) Tierra del Fuego wintering population to 70,000-80,000 

birds, (2) Brazilian wintering population to 20,000-25,000, (3) Florida wintering population to 

20,000-25,000, and (4) other sites to 15,000-20,000. The means whereby such population 

increases might be achieved include: (1) recovery and maintenance ofDelawarc Bay horseshoe 

crab egg densities to levels suffi cient to sustain stopover populations of all shorebirds including 

100,000 Red Knots, (2) control impact of disturbance at all stopovers and wintering areas, 

particularly in high-impmiance, high-disturbance areas like Delaware Bay and the west coast of 

Florida, (3) by 2008, develop a system for the yearly determination of population demographic 

status based 011 counts, capture data, and resightings ofband~d individuals, (4) by 2008, 

determine the genetic and breeding status of the three main wintering populations (Tierra del 

Fuego, Maranhao, and Florida), (5) by 2008, identify all important breeding locations in Canada 

and recommend protection needs and designations for the most important sites, (6) by 2009, 

complete site assessments and management plans for all important wintering areas and stopovers 

in the flyway, (7) by 2009, delineate and propose protection measures for key habitats within the 

main wintering areas of Maranhao, Ticn·a del Fuego, and Florida, and develop management 

plans to guide protection, (8) by 2009, determine key southbound and northbound stopovers that 

account for at least 80% of stopover areas supporting at least 100 Red Knots, and develop coastwide surveillance of birds as they migrate, and (9) by 2011, create a hemisphere-wide system of 

protected areas for each signifi cant wintering, stopover, and breeding area. Also crucial to C. c. 

rufa's recovery is adequate funding to support the conservation actions and research needed. 

Despite the fact that much of the research, survey, monitoring, and conservation work has been 

carried out by volunteers and has been supported financially by state, federal government and 

non-government agencies, present funding levels are inadequate to sustain the work required. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 143 Append1xD. 
1126

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

APPENDIX.F 

Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in 

Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the 

U.S. Atlantic Coast to 

Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the 

Endangered Species Act 

144 Appendix D. 
1127

GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

IN PIPING PLOVER BREEDING HABITAT ON THE U.S. ATLANTIC COAST 

TO AVOID TAKE UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

April 15, 1994 

The following infomiation is provided as guidance to beach managers and property owners 

seeking to avoid potential violations of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 

1538) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 17) that could occur as the result of 

recreational activities on beaches used by breeding piping plovers along the Atlantic Coast 

These guidelines were developed by the Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service), with assistance from the U.S. Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Team. The 

guideline.~ are advisory, and failure to implement them does not, of itself, constitute a violation 

of the law. Rather, they represent the Service's best professional advice to beach managers and 

landowners regarding the management options that will prevent direct mortality, harm, or 

harassment of piping plovers and their eggs due to recreational activities. 

Some land managers have endangered species protection obligations under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (see section I below) or under Executive Orders 11644 and 119891 that 

go beyond adherence to these guidelines. Nothing in this document should be construed as lack 

of endorsement of additional piping plover protection measures implemented by these land 

managers or those who are voluntarily undertaking stronger plover protection measures. 

This document contains four sections: (I) a brief synopsis of the legal requirements that afford 

protection to nesting piping plovers; (II) a brief summary of the life history of piping plovers and 

potential threats due to recreational activities during the breeding cycle; (III) guidelines for 

protecting piping plovers from recreational activities on Atlantic Coast beaches; and (IV) 

literature cited. 

I. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (BSA) prohibits any person su~ject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States from harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, 

trapping, capturing, or collecting listed wildlife species. It is also unlawful to attempt such acts, 

solicit another to commit such acts, or cause such acts to be committed. A "person" is defined in 

Section 3 to mean "an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any other private 

entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the Federal 

Government, of any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or of any foreign 

govemment; any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State; or any other entity 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Regulations implementing the ESA (50 CFR 

17.3) further define "harm" to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results 

in the killing or injury of wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns 

including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. "Harass" means an intentional or negligent act or 

omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to 

significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering. Penalties for violations of Section 9 are provided in Section 11 of the 

BSA; for threatened species, these penalties include fines oftJp to $25,000, imprisonment for not 

more than six months, or both. 

Section 10 of the ESA and related regulations provide for permits that may be granted to 

Hereford Inlet to Cape r-.fay Inlet 145 Appendix D. 
1128

authorize acts prohibited under Section 9, for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation 

or survival of a listed species. States that have Cooperative Agreements under Section 6 of the 

ESA, may provide written authorization for take that occws in the course of implementing 

conservation programs. For example, State agencies have authorized certain biologists to 

constrnct predator exclosures for piping plovers. It is also legal for employees or designated 

agents of certain Federal or State agencies to take listed species without a pennit, if the action is 

necessary to aid sick, injured, or orphru1ed animals or to salvage or dispose of a dead specimen. 

Section 10 also allows permits to be issued for take that is "focidental to, and not the purpose of, 

carrying out an otherwise lawful activity" if the Service detem1ines that certain conditions have 

been met. An applicant for an incidental take permit must prepare a conse.rvation plan that 

specifies the impacts of the take, steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the 

impacts, funding that will be available to implement these steps, alternative actions to the take 

that the applicant considered, and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized. 

Section 7 of the BSA may be pertinent to beach managers and landowners in situations that have 

a Federal nexus. Section 7 requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service (or National 

Marine Fisheries Service for marine species) prior to authorizing, funding, or carrying out 

activities that may affect listed species. Section 7 also requires that these agencies use their 

authorities to further the conservation of listed species. Section 7 obligations have caused 

Federal land management agencies to implement piping plover protection measures that go 

beyond those required to avoid take, for example by conducting research on threats to piping 

plovers. Other examples of Federal activities that may affect piping plovers along the Atlantic 

Coast, thereby triggering Section 7 consultation, include permits for beach nourishment or 

disposal of dredged material (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and funding ofbeach restoration 

projects (Federal Emergency Management Authority). 

Piping plovers, as well a.,;; other migratory birds such as least terns, common terns, American 

oystercatchers, laughing gulls, herring gulls, and great black-blacked gulls, their nests, and eggs 

are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712). Prohibited 

acts include pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, captuiing, collecting, or 

attempting such conduct. Violators may be fined up to $5000 and/or imprisoned for up to six , 

months. 

Almost all States within the breeding range of the Atlantic Coast piping plover population list 

the species as State threatened or endangered (Northeast Nongame Technical Committee 1993 ). 

Various laws and regulations may protect State-listed species from take, but the Service has not 

ascertained the adequacy of the guidelines presented in this document to meet the requirements 

of any State law. 

II. LIFE HISTORY AND THREATS FROM HUMAN DISTURBANCE 

Piping plovers are small, sand-colored shorebirds that nest on sandy, coastal beaches :from South 

Carolina to Newfoundland. Since 1986, the Atlantic Coast population has been protected as a 

threatened species under provisions of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1985). The U.S. portion of the population was estimated at 875 pairs in 1993 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Many characteristics of piping plovers contribute to thei:r 

Hereford Inlet to Cape l\.fay Inlet 146 AppendixD. 
1129

susceptibility to take due to human beach activities. 

LIFE HISTORY 

Piping plovers begin returning to their Atlantic Coast nesting beaches in mid-March (Coutu et al. 

1990, Cross 1990, Goldin 1990, Maclvor 1990, Hake 1993). Males establish and defend 

territories and court females (Caims 1982). Eggs may be present on the beach from mid-April 

through late July. Clutch size is generally four eggs, and the incubation period2 usually lasts for 

27-28 days. Piping plovers fledge only a single brood per season, but may renest several times if 

previous nests are lost. Chicks are precocial3 (Wilcox 1959, Cairns 1982). They may move 

hundreds of yards from the nest site during their first week of life (see Table l, Summary of 

Chick Mobility Data). Chicks remain together with one or both parents until they fledge (are 

able to fly) at 25 to 35 days of age. Depending on date of hatching, flightless chicks may be 

present from mid-May until late August, although most fledge by the end of July (Patterson 

1988, Goldin 1990, Maclvor 1990, Howard et al. 1993). 

Piping plover nests are situated above the high tide line on coastal beaches, sand flats at the ends 

of sandspits and baiTier islands, gently sloping foredunes, blowout areas behind primary dunes, 

and washover areas cut into or between dunes. They may also nest on areas where suitable 

dredge material has been deposited. Nest sites are shallow scraped depressions in substrates 

ranging from fine grained sand to mixtures of sand and pebbles, shells or cobble (Bent 1929, 

Burger 1987a, Cairns 1982, Patterson 1988, Flemming et al. 1990, Macivor 1990, Strauss 1990). 

Nests are usually found in areas with little or no vegetation although, on occasion, piping plovers 

will nest under stands of American beachgrass (Atnmophila breviligulata) or other vegetation 

(Patterson 1988, Flemming et al. 1990, Maclvor 1990). Plover nests may be very difficult to 

detect, especially during the 6-7 day egg-laying phase when the birds generally do not incubate 

(Goldin 1994). 

Plover foods consist of invertebrates such as marine wonns, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans or 

mollusks (Bent 1929, Cairns 1977, Nicholls 1989). Feeding areas include intertidal portions of 

ocean beaches, washover areas, mudflats, sandflats, wrack lines4, and shorelines of coastal 

ponds, lagoons or salt marshes (Gibbs 1986, Coutu et al. 1990, Hoopes et al. 1992, Loegering 

1992, Goldin 1993). Studies have shown that the relative importance of various feeding habitat 

types may vary by site (Gibbs 1986, Coutu et al. 1990, Mcconnaughey et al. 1990, Loegering 

1992, Goldin 1993, Hoopes 1993) and by stage in the breeding cycle (Cross 1990). Adults and 

chicks on a given site may use different feeding habitats in varying proportion (Goldin et al. 

1990). Feeding activities of chicks may be particularly important to their survival. Cairns 

(1977) found that piping plover chicks typically tripled their weight during the first two weeks 

post-hatching; chicks that failed to achieve at least 60% of this weight gain by day 12 were 

unlikely to survive. During courtship, 11esting, and brood rearing, feeding territories are 

generally contiguous to nesting territories (Cairns 1977), although instances where brood-rearing 

areas are widely separated from nesting territories are not uncommon. Feeding activities of both 

adults and chicks may occur during all hours of the day and night (Burger 1993) and at all stages 

in the tidal cycle (Goldin 1993, Hoopes 1993). 

H~reford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 147 Appendix D. 
1130

THREATS FROM NONMOTORIZED BEACH ACTIVITIES 

Sandy beaches that provide nesting habitat for piping plovers are also attractive recreational 

habitats for people and their pets. Nonmotorized recreational activities can be a source of both 

direct mortality and harassment of piping plovers. Pedestrians on beaches may crush eggs 

(Burger 1987b, Hill 1988, Shaffer and Laporte 1992, Cape Cod National Seashore 1993, Collazo 

et al. 1994). Unleashed dogs may chase plovers (McConnaughey et al. 1990), destroy nests 

(Hoopes et al. I 992), and kill chicks (Cairns and McLaren 1980). 

Pedestrians may flush incubating plovers from nests exposing eggs to avian predators or causing 

excessive cooling or heating of eggs. Repeated exposure of shorebird eggs on hot days may 

cause overheating, killing the embryos (Bergstrom 1991). Excessive cooling may kill embryos 

or retard their development, delaying hatching dates (Welty 1982). Pedestrians can also displace 

unfledged chicks (Strauss 1990, Burger 1991, Hoopes et al. 1992, Loegering 1992, Goldin 

1993). Fireworks are highly disturbing to piping plovers (Howard et al. 1993). Plovers are 

particularly intolerant of kites, compared with pedestrians, dogs, and vehicles; biologists believe 

this may be because plovers perceive kites as potential avian predators (Hoopes et al. l 992). 

THREATS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES 

Unrestricted use of motorized vehicles on beaches is a serious threat to piping plovers and their 

habitats. Vehicles can crush eggs (Wilcox 1959; Tull 1984; Burger 1987b; Patterson et al. 1991; 

United States of America v. Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc., U.S. District Court, Eastern District 

of New York, Civil Action No. CV-90-2542, 1991; Shaffer and Laporte 1992), adults, and 

chicks. In Massachusetts and New York, biologists documented I 4 incidents in which 18 chicks 

and 2 adults were killed by vehicles between 1989 and 1993 (Melvin et al. 1994). Goldin (1993) 

compiled records of34 chick mortalities (30 on the Atlantic Coast and 4 on the Northern Great 

Plains) due to vehicles. Many biologists that monitor and manage piping plovers believe that 

many more chicks are killed by vehicles than are found and reported (Melvin et al. 1994). 

Beaches used by vehicles during nesting and brood-rearing periods generally have fewer 

breeding plovers than available nesting and feeding habitat can support. In contrast, plover 

abmtdance and productivity has increased on beaches where vehicle restrictions during 

chickrearing periods have been combined with protection of nests from predators (Goldin 1993; 

S.Melvin, pers. comm., 1993). 

Typical behaviors of piping plover chicks increase their vulnerability to vehicles. Chicks 

frequently move between the upper berm or foredune and feeding habitats in the wrack line and 

intertidal zone. These movements place chitls in the paths of vehicles driving along the berm or 

through the intertidal zone. Chicks stand in, walk, and run along tire ruts, and sometimes have 

difficulty crossing deep ruts or climbing out of them (Eddings et al. 1990, Strauss 1990, Howard 

et al. 1993 ). Chicks sometimes stand motionless or crouch as vehicles pass by, or do not move 

quickly enough to get out of the way (full 1984, Hoopes et al. 1992, Goldin 1993). Wire 

fencing placed around nests to deter predators (!Grumer and Dehlinger 1990, Melvin et al. 1992) 

is ineffective in protecting chicks from vehicles because .chicks typically leave the nest within a 

day after hatching and move extensively along the beach to feed. 

Hcn,ford Inlet to Cap~ May Inlet 148 AppendixD. 
1131

Vehicles may also significantly degrade piping plover habitat or disrupt nonnal behavior 

patterns. They may harm or harass plovers by crushing wrack into the sand and making it 

unavailable as cover or a foraging substrate, by creating ruts that may trap or impede movements 

of chicks, and by preventing plovers from using habitat that is otherwise suitable (Maclvor 1990, 

Strauss 1990, Hoopes et al. 1992, Goldin 1993). 

III. GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTING PIPING PLOVERS FROM RECREATIONAL 

DISTURBANCE 

The Service recommends the following protection measures to prevent direct mortality or 

harassment of piping plovers, their eggs, and chicks. 

MANAGEMENT OF NONMOTORIZED RECREATIONAL USES 

On beaches where pedestrians, joggers, sun-bathers, picnickers, fishermen, boaters, horseback 

riders, or other recreational users are present h1 numbers that could harm or disturb incubating 

plovers, their eggs, or chicks, areas of at least SO meter-radius around nests above the high tide 

line should be delineated with warning signs and symbolic fencing. Only persons engaged in 

rare species monitoring, management, or research activities should enter posted areas. These 

areas should remain fenced as long as viable eggs or unfledged chicks are present. Fencing is 

intended to prevent accidental crushing of nests and repeated flushing of incubating adults, and 

to provide an area where chicks can rest and seek shelter when large numbers of people are on 

the beach. 

Available data indicate that a 50 meter buffer distance around nests will be adequate to prevent 

harassment of the majority of incubating piping plovers. However, fencing around nests should 

be expanded in cases where the standard 50 meter-radius is inadequate to protect incubating 

adults or unfledged chicks from harm or disturbance. Data from various sites distributed across 

the plover's Atlantic Coast range indicates that larger buffers may be needed ill some locations. 

This may include situations where plovers are especially intolerant of human presence, or where 

a 50 meter-radius area provides insufficient escape cover or alternative foraging opportunities for 

plover chicks. 

In cases where the nest is locat1;3d less than 50 meters above the high tide line, fencing should be 

situated at the high tide line, and a qualified biologist should monitor responses of the birds to 

passersby, documenting his/her observations in clearly recorded field notes. Providing that birds 

are not exhibiting signs of disturbance, tlus smaller buffer may be maintained in such cases. 

On portions of beaches that receive heavy human use, areas where territorial plovers are 

observed should be symbolically fenced to prevent disruption of territorial displays and 

courtship. Since nests can be difficult to locate, especially during egg-laying, this will also 

prevent accidental crushing of undetected nests. If nests are discovered outside fenced meas, 

fencing should be extended to create a sufficient buffer to prevent disturbance to incubating 

adults, eggs, or unfledged chicks. 

Pets should be leashed and under control of their owners at all times from April 1 to August 31 

on beaches where piping plovers are present or have traditionally nested. Pets should be 

Her~ford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 149 AppcndixD. 
1132

prohibited on these beaches from April 1 through August 31 if, based on observations and 

experience, pet owners fail to keep pets leashed and under control. 

Kite flying should be prohibited within 200 meters of nesting or territorial adult or unfledged 

juvenile piping plovers between April 1 and August 31. Fireworks should be prohibited on 

beaches where plovers nest from April l until all chicks are fledged. (See the Service's February 

4, 1997 Guidelines for Managing Fireworks in the Vicinity of Piping Plovers and Seabeach 

Amaranth on the U.S. Atlantic Coast.) 

MOTOR VEHICLE MANAGEMENT 

The Service recommends the following minimum protection measures to prevent direct mortality 

or harassment of piping plovers, their eggs, and chicks on beaches where vehicles are permitted. 

Since restrictions to protect unfledged chicks often impede vehicle access along a barrier spit, a 

munber of management options affecting the timing and size of vehicle closures are presented 

here. Some of these options are contingent on implementation of intensive plover monitoring 

and management plans by qualified biologists. It is recommended that landowners seek 

concun·ence with such monitoring plans from either the Service or the State wildlife agency.· 

Protection of Nests 

All suitable piping plover nesting habitat should be identified by a qualified biologist and 

delineated with posts and warning signs or symbolic fencing on or before April l each year. All 

vehicular access into or through posted nesting habitat should be prohibited. However, prior to 

hatching, vehicles may pass by such areas along designated vehicle corridors established along 

the outside edge of plover nesting habitat. Vehicles may also park outside delineated nesting 

habitat, if beach width and configuration and tidal conditions allow. Vehicle corridors or 

parking areas should be moved, constricted, or temporarily closed iftenitorial, courting, or 

nesting plovers are disturbed by passing or parked vehicles, or if disturbance is anticipated 

because of unusual tides or expected increases in vehicle use during weekends, holidays, or 

special events. 

If data from several years of plover monitoring suggests that significantly more habitat is 

available than the local plover population can occupy, some suitable habitat may be left unpasted 

if the following conditions are met: 

1. The Service OR a State wildlife agency that is party to an agreement under Section 6 

of the BSA provides written concurrence with a plan that: 

A. Estimates the number of pairs likely to nest on the site based on the past 

monitoring and regional population trends. 

AND 

B. Delineates the habitat that will be posted or fenced prior to April l to assure a 

high probability that territorial plovers will select protected areas in which to 

court and nest. Sites where nesting or courting plovers were observed during the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 150 Appendix D. 
1133

last three seasons as well as other habitat deemed most likely to be pioneered by 

plovers should be included in the posted and/or fenced area. 

AND 

C. Provides for monitoring of piping plovers on the beach by a qualified biologist(s). Generally, 

the frequency of monitoring should be not less than twice per week prior to May 1 and not less 

than three times per week thereafter. Monitoring should occur daily whenever moderate to large 

numbers of vehicles are on the beach. Monitors should document locations of territorial or 

courting plovers, nest locations, and observations of any reactions of incubating birds to 

pedestrian or vehicular disturbance. 

AND 

2. All unpasted sites are posted immediately upon detection of territorial plovers. 

Protection of Chicks 

Sections of beaches where unfledged piping plover chicks are present should be temporarily 

closed to all vehicles not deemed essential. (See 1.he provisions for essential vehicles below.) 

Areas where vehicles are prohibited should include all dune, beach, and intertidal habitat within 

the chicks' foraging range, to be determined by either of the following methods: 

1. The vehicle free area should extend 1000 meters on each side of a line drawn through 

the nest site and perpendicular to the long axis of the beaeh. The resulting 2000 meterwide 

area of protected habitat for plover chicks should extend from the ocean-side low 

water line to the bay-side low water line or to the farthest extent of dune habitat if no 

bay-side intertidal habitat exists. However, vehicles may be allowed to pass through 

portions of the protected area that are considered inaccessible to plover chicks because of 

steep topography, dense vegetation, or other naturally-occurring obstacles. 

OR 

2. The Service OR a State. wildlife agency that is party to an agreement under Section 6 

of the ESA provides written concurrence with a plan that: 

A. Provides for monitoring of all broods during the chick-rearing phase of the 

breeding season and specifies the frequency of monitoring. 

AND 

B. Specifies the minimum size of vehicle-free areas to be established in the 

vicinity of unfledged broods based on the mobility of broods observed on the site 

in past years and on the frequency of monitoring. Unless substantial data from 

past years show that broods on a site stay very close to their nest locations, 

vehicle-free areas should extend at least 200 meters on each side of the nest site 

I-krcford Inlet to Cape :L\.fay Inlet 151 AppendixD. 
1134

during the first week following hatching. The size and location of the protected 

area should be adjusted in response to the observed mobility of the brood, but in 

no case should it be reduced to less than 100 meters on each side of the brood. In 

some cases, highly mobile bmods may require protected areas up to I 000 meters, 

even where they are intensively monitored. Protected areas should extend from 

the ocean-side low water line to the bay-side low water line or to the farthest 

extent of dune habitat ifno bay-side intertidal habitat exists. lfowever, vehicles 

may be allowed to pass through portions of the protected area that are considered 

inaccessible to plover chicks because of steep topography, dense vegetation, or 

other naturally-occurring obstacles. In a few cases, where several years of data 

documents that piping plovers on a particular site feed in only certain habitat 

types, the Service or the State wildlife management agency rnay provide written 

concurrence that vehicles pose no danger to plovers in other specified habitats on 

that site. 

Timing ofVehicle Restrictions in Chick Habitat 

Restrictions on use of vehicles in areas where unfledged plover chicks are present should begin 

on or before the date that hatching begins and continue until chicks have fledged. For purposes 

of vehicle management, plover chicks are considered fledged at 3 5 days of age or when observed 

in sustained flight for at least 15 meters, whichever occurs first. 

When piping plover nests ru·e found before the last egg is laid, restrictions on vehicles should 

begin on the 26th day after the last egg is laid. This assumes an average incubation period of27 

days, and provides a 1 day margin of error. 

When plover nests are found after the last egg has been laid, making it impossible to predict 

hatch date, restrictions on vehicles should begin on a date determined by one of the following 

scenarios: 

1) With intensive monitoring: If the nest is monitored at least twice per day, at dawn and 

dusk (before 0600 hrs and after 1900 hrs) by a qualified biologist, vehicle use may 

continue until hatching begins. Nests should be monitored at dawn and dusk to minimize 

the time that hatching may go undetected if it occurs after dark Whenever possible, 

nests should be monitored from a distance with spotting scope or binoculars to minimize 

disturbance to incubating plovers. 

OR 

2) Without intensive monitoring: Restrictions should begin on May 15 (the earliest 

probable hatch date). If the nest is discovered after May 15, then restrictions should start 

immediately. 

If hatching occurs earlier than expected, or chicks are discovered from an unreported nest, 

restrictions on vehicles should begin immediately. 

If ruts are present that are deep enough to restrict movements of plover chicks, then restrictions 

Hereford Infot to Cape !\fay Inlet 152 AppendixD. 
1135

on vehicles should begin at least 5 days prior to the anticipated hatching date of plover nests. If 

a plover nest is found with a complete clutch, precluding estimation of hatching date, and deep 

ruts have been created that could reasonably be expected to impede chick movements, then 

restrictions on vehicles should begin immediately. 

Essential Vehicles 

Because it is impossible to completely eliminate the possibility that a vehicle will accidently 

crush an unfledged plover chicks, use of vehicles in the vicinity of broods should be avoided 

whenever possible. However, the Service recoguizes that life-threateuing situations on the beach 

may require emergency vehicle response. Furthermore, some "essential vehicles" may be 

required to provide for safety of pedestrian recreationists, law enforcement, maintenance of 

public property, or access to private dwellings not otherwise accessible. On large beaches, 

maintaining the frequency of plover monitoring required to minimize the size and duration of 

vehicle closures may necessitate the use of vehicles by plover monitors. 

Essential vehicles should only travel on sections of beaches where unfledged plover chicks are 

present if such travel is absolutely necessary and no other reasonable travel routes are available. 

All steps should be taken to minimize number of trips by essential vehicles through chick habitat 

areas. Homeowners should consider other means of access, eg. by foot, water, or shuttle 

services, during periods when chicks are present. 

The following procedures should be followed to minimize the probability that chicks will be 

cmshed by essential (non-emergency) vehicles: 

1. Essential vehicles should travel through chick habitat areas only during daylight homs, 

and should be guided by a qualified monitor who has first detennined the location of all 

unfledged plover chicks. 

2. Speed of vehicles should not exceed five miles per hour. 

3, Use of open 4-wheel motorized all-tenain vehicles (A TVs) or non-motorized allterrain 

bicycles is recommended whenever possible for monitoring and law enforcement 

because of the improved visibility afforded operators. 

4. A log should be maintained by the beach manager of the date, time, vehicle number 

and operator, and purpose of each trip through areas where unfledged chicks are present. 

Personnel monitoring plovers should maintain and regularly update a log of the numbers 

and locations of unfledged plover chicks on each beach. Drivers of essential vehicles 

should review the log each day to detennine the most recent number and location of 

unfledged chicks. 

Essential vehicles should avoid driving on the wrack line, and travel should be infrequent 

enough to avoid creating deep ruts that could impede chick movements. If essential vehicles are 

creating ruts that could impede chick movements, use of essential vehicles should be further 

reduced and, if necessary, restricted to emergency vehicles only. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }..fay Inlet 153 Appendix D. 
1136

SITE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 

The guidelines provided in this document are based on an extensive review of the scientific 

literature and are intended to cover the vast m~jority of situations likely to be encountered on 

piping plover nesting sites along the U.S. Atlantic Coast. However, the Service recognizes that 

site-specific conditions may lead to anomalous situations in which departures from this guidance 

may be safely implemented. The Service recommends that landowners who believe such 

situations exist on their lands contact either the Service or the State wildlife agency and, if 

appropriate, ammge for an on-site review. Written documentation of agreements regarding 

departures from this guidance is recommended. 

In stime unusual circumstances, Service or State biologists may recognize situations where this 

guidance provides insufficient protection for piping plovers or their nests. In such a case, the 

Service or the State wildlife agency may provide written notice to the landowner describing 

additional measures recommended to prevent take of piping plovers on that site. 

IV. LITERATURE CITED 

Assateague Island National Seashore. 1993. Piping Plover Management Plan. Assateague 

Island National Seashore, Berlin, Maryland. 24 pp. 

Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American shorebirds. Part 2. U.S. National Museum 

Bulletin No. 146. 412 pp. 

Bergstrom, P. W. 1991. Incubation temperatures of Wilson's plovers and killdeers. Condor. 91: 

634-641. 

Burger, J. 1987a. Physical and social detenninants of nest site selection in piping plover in New 

Jersey. Condor. 98: 811-818. 

Burger, J. 1987b. New Jersey Endangered Beach-Nesting Bird Project: 1986 Research. 

Unpublished report. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey. 

37pp. 

Burger, J. 1991. Foraging behavior and the effect of human disturbance on the piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus). Journal of Coastal Research, 7(1), 39-52. 

Burger, J. 1993. Shorebird squeeze. Natural History. May 1993: 8-14. 

Cairns, W.E. 1977. Breeding biology of Piping Plovers in southern Nova Scotia. M.S. Thesis. 

Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 115 pp. 

Cairns, W.E. and I.A. McLaren. 1980. Status ofthe piping plover on the east coast of North 

America. American Birds. 34: 206-208. 

Cairns, W.E. 1982. Biology and behavior of breeding Piping Plovers. Wilson Bulletin. 94: 

H~rcford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 154 App.:-:ndixn 
1137

531-545. 

Cape Cod National Seashore. 1993. Piping plover nest fmmd trampled by pedestrian. News 

Release. Cape Cod National Seashore, South Wellfleet, Massachusetts. 2 pp. 

Collazo, J.A., J.R Walters, and J.P. Pamell. 1994. Factors Affecting Reproduction and 

Migration of Waterbirds on North Carolina Barrier Islands. 1993 Annual Progress 

Report. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 57 pp. 

Coutu, S., J. Fraser, J. Mcconnaughey and J. Loegering. 1990. Piping Plover distribution and 

reproductive success on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Unpublished report. Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, North Carolina. 67 pp. 

Cross, R.R. 1989. Monitoring, management and research of the piping plover at Chincoteague 

National Wildlife Refo.ge. Unpublished report. Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries. 80 pp. 

Cross, R.R. 1990. Monitoring, management and research of the piping plover at Chincoteague 

National Wildlifu Refuge. Unpublished report. Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries. 68 pp. 

Cross, R.R. and K. Terwilliger. 1993. Piping plover flushing distances recorded in annual 

sun'eys in Virginia 1986-1991. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 5 

pp. 

Delaware Department ofNatural Resources and Environmental Control. 1990. Delaware Piping 

Plover Management Plan. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control. 5 pp. 

Eddings, K.S., C.R. Gtiffin, and S.M. Melvin. 1990. Productivity, activity patterns, limiting 

factors, and management of piping plovers at Sandy Hook, Gateway National Recreation 

Area, New Jersey. Unpublished report. Department of Forestry and Wildlife 

Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 79 pp. 

Flemming, S.P., R. D. Chiasson, and P.J. Austin-Smith. 1990. Piping Plover nest-site selection 

in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Unpublished document. Dept of Biology, Queen's 

University, Kingston, Canada. 3 I pp. 

Gibbs, J.P. 1986. Feeding ecology of nesting piping plovers in Maine. Unpublished report to 

Maine Chapter, The Nature Conservancy. Topsham, Maine. 21 pp. 

Goldin M., C. Griffin and S. Melvin. 1990. Reproductive and foraging ecology, human 

disturbance, and management of Piping Plovers at Breezy Point, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, New York, 1989. Progress report. 58 pp. 

Goldin, M.R. 1990. Reproductive ecology and management of piping plovers (Charadrius 

me]odus) at Breezy Point, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York-- 1990. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape: May Inlet 155 AppendixD. 
1138

Unpublished report. Gateway National Recreation Area, Long Island, New York. 16 pp. 

Goldin, M.R. 1993. Effects of human disturbance and off-road vehicles on piping plover 

reproductive success and behavior at Breezy Point, Gateway National Recreation Area, 

New York. M.S. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 128 pp. 

Goldin, M.R. 1994. Breeding history of, and recommended monitoring & management 

practices for piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) at Goosewing Beach, Little Compton, 

Rhode Island (with discussion ofBriggs Beach). Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 36 pp. 

Hake, M. 1993. 1993 summary of piping plover management program at Gateway NWRA 

Breezy Point district. Unpublished report. Gateway National Recreation Area, Long 

Island, New York. 29 pp. 

Hill, J.O. 1988. Aspects of breeding biology of Piping Plovers Charadrius melodus in Bristol 

County, Massachusetts, in 1988. Unpublished report. University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst, Massachusetts. 44 pp. 

Hoopes, E.M., C.R. Griffm, and S.M. Melvin. 1992. Relationships between human recreation 

and Piping Plover foraging ecology and chick survival. Unpublished report. University 

of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 77 pp. 

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping _plover foraging 

ecology and chick survival. M.S. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 

Massachusetts. l 06 pp. 

Howard, J.M., JU. Safran, and S.M. Melvin. 1993. Biology and conservation of piping plovers 

at Breezy Point, New York. UDf!ublished report Department of Forestry and Wildlife 

Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 34 pp. 

Loegering, J.P. 1992. Piping Plover breeding biology, foraging ecology and behavior on 

Assateague Island National Seashore, Marylaru:l. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polyteclmic 

Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 pp. 

Maclvor, L.H. 1990. Population dynamics, breeding ecology, and management of Piping 

Plovers on Outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. M.S. Thesis. University of 

Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 100 pp. 

McC01maughey, J.L., J.D. Fraser, S.D. Coutu, and J.P. Loegering. 1990. Piping plover 

distribution and reproductive success on Cape Lookout National Seashore. Unpublished 

report. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Morehead City, North Carolina 83 pp. 

Melvin, S.M., L.H. Maclvor, and C.R. Griffin. 1992. Predator ex.closures: a technique to 

reduce predation of piping plover nests. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20: 143-148. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 156 AppendixD. 
1139

Melvin, S.M., C.R. Griffin and A. Hecht. 1994. Mortality of piping plover chicks caused by 

off-road vehicles on Atlantic coast beaches. Wildlife Society Bulletin, in press. 

Nicholls, J .L. 1989. Distribution and other ecological aspects of Piping Plovers ( Charadrius 

melodus) wintering along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, 

Auburn, Alabama. 150 pp. 

Northeast Nongame Technical Committee. 1993. Legal categories ofral'e species in then 

northeastern states. Northeast Nongame Technical Committee, Northeast Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 22 pp. 

Patterson, M.E. 1988. Piping plover breeding biology and reprnductive success on Assateague 

Island. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, 

Virginia 131 pp. 

Patterson, M.E., J.D. Fraser, and J.W. Roggenbuck. 1991. Factol'S affecting piping plover 

productivity on Assateague Island. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55(3 ): 525-531. 

Rimmer, D.W., and R.D. Dehlinger. 1990. Use of predator exclosures to protect piping plover 

nests. Journal of Field Ornithology. 61: 217-223. 

Shaffer, F. and P. Laporte. 1992. Rapport synthese des recherches relatives au pluvier siffleur 

(Charadrius melodus) effectuees aux Iles-de-la-Madeleine de 1987 a 1991. Association 

quebecoise des groupes d'ornithologues et Service canadien de la faune. 78 pp. 

Strauss, E. 1990. Reproductive success, life history patterns, and behavioral variation in a 

population of Piping Plovers subjected to lrnman disturbance (1982-1989). Ph.D. 

dissertation. Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts. 

Tull, C.E. 1984. A study of nesting piping plovers of Kouchibouguac National Park 1983. 

Unpublished report. Parks Canada, Kouchibouguac National Park, Kouchibouguac, New 

Brunswick. 85 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and Tltreatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Endangered and Threatened Status for the Piping Plover; Final Rule. 

Federal Register 50 (238): 50726-50734. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 1993 Status Update; U.S. Atlantic Coast Piping Plover. 

Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sudbury, Massachusetts. 7 pp. 

Welty, J.C. 1982. The life of birds. Sauders College Publishing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

754pp. 

Wilcox, L. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the piping plover. Auk. 76:129-152. 

Hcrnford Inlet lo Cape May Inlet 157 Appendix D. 
1140

APPENDIXG 

Guidelines for Managing Fireworks in the Vicinity of 

Piping Plovers and Seabeach Amaranth 

on the U.S. Atlantic Coast 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 158 AppendixD. 
1141

GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING FIREWORKS IN THE VICINITY OF PIPING PLOVERS 

AND SEABEACH AMARANTH ON THE U.S. ATLANTIC COAST 

February 4, 1997 

The following is provided as guidance to Federal agencies, landowners, commercial fireworks 

companies, and fireworks event sponsors seeking to avoid adverse effects on piping plovers and 

seabeach amaranth. They are intended to advise Federal agencies that conduct, fund, or 

authorize fireworks activities regarding the measures nee,ded to avoid adverse effects on listed 

species, thereby averting the need for formal consul1ation under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). These practices also constitute the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 

(Services's) best professional advice to non-Federal entities on avoiding take of piping plovers 

under Section 9 of the ESA. 

These guidelines supplement information about protection of piping plovers from a variety of 

recreational activities, provided in the Service's April 15, 1994 Guidelines for Managing 

Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic: Coast to Avoid 

Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (appended)1. 

Seabeach amaranth, a threatened plant species protected under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), occurred histo1ically along coastal beaches from southern Massachusetts to South 

Carolina. At the present time it is found only on Long Island, New York; North Carolina; and 

South Carolina. Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service prior 

to authorizing, funding, or caiTying out activities that direcily or indirectly affect listed plants; 

this requirement is applicable to permits related to fireworks events that are issued by the U.S. 

Coast Guard. 

Potential Impacts Related to Fireworks Displays 

Direct Impacts 

Fireworks are highly disturbing to piping plovers. Fireworks early in the breeding season may 

cause plovers conducting courtship activities to abandon their territories. Direct iajury can be 

caused by the explosions or debris, and piping plovers and terns (which often nest adjacent to or 

near plovers) will often abandon tbeir nests and broods during fireworks displays, exposing eggs 

and chicks to weather and predators. If a flightless chick were to become pemianently separated 

from its parents during the confusion, mortality would be almost certain. 

Several situations where fireworks caused severe adverse effects on least terns, colonial nesting 

birds often found in the vicinity of piping plovers, serve as indicators of the effects that 

pyrotechnics can exert on beach-nesting birds. An August 1993 fireworks display in New Jersey 

1 Copies of the 1994 Guidelines for general recreational activities are also available, on 

request, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wier Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776, Attn: Anne 

Hecht; telephone 508-443-4325; fax 508-443-2898. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 159 Appendix D, 
1142

caused permanent abandonment of a least tern colony located more than 250 m away, and a 1994 

New Jersey fireworks display caused temporary abandonment and displays of distress by terns 

within a colony located more than 3/4 mile away. Incidents in New York where piping plovers 

were disturbed by fireworks also caused prolonged disturbance to least terns and black skimmers 

nesting nearby. 

Seabcach amaranth can be directly affected by launch activities if they occur in areas where the 

plants may be crushed or damaged by launch personnel or equipment. 

Indirect Impacts 

In addition to adverse effects from the noise and lights of the pyrotechnics, commercial 

fireworks displays often draw large crowds that may pose threats to nearby plovers. These 

crowds may be situated at some distance from the actual launch site, for example, across an inlet. 

Potential indirect impacts that may adversely affect piping plovers include: spectators walking 

through and/or throwing objects (including illegal pyrotechnics) into plover nesting and broodrearing areas; additional off-road vehicle patrols by public safety personnel; increased boat 

landings by spectators on relatively remote stretches of beach; low-flying aircraft, including 

helicopter patrols and personal spectator aircraft; additional trash (which attracts predators). 

Signs and symbolic fences that are adequate for the purpose of alerting daytime beach users to 

locations of plover breeding areas are often insufficient to prevent accidental entry by fireworks 

spectators wandering in the dark. 

Potential indirect adverse effects on seabeach amaranth include trampling or crushlng of 

unprotected plants by pedestrian or vehicular traffic on the beach. 

Measures for Avoiding and Monitoring Direct and Indirect Impacts 

of Fireworks Events 

Direct Impacts 

Fireworks displays including launch areas and debris fallout areas should be located to avoid 

disturbance of breeding piping plovers. In general, the Service recommends that the launch site 

be located a minimum of 3/4 mile from the nearest plover nesting and/or foraging area. Access 

routes for personnel deploying the fireworks and other public safety personnel (including fire 

prevention/suppression and law enforcement officers) should conform with the vehicle 

management recommendations contained in the Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities 

in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of 

the Endangered Species Act. Launch sites should also be located to prevent trampling any 

seabeach amaranth plants. 

Indirect Impacts 

Hereford Inlet to Cape l\fay Inlet 160 AppendixD. 
1143

Event sponsors should plan and implement measures to assure that spectators will not walk 

through and/or throw o~jects into plover nesting and brood-rearing areas. Sufficient law 

enforcement and other personnel must also be on-site during these events to enforce plover 

protection measures and prevent use of illegal fireworks in the vicinity of the birds. 

l. Plover habitats in the vicinity of where spectators may congregate should be intensively 

surveyed by qualified biologists2 for at least four days prior to the event to locate nests, adult 

plovers, chicks, and/or post-fledged juveniles. For events prior to July 1, surveyors should 

also search for territorial and/or courting adults that have not yet established nests or may be 

preparing to re-nest. In New York, potential habitat for seabeach amaranth should be 

surveyed to locate any seabeach amaranth plants. 

2. Plover habitats should be symbolically fenced in accordance with the Service's Guidelines 

for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the ll.S. Atlantic 

Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (see pages 7-8). 

Seabeaeh amaranth plants should be symbolically fenced to provide a minimum 3 meter 

buffer zone around individual plants or groups of plants. 

3. Additional protection measures recommended to avoid impacts that may occur when the 

large crowds are drawn to the beach at night include3

: 

a. Close parking lots and beach access points in the vicinity of breeding plovers. 

b. Increase the size of symbolically fenced areas around plover nesting areas to provide 

extra buffers between birds and pedestrians that may be on the beach. The size of buffers 

should be appropriate for the size of the anticipated crowd; for large crowds, buffers 

should be expanded from the standard 50 meters to a total of 100 meters from established 

nests. 

2 State wildlife agencies and private environmental groups often conduct plover monitoring 

activities and can be consulted for available information about plover breeding locations. However, 

intensity of surveys needed to avoid adverse effect~ from fireworks events will often exceed those 

routinely conducted by these wildlife agencies/organizations. Arrangements and commitments for 

added surveys for the,se events are the responsibility of the pennitting agencies and/or event 

sponsors. It is recommended that these arrangements be made well in advance of the potential event, 

due to limited availability of qualified personnel. 

3 For extremely large fireworks events, additional protection measures may be needed, including: 

issuing air traffic advisory for all aircraft to remain> 1000' above sensitive areas; issuing mariners 

advisory telling boaters not to .land in sensitive areas; boat patrols; extensive advanced publicity 

advising spectators where they should go to watch the fireworks and about closed areas; training 

about protec:tion needs of rare plants and/or animals for law enforcement persomiel. 

Hereford Inlet to Cap~ May Infot 161 Appendix D. 
1144

c. In<.-rease the visibility of fencing using reflectorized tape or by substituting snoWfences, 

plastic orange highway construction fences, or wire mesh fences for string fencing, as 

string fences are very difficult to see at night. Snowfences and highway construction 

fences should be removed the next day ifthere is any chance that they will impede chick 

movements. 

d. Fence and post foraging territories of unfledged chicks, as delineated by a qualified 

biologist, especially in areas where large crowds are anticipated and/or if the day of the 

event is especially hot (since heat often deters chick foraging during the daytime, 

increasing the birds' reliance on evening feeding). 

e. Provide adequate numbers ( consistent with anticipated numbers of spectators) of 

monitors and law enforcement personnel in the vicinity of plover breeding areas or 

seabeacl1 amaranth locations to patrol fenced areas from the time when spectators begin 

congregating on the beach until the crowd disperses after the event. Assure that monitors 

and enforcement personnel receive accurate cun-ent information about the locations of 

threatened birds and plants so that they can minimize any disruptions from their own 

aciivities. 

f. Prohibit all pets on the beach during the event and ensure compliance with this 

prohibition. 

4. Remove any trash or litter from the beach immediately follm.ving the event. However, any 

trash located within fenced areas should be left until daylight and then removed by or under 

the supervision of plover monitors. Further, vehicles should not be used at night to remove 

trash within l 00 meters of unfledged plover chicks. 

5. In order to gauge the effectiveness of the measures 3 and 4, the following data should be 

collected: 

a. Locations and status of all adult plovers, nests, and chicks within 1/4 mile of spectator 

viewing areus should be determined by a qualified biologist on the day of the event and 

again on the following day. 

b. Counts of human and dog tracks that intersect the perimeter of symbolically fenced areas 

before and after the event. 

c. Counts of any persons actually observed inside symbolically fenced areas during the 

event. 

d. Counts of any instances of illegal pyrotechnics used on the beach during the event. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape l\fay Inlet 162 AppcndixD. 
1145

e. Counts of trash/litter items inside symbolically fenced areas before and after the event. 

:For very large areas or areas that have substantial amounts of trash before the event, trash 

counts may be conducted in sample plots. 

f. Count of breaks in symbolic fences. 

6. Except when responding to an actual emergency situation, all law enforcement, fire 

department, public works, fireworks deployment, and other vehicles in the vicinity of 

breeding plovers should only be operated in conformance with the Service's Guidelines for 

Managing Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the US. Atlantic 

Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (see discussion of 

Essential Vehicles, pages 13-14 ). 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 163 Appendix D. 
1146

APPENDIXH 

Piping Plover Nesting Results in New Jersey: 2012 

(Prepared by the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program) 

HerdOrd Inlet to Cape Afay Inlet 164 Appendix D. 
1147

Table 1. Number of pairs of piping plovers at New Jersey nesting sites: 2003-2012. 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

38 J:l 22 22 30 311 35 45 49 50 

CoasJGuard 8 7 j 4 4 4 4 :; 4 4 

North Beach 9 /0 6 4 8 8 9 IS l4 14 

North Gumrl~on 5 3 2 s 4 7 9 9 9 13 South Gmmsfrm 1 I 0 0 1 2 5 5 4 5 D~Lol 0 0 /} 0 n 0 0 0 I 0 

Slre/e,on HIil Mand 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 I 0 Crlti~a/ ZQ.ne 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 6 5 6 

Hidden Bet1ch 4 J J 4 2 J J 5 4 Fee Beach 6 4 4 4 4 5' J J 5 3 South Fee Beach / 1 J 1 1 2' 0 I / J ea Bright North 7 5 7 7 8 8 6 3 2 

North 2 4 3 3 l l l 2 0 0 Park l I l 2 3 3 2 2 2 0 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

49 42 33 34 42 44 44 52 53 SJ 

I 1 I 0 l 0 I 0 0 l 

0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 

2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 3 4 3 4 3 l 3 3 1 

6 7 7 3 6 3 z 3 3 l 

13 /6 13 16 14 /I 7 /0 6 14 

/9 19 I/ IJ 17 12 /0 13 17 18 

17 8 8 8 8 8 6 3 5 8 

49 43 32 36 39 31 23 26 28 40 

0 0 1' 0 0 0 0 0 I l 

2 ! 1' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8 8 5 1 4 3 I 0 1 0 

10 9 6 7 4 3 I 0 2 l 

2 3 2 2 1 2 0 ·O 0 

0 0 I 0 0 0 I I I 

1 l 1 0 0 0 l 2 2 

l I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8 8 5 5 4 • 5 5 5 

Region 6 subtotal ll 13 10 7 5 6 7 8 8 

Storu: Harbor Point 6 9 IO 17 I! IS 9 10 Champagne Island 0 l ! I 0 0 0 0 • Wildwood• Herofo!'rl J 4 3 2 1 2 2 l 1ivo-Mife Beach 2 1 1 1 0 (/ 1 0 

C.npe M,o, NWR 0 0 a I 0 0 0 0 

Coast Guw·d ~ LSU 1 1 1 I 0 0 1 0 

Coast Guard· TRACEN 4 I 3 2 l 0 0 0 

ape May City 0 l 0 0 1 I 0 0 

ape May Meadows 3 4 s 7 11 ll 8 6 

Tlte Nalure Cunservaney 2 I 4' 4 7 7 5 4 

Cope Moy Point SP1 I 3 2' 3 4 4 3 2 

18 21 23 31 29 20 17 

Nilte: Sitts in italics were monila:rerl by agencies 01her tfo.m NJOFW: Sandy Hook NRA by Ute National Park Servloo, 

Holgate end Little Beach by USFWS - Edwin B. Fors)1he NWR, Two~MHe Eleach by USFWS w Cape Mil)' N\VR~ 

Cape-May MeadoW$M·mc h)' Tho Naturt Conservancy~ Delaware Bayshores Office. 

4 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 165 AppendixD. 
1148

Appendix E. 

Cultural Resources 
1149

Cultural Resources 

The USA CE has determined that the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the selected plan 

includes the beaches and intertidal areas from Hereford Inlet to Cape May inlet, marking the 

northern and southern limits, and from the existing dunes to the intertidal area marking the 

eastern and western limits. The limits of construction disturbance for the selected plan are 

located within the APE 

Although there are several recorded historic properties eligible for or listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the vicinity of the APE for the selected plan, the 

USACE has determined that dune and berm construction along approximately 4.5 miles from 

Hereford Tnlet to Cape May Inlet using recently accreted sand from the intertidal zone from the 

southern end of Five Mile Island will have No Effect. 

A cultural resource assessment of the proposed intertidal sand source was conducted by FEMA 

as part of the Section 106 review for post-Hurricane Irene beach restoration of North Wildwood. 

An assessment of the beach in the adjacent communities of Wildwood Crest in the south to North 

Wildwood was conducted to determine the sensitivity of below ground archaeological resources. 

Several aspects were analyzed including the project's proximity to know archaeological 

resources, waterways and historic properties as well as the site's environmental characteristics 

such as spoil analysis and previous ground disturbing activities within the project APE, which is 

roughly the APE of the selected plan. 

Remnants of the Nancy, a revolutionary war brig set afire by troops at Turtle Gut Inlet (Site 

28CM0013) are located southwest of the APE and site 28CM0008 is currently underneath the 

existing Wildwood Boardwalk. There are no structures within the project APE; however the 

Chateau Blue Motes, the Hereford Inlet Lighthouse and the J. Thompson Baker House are all 

listed on the NRHP, but will not be affected. Also, the Wildwood Shore Resort Historic District 

runs parallel to the beach and is within the project viewshed but will also not be affected. 

The APE is a previously disturbed, engineered beaches. The proposed project will collect, 

transport and place sand entirely within the previously disturbed areas. No part of the proposed 

undertaking is located within an archaeologically sensitive area, and no historic properties are 

within the APE. Therefore, per 36 CFR 800.3(a)(l ), no historic properties eligible for or listed 

on the NRHP will be affected by the selected plan activities. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet Appendix E. 
1150

Appendix F. 

Real Estate Plan 
1151

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Philadelphia District 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Cape May County, 

New Jersey 

New Jersey Shore Protection 

Study 

Real Estate Plan 

Prepared by: 

Heather Sachs, Baltimore 

District 

APRIL 2014 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 

North Atlantic Division 
1152

REAL EST ATE PLAN 

FOR THE 

New Jersey Shore Protection Stndy 

Hereford to Cape May Inlet F'easibility Study 

Cape May County, New Jersey 

I. GENERAL 

2. REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS 

a. of Land, Easements, Rights and Access Road 

b. Estates 

c. Non-Standard Estates 

d. Current Ownership 

e. Real Estate Mapping 

3. EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS 

4. EXISTING FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS 

5. LANDS OWNED BY THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR 

6. NAVIGATIONAL SERVlTUDE 

7. INDUCED FLOODING 

8. BASELINE COST ESTIMATE FOR REAL ESTATE 

9. PlJBLIC LAW 91,646 RELOCATIONS 

IO. MINERAL ACTIVITY 

l l. TIMBER RIGHTS 

12. ASSESSMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR ACQlHSITION CAPABILITY 

13. ZONING 

14. ACQUISITION SCHEDULE 

15. UTILITY AND FACILITY RELOCATIONS 

16. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 

17. ATTITUDES OF THE LANDOWNERS 

18. NOTIFICATION TO NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR 

19, RISK ANALYSIS 

2 
1153

Abstract of Project Data: 

~~cL!c:!£!!.!.!~, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Shore Protection Study 

LQJ~Q!!: Cape May County, New Jersey 

W~~YU~;: Storm Damage Reduction 

fil~&§: Per'Petual Storm Damage Reduction Easement 606.42 

Borrow Easement 245.00 

Qn:;ru~rn!§fil.£~lfil£ $1,01 s,912 

H 

fl:!~ru~t.I:'!~rnlfu?JQ!Y:~lli.Efil: New Department of Environmental Protection 

3 
1154

1. GENERAL: 

This Real Estate Plan is in support of the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility 

Repoi1 Decision. The New Shore Protection was completed under au1:1101ntv 

ofresolutions adopted by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of 

Representat.ives, and the Committee on Environment and Public U.S. Senate, dated 

December 1987. The resulting Report of Limited Reconnaissance, completed in September 

1990, asserted that the situation between the Hereford Inlet and Inlet was not critical 

and recommended that other areas along the New Jersey Coast required immediate attention. 

A increase in shoreline problems in the lnlet 

area in the l 990's generated a letter of urgency in 2002 from the current Non-Federal Sponsor 

for this the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The 

resulting 2002 Hereford Inlet to Cape May lnlet Reconnaissance Study/Preliminary Financial 

was completed in 2002 and approved North AU.antic Division by letter dated 

January 28, 2002. TI1e Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement was signed between the Philadelphia 

District and the NJDEP on September 30, 2002. The damage and destruction caused to the 

barrier island communities of the New Jersey shore Hurricane Sandy in October 2012 

pmmpted Congressional passage of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, as signed 

into law on January 29, 2013, to address shoreline issues. The passage of additional 

available funding for shoreline protection projects accelerated the timeline for the completion of 

reas1n:mi'il reports. 

The study area is a barrier island located in Cape May County, New Jersey, bordered to 

the north by Hereford Inlet and to the south by Cape May Inlet Known as 

"Five Mile Island, municipalities on the island include North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood 

Crest and a portion The study area is a resort with the 

majority of vacationers to the island visiting Wildwood. The southern end of the island is 

comprised of the May National Wildlife Refuge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service) and the fonner U.S. Coast Guard Electronics Center (managed jointly by the lLS. Coast 

Guard and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife No federal lands are included in the project 

Description of Recommended Plan: The primary purpose of this project is to provide 

hurricane and storm The selected plan for this project extends 

4.5 miles from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and will include the towns ofN011h Wildwood, 

"""'""" Wildwood Crest and Lower. The project will include the creation ofa 16' North 

American Vertical Datum (NAVD) 88 dune with a 25' wide crest and 75' wide betm base, 

mc:1Uut11111 a 30' offset for maintenance access and dune taper, at an elevation of6.5' NAVO 

using sand back-passed from a beach borrow source on a four-year nourishment cycle. The sand 

for the dune and berm will be pumped from the southern borrow area using mobile backpassing 

technology to hydraulically pump the sand from the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest borrow 

somce to the placement area on a four-year nourishment The dLme and benn restoration 

4 
1155

and maintenance are designed to provide a level of stom1 protection, confonn to and 

enhance the existing environs and provide an adaptive and productive use for the excess sand 

currently clogging beach outfalls by shaping it into a dune and benn for storm reduction benefits. 

Therefore, this Real Estate Plan supports the currently-available drawings. Due to 

the accelerated timeline~ certain items in this plan will require additional These 

items are noted in the report below as The iru:onnatio11 contained herein is tentative 

in nature for planning purposes only. 

fi'igure t. Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Hereford Inlet to Cape Mly Inlet. NJ 

5 

•::a::J111111111111::::::::::=-iM!l~, 

4 
1156

2. REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS 

Application of sound real estate principles including blocking out along regular and 

definable boundaries; severance; and usable and economic remainders 

outside the project footprint have designated the project footprint. The project footprint is 

deemed suffic.ient to accommodate the construction, maintenance. repair and 

replacement ofthe proposed prqject 

a. Description or Land, Easements, Rights-of-Way and Access Road Requirements 

for Project 

The selected plan will require two (2) types of standard easements for the All project 

activities, including mobilization and construction. lay down and storage of contractor materials 

and equipment, planting of dune grass and placement of sand as well as crossover areas. 

are located within the prqject area Limit of Construction within the acreages listed below. 

Th,,,.,,,&.,· .. no Work Area or Road/Access Easements are required for these areas. 

A standard Perpetual Beach Stoml Reduction Easement (Standard Estate No. 26) is 

required for the construction of the beach bem1 and dune system on the beachfront properties 

that are above the MHWL or that include riparian grants below MHWL, including those owned 

by the local municipalities. The total numbers of properties easement acquisition are 

43 towr1ship-o,1med properties and 48 privately-owned properties above MHWL The total 

acreage amounts for acquisition are 540.42 acres for municipally-owned 66.00 acres 

for privately-owned properties. For the State-owned borrow area below MHWL, a standard 

Borrow Easement would be the minimum estate if not owued by the State. 

This 245 acres will be valued as a borrow easement for LERRD crediting purposes, but since the 

property is owned by the Non-Federal Sponsor, the State will access to the properly 

through a Right-of-Entry to the Government. The number of parcels requiring easement 

of the entire parcel and those requiring acquisition over part of the entire for 

each municipality: 

North Wildwo<ld 4 

2 25 

6 
1157

Some of the listed above include parcels localed below the MHWL currentlv 

subject to riparian grants. Easements will either have to be subordinated to the State of New • 

Jersey through a legal detennination of the State under the State public trust doctrine, or must be 

acquired 1.wcr lht: areas below the MHWL covered by grants for construction, operntion 

and maintenance required by the Non-Federal and the Government over the lite tifthe 

project. The State is currently a determination as which approach it will take in 

addressing riparian grants. The same easement acquisition criteria applies to areas below the 

MHWL requiml for beach-shaping and activities related to the dredging of material to be placed 

on this site. A Perpetual Borrow Easement is also requil'ed for properties below the mean high 

water line not covered by riparian grants, since said properties are not subject to navigation 

servitude. See Section 6 entitled "Navigational Servitude" for further explanation of this 

easement acquisition requirement. 

b. Standard Estates 

A standard Perpetual Beach Stonn Damage Reduction Easement (Standard Estate No. 26, 

EC 405-1 • 1 l, Exhibit 5-29) and Perpetual Borrow Area Easement ,Standard Estate No. 14, EC 

405-1-11, Exhibit are required for the construction of the beach bem1 and dune for upland 

bcachfront the MHWL and those covered by riparian grants, plus the borrow 

&eas below As noted on the project drawing included as Exhibit A the City of 

Wildwood has proposed the inclusion of a Camper/RV Parking Lot within the project 

construction limit. Although generally not allowed under the standard beach storm damage 

reduction easement below, an exception to the easement has been determined to be acceptable 

since the parking area will be a location of public access and accommodation and will be 

owned operated by the of Wildwood. The inclusion of this parking area was reviewed 

b)' the prnJe.ct design team bas been detem1ined to not interfere wiili the selected plan design. 

The City of Wildwood is the underlying owner of the fee estate of this property. Therefore. no 

modified standard easement is required for the inclusion of the proposed Camper/RV Parking 

Lot, or any other part of the 

A perpetual and assignable easement and in, on, over a11d across land described 

in Schedule A) (Tract No. for use by the (Project Sponsor), its representatives, agents, 

contractors, and to construct; preserve; patrol; operate; maintain; repair; rehabilitate; and 

replace; a public beach fa dune system J and other erosion control and stonn damage reduction 

measures together with appurtenances thereto, including the right to deposit sand; to accomplish 

any alterations of contours on said land: to construct bem1s to nourish and renouri.sh 

periodically; to move, store and remove equipment and supplies; to erect and remove temporary 

7 
1158

structures; and to perfonn any other work necessary and incident to the construction, periodic 

renourishment and maintenance of the (Project Name), together with the right of public use and 

access; [to plant vegetation on said dunes and berms; to erect, maintain and remove silt screens 

and sand fences; to facilitate preservation of dunes and vegetation through the limitation of 

access to dune areas;] to trim, cut, foll, and remove from said land all trees, underbrush, debris, 

obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures and obstacles within the limits of the easement 

·--,,,, _____________ ,, f reserving, to the grantor(s), (his) (her) (heirs), successors 

and assigns, the right to construct dune overwalk structures in accordance with any applicable 

Federal, State or local laws or regulations, provided that such structures shall not violate the 

integrity of the dune in shape, dimension or function, and that prior approval of the plans and 

specifications for such structures is obtained from the (designated representative of the Project 

Sponsor) and provided further that such structures are subordinate to the construction, operation, 

maintenan.ce, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of the and further] to the 

grantor(s), (his) (her) (its) (their) (heirs), successors and assigns all such rights and privileges as 

may be used and enjoyed withmit interforing with or abridging the rights and easements 

acquired; subject however to existing ea,;ements for public roads and public utilities, 

railroads and pipelines. 

(Standard Estate No. 14) 

A perpetual and assignable right and easement to clear, bon·ow, excavate and remove 

and other materials from (the land described in Schedule A) Nos. 

___ ); 1 subject, lmwever, to existing easements for public roads and hic,h""'"'" 

railroads and pipelines; reserving, ho\\'l!Ver, to the lando\\'llers, their heirs and 

and privileges in said land as may be used without interfering with or uh,•icln,,..,,, 

and easement hereby acquired. 

c. Non-Standard Estates 

dirt, 

and 

There are no non-standard estates required for this project. However, there are five (5) 

entertainment pier structures, one (1) fishing pier structure and two (2) private beaches included 

in the project area. The Non-Federal Sponsor provided draft deeds for both situations, which 

were submitted to HQUSACE for review as non-standard estates. Upon further review, 

HQUSACE determined that these deeds do not have any changes to the standard estate language 

that would be considered non-standard, but language is added to the deeds to address site specific 

issues pertaining to this project and or new piers or private beaches as follows: 

i. Entertainment and Fishing Pie-rs: Currently, the existing standard Perpetual Stonn 

Damage Reduction Easement language is used ti:ir parcels situated under such 

structures, However, changes to the other areas ofthe required easement have been required for 

the continued operation of these structures within the project area. It is in the best interest of the 

8 
1159

local communities, the Non-Federal Sponsor and the United States for these structures to remain, 

and protection of these structures is included in formulation. 

iL Private Beach Clubs: Although current regulations preclude the continued existence 

of private beach clubs in a federal area, is currently State of New 

Jersey guidelines and requirements for public use of and at prlvately-owned beach clubs. 

Current "open beach" regulations and recent court rulings have allowed the State of New Jersey 

broader authorities to regulate and require public availability of beach badges at reasonable 

expense at private beach clubs, as monitored by the New Jersey Department of Community 

Affairs, As currently explained by the Non-Federal Sponsor, the beach badge in certain 

areas is open to the entire on terms and proceeds from the sale are utilized 

to cover custodial maintenance of the beach area. Any changes required to the casements used 

for private beach clubs are anticipated to be outside of the Standard Grant of Easement language 

in the current standard Perpetual Stonn Damage Reduction Easement 

Crediting will follow standard procedures as set out in a model Project Partnership 

Agreement (PPA), No Credit will be afforded to any lands or interests previously acquired and 

credit.ed for any applicable Corps of Engineers Project 

Credit will be applied to the acreage within the "project footprint", the lands 

or corridor required for the Recommended Plan Lands outside project 

requirements and lands that may be acquired for the would not be 

creditable LERRJYs, Only lands deemed necessary to be have been 

included. 

Corps policy that credit will not afforded for lands purchased with Federal 

ftmds or grants where the gnmting of such credit is not permissible, either as by 

statute, or as detennined by the head of the Federal agency such 

programs. The Federal Management Agency's 

mitigation ,tnd elimination grants are examples of such Federal grant programs were credit 

would not be allocated, 

d. Current Ownership 

A tax data list of all project required for the construction and operation and 

maintenance of the proposed project ls attached to the report as Exhibit A, This list provides the 

owner names for all parcels as provided in 2.a, above, identified block and lot number, as 

""'""'"'J recorded in County and Municipal tax property records. A table of the real estate 

or Easements, Rights-of-way, Relocations, and Disposal (LERRD) requirements in 

summary fashion is as follows: 

9 
1160

e. Real Estate Mapping 

Real Estate Maps, Plates R-l to R-5, dated 22 April 2014 are attached as Exhibit R The 

maps include delineation of the lands to be bulk acreage data for each estate, off-beach 

borrow areas identified and indicated parcels impacted by the project as listed i11 Exhibit A 

above. 

3. EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS 

There are currently no active federal shoreline protection projects in the project area. 

Existing active Federal navigation projects within the study area currently include the 

.In I 964, the Federal Government constructed four 639-foot long timber groins east of the e,tst 

jetty at Cape May Point under an earlier shoreline erosion C()ntrol project The 400-foot wide 

Cape May Inlet is maintained as a Federal navigation project Initially <.'Onstructed in 

t 908-1911, the navigation portion is maintail1ed by two parallel and is dredged to 

maintain its authorized depth ()f 25 foet at low tide, 

4. EXISUNG FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS 

The project area contains no lands owned or managed by the federal government 

Although there is prope1ty the project at the southern end of the island mi:ina11,1ed 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Coast Guard. 

May Inlet. None of the lands are federally ()Wiled that lie within this proposed project 

alignment Specifically, neither the Cape May Wildlife Refuge or U,S, Coas! Guard's 

LORAN sites are included it1 this project Coordination with FWS has occurred and will 

continue as appropriate. 

5. LANDS OWNED BY THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR 

There are currently 110 upland areas owned by the State of New Jersey in the project area, 

which are either privately owned or owned by local Submerged lands below the 

MHWL ofthe All.antic Ocean are owned by the State of New Jersey and managed by the NJDEP 

Bureau of Tidelands Management These areas will be addressed by the Non-Federal Sponsor as 

discussed in 2.a. above. 

6. NAVIGATIONAL !.Ut:RVHUDE 

Navigational servitude is lhe of the federal Govemment (under the Commerce 

Clause of the U.S. Constitution) lo use, control, and the waters of the United 

States and the submerged lands thereunder for varklus commerce-related purposes including 

navigation and flood controL in tidal areas, the servitude extends to all lands below the mean 

high water mark. In uon-tidal areas, the servitude extends to all within the bed and banks of a 

navigable stream that lie below the ordinary high water. As this is for storm damage 

reduction purposes, not navigational purposes, the Government uot exercise its lights under 

lO 
1161

the doctrine of Navigational Servitude fhr this project on areas below MHWL because a nexus to 

maintaining or improving navigation has not been established. 

The State of New Jersey also has the servitude over submerged 

lands within its borders, it is not as as that of the United States. Therefore, the 

Non-Federal Sponsor must some form easement or rights ovts>r lands covered by 

grants below MHWL as discussed in 2.a. above. 

7. INDUCED FLOODING 

Although the entire project area is prone to storm-induced flooding from both the ocean 

front and back bay, there is nothing in the main feasibility report to indicate that the constructed 

project tl>atures will induce flooding in new areas or increase in flood prone 

areas. Overall, the project is designed to decrease storm-induced flooding and 

Appropriate measures will be taken for the care and diversion of water, if any, 

construction. There should be 110 construction induced flooding. 

8. BASELINE COST ESTlMAU: FOR Rli:AL ESTATE 

The detailed Real Estate Cost Estimate in MCACES fom1at is included in Exhibit C. The 

Perpetual Beach Stom1 Damage Reduction Easement (approximately 606.42 acres) and 

Perpetual Borrow Area Easement (approximately 245 acres) value is considered to be of minimal 

value ($1.00 parcel) due to the application of offsetting project benefits, also known as 

special The appraisal assumes that there proposed pro.iect wiU create a spee.ial 

benefit to the that otherwise would not exist due to erosion. The total estimated cost 

for real estate 1, which is less than 6 % of total project costs. Because real estate 

costs did not exceed ! 0% oftotal project costs, a gross appraisal was not prepared for this project 

(refer to Real Estate Policy Guidance Letter No. 31-Real Estate Support to Civil Works Planning 

Paradigm (3x3x3) dated January 10, 2013), LER costs are based on a c-0st estimate prepared 

the Appraisal Branch. lt is noted that while most of the private and public properties are of 

nominal value, commercial properties are of substantial value and make up the most of the LER 

estimated value. These are major commercial pier properties of the area, so command 

substantial value. 

Private land holdings subject to shore erosion and required for proj ... x:t purposes must be 

appraised benefits in accordance with the relevant. statutes. The Uniform 

&lm!l~!Jimn11m:~!Q[~~:f!!j~!9.J~!llilil!!J;lll g11idt:!m,es n,mueiin.rr the use of special benefits 

into account were used to develop the 

ap11ra11sa1 estimate for this Real Estate Plan. Although the consideration of special 

is required by Federal policy and process, the courts of the State of New Jersey recently 

rnled that no special benefits exists as a result of a similar shore pwlectio11 project Therefore, 

the court held !hat the special benefits could not be used to offset damages to the remainder when 

determining just compensation for an easement similar to the easements required for this project 

(Borough <>/Harvey Cedars v. Karan, l){)cket No. OCN-L-3797-08, Appellate No. A-4555-101'3. 

Supreme Court Docket 070512). However, the case was accepted the New State 

Supreme Court for review and was argued May 13, 2013. ln their July 8, 2013 decision, the 

11 
1162

New Jersey Supreme Court held that a prope1ty' s fair market value should be used as the 

benchmark in compensatkm" in a case, but no•n-soe<:ul:ati,te 

that increase the property's value at the time of!be taking should 

be in determining just compensation regardless of whether those benefits ar; enjoyed 

to a lesser or greater degree by others ln the community (Bomugh of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, A120, September term 201 l, 070512). 

The Karan's have since settled with Borough of Cedars for $1, plus litigation 

costs of $24,260. In order to the cost estimate for this HSLRR at this time, the number 

of and the amount for possible condemnation actions for this project have 

been increased in the Estimate based on comt awards. 

Recent legislation introduced by the New Jersey legislature would require !hat any 

settlement for an easement for shore protection projects must include the application of special 

benefits to the remainder. Either passage of this legislation or a favorable ruling the State 

Supreme Court would reduce the funding amount estimated for condemnations on attached 

MCACES report The Baseline Cost Estimate for Real Estate will be reviewed as the project 

progresses to reflect and changes in the law as a result of the above litigation or legislation. 

In the limited time available for real estate investigation, additional complex 

relationships between uon-beachfront landowners and private beachftont clubs have come to 

light, which raises issues as to the definition of what bas traditionally been considered free 

access to the beaches that have been replenished with federal funds. Some m>.mers 

been granted perpetual easements for access, and recreational use ofbeacbftont 

rmm"n"' within the limits of construction, provided pay an annual maintenance fee to the 

111111er1;vrn,rr fee <1w11er. lfthe project progresses, the procurement of title infonnation and 

additional research may produce additional parties with pdvate rights to the beachfront. These 

onvate1v-mv11t:a rights must either be subo1·dinated to the State of New Jersey through a 

ctet:em:11n:at1cin of the State under the State public trust doctrine or acquired for the subject 

Since it is to detennine the extent of these interests without a title search, a 

than usual of 20% bas been included. This estimate of potential project 

foasibility and the total proje.ct cost estimates. It is not a 

credit that may be should the project be approved and 

proceed toward implementation. Actual shall follow the crediting and appraisal 

procedures set forth in a signed Project Agreement. 

Based on all of the factors discussed in this the total Baseline Cost for Real 

Estate for tile is $1 1, summarized as follows: 

Acquisition/Administrative Costs: $ 345,200.00 

Condemnation Costs: 3 Estimated Properties $ 71Jl00.00 

Appraisals $ 196,000.00 

P.L 91-646 Assistance: 0.00 

12 
1163

Real Estate Payments: 

Privately-Owned 

Commercial 

Publically-Owned 

Contingency: 

3 6 Pl'Operties 

12 Properties 

44 Properties 

TOTAL: 

9. PUl3.LIC LAW 91-646 RELOCATIONS 

$ 18,864.00 

$ 364,852.00 

$ 23,056.00 

$1,273,51 LOO 

No P .L. 91-646 relocations are anticipated for this project structures within the 

pmject footprint are in the form of piers, which will remain in place as amenities to the beach. 

There are no other structures or improvements within the Pl'l.1iect bounds requiring relocation. 

to. MINER.AL ACTIVITY 

There is no present or anticipated mining and drilling activity in the vicinity of the project 

that may affect the operation thereof: 

11. TIMHER RIGHTS 

There are no trees in this coastal beach area. No positive or negative impacts to pro.iect 

purposes. 

12. ASSESSM.ENT OF NON-FEDER.AL SPONSOR ACQUISITION CAPABILITY 

The Non-Federal Sponsor, the NJDEP, is vested with sufficient power to acquire and 

hold title, and to condemn lands as needed The sponsor has previously 

participated in other Corps of Engineers' Projects such as the Flood Control 

and Bank Stabilization Project and has capabilities in acquiring real estate 

and performing the related obi igations of a Non-Federal Sponsor. The Assessment of the NonFederal Sponsor's Real Estate Acquisition Capability is attached at the end of this report as 

Exhibit D. 

13. ZONING 

The enactment 

beach in the 

asto impact 

ordinances in lieu 

nrcmosed project is cm1sistenl 

14. ACQUISITION SCH.EDULE 

The Non-Federal Sponsor will officially initiate real estate activities after 

final exe.:ution of the Project Partnership Agreement (PP A). Due to there not yet being a date 

13 
1164

specific sc.!u:dule for this project, the estimated LERRD at,quisition schedule indicates 

the length of time required for each step in the standard acquisition process. As there is currently 

no estimated PPA signing date, the following is a generic, worst-case scenario real estate 

timeline. Once an anticipated signing date for the PPA is identified, a more specific schedule 

will be prepared. 

a. PP A Execution 

b. Forwiu'd Maps to Sponsor 

c. Survey and Title Work 

d. Appraisals receipt 

e. Review App1t1isals 

t: Negotiations 

g. Closings 

h. Possession 

L Certification of Real Estate 

Approximate Total 

Start Date 

Within 1 week of Start Date 

Within l 4 weeks of sponsor map 

Within 10 weeks of survey and title 

Within 4 weeks of appraisal 

Within 9 weeks after appraisal 

Within 6 weeks of completion of 

Within I 

Within l week of possession; requires 

The transmittal of the Non-Federal 

Sponsor's Authorization for for 

Construction and Certificate of AuthQrity. 

t year 

Conde1nnations are anticipated for two properties required for this project 

Condemnations may take l,p to six total months from initiation of negotiation to possession, 

adding approximately three months to the entire acquisition process, However, the State may 

exercise it's Disaster Control Act, allowing immediate while condemnation 

subsequently proceeds. 

15. UTILITY AND FACILITY RELOCATIONS 

No detailed information has heen provided to date by April 2014 or identified the 

Project Delivery Team (PDT), regarding the necessity for any facility/utility relocations in the 

project area. Further engineering and work will refine for facility 

relocations during subsequent phases and Pre-Construction Engineering and Design (PED). 

Given the objectives of this project the current is to leave utilities, piers, boardwalks, 

and limited infrastructure in place, and that the engineering and design team will "work 

arow1d" and consider the constraints of all existing infrastructure and work to avoid or 

minimize unntc-eded expenditures to replace or relocate existing infrastructure. The 

Non-Federal Sponsor is currently investigation what, if any, surbordinatit)l1 rights may be 

r<.'t1uired on such property under State law. 

l4 
1165

The policy statement and disclaimer conceminu: anv 001te111tia! 

rel1:icatim:1s prevails over any other statement, description or present~timi in this report: 

conclusion or contained in this report that au itt111 is a utility or 

facility relocation to be performed by the Non Federal Sponsor as part of its LERRD 

responsibilities is preliminary only. The Government will make a final determination of the 

relocations necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the 

analysis. An Attorney's Opinion of Compensability will be generated for each 

relocation that is required for the project and which will be perfom1ed by, and credited to, the 

Non-Federal Sponsor under the definitions and tem1s of the PP A. 

There are no relocatkms of utilities ot' facilities anticipated for this project at this time. 

The most common type of utility relocation for shoreline protection projects is stormwater 

pipeline structures, which often have to be extended farther uut with the created 

beach. H{)wever, this project d()es not require sucb outfall extension or relocation of any other 

type of utility lines. Any crossovers or boardwalks removed to construct the proJect are the 

responsibility of the owner or municipality to replace, if needed. no Attorney's 

Reports ofCompensability are required. 

16. ENVIRONMl:NT AL CONCERNS 

·n1e sponsor fully understands its responsibilities for assessing the prope11ies for any 

potential or presence of hazardous waste materials as defined and regulated under CERCLA 

There is no known "Superfimd" sites or sites presently under CERCLA remediation or 

response orders .identified in the project area. There are no known presences of any 

substances in the project area that are regulated under CERCLA or otller envfrmm1ental 

statutes or regulations. The LERRD estimate is predicated on the that all lands 

and properties are clean and require no remediation. The model PCA conditions contain 

specific terms and conditions governing the sponsor's responsibility for environmental cleanup 

for CERCLA substances. Hazardous Waste Assessmems are covered as a 

cost under the model PPA 

There are no known or suspected areas contaminated BTRW, either CERCLA 

There is no knm~m or suspec:ted on-site contamination and the real estate cos! 

estimates contained in this Real Estate Plan do not ret1ect the presence of contamination. Tbe 

mi,cnar~tc material from the borrow area is not expected to introduce, relocate, or increase 

contamimu1t levels at either the borrow or placement sites. This is assumed based {m the 

characteristics ofthe sediment, the proximity of the borrow site to sources of contamination, the 

area's hydrodynamic and water quality. 

15 
1166

17. ATTITUDES OF THE LANDOWNERS 

Per discussion with the Non-Federal Sponsor, the municipalities of North Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest and Wildwood consider the project essential to the continued grnwth of the 

communities and the safety of both residents and resort-goers alike. 

There is no focused or landowner opposition to the project The sponsor will 

be conducting lmtdowner and public information meetings to promote understanding of the 

project and how the landownttrs will be affected. A large percentage, 30%, of the land 

needed for the is owned the municipal governments. Given the benefits of the 

to landowners and recent New Supreme Court case. we anticipate public support, 

but have planned for a couple of condemnation actions as a contingency. While there is 

cummtly no strong opposition to the proposed the general tespouse has ranged from 

support to mnbivalence. Due to the rt"Cent turnover in township administration, the Non-Federal 

Sponsor is unaware of the Township ofLower's views on the proposed project. However, the 

Township of Lower only has two properties located in the study area. 

18. NOTIFICATION TO NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR 

The Non-Federal Sponsor, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, will 

be notified in writing regarding the risks associated with the acquisition of land prior to 

execution ofthc PP A om;e the Study is approved and tl1e project is fonded. 

19. RISKANALYSIS 

Cu1Tendy, there are no known significant risks associated with this project involving real 

estate. The Non-Federal Sponsor has been meeting LER schedules on similar and 

much larger projects. More recently, since Hurricane Sandy, the State of New Jersey has enacted 

the Disaster Control Act, which allows the State to take quick possession of property for project 

construction in anticipation of following up and acquiring these properties by nom1a!. means. 

16 
Project: Hereford to Cape May 

Cape May County, New Jersey 

Property Summary 

TownshiQ 

North Wildwood 

Wildwood Wildwood Crest 

Lower 

TOTAL: 

II of Properties 

10 

49 

27 

5 

91 
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172

3UBTOTAl 

SUDTOTAL 

S1JBi0TAL 

S\JeTOfAL 

SUElTOTAL 

Q1 l!!-AEAL ESTATEPAYP.1ENT6 

011502-" Pt >lM'l46A!l:$st.l/'ICQc P11~11'!1llll& 

OJ15Ca)l ElyQ.IJVflfMlfll'lt 

Q1150202 By Non,f'ed~ri!ISpcnsor (NFS} 

01150203 By GOvl'!tM'\<mt on B..twtl of NFS 

D11!i-020-1 Ru~awo!NFS 

Sl.JBt¢i'AL 

" " ,, 

" " 

,o 

,. 

,, 

7£0 

1.~00- '" 

150 

"' 150 

,'0.000 

aooo 

1,500 

soo 

Fe$ibilily stutly C,;,at E.stirrtatft<MCA.CES Klnmrt 

R:e,a!tlllato A,~quJsitiom Requiremsm!s 

J,arfl1,Hd!nlottoC.;;pyMil.ylril.it 

Cnp@ MJ:iy Coumy. NtiwJw,,oy 

27.COO 12 750 -S,000 

32,400 12 ,oo lD,!'lOO43,Z(Xl 12 ,.ooo 2/IJJOO 

5,4'00 " 1'0 

5,400 " 150 

!i,.400 1Z 

40,CW "'·"" ZS,IJOO 

2,000 -Z,000 

S<l,000 1' "'" 30,COO 

rn,ooo 1' $DD '·""" 

'·"" 

1.SOQ 

REALl::STATEAeOUISITKlN TOTAL 

" 750 00,000 7a,3:;;i0 

" "" "'·""' 95,220 

1.200 120.0DO 138,ql'.]O 

150 MOO 

" 150 "·""' " '·"" 

$5,000 ll,150 14,750 

,i,,ooo "" MOO 

7t,ooo ~0,650 J,1/,l!iC' 

" 1,500 '6,000 150,000 22.e<lO rntsoo 

500 aaooo 41:\000 '·""' 52JfOQ. 

19$,000 ;?l}.400 &§,400 

:.>SO 11,000 

438,772 167,50!1 

tt,ma,sn 

EXBRIUC 
1173

ASSESSMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR'S 

REAL ESTATE ACQUIS!rt()N CAPABII .ITY 

Hereford Inlet l<J New 

Non-FIX!eral Sponsor: New Department of Envirmm1ental Protection (NJDEP) 

a. Docs the sponsor have 

purpt1ses? 

to and hold 1i!lc m real property for 

Yes. The non-Federal sponsor 

area. 

b. Does the sponsor have the power of eminent domain for this project? 

No. Although the State of New does have the power of eminent domain, thti 

ae1eg1,ttca authority to the NFS' department was rescinded more than 10 years ago. Nevertheless, 

the NFS has indicated that as.sistance would be contracted from the klcal involved. 

through a State Aid Agreement, to the necessary real estate interests. The local 

mumcipa.im,es do have the power of eminent domain. 

c, Does the sponsor have "quick-take" authority for this 

No. The NFS does not have for this if a local mu,m1C1μamy 

deposit the estimated 

of72 hours to 45 

were to acquire the real estate, would file a Declaration 

cmnp;!nsat1cm with the court would be gr,.:mted 

days, depending on whether preliminary objection resn!ution is 

d. Are any of the lands/interests in land 

boundary? 

No. 

e. Are any ofthe lands/interests in land 

property the sponsor cannot eondenm? 

for the 

for the 

Tiu: NFS dues not have condenmati{m , ... 111,,,-,t,., 

lands/interests that may not he condemned by the \()cal 

Asse,smenl of NFS C11pability 

to Cape May Inlet Feilsibility Study 

owned an whose 

hut. !here are no 

Page oO 

Apri!2013 
1174

IL 

N{1. The NFS is familiar with the requirements of P.L 91-646. 

b. If the answer to II.a. is • has reasonable such 

d. Is the in-house 

any. and the project schedule'? 

Yes. The NFS has indicated that assistance would be requested from the local 

municipalities to acquire the necessary real estate interests. Tht:: NFS will utilize State Aid 

11111:eemcnts as necessary to enlist the assistance of local 1m,.1n:sbios. 

e. Can the sponsor obtain comra,'.tor support, If required. in a timely fashion'? 

Yes. 

i: Will the sponsor request USACE assistance in aco1uiringreal estate'? 

No. 

llL 

a. 

Yes. 

b. 

Yes. 

A<tse,srmm! of NI'S, ......... , .. .. 

Inlet lo Cape May lnle! Feasibility Stud> 

site? 

Page 2ofJ 

April 
1175

lV. 

a. 

b. 

a. 

Bas the sponsor 

Yes. 

With lo this 

b. Does the sponscw concur ,vith this assessment'? Yes 

Approved 

to Cape May 

Yes 

Page 3 of3 





1181

Appendix G 

Pertinent Correspondence 

Section -1 General Correspondence 
1182

Jjtzrh af ~em Jersey 

James E McGreevey 

Governor 

Deparunenl of Eiwironmental Protection 

N«tu~al and Historic Resources 

Oivision of Engineering and Construction 

Mr. Robert Callegari, Chief 

Planning Division 

Phila. Dist. Corps of Engineers 

100 Penn Square East, Wanamaker Bldg. 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Dear Mr. Callegari: 

January 1 7, 2002 

llradley M. Campbell 

Act2-nq Commi1111:ioner 

Per our recent discussions, now that we have addressed portions of the coast with 

critical existing or imminent needs, we look forward in continuing toward completion of 

the New Jersey Shore Protection Study. 

Since the completion of the Reconnaissance Phase, the situation at Wildwood in the 

Hereford Inlet area has worsened and now requires being addressed immediately. In 

addition we are in a position to analyze the entire coast as a system in order to maximize 

the efficiency of the New Jersey Shore Protection Program. The goal is to analyze and 

maximize the projects into a complete coastal system and to make changes to reduce 

renourishment requirements, environmental impacts and life-cycle cost. 

The State of New Jersey, therefore, wishes to express its support for the following 

Feasibility studies: 

1) Alternative Long Term Nourishment, New Jersey (NJ Regional Sediment and 

Coastal Processes Study) 

2) Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ 

Recognizing the importance of efficiently managing our sand resource in the 

Hereford Inlet area, as well as along the entire coast, we fully intend to sign the 

Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreements (FCSA) for these two studies. 

'vmm 

1510 Hooper Avenue, Toms Ri. ver, NJ 087 53 

Phone Fax 

(732) 255-0770 (732) 255-077 4 

Hi::reford Inkt to Cape ;I.lay Inlet Appendix (l Pi::rtinent Co1Te1,pondencc 
1183

RJ!:Pl'YTO 

ATTE~TIONOF 

CENAP-PL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3390 

1 7 JAN 20ll2 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, CECW A TIN: CECW-PM (Montvai) 

THRU Commander, CENAD ATTN; CENAD-ET-P (Arabatzis) 

SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Preliminary Analyses for Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet and the Regional Sediment Management - Long-term Nourishment Projects 

1. Request. Attached for your review and subsequent approval are the Preliminary Analyses of 

the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and the Regional Sediment Management - Long-term 

Nourishment Projects. These Preliminary Analyses are the basis for developing the PMP, 

executing the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) with the non-Federal sponsor, and 

proceeding to the feasibility phase of the study. 

2. Letter of Support. Attached is a copy of the non-Federal Letter of Support for the 

referenced projects. 

3. Point of Contact. Our point of contact is Ms. Susan S. Lucas, CENAP-PL-PC. (215) 656-

6573. 

FOR THE COMMANDER: 

Enclosures (3) 

Copy Furnished: 

CENAD-ET-P 

Hereford Inlet io Cape 1fay Inlet Appendix G. Pertinent ComJspondcne..-
1184

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: 

CECW-PM 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineer11 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20314,1000 

2 B JAN 2D02 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, North Atlantic Division (CENAD-ET-P) 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and the New Jersey Shoreline Sediment 

Management Study 

I. Reference CENAP-PL memorandtun dated 17 January 2002, transmitting Preliminary Analysis 

of the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and U1e Regional Sediment Management - Long- term 

Nourishment Projects and letter ofintent for these studies from the Sate of New Jersey, to 

Headqua1iers for review and approval. 

2. The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and the New Jersey Shoreline Sediment Management 

Study and Jetter of intent are approved for proceeding into the feasibility phase of planning. The 

district should plan to convene an in-progress-review meeting early in the study to ensure the 

study is focused and tailored to meet the specific objectives. Based on results of the in-progressreview, the project management plan may need to be revised to better define the depth of analysis 

required and/or refine study constraints. 

3. Submission of the model feasibility cost sharing agreement is not required, provided no 

deviations are requested. 

FOR THE COMMANDER: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet 

t:~:~ 

Chief, Plam1ing and Policy Division 

Directorate of Civil Works 

.\ppendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1185

or.=p~u:;,7~~'4'·.IT OF n;::: AF.MY 

Ph]iads·iph~~ of Er.g!neers 

w~~71;;;:~,T~'.~;:i;;zy;,;;;.n;a 1 ~';:i:~st 08 MAY 2002 

Planning Division 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement 

Mr. Bernard J. Moore 

Administrator 

New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection 

Division of Engineering and Construction 

1510 Hooper Avenue 

Toms River, New Jersey 08753 

Dear Mr. Moore: 

Enclosed are six (6) copies of the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey Feasibility 

Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA). Please obtain signatures and dates on all six copies of the 

FCSA. Upon obtaining the signatures, return all six signed copies to the District Office. Please 

do not fill in the date in the first paragraph of the FCSA. Signature authority has been delegated 

to the Philadelphia District Commander. Upon the Commander's signature, the Hereford Inlet to 

Cape May Inlet FCSA shall be executed. Copies of the executed agreement will be forwarded to 

you. 

We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have questions please contact 

Ms. Colleen Rourke at (215) 656-6585. 

Sincerely, 

Paul Gaudini, P.E. 

Acting Chief, Planning Division 

Enclosures (6) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape I\fay Inlet Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1186

CITY OF NORTH WILDWOOD 

(609) 522-5411 

FAX (6091 523-8502 

November 6, 2002 

Dear Resident, 

901 ATLANTIC AVENUE 

P. 0. BOX 499 

NORTH WILDWOOD. NEW JERSEY 08260 

JOHN J. HOLMAN CITY ADMINISTRATOR 

The City of North Wildwood has scheduled a presentation to provide information on the North Wildwood 

Seawall Project. This Seawall will stretch from Angelsea to 2"" Avenue. 

The Army Corps of Engineers will be presenting an update on the plans and specifications and respond 

to any questions you may have regarding this project. 

The meeting is scheduled for Saturday, November 16, 2002 at 11 :00 a.m. in the North Wildwood 

Community Center Building located at 9"' and Central Avenue. 

All are invited to attend. 

Should you be unable to attend this meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at my office (609-522· 

2030) or forward any questions you may have so that the City may obtain an answer. 

Cc: Mayor and City Council 

Mr. Jeffrey Gebert. Chief of Coastal Planning, Army Corps of Engineers 

Janet Harkins, City Clerk 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Appendix G. Pertinent Con·espondcnce 
1187

CITY OF NORTH WILDWOOD 

901 ATIANTIC AVENUE 

P. 0. BOX ,.99 

NORTII WILDWOOD, NEW JERSEY 08260 

(609) 522-5411 

FAX (609) 523-8502 

June 3,2003 

Mr. Brian Bogel, Project Manager 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District 

Wanamaker Building 

I 00 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA. 19107-3390 

-- Re: TOWNSEr-.'IHNUo'i'-- €APE M:M' il'rLE1' l'ROJK"r· 

Public Presentation, Seawall Project 

Dear Mr. Bogel, 

JOHN J. HOLMAN 

CITY ADMINISTRATOR 

The City ofNonh Wildwood is requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers attend a public meeting 

to present updates on the North Wildwood Seawall Pn)ject. This seawall is a part of the Townsend Inlet to 

Cape May Inlet project. 

The City has preliminarily scheduled thls public presentation for Saturday, July 19, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in 

the North Wildwood Community Center. PloBSe ad•e if this time and date is convenient for you and your 

staff. 

Please contact my office for any audiovisual requirements you may need with regard to the presentation. 

The City is looking forward to continue working with the Corps towan;ls the successful CO!llpletion of this 

project. 

If you need any further infonnation please do not hesitate.to contact me. 

cc: Mayor and City Colll!Cil 

Senator Corzine 

Repn:sent&Qve Lobiondo 

Seiialnr Cafiero 

Asseroblyman Van Drew 

Mayor and Council 

Mike ~litOn, ConstructiOJ). Official 

Lew Osli'ailder, City Safet,y Officer 

File: Townsend to Hereford Inlet Project 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet Appendix G. Pe11incnt Correspondence 
1188

~KAloBIONllO TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 2ND DtSTFl!CT, NEW JERSEY 

REPLY TO: 

D 225 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE l3UILD1NG 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-3002 

202-225-6572 

COASl GUAAD ANO MARITIME 

_1)1'."f'!S!'..fl_RTAT!Or,j_ 

FAX202:-_225--3318 

5914MAIN5TAEFI 

MAYS LANDING, NJ 08330 

609--625--5008 

FAX609-625-5071 

1--SOQ--471--4450 

<teongrcss of tfJt Wnittb ~tatcs 

J!,ou!ie of l\epre!ientatibe!i 

~alif:Jington, JIii[ 20515-3002 

HIGHWAYS /IND TRANSIT 

ARMED SERVICES 

SUBCOMMlHEES" 

TfflAOfllSM, UNCONVENTIONAL 

THREATSANOCAPABIUT!ES 

January 5, 2004 TACTICAL Am MID LANO Fom:r:s 

Mr. Jim Rausch 

Director 

Army Corps of Engineers 

OffJce of Congrassional Affairs 

441 G Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20314-1000 

Dear Mr. Rausch: 

I have received the enclosed information from Barbara 

Waterman of Wildwood, New Jersey, regarding jetties along 

Hereford Inlet in North Wildwood. 

I would appreciate your assistance in reviewing this matter, 

and your providing me with any information that will enable me to 

respond to Ms. Waterman. If you have any questions, or need 

further information, please contact my staff assistant, Pat 

Poole, in my Mays Landing district office. 

Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing from 

you soon. 

FAL/pmp 

enc 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inkt 

Sincerely, 

;LRJJ.rxf~ 

Frank A. LoEiondo 

Member of Congress 

PRINTEDONF!}:CYCLEOf>APEl'I Appendix G. Pertinent Com:spondcnce 
1189

Planning Division 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

~. 

PHILA. DISTRJCT,CORPSPF 

tDOPell-SQIJME!AST 

~ 

PHlt.ADEl.Pl:ttA. PENNSYLVANIA1910l'-33IIO 

Mr. John Garofalo, Manager 

Bureau of Coastal Engineering 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

1510 Hooper Avenue 

Toms River, New Jersey 08753 

Dear Mr. Garofalo: 

MAR 1 4 2005 

This letter is in regard to the on-going Corps of Engineers Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

General Investigation. The Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement (FCSA) for this study was 

executed in September 2002, and stipulated a non-Federal cost-share of$1,250,000. Through 

Fiscal Year 2004 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has 

provided $307,500, leaving a $942,500 balance for the study. In order to meet the terms of the 

FCSA and match the Federal funds allocated for FY05, we request the NJDEP to submit 

$242,500 by March 30, 2005. This funding will be used to determine the existing hydrologic 

and hydraulic conditions, examine existing environmental and cultural resources, perform 

economic analyses, geotechnical investigations, identify project alternatives, conduct public 

outreach and project management. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact Brian 

Bogle, Project Manager, at (215) 656-6585. 

Copy Furnished: 

David Rosenblatt, Administrator 

Office of Engineering and Construction 

Sincerely, 

Minas M. Arabatzis 

Chief, Planning Division 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

1510 Hooper Avenue 

Toms River, New Jersey 08753 

Her~ford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet A.ppcndix: G. Pertin<!nl Correspondence 
1190

U.S. Departmento~- Homeland Security 

United States 

Coast Guard 

MEMORANDUM 

From: VADM VIVIAN S. CREA 

CGLANTAREA 

Commander 

Coast Guard Atlanllc Aree 

To: Brigadier General Meredith W.B. Temple 

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers 

North Atlantic Division 

302 General Lee Avenue 

Brooklyn, New York 11252 

431 Craw!Qn:I SI. Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004 

Slaff Symbol: Aow 

Phone: (757) 398 6230 

Fax: (7!i7) 398 6303 

Email: ]waltera@lantd5.uscg.mll 

3170 

17 Feb 2005 

Replyto Aow 

Attn of: Walters 

757 398 6230 

Subj: MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF CAPE MAY INLET AND CAPE MAY HARBOR 

1. For almost two decades Cape May Inlet has proven to be a perennial chaHenge for the Coast 

Guard to operate its ships in and out of Cape May. In previous fiscal years, when the Corps 

received funding for two annual dredging cycles, the level of dredging activity proved to be 

barely adequate to ensure our ships could safely enter and leave Cape May on any state of tide. 

As you are aware, this year's funding included funding to perfonn one maintenance event and 

that event occurred in January. For the remainder of this fiscal year, there is no scheduled 

maintenance and this scenario presents an untenable situation. I also understand that the 

President's FY06 budget includes dredging maintenance funding for two dredging events for 

Cape May Inlet. The Coast Guard is now at the juncture when either funding is provided to 

maintain the inlet continuously to :20 feet, or the two-210 foot medium endurance cutters will 

depart permanently and seek a safer, more reliable homeport. In January, the Philadelphia 

District provided superlative service to our fleet in removing a shoal that impeded the return of a 

deployed cutter and the dispatch of a second cutter. However, without immediate funding relief 

and implementation of a more aggressive dredging maintenance and hydrographlc surveys 

program, Cape May will cease to be a homeport for the support of deep-water Coast Guard 

operations. 

2. lfthese ships are relocated, the impact to the Coast Guard and the Nation will be increased 

costs associated with relocating the cutters and potentially decreased availability of these cutters 

to perfonn their primary missions: providing homeland security, providing offshore deep water 

search and rescue response and enforcement oflaws and treaties throughout the eastern seaboard, 

including living marine resources, counter-drug and anti-migrant operations. Our ability to keep 

these two cutters homeported in Cape May, and their ability to prosecute Coast Guard missions is 

directly linked to the water depths provided through the Corps of Engineers dredging 

maintenance program. The most immediate economic impact to the local community, at a 

minimum, will be a loss of approximately $4 million. 

3. The dredging maintenance situation at Cape May cannot be deferred. To ensure a viable 

presence for Coast Guard medium endurance cutters, immediate steps must be taken to maintain 

this waterway. I eagerly await your plan to alleviate the dredging quandary and stand ready to 

assist you in your efforts to secure funding. 

# 

Herefi.)td Inlet to Cape May Inlet Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1191

Subj: MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF CAPE MAY INLET 3170 

AND CAPE MAY HARBOR 

Dist: U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenburg 

U.S. Senator Jon S. Corzine 

U.S. Congressman Frank Lobiondo 

Governor Richard J Codey 

COMDT (G-C), (G-CI), (G-0) 

Copy: CG TRACEN Cape May 

CG GP Atlantic City 

CG MSO/GP Philadelphia 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

17 Feb 2005 

2 

lO Appendix G. Pertinent Con-cspondenc~ 
1192

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISlRlCT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAJ<l:R BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PttlLAOELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3390 MAYO 2 2005 

Attention: North Wildwood, Wildwood and Wildwood Crest Residents 

This is to inform you that members of the Philadelphia District of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers will be collecting information/ data for the on-going Hereford Inlet to 

Cape May Inlet, feasibility study. This activity will take place from May 9, 2005 through 

July 31, 2005. 

The PUfPOSe of the feasibility study is to evaluate methods to reduce storm 

damage as well as erosion in North Wildwood and consider reshaping the beach in 

Wildwood and Wildwood Crest. 

The information that will be collected will be used to assist us in developing a 

plan to provide storm damage protection. During the period of our data collection, Corps 

of Engineers employees will carry work identification cards and will be provided upon 

request. The information that will be collected will consist of: 

1. Residential and commercial structure inventories including recording the address, 

property size and type of construction. 

2. Residential and commercial first floor elevations to determine the properties' 

location and vulnerability to storm damage. 

3. Photographs ofresidential and commercial structures. 

4. Recording elevations at various locations on the island. 

We have established the Point of Contacts for the above data collection as listed below: 

• Mr. Ray Townsend, Administrator 

North Wildwood 

1-609-522-6464 

• Mr. Ernie Triano, Mayor 

Wildwood 

1-609-522-2444 

• Mr. Kevin Yecco, Borough Clerk 

Wildwood Crest 

1-609-522-5176 

If you have further questions, please contact the Project Manager, Brian Bogle at 

1-215-656-6585, or email: brian.p.bogle@usace.anny.mil 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 11 ,\ppendix G. Petiinent C0n-espondeocc 
1193

~ ~ t ~ " ;J> ~!"~ ~ l', -r 1 ~"' ') r ;; ~ ~~onh \JVHO'J\/000 i~ubHC \J\fOfKS 

DATE: November 2, 2005 

V\lorld:s Best Beach 

O:learyl Superh1tendent 

Si i \/Vest Oak Avenue 

North \/\lHCfvvood~~i.J.08260 

Phone (609)522-4646 

Fax (609)522-1141 

TO: Brian Bogle, Corps of Engineers 

FROM: Tim O'Leary, Supt. N.W.P.W. 

RE:Damages to Beach and Outfall Lines 

Dear Sir, 

Pursuant to your phone call, I have enclosed pictures of said Lines and some 

of the Beach loss. 

Over the past two years at that area shown, the Beach loss amounts to 250 to 

300 feet and wiping out all of the remaining dunes. The Outfall Line suffered with 

the loss of two manholes and approximately 750 feet of pipe. We are in desperate 

need of Outfall and Beach restoration. 

We have seen towns North and South of us receive massive amounts of sand 

that did not take an impact as we have and we still have not received any help. 

The dunes built by me more than thirty years ago with good elevations and stable 

cape variety dune grass, as well as bayberry bushes, have disappeared. If something 

is not done about the Outfall Lines, I expect to see the Eastside of town underwater. 

Thank you for your attention in this matter. 

Encls (3) 

Cc: Mayor and Council 

TO:LM 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

a:frri~ , 

~ 

Tim Ofleary ,upt. J 

Wildwood Public Works 

12 Appendix G. Pertinent Co1nspondence 
1194

van note - haryey 211 North Main Street Suite 203 

Cape May Court House, New Jersey 08210 

609-465-2600 Fax: 609-465-8028 

vannoteharvey.com 

November 15, 2005 

Mr. Kevin Y ecco 

Municipal Clerk 

Borough of Wildwood Crest 

610 l Pacific A venue 

Wildwood Crest, NJ 08260 

Since 1894 

File: 22034-999-2 l 

Hand Delivered 

AJ,C J. f/ (1 ;;/ oS:-

/1: ,s- A-Yl 

{'(11\. f 

Ce. 'v,/(",,itf:. 6~~ Ec6lE, vs Mot( 

Storm Sewer Infrastructure C-0(2.fS, OF' E /Ii 6" r'rJ f;Rf,S: 

Borough of Wildwood Crest, Cape May County, NJ 

RE: 

Dear Kevin: 

Enclosed please find two (2) copies of Storm Sewer Infrastructure Map of the Borough of 

Wildwood Crest dated January 7, 1994, latest revision September 1996. Please note various 

storm sewer improvements have been completed in the Borough since the preparation of the 

enclosed map. In particular the ocean outfall at Cresse Avenue has been abandoned, there are no 

longer openings in the bay front street end bulkheads at the street surface between Myrtle Road 

and Cresse Avenue ( each street end is now equipped with a single subsurface outfall, 18" - 24" 

diameter through the bulkhead with a tideflex valve) and the ocean outfalls have been 

significantly extended as necessitated by accretion. Tue ocean outfalls have been extended with 

24" diameter ductile iron storm sewer main the following approximate lengths: 

• Washington Avenue 363 linear feet 

Hollywood Avenue 357 linear feet 

Miami Avenue 449 linear feet 

• Atlanta Avenue 450 linear feet 

Fern Road 642 linear feet 

Heather Road 788 linear feet 

In addition to the above, various storm sewer improvements have been completed within the 

Borough roadways. A new infrastructure map will be prepared in accordance with the recently 

adopted NJDEP storm water regulations within the next three (3) years. 

Feel free to contact me should you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance. 

c§w,V-~ 

James W. Verna III, BIT 

Van Note - Harvey Associates 

enclosure 

cc: Ralph Petrella Jr., Borough Engineer 

X:\20000 Projects\22034-WWC General Engineering\22034-Yecco storm sewer infrastruenire letter 11 -15--05.doe 

HcrHol'tl (uld1k!ii,.E.1!il, ili1e1• E N V I R O N M E N T f\, L C O N S U LT A I\J\.J;;~ixti. £,\A,fi\ <'iorfespo,Q,,B,S 

OFFICES IN: NEW JERSEY PENNSYLVANIA NEW YORK CITY 
1195

Richard J. Codey 

Acting Governor 

~httt nf ~ efn 1/erS£1J 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Budget and Finance 

P.O. Box 420 

Trenton~ New Jersey 08625-0420 

Telephone#: (609) 292-9230 

Fax#, (609) 633-3727 

Bradley M. Campbell 

Commissioner 

January 6, 2006 

Brian Bogle 

Project Manager 

Coastal Planning Section 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

RE: Project 6040 - Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Dear Mr. Bogle: 

Enclosed are two checks, each in the amount of Sl00,000.00 for a total of $200,000.00, 

in payment of NJDEP's cost share for the above-referenced project for the first and 

second quarters of 2006. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (609) 984-7740. 

Hereford Inlet to Cnpe May Inlet 

Sincerely, 

New Jersey is an Eq~"bpponunity Employer 

Rec:yded Paper 

A.ppendix G. Pertinent Comisponden.:c 
1196

Planning Division 

Ed Kaminski 

420 Route 9 North 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADELPHIA OlSTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUlLOlNG, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107,3390 

Cape May Courthouse, New Jersey 08210 

Dear Mr. Kaminski: 

This letter is a follow up to a telephone conversation with Mr. Brian Bogle of my staff 

regarding the location of utilities within your service area. 

The Philadelphia District of the Anny Corps of Engineers is conducting a Feasibility study 

from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey. As part of the study, we need to identify 

locations of the various utilities that your company owns. Specifically, we are requesting the 

location of underground and above ground electric utility lines within North Wildwood, 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township, New Jersey. If possible please provide the 

locations electronically as an AutoCAD file or GIS layer (.dwg, .shp). This information will be 

used to quantify damages to these lines if they are subject to future erosion and wave damage. 

We have received similar information from utility providers for studies in Cape May City, 

Avalon, Stone Harbor and Ocean City. 

The Philadelphia District understands the need to keep this information confidential and will 

not publish the location of the utility lines upon request. \Ve appreciate your time and effort in 

providing this information. If you have any questions please call Mr. Brian Bogle (215)-656-

6585, or e-mail: brian.p.bog]e(c~usace.arrnv.mil. 

Iforcford Inlet to Cape tfay Inlet 15 

Sincerely, 

ffi,_ L4· 

/"~~i?as M. A;abatz~ 

Chief, Planning Division 

Appendix G< Pertinent Correspondence 
1197

Planning Division 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISTFIICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER 8UILOlkG, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILAOELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107~390 

Mr. John Garofalo, Manager 

Bureau of Coastal Engineering 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

1510 Hooper Avenue 

Toms River, New Jersey 08753 

Dear Mr. Garofalo: 

MAY O 3 2006 

This letter is in regard to the Corps of Engineers ongoing Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

feasibility Study. 

The Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement (FCSA) for this study was executed in September 

2002, and stipulated a non-Federal cost-share of $1,250,000. Through Fiscal Year 2006 the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has provided $750,000, leaving a 

$500,000 balance for the study. In order to meet the terms of the FCSA and match the Federal 

funds allocated up to and including fiscal year 2006, we request the NJDEP provide $200,000 by 

June 30, 2006. This funding will be used to conduct the without project hydraulic and economic 

analyses, perform geotechnical investigations, identify project alternatives, conduct public 

outreach and project management. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. 

Brian Bogle, Project Manager, at (215) 656-6585. 

Sincerely, 

/±nfi:r~ 

Chief, Planning Division 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 16 Appendix G. Peninent Coffespondcncc 
1198

Copy Furnished: 

David Rosenblatt, Administrator 

Office of Engineering and Construction 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

1510 Hooper A venue 

Toms River, New Jersey 08753 

William Dixon, Project Engineer 

Bureau of Coastal Engineering 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

1510 Hooper A venue 

Toms River, New Jersey 08753 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ?\fay Inlet 17 Appendix G, Pertin~nt Correspondeni.:e 
1199

Planning Division 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER 6UILOJNG•100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3390 

O fl FEB 20D7 

Mr. Dave Rosenblatt, Administrator 

Office of Engineering and Construction 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

1510 Hooper Avenue 

Toms River, New Jersey 08753 

Dear Mr. Rosenblatt: 

This letter is in regard to the on going Corps' Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet General 

Investigation. The Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement (FCSA) for this study was executed in 

s~,ptember 2002, and stipulated a non-Federal cost-share of$1,250,000. Through Fiscal Year 

2006 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has provided $950,000, 

leaving a $300,000 balance for the study. In order to meet the terms of the FCSA and the 

Federal funds allocated for FY07, we request the NJDEP submit $200,000 by March 2007. 

These funds will be spent in the 3•d and 4th quarter of this FY on project formulation, plan 

selection, public outreach and project management. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have questions contact Brian Bogle, 

Project Manager, at (215) 656-6585. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 18 

Sincerely, 

() e ·M ~ Q..:i;;J., ~ Minas M. Arabatzis 

Chief, Planning Division 

Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1200

REPLY TO 

ATIENT!ONOF 

CENAP-PL-PC 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDING-100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3390 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, North Atlantic Division, ATTN: CENAD-ET-P 

SUBJECT: Herford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

I. Authorization. The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet General Investigation was undertaken 

by authority of the New Jersey Shore Protection Study by resolutions adopted within the 

committee on Public Works and Transportation of the U.S. House of Representatives in 

December of 1987. 

2. Project Arca. The study area is located along the Atlantic coast of New Jersey between 

Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet. It is a heavily developed barrier island that is vulnerable to 

storm damage and serves as a major tourist destination for the region. 

3. Project History. The Reconnaissance phase was completed in January of 2002. The 

Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement was executed on 30 September 2002. The Feasibility phase 

is scheduled for completion in September of 2008. 

4. Project Status. Preliminary discussions with local officials indicate that the original borrow 

area may not be acceptable. This may necessitate additional investigations and outreach to 

identify source material. CENAP estimates that additional funds of $304,000 will be needed to 

complete this effort as well as the completion of the Feasibility study phase. 

5. Funding Request. CENAP-PL requests that additional Federal funds of $152,000 be 

provided. 

6. Federal Funding Schedule. An increase to the Federal portion of the Feasibility phase cost 

estimate from $1,250,000 to $1,402,000 is requested. 

7. Point of Contact. Questions should be directed to Brian Bogle, Project Manager, Coastal 

Planning Section, at (215) 656-6585. 

FOR THE COMMANDER: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

2 l, {Cf rJ) /l'j.-a/.,,-£.. 

RICHARD J. MARALDO, P.E. 

Deputy District Engineer 

for Programs and Project Management 

19 Appendix G. Pertinent Corresponden..-e 
1201

ll 

CEN.4.D-PSD-P 

SUBJECT: Review Plan Approval for Hllteford Ink! to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Stu4y 

Reference: 

a EC l lOS-2-40!1, PeeT Review of Decision Documents, 3! May 2005. 

b. Memoraooum, CECW-CP, 30 M&l'Ch 2007, subj~ Peet Review Process. 

2. The enclosed Review PlaA for~ Hereford Wet IQ Cape May Inlet Feasibllily Study bas been 

prepared In aceoroiwoo with 

Iforcford Inld fo Cape ).lay Inlet 

comments received have been <'~A•~•~,, i.,,_ .... ,n for Coastal Storm 

e~ peeT l'MCW, 

.-\ppendix CL Po;rtinent Com::spm1dcncc 
1202

• R.i;;PLVTO 

ATIENTION OF 

CENAP-PL-PC 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF l:NGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDING-100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3390 

AVG a 6 2008 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, CENAD ATTN: CENAD-PSD-P (Mr. Doukas) 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Scoping/In Progress Review 

(IPR) Meeting 

1. References. 

(a.) 14 March 2008 meeting between Mr. Doukas (CENAD), Mr. Bogle (CENAP) and Ms. 

Harrington (CENAP), SAB. 

(b.) 5 Jun 2008 phone conversation between Doukas and Bogle, SAO. 

(c.) Guidance contained in ER 1105-2-100, Appendix H, dated 20 November 2007. 

2. Request. Enclosed are nine copies of the read ahead material as described in Reference l (c.) 

for the subject meeting. 

3. Background. The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility study was authorized under 

the New Jersey Shore Protection program to investigate hurricane and storm damage reduction 

within New Jersey's coastal communities. The enclosed material is designed to facilitate the 

upcoming study milestones including the Feasibility Scoping Meeting, plan selection and 

feasibility report submittal. The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility study is scheduled 

for completion in fiscal year 2009. 

4. Proposed Meeting Date, The District is requesting a meeting between the appropriate 

parties to be coordinated by NAD, at Philadelphia District Office, within 30 days of the receipt 

of this memorandum. 

5. Point of Contact. The point of contact for this study is Mr. Brian Bogle, CENAP-PL,PC, 

(215)-656-6585. 

FOR THE COMMMANDER: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet 21 Appendix G. Pertinent CotTespondence 
1203

Enclosures (9) 

Copy Furnished: (I) 

Cynthia Jester CEMP-NAD 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 22 Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1204

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

CENAD-PDS 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

FORT HAMILTON MILITARY COMMUNITY 

GENERAL LEE AVENUE 

BROOKLYN, NY 11252·6700 

14 August 2008 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, CENAD-PDC (Mr. Lawrence Petrosino) 

SUBJECT: SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection Study, Hereford Inlet to Cape May , New 

Jersey - Feasibility Scoping Meeting (FSM) 

l. References: 

a. CENAP-PL-PC memorandum, dated 6 August 2008, transmitting read-ahead material. 

b. ER 1105-2-100, Appendix. G, Amendment #2, dated 31 July 2007 and Appendix H, dated 

20 November 2007, provides guidance with regard to FSM briefing materials. 

2. Enclosed are eight copies of the read ahead material. As described in reference l(a), the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Feasibility study was authorized under the New Jersey Shore 

Protection Program to investigate hurricane an storm damage reduction within New Jersey 

coastal communities. The enclosed information is intended to facilitate discussion and 

documentation for the proposed vertical team meeting and assist the district with its remaining 

tasks in finalizing the draft feasibility report. 

3. The Division staff has preliminarily reviewed the Philadelphia District read-ahead 

information and has no significant comments or concerns at this time. This office requests a 

meeting between our appropriate staffs at the NAP district Offices within 30 days of receipt of 

this memorandum. 

4. Please contact, Mr. Peter Doukas ofmy staff at 718.765.7068 should you have any questions 

or require additional information. 

Encl 

as 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

JOSEPH R. VIETRI 

Chief, Policy and Planning Formulation 

Programs Directorate 

23 Appendix G. Pertinent Com~spondence 
1205

REPI..YTO 

ATTENTION OF 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORTH ATI..ANT!C DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

FORT HAMIL TON MILITARY COMMUNITY 

GENERAL LEE AVENUE 

BROOKLYN, NY11252-6700 

CENAD-PD-CID 28 August 2008 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Regional Integration Team, U.S. Anny Corps ofEngineers 441 G 

Street NW, Washington D.C. 20314-1000 ATTN: Ms Cynthia Jester 

(CEMP-NAD) 

SUBJECT: SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection Study, Hereford Inlet to Cape May, New 

Jersey - Feasibility Scoping Meeting (FSM) 

L References: 

a. CENAD-PDS memorandum, dated 14 August 2008, requesting a FSM meeting 

b. CENAP-PL-PC memorandum, dated 6 August 2008, transmitting read-ahead material. 

c. ER l 105-2-100, Appendix. G, Amendment #2, dated 31 July 2007 and Appendix H, dated 

20 November 2007, provides guidance with regard to FSM briefing materials. 

2. Enclosed are eight copies of the read ahead material. As described in reference l(b), the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Feasibility study was authorized under the New Jersey Shore 

Protection Program to investigate hurricane and stonn damage reduction within New Jersey 

coastal communities. The enclosed information is intended to facilitate discussion and 

documentation for the proposed vertical team meeting and assist the district with its remaining 

tasks in finalizing the draft fea.,ibility report 

3. The Division staff has preliminarily reviewed the Philadelphia District read-ahead 

infonnation and has no significant comments or concerns at this time. This office requests a 

meeting between our appropriate staffs at the NAP district Offices within 30 days of receipt of 

this memorandum. A call in phone number will be available for the meeting. 

4. Please contact, Mr. Patricia Donohue of my staff at 718.765. 7080 should you have any 

questions or require additional infonnation. 

Encl 

as 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inlet 

LA 

~~ WREN CE PETROSINO 

Chief, Civil Works Integration Division 

Programs Directorate 

24 Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1206

CEMP-NAD 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000 

OCT 2 ZOOS 

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION (NAD-PD-CID-S) 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection Study, Hereford Inlet to Cape May, New JerseyFeasibility Scoping Meeting (FSM) Package 

1. Reference CENAD-PD-CID-S memorandum, dated 28 August 2008, Subject: New Jersey Shore 

Protection Study, Hereford Inlet to Cape May, New Jersey- Feasibility Scoping Meeting (FSM) 

2. Enclosed are the consolidated HQUSACE comments on the subject FSM package for your 

response. In general the submission lacks some of the information specified in Exhibit H-3 of ER 

1105-2-100, such as an outline of the feasibility report and draft report text relative to existing and 

future without-project conditions. Once responses have been generated, please contact the RIT to 

schedule a FSM. 

3. If you have any questions please contact Ms. Cynthia Jester at 202-761-1379. 

Encl A 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1.fay Inlet 

Chief, 

Regiona Integration Team 

Directorate of Military Programs 

25 Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondi:nce 
1207

CENAP-PL-PC 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3190 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, CENAD ATTN: CENAD-PD-CID-S (Mr. Joseph 

Forcina) 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Scoping/ In Progress Review 

(IPR) Meeting 

1. References. 

(a.) 2 October 2008 CEMP-NAD Memorandum. 

(b.) 14 March 2008 meeting between Mr. Doukas (CENAD), Mr. Bogle (CENAP) and Ms. 

Harrington (CENAP), SAB. 

(c.) 5 June 2008 phone conversation between Doukas and Bogle, SAB. 

(d.) Guidance within ER 1105-2-100, Appendix H, dated 20 November 2007. 

(e.) 9 December 2008 phone conversation between Doukas and Bogle, SAB. 

2. Request. Enclosed are four copies of the 2 October 2008 Memorandum (Reference I. (a)), 

and responses to the comments within the October Memorandum. 

3. Background. The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet feasibility study was authorized under 

the New Jersey Shore Protection program to investigate hurricane and storm damage reduction 

within New Jersey's coastal communities. The enclosed contains the District's responses to the 

review team comments on the read ahead material that were contained within the October 

Memorandum. The draft report text relative to the introduction, existing conditions and without 

project conditions sections of the feasibility study will be provided prior to the Feasibility 

Scoping/In Progress Review Meeting, as agreed to during reference I e. 

4. Proposed Meeting Date. The District is requesting a meeting between the appropriate 

parties to be coordinated by NAD at the location of their preference upon the review of this 

material. 

Hertford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 26 Appendix G. Pertinent Com.'.spondencc 
1208

CENAP-PL-PC 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Scoping/ In Progress Review 

(IPR) Meeting 

5. Point of Contact. The point of contact for this study is Mr. Brian Bogle, CENAP-PL-PC, 

(215)-656-6585. 

FOR THE COMMMANDER: 

Enclosures (4) 

Copy Furnished: (8) 

Cynthia Jester 

CEMP-NAD 

441 G Street 

Washington, DC 20314 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

ASM~~ 

27 Appendix G. Pe1iinent C0rrespondence 
1209

Copy 

Her~ford Inlet to Cape tfay Inlet 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHllAOELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS Of ENGlNEERS 

WANAMAKER Bllll.llll<G, 100 PENN $QUAR£ EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107,3300 

Sinccrdy. 

28 

0 6 

mc.:t study 

Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1210

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107~3390 

Attention: North Wildwood, Wildwood and Wildwood Crest Residents 

This is to inform you that the Philadelphia District of the Army Corps of Engineers will be 

collecting information I data for the ongoing Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet feasibility study in 

your area. This activity will take place during April and May 2010. 

The information we collect will be used to develop a plan to prevent storm damage within the 

study area between Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet. During the data collection period 

consultants from the firm of Michael Baker Jr., Inc., under contract to the Corps of Engineers, 

will be conducting field surveys of properties within the study area. 

The information collected will consist of: 

1. Residential & commercial structure inventories including recording the address, property 

size and type of construction. 

2. Residential & commercial first floor elevations to determine the properties' location & 

vulnerability to storm damage. 

3. Photographs of residential & commercial strnctures. 

4. Recording elevations at various locations on the island. 

If you have questions, please contact the Project Economist, Robert Selsor, at (215) 656-6569. 

Sincerely, 

i. f~s!!~Z~~ 

Chie( Planning Division 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 29 Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1211

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3390 

Mr. Dave Rosenblatt, Administrator 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control 

50 I East State Street 

P.O.Box4!9 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0419 

Dear Mr. Rosenblatt: 

APR 3 0 2010 

The Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) for the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

feasibility study was signed on 9/30/2002. The cost estimate for the study was $2,500,000. 

Since the signing of the FCSA the costs of the study have increased due to additional 

requirements for Federal Water Resource projects. These new requirements include an Agency 

Technical Review and an Independent External Peer Review (EC 1165-2-209), a Value 

Engineering study (ER 11-1-321), new requirements within Planning Models and Improvement 

Program (EC 1105-2-407) and the requirement for a Civil Works Review Board meeting (EC 

1105-2-406). Based on these additional requirements the updated cost estimate for the Hereford 

Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study is $3,700,000. 

To date, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has provided 

$1,552,000 and the Federal Government has provided $1,584,142 in study funds. Based on the 

funds allocated, and the new feasibility estimate, the total amount required to complete the 

feasibility study is approximately $563,858. Some of the new requirements discussed above are 

not cost shared at 50% Federal, 50% non-Federal, as in the original FCSA, but are a I 00% 

Federal responsibility. Therefore, the updated non-Federal funding amount necessary to 

complete the feasibility study is $131,929. 

As you indicate that you have budgeted $32,000 this year for the Hereford study, a check 

in the amount of$32,000 is requested, and should be made payable to, "FAO, USAED 

Philadelphia". The Funds should be sent to the following address: 

Mr. Minas Arabatzis, Chief 

Planning Division (CENAP-PL) 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District 

W anamak.er Building, I 00 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

Hereford Inlet;to Cape i\fay Inlet , 30 Appendix G. ~ertincnt Correspondence 
1212

If additional information is required, please contact Mr. Brian Bogle, Project Manager, at 

(215) 656-6585. 

CF: 

Mr. Ben Keiser, Manager 

Bureau of Coastal Engineering 

Sincerely, 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

1510 Hooper A venue 

Toms River, NJ 08753 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlef 31 Appendix G. Pe11incnt Com::.c:pondence 
1213

CENAP-PL-PC 

DEPARTMENT OF THE A.RMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDlfilG, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3390 

JUN 1 7 2010 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, CENAD ATTN: (CENAD-PSD-P) (Peter Blum) 

SUBJECT: Transmittal of Risk and Uncertainty (R&U) plan for Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet. 

1. BACKGROUND. The Philadelphia District held a Feasibility Scoping Meeting (FSM) for the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet feasibility study on 23 July 2009. Attendees at the FSM included 

the Office of Water Policy Review (OWPR), the North Atlantic Division Regional Integration Team 

(NAD-RIT), North Atlantic Division (NAD), New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP), the non-Federal Sponsor, and key members of the Philadelphia District Project 

Development Team. One of the recommendations at the meeting from the OWPR, the NAD-RIT 

and NAD was for the District to pursue one of two paths in order to adequately address Risk and 

Uncertainty (R&U) inherent in storm damage reduction projects. The first path was to reanalyze the 

storm damage reduction effort using the recently approved coastal storm damage reduction model, 

Beach-ft:. The second path was for the District to enhance its existing modeling effort in order to 

better address Risk and Uncertainty. The decision on which path to pursue would be based upon the 

confidence the District has in their 20 years experience in planning, designing and constructing shore 

protection projects using its current storm damage reduction model, compared to the costs and time 

delays of executing the new Beach-fx model and the needs of the non-Federal sponsor. Based on 

these criteria, the District decided to pursue an enhanced version of its current model in order to 

better address Risk and Uncertainty (Enclosure). Subsequent guidance from NAO, provided during 

the 18 February 2010 In-Progress Review (IPR) meeting, instructed the District to develop their Risk 

and Uncertainty plan with the current model. NAD also indicated that they would prepare a letter 

exempting the District from use of Beach-ft: contingent upon satisfactory review of the District's 

Risk and Uncertainty analysis. 

2. REQUEST. The District is transmitting a draft of its Risk and Uncertainty plan to NAD for 

review and approval prior to coordinating with the Jacksonville District ATR team. Upon approval 

by NAD the District will coordinate the Risk and Uncertainty Plan with the A TR team in order to 

execute the plan outlined in the draft. 

Sincerely, 

t. Wcu9:::l:il ~ (Jf Mike Arabatzis 1' Chief, Planning Division 

Enclosure 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 32 Appendix G. Pettinent Con-.~spondence 
1214

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

CENAD-PL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

FORT HAMILTON MILITARY COMMUNITY 

BROOKLYN, NY 11252-6700 

17 November 2010 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, CENAD-CID 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, Draft Risk and Uncertainty Plan 

1. The NAD Planning and Policy Division has reviewed the Draft Risk and Uncertainty 

Plan for Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet. The draft plan is approved and the District 

should proceed as recommended while addressing the following comments: 

a. The District should update their Review Plan to describe the risk and uncertainty 

Agency Technical Review (ATR) and provide to the Planning Center of Expertise -

Coastal and Storm Damage Reduction (c/o Larry Cocchieri) for approval. 

b. The District should also undertake ATR of the Draft Risk and Uncertainty Plan for 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet. Comments should be provided in DrChecks and a 

memo provided by the ATR team indicating their concerns or concurrence with this 

approach. The District should provide this memo to NAD. 

c. Pending ATR team concurrence, the District can complete the updated analysis, to 

include risk and uncertainty and economic risk considerations. The analysis and 

results would undergo ATR and the Planning Center of Expertise - Coastal and Storm 

Damage Reduction will determine if an "approved for one time use" model request to 

HQUSACE, Office of Water Project Review is warranted and will submit the 

required materials, as appropriate. 

d. NAD has prepared the enclosed transmittal memo to be forwarded to the HQUSACE 

NAD RIT stating that this approach is the required follow up to the June 2010 

Feasibility Scoping Meeting. NAD and the District will proceed with implementing 

this approach. 

2. Please direct any questions to Ms. Amy Guise (NAB Planning Manager) at 410-962-

6138. 

Encl 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 33 

JOSEPH R. VIETRI 

Chief, Planning and Policy Division 

Programs Directorate 

Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1215

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

CENAD-PL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

FORT HAMIL TON MILITARY COMMUNITY 

BROOKLYN, NY 11252-6700 

17 November 2010 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, CENAD-CID 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ, Draft Risk and Uncertainty Plan 

1. This memorandum is provided for information regarding issues raised at the Feasibility 

Scoping Meeting for the subject study. In follow-up, CENAP has outlined an approach 

to incorporate risk and uncertainty and economic risk considerations into their modeling 

efforts. 

2. The NAD Planning Division I Planning Center of Expertise - Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction, has reviewed and approved the Draft Risk and Uncertainty Plan for Hereford 

Inlet to Cape May Inlet. The draft plan is currently undergoing Agency Technical 

Review via Jacksonville District. Pending resolution of any Agency Technical Review 

(ATR) comments, the MSC and District will proceed with implementing the proposed 

approach to incorporate risk and uncertainty and economic risk considerations into their 

modeling efforts. 

3. Once the analyses are completed, they would undergo ATR and the Planning Center of 

Expertise - Coastal and Storm Damage Reduction will determine if an "approved for one 

time use" model request to HQUSACE is warranted and will submit the required 

materials, as appropriate. 

4. The District has updated their Review Plan to describe the risk and uncertainty ATR. 

5. Request you furnish this memorandum to HQUSACE and request that any questions or 

co=,n~ be drrockd to Ms. Amy G,i.s, (fl~~ ,t 4!0-962-6138. 

(f/ JOSEPH R. VIETRI 

Hereford Inl0t to Cape May Inlet 34 

Chief, Planning and Policy Division 

Director, Planning Center of Expertise for 

Coastal Storm Damage Reduction 

Appendix G. Pe11inent Correspondence 
1216

CENAP-PL-PC 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3390 

:MAY 1 9 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Commander, CENAD, ATTN: CENAD-PD-CID-S (Mr. Lawrence 

Petrosino). 

SUBJECT: Documentation of Feasibility Scoping Meeting (FSM) for the Hereford Inlet to 

Cape May Inlet, NJ Feasibility study. 

1. References. 

a. Memorandum, CENAP-PL-PC, 12 December 2008, District response to HQUSACE 

comments regarding Feasibility Scoping Meeting materials. 

b. Memorandum, CEMP-NAD, 2 October 2008, Transmittal of HQ comments to CENADPD-CID-S. 

c. Memorandum, CENAD-PD-CID, 28 August 2008, Transmittal of Feasibility Scoping 

meeting materials to CEMP-NAD. 

d. Memorandum, CENAD-PDS, 14 August 2008, Transmission of Feasibility Scoping 

Meeting read ahead materials to CENAD-PDC. 

e. Memorandum, CENAP-PL-PC, 6 August 2008, Transmittal ofFeasibility Scoping 

Meeting materials to CENAD-PDS. 

2. Background. 

The FSM read ahead materials were transmitted to North Atlantic Division (NAO) from the 

District on 6 August 2008, Reference l .e. The District's August transmittal was then routed 

through NAO in a memorandum dated 14 August 2008, Reference l .d, and then on to 

Headquarters in a memorandum dated 28 August 2008, Reference l .c. Headquarters then 

provided comments on the pre-FSM submittal package to NAO in a Memorandum dated 2 

October 2008, Reference 1.b., Enclosure 1. The District responded to Headquarters comments in 

their 12 December 2008 memorandum, Reference I .a, Enclosure 2, and the FSM was scheduled. 

All of the pre- FSM materials submitted to NAO and to the OWPR underwent an Agency 

Technical Review (ATR) by the Jacksonville District of the Army Corps of Engineers and all 

comments from the ATR team were input into the Design Review and Checking System (Dr. 

Checks), Enclosure 3. These materials included the Draft Feasibility report containing the 

Introduction, Existing Conditions, Without Project Conditions and With Project Conditions up to 

and including the preliminary selected plan. Comments from the Jacksonville District were 

entered into the Projnet/Dr. Checks tracking system and closed prior to the FSM. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

1 

35 Appendix: G. Pertinent Con-espondence 
1217

The FSM was held at the Philadelphia District on 23 July 2009. Opening comments were given 

by Peter Doukas, of NAO, Wesley Coleman, Chiefofthe Office of Water Policy Review 

(OWPR) and Minas Arabatzis, the Chief of Planning Division, Philadelphia District. The Project 

Manager, Brian Bogle, provided a project overview of the study using the attached Microsoft 

Power Point slides (Enclosure 4). These slides reviewed the study background, authority, 

location, problems, opportunities, objectives, constraints, without project damages, plan 

formulation and identified a preliminary selected plan and documented the study findings to date. 

Enclosure 5 contains the District's Memorandum For Record (MFR) of the FSM meeting. This 

MFR documented the meeting and contains a list of all FSM attendees. All attendees of the 

meeting received a copy of the District's MFR. 

3. District Memorandum For Record (MFR). 

The District MFR documented the main discussion points of the FSM meeting. The three main 

points of discussion at the FSM concerned the Future Without Project Conditions, the status of 

the Independent External Peer Review, and Model Certification. The Future Without Project 

Conditions will be examined more closely and presented in the final Feasibility Report. The 

Independent External Peer Review is being anticipated as a future requirement and is currently 

being included in the project schedule. 

The model certification discussion was based on the fact that a combination of SBEACH and 

COSTDAM were used for this study instead of Beach-ft. Beach-ft was certified for USA CE 

storm damage reduction studies on I April 2009 and is the only certified corporate model for 

storm damage assessment, although certification of a model is not a requirement for its use. All 

modeling for this study were conducted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 with SBEACH/COSTDAM, 

before Beach-ft was available for use as a certified model. Two alternatives were discussed at 

the FSM in order to incorporate the use of a certified model: (1) even though all modeling is 

complete for this study, the PDT could run all necessary modeling using Beach-ft or (2) the PDT 

could enhance the existing modeling effort in order to address risk and uncertainty (R&U). The 

team also will clearly explain the 20+ years of experience with storm damage modeling in this 

region and describe how the analyses were performed and how the projects, based upon these 

models, have performed. It was agreed that this explanation would be included in a white-paper 

that outlined the timeline for the Hereford study versus the development of Beach-ft and be 

presented to FSM attendees and reviewers. This paper would also explain the history of the use 

of the current SBEACH/COSTDAM model and the resources required to reanalyze this study 

using Beach-ft (Enclosure 6). 

4. Path Fonvard 

Alternative (2), enhancing the existing model to incorporate R&U was chosen as the most 

reasonable and efficient path forward. The R&U plan that was developed by the PDT was 

forwarded to North Atlantic Division (NAO) on 17 June 2010 (Enclosure 7). NAO approved the 

R&U plan in an internal memo dated 17 November 20 I 0. The NAO memo required the 

Jacksonville ATR team to review the District R&U model. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

2 

36 Appendix G. Pertinent Com:·spondcnce 
1218

The charge to the Jacksonville ATR team was as follows; 

"Is the proposed analysis, if added to the current storm damage reduction model process, 

reasonable enough to incorporate the variability associated with economic and hydraulic 

systems in order to meet the requirement identified at the Feasibility Scoping Meeting of 

enhancing the existing effort in order to address risk and uncertainty" 

All comments from the ATR team on the R&U analysis were input into the Projnet!Dr. Checks 

tracking system and addressed by the PDT. The ATR for the R&U plan was certified on 2 

February 2011 (Enclosure 8). A District Quality Control report was certified on the post ATR 

reviewed final R&U document on I March 201 l. NAD also required the review of the R&U 

model by the Planning Center of Expertise for Economics, Norfolk District. Norfolk District is 

currently reviewing the District Model and will enter all comments into the Projnet/Dr. Checks 

tracking system. The PCX will also review and certify all model results upon completion of the 

District's analysis. The results of the R&U analysis will be added to the existing draft feasibility 

report and be presented at the Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB). 

4. Required Action. It is requested that this memorandum document the completion of the 

Feasibility Scoping Meeting (FSM) milestone for the subject study and serve as the path forward 

for the District in lieu of a Program Guidance Memorandum. 

FOR THE COMMANDER: 

Enclosure 1. Pre-FSM submittal (Draft Report) 

Enclosure 2. Response to HQ/OWPR comments 

Enclosure 3. Jacksonville pre-FSM ATR Comments 

Enclosure 4. Microsoft Power Point slides 

Enclosure 5. District MFR 

Enclosure 6. District white paper 

Enclosure 7. District R&U approach 

~M:.:t.:~ 

Chief, Planning Division 

Enclosure 8. ATR comments and Certification of R&U approach 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.fay Inlet 3 

37 Appendix G. Pertinent Com~spondcn~e 
1219

CARLGROON 

MayorPublic Safety 

JOYCE GOULD 

Revenue & 

Finance 

DON CABRERA 

Public Works & 

Recreation 

COMMISSIONERS 

BOROUGH CLERK 

609-522-5176 

FAX 609-522-7108 

FIRE PREVENTION/ 

CODE ENFORCEMENT 

609-729-5152 

FAX 609-729-7089 

PUBLIC WORKS 

609-522-7446 

RECREATION 

609-523-0202 

TAX ASSESSOR 

609-522-3691 

TAX COLLECTOR 

SEWER COLLECTION 

609-522-3843 

FAX 609-522-6692 

TREASURER 

609-522-0401 

FAX 609-522-6692 

THE BOROUGH OF 

WILDWOOD CREST 

6101 Pacific Avenue, Wildwood Crest, NJ 08260 

www.wildwoodcrest.org 

Brian P. Bogle, Project Manager 

Coastal Planning Section 

Planning Division 

United States Army Corps of Engineers 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

Dear Mr. Bogle: 

October 6, 2011 

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation at the recent 

discussion regarding beach accretion in Wildwood Crest. Although no final resolution of 

the Borough's problems was reached, I certainly appreciate the time and effort provided by 

everyone involved. 

I look forward to further discussions and an alternative to the burden being placed 

on the taxpayers of the Borough of Wildwood Crest. 

Very truly yours, 

Carl H. Groon, Mayor 

Hereford Infot to Cape \fay Inlet 38 Apptmdix G, Pertinent Co1Tespondence 
1220

LtMAX(9' P. a. Bex 9 {l'otAIUNG) 

! 43S ROUTE 9 NOR.TH {DEl.lVE:FlY) 

Consulting group CAPE MAY CouRT HOUSE:, N.J 062 I 0, USA 

MEETING AGENDA 

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 

PROJECT: Wildwood Crest Oceanfront 

ATTENDEES: 

Borough of Wildwood Crest, Cape May County, NJ 

TLCG File No.: 09-662 

Carl Groon, Borough Mayor 

Doreen Corino, Esq., Borough Solicitor 

James W. Verna Ill, PE, Borough Engineers Office 

Richard Hluchan, Esq. 

Richard Weggel, P.E. 

Joseph Lomax - The Lomax Consulting Group 

Ben Keiser, Bill Dixon, Chris Constantino - NJDEP 

Jeff Gebert and Brian Bogle - USAGE 

1. Introduction 

2. Purpose of the Meeting: 

609""465"9B57 (;:>) 

609-465~2449 {F) 

WWW.LOMftXCONSUt..TINC.COM 

A Statement of Borough issues, i.e. economic impact of beach accretion on stormwater 

management and tourism 

8. Seek near-term and long-tenn solutions 

3. USAGE - Coastal sand budget studies and beach management feasibility - Hereford 

Inlet to Cape May Area 

4. NJDEP - Coastal Engineering role in beach management (State program sponsor) 

5. Opportunities/approaches to addressing the Borough's beach management issues 

6. Next Steps 

PROJE.CTS\A.etive\09-652\ CorrespondenceWIE.ETING AGENDA 9_28_ 11.doc 

0 
1221

CESAJ-PD-PW February 2, 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study, Summary of Agency Technical Review of 

the Proposed Risk and Uncertainty Plan 

I. Agency Technical Review (ATR) of the subject Risk and Uncertainty Plan, prepared by Philadelphia 

District (NAP), was managed by the Coastal Stonn Damage Reduction Planning Center of Expertise 

(PCX-CSDR) in NAD. The ATR was perfonned by a team composed of staff of the Jacksonville 

District, in SAD. 

2. It is the understanding of the ATR Team that the purpose of the Risk and Uncertainty Plan is to provide 

methods sufficient to evaluate risk and uncertainty, in lieu of addressing risk and uncertainty by 

employment ofBeach-fx. It was reviewed within that conte:'l.i. 

3. The tean1 was composed of a subset of the original team, appropriate for the scope of review of the 

Risk and Uncertainty Plan, including: economics, plan formulation and coastal engineering. The Charge 

to Reviewers was as follows: Is the proposed analysis, if added to the current storm damage reduction 

model process, reasonable enough to incorporate the variability associated with economic and hydraulic 

systems in order to meet the requirement identified at the Feasibility Scoping Meeting of enhancing the 

existing effort in order to address risk and uncertainty? 

4. Review of the document resulted in a total of 12 comments, with significant comments from all 

reviewers. The PDT concurred with and resolved all comments. Resolution of comments was based 

upon the PDT responses provided in DrChecks and by review of draft report revisions. DrChecks reports 

that provide detailed documentation of the A TR comments and PDT responses arc provided in 

Attachment I to this memorandum. 

5. The A TR team found that the proposed analysis, if added to the current storm damage reduction model 

process employing COSTDAM, may be reasonable enough to incorporate the variability associated v,;ith 

economic and hydraulic systems in order to meet the requirement identified at the Feasibility Scoping 

Meeting of enhancing the existing effort in order to address risk and uncertainty. However, there is an 

inherent disadvantage adapting a probabilistic model versus employing a life cycle model, such as Beachfx: the erosion dan1age fi.mction to pile structures is hard-wired in COSTDAM i.e., percentage damage is 

programmed to be always directly proportional to percent of the eroded footprint (regardless of the deptl1 

of the piles) and therefore, this damage function cannot be subject to variability, nor risk and uncertainty. 

Hereford Inlet 1o Cape May Inlet 

James M. Baker, Jacksonville District 

Agency Technical Review Lead 

40 Appendix G. Pc11incnt Correspondence 
1222

CESAJ-PD-PW December 7, 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study, Summary of Agency Technical Review of 

the Risk and Uncertainty Economics Model Application 

I. Agency Technical Review (ATR) of the subject risk and uncertainty economics model application, 

prepared by Philadelphia District (NAP), was managed by the Coastal Stonn Damage Reduction Planning 

Center of Expertise (PCX-CSDR) in NAO. The ATR was performed by Dan Abecassis, the ATR tean1 

economics reviewer, Jacksonville District, in SAD. 

2. There were six economics-related comments and one H&R-related comment. All issues were resolved 

and all comments closed in DrChecks. A report listing all comments and associated resolutions is 

enclosed, herein. The review resulted in t,vo specific recommendations that arc provided in paragraphs 3 

and 4, below. 

3. Recommendation I: The model review documentation for one-time-approval-for-use: needs to be 

completed to comply with EC 1105-2-412, Quality Assurance of Planning Models, in accordance with the 

process established by the Coastal PCX. Philadelphia District will need to work with the PCX for the 

procedural protocols. 

4. Recommendation 2: Include Regarding a qualitative assessment addressing the reasonableness of the 

proportional erosion damage function to pile structures, in the draft report, in response to comment 

4293973, relating to damages incurred to structures on pile foundations. The PDT economist has 

indicated that the depth of the piles to structures on pile foundations is not inforn1ation readily obtainable, 

not even from a san1pling perspective. It is recognized that one of the limitations of the COSTDAM 

model is that the calculation for erosion damage to pile structures is hardcoded to compute damages 

proportional to the footprint (i.e., 10% erosion of footprint equates to 10% damage, 20% erosion, 20% 

dan1age, etc.) arriving at 100% damage when the full footprint has been subjected to erosion by the 

model. The economist has indicated that a qualitative assessment addressing the reasonableness of the 

proportional erosion damage function to pile structures will be further coordinated with the engineering 

discipline and provided in the feasibility report. (The limitation of the COSTDAM model for the 

computation of erosion damages to pile structures should also be documented in the model review 

appendix). The qualitative assessment ,vill be reviewed during the next ATR. 

Enclosure 

James M. Baker, 

Agency Technical Review Lead 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 41 Appendix G, P.::rtinent Correspondence 
1223

CEMP-NAD-RIT 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

441 G STREET NW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000 

MEMORANDUMFORTHERECORD 

3 June 2011 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey - Feasibility Scoping Meeting 

Documentation 

1. Reference CENAB-PL-P Memorandum for the Record dated 23 July 2009, subject as above. 

2. Documentation of the Hereford to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey Feasibility Scoping Meeting 

(FSM) was completed in July of 2009. Policy compliance review comments were discussed and 

subsequently resolved during the FSM 

3. HQ, the MSC and District have concurred on the outcome of the FSM and understand the 

following actions will be required prior commencement of the Alternative Formulation Briefing: 

a. Certification for one-time use of the SBEACH-COSTDAM methodology for the storm 

damage and damage reduction benefits analysis. 

b. Update the Peer Review Plan to include IEPR. 

c. Initiation of IEPR process. 

4. Questions regarding this matter should be directed to Catherine Shuman, NAD-RIT Planning 

Program Manager, (202) 761-1379. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 

~ Deputy Chief, Civil Works 

NAD Regional Integration Team 

Directorate of Military Programs 

42 Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1224

REPLY TO 

ATIENT!ONOF 

CEPCX-CSDR 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

FORT HAMILTON MILITARY COMMUNITY 

BROOKLYN, NY 11252-6700 

MAR I 3 2012 

MEMORANDUM FOR: CEMP-NAD, Attention: Ms. Catherine Shuman 

SUBJECT: Model Review Plan for the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ Feasibility Study 

I. The National Planning Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (PCXCSDR) has reviewed the Model Review Plan (MRP) for the subject study, which was prepared 

in accordance with EC 1105-2-412, entitled "Assuring Quality of Planning Models". The subject 

MRP for an approved model is enclosed for your concurrence. 

2. While PCX-CSDR led a model review to ascertain its validity, we are proposing the subject 

MRP at this time and would be available to discuss any additions or enhancements to it, in which 

we would carry out, as necessary. 

3. For further information, please contact Mr. Larry Cocchieri at 347-370-4571. 

Encl 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 43 

k!!k~ 

Director, National Planning Center of 

Expertise for Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction 

Appendix G. Pe1tinent Con-espondence 
1225

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILAPELPHV\. PENNSYWAN\A 1$107,3390 

Branch 

'"'"'uu;.,amu Sc:ction !l 

CENAP-OP-R-20! 2·79-24 

NJDEP 0500-07-0006.1, CAF 070001 

0515-09-0003.L CAFlOOOOl 

\VlLDWOOD CREST TO NORTH WILDWOOD BEACH SAND BACKPASSlNG 

ML Louis Belasco, A.dministrator 

of North Wildwood 

90 l Atlantic A venue 

Wildwood. New Jersey 08280 

Dear Mr. Be!asco: 

This regard to application for a Department of the Army permit to 

nourishment betvveen and 7

111 Avenues in North Wildwood by means 

from the beach at Wilc!wood Crest, in Cape May County, New Jersey. The 

was submitted on your behalf by the Coastal Research Center of Richard Stockton 

A copy public notice of your application is enclosed for your information. You are 

reminded of your to obtain State approval from the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP), including a Section 40 I Water Quality Certificate and 

concurrence that the proposed project is consistent with their approved Coastal Zone 

Management Program. You should contact the NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program, P.O. Box 

,B9, Trenton. New Jersey 08625-0439, or (609) 292-0060, for additional infom1ation. When you 

receive your State authorization(s), it is requested that copies be furnished to this office. 

If you should have any Qu,:swms regarding this matter, 

(215) by electronic mail to '"°"~'"''~·'""""'~'~·''~0:C'cc.00,,=,0.;;cc•; 

address. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosure 

Hereford ]nlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 44 Appendix G. Pertinent Con·e,:;pondence 
1226

-2-

Furnished: 

NJDEP. Bureau of Coastal (LURP - Chris Dolphin) 

NJDEP, Bureau of Coastal Regulation (LURP- Janet 

NJDEP. Bureau of Coastal (LURP Gail Moore) 

NJDEP. Historic Preservation Office West-Rosenthal) 

lJSFWS. P!easantvi!!e (Wendy Walsh) 

NMFS. lfook 

NMFS. Gloucester, MA 

USEPA. H 

USCG. 

CENAP-DP-C\V (Keith Watson) 

CENi\P-PL-E (Beth Brandreth) 

CENA.P-PL-E (Nikki Minnichbach) 

CENAP-PL-PC 

CENAP-PL-PC Bogle) 

CENAP-EC-EH {Robert L01Nm:skil 

Mr. Constantino 

NJDEP, Bureau of Coastal Engineering 

5 IO A venue, Suite l 40 

Toms River. New Jersey 08753 

FEMA: Ms. Megan Jadrosich. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Mitigation Division 

26 Federal Plaza, 13th Floor 

New York, New York 10278-0002 

for North Wildwood: Dr. Stewart Farrell 

Coastal Research Center 

30 Wilson A vem1e 

Port Republic, New Jersey 08241 

for Wildwood Crest Mr. Ralph Petrella, Jr. 

Van Note-Harvey Associates 

211 North Main Streets Suite 203 

Cape May Court House, New 08210 

of Wildwood: 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1-fay Inlet 

Honorable Ernie Troiano, Jr. 

Mayor, of Wildwood 

4400 New Jersey Avenue 

Wildwood, New 08262 

45 Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1227

US Army Corps 

of Engineers 

Philadelphia District 

THIS IS NOT A PAID ADVERTISEMENT 

Public Notice 

Public Notice No. 

CENAP•OP·R-2012•79•24 

llRANCH 

District received an application for a Department oflhe Army permit pursuant to 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act lJ.S.C 1344). 

The 

concerning 

APPLICANT: 

ADDRESS: 

of this notice is to solicit comments and recommendations from the public 

of a Department of the Army permit for the work described below. 

City of North Wildwood 

901 Atlantic Avenue 

North Wildwood, New Jersey 08280 

The Coastal Research Center 

The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey 

30 Wilson Avenue 

Port Republic. New Jersey 08241 

Atlantic Ocean 

The proposed fill or deposition area is situated on the ocean-front beach, 

iimne,iiatelv southwest of Hereford Inlet, between the jetty at 2nd Avenue and J1h Avenue in the 

City of North Wildwood, Cape May County, New Jersey. The proposed excavation or borrow 

area situated on the ocean-front beach within the Borough of Wildwood Crest, between the 

southw.:st municipal boundary adjacent to Jefferson Avenue and the northeast municipal 

boundary Cresse Avenue, The truck haul route would be on the ocean-front beach within the 

Cities and North Wildwood, from Wildwood Crest northeast to the fill area 

begi1111ing Avenue. The point of access to the beach area for in North 

Wildwood would be at !5'h Avenue, v.tith staging at the lifeguard lot, The point of 

access to the beach area for equipment in Wildwood Crest at Washington and Cresse 

Avenues. with staging at the Department of Public Works complex on Washington Avenue (west 

side of the Borough), 

The applicant is seeking authorization to nourish a portion of their ocean-front 

removing excess sand from the beach within Wildwood Crest, and transporting that 

trucks travelling on the intervening beach to the proposed fill site. They propose to carry 

"b,ick-ostSsing" operation. in which they would ''harvest" or excavate up to 96,000 cubic 

ocean-front beach within Wildwood Crest, and move the sand by truck 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !'\..Jay Inlet 46 Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1228

-2-

Wildwood to the fill site in North Wildwood. The excavation area would em:onmass 

6lL08 acres of beach. which would stretch approximately 2 miles from one municipal to the 

other, 300 foet wide. The excavation would occur in the higher portion of the 

beach. the mean water only l 0.87 acres ofit would be below (waterward 

ot) the tide line With a truck capacity of20-25 cubic yards each, it would take 

3.840 to 4.800 round to supply the sand to the site. The trucks v,muld travel on 

the beach above the HTL. Construction access for trucks and in Wildwood Crest 

would be limited to and Cresse A venues, with a designated smging area at the 

uenartment of Public Works complex on Washington Avenue on the western side of the 

The fiH area in North Wildwood would encompass 20.15 acres, with 8.13 acres of fill 

bdow the HTL Of this 8.13 acres. 4.81 would be between the HTL and mean low water line 

and 3.32 would be placed below the MLWL. A final berm crest elevation of6.75 feet 

88) is proposed. The access point for construction vehicles in North Wildwood would 

be at the station at 151

" A venue. Vehicles would be parked at that parking lot 

would be serviced and fueled there. 

There is no start date indicated for the proposed project, although it is anticipated that 6 

weeks would be required to accomplish the work. Their goal is to complete the work by midMay. 11.1e seeks authorization to maintain the by means ofthe indicated 

bo1Tow. transport and fill activities for a period of 10 years. 

ummc"'n has stated that they are not proposing any compensatory for the 

rwr,nA~N, work. It is their position that aquatic would be minimal, with recycling of sand 

back to where it originated from previous beach nourishment 

The Federal m.~'"''"'"'" Management Agency (FEMA), as a federal funding agency for the 

lead federal agency for this project 

amillcant's stated purpose is: a) to restore loss of sand from previous 

Hurric,me Irene as it impacted a 2009 beach fill of 1.4 million 

cubic dredged from Hereford Inlet and pumped onto the beach in North and 

b) to allow \Vildwood Crest to reduce the excess sand accumulation problem on its beach. 

A indicates that the proposed work is not to 

affect the (threatened) species, or their critical habitat 

pursuant to Section 7 of the Act as amended: the piping plover (Qmri~ifil 

ll!E.!.!lM:!£:zJ ar1d seabeach amaranth As the evaluation of this application 

continues. additional infbrmation may become which could this preliminary 

detem1ination. Since FEMA is providing federal funding for this project, they are the lead 

foderal agency for compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. That agency has not 

orrwH1eo the with their determination in this 

The decision whether to issue (or modify) a will be based on an evaluation of the 

including its cumulative on the interest. The decision 

will reflect the national concem for both protection and utilization of important resources. The 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 47 Appendix G. Pertin~nt Corre:c;pondenc, 
1229

""3 -

benefits which may be expected to accrue from the work must be ba.!anced against its 

foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the work will be 

considered the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, 

aesthetics, environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, 

flood hazards, flood values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, 

water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, 

mineral needs and welfare of the people. A Department of the Army pem1it (or modification) 

will be unless the District Engineer determ.ines that it would be contrary to the public 

interest 

The is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State, and local 

""',n"""' and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested in order to consider and 

evaluate the of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the 

of to detennine whether to issue, modify, condition or a permit for this 

To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on em1a11tgereo 

pnmeirn,es. water general environmental effects, and the other 

factors above. Comments are used in the preparation of an. Assessment 

and/or an Environmental Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall 

interest of the proposed 

Comments on the work should be submitted, in writing, within 15 days to the 

District lLS. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia Wanamaker Building, 

!00 Penn East, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-3390. 

The area is to yield resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register 

of Historic Places. An investigation for the presence of potentially eligible historic properties 

may be by the lead federal agency. FEMA. as the lead federal agency, is responsible for 

f'nrnrn,•11.-m of the Section 106 process. The Corps of Engineers will consult with FEMA and 

regarding potential impacts to cultural resources within the permit area. 

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires an Federal agencies to consult 

with the Nati.onal Marine Fisheries Service on all actions, or proposed actions, funded, 

or undertaken the agency that may adversely effect Essential Fish Habitat 

assessment of the species listed in the 

~μ,,,..,,., .. ,,., y pages 63 and 73, mdt1ca1tes 

adverse effect on any managed species, flounder eggs and larvae 

U:'..§~;1Ql~Qru~~ .i!l~:1£l!ill£j:J, since the proposed discharge (fill) area, as well as the proposed 

and subject to waves and sand movement. Adults and juveniles 

could move away the construction equipment FEMA is the lead federal agency for 

with this act. That agency has not provided the Corps of Engineers v.ith their 

detennination in this 

Herc.ford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 48 Appendi~ G. Pertinent Con-espondence 
1230

In accordance with S,e:ction 307(c.) of the Coastal Zone Act of 

for Federal Licenses or Permits to conduct an land or water uses in a 

certification that the complies with the State's Coastal 

Zone The applicant has stated that the proposed complies with 

and will be conducted in a manner that ls consistent with the State Coastal Zone 

No permit will be issued Lmtil State has concurred with the 

api)lic:an1t's certification or has waived its to do so. Comments the impact of the 

n,·cmn~,.,, and/or on the State's coastal zone should be sent to this office, with a 

copy to the State's Office of Coastal Zone M,mztgeme:nt. 

in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a Water Quality Certificate is 

necessary from the State government in which the work is located. Any comments concerning 

the \VOrk described above which relate to Water considerations should be sent to this 

ofiice with copy to the State. 

of the work described above on the public interest will 

include ap1,m:anon 

Protection 

the Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

404(b) of the Clean Water Act 

Any person may request. in \Vriting, to the District within the comment period 

,,pt:1.;u1cu in this notice, that a hearing be held to this application. Requests for a 

shall state in with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. 

Additional infom1atio11 concerning this permit application may be obtained by calling 

James at (2 656-5826, electronic mail to or by 

to this office at the above address. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 49 Appendix G. Pertinent Corrcspondern 
1231

CECW-P 

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

441 G STREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20314-1000 

13 April 2012 

MEMORANDUM FOR Director, National Planning Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm 

Damage Reduction (PCX-CSDR) 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey Feasibility Study; Approval of the 

Model Review Plan 

1. The purpose of the Coastal Storm Damage Assessment Model (COSTDAM) is to quantify 

damages experienced as a result of costal storms within the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

study area, including storm erosion, wave attack and innundation damages. COSTDAM is a 

FORTRAN legacy model that was originally developed by the Wilmington District of the Army 

Corps of Engineers and has had extensive application by the Philadelphia District. The program 

calculates tl1e damages for each structure on a year by year basis for the life of the project, that 

are then used to detem1ine without project damages and witl1-project damages reduced in order 

to help inform the identification and justification of the National Economic Development (NED) 

Plan. 

2. The Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey model review plan is approved. The 

National Planning Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction is to implement the 

review process as described in the plan and in EC 1105-2-412 and submit its recommendation to 

HQUSACE for coordination with the HQUSACE Model Certification Panel. Given that Beachfx is the Nationally Certified Economic Model for Coastal and Storm Damage Projects, the 

PCX-CSDR's recommendation should include a comparison of the outputs of the COSTDAM 

with what could reasonably considered the results if the feasibility study had used Beach-fx. 

APPLICABILITY: This model will be applicable for use on the Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet, Ne\v Jersey Feasibility Study. 

}forcford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 

/~-C/t>C:~ 

HARRY E. KITCH, P.E. 

Deputy Chief, Planning and Policy Division 

Directorate of Civil Works 

Printed on Ci) Recycled Paper 

Appendix G. Pertinent Com~spondcncc 
1232

REMINGTON 

&VERNICK 

EDWARD VERNICK, PE, CME, P?esident 

CRAIG F. REMINGTON~ PLS, PP, Vice Presideirt 

EXECUTIVE 'VlCE PRESIDENTS Michael D. Vena, PE, PP,CME{~2006,! 

Edward J. W21befg, PE, PP, CME 

Thomas F. Beach, PE, CME 

ENGINEERS Richard ct Arango, PE, CME 

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 

CORPORATE SECREJARV 

Bradley A. Blubaugh, BA, MPA 

SENIOR ASSOClATES 

John J. Cantwell, PE, PP. CME 

Al.an Dlttenhofer, PE, F'P, CME 

Frank J. Seney, J;., ?E, P?, CME 

Terence Vogt, PE. PP, CME 

Dennis K. Yoder, ?E, P?, CME, LEED 

Charles E. Adamson, PLS, AET 

KLJ'Tl Wend~] Bibbs, PE, CME 

Marc DeS!as;o, PE, PP, CME 

Leeman:! A. Faiola, P£, CME 

Christopher J. FiQiO, PE, CME 

Kennett, C. Ressler, PE, CME 

Grego!)/ J. sumva,,, PE, PP, CME 

Richard 6. C:zeka!l5ki, PE, CME, BCEE 

Remington & Vernie!( Engineers 232Kir:~HighwayEast 

Haddonfiei,:i,WOB033 

(856)795-959.:l 

(S56) 795-1882 Hax; 

Remington, Vemick 

& Vena Engineers 9Ail01Street 

Toms River, NJ 08753 

(732)286-9220 

(732) 505-8-1.16 (fax} 

Remington, Vernick 

& Walberg Engineers V..5North MainStr~et 

PleasanMi!e, ;,uo3232 

(609) 645-7110 

(509) 645-7075 (~~) 

Remington, Vernick 

& Beach Engineers 922Fayel!eStraet 

Ccnshchockeri,;:>A 19428 

{6i0)9,r.C-1050 

(610)9.<l.0-1161 (fa);j 

Li.S.St,eelTOl'm 

6QOGramStreet,Suite1251 

Pi~rgh,PA15219 

(412] 263-2200 

i412)263-2210(fux} 

Remington, Vemick 

& Arango Engineers The Prosidentia!Center 

Uni;oin &illdi11g,S11ite600 

101Route130 

Cinnarn'nson,NJC8077 

(856)303-1245 

(856}303-l249{f.:l)(J 

300 ~nh.orn Ave:m:e. 3rd Floor 

April 13, 2012 

Mr. Brian P. Bogle, P.M.P. 

Coastal Planning Section 

USAGE, Philadelphia District 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

Re: City of Wildwood, Cape May County, NJ 

Beach Programming and Public Access Improvements 

Various Blocks & Lots 

CAFRA Individual Pennit Submittal 

Our File: 05-14-T-200 

Dear Mr. Bogle: 

As a follow up to our March 19, 2012 meeting, please find enclosed the 

following for a CAFRA Permit for the above-referenced project: 

1. One (1) complete copy of Beach Programming and Public 

Access Improvements Plans. 

2. One (1) CD-ROM containing the electronic version of the plans. 

If you have any questions or require further information, feel free to contact 

me at our Wildwood office at our Wildwood at 609-522--5150. 

Very truly yours, 

REMINGTON, VERNICK & WALBERG ENGINEERS 

t!bl?:f::GME 

MD:eb 

Enclosure 

cc: Mayor & Commissioners, City of Wildwood (via email) 

Kim Schalek, Salmon Ventures Limited (via email) 

S:Wl/iidwoodl.CS-14-T-\o514T200 'oVl!awood Transition & Beach lndivklua! Permlt\CAFRA.\0514T200 12Ap:i113 Ltr. to ACOEdoc 

f:~ri~4~J1~;09Aereford !n!0t \o Ca ~ May Inlet 

(2.Q:}624--2l36(farj Earning ollr Rputation Every''tJ'lf!J %ik2iP'.f9'i5'i"P0

"d""' www.rve..rom 
1233

Environmental Resources Branch 

Mr. J. Eric Davis, Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pleasantville Field Office 

927 North Main Street (Bldg. DI) 

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 

Dear Mr. Davis: 

CENAP-PL-E 

ll-Feb-13 

TMP/6558 

BRAN DR ETH 

PASQUALE 

MACINTOSH~)-

FEB I 3 2013 

In accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), enclosed is 

preliminary project information for your use in the preparation of a draft Section 2(b) report for 

the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study in Cape May County, New Jersey. The 

information provided includes details on the project area, problem identification and the 

proposed selected plan for this project. This is still a working document in draft form but we 

believe it provides the project details you will need in order to complete your draft Section 2(b) 

report. 

This work was previously negotiated, agreed to and paid for under the enclosed SOW. 

Coordination with Ron Popowski of your staff has indicated that the existing SOW is still valid 

and no additional funding is required to complete the remaining tasks. 

Please review the enclosed information and provide us with your draft Section 2(b) report 

for inclusion in our Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment. If you have any 

questions regarding the enclosed information or need additional details, please contact Ms. Beth 

Brandreth of the Environmental Resources Branch at (215) 656-6558. 

Sincerely, 

Charles MacIntosh 

Acting Chief, Planning Division 

Enclosures 

H~reford Inlet to Capi.': ~lay Inlet 52 Appendix G. Pertinent Com!spond,mce 
1234

CENAP-PL-E 

Daniel Saunders 

DEPARTMENT OF THE A.RMY 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUAR;E !:AST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA·19107•3390 

Deputy State Hist01ic Preservation Officer 

Mail Code 501-04B 

State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Historic Preservation Office 

POBox420 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 

Dear Mr. Saunders, 

/0-1192-l{jw~ 

l-1 PO. H~013-1Zll'f 

FJui o 2 2013 

JUL 1 1 2013 

The US Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District (USA CE) is currently preparing 

a draft Feasibility repmt and Environmental Assessment for a New Jersey Shore protection study 

between Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet, New Jersey. The He,:ford Inlet to Cape May 

Feasibility Study is being conducted to address hurricane and storm tlamage reduction 

capabilities and environmental restoration initiatives under the General Investigations Program 

utilizing the New Jersey Shore Protection Study authority. 

The study area is a barrier islantl located in Cape May County, New Jersey. 

Municipalities on the island include: '''North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, West 

Wildwood and Lower Township,'} A natural area managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the US Coast Guard Electronics Center are located at the northern boundary of Cape May 

inlet, within Lower Township. In the early 201

1> century the study area was two separate island 

segments consisting of"Five Mile Beach and "Two mile Beach". These two island sections 

were bisected by Turtle Gut Inlet until the 1920s. At that time Turtle Gut Inlet was closed and a 

bulkhead was constructed by local interests at the entrance to what was then referred to as Sunset 

Dr,y in Wildwood Crest. A marker identifying the approxirn,.tte location of Turtle Gut Inlet 

currently stands at Toledo Avenue in Wildwood Crest. 

The study area is located between two existing Federal Shore protection projects; 

Townsend's Inlet to Cape May inlet and Cape May Inlet to Lower Township. Both projects are 

in partnership with the State of New Jersey Shore Protection Authority. 

The selected plan for this study consists of dune and bem1 construction using sand 

obtained from an onshore bonow source localed at the southern end ofihe study area. The plan 

extends approximately 4.5 miles from Hereford Inlet to Care May inlet and will encompass the 

towns of North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Diamond Beach. The southermnost 

beach section which contains the US Fish and Wildlife Property is not included in the plan. 

Tfori;ford Inkt to Cape i\fay Tnkt 53 Appendix Cl Pertinent Correspondence 
1235

Dimensions of the project area include a +16' NAVD 88 dune, with a 25' crest on a 75' 

berm that is+ 6.5 feet NA VD 88 in elevation from North Wildwood to the northern tip of 

Wildwood. In Wildwood and Wildwood Crest the project will be a dune only plan with a dune 

elevation of+16' NAVD 88 on top of the existing berm. Side slopes for the dune will be l V:5H. 

The plan includes approximately 64 acres of dune grass, 28,000 linear feet of sand fence, 44 

extended crossovers, seven new pedestrian crossovers, seven extended handicap crossovers, six 

new handicap crossovers, eight existing vehicle crossover extension and five new vehicular 

crossovers. The sand will be pumped from the southern borrow area using mobile back-passing 

technology from the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest b011'0w source to the placement area. 

Proposed project plans are Enclosure 1. 

The USACE has detern1ined that the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the selected plan 

includes the beaches and intertidal areas from Hereford Inlet to Cape May inlet, marking the 

northern and southern limits, and from the existing dunes to the intertidal area marking the 

eastern and western limits. The limits of constiuction disturbance for the selected plan are 

located within the APE (Enclosure 2). 

Although there are several recorded historic properties eligible for or listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the vicinity of the APE for the selected plan, 

the USACE has detennined that dtme and berm construction along approximately 4.5 miles from 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet using recently accreted sand from the intertidal zone from the 

southern end of Five Mile Island will have No F,ffect. 

A cultural resource assessment of the proposed intertidal sand source was conducted by 

FEMA as part of the Section 106 review for post-Hurricane Irene beach restoration of North 

Wildwood. An assessment of the beach in the adjacent communities of Wildwood Crest in the 

south to North Wildwood was conducted to determine the sensitivity of below ground 

archaeological resources. Several aspects were analyzed including the project's proximity to 

know archaeological resources, waterways and historic properties as well as the site's 

envirorunental characteristics such as spoil analysis and previous ground disturbing activities 

within the project APE, which is roughly the APE of the selected plan. 

Remnants of the Nancy, a revolutionary war brig set afire by troops at Turtle Gut Inlet 

(Site 28CM0013) are located southwest of the APE and site 28CM0008 is cmTently tmdemeath 

the existing Wildwood Boardwalk. There are no structures within the project APE; however the 

Chateau Blue Motes, the Hereford Inlet Lighthouse and the J. Thompson Baker House are all 

listed on the NRHP, but will not be affected. Also, the Wildwood Shore Resort Historic District 

runs parallel to the beach and is within the project viewshed but will also not be affected. 

The APE is a previously disturbed, engineered beaches. The proposed project will 

collect, transport and place sand entirely within the previously disturbed areas. No part of the 

proposed undertaking is located within an archaeologically sensitive area, and no historic 

properties are within the APE. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

2 

54 Appendix G. Pertinent Cotrespondence 
1236

We request your concurrence with our conclusion that no historic properties will be 

affected by the selected plan, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a)( 1). Thank you for your cooperation 

in this review process. If you have any questions concerning our review or if we can be of 

further assistance, please contact our Cultural Resource Specialist and Tribal Liaison via email at 

nicole.c.minnichbach(musacc.army.mil, or phone (215) 656-6556, or fax (215) 656-6543. 

3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet s, 

Sincerely, 

Peter R. Blum, P.E. 

Chief, Planning Division 

'b~lc \ "b. So.. ..... ~, DEPUTY STATE HIST~IO 

PRESERVATION OFFICER 

Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1237

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

L TC Chris Becking 

New Jersey Field Office 

Ecological Services 

927 North Main Street, Building D 

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 

Tel: 609/383 3938 

Fax: 609/646 0352 

http://www.fws.gov/norlheast/njficldoffice/ 

District Engineer, Philadelphia District 

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers 

Wanamaker Building - 100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 - 3390 

Attn: Beth Brandreth 

AUG 'I 5 2013 

Dear LTC Becking: 

Enclosed is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) draft report prepared pursuant to Section 

2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 

et seq.) on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District (Corps) Hereford Inlet to Cape 

May Inlet Feasibility Study, Cape May County, New Jersey. The infonnation presented in this 

draft FWCA Section 2 (b) report addresses potential beneficial or adverse impacts on fish and 

wildlife resources from proposed shore protection along the five-mile-long barrier island. This 

report has been prepared pursuant to the Scope-of-Work and Fiscal Year-2007 and 2008 

interagency agreement between the Corps and the Service. 

The following comments are provided pursuant to Section 2(b) of the FWCA. Comments are also 

provided under authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 

16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.), and the Migratory Bird Act Treaty of 1918 (40 Stat. 775, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 703-712), and are consistent with the intent of the Service's Mitigation Policy ( .Federal 

Register, Vol. 46, No. 15, Jan. 23, 1981). 

l<'EDERALLY LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

The federally listed (threatened) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) nests on the beaches of 

Hereford Inlet including (Stone Harbor Point and North Wildwood from Central Avenue to the 

intersection of JohnF. Kennedy Beach Drive and 2nd Avenue), on the U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN 

site, and on Cape May National Wildlife Refuge; and are known to forage along the beaches of 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. Piping plovers ate not listed as "historical" within the 

project area as erroneously stated on page 2.3 of the Corps' draft feasibility report. On the Atlantic 

coastal beaches within the project area, piping plovers last nested iii North Wildwood and 

Wildwood Crest in the 1990's, and the Service has no current or historical records of nesting in 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 56 Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1238

Wildwood. Piping plovers nest on sandy beaches above high-tide line on mainland coastal 

beaches, sand flats, and barrier island coastal beaches .. The nesting sites are typically located on 

gently sloping foredunes, blowout areas behind primary dunes, washover areas cut into or between 

dunes, ends of sandpits, and on sites with deposits of suitable dredged or pumped sand. 

Coastal development for residential and commercial uses, and the subsequent stabilization of the 

once shifting and dynamic ecosystem, have resulted in the degradation and alteration of natural 

beaches to such an extent along the Atlantic coast that many beaches no longer provide suitable 

habitat for piping plovers. Disturbance by humans ru1d the direct loss of nests have become major 

contributing factors to the population decline of the piping plover (U.S. Fish ruid Wildlife Service 

1996a). 

Dredged spoil deposition has the potential to create piping plover nesting habitat, although this is 

sub-optimal, provided the material is deposited prior to nesting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1996a). As a result, piping plovers could expand their nesting range within the project area after 

nourishment is completed. This occurred in 1997 as a result of Corps - New York District beach 

nourishment pr~jects in Morunouth County, New Jersey (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

Prior to initial beach nourishment in 1994, piping plovers were not documented in that project area 

for at least a decade. 

The project may also create habitat for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), a federally listed 

(threatened) plant (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b ). Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant, 

endemic to Atlantic coastal plain beach, primarily occurring on overwash flats at the aecreting 

ends ofbanier beach islands and lower foredimes of non-eroding beaches. The species 

occasionally establishes small teinporary populations in other areas, including bayside beaches, 

blowouts in foredtmes, and sand and shell mate1fals placed as beach replenishment or dredge spoil. 

· Previous occurrences of scabeach amaranth are known within the proposed project area (i.e., the 

U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN Unit in 2003-2004) and may become naturally reestablished within 

the project area during the project life. Colonizatfon of seabeach amaranth in New Jersey occurred 

in July 2000 after a Corps - New York District beach nourishment project in Monmouth County, 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Prior to the 2000 rediscovery, this species had last been 

documented.in New Jersey in 1913 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b). 

Other than the piping plover and seabeach amaranth, the federally and State-listed roseate tern 

(Sterna dougallii) (occasional transient) and State-listed peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinu.~) are 

known to use the project area. In addition, red knots ( Calidris canutus rufa ), a Federal candidate 

species, are known to stopover in the project area during spring (northward) and fall (souiliward) 

migration where tlley feed mainly on the spat of mussels and other invertebrates to build fat 

re.serves to complete their migration. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must be consulted regarding Essential Fish 

Habitat, as required under Section 305 (b )(2) of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882). The NMFS must also be consulted regarding tbe ESA 

due to the potential presence of the federally listed (endangered) kemps ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and leatherback sea turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea), and the federally listed (threatened) loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta 

2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 57 Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1239

caretta) and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) within the project area and any borrow areas. 

Appendix A provides a current list of federally listed ( endangered and threatened) and candidate 

species in New Jersey. 

TJ1e Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan and is pleased to submit 

this draft FWCA Section 2(b) report as technical input to the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Feasibility Study. Should you have any questions, please contact Ron Popowski at 

Ron_Popowski@fws.gov. 

Enclosure 

CC: Ralph Tiner, RO 

Karen Green, NMFS 

Todd Pover, NJCWF 

Dave Jenkins, ENSP 

Bill Dixon, NJDEP Bureau of Coastal Engineering 

LITERATURE CITED 

SincerQ 

(/ 

Acting Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. l 996a. Piping plover ( Chwadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast 

population, revised recovery plan. U.S. Department of the Inter.ior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 5, Hadley, MA. 245 pp. 

1996b. Recovery plan for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) Rafinesque. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Atlanta, GA. 70 pp. 

2002. Biological opinion on the effects of completion of sections I and II of the Atlantic 

Coast of New Jersey beach erosion control project Sea Bright to Manasquan, Monmouth 

County, New Jersey on the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and seabeach amaranth 

(Amarcmthus pumilus). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 

5, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ. 124 pp. 

3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape \fay Inlet 58 Appendix G. Pertinent Correspondence 
1240

CEPCX-CSRM 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION 

FORT HAMILTON MILITARY COMMUNITY 

302 GENERAL LEE AVENUE 

BROOKLYN NY 11252-6700 

15 May 2014 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, HQUSACE, US Army Corps of Engineers, (CECWNAD-RIT/Laura Cameron) 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20314-1000 

SUBJECT: Request for Model Approval for Hereford Inlet to Cape May, NJ Feasibility 

Study 

1. Reference is made to: 

a. EC 1105-2-412 Assuring Quality of Planning Models, dated 31 March 2011. 

b. EC 1165-2-214 Civil Works Review dated 15 December 2012. 

c. CECW-P memorandum dated 13 April 2012, Subject: Hereford Inlet to Cape 

May Inlet, New Jersey Feasibility study, Approval of Model Review Plan. 

d. CEPCX-CSDR memorandum dated 13 March 2012, Subject: Model Review 

Plan for the Hereford Inlet to Cape M.ay Inlet, NJ Feasibility Study 

2. The National Planning Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm Risk Management 

(PCX-CSRM) previously prepared a model review plan (MRP, reference 1d) for the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May, NJ study for Philadelphia District (NAP), which was 

approved as in reference 1 c. The MRP detailed the review of the application of the 

Coastal Storm Damage Assessment Model (COSTDAM and S-BEACH) and applied to 

the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ Feasibility Study. 

3. The basis of PCX-CSRM proceeding with the review of the model was due to the 

fact that outputs of the model would seem to be reasonable based upon its previous 

application to studies of adjacent areas in the State of New Jersey which were 

constructed and performed as designed. 

4. The purpose of this model is to quantify the damages experienced as a result of 

coastal storms within the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet study area. This is 

accomplished through detailed surveying of the study area's housing inventory and 

coastline and subjecting those parameters to a suite of coastal storms with varying 

wave heights, durations etc .. , and measuring the damage in relation to the position, 

elevation and construction type from the housing inventory. Variation of the model 

parameters was accomplished through a risk and uncertainty component of the existing 

COSTDAM and S-BEACH model linkage. The benefits and costs of alternatives 

formulated to reduce coastal storm damages in the communities of North Wildwood, 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Diamond Beach, NJ were documented during the study 

with ranges of potential Average Annual Damages (MD) and Average Annual Benefits 

(MB) rather than point values. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inld 59 Appendix G. Pet1incnt CoJTespondenc.:: 
1241

CEPCX-CSRM 15 May 2014 

SUBJECT: Request for Model Approval for Hereford Inlet to Cape May, NJ 

5. NAP was instructed to determine a way to incorporate Risk and Uncertainty into 

the COSTDAM model which is linked to the engineering mode! SBEACH. Both models 

are described in the MRP. NAP proposed varying the mode! in order to incorporate 

Risk and Uncertainty which was addressed in the MRP. Use of the COSTDAM and 

SBEACH linkage is referred to as "the modeL" !tis being considered for approval for 

use solely on the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ Feasibility Study. The model 

proponent is NAP. 

6. COSTDAM was developed by CESAW and applied to many studies over the years 

which were constructed . A guide for using COSTDAM was included on the MRP. SBEACH is a geomorphic-based two-dimensional engineering model that simulates 

beach profile change, including the formulation and movement of major morphologic 

features such as longshore bars, troughs and berms, under varying storm waves and 

water levels. S-BEACH was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC). It has also been applied to 

many studies over the years which were constructed. A user's manual for S-BEACH is 

readily available from ERDC. S-BEACH is an approved engineering model. The 

application of "the model" to the Hereford Inlet to Cape May, NJ Feasibility study has 

been reviewed by PCX-CSRM and its application to the study as documented in the 

feasibility report has undergone additional reviews by Agency Technical Review (ATR), 

an IEPR panel, as well as HQUSACE. 

7. Enclosure 1 contains model review comments from team members of PCX-CSRM 

and the responses by NAP. The model review also included the risk and uncertainty 

analysis. Two model reviews had been conducted, with the first, early-on before the 

model was applied. The first review was conducted by a team from SAJ concluding in 

February 2011. The second was conducted following approval of the MRP by CECW-P. 

This review was conducted by Mr. Jeffery Strahan, then an economist from NAO. The 

second review was concluded in August 2011. All OrChecks comments have been 

closed out. No opposition to the model resulted from the model review. The final Risk 

and Uncertainty Analysis is provided as Enclosure 2. 

8. The model approval memo also included a requirement in paragraph 2 that "a 

comparison of the outputs of the COSTDAM with what could reasonably considered the 

results if the feasibility study had used Beach-fx". A paper on this directive was 

prepared by NAP and is included as Enclosure 3. Note that the MRP had presented a 

preliminary comparison of COSTDAM to Beach-fx. 

9. The ATR of the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports has been completed in accord 

with reference 1b, with the most recent review having concluded in May 2014. The ATR 

team included SAJ members from the model review ATR. No opposition to the 

2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 60 A.ppendix Ct Pertinent Correspondence 
1242

CEPCX-CSRM 15 May 2014 

SUBJECT: Request for Model Approval for Hereford Inlet to Cape May, NJ 

application of the model to the Hereford Inlet to Cape May, NJ study resulted from the 

ATR. 

10. A Type I IEPR of the Hereford Inlet to Cape May, NJ study was completed by the 

Battelle Organization with the final report dated 2 December 2013. No comment on 

objection to the model was received. 

11. Therefore, PCX-CSRM is recommending approval of the application of the model 

to the Hereford Inlet to Cape May, NJ study, based upon reviews completed to date. As 

this is a Hurricane Sandy-affected study tracking for a Civil Works Review Board in the 

third quarter of FY14, we are requesting an expedited processing of this request. 

12. For further information, please contact me at 917-613-3873, or Mr. Larry 

Cocchieri, PCX-CSRM Deputy at (347)370-4571. 

, 

~~L ~r.-. 

Encl 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

r~~11:~;:;~ ~lanning Genter of 

Expertise for Coastal Storm Risk 

Management 

3 

61 Appendix G. Pe11inent Correspondenct 
1243

CECW-P 

REPLY TO 

ATIENTTON OF 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

441 G STREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20314-1000 

27 May 2014 

MEMORANDUM FOR Director, National Planning Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm 

Damage Reduction 

SUBJECT: Hereford Inlet to Cape May, New Jersey, COSTDAM Model Approval 

1. The purpose of the Coastal Storm Damage Assessment Model (COSTDAM) is to quantify 

damages experienced as a result of costal storms within the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

study area, including storm erosion, wave attack and innundation damages. COSTDAM is a 

FORTRAN legacy model that was originally developed by the Wilmington District of the Army 

Corps of Engineers and has had extensive application by the Philadelphia District. The program 

calculates the damages for each structure on a year by year basis for the life of the project, that 

are then used to determine without project damages and with-project damages reduced in order 

to help inform the identification and justification of the National Economic Development (NED) 

Plan. 

2. The use of the COSTDAM model for the Hereford Inlet to Cape May, New Jersey analysis is 

approved for a single use rather than certified. This approval comes after the feasibility analysis 

is complete but prior to the Civil Works Review Board. The model review plan was approved in 

April of2012 and was on track for approval of the model when HUITicane Sandy impacted the 

area. This resulted in delays to the study that impacted the submission of the model approval 

request. The district has implemented the review plan as directed. These reviews have show that 

the model meets the certification criteria contained in EC 1105-2-412. This approval is based on 

the decision of the HQUSACE Model Certification Panel which considered the National 

Planning Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction assessment of the model. 

There are no unresolved issues at this time. 

APPLICABILITY: This model approval for use is limited to the subject feasibility study. 

I-forcford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

~ -zz'~ 

HARR~P.E. 

Deputy Chief, Planning and Policy Division 

Directorate of Civil Works 

Printed on® Recycled Paper 

Appendix G. Pertin~nt Correspondence 
1244

Section -2 Comments and Responses 
1245

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER 

2600 Bayshore Road 

Villas. New Jersey 0825 l 

Incorporated 1798 

( 609) 886-2005 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

RE: 

Lower 

report 

Christopher Constantino. Environmental Services Specialist 

William Galestok. PP. 

Director 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

27.2014 

comments/concerns in to the above referenced 

to be moved landward. the Public Trust Doctrine 

arc allccted. Conflicts between landowners and the 

C,•,n<:itl,•,i·in«, the overall "sediment . will any beach losses. in 

the new 

established MHWL occur. What is the time frame for 

10 be established in the system. 

What will be Lower share of the total cost of the and 

how will it be calculated') 

Will ACOE or New 

the ocean front? 

State DEP be individual homeowners 

What the date of the schcdulcd !.-"'""-'~'""':..!.!.!.I•· and how will the 

receive notification'? 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May 1nlet Apprndix G.2.,Comment:- on Dra~ Repott 
1246

WJG:las 

cc: Mike Beck. 

Mike Voll. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Appendix G.2.,Commcnts on Draft R1:.1)0rt 
1247

Letter from Lower Township, dated 27 January 2014. 

I. We are still working out these details with the non-Federal sponsor and the District Real Estate 

Division. but landward movement of the MHW line may impact private property owners if the MHW 

intersects their private property line. Public Trust rights are critical to the State of New Jersey and public 

access to the MHW is required for participation in federally funded beach nourishment project. 

2. The amount of material to be excavated from Lower Township is low compared to other portions of 

the project in Wildwood Crest and Wildwood. We anticipate a short tenn landward migration of the 

shoreline after excavation, and infilling of the excavated area in between the 4 year nourishment cycles. 

3. Traditionally, the share of the local costs will be based on; the volume of material placed in each 

municipality, the number of crossovers, the number of handicapped access ramps and vehicular 

crossovers. For the New Jersey shore protection program the costs are split bet\veen the federal 

government and the state government 65% Federal and 35% State for the initial construction and 50% for 

each periodic nourishment cycle. The local municipality usually pays for 25% of the State's portion for 

each nourishment cycle and the initial construction. 

4. The homeowners along the oceanfront were notified by Lower Township prior to the Public Hearing. 

5. The Public Hearing was held in North Wildwood on February 21, 2014. 
1248

ffil,tak nf ~ efu Jler!li£ij 

DEPARTMENT 01' ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

CHRIS CHRISTIE 

Governor 

OFFICE OF PERl\flT COORDINATION AND ENVIRONMENTAi. REVIEW 

P.O. Box 420 Mail Code 401---07J Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0420 

Telephone Number (609) 292'-3600 

BOB MARTIN 

Cf)mmissione,· 

KIM GUADAGNO 

Lt Governor 

FAX NUMBER (609) 633·2102 

1. 

Mr. Peter R. Blum 

Chief, Planning Division 

Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers 

Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

January 30, 2014 

RE: Hereford to Cape May Inlet Coastal Storm Damage Rednetion Project 

North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township, Cape May 

County 

Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment 

Dear Mr. Blum: 

The New Jersey Department·of·Environmental:··Protection's (NIDEP) Office of Permit 

Coordination and Environmental Review (PCER) distributed, for review and comment, the Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Hereford Inlet to ·-Cape May Inlet Coastal 

Storm Damage Reduction Project. We received this EA, prepared by the Army Corp of 

Engineers (ACOE) on December 30, 2013. Based on the information received, we offer the 

following conunents for your consideration. 

Cultural Resources 

HPO-A2014-170 

HPO Project#14-1189-2 

Thank you for providing the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) with the opportunity to 

review and comment on the potential for the above-referenced project to affect historic 

and archaeological resources. The HPO has previously had the opportunity to comment 

on the proposed undertaking through consultation with the United States Department of 

fue Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) under their obligations pursuant to Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. In a response dated January 15, 2014 

(14-1078-1/A2014-168), the HPO concurred with the Corps det=ination that, as 

proposed, the undertaking will have no effect on historic properties within the project's 

area ofpotentia! effects. As a result, no further cultural resource consideration is 

necessary prior to permit issuance. However, if project plans change or additional 

resources are discovered during project implementation, pursuant to 800.13 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, further review by the Historic Preservation Office 

will be necessary. 

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer I Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable 

Hereford Inlet to Cap~ ,ray Inlet :'l.pp.:ndix G.2.,Conun~nts on Draft Report 
1249

If additional consultation with the HPO is needed for this undertaking, please reference 

the RPO project number 14-1189 in any future calls, emails, submissions or written 

· correspondence to help expedite 110ur review and response. If you ·have any questions; 

please feel free to contact Jesse West-Rosenthal at (609) 984-0176. 

N atu::ral Resources 

Endangered and Non-game Species Program: 

1. Work should take place outside the nesting area of endangered and non-game species 

of birds including the piping plover. If work must continue into the nesting season, a 

biological monitor will be required (under protocol established by USFWS and 

ENSP). ENSP already monitors this area as part of our regular responsibilities, so an 

additional monitor might only be needed if nesting activity is detected by ENSP. USFWS 

may prefer a separate monitor for ANY work done inside the nesting season, beach 

nesting bird activity or not. Our recommendation, though, is that ENSP handle initial 

surveys and if activity detected, the USACE/contractor would hire a monitor and 

coordinate closely with USFWS and ENSP to ensure adequate protective measures are 

taken for piping plover, least tern and/or black skimmer. 

2:To ENSP knowledge, Wildwood and Wildwood Crest do not currently have beach 

management plans, which are a requirement for projects of this nature. Each tovm will 

need to coordinate with ENSP and USFWS to develop and implement a Beach MP. 

3. The project notes that it will taper 200'. into Hereford Inlet area (where there is current 

beach nesting bird activity). If there are any plans for snow fence, dune planting or dunes 

to come into that area, the USACE/contractormust coordinate with ENSP and USFWS to 

determine the appropriate methods to ensure beach nesting bird habitat is not 

impacted/impacts are reduced. 

4. Section 2.4.12 of the EA discusses potential offshore borro,v areas. It is 

ENSP understanding that this project does not require any offshore borrowing areas and 

is just a back-pass. This section does discuss the possibility of borrowing for a 

nourishment in North Wildwood "in the near future" and that the borrow area might be 

the one in Hereford Inlet (pg 102). ENSP would like to be 100% sure that the currently 

proposed project does not involve borrowing from this site. It seems this EA has been in 

progress for awhile, so ENSP thinks there is a chance that the fill they are referencing 

actually already happened, but in any case, ENSP wants to be clear that the comments 

above are intended to reflect a project that is back-pass in the areas they denote and does 

not include any borrowing from offshore. If any offshore borrowing is considered, DFW 

needs to know so that we can address that. 

2 Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet '1 Appendix G.2.,Comments on Draft Report 
1250

Shell fisheries: 

The Bureau is glad to see an alternative method to using offshore borrow areas that 

adversely affect prime shellfish and marine fish habitat. Shellfisheries doesn't believe 

that there will be significant impacts to shellfish {surf clams) or to marine fish from the 

proposed technique, but does not rnle out potenfiai impacts to thesei'intertidal/sub~tidal 

areas that will be used as a sand source. 

If you have any additional questions, please contact Kelly Davis at (908) 236-2118. 

Bureau of Air Quality Planning (BAOP) 

The Bureau of Air Quality Planning (BAQP) has reviewed the Draft Feasibility Report 

and Integrated Environmental Assessment for the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and 

has the following comments: 

General Conformity Review and Inventory Hereford Inlet to Cape May Wet 

Feasibility Study- Table 2 Emission Estimates, this table indicates that NOx emissions 

are 191.1 tons. 

Comment# 1 

Please report air emissions on a calendar year basis in accordance ·with the requirements 

... of.the Federal General .Conformity r.egμlation{40 CERPart.90, (Subpart.B)). 

Comment#2 

The BAQP contacted the Army Corps on 1-16-14 regarding an inconsistency in the 

horsepower hours for the project Table 1: Project Emission Sources and Estimated 

Power provides horsepower hours for each piece of equipment and provides the total 

horsepower hours for the project. The Herford to Cape May Feasibility Study Project 

Worksheet provides horsepower hours for each piece of equipment and the total 

horsepower hours for the project, but it is not consistent with the horsepower hours in 

Table 1. The Army Corps indicated that the horsepower hours in Table 1 are accurate 

and that the horsepower hours in the Herford to Cape May Feasibility Study Project 

Worksheet didn't account for the load factors. The Army Corps indicated that this 

inconsistency would be addressed in the Final Environmental Assessment 

Ji you have additional air quality planning questions, please contact Angela Skowronek at ( 609) 

984-0337 

Land Use 

The NJDEP Division of Land Use Regulation is currently reviewing a Federal 

Consistency Determination and expects to complete their review within 60 days of 

l. receipt of the application and by approximately Febroary 24, 2014. This determination 

will include comments from the US Fish and Wildlife Service representatives Todd Pover 

(609-628-0401) and Carlo Popolizio (609-646-931 O).For additional infonnation, please 

contact Gail Moore at (609) 633-9310. 

3 

Hereford Inlet to Cape l\,fay Inlet Appendix G.2 .. Commcnts on Draft Report 
1251

Thank you for·giving the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection the opportunity to 

comment on the Draft Environmental i\ssessment for the proposed Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project. 

Sincerely, 

Office of Permit Coordination 

and Environmental Re,.,iew 

C: John Gray, NJPEP-PCER 

Jesse West-Rosenthal, NJDEP- RPO 

Kelly Davis, NJDEP - DFW 

Angela Skowronek, NJDEP- BAQP 

Pete DeMeo, NJDEP Land Use 

Gail Moore, NJDEP - Land Use 

Dave Rosenblatt, Bureau of Coastal Engineering 

4 Hereford Inkt to Cape May Inlet (, Appendix G.2,,Commcnts on Draft Report 
1252

Letter from NJDEP-Office of Permit Coordination and Environmental Review dated 30 January 

2014. 

Cultural Resources 

I. The District gave the Historic Preservation Office the opportunity to comment on the draft report and 

they concurred with the findings that this project would have no effect on historic properties within the 

projects Arca of Potential Effect (APE). 

Natural Resources 

l. All construction activities are expected to take place outside of the nesting area of any endangered and 

non-gan1e species of birds including the piping plover. l11e project does include small taper sections into 

the Hereford Inlet area and to the border of the USFWS Refuge at Cape May Inlet. Any activities that 

take place during the nesting season, that has the potential to impact nesting birds or their habitat, will be 

coordinated under the protocols established by the Endangered and Non-game Species Program (ENSP) 

and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

2. All towns that are participating in a federally funded beach nourishment project will be required to 

have beach management plans, including Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township. North 

Wildwood currently has a beach management plan. 

3. Taper sections will be coordinated with ENSP and USFWS to avoid impacts from dune placement, 

grass planting and sand fencing. 

4. There arc no offshore borrow sites proposed for this project as it is currently planned. No offshore 

borrow areas were considered past the initial stages of plan formulation and the selected plan does not 

contain an offshore borrow area. The inlet borrow areas were considered at the beginning of the study, 

but not considered as part of the selected plan. Full coordination will take place with ENSP if offshore 

sources need to be considered for future re-nourishment cycles. The selected plan contains no offshore 

sources and all oftl1c material for the dunes and bcm1 will be obtained from the beaches in Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. 

5. Concur. 

Bureau of Air Quality Planning 

I. This number was an error and has been corrected. Based on additional information, the NOx 

emissions have been revised in the final report and a.re 86 tons, which is below the critical threshold for 

the Clean Air Act. 

Comment #I. Emissions a.re reported on a calendar year basis in the final report. 

Comment #2. The worksheet has been corrected and load factors were included in the final report's 

Clean Air Act section. 

Land Use 

1. The NJDEP requested an extension of the review timeframe. l11e review timeframe was extended to 

March 10, 2014. 
1253

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

PHILADEl.l'HIA DISTRICT, CORPS Of ENGINEERS 

WANAMAXER BUILO!l'IG, IQO.PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILAOELPHIA, PEl<NSYWANU>· 19107'.l390 

Environmental Resources Branch 

Daniel Saunders, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 

Mail Code 501-048 

State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Historic Preservation Office 

PO Box420 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 

Dear Mr. Saunders: 

DEC 2 0 2013 

The US Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District (USACE) in 

accordance with Section 106 of the National H~torlc Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended, are requesting your review and comment on the Hereford Inlet to Cape 

May Inlet Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment (EA). 

The report addresses hurricane and storm damage reduction alternatives for the 

coastal communities located between Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet, Cape May 

County, New Jersey. The feasibility study is being cost-shared equally by the 

Federal government and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP), the non-Federal sponsor. 

The proposed project site is located along the Atlantic Coast shoreline of New 

Jersey from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and includes the communities of North 

Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and a portion of Lower Township. Dune 

placement actlvity will take place from znd Avenue and John F. Kennedy Boulevard in 

North Wildwood to the southern border of Lower Township at Raleigh Avenue. The 

project's northern terminus at znct and JFK will have a small tapered berm section that 

will extend approximately 200 feet northwestward into the Hereford Inlet area. There 

is no tapered section into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service properly at the southern 

border below Lower Township. 

The recommended plan in the feasibility report was determined to be berm 

and dune restoration utilizing sand hydraulically back-passed from the beaches of 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. This plan was developed after 

evaluating structural and non-structural alternatives to protect properly within the 

study area. The beaches in these areas have historically accreted large quantities of 

sand, and sand can be dredged from the beach in Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and 

Lower Township to provide beach nourishment material to reduce storm damage to 

the entire island in the form of a storm protective berm and dune. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :\fay Inlet 0

\.ppcndix G.2 __ Comments: on Draft Rep0.rt 
1254

L 

Specifically, the plan includes a dune with a crest elevation of +16ft NAVO 88, 

fronted by a 75-ft wide berm at elevation +6.5-ft NAVO 88 in North Wildwood. 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and lower Township will receive a dune only plan at an 

elevation +16 ft NAVO 88. The design template for both dune configurations includes 

a 25-ft dune crest width, 1V:5H dune side slopes. The design template extends 

seaward from the berm crest down to mean low water (MLW) at a slope of 1V:30H, 

and extends further down to a closure depth of -26 ft following the average existing 

beach profile shape. The initial sand quantity is approximately 1.3 million cubic 

yards, which includes overfill factors and advanced nourishment. Periodic 

nourishment of approximately 305,000 cubic yards is scheduled to occur every 4 

years for the fifty year length of the project. 

Information on this project was previously sent to your office July 2, 2013. 

Your office concurred with our No Effect determination on August 6, 2013. There 

have been no significant changes to the project since your previous review. Thank 

you for your cooperation in this review process. Please provide any additional 

comments you may have on the project by February 6, 2014. If you have any 

questions concerning our review or if we can be of further assistance, please contact 

Nicole Cooper Minnichbach via email at nicole.c.minnichbach@usace.army.mil, or 

phone (215) 656-6556, or fax (215) 656-6543. 

l-krcford Inlet to Cape 1\fay Inlet 

Sincerely, 

Peter R. Blum, P.E 

Chief, Planning Division 

CONCUR 

2 

Appendix G.2 .. Comments on Draf\ Report 
1255

Concurrence Letter from the State Historic Preservation office on the No Effect Determination 

dated 15 January 2014. 

1. No response required. 
C

ENDORSIN

DRAFT FE

INLET PREP

NOW, THE

Wildwood, in the 
1257

CITY OP NORTii WILDWOOD 

901 Atlantic Avenue 

North Wildwood, NJ 08260-5778 

(609) 521-2030 

Patrick T. Rosenelll) 

Mayor 

Knln Yeteo 

City Ad111mislrator 

RESPONSE by the CITY OF NORTH WILDWOOD, CAPE MAY COUNTY, NJ 

To the 

DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT for HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ 

By the 

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, 2013 

Introductiom 

As part of the long term national coastal initiative by the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the 

Philadelphia District released its "Draft Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment" for the 

NJ coastal reach between Hereford and Cape May Inlets in May County, NJ in late 2013. A request was 

made to the impacted communities to prepare a response on February 6, 2014 to this study. The City 

of North Wildwood has prepared its response individually following several in-house municipal meetings and a 

pair of joint meetings with the other three municipal entitles located on the barrier island positioned between the 

two inlets mentioned above. 

This project was authorized by the US Congress in 1987, and undertaken following the execlltion of a 50-50 

cost sharing agreement between the ACOE and the State of New Jersey in September 2002. The co1npileted 

docllment spells out a multitude impacts and presents solutions to a pair of :sig11ifi.cai1t nroh1,,,,.,. 

unique to this particular barrier The ACOE notes that this is the only NJ barrier 

erosion and an excess sand accumulation problem. An unusual set of coastal combined with the 

timing of development have generated a wide area where the sand supply is greater than needed for either 

recreation or storm protection. 

Shore Protection Problems in North Wildwood: 

Inlet changes beginning in the late l 990's at Hereford Inlet have generated a sand deficiency for the northern 8-

1 O bk)cks of the City of North Wildwood' s oceanfront, while large volumes of sand to move south 

along the shoreline increasing the beach width south of 18'h Avenue Wildwood, south into Lower 

Township. Between 1993 and 2004 the North Wildwood beach at Avenue lost 579 cubic yards of sand for 

each foot of shoreline (CRC 25-year report to NJDEP). The shoreline's zero elevation position retreated 829 

feet removing 80% of the beach width. This sand moved into Hereford Inlet creating a significant inlet beach 

where there had been no sand at the rocks for many years. This was about half the lost volume, with the 

remainder moving south into Wildwood where the Cresse Avenue cross secfam's shoreline advanced 411 feet 

seaward with a 190 cubic per foot sand volume increase. Since Cresse Avenue is the boundary between 

Wildwood and this represents a vast amount of material moved south in 11 years. 

As a result of the cumulative changes impacting the City, a large scale plan was executed in 2009 placing 1.45 

million cubic yards of sand the North Wildwood shoreline as a joint NJ State and locally funded project. 

Ston11 damage in 2009 and was restored FEMA funding as reimbursement to the City for 464,000 

cubic yards in 201 l. Hurricane Irene was a year later by Hurricane Sandy. The Irene losses were 

satisfied by hauling 94,000 cubic yards of sand from the Borough of Wildwood Crest, north to the zone of 

erosion using large-capacity trucks. Following Sandy, the City cooperated with restoration work proceeding on 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet to Appendix (1-2.,Comments on Draft Report 
1258

the Stone Harbor shoreline using sand derived from the designated harrow area within the ebb-tidal shoals of 

Hereford Inlet. This amounted to l 55,000 cubic yards of new sand. 

Sand Backpassing in 2012: 

The City of North Wildwood succeeded in modifying NJ State and Federal ACOE dredging permits issued in 

2009 to allow m1 alternative sand source (the Wildwood Crest bern1} and an alternative means of delivering the 

material to the zone of worst erosion (trucks hauling to between 2"d and 8'h Avenues). The .Borough of 

Wildwood Crest already had obtained pennits to move sand on its shoreline landward 

to enhll!lce the dunes and fill the back beach zone subject to fresh and rains or spring 

tides. The berm crest was the alignment for the excavation ofup to 2.0 feet hoth seaward 

and landward to zem depth, but extending the length of the Borough shoreline. An was reached with 

the City of Wildwood to allow the large-capacity trucks to haul the sand north along high tide wet-dry line 

present each day on the beach. 

This methodok1gy was successfully completed and mid-May of20l2 where 

one shift, 5 days per week hauled 3,879 loads !<lta!ing cubic yards placed 

and spread to form a new bern1 with dune restoration north of 3'd Avenue. The entire mc,th(ldolo,:v 

working 

Ave1me 

prepared following a 2006 pilot study in the .Borough of Avalon where sand was harvested from berm crest 

in a zone of accumulation and truck hauled lo the north end of the island where erosion was continuing 

problem. This pilot study was repeated in Avalon under ACOE management in 2012. 

Review by the City of North Wildwood on the Proposals within the 2013 Draft Feasibility Study: 

First and foremost, the City of North Wildwood endorses the ACOE proposal to undertake a SO-year 

responsibility to maintain a substantial level of shore protection for the municipality and its citizens. The 

continued success of this coastal resort town depends on a stable, sand beach lllld dune system Jbr its very 

existence and financial viability. The City also endorses the utilization of sand harvesting from the southern 

segment of the barrier island to the project's goals or be the sole source for sand supplies for the 

North Wildwood beaches going 

The points are: 

L The use of"Back Passing" from more southerly beaches to supply sand to zones oferosion in North 

Wildwood is endorsed unequivocally. 

2. The design berm width and acceptable, with the caveat that the ACOE 

recognize that due to work between 2009 beach width south of IO'~ Avenue may already 

be at the ACOE design template limits for berm elevation, 6.75 feet). 

3. The 2009 dune elevation was at 14. 75 foet NA VD88 and has been maintained except 

for where was built seaward of the three piers fotmd in the southern City shoreline. The City 

also concurs with the ACOE plans to have the dune pass llnder the two northern piers and marry lo a 

steel bulkhead protecting the Morey's Pier structure at the very south end of the City beach. 

4. Raising the dune elevation to 16.0 feet is an option if the ACOE has documented model evidence that 

raising the entire dune by ! .25 feet is worth the cost and effort for a increase in rm,tN•tion 

Hurricane did not breach the dunes between 3'• Avenue lllld Avenue and 

dune south Avenue because they were placed too far seaward and in 

condition required at the time). Dune loss in the single city block north was due to 

complete loss of the bernl elevation during the 2009 and 20 l O northeast storms. Subsequent 

replacement pmved futile. 

5. The City wuuld like a degree of focus rapid decrease in shoreline width seen presently north of 

3'0 A venue and Hereford Inlet. A venue rock jetty is very short and Cllll!lot maintain beach 

width on either side of the structure. The 2009 project completely buried the jetty, but inlet 

Hereford Inlet to Cape '.\fay Inlet ii Appendix: 0.2._Comments \)D Draft Report 
1259

currents and waves quickly stripped sand away. Part of the problem is that the inlet side of the shoreline 

is utilized by endangered species nesting (piping plovers} so augmentation of the inlet beach would be 

restricted to the eastern 500-600 feet near the jetty. 

6. Public access and vehicle access is already established and needs to be maintained, 

especially if the dune is increased to J 6. 0 foet. 

Conclusion: 

The 2013 Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet draft feasibility study presented by tbe ACOE has a series of 

solutions proposed that utiHZe and exploit the unique nature of the Wildwoods barrier island's coastal 

geomorphology. Recycling a vast sand supply makes economic and practical good sense because repetitively 

extracting sand from Hereford Inlet ebb-tidal shoals destined for erosion issues in North Wildwood will 

inevitably acerbate the excess accumulation of sand in Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township 

shoreline segments. North Wildwood endorses this project and will work to assist the ACOE in its 

implementation. 

History has shown that the erosion cycle at the Hereford Inlet segment of North Wildwood lasts about 30 years 

between maximum excursions Keep in mind that in 1986 the beach was over ! ,500 feet wide at the 

NJ Beach Profiles Network Avenue swvey site. Therefore history suggests that re-using the sand already 

available may substitute well for moving material onto the beaches from outside the island beach/dune system. 

Hereford Inlet to Capo;: May Inlet l2 Appendix G.2.,Commcnts on Drnft Report 
1260

City of North Wildwood, Resolution and letter of support dated 4 February 2014. 

I. No response required. 

2. N cw surveys will be performed prior to the initial construction to detern1ine areas of need for bern1 and 

dune repair in order to construct the beach to the design template. 

3. The two northern most piers in North Wildwood can likely fit a+ 16' NAVO 88 dune underneath them 

and all efforts will be made to tie into existing shore protection structures. 

4. The modeling efforts indicated that the optimum dune elevation is+ 16' NAVO 88 for the dune in 

North Wildwood. 

5. The District is acutely aware of the rapid erosion of the shoreline in North Wildwood as it was the 

primary driver for the project early on in the feasibility study. Careful attention will be paid to that 

section of shoreline and the adjacent inlet. while taking into account the presence or piping plovers and 

red knots. Terminal structures at the inlet were screened out of the analysis due to their costs and the 

potential to disrupt natural landward migration of ebb shoal material to the shoreline. 

6. Public Access points will be maintained at street ends with pedestrian and vehicular access points over 

the+ 16' NAVO 88 dune. Handicapped access points will also be created throughout the length of the 

project. The exact location of the proposed handicapped and vehicular access points are shown on the 

current plans and will be further coordinated during the Planning Engineering and Design (PED) and 

construction phases of the project. 
1261

I. 

2. 

Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:08 AM 

To: 'philly@usace.army.mil' 

Subject: ACE Report - Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Draft Feasibility Report -

Public Comment 

Re: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated 

Environmental Assessment Dated December 17, 2013 

Public Comment 

Dear Sir: 

Due to the problems with drainage in the City of Wildwood it does not take much 

rain for the storm drains on Ocean Avenue to overflow resulting in damage to the 

surrounding property. The City of Wildwood has been unable to adequately address 

this problem. 

I support the plan outlined in the subject report which addresses the flooding 

problem by eliminating the impact from the clogged outfalls due to continued 

expansion of the Wildwood beach. In addition the plan for the dunes will contain 

the ocean during future storms which will also reduce the street flooding and 

subsequent damage. 

Sincerely, 

RTER 

Hereford lnkt to Cap0 !\fay Inlet 13 Appendix G.2.,Cnmments on Drafi R.:port 
1262

Email from Wildwood Citizen dated 27 January 2014. 

1. W c agree that the City of Wildwood has an interior drainage problem and that reducing the amount of 

sand from in front of the outfall will likely reduce the flooding in the interior sections of the island. 

2. We also agree that the construction of a dune and berm will reduce future flooding from oceanfront 

stomlS. 
1263

1. 

2. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION2 

FEB· 5 2014 

Peter R Blum, P.E. 

Chief, Planning Division 

290 BROADWAY 

NEWYORK, NY 10007-1800 

Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers 

Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-3391 

Dear Mr. Blum: 

This letter is in response to the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Draft Feasibility Report and 

Integrated Environmental Assessment (draft EA). The document addressed hurricane and storm 

dan1age reduction alternatives for the coastal communities located between Hereford Inlet and 

Cape May Inlet, in Cape May County, New Jersey. 

The selected plan for the prqject is a dune and bem1 constructed using sand obtained from an 

onshore borrow sowce located at the southern end of Five Mile Island. The; plan extends 

approximately 4.5 miles from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and will encompass the towns of 

North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Diamond Beach. The sand for the dune and 

berm v,ill be pun1ped from the southern. borrow area using mobile back-passing technology to 

hydraulically pump the sand from the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest borrow source to the 

placement area on a four year nourishment cycle. The initial sand quantity is estimated at 

1,362,000 cubic yards, which includes a design quantity of 1,057,000 and advanced nourishment 

of305,000 cubic yards. 

The integrated approach of combining the draft feasibility report with the draft Environmental 

Assessment resulted in a detailed and thorough analysis of the historical context, 

conditions, and comparative evaluation of the storm damage reduction alternatives. The 

feasibility report prc,vided an enhanced context for our review of the Environmental Assessment 

components of the document. 

The draft EA did not include a discussion of entry points/access paths along the dune. Though 

access paths are often created perpendicular to the shore, these paths can result in significant 

dune erosion during intense storms. High force waves gain power as they push through the 

narrow passages causing increase erosion and flooding. Reduced flooding ,vas seen after Super 

Jntemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recyc.ledfReey~able • Printed with Vf;!_gttabte OH S$$ed lob on fooeyeled Paper {Mlnlmum :SO% P()Steoma,met Wrttent) 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1fay Inkt 14 Appendix G.2 .. Comm.::nts on Draft Report 
1264

Storm Sandy behind dunes that had paths at a 45 degree angle rather than perpendicular to the 

shoreline. A discussion of dune access paths should be included in the final EA and/or made 

mention ofin your decision document. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions concerning this letter 

please feel free to contact Stephanie Lamster ofmy staff at 212-637-3465. 

Sincerely, 

Mu:sum~c1, Chief 

Environmental Review Section 

lforeford Inlet to- Cape May Inlet 15 Appendix G.2 .. Communts on Draft Report 
1265

Correspondence from the Environmental Protection Agency dated 2 February 2014 

l. Concur that the integrated Environmental Assessment resulted in a detailed and through analysis of the 

historical context, existing conditions and plan formulation. 

2. A description of the access paths and locations are contained in the plans, but special consideration 

will be given to the comments in the letter you provided to construct paths at a 45 degree angle. 
1266

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

In Reply Refer To: 

14-CPA-0088 

Peter R. Blum, Chief 

Planning Division 

New Jersey Field Office 

Ecological Services 

927 North Main Street, 

Pleasantville, 

Tel: 609/646 

Fax: 609/646 0352 

http://www.fu-s.gov/northeasl/njfieldoffice 

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers 

Wanamnker Building FEB fJ 6 ZOM 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-3390 

Dear Mr. Blum: 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), New Jersey Field Office has reviewed the 

Hereford Jiilet to Cape May Inlet Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental 

Assessment addressing storm damage reduction for the communities of North Wildwood, 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and portion of Lower Township. Specifically, dune placement 

activity is proposed from 2nd and John F. Kennedy Boulevard in North Wildwood south to 

Raleigh Avenue in Lower Township. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposes to create a 75-foot-wide beach berm at 

elevation +6.5 North American Vertical Datum (NA VD) and a dune at an elevation of +16 feet 

NA VD in Northern Wildwood. The remainder of the project would only receive a dune at +16 

feet NAVD. For initial construction ofth.e project, the Corps proposes to obtain. approximately 

L3 million cubic yards utilizing sand hydraulically back-passed from the beaches of Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township. About 305,000 cubic yards of sand may be required for 

periodic re-nourishment at 4-year intervals for a period of 50 years. 

AUTHORITY 

The following comments are provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (83 

Stat 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401; 16 

U.S.C. 661 et seq.), Section 7 of the Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (40 Stat.755; 16 

U.S.C. 703-712, as amended), ensuring the listed endangered and 

threatened species, and migratory birds. comments are provided pursuant to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act{CBRA) (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 16 Appendix G.2 .. Comrncnts on Draft Report 
1267

L 

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES 

Piping Plower 

The federally listed (threatened) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) was documented nesting on 

the Hereford Inlet shoreline ofNorth Wildwood during the last 10 years and v.1thin the Cape 

May National Wildlife Refuge (Two-Mile Beach) in 2010. Both nesting areas are in the vicinity 

of the project area. The likelihood of nesting activity within the project area is very low. 

However, we csnnot entirely rule out possible nesting within the project area, if construction 

activity occurs during the breeding season (March 15-August 31). Also, because of the 

proximity of the Hereford Inlet shoreline of North Wildwood to the project area, the Service may 

that the Corps hire a biological construction monitor for any work during the breeding 

season under the protocol established by the Service and the New Jersey Endangered and 

Nongame Species Program (ENSP) for the protection of nesting piping plovers. Finally, if any 

nesting activity is detected by the ENSP within the project area, the Corps shall 

coordinate/consult with the Service and ENSP to ensure adequate protection of piping plovers. 

Individual Tier 2 consultation with the Corps remains required prior to construction and for each 

periodic nourishment cycle. The Corps shall not rely on Service Tier 2 letters for any 

nourishment cycle that is later cancelled, delayed, or otherwise modified, but shall rather resubmit updated project information to the Service for further individual Tier 2 consultation. 

Seabeacb Amaranth 

There are no records of the federally listed (threatened) seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus 

2. pumilus) occurring within the project area.. It is very unlikely that seabeach amaranth will occur 

in the project area during the initial nourishment but, if detected, we request that the Corps 

contact this office to coordinate protective measures for this species. 

SPECIES PROPOSED FOR LISTING 

The red knot (Calidris canutus refa) is being proposed for Federal listing under the ESA. The 

3. listing process may be completed as early as September 2014. The proposed critical habitat rule 

may be issued by March-April 2014. Protective measures for the red knot need to be appended 

or included in the Programmatic Biological Opinion. 

Small numbers ofred knots may occur in New Jersey year-round, while large numbers of birds 

rely on Atlantic and Delaware Bay stopover habitats during the spring (mid-May through early 

June) and fall (late-July through October sometimes extending into November 15) migration 

periods. Red knots are generally faithful to their stopover sites. Threats to the red knot include 

disturbance, reduced food availability at staging areas, and loss of stopover habitat. 

During fall migration, red knots have been documented roosting and foraging on North 

Wildwood beaches from Hereford Inlet south to 26th Street. On the southern end of the project 

2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inld 17 Appendix G.2 .. Commcnis on Draft R0port 
1268

4. 

area, red knots have been documented roosting and foraging from Richmond Avenue south to the 

U.S. Coast Guard boundary. The Service may requests that, from July 15 to November 15, ifa 

large number of red knots forage at or in the vicinity of the project site, project activities be 

suspended and an avian biologist be hired to monitor the red knots until they leave. The avian 

biologist shall determine when project activities may resume in coordination with this office and 

the Corps. More specific recommendations may be provided in our Tier 2 letter. 

COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE ACT 

Section 2.4.16 of the Report (page 104) proposes Hereford Inlet as a borrow area for future renourishment events and mentions the past use ofvibracores to evaluate sand resources within the 

inlet. According to the official Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) map for Hereford Inlet, 

proposed sand borrow areas commonly referred as "H" are located within Unit NJ-09 of the 

CBRS. If the Corps proposes to make Federal expenditures or financial assistance (as defined by 

Section 3(3) of the CBRA) available for any purpose relating to a future action or project within 

the CBRS (including funding for the use ofvibracores), the Corps is responsible for submitting a 

formal consultation request to the Service in writing, with an explanation of how the proposed 

Federal expenditures or financial assistance comply v,.ith the provisions of the CBRA and which 

Section 6 exception the action or project meets. If the activity qualifies for an exception under 

Section 6 of the CBRA, Federal officer, after consultation with the Secretary, 

may make Federal may make financial assistance available" ,vithin the CBRS. 

OTHER COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

As a condition for receiving Federal assistance for beach nourishment, all municipalities are 

required to develop a Beach Management Plan approved by the Service and the New Jersey 

Division of Fish and Wildlife. At the moment, North Wildwood is the only municipality within 

the project area to have such plan. 

The Corps shall require all municipalities within the study area to coordinate with the Service 

and ENSP prior to placing sand fencing and planting dune-stabilizing native vegetation following 

each re-nourishment event. 

Please contact Carlo Popolizio at (609) 3$3-3938, extension 32, if you have any questions 

pertaining to this correspondence. 

3 

Fforeford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 18 A.ppcndix G.2 .. Commcnts on Draft Report 
1269

Correspondence from the United State Fish and Wildlife Service dated 6 February 2014. 

Federally Listed Species 

1. Piping Plover- Although the District agrees that the likelihood of nesting activity within the project 

area is low, an individual tier 2 consultation ,vill occur prior to initial construction and before each 

nourishment cycle. If any nesting activity is detected the Corps will consult with the Service and ENSP 

to ensure adequate protection of the piping plovers. 

2. Sea Beach Amaranth- The District agrees that it is unlikely that sea beach amaranth will occur in the 

project area. If detected, the Corps will contact the USFWS office to determine protective measures for 

the species. 

Species Proposed for Listing 

3. Red Knot - The Corps will continue to coordinate with the USFWS vvith regard to the presence and 

potential impacts of the project on the red knot. If the species becomes listed under the Endangered 

Species Act, further consultation will be initiated which may include the adoption of protection measures 

into the project plans.Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

4. Borrow Areas-The Corps does not currently have any plan to borrow from Hereford Inlet for this 

project. If the Corps develops any future plans for borrowing within this inlet the Corps will submit a 

formalwritten consultation request to the Service. 

Other Comments and Recommendations 

T11e Corps currently requires all municipalities to prepare a Beach Management Plan that is approved by 

the USFWS and the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife for all Federal beach nourishment projects. 

Since North Wildwood is the only Municipality that currently has a plan in place, the Corps will require 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township to draft a beach management plan. 
1270

citah i:rf ~l?fu a}tt'll!.tiJ 

CHRIS CHRlST!E 

Gavernor 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

DMS!ON OF LAND USE REGl;l.ATION 

Mail Code 50l-02A. P.O. Box 420, Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 

TEL:# (609) 777-0454 

BOB MARTIN 

CommL'!sioner 

KIM GUADAGNO 

Lt. Governor 

FAX# (609) 777-3656 

1. 

Peter R. Blum, Chief 

Planning Division 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Wanamaker Building 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3 3 90 

RE: Federal Consistency 

February 11, 2014 

File No.: 0500-03-000U CDT 130001 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet - Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project 

North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township 

Cape May County 

Dear Mr. Blum: 

Pursuant to section 15 CFR 930.41 of the Federal Consistency Regulations, this office 

hereby requests that the review eriod to determine consistency with the New Jersev Coastal 

Mana!!ement Pro e Se ent for the above project, be extended 15 

days, to March 8, 2014, in order for the DE OCZM to complete its review. 

If you have any questions regarding the above please contact me in writing at the above 

address or by phone at (609) 984-6216. 

Sincerely, 

~{ Jo;titrc~ 

Project Manager 

Bureau of Coastal Regulation 

Cc: Chris Constantino, Bureau of Coastal Engineering, Toms River 

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunlty Employer-• Printed on Recycled Paper and Rer:ydah!e 

'lkrcfbrd Inlet to Cape \lay lnlct 19 ,\.pp,mdh (J-,LCommenfa on Drat) R~port 
1271

Correspondence from the NJDEP dated 11 February 2014 

1. The extension was granted to 10 March 2014. 
1272

l. 

2. 

4. 

0 

J. 

Dear Mayor Groon, Commissioner Cabrera, and Commissioner Gould, 

I do not support the proposed dune project by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Not all barrier islands are created equally. Wildwood Crest is very unique 

compared to other barrier island towns. We are blessed with a wide and growing 

beach. Our beach is as wide as some entire towns. Surely the width of our beach 

alone offers more storm protection compared to other more narrow islands. A wider 

beach must help dissipate wave energy associated with storms and keep the waves 

further away from the dunes and the town. It doesn't make sense to shorten our 

beach and bring that wave energy closer. We also have a dune system that the town 

is consistently improving. How much storm protection is really gained by 

shortening our beach and raising the dune as opposed to keeping our wider beach 

with the existing dunes? Because our beach is so unique, we don't necessarily 

need the same storm protection as other towns. 

During Hurricane Sandy the majority of Wildwood Crest's flood damage was caused 

by water coming from the back bay, not from the ocean side of the island. Our 

wide beach and existing sand dunes helped prevent ocean water encroachment. A 

sand dune of any height will not stop flood water coming in from the bay. If 

flood prevention is the concern, then put resources towards solutions to lessen 

bay-side flooding. 

One feature of Wildwood Crest that attracts many visitors to our beach is the 

safe and family-friendly nature of our waters. The gentle gradient of our beach 

and accompanying sandbars allow for safe bathing conditions. This gradual slope 

causes more gentle, weaker-breaking waves thus creating safer swimming 

conditions. Other beaches in New Jersey have a steep drop-off at the water's 

edge. This creates a stronger shore-break wave that crashes more forcefully into 

shallow sand, increasing the potential for accidents. The amount of sand needed 

for the sand dune project must be enormous. Removing a vast amount of sand from 

the low tide line could severely impact the current gradient of our near-shore 

waters. Our natural sandbars could be damaged, leaving steep drop-offs and 

creating dangerous swimming conditions. I'm sure it's assumed that the sand will 

fill back in as it was, but this can't be guaranteed. No one can predict with 

certainty how Mother Nature will respond when drastically altered. I don't 

believe this project is worth the risk of irreparably changing the nature of our 

beach. 

Also of concern to me are the access points to the beach. As it now stands, many 

of the street ends in the Crest have ADA accessible ramps and walkways. Should a 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 20 Appendix G.2 .. Comments on Draft Report 
1273

5. 

6. 

7. 

16 foot high dune be built, all of these walkways would have to be replaced. Who 

would pay for this? And would they still be ADA accessible? 

One of the selling points to the Army Corps' project is that shortening the beach 

will abate the outfall pipe problem. Shortening the beach is not a permanent 

solution to the outfall pipe problem. Assuming that the beach would resume its 

growth, this would only be a temporary fix. Our town would be better served by 

investing in a more creative solution to our outfall line situation . 

I know that Governor Christie and the Army Corps had made it perfectly clear that 

the aesthetics of a project like this do not matter to them. However, it can't be 

overlooked that a project of this magnitude will dramatically change our 

landscape. A shorter beach with a giant sand dune will significantly decrease the 

recreational area of our current beach. Views of the water and beach from the 

bike path and street ends will be completely obscured. 

Wildwood Crest has been blessed with a very wide beach. Other towns struggle 

annually with beach replenishment. I can't find the logic in voluntarily removing 

half of our beach, potentially altering the bottom conditions of our waters, 

drastically altering the landscape of our town all to construct a wall of sand 

that may or may not protect the island any better than it already is. 

Please don't support this project either. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Wildwood Crest, NJ 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :\fay Inlet 21 .\ppendix: G.2 .. Comments on Draft Report 
1274

Email from Concerned Citizen no date. 

1. l11e large width of the beach in Wildwood is not capable of mitigating for the elevated stom1 water 

levels experienced during hurricane and nor' easters. As our modeling has shown in the feasibility phase 

and feasibility documents, the low nature of the beach and lack of a dune system make North Wildwood, 

Wildwood & Wildwood Crest susceptible to storm damage at moderately elevated water levels. 

2. Damages from hurricane Sandy were reported from ocean and bay sources in the Wildwoods. 

Hurricane Sandy was approximately a 30 year event in Cape May County. The stonn damage models we 

evaluate for our studies run 7 stonn sequences that range from the 5 year event to the 500 year event. 

l11ese stonns have water elevations that exceed the elevations experienced by hurricane Sandy, and 

overtop the beach and cause damages to houses and infrastructure if our plan is not in place. The project, 

as authorized, focused on beachfront protection. Additional studies that were authorized as a result of 

back-bay flooding during hurricane Sandy arc currently evaluating how to deal with that flooding issue. 

3. The steep drop off at any beach is a function of the sand grain size and the angle at which the sand can 

be shaped. As sand grain size increases, the angle of the beach increases. The Wildwoods have very fine 

grained sand, and the material that we \viii be mobilizing within the project area will all come from the 

beaches in the Wildwoods, therefore the project should not increase the slope of the beach since the sand 

grain size will remain similar. Excavating sand from the beach may cause a temporary increase in slope, 

but this slope will likely not hold that shape and the profile will re-adjust to its nonnal shape over time. 

4. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant walkways, pedestrian walkways and vehicular 

walkways are all part of the construction project and will provide access over the+ 16 NAVD 88 dune. 

These costs are factored into the total project cost which is shared 65% Federal and 35% non Federal 

between the Army Corp of Engineers and the New Jersey Department ofEnviromnental Protection 

(NJDEP). The local community may have to provide a portion of the NJDEP costs. 

5. The project area will likely experience erosion at ifs northern end and accretion at the southern end of 

tl1e project area, similar to what happens now. In order to combat the continued cycle of 

erosion/accretion, which is a natural part of a coastal system, we plan on excavating sand from in front of 

tl1e outfalls on a 4 year basis, and placing the material where it eroded from to maintain the shore 

protection component, and reduce the outfall clogging. All oftl1c projects within the NJ shore protection 

system in Avalon, Stone Harbor, Ocean City, Atlantic City, Brigantine etc.have a periodic nourishment 

component that spans 4-6 years to mitigate for the natural erosion that takes place along all coastal 

shorelines. 

6. We do not concur that aesthetics of the project do not matter. Our projects are constructed to mimic 

natural dune systems.In some locations, the existing dunes within Wildwood Crest are at or exceeded the 

proposed+ 16 NAVD 88 design. l11c Corps dunes are also constructed witl1 native beachgrass that are 

common to all New Jersey beach communities. Some locations in Wildwood Crest currently have 

obstructed ocean views due to the wide beach and height of the dunes. 

7. The presence of the dune in your community will reduce storm damages from oceanfront waves and 

stonn surge. 
1275

Peter Blum, Chief 

Planning Division 

Philadelphia District 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Wanamaker Building 

l 00 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

ATTN: Beth Brandreth, Project '-'""v1,,~, 

fEB 19 201'4 

RE: Draft Environmental Assessment, Hereford Tnlet to Cape May Inlet, Draft Feasibility 

Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment 

Dear Mr. Blum: 

We have reviewed the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated 

Environmental Assessment (DEA) dated December 17, 2013. The DEA presents the findings of 

the Corps of Engineers' study to determine a hurricane and sturm damage reduction plan for 

coastal communities located between Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet in Cape May County, 

Nevv Jersey. The communities in the project area include North Wildwood, West Wildwood, 

Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower To,vnship. The selected plan includes the use of a 

mobile sand back passing system to hydraulically pump sand from the accreting areas of 

Wildwood and Wildwood Crest in order to construct a dune and berm system in North 

Wild\vood and a dune only system in Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. The initial sand 

quantity estimate is 1,362,000 cubic yards. A four-year renourishment cycle is anticipated. 

As you are aware, the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(FWCA) require Federal agendes to consult v.'ith one another on projects such as this. Because 

this project involves essential fish habitat (EFH), this process is guided by the requirements of 

our EFH regulation at 50 CFR 600.905, which mandates the preparation of EFH assessments and 

generally outlines each agency's obligations in this consultation procedure. We offer the 

following comments and recommendations on this project pursuant to the above referenced 

regulatory process. 

Essential Fish Habitat/Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The project area has been designated as EFH for a number of federal managed species including 

summer flounder, winter t1ounder, bluefish, skates and others. The near shore habitat also 

supports benthic organism that are prey species for a v.'ide range of NOAA resources including 

those that are federally managed and those that fall under our FWCA authorities. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape \fay Inlet 22 
1276

l. 

The EFH assessment included in the DEA adequately the potential effects of the project on EFH 

and managed species. Adverse impacts to EFH and to other NOAA species may occur 

as a result of this project, but due to the location of the borrow area within the intertidal and near 

shore zone, and the dynamic nature of this area, impacts are expected to be temporary and minor. 

However, over the 50-year life of this project, changes on project conditions, changes to EFH, to 

federally managed species or the status of other NOAA resources may occur. Pursuant to 50 

CRF 600.920 (i), if new information becomes available, or if the project is revised in such a 

manner that affects the basis our EFH determination, the EFH consultation must be reinitiated. 

To ensure that our agencies comply with the requirements of this section of the EFH regulations, 

we recommend that the Corps contact us prior to the commencement of each renourishment 

cycle so that we may confirm the basis for the EFH determination remains unchanged. This 

notification should include the approximate date of the start and duration of the construction and 

the area affected. 

Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations 

Pursuant to Section 305 (b) (4) (A) of the MSA, we recommend the following EFH conservation 

recommendations be incorporated into the project: 

1. Notification should be provided to our office prior to commencement of each 

renourishment cycle. 

Please note that Section 305 (b)(4)(B) of the MSA requires you to provide us \.'.~th a detailed 

written response to these EFH conservation recommendations, including the measures adopted 

by you for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the project on EHL In the case of a 

response that is inconsistent v,ith our recommendations, Section 305 (b) (4) (B) of the MSA also 

indicates that you must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations. Included in 

such reasoning would be the scientific justification for any disagreements with us over the 

anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate 

or offset such effect pursuant to 50 CFR 600. 920 (k) . 

. Endangered Species Act 

As noted in the DEA several species listed as threatened or endangered by NMFS occur 

~~w~v,,=,,; off the coast of New Jersey. The proposed sand bypass will talce place in the 

zone where water depths are very shallow. Sea turtles, Atlantic sturgeon and listed 

whales are not present in that area. Therefore, none of these species will be exposed to any direct 

or indirect effects of the proposed project. Based on this, we do not believe a consultation in 

accordance with section 7 of the ESA is necessary. As such, NMFS Protected Resources 

Division does not intend to offer additional comments on this proposal. Should project plans 

change or new information become available that changes the basis for this determination, 

further coordination should be pursued. have 

please contact Julie Crocker ofmy sta:fff:2.TI:.:2.l~~lQ 

Fkreford Inkt to Cape \fay Inlet 23 Appendix: G.2.,Comments on Draft Report 
1277

We look forward to continued coordination ·with your office on this project as it moves forward. 

have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Karen 

Greene at or (732) 872-3023. 

cc: NJDEP - Land Use , 

FWS• Pleasantvll!e· C.Popolizio 

EPA - Region D. Montella 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 24 

Sincerely, 

Assistant Regional Administrator 

for Habitat Conservation 

Appendix G.2.,Comments on Draft Report 
1278

Correspondence from the United States Department of Commerce dated 19 February 2014 

Essential Fish Habitat Recommendations 

1. Concur. NMFS will be notified prior to all constmction and nourishment aetivities. 

Endangered Species Act 

1. Concur. Further consultation in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not 

necessary. 
1279

1. 

2. 

3. 

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:35 PM 

To: Voigt, Edward C NAP 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Beach Project Concerns 

Good Morning, 

My name is I decided to contact the you because of 

the recent news about the new beach project currently being discussed on the 

Wildwood's. First I wanted to take a moment and say how much I commend your hard 

work and efforts on the island as a whole I have always vacationed in Wildwood 29 

years this year and hopefully one day will be able to live and work down there. 

On to the reason I decided to write this and maybe this will give 

some points to bring up during the discussion I wish I could attend the meeting 

but I am sure it is for residents only. First I understand why the project is 

needed to a degree. North Wildwood has had problems with erosion near the inlet 

starting in the early 90's from understanding the yearly coastal research project 

from Richard Stockton Research Center. This process takes sand from the 

beachfront of North Wildwood and deposits it onto Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and 

North Wildwood inlet beaches. From understanding it is a cycle that goes back 

and forth every few years or so. This process helped cause the flooding issues 

in Wildwood and some of the Crest because of blocked outfall pipes. I could go 

on but you already know about these issues. Let me get back to my concerns. 

While North Wildwood needs to be protected I don't feel they should 

take sand from the neighbors. Pump it from the inlet like other beach towns 

already do. Grow the dunes more and build a bigger berm. 

Wildwood floods because of outfall pipes being buried extend them I 

agree a dune should be built also but don't take away the wide beach which the 

town has adapted and now many activities are using the wide beach which is 

helping the revenue source. 

If they take away some beach what will protect the piers? Those piers 

grew as the beach did take away the beach how can they expand and or be 

protected? How much beach will be a buffer from end of pier to water's edge? 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :\fay Inlet 25 Appendix G.2.,Comm.::nts on Draft Report 
1280

4. 

5. 

Wildwood Crest has started to already build an impressive dune system 

which I commend them as well for keeping up with that. Also extend the outfall 

pipes like Wildwood. 

Also on page 48 of the report figure 18 shows Wildwood Crest in the 70s 

that picture is not correct as the Great White and Great NorEaster roller 

coasters were built in the 90's and from that picture it looks like it was from 

2000/2001 as you can see the outline for the new convention center to be built. 

I feel that there are other ways you can handle this but coming from a person who 

comes to The Wildwoods all the time I do so because of the beach. There is no 

beach like yours I do not want to have a shorter beach I like having room and 

space to spread out If I wanted a narrow beach I would go to Ocean City or LBI. 

They again need to think of how you adapted to the situation of a growing beach 

and they should not put the piers at risk by making the beach shorter. 

Thank you for your time, 

cid:image002.jpg@01CEBE86.38EOD8C0 

Hereford Inlet to Cap..:- ).fay Inlet 26 Appendix G.2 .. Comments on Draft Report 
1281

Correspondence from Concerned Citizen dated 20 February 2014 

l. The inlet bordering North Wildwood is already identified as a sediment source for the Avalon and 

Stone Harbor project, contains numerous shipwrecks, has environmentally sensitive finfish/shcllfish and 

bird habitat and was screen out of the planning process. Pumping sand from the inlet will be more costly 

than our current backpassing operation and adding more sediment from the inlet may exacerbate the 

situation in the Wildwood by clogging their outfalls with the additional sand. By using the excess and 

within the system we can solve the outfall situation and the storm damage situation in the study area. 

2. It is against Corps of Engineers policy to maintain or extend outfall pipers for local interior drainage, 

that is a non-Federal responsibility. 

3. The borrow area can be adjusted to reduce the impacts to the piers by shifting the location of the area 

southward and focusing the harvesting of sand to Wildwood Crest and the southern portion of Wildwood. 

4. The dune system in Wildwood Crest is not adequate as a storm damage reduction feature based on the 

results of the coastal engineering models. 

5. The caption in the figure has been modified. 
1282

Bogle, Brian P NAP 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

rhursday, February 27, 20141148 AM 

christopher.constantino@dep.state.nj.us; Bogle, Brian P NAP; Blum, Peter R NAP; 

Brandreth, Mary E NAP 

[EXTERNAL] First Ward Dune Project Wildwood New Jersey 

l. - Constanino, It was very nice talking with you today concerning Army Corp. plans to 

construct a dune in Wildwood New Jersey .. However it is my opinion that this would be 

detremental to my plans in the near and distant future on beach property I own or rent .As 

long as this property is deeded to myself and others I would have to oppose any plans for 

this property that were not my own. The property block 270, lot 3. 01 is the property above 

mentioned with D. K. Rentals Inc. a New Jersey corporation operating on same property , with 

others, in thellflilrlstllwlalrldll'iWiiilldlwololdllNlelwllJlelrlsleyll. Tlhlalnlkllylolullflolrllolulrlltlilmlellalnldlklil· nldllllllB consideration. 

1kn.J'ord Tnkt to Cape \fay Ink! 

1 

27 Appendix G.2 .. Commcnts on Dran Report 
1283

Email from concerned citizen dated 27 February 2014. 

1. There arc multiple properties within Wildwood that may be impacted by the placement of a dune. 

During the more detailed Planning Engineering and Design (PED) phase the impacts to properties are 

minimized to reduce the need for easements and takings/relocations. 
1284

CARLGROON 

MayorPublic Safety 

JOYCE GOULD 

Revenue& 

Finance 

DON CABRERA 

Public Works & 

Recreation 

COMMISSIONERS 

BOROUGH CLERK 

609-522-5176 

FAX 600-522-710$ 

THE BOROUGH OF 

WILDWOOD CREST 

6101 Pacific Avenue, Wildwood Crest, NJ 08260 

www.wildwoodcrest.org 

Mr. Peter Blum, PE 

ATTN; Environmental Resources Branch 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Wanamaker Building 

100 Pell!l Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

RE: Hereford Inlet to Cape .May Inlet 

Draft Feasibility Report Comments 

March 4, 2014 

Wildwood Crest, Cape May County, New Jersey 

~~a::~~~~;;~:ENT Dear Mr. Blum: 

609-729-5152 

FAX 609-729-7089 

PUBLIC WORKS 

609-522•7446 

RECREATION 

609-5Zl·0202 

TAX ASSESSOR 

609-522-3891 

TAX COLLECTOR 

SEWER COLLECTION 

609-522-384$ 

FAX 609'522-6o!J2 

TREASURER 

609-522-0401 

FAX 609-522·6692 

On behalf of the Borough of Wild\vood Crest, we are pleased to provide herewith comments in 

response to the above referenced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) draft feasibility report. 

These comments are based on a thorough review of the document, multiple meetings with USACE 

and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) representatives, discussions by 

the Board of Commissioners at various public meetings, and miscellaneous memoranda and e-mail 

correspondence between our offices. 

Based on the Borough's review of the report, it is apparent that the USACE's primary objectives 

are consistent with those of the Borough, such as re<lucing storm damage and excessive shoreline 

accretion. However, the Borongh also places a veiy high value on the aesthetic and recreational 

qualities of the beach that the public has long enjoyed and that contribute to the economic and 

cultural vitality of the community. The Borough also desires to minimize both initial costs and the 

possibility of future costs associated with the maintenance of the USA CE improvements. 

Therefore, we are providing the following comments on the draft report: 

L We believe that the proposed 16' (NAVD88) dune elevation is unnecessarily high. As has 

been discussed at meetings with your office and the NJDEP on this subject, the proposed 

dune height would significantly reduce the public's enjoyment of the beachfront areas by 

impeding the views of the ocean and making it more difficult to access the beach. The 

report states that benefits continue to increase with dune heights greater than 16', but that 

the dnne height was limited to 16' in order. to be acceptable to the community. The 

Borough appreciates the rationale of limiting the dnne height to accommodate the 

community's concerns; however, based on extensive feedback from the public, the 16' 

dune is not acceptable to tlie community as assumed in the report. Therefore, the Borough 

requests that the dune be reduced to elevation 12' (NA VD88). 

We would request that the USAGE consider reducing the dune height while attempting to 

achieve the same degree of storm protection by widening the dnne and/or establishing an 

elevated berm in front of the dune to compensate for the reduced height However, it is our 

Ikreford Inlet to Cape :\fay Inlet 28 ,\ppcndix G.2 .. Cornments on Dtat't Report 
1285

understanding that the establishment of the proposed 16' elevation was not in strict 

compliance with National Economic Development (NED) procedures. Therefore, we 

would request that the reduction of the dune height not be bound by a strict application of a 

compensating width. That is, if the storm damage protection compensation for a reduction 

of four (4) vertical fe.et requires an unacceptably wide dune that would be vulnerable to 

erosion from moderate storm events, we would request that the width be reduced even if it 

does not strictly compensate for the reduced dune height 

2. The Borough requests that the USACE consider elevating the berm in front of the dune in 

order to both protect the dune from periodic erosion from moderate stonn events and to 

provide additional protection from ponding in these areas. 

3. It is our understanding, based on previous meetings and correspondence, that the 

backpassing project will be conducted in such a way as to protect the public safety. 

Specifically, that the hydraulic excavation process will not create unsafe holes or 

depressions, but will be graded, during construction, to the slopes indicated on the cross 

sections contained in the report 

Furthermore, it our understanding tl1at if the excavation of sand in the vicinity of the 

Borough's outfall strnctures would result in exposure, or risk of exposure, to forces not 

considered in the Borough's earlier design of the outfall extensions, that the USACE will 

include tlle strengthening of these structures as part of the federal project 

4. In addition to the several ADA-compliant dune crossovers, the Borough requests that all 

dune crossovers be constructed ,;vith slopes not exceeding 12: L 

5. Some of the Borough's existing stormwater outfall through the area of the 

proposed dune may be constructed of materials ( or are a that may not 

the additional loads from the proposed dune. Therefore, the Borough requests that 

USACE evaluate the existing condition of these structures and replace them as necessary. 

6, Since the construction of the dune has the potential to diminish the ability of the Borough's 

emergency personnel to to emergencies, the Borough requests that a 

vehicular gravel access road, between the existing bulkhead and the proposed dune, 

be incorporated into the project along the length of the proposed dune. This would 

increase the ability of the emergency personnel to respond to emergencies, thereby 

protecting the public safety. 

7. Electronic mail correspondence from Mr. Christopher Constantino, of the NJDEP Bureau 

of Coastal Engineer, dated Febntary 25, 2014, clarified that damage to the USACE's 

improvements in Wildwood Crest would be repaired under periodic renourishments, but 

that these renourishments would be subject to future Water Resources Development Act 

(WRDA) funding. Please clarify whether future losses of material in the dune would be 

considered erosion (subject to periodic renourishment) or damage (subject to repair under 

FCCE funding); or whether it would be eligible for repair under either of these 

mechanisms. 

8. As has been discussed, the report provides significant detail on ''w·ithout project" damages 

and benefits of alternative plans for North Wildwood, but does not provide an equivalent 

level of detail for Wildwood Crest This additional information has been requested in 

previous correspondence, The review of these additional details will allow for a better 

understanding of the costs, benefits, and risks of accepting the USACE's proposed plan. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 29 Appendix G.2.,Comments on Draft Report 
1286

We look forward to your response to the above concerns, and trust that we can work together to 

develop a plan that achieves an balance among the federal, state, and local interests on 

this important project We discuss this matter in further detail or to meet with 

both the US ACE the NJDEP at your convenience. 

Carl H. Groon, Mayor 

Commissioner 

:trt 

cc: Janelle M. Holzmer, Clerk 

Joe Bond, CPWM, Superintendent of Public Works 

Ralph Petrella, PE, Van Note-Harvey 

James W. Verna ill, Van Note-Harvey 

Don Cabrera 

Commissioner 

Thomas R. Thornton, PB, CME, Hatch Mott MacDonald 

Robert C. PE, CME, Hatch Mott MacDonald 

Brian Bogle, 

Christopher Constantino, NJDEP Bureau of Coastal Engineering 

1Iererord Inlet 1o Cape tvfay Inlet 30 Appendix G.2 .. Comments on DraH Report 
1287

Correspondence from Wildwood Crest dated 4 March 2014. 

This correspondence was responded to in a letter from the District to the Municipality on 21 March 2014 

contained on the following page. 
1288

REPLY TO ATTI::NTIOHOF 

CENAP-PL-PC 

Honorable Carl H. Groan 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PHILADEU'HIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WANAMAKER BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3390 

Mayor, Borough of Wildwood Crest 

6101 PacificAvenue 

Wildwood Crest, New Jersey 08260 

Dear Mayor Groan, 

2 t 2014 

Thank you for your letter dated March 4, 2014 regarding the Hereford lnlet to 

Cape May Inlet feasibility study. This study was done in partnership between the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protectron (NJDEP) and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps). I am writing to respond to the questions and comments you 

expressed jointly with Commissioner Gould and Commissioner Cabrera on the draft 

feasibility report for this study. 

As noted in your letter, the primary purpose of the study is to provide flood risk 

management In response to your specific comments: 

Comments 1 and 2. Dune height and berm width. Alternative plans were formulated 

and a recommendation was made in accordance with our requirements to follow 

National Economic Development (NED) procedures. Alternative dune heights ranged 

from +12 ft NAVD88 to +i6 ft NAVO 88 with a berm width of75 ft at elevation +6.5 ft 

NAVD88. Each alternative was evaluated for completeness, effectiveness, efficiency 

and acceptability and analyzed for inundation, wave attack and erosion. The 

recommended NED plan includes the +16 ft dune height Your suggestion to reduce 

the recommended dune height from +16 ft to +12 ft would more than double the 

average annual damages (from $306,000 to $654,000). This additional flood risk 

($348,000 ln average annual damages} precluded a +12 ft dune plan from being the 

recommended NED plan. 

Your letter also suggests compensating for reduced dune height with a wider 

dune base and I or establishing an elevated berm in front of the dune. In response, the 

Corps determined that the recommended NED plan required a 75 ft wide berm at +6.5 ft 

NAVD88 for Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. This additional beach fil! 

will help stabilize the dune, prevent ponding and ensure the integrity of the project and 

its eligibility for Federal repair in the event of a declared Federal emergency. However, 

this addition will not compensate for a lower dune height in terms of reducing the effects 

of storm surge and dune overtopping. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape }.,fay Inlet 31 Appendix G.2.,Comments on Draft R~ort 
1289

Comment 3. Excavation process and outfall stabilization. The backpassing will be 

done in such a way as to protect public safety, avoiding unsafe holes or depression and 

be graded during construction to the slopes indicated on cross sections shown in the 

report. Outfalls will be strengthened as needed to consider any change in wave forces 

attributed to backpassing excavation. 

Comment 4. ADA-Compliant Dune Crossovers. All will be constructed with slopes not 

exceeding 12:1. 

Comment 5. Structural integrity of existing outfall pipes. The Corps will analyze the 

existing conditions and ensure structural integrity with the project in place. 

Comment 6. Emergency access with dune in place. The Corps will consider this during 

the design phase and investigate the possibility of including a vehicular gravel access 

road between the existing bulkhead and the proposed dune. 

Comment 7. Dune erosion. Erosion of the· dune would be restored in both scenarios 

you describe, i.e., as part of a periodic nourishment cycle (if needed) and under 

emergency repair (FCCE) .if damaged in a declared emergency. 

Comment 8. Without project damages and benefits of alternative plans. This topic was 

discussed at a meeting in Wildwood Crest on February 19, 2014. The information we 

presented at the meeting is summarized in the table below. The data indicate that the 

average annual storm damage reduction benefit for the recommended NED plan, with 

the dune crest at +16 ft NAVD88, is $860,000, whereas the average annual benefit for 

the +12 ft NAVD88 dune plan is $512,000, reflecting the significant damage reduction 

benefit for Wildwood Crest associated with the recommended plan. 

4 

5 

I hope this information is helpful and I look forward to continuing to work with you 

in the future. Please call Mr. Brian Bogle at 215-656-6585 or me at 215-656-6540 if you 

have any additional questions. 

Sincerely, 

CC: Christopher Constantino, NJDEP 

2 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !vfay Inlet 32 Appendix G.2 .. Comments on Drafl Report 
1290

Bogle, Brian P NAP 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Gentlemen 

Monday, March 10, 2014 1246 PM 

Bogle, Brian P NAP; christopher.constantino@dep.state.nj.us 

[EXTERNAL] Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet draft feasibility study 

On behalf of Seapointe Village, please accept this email as formal comment during the open 

public comment period regarding the Hereford Inlet to Cape May inlet draft feasibility study. 

L Seapointe Village takes no position regarding the study, and is neutral on dune height as 

proposed throughout the island, reserving concerns for any changes to dunes on Seapointe 

Village property. 

Seapointe Village is concerned and objects to the method of borrowing sand from off-shore 

areas to build the dunes. 

The bathing beaches along the Wildwoods have historically been very safe. 

2. Removing sand from these beaches, especially so close to the tide lines) will create a drop 

off. 

3. Seapointe Village is concerned about the effect of this drop off, the change in tides and 

potential for disturbing and changing the conditions along the bathing beaches of the 

Wildwoods to the detriment of the bathers. 

Considering the interdependency of the natural attractions of the ocean and beaches and their 

value as economic drivers, Seapointe Village is opposed to this specific aspect of the 

feasibility study. 

Thank you. 

-

General Manager 

Seapointe Village 

Ikrdord Inlet to Cape ~fay Inlet 

1 

33 .\ppendix G.2 .. Conmwib: on Drall Repot1 
1291

Email from Seapointe Village Association dated 10 March 2014. 

I. Most of the material to be removed from the beach is in Wildwood Crest and Wildwood. The 

comparison of the without project model runs and the with project model runs indicate shortening the 

beach and creating a dune will reduce storm damages project wide. 

2. The existing slopes to the beach will be maintained at I :30 in the offshore to reduce steep drop-offs 

and pits. 

3. The plans currently do not have any material being excavated from Lower Township. Any adjustment 

to the profiles will be the result oftl1e shoreline reaching equilibrium between Lower Township and 

Wildwood Crest, not the direct removal of material from the Township. 
1292

March 7,2014 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

Attn: Brian P. Bogle 

Project Manager, Coastal Planning Section 

State of New Jersey 

Dept. of Environmental Protection 

1510 Hooper Ave 

Toms River, NJ 08753 

Attn: Christopher. Constantino 

Environmental Services Specialist 

Re: New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Draft Feasibility Request dated December 17, 2013 

It was a pleasure speaking with you at the public meeting in North Wildwood on 

February 21, 2014. Thank you for the opportunity to review the report and allow us to 

formally comment on some areas of concern. I am writing to follow up and inquire about 

how we can more fully engage in the discussion. 

As I noted at the meeting, we were happy to hear that you are considering adding or 

increasing the size of the berm in front of the dune based on recent discussions you have 

had with the municipalities involved. We agree that this is a needed enhancement to the 

current plan. 

J. Our greatest concern relates to the proposed location of the dune which is shown to pass 

under our four piers at varying distances from the boardwalk. We understand from your 

comments at the meeting that one of the reasons for this preliminary location was out of 

consideration for access to the piers. We appreciate this concern and can agree that 

access is one of the many issues that need to be addressed. However, much more 

concerning to us is the fact that unlike the protection offered the other public and private 

facilities on the island, this scheme leaves our four piers ( and the two directly to the 

north) essentially tlllprotected. 

While a benn will afford some measure of protection, one significant nor'east-0r can 

remove the largest of berms leaving us tlllprotected until the beach is replenished. We 

strongly feel that all six of the island's boardwalk and entertainment/amusement piers are 

an integral part of the community and require protection at least as substantial as that 

heing provided the rest of the island. It is important that we continue this discussion and 

look forward to hearing from you regarding how we can most effectively contribute. 

M-0-r-ccy's S.urfi.Itifg,f~ij1\1'}ti8tSi%P:f~r1r\\1~k Landing PtE't ~ f'for1',y'1i Advenh1J4P1er., 0-ce<.'Hl Oaslt WateiPlW·!r1'.1~Q-ai:tfC'll!Bq1"~1J?[~Ji£.Jrg_~a_ter-par-k 

3501 Boardwalk.Wildwood, NJ 08260 phone. 609]29.3700 (eve~ 609]29.0788 www.Morey.sPiers.com 
1293

New Jersey Shore Protection Study 

March 7, 2014 

Page2 

2. Additionally, in an effort to clarify the issues that have come up during discussions with 

the municipalities regarding the various activities that occur on the beach that directly 

relate to the location of the dlllle, we have developed a plan of the island delineating the 

different areas which will be created once the dune project is complete. We are currently 

sharing this plan with the municipalities and will be happy to forward once we have been 

able to complete these discussions. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Director 

~~ of Construction 

Enclosure 

MG/am 

cc: Mayor Patrick Rosenello, City of North Wildwood 

Mayor Ernie Troiano, Jr., City of Wildwood 

Mayor Carl Groon, Borough of Wildwood Crest 

Will Morey 

Jack Morey 

Hereford Inlet lo Cape Atay Inlet J5 Appendix G.2 .. Commcnts on Draft Report 
1294

Correspondence from Morey's Pier dated 7 March 2014. 

1. The final design will evaluate exact dune locations in order to reduce impacts to the piers and the 

location of the borrow area relative to the piers. We can also evaluate small changes to the location of the 

dunes to prevent flooding on certain sections of the piers, and/ or betterments and improvements to the 

design during the Planning Engineering and Design phase to reduce storm impacts. 

2. We look forward to discussing your future recreation plans for the project area. 
1295

CHRIS CHRJSTIE 

Governor 

KIM GUADAGNO Lt~Gowrnor 

Peter R. Blum, Chief 

Planning Division 

U.S. Army Corps ofEnglneers 

Wanamaker Building 

J 00 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

~tm uf ~ efu Jhi:ra.ei;? 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONME>'ITAL PROTECTION 

Division of Land Use Regulation 

Mail Code 501-02A 

P.O.Box420 

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0420 

w.w,.state.ni.us/deo/landuse 

RE: Federal Consistency & Section 40 l Water Quality Certificate 

File No.; 050Q.-03-000Ll (CDT 130001} 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet - Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project 

North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, and Lower Township 

Cape May County 

Denr Mr. Blum; 

BOB MARTIN 

Ccmmissio11er 

HAR 01 2014 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Land Use Regulation, 

acting under Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L 92-583) as amended, agrees 

with the certification that the above reforenced project is consistent with the approved New Jersey Coastal 

Management Program and New Jersey's Rules on Coastal Zone Management N.J.A.C. 7:7E-Ll .§.I~ 

as amended on April 16, 2013. This determination also authorizes a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate 

for the authorized work. 

The proposed project site is located along the Atlantic Coast shoreline of New Jersey from 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and includes work within North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood a·est 

and a portion of Lower Township. The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers has proposed be11n and dune 

restoration utilizing sand (1,362,000 cubic yards) which will be hydraulically back-passed from the 

beaches of Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. This sand will then be utilized to provide 

beach nourishment material to' reduce storm damage in the form of a storm protective benn and dune in 

North Wildwood, Wildwood and Wildwood Crest, with a dune only in Lower Township. The proposed 

dune will be at elevation + 16 NAVD88 with a crest width of 25 feet and a 75 foot wide be11n with an 

elevation of +6.5 feet. Side slopes for the dune will be IV:5H and 1V:30H for the seaward slope of the 

benn. To maintain the design template, the ACOE is conditionally authorized to perform periodic 

nourishments of 305,000 cubic yards of sand every four years following the completion of the initial 

project. 

The proposed project includes the installation of approximately 64 acres of dune grass, 28,000 linear 

feet of sand fence, 44 extended crossovers, 7 new pedest1ian crossovers, 7 extended handicap crossovers, 

6 new handicap crossovers, 8 existing vehicle crossover extensions and 5 new vehicular crossovers. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape 1lay Inlet 36 Appendix G.2 .. Comments on Dm[l Report 
1296

#0500-03-0001.! CDTJJOOOl 

This consistency determination is issued subject to compliance with the following 

conditions. 

1. Prior to commencement of work and/or site preparation, all authorizations and/or easements from 

all owners of property within the project area must be obtained. 

2. Prior to commencement of work and/or site preparation, final engineering plans must be 

submitted to the Division of Land Use Regulation for final review and approval. 

3. federally endangered shorebird nesting areas are located in the northern inlet section of the beach 

and north and west of the terminal groin in North Wildwood. Therefore, for the protection of 

these species, no work shall occur within this nesting area between March 1511' and August 31 '' of 

any given year. 

4. Proposed work (i.e., dune taper area) adjacent to the Hereford Inlet area may potentially 

impact/disturb nesting Piping Plover and Least Terns, therefore authorized work within this area 

may not be pe1fo1111ed during the timing restriction from March 15-August 31 of any given year. 

Ptior to the placement of any snow fence within this area, the pennittee must coordinate with 

ENSP and USFWS to determine the appropriate methods to ensure beach nesting bird habitat is 

either not impacted or that the impacts have been minimized to the maximum extent possible. 

5. Should any habitat for a currently listed Federal or State Threatened or Endangered shorebird 

species be identified on any portion of the beach within the duration of this Federal Consistency 

Determination, the ACOE shall cease work and immediately contact USFWS and ENSP to 

detem1ine whether the borrow and placement areas have become suitable/active habitat for 

nesting birds. Work may not proceed until this coordination has been completed and the USFWS 

and ENSP authorize resumption of work. No work is authorized within any nesting habitat that is 

identified within the life of the project. 

6. Should any additional species and/or species habitat be added to the Federal and/or State 

Threatened and Endangered Species protection list that may occur within the scope of this 

project, the ACOE shall contact USFWS and ENSP for further evaluation and guidance. In such 

an event, the Department reserves the right to impose additional timing restrictions. 

7. Within 90 days of conducting any four (4) year nourishments the ACOE shall provide DLUR 

with the information listed below. Future maintenance work authorized by this Federal 

Consistency detennination shall not commence until the ACOE receives written notification from 

this office that the work may proceed in accordance with existing or modified conditions. 

• An updated list of plover nesting areas and other beach-nesting birds that may be present 

( e.g., least tern or black skimmer), 

• Locations and numbers of any seabeach amaranth plants discovered, 

• Limits of proposed work, proposed volume of sand, proposed areas of dune maintenance 

or re-construction, 

• Vehicle access points and travel corridors, 

• Material stockpile and equipment storage areas, 

• Anticipated schedule of activities. 

Hereford Inlet 10 Cape ~fay Inlet 37 Appendix G.2.,Commcn1s on Draft Report 

New Je1~rey is an Equal Opportunity Employer ti Printed 011 Recycled Paper and Req,clablc 
1297

#0500-03-0001.1 CDT13000I 

8. A!l dune creation areas must be planted with "Cape" American beachgrass or a species listed in 

the Standards Applicable to Dune Creation and Maintenance (7:7E-3A.3) within the following 

planting season. Native dune vegetation must be planted in the mid to late spring, annually, to 

establish vegetative cover on the dune in accordance with the specifications contained in 

Guidelines and Recommendations for Coastal Dune Restoration and Creation Projects (DEP, 

1985) and/or Restoration of Sand Dunes Along the Mid-Atlantic Coast {U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service, 1992). These documents are available upon request from the Department's Division of 

Land Use Regulation, PO Box 439, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0439, (609) 292-0060. 

Dune vegetation should be limited to a variety of the following coastal species: American 

Beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata), Coastal Panicgrass · (Panicum amarulum), Baybeny 

(Myiica pennsylvanica), Beach Plum (Prunus maritima), Seaside Ooldem-od (Solidag 

sermpervirens), Beach Pea (Lathyrus japonicus), Sea Oats (Uniola panicnlata), Bitter Panicgrass 

(Panicum amarurn), and even Saltmeadow Cordgrass (Apratina patens). 

This Fedeml Consistency is antlwri:zed pursuant to all parties following the guidelines set forth, 

and agreed upon, for the construction of the proposed stmctures. 

Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.44, the Division reserves the right to object and request remedial action 

if this proposal is conducted in a manner, or is having an effect on, the coastal zone that is substantially 

different than originally proposed. 

Thank you for your attention to and cooperation with New Jersey's Coastal Zone Management 

Program. If you have any questions regarding this detennination, please contact Colleen Keller of our 

staffat(609) 633-2289_ 

Sincerely, 

C: John Gray, Office of Pennit Coordination and Environmental Review 

Marty Rosen, Division of Coastal and Land Use Planning 

Christopher Constantino, NJDEP Bureau of Coastal Engineering 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 38 Appendix G.2.,Comments on Draft Report 
1298

Correspondence from the NJDEP dated 7 March 2014 

1. Concur. All necessaiy easements will be obtained by the Non-Federal Sponsor prior to constrnction. 

2. Concur. Final plans will be submitted to the Land Use Regulation Program for final review. 

3. Concur. If endangered birds are present in the project area, no work in the nesting area will occur 

between March 15th and August 3l't. In addition, the appropriate buffer areas around the nesting sites 

will be utilized. 

4. Concur. If endangered birds arc present in the project area, no work in the nesting area will occur 

between March 15th and August 31 't . In addition, the appropriate buffer areas around the nesting sites 

will be utilized. Sand fence placement will be coordinated \Vith NJDEP and USFWS to minimize impacts 

to beach nesting birds. 

5. Concur. The Corps will notify USA CE and ENSP of the presence of any nesting activity, or foraging 

birds in the project area based on the guidelines established in the 2005 Biological Opinion for buffer 

zones and seasonal restrictions. 

6. Concur. Any additions to the Federal and/or State Threatened and Endangered Species protection list 

will be coordinated with USFW and ENSP. 

7. Concur. The ACOE will provide the DLURP with the infom1ation ifs requested prior to the beginning 

of any four year nourishment cycle. 

8. Concur. Native dune vegetation will be provided for planting. 
1299

CHRIS CHRISTIE 

Governor 

KIM GUADAGNO 

Lt. Governor 

John C. Becking, P.E. 

jita:t.e a£ ~efn Wnstv 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

NATURAL & Hlsroruc RES01 JRCES 

Office of Engineering and Constructions 

501 East State Street 

Mail Code 501-0lA 

P. 0. Box420 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 

Tel. 609-292-9236 FAX 609-984-1908 

April 9, 2014 

Lieutenant Colonel, US Army Corps of Engineers 

Philadelphia District 

Wanamaker Building 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Reference: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Dear Colortel Becking: 

BOB MARTIN 

Commissioner 

The purpose of this letter is to confirm the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection's (Department) support of the US Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) recommended 

plan contained in the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study. The Department is 

committed to partnering with the USACE Philadelphia District and will continue to provide the 

staffing and support needed to complete the project. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 39 

Sincerely, 

Dave Rosenblatt 

Administrator 

Appendix G.2.,Comments on Draft R.:)port 
1300

NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR'S 

SELF-CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CAPABILITY 

FOR AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 

HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET PROJECT 

I, Adrienne Kreipke, do hereby certify that I am the Director ofBudget and Finance of the New 

Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection (the "Non-Federal Sponsor"); that I am aware of 

the financial obligations of the Non-Federal Sponsor for the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

Project; and that the Non-Federal Sponsor has the financial capability to satisfy the Non-Federal 

Sponsor's obligations under the Project Partnership Agreement for the Hereford Inlet to Cape 

May Inlet Project, consistent with Article XVII of the PPA. 

IN WITNES.S WHEREOF, I have made and executed this certification this ¥[ , •'}of L{ . 

ff'tv ' day of 

Hereford Inlet to Cape !\fay Inlet 40 Appendix G.2 .. Comments on Draft Rcpor 
1301

Appendix H. 

Public Access 
1302

H. Public Access 

The beach access plan includes pedestrian, handicap, and vehicle access over the project dune. 

Pedestrian access will consist of modular walkway accesses extending up and over the dune at 

skewed angles and bordered with sand fencing. Access will be provided at existing access points 

with spacing of Vz mile or less between each access point, at a minimum. Handicap access will 

be provided at regular intervals and will consist of timber deck ramps with handrails. Vehicle 

access will be provided and will consist of a geogrid ramps filled with densified sand. Final 

locations of access points will be coordinated with the sponsor and local communities during 

preparation of plans and specifications. 

Local communities may have special, site-specific requirements for beach access appurtenances 

that may require construction of additional access paths or modification of proposed access 

paths. This is conditionally acceptable to the Corps of Engineers so long as the access plans are 

fully coordinated with the Corps of Engineers to ensure no loss of project integrity and satisfy 

minimum access requirements, and coordinated with the Non-Federal Sponsor, the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, for adherence to State coastal zone regulations. 

Hereford Inlet to Cape :tvfay Inlet AppendixH. 
1303

Tota! 6,886 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Appendix H. 
1304

Hereford Inlet to Cape \fay Inlet Appendix II. 
(iii)

Honorable Paul Ryan 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

CIVIL WORKS 

108 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON DC 20310-0108 

r:J - 1 201s 

Speaker of the House of Representatives 

U.S. Capitol Building, Room H-232 

Washington, DC 20515-0001 

Dear Mr. Speaker: 

In response to a resolution by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

of the United States House of Representatives, adopted December 1987 and by the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works. of the United States Senate dated 

December 1987, and in response to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 

Public Law (P.L.) 113-2, the Secretary of the Army recommends a coastal storm 

damage reduction project for Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey. Initial 

construction will be undertaken under the authority of, and using funds provided in, 

PL 113-2. The proposal described in the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 

January 23, 2015, recommends authorization of periodic nourishment and any initial 

construction that will not be completed using PL 113-2 funding. The Secretary of the 

Army plans to implement periodic nourishment at the appropriate time, considering 

National priorities and the availability of funds. 

The project study was conducted to analyze and formulate plans for reducing 

coastal storm damages in the coastal communities located between Hereford Inlet and 

Cape May Inlet, Cape May County, New Jersey, resulting from Super Storm Sandy. 

The recommended plan is the National Economic Development plan. 

The plan consists of dune and berm construction using sand obtained from an onshore beach borrow source located at the southern end of Five Mile Island (the 

Wildwoods). It extends approximately 4.5 miles from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet 

and will encompass the towns of North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and 

Lower Township. The plan includes the planting of approximately 64 acres of dune 

grass, 28,000 linear feet of sand fence, 44 extended crossovers, seven new pedestrian 

crossovers, seven extended handicap crossovers, six new handicap crossovers, eight 

existing vehicle crossover extensions and five new vehicular crossovers. The sand will 

be pumped from the southern borrow area using mobile back-passing technology to 

hydraulically pump sand from the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest borrow source to the 

placement area. Initial construction for the project will remove approximately 1,527,000 

cubic yards (cy) of sand from the approved borrow zone, which includes a design 

quantity of 1,136,000 cy and advanced nourishment of 391,000 cy. Periodic 

nourishment is included in project design to maintain the integrity of the design beach 

template over the project period of analysis. Nourishment requirements were 

determined by considering losses resulting from diffusion of the design beach fill 
iv

planform and natural background erosion. Following the initial construction, 

approximately 391,000 cy of material will be back-passed every four years throughout 

the 50-year period of analysis for the periodic nourishment of the selected plan. The 

material will be placed in the same borrow area as used in the initial construction. Since 

the project would not have any significant adverse effects, no mitigation measures 

(beyond management practices and avoidance) or compensation measures would be 

required. 

Based on October 2015, (FY 2016) price levels, the total nourishment cost is 

estimated at $107,505,000 composed of the first cost of initial construction estimated 

$22,321,000 and a total of 12 periodic nourishments estimated at $85,184,000. The 

cost of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged or excavated material 

disposal (LERRD) is estimated at $1,350,000. The total estimated project cost includes 

monitoring costs estimated to average about $143,000 over the 50-year period for a 

total of $7,150,000. The operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement 

(OMRR&R) costs of the project after construction are estimated at about $155,000 per 

year. 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is the nonFederal cost sharing sponsor for all features. Cost sharing is applied in accordance 

with the provisions of section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 

1986, as amended by section 215 ofWRDA 1999, and is apportioned as follows: 1) 

Initial construction of the shore protection features are cost-shared at a rate of 65 

percent Federal (or $14,509,000) and 35 percent non-Federal (or $7,812,000), which 

includes LERRD costs; 2). Periodic nourishment is cost shared 50 percent Federal and 

50 percent non-Federal. Periodic nourishment costs are expected to be $6,204,000 for 

year 4 and 8, and $6,454,000 every four years thereafter, except in year 24, which 

assumes major nourishment is required at a cost of $8,257,000. In addition, 

nourishment activities include monitoring costs estimated to average about $143,000 

over the 50-year period for a total of $7,150,000; 3) The NJDEP would be responsible 

for all OMRR&R of the project after construction, with an average annual cost currently 

estimated at $155,000 over the 50-year period of analysis. The non-Federal sponsor 

will receive credit for the costs of LERRD toward the non-Federal share. 

Based on FY 2016 price levels, a 3.125 percent discount rate, and a 50-year period 

of analysis, the total equivalent average annual costs of the project are estimated to be 

$2,758,000, including monitoring and OMRR&R. The equivalent average annual 

benefits are estimated to be $6,461,000 with net average annual benefits of $3,703,000. 

The benefit-to-cost ratio is approximately 2.3 to 1. The project would reduce overall 

average annual coastal storm damages by about 41 % and average annual damages 

attributed to wave attack and rapid erosion, by about 69%. 

An Environmental AssesslT)ent (EA) was prepared in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The recommended plan has been identified as the 

environmentally preferred plan. Adverse environmental impacts have been avoided and 

minimized where practicable. The EA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact to 

-2-
 v

the environment, therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not 

required. No compensatory mitigation is required. 

The Independent External Peer Review was completed by Battelle Memorial 

Institute. The review comments resulted in expanded narratives throughout the report 

to support the decision-making process and justify the recommended plan. All 

comments from the above referenced reviews have been addressed and incorporated 

into the final documents. 

The Office of Management and Budget (0MB) advises that there is no objection to 

the submission of the report to Congress, but that the project would need to compete 

with other proposed investments for funding in future budgets. A copy of OM B's letter 

dated January 21, 2016, is enclosed. I am providing a copy of this transmittal and the 

0MB letter to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Water Development of the House Committee on Appropriations. I am also providing an 

identical letter to the President of the Senate. 

Very truly yours, 

\~ 

Ellen Darcy 

Assi ecretary of the :i:\rmy 

Enclosures 

{Civil Works) _) 

-3-
 vi 

8 Enclosures 

1. 0MB Clearance letter, dated January 21, 2016 

2. Finding of No Significant Impact, signed January 25, 2016 

3. Chiefs Report, January 23, 2015 

4. Letter from Department of the Interior, Nov 17, 2014 

5. Letter from the Environmental Protection Agency, Nov 13, 2014 

6. Sponsor Letter of Intent, April 9, 2014 

7. Project Slides 

8. Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Final Feasibility Report and Integrated 

Environmental Assessment, April 2014 (CD) 

-5-
 vii

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

WASHINGTON, D.C 20503 

January21,2016 

The Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 

I 08 Army Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20310-0 I 08 

Dear Ms. Darcy: 

As required by Executive Order 12322, the Office of Management and Budget has 

reviewed an April 2014 Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) feasibility study of the Hereford Inlet 

to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey, with a first cost of$21,794,000 (October 2014 price level) and a 

total cost of$104,966,000 (October 2014 price level). According to the Corps' report, the 

recommended project addresses wave and inundation damage, as well as erosion and municipal 

drainage issues, which are not part of the Corps' primary mission areas. 

Based on an analysis of costs and benefits, the Corps estimated that the benefit-cost ratio 

for the project is 2.30 to I at a discount rate of3.375 percent, which is the discount rate that the 

Corps is required to use for FY 2014 under section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1974 to evaluate and formulate its proposed water resources projects. According to the Corps, 

the equivalent benefit-cost ratio is 1.90 to I at a seven percent discount rate. The coastal storm 

damage reduction portion of the project has a BCR of l .58 to 1 at the seven percent discount 

rate. This is the discount rate that the Administration uses in the Budget to measure the 

performance of Corps construction projects whose primary purpose is to provide an economic 

return to the Nation. 

The Office of Management and Budget does not object to you sending this report to the 

Congress. When you do so, please advise the Congress that this project, like all civil works 

projects, will need to compete with other proposed investments for funding in future budgets. 

~e~u~'. 

~~ Associate Director 

Energy, Science, and Water 
 viii

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) 

FOR HEREFORD INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET 

STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, 

CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, (Corps) has 

conducted an environmental analysis of the construction of the Hereford Inlet to Cape 

May Inlet Storm Damage Reduction Project in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The Corps assessed the effects of the 

recommended plan in the Final Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental 

Assessment, dated 28 April 2014, which is incorporated herein by reference: 

• Construct a dune and berm extending approximately 4.5 miles from Hereford Inlet 

to Cape May Inlet using sand obtained from an onshore beach borrow source 

located at the southern end of Five Mile Island (the Wildwoods). The dune and 

berm will encompass the towns of North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest 

and Lower Township; 

• Plant approximately 64 acres of dune grass; 

• Construct 28,000 linear feet of sand fence, 44 extended crossovers, seven new 

pedestrian crossovers, seven extended handicap crossovers, six new handicap 

crossovers, eight existing vehicle crossover extensions and five new vehicular 

crossovers; 

• Pump sand from the southern borrow area using mobile back-passing technology 

to hydraulically pump sand from the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest borrow source 

to the placement area; 

• Remove approximately 1,527,250 cubic yards (cy) of sand from the approved 

borrow zone as part of initial construction, which includes a design quantity of 

1,136,000 cy and advanced nourishment of 391,000 cy; 

• Periodically nourish the beach to maintain the integrity of the design beach 

template over the project period of analysis. Nourishment requirements were 

determined by considering losses resulting from diffusion of the design beach fill 

planform and natural background erosion; 

• Back-pass approximately 391,000 cy of material every four years after initial 

construction throughout the 50-year period of analysis for the periodic 

nourishment of the selected plan. The material will be taken from the same borrow 

area and placed in the same location as the initial construction; 

The recommended plan was identified as the National Economic Development 

(NED) plan and is the environmentally-preferred alternative. All practicable means to 

avoid and minimize adverse environmental effects have been incorporated into the 

recommended plan. No compensatory mitigation is required. 
 ix

Consistent with the programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) in December 2005, the hydraulic back-passing of sand from 

Wildwood and Wildwood Crest for beach nourishment and restoration activities in 

North Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township would not likely 

jeopardize the continued existence of any species or the critical habitat of any fish, 

wildlife, or plant, which is designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended by P.L. 96-159. As required by the 

Biological Opinion, the Corps will undergo individual (Tier 2) consultation with USFWS 

prior to initial construction and each periodic nourishment cycle. 

Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a 401 Water Quality Certificate 

was obtained from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 

Based on the information developed during preparation of the EA, it was determined in 

accordance with Section 307 (C) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 that the 

plan complies with and can be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the 

approved Coastal Zone Management Program of New Jersey. A Federal Consistency 

Determination and Water Quality Certificate were received from NJDEP on 7 March 

2014. 

There are no known properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National 

Register of Historic Places that would be affected by the proposed activity. The plan 

has been designed to avoid archaeologically sensitive areas, and is therefore not 

expected to impact any cultural resources. The New Jersey State Historic Preservation 

Office concurred with this determination in a letter dated 26 December 2013. 

General Conformity under the Clean Air Act, Section 176 has been evaluated for 

the project according to the requirements of 40 CFR 93, Subpart B. The requirements 

of this rule are not applicable to this project because the total emissions from the 

project are below the conformity threshold values established at 40 CFR 93.153(b) for 

ozone (NOx and VOCs) in a marginal nonattainment area (100 tons of NOx and 50 

tons of voes per year). 

Technical and economic criteria used in the formulation of alternative plans were 

those specified in the Water Resource Council's 1983 Economic and Environmental 

Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. All applicable 

laws, executive orders, regulations, and local government plans were considered in the 

evaluation of the alternatives. It is my determination that the recommended plan does 

not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the human 

environment; therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not 

required. 

ljvfi ,,,, Date Michael A. Bliss, PE 

Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of 

Engineers District Commander 
 x

DAEN (1105-2-!0a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

2600 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, DC 20310-2600 

JAN 2 3 2015 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

THE SECRETARY Of< THE ARMY 

1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on the study of hurricane and sto1m damage 

reduction for coastal communities located between Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet, Cape 

May County, New Jersey. It is accompanied by the report of the district and division engineers. 

This repott is an interim response to a resolution hy the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, adopted December 1987 and by the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United States Senate dated December 1987 

and an interim response to PL 113-2, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. The resolutions 

requested the Secretary of the Army to review existing reports of the Chief of Engineers for the 

entire coast of New Jersey with a view to study, in cooperation with the State of New Jersey, its 

political subdivisions and ageneies and instrumentalities thereof, the changing coastal processes 

along the coast of New Jersey. Preconstruction engineering and design activities for the 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey, project will continue under the study authority 

cited above. The Corps of Engineers intends to undertake initial construction of the project 

under the authority of, and using funds provided in, PL 113-2. I am recommending that the 

Congress authorize periodic nourishment and any initial construction of the project that will not 

be completed using PL 113-2 funds. 

2. The rcpmting oHicers recommend authorization of the National Economic Development Plan 

that consists of a dune and berm construction using sand obtained from an onshore beach bmrnw 

source located at the southern end of Five Mile Island (the Wildwoods). The reconu11cnded plan 

extends approximately 4.5 miles from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet and will encompass the 

towns ofN01th Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. Dimensions of 

the project are a +16-foot Nmth American Verlical Datum 1988 (NAVD88) dune, with a 25-foot 

wide dune crest on a 75- foot wide berm that is +6.5-foot NA VD88 in elevation within N01th 

Wildwood, Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. Side slopes for the dune will be 

1 V:5H and slopes for the he1111 will he 1 V:30H. The plan includes approximately 64 acres of 

dune grass, 28,000 linear feet of sand fence, 44 extended crossovers, seven new pedestrian 

crossovers, seven extended handicap crossovers, six new handicap crossovers, eight existing 

vehicle crossover extensions and five new vehicular crossovers. The sand wHI be pumped from 

the southern b01rnw area using mobile back-passing technology to hydraulically pump sand from 

the Wildwood and Wildwood Crest bonow source to the placement area. Initial construction for 

the project will remove approximately 1,527,250 cubic yards (cy) of sand from the approved 

borrow zone, which includes a design quantity of 1,136,000 cy and advanced nourishment of 

391,000 cy. Periodic nourishment is included in project design to maintain the integrity of the 

design beach template over the project period of analysis. Nourishment requirements were 
 xi

DAEN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

determined by considering losses resulting from diffusion of the design beach fill planfotm and 

natural background erosion. Following the initial construction, approximately 391,000 cy of 

material will be back-passed every four years throughout the 50-year period of analysis for the 

periodic nourishment of the selected plan. Since the recommended plan would not have any 

significant adverse effects, no mitigation measures (beyond management practices and 

avoidance) or compensation measures would be required. 

3. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is the non-federal cost 

sharing sponsor for all features. Based on a March 2014 price level, the estimated total 

nourishment cost is $104,030,000, which includes the project first cost of initial construction of 

$21,600,000 and a total of 12 periodic nourishments at a total cost of$82,430,000. Cost sharing 

is applied in accordance with the provisions of Section l 03 of the Water Resources Development 

Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended by Section 215 of WRDA 1999, as follows: 

a. Shore protection features are cost-shared at a rate of 65 percent federal and 35 percent 

non-federal for the initial construction. Thus the federal share of the project first cost is 

$14,040,000 and the non-federal share is estimated at $7,560,000 which includes the costs of 

land, easements, rights-of~way, relocations, and dredged or excavated material disposal areas 

(LERRD). LERRD costs arc estimated at about $1,270,000. The non-federal sponsor will 

receive credit for the costs of LERRD toward the mm-federal share. 

b. Periodic nourishment will be cost shared 50 percent federal and 50 percent nonfederal. It is expected to have costs of $5,950,000 for year 4 and 8, and $6, 190,000 every four 

years thcreaner, except in year 24, which assumes major nourishment is required at a cost of 

$7,920,000. In addition, nourishment activities include monitoring costs estimated to average 

about $138,000 over the 50-ycar period for a total of$6,900,000. 

c. The NJDEP would be responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, 

and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the project after construction, an average annual cost currently 

estimated at $150,000 over the 50-ycar period of analysis. 

4. Based on a 3.375-pcrcent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent 

average annual costs of the project arc estimated lo be $2,669,000, including monitoring and 

OMRR&R. All project costs arc allocated to the authorized purpose of shoreline protection. The 

recommended plan has average annual benefits of$6,252,000. The net national economic 

development (NED) benefits of the project arc $3,583,000 and the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) is 

2.3. In addition to providing protection from coastal storms, the dunes and berm create habitat 

for bird nesting and coastal plant species. The 64 acres of Cape American Beach Grass has the 

potential to develop into a more diverse plant community in a stable dune system. This project 

should benefit the piping plover habitat in the North Wildwood by stabilizing the beaches 

through regular periodic nourishment and improve the overall quality of the beach habitat. 

2 
 xii

DAEN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

5. Risk and uncetiainty has been explicitly factored into the economic analysis of this project. 

Chapter 6 of ER 1105-2-100, entitled "Risk Based Analysis for Evaluation of 

Hydrology/Hydraulics and Economics in Shore Protection Studies" specifics the analysis 

requirements for shore protection projects, the fundamental requirement being that all shore 

protection analyses adopt a life cycle approach. A risk and uncertainty analysis that incorporated 

key economic, hydraulic and sea level change parameters was preformed for the feasibility 

study. This risk and uncetiainty plan was peer reviewed by the Jacksonville District of the A1my 

Corps of Engineers and approved by North Atlantic Division. The project is not intended to, nor 

will it, reduce risk to loss of life during major storm events. Loss of life can only be prevented 

by residents and visitors following the local evacuation plans that are already in place. These 

residual risks have been cmrununicated to the NJDEP. 

6. In accordance with the Corps of Engineering Circular (EC 1165-2-212) on sea level change, 

the study performed a sensitivity analysis to look at the effecis that different rates of accelerated 

sea level rise could have on the recommended plan. The plan was fo1mulatcd using a historical 

or low rate of sea level rise of0.013 feet/year. The sensitivity analysis used additional 

accelerated rates, which includes what the EC defines as intermediate and high rates of0.023 

feet/year and 0.056 feet/year, respectively. The analysis found that the influence of current sea 

level rise on the project is relatively low as compared to other factors causing erosion (waves, 

currents, winds and storms). The magnitude of the short-term storm induced erosion during 

hurricane events have a much greater effect along the New Jersey coastline than those indicated 

by the natural long term shoreline trends. Adaptive management will be used including 

monitoring and adding additional volume of sand during periodic nourishments to compensate 

for significant accelerated sea level rise beyond the ctment observed rate should it become 

necessary. 

7. In accordance with the Corps of Engineers Circular (EC 1165-2-214) on the review of 

decision documents, all technical, engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic 

and rigorous review process to ensure technical quality. This includes a District Quality Control 

review, an Agency Technical Review (A TR), an Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) 

(Type 1), and a Corps Headquarters policy and legal review. The IEPR was completed by 

Battelle Memorial Institute. All comments from the above referenced reviews have been 

addressed and incorporated into the final documents. Overall, the reviews resulted in 

improvements to the technical quality of the report. 

8. Washington level review indicates that the project recommended by the rcp01iing officers is 

technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and economically justified. The plan 

complies with all essential clements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and 

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land related resources implementation 

studies and complies with other administrative and legislative policies and guidelines. Also, the 

views of interested patiies, including federal, state and local agencies have been considered. 

During the State and Agency (S&A) review, comments were received from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Other 

3 
 xiii

DAEN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May lnlct, New Jersey 

agencies indicated they either had no comments or provided none. The EPA reiterated a 

comment on the draft report concerning the potential for erosion at dune cross over locations due 

to their alignment. The Corps responded that the final report had addressed the concern, and the 

seaward side of all of the vehicular and pedestrian crossovers would be constructed at an angle to 

the dune, not perpendicular, in order to enhance dune resiliency. The DOI commented on the 

consideration given to borrow from the inlet area and the potential listing of the Red Knot as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The Corps responded that the 

recommended plan has no borrow from the Hereford Inlet. The Corps has been engaged in 

Endangered Species Act consullation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding 

the red knot, which was listed as a tll!'catcncd species following receipt of the DOI S&A 

comments. The district will coordinate any potential impacts related to this coastal project with 

the FWS and incorporate protection measures into the project plan as the design phase continues. 

9. I generally concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, [ recommend that the periodic nourishment associated with the project to reduce 

hurricane and storm damages for Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey and any initial 

construction of the project that will not be completed with PL 113-2 funds be authorized in 

accordance with the reporting officers' recommended plan, with such modifications as in the 

discretion of the Chief of Engineers may he advisable. The estimated cost of the project is 

$ I 04,030,000, which includes an estimated total cost for periodic nourishment of $82,430,000 

for 12 cycles of periodic nourishment and an estimated total cost of $21,600,000 for initial 

construction that would be reduced by any initial construction undertaken using PL 113-2 funds. 

My reconunendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applicable requirements of 

federal laws and policies, including Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act 

(WRDA) of 1986, as amended by Section 215 of WRDA 1999. This recommendation is 

subject to the non-federal sponsor agreeing to comply with alt applicable federal laws and 

policies, including that it will: 

a. Provide a minimum of 35 percent of initial project costs assigned to coastal storm 

damage reduction, plus I 00 percent of initial project costs assigned to protecting undeveloped 

private lands and other private shores which do not provide public benefits, and 50 percent of 

periodic nourishment costs assigned to coastal storm damage reduction, plus I 00 percent of 

periodic nourishment costs assigned to protecting undeveloped private lands and other private 

shores which clo provide public benefits, and as forthcr defined below: 

l) Provide alt lands, casements, and rights-of-way, including suitable bonow 

areas, and perform or ensure performance of all relocations determined by the federal 

government to be necessary for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and 

maintenance of the project; 

2) Provide during construction any additional amounts necessary to make its 

total contribution equal to 35 percent of initial project costs assigned to hurricane and storm 

4 
 xiv

DAEN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

damage reduction plus 100 percent of initial project costs assigned to protecting 

undeveloped private [ands and other private shores which do not provide public benefits; 

b. Operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the completed project, or 

functional portion of the project, at no cost to the federal government, in a maimer 

compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable federal 

and state laws and regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the federal 

government; 

c. Give the federal government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a 

reasonable manner, upon property that the non-federal sponsor, now or hereafter, owns or 

controls for access to the project for the purpose of inspection, and, if necessary, after 

failure, to perform by the non-federal sponsor, for the purpose of completing, operating, 

maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the project. No completion, operation, 

maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation by the federal government shall relieve 

the non-federal sponsor of responsibility to meet the non-federal sponsor's obligations, or 

to preclude the federal government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to 

ensure faithful performance; 

d. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the initial 

constrnction, periodic nourislunent, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 

rehabilitation of the project, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United 

States or its contractors; 

e. Perform, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances 

that are detennincd necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous 

substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, that may 

exist in, on, or under lands, casements, or rights-of-way that the federal government 

determines to be required for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and 

maintenance of the project. However, for lands that the federal government determines to 

be subject to the navigation servitude, only the federal government shall perform such 

investigations unless the federal govemmcnt provides the non-federal sponsor with prior 

specific written direction, in which case the non-federal sponsor shall perform such 

investigations in accordance with such written direction; 

f. Assume complete financial responsibility, as between the federal government and 

the non-federal sponsor for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA 

regulated materials located in, on, or under lands, casements, or rights-of-way that the federal 

government determines to be necessary for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, 

operation, or maintenance of the pr~ject; 

5 
 xv

D/\EN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

g. Agree that the non-federal sponsor shall be considered the operator of the project 

for the purpose of CERCLA liability, and to the maximum extent practicable, operate, 

maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the project in a manner that will not cause liability 

to arise under CERCLA 

h. Participate in and comply with applicable federal Ooodplain management and flood 

insurance programs. 

i. Not use federal funds to meet the non-federal sponsor's share of total project costs 

unless the federal granting agency verifies in writing that the use of such funds for the project is 

authorized; 

j. Prevent obstructions of or encroachment on the project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) which might reduce the 

level of protection it affords, hinder operation and maintenance or future periodic nourishment, 

or interfere with its proper function, such as any new developments on project lands or the 

addition of facilities which would degrade the benefits of the project; 

k. Not less than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of protection 

atforded by the project; 

I. Publicize floodplain information in the area concerned and provide this information 

to zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development 

in the floodplain, and in adopting such regulations as may be necessary to prevent unwise 

future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the 

project; 

m. For so Jong as the project remains authorized, ensure continued conditions of 

public ownership and use of the shore upon which the amount of federal participation is 

based; 

n. Provide and maintain necessary access roads, parking areas, and other puhlic use 

facilities, open and available to all on equal tenns; and 

o. At least twice allllually and after storm events, perform surveillance of the beach to 

determine losses of nourishment material from the project design section and provide the results 

of such surveillance to the Jcderal government. 

l 0. The recommendation contained herein rcOects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing the formulation of individual projects. It docs not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to Congress as a 

6 
 xvi

DAEN 

SUBJECT: New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the sponsor, the state, interested federal agencies, and other pmiies will be advised of 

any significant modifications and will be afforded an oppo1iunity to comment further. 

7 

~£o41/( 

Lieutenant General, USA 

Chief of Engineers 
 xvii

United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY 

ER 14/683 

Mr. Theodore A. Brown, P.E. 

Chief, Pl~nning and Policy Division 

Directorate of Civil Works 

lJ.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CECW-P(SA) 

770 I Telegraph Road 

Alexandria, VA 22315-3860 

Washington, DC 20240 

NOV 1 7 2014 

9043.l 

PEP/NRM 

RE: Proposed Chief of Engineers and the Report of the District Engineer on the 

New Jersey Shore Protection Project 

Dear Mr. Brown: 

The U.S. Department ol'!he Interior (Department) has reviewed the U.S. Army Corps or 

Engineers (Corps), Chief of Engineers Report and District Engineers Report to include the Final 

Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment for the New Jersey Shore Protection Project, 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet. 

General Comments 

The Corps is authorized under the Water Rcsomces Development Act 1986 (PL 99-662) and 

other Federal authorities to provide storm damage reduction, beach restoration, and water quality 

improvements from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, Cape May County, New Jersey (study 

area). Although the study area extends from Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, no activities will 

be conducted on Hereford Inlet beaches north of lhc terminal jetty, al the Cape May Inlet, on the 

Cape May National Wildlifo Refuge Two-Mile Beach, or at the U.S. Coast Guard's LORAN 

facility. 

The project area exhibits several clifforcnt coastal issues. The North Wildwood pottion of the 

project area is prone to moderate to severe erosion, leaving the surrounding community 

vulnerable to storm damages. The beaches of Wildwood and Wildwood Crest have been 

accrcting large quantities of sand, resulting in human health and water quality concerns due to 

clogged outfall pipes on the beach. The selected plan being proposed for the project includes 

"back-passing" sand, using mobile hydraulic dredges located in the surf zones from Wildwood to 
 xviii

2 

"back-passing'' sand, using mobile hydraulic dredges located in the smf zones from Wildwood to 

North Wildwood and changing the beach configuration in Wildwood by increasing berm height 

and adding a dune. 

Specific Comments 

The Hereford Inlet is listed as a potential borrow area (sub-areas H-1, H-2, H-3, and H-4) for the 

initial cycle of beach re-nourishment within the study area. Using Federal funds, the inlet sand 

was also used by the Corps to 1-e-nourish nearby beaches in Stone Harbor as recently as 2013 and 

was extensively studied by the Corps with vibracore technology from 1994 to 2007. The Coastal 

Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) (16 U.S.C. § 3594(a)) specifically prohibits federal expenditures 

and financial assistance for the following activities within units of the Coastal Barrier Resource 

System (CBRS): "the construction or purchase of any structure, appurtenance, facility, or related 

infrastructure", "the construction or purchase of any road, airport, boat-landing facility, or other 

facility on, or bridge or causeway to, any System unit", and ''the carrying out of any project to 

prevent the erosion of, or to otherwise stabilize, any inlet, shoreline, or inshore area with limited 

exceptions." 

According to the official CBRS map for the area (Stone Harbor Unit NJ-09/NJ-09P dated 

July 12, 1996), the proposed sand borrow sub-areas of Hereford Inlet are located within System 

Unit NJ-09 of the CBRS. Therefore, it is necessaiy to clarify the issue offederally fonded 

vibracore studies and beach nourishment activities and in relation to CBRA, specifically the 

assessment and removal of sand resources from within a unit of the CBRS for placement outside 

of the CBRS for beach re-nourishment. According to a previous clarification (enclosed) from the 

Department's Office of the Solicitor and by then U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Deputy 

Director Richard N. Smith, federal expenditures are prohibited in such cases (i.e., when the 

shoreline stabilization project falls outside the CBRS unit). 

Additional information is provided in the enclosed memorandum signed by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and the Corps in Januaiy 2013 outlining the Federal 

Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force's (FlFM Task Force) Consensus 

Recommendations and Actions from a Federal Floodplain Management Policy Analysis. Please 

note that the FIFM Task Force identified enhancing CBRA compliance across all Federal 

agencies as a recommended action on page 2 of the memorandum. We recommend that the 

Corps request a dete1mination pursuant to the CBRA for any proposed activity involving the use 

of federal funds within Unit NJ-09 of the CBRS (Hereford Inlet). 

The FWS developed an online mapper that depicts the approximate boundaries of the CBRS to 

assist Federal agencies in complying with the provisions ofCBRA. The CBRS mapper and 

additional information on the CBRA consistency consultations process for proposed projects can 

be found on the FWS's CBRA website at: h!.!p://www.fws.gov/cbra. 
 xix

3 

In the subject report (page 308, Volume I), the Corps refers to the red knot (Calidris canutus 

rufa) as a "Federally listed Candidate" that "will be present during construction activities ... and 

will easily be able to move away from the constnlction activities to another portion of the beach 

where they will not be disturbed." We note that a proposed rule to list the n{(a subspecies as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was published on September 30, 2013. The FWS will make a final decision 

on the 2013 proposal to list the n{(a subspecies as threatened under the ESA by November 28, 

2014. Therefore, the proposed activities by the Corps will occur within docmnented foraging and 

roosting habitat of the red knot and may result in harassment of a federally listed species. 

Federal regulation pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA, prohibit the take of endangered and 

threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such 

conduct. Harm is further defined by the FWS to include significant habitat modification or 

degradation that results in the death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential 

behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the FWS as 

intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an 

extent as to significantly disrupt n01mal behavior patterns, which include, but are not limited to, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 

Pursuant to Section 7(a)(l) of the ESA, all Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with 

the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the 

purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and 

threatened species. 

For any questions regarding these comments, and for fi1rther coordination related to the CBRA, 

fish and wildlife resources, or federally-listed threatened or endangered species, please contact 

Mr. Carlo Popolizio, FWS, New Jersey Field Office, (609) 383-3938, ext. 32; or email 

carlo popolizio@fws.gov. 

Enclosures 

Sincerely, 

/Yia,t:f ;w, (dw~ 

Willie R:. Taylor 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy 

and Compliance 
 xx

In Reply R!fer To: 

FWS/DHC/BCldR 

Memor;;ndum 

To: R~gionzl Director, Regions 2, 

Fro~Oirector 

Subject: Interpret at ion of S~ction 5 of the Cnastzl 8::.rrier lrnμrov,;:n.;nt 

f..ct of lS:?O 

A recent consu1ta~ioni.s.ubuiiit::d to the S;rv\c; from th:: U.5. P.:rmy Corps of 

Engine2;s pursuant to %?ct ion 6 cf t~:= Co1st1l s~rri::r R:"~oerc::s .t:.ct, (Ac:t) 

has r;quire.d clarification fr.::··:U th;: [1!:?crtr.1:::r:t of th:: lnt~riGr' s: Of fie:: cf 

the Solicitor re~arding Faderally fu~ded beach nc~t·ish~~nt activiti~s 

(Attachii"ient). More sp::cific~11y, th~ iSH!~ invo1 1n:s r2;:-,o•dng s~nd 

~ateri;ls from within a unit cf th~ Coastal aarr\~r R~scurc~s System 

(Syste:h) for p1c.C':::ile!1t outsid~ oft~:: 1Jriit for eros1c;1 ccntrJI r.:~c.sur~s. 

Section 5 of the Act sets forth s2v~r2l exc~?tions tot~~ s~~eral 

prchihition in sacticn S against Fed~ra1 ex?~~ditur;s ~ffs~ti~g the Sys~e~. 

The Exception in section 6(a){;J(G) is for 1'H0nstructural projects fer 

shoreline stab\l\zation that ~re ~;si;nEd to ~i~ic, enf;l~c~ 1 or rester~, 

natural st~bilization syst~~s" and that ar~ als~ c:~s\s~2fit with ths 

purpos~s of the Act. The o~~artmsn:'s Cffic~ of the Sa11citor has 

c2refully,reviawed this issu~ ~nd h2s 2dvissd ~s t~at s~ctlc~ 6(2)(E)(~) 

a~pli~s only to prcjects far sta~~1i1ing th~ shorelin~ cf i unit cf th~ 

Syst~~; it do~s net ~pply to proj~rts to st:~illz~ ~hcr~l\n~ oetsid~ th~ 

System regardless of whether th2 proj~ct might be consistEnt w~th th~ 

purp~s~s,of.~h~ Act. Th~r~f?~21_!nJ pr~?0s~d.F~deral. act~J~.dss~5n?d to 

nour1sn oe2cn2s located o~ts,ne 1n~ Sys~e~ cs,ng b~~cn matEr1~l taken rrcm within the Systsm dces not ra~Et the criteria for a section 6(a)(E)(G) 

exception. 

If you have any questions rEg~rding this ~atter pl~;se cant~ct Lind; K!1sey 

of my staff ~t (703) 353-220!. 

Attachm~nt 

cc: 3012-HIB-FYS/Directorate KE~G1~~ ~ila 

301Z-MlB-FWS/CCU 

3012-KlB-FWS/AEA Fi1es 

3024-MiB-FWS/AES Files 

~00-i'..KLSQ-F'l'IS/DHC Fi 12 s 

412-ARLSQ-FWS/OHC/SC~K rii~s 

RICHARD N. SMITH 

FilS/OHC/3C\/R/LKe l s2y: bg: 05/20/S~: ( 703) 3 53-?. ?0 l 

Q: \DHC\KELSEY\SECT E. MEM 
 xxi

United States Department of the Interior 

ADDR£5S O~t.\''1116 tHR&CTOR, fl~lf r\H'l.>WJU>l.!r&R"..R\"l{X In Reply Refer To: 

FWS/DHC/BCWR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVJCE 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Major General Stanley G. Genega Directorate of Civil Works 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.\>/. Washington, D.C. 20314·1000 

Dear General Genega: 

JUNO 2 1994 

It has come to rny attention that some c1arification is necessary on the 

issue of Federally funded beach nourishment activities in relation to the 

requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Act), More 

specifically, the issue involves removing sand materia·is from within a unit 

of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (System) for placement outs·ide of 

the unit for erosion control measures. 

Section 6 of the Act sets forth several except.ions to the general prohibition in section 5 against Federal expenditures affecting the System. The exception in section 6(a)(6) (G) is for "Nonstructural projects for 

shoreline stabll ization that are designed to mimic, enhance, or restore, 

natural stabilization systems" and that are also consistent with the 

purposes of the Act. The Department of the Interior's Office of the 

Solicitor has carefully reviewed this issue and has advised us that sect·ion 

6(a)(6)(G) applies only to projects for stabilizing the shoreline of a unit 

of the System; it does not apply to projects to stabilize shoreline outside 

the System regardless of whether the project might be consistent with the 

purposes of the Act. Therefore, any Corps' proposed action designed to 

nourish beaches located outside the System using beach material taken from 

within 1:he System does not rneet the criter'ia for a section 6{a)(6)(G) exception. The Department's Office of the Solicitor has reviewed this 

issue and this specific correspondence and fully concurs with our position on this matter. 

A specific example of where this issue has arisen is relative to the Corps of Engineers proposed act ion for the use of a sand borrow area (Borrow Area 

113) within Unit NOl, Uttle Tybee Island, of the Coastal Barrier Resou1'ces 

System for a beach nourishment project outside of Unit NOL The U.S. fish 

and Wildlife Service's Atlanta Reg i ona'I Di l'ector wrote to your agency on April 5, 1994, expressing support for the formal opinion provided to the 

Corps of Engineers on August 2, 1993, by our Brunswick Field Office 

regarding your consultation request under the Act. The Atlanta Regional Director also supports the comments provided to your agency on the Joint 

Public Notice, dated February 14, 1994, and the Draft Environmental 

Assessment for the Tybee.Island, Georgia Beach Erosion Control Project 
 xxii

Section 934 Revaluation Report. This proposed action does not meet the 

criteria for a section 6{a)(6}(G) exception. 

Moreover, the Service believes the proposed project 1t1011ld not be consistent 

with the purposes of the Act. These purposes are to minimize the loss of 

human.life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and damage to fish, 

w11dl 1fe, and other natural resources associated with units of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System. Use. of this site would cause damage to the fish, 

wildlife, and other natural resources associated with Unit NDl, little 

Tybee Island. 

Taking sand from Borrow·Area #3 is likely to cause.erosion to the beaches 

of little Tybee Is'land. This area has been identified as important habitat 

for migratory birds and the federally protected loggerhead sea turtle and 

piping plover. In addition, the nearshore tidal portions of this site are 

important spawning, nursery and habitat areas for estuarine larvae, shellfish, and juvenile fish, including Georgia's number one sportfish, the 

spotted seatrout. Negative impacts to these species include increased 

turbidity, physical changes in tidal currents or channel locations that 

could affect migration of these organ·lsms. Furthermore 1 Little Tybee Island has been designated as a Natural Heritage Preserve to protect the 

natural, historical, and cultural values for the benefit of the public. 

Relative to the Little Tybee Island proposed project, I support the 

position of our Field and Regional Offices. I strongly reconrnend that the 

Corps find an alternative borrow site. The Service has previously stated 

that Borrow Areas Ill and #2, which are located outside the Sy.stem and ,~hich 

the Corps identified as possible alternative sites, would be acceptable to 

the Service, provided adequate testing is done to ensure that these areas 

contain suitable beach material. 

With respect to this issue in general, please clarify this issue for your Divisions and Districts. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. 

~e»~tJD IR ECTOR 

IDENTICAL LETTER SENT TO: 

Co 1 one l Wayne W. Boy, Savannah District 
 xxiii

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works) 

TO: Federal Interagcncy Floodplain Management Task Force Member Agencies 

SUBJECT: F!FM Task Force Consensus Recommendations and Actions from a Federal Floodplain 

Mnnagement Policy Analysis 

1l1c Federal lnteragency Floodplain Management (F!FM) Task Force was formed to promote, support, nnd 

encourage Federal agencies to formulate nnd implement progrnms and policies that: I) reduce the loss oflife 

and property caused by floods; and 2) protect and restore natural resources and functions of floodplains. It 

does this primarily through improving coordination, collaboration, and transparency among the federal 

agencies in floodplain management efforts; conducting studies of floodplain mnnagement activities; and 

improving alignment of federal programs. 

The Task Force has already made progress in canying out this mission. Specifically, it has: 

Convened a listening session with key stakeholders to identify and refine floodplain management 

issues and priorities. 

Developed guidance for Federal agencies on unwise use of floodplains. 

Conducted research on policies and programs that promote or interfere with good lloodplain 

management practices. 

Made numerous presentations at floodplain and flood risk management events to exchange 

infonnation relevant to the work of the Task Force. 

The Task Force has also provided a fornm for enhanced coordination and action on the part of individual 

member agencies, For example; 

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have 

jointly resolved several policy conflicts, including accounting for the National Flood Insurance 

Program requirements of 44 CFR 65.12 during Corps evaluation of flood risk management projects in 

the floodplain. Guidance has been distributed to the field offices of both agencies through jointly 

signed memorandums. 

The Corps has coordinated its Flood Risk Management and Silver Jackets Programs with FEMA 's 

Community Rating System Program to encourage and ussist communities in taking responsible steps 

to better manage their flood risk. 

FEMA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have updated an existing lnteragency 

Agreement to place Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) boundaries on Flood Insurance Rate 

Maps (FIRMs) and established n new !ntcragcncy Agreement to foe ilitate a digital conversion of the 

official CBRS maps and make changes that arc necessary as a result of erosion and accretion. 

At its meeting on July 27, 2012, the FIFM Task Force identified several opportunities and activities to 

enhance floodplain management effo11s at various levels of government and to help agencies become better 

stewards of public resources. 111cse activities were developed collaboratively by the Working Group of the 

Task Force, an interagency group with 19 representatives from the following agencies: 
 xxiv

Page2 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Depmiment of Agriculture 

Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Department of Defense 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

General Services Administration 

White House Council on Environmental 

Quality (Advisor} 

Some of these activities are recommendations to one or more federal agencies. Others describe actions that 

the Task Force will take and incorporate into its overall work plan to be carried out over the next 3-4 years. 

Some activities will involve further action by numerous federal agencies, while others are informational in 

nature. These opportunities and activities are categorized into four areas and are described below. 

Compliancf! . 

• Enbi:i:ri.c~.Co11,5tal Bi!rner Resources Act (CBRA) Compliance. Federal agencies operati!]g under 

CBRA, (16 U_;s.C. 3501.et seq\ are required to comply with its provisions, which are desigried to 

restrict federaJ¢x,penditures and financial assistance in the. development of coastal baJ'.riers l;lesignated 

as parfo(the C:i;!Rs: Section 3506(b)of CBRA also requires that each federal agency affec,ted l:>y 

CBRA. report.and certiJyarmually to the Department of the Interior (DOI) that the agency isjn 

coropilaoce ·v/ith the'.Jaw; Federal. agencies have not issued such certifications in recent yea~s. DOI 

williss.ue: a: meni!:iral\dl)m to federal agencies to remind them of iheir obligations under CBRA and 

requestthatthey proyide;I)Qlwith an annual letter certifying their compliance with the law\ as 

appropriate. 'rheJ'a~k.Force iecommends that federal agencies respond to D0l's request tci help raise 

awarene~s about,CDRA r\!quJrements.and ensure that sufficient policies and prot~ols are iri place to 

prevent the inapp(Opr,iate provision of federal financial assistance within the CBRS. 

As.sess and Enhance Executive Order (EO) 11988 Compliance. A recent study conducted by the 

Task Force indicated that implementation of facc111ive Order J /988: Floodplain Management may 

not be consistent across the federal government. Effective and consistent implementation of the EO 

will save lives and property, reduce the economic and environmental impacts of flooding in 

communities, and reduce costs to taxpayers across the country. Given the impacts of more extreme 

precipitation events anticipated as a result of climate change, flood losses will likely increase, thus 

further highlighting the impor!Mce of EO l 1988. To address this issue, the Task Force will drnft a 

memorandum for CEQ's consideration and issuance, requesting federal agencies that have adopted 

regulations and implementing guidance to assess their EO compliance and effectiveness of 

compliance and to take appropriate action where necessary. The Task Force will work with CEQ to 

assess responses. 

Toolsffechnology!Data 

Modernize Coastal Burrier Resource System (CBRS) Mnps. Many of the maps that delineate 

CBRS boundaries require updates in light of natural changes to the system that occur over time and to 

be consistent with current technology. Digitizing nnd modernizing these maps will help all federal 

agencies responsible for CBRA compliance as well as developers, surveyors, planners, floodplain 

managers, realtors and other stakeholders who need to know the ex net location of the CBRS unit 

boundaries. Homeowners, in particular, will hal'e a clearer understanding of whether their property is 

located within the CBRS, so they can more accurately determine whether they are eligible for federal 

financial assistance, including flood insurance - avoiding the discovery and cancellation of invalid 

flood insurance policies after claims are made. The Task Force recognizes the value of the 

modernization efforts already underway and recommends that !hey be continued and expanded, 
 xxv

Page3 

Enhance Technical Assistance to Communities in Coastal Areas. Coastal areas are home to over 

160 million people, support 66 million jobs and contribute $8.3 trillion to the U.S. economy. These 

areas are also prone to a number of natural hazards. As a result, it is critical that we provide coastal 

communities with the resources they need to make better decisions that reduce nood hazards. 111e 

Task Force will be exploring broader use of the Community Rating System as an incentive 

mechanism for coastal communities to make better floodplain management decisions. In addition, the 

Task Force plans to assess floodplain management-related technical assistance available to coastal 

communities and identify gaps that may need to be filled. 

Enhance Collaboration nnd Research on Mapping to Support Floodplain Management. Maps 

are powerful tools in noodplain management. TI1c Task Force will be working to assess and enhance 

data collection, distribution, collaboration and research relmed to mapping to support floodplain 

management. It will place special emphasis on identifying, quantifying or mapping the natural areas 

of floodplains and their beneficial uses and values. 

Improve the Link Between Agencies and Available Floodplain-related Research Capabilities. 

There are potential disconnects between agencies responsible for establishing and implementing 

policies that impact flood risk or floodplains and those agencies involved in scientific research and 

data collection. The Task Force will evaluate disconnects and establish a more fonnal mechanism for 

coordination so the available research becomes more broadly available and research needs are aligned 

with future research plans. 

Assess Federal Use of Flood Loss Data and Identify Potential Improvements in Collection, 

Dissemination and Use. Federal agencies are often asked to report on flood-related losses. This 

information is importa!ll for understanding the impacts of policies and programs in and around 

floodplains. Federal agencies collect and use nood loss data differently based on their missions and 

the needs of their stakeholders. The Task Force will convene key federal agencies to discuss what 

flood loss data they have, how they calculate flood losses, and how they use these data (e.g., policy 

questions they try to answer). The Task Force will compile this feedback to create a more 

comprehensive view of how flood loss data is collected, calculated and used within federal agencies 

and key, high-level similarities and differences. Based on this feedback, the Task Force will identify 

approaches for improving the collection, dissemination and/or use of flood loss data to enhance future 

policy decisions. 

Study the Benefits of Proteeting Natural and Beneficial Functions. Floodplains provide more 

value, or services, per acre than any other hind type. However, floodplains continue to be degraded 

by development and other aclivities that often cause hidden losses, both economic and environmental, 

for communities and the nation. The Task Force will conduct a review of existing infonnation to 

nsscss our current state of knowledge about valuing the natural resources and functions of floodplains. 

Based on this assessment, the Task Force wit! identify opportunities to quantify and/or qualitnlively 

describe the benefits that floodplains provide. 

Partners/tips 

Improve Silver Jackets Awareness and Participation. Silver Jackets intcragency teams promote 

valuable collaboration among federal and state agencies with respect to flood risk management. They 

focus on a common set of priorities and nre capable of more easily leveraging resources to solve 

problems. Involvement by federal agencies other Urnn FEMA and the Corps, however, has been 

inconsistent. Having stronger support for Silver Jackets teams from all agencies involved in flood 

risk and floodplain management will provide more resources and opportunities for collaboration to 

the Silver Jackets teams and promote more innovative and effective approaches to flood risk 

management. The Task Poree will prepare a memorandum to its member agencies and other 
 xxvi

Page 4 

interested agencies recommending that they designate a point of contact to coordinate their 

involvement in the Silver Jackets program. 

Coordinate Under Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PP0/18) Initiatives. PPD #8 provides an 

opportunity to improve floodplain management by providing a partnership venue to ensure assistance 

is available to integrate mitigation and floodplain management into recovery, mitigation and response 

policies, plans, programs, nnd decision making. TI1e FJFM Task Force is developing processes to 

ensure that it is coordinating closely with the leadership structure of the National Disaster Recovery, 

Mitigation, and Response Frameworks as developed under PPD 118, specifically as it relates to 

floodplain management. 

Comm1mlcatlo11 

Promote the Task Force Role in ResoMag Intcrngency Conflicts. One reason the Task Force was 

fonned wus to identify and address policy or programmatic conflicts among federal agencies that may 

be resulting in poor floodplain management decisions. The Tnsk Force will more actively promote its 

role in addressing these issues and oppo1tunities so other members of the floodplain management 

community are aware of the potential resource the Task Force can offer. 

As noted previously, many of the above recommendations will be merged into the Task Force's work plan. 

Participation by all federal agencies in support of Task Force efforts is encouraged. Please contact any 

member of the Task Force for further infom1ation on the work of the Tnsk force or its current activities. 

Dd~~$~U~·' 

Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administration 

Co-Chair, FIFM-TF 

Date: ~d-¢~--

J -l llen Darcy --

As stant Secretary of the Anny (Civil Works) 

C Chair, FfFM-TF 
 xxvii

UNITEt> STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 2 

NOY 1 3 2014 

Peter R. Blum, P.E. 

Chief, Planning Division 

290 BROADWAY 

NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866 

Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers 

Wanamaker Building, JOO Pe1m Square East 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-3391 

Dear Mr. Blum: 

This letter is in response to the New Jersey Shore Protection Study, Hereford Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet, Final Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment (EA). The document 

addressed hurricane and stonn damage reduction alternatives for the coastal communities located 

between Hereford Inlet and Cape May Inlet, in Cape May County, New Jersey. 

The selected storm damage reduction plan will entail backpassing sand obtained from the 

beaches of Wildwood, Wildwood Crest and Lower Township to create a dune and benn. These 

locations are experiencing beach accumulation that is impacting municipal outfall systems that 

drain stonn water to the ocean. The excess sand will be used to form a continuous dune and 

berm within North Wildwood, which is experiencing beach erosion, as well as Wildwood, 

Wildwood Crest and Lower Township. The sand for the dune and berm will be transported 

using a mobile back-passing technology to hydraulically pump the sand from within the 

intertidal zone. The plan includes periodic nourishment every four years. The sand for 

nourishment efforts will be sourced from the approved borrow zone. 

In our review, we did not notice whether our comment regarding the orientation of entry 

points/access paths along the dune was addressed so we are reiterating our recommendation. 

Access paths are often created perpendicular to the shore, resulting in significant dune erosion 

dudng intense Storms and greater inland impacts. High force waves gain power as they push 

through the narrow passages causing increased erosion and flooding. Reduced flooding was seen 

after Super Storm Sandy behind dunes that had paths at a 45 degree angle rather than 

perpendicular to the shoreline. EPA continues to maintain that this modification could enhance 

the resiliency of the beaches and we recommend the inclusion of this infonnation in the decision 

document for the project. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Racyclod/Recyclable • Printed with Vogatable Oil Based Inks on Reeyol&d Papor (Minimum 60% Pootconsumor content) 
 xxviii

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions concerning this letter 

please feel free to contact Stephanie Lamster ofmy staff at 212-637-3465. 

Sincerely, 

Grace Musumeci, Chief 

Environmental Review Section 
 xxix

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

Planning and Policy Division 

Ms. Grace Musumeci 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

441 G STREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20314-1000 

DEC 2 2 2014 

Chief, Environmental Review Section 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 2 

290 Broadway 

New York, NY 10007-1866 

Dear Ms. Musumeci: 

This letter is in response to your comments on the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Shore 

Protection Project provided in a letter dated November 13, 2014. We value and appreciate your 

commentary on the proposed project. 

In regards to the orientation of the proposed entry points/access paths along the dune, we 

apologize if the response contained in our report was unclear. The plans contained in the report 

show the seaward side of all of the vehicular and pedestrian crossovers would be constructed at 

an angle to the dune, not perpendicular in order to enhance dune resiliency during storm events. 

The information is specifically contained in Volume 3, Appendix G-2, page 16 of the repo1t. 

Again, we thank you for the commentary that you have provided. If you would like to 

discuss these issues fmthcr, please contact the review manager, Lee Ware, at (202) 761-0523. 

Sincerely, 

,--Jl-&tNJ/ [J,_0\AJ-J''0 

Theodore A. Brown, P.H. 

Chiet: Planning and Policy Division 

Directorate of Civil Works 

Pririled on (i) Recycted Paper 
 xxx

CHRIS CHRISTIE 

Governor 

KlM GUADAGNO 

Lt. Governor 

John C. Becking, P.E. 

jibd:.e of ~.efn J.erstij 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVJRONMh'NTAL PROTECTION 

NA11JRAL & Hl8TOR!C RESOURCES 

Office of Engineering and Constructions 

50 l East State Street 

Mail Code 501-0lA 

P. 0. Box420 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 

TeL 609-292-9236 FAX 609-984-1908 

April 9, 2014 

Lieutenant Colonel, US Army Corps ofEngineers 

Philadelphia District 

Wanamaker Building 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Reference: Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study 

Dear Colonel Becking: 

BOB MARTIN 

Commissioner 

The purpose of this letter is to confirm the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection's (Department) support of the US Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) reconunended 

plan contained in the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study. The Department is 

committed to partnering with the USACE Philadelphia District and will continue to provide the 

staffing and support needed to complete the project. 

Sincerely, 

( 

Dave Rosenblatt 

Administrator 


d iti I d 

11111 

... I 

I 

... 
 xxxiv
II 

.... 

1111 

1. 
 xxxvi
 xxxvii
 xxxviii

-
• Use of natural dune elevations, berm elevations, side slopes 

• Consideratio
Non•strucft.1rat 

Alternatives 

NoAotion Berm & Dune1Restoratibrt1:1sing 

Regulatton of future development . Berm & Dune ~estoratioii fr~mia

Permanent evacuation Groins 

Excc1vat~ ;5a~d from in Front of 

Extend Outfalls 

c:dtt1bineciutfalls' 

Bulkhead around Piers 

Rerttov~'J\'nic~ments 

Hereford. ln[etCllannel'Maintena

. Gioteifile ftibes 
com 

1111 

... 

ft 5 

ft 

ft 

• 
 xlii
+ + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

DESIGN SAND FILL 

ONSHORE VOLUME 

TM 

-

g~~~~o~lASt[~~E 

20 

SEAWARD EDGE 

151-- OF BERM 

10 

'i I TOP OF BERM +6.5 

i 5 

ti I MHW +1.35 0 

5 

I MLW -2.75 

~-

-10>--

-15 

ADVANCED 

NOURISHMENT 

PORTION OF DESIGN 

OFFSHORE VOLUME 

Pl.ACED ONSHORE 

DU

-20 

--900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 

DISTANCE FROM SURVE.Y S\SEUNE (f'EET) 

HEREFO

lYPICH.. B

EL
I! 

I 

-

l-1 

DESIGN SAND FILL 

ONSHORE VOLUME 

MHW +1.35 

Ml.'IL..::.U5. 

Wildwoo

- BORROW AREA 

VOLUME 

TOP OF DESIGN SLOPE VARIES, BEflM____±fi.5 

EXISTING BEACH PROFILE (VARIES)~OP OF DUNE ELEV 

...... 11*- --1 _.J 75

--1 VARIES 300' TO 11 oo· 

-151 .lnn 4inn .lnh .Lnn .lnh .Lnn t!M .. t'lft n~ Jnn ..,k 

DISTANCE FROM SURVEY BASELINE 

NOTES: 

I. EXACT LIMITS OF BORROW AREA MAY VARY FROM THAT SHOWN HERE, BASED ON EXISTING 

BEACH CONDITIONS ANO DREDGING EQUIPMENT SELECTED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 

2. CENTERLINE OF NEW DUNE IS LOCATED ALONG THE SEAWARD EDGE OF THE EXISTING DUNES 

IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE SAND VOLUME REQUIRED 

3. NEW DUNE VEGETATION IS NOT SHOWN. 

HEREF

TYPICAL 

B£A
2, 

DESIGN SAND FILL 

l.:..:.:.:..:.! ONSHORE VOLUME 

DU

" ;: r ,, .. "' ,, 

Ii .MLW ...::2. 75- 

- 

crl -1100 I 1 b -90D - 

-1 -1&00 -1~00 -1bti 1!00 -lb! ikm -l~~l!iTANCE FROM ~E {FEET) 

EXISTING BEACH PROFILE (VARIES)~ TOP OF DESIGN 

, BERM +65 

___J 75' [_

NOTES: 

1. CENTERLINE OF NEW DUNE IS LOCATED ALONG THE SEAWARD EDGE OF THE EXISTING DUNES IN ORDER TO 

2. NEW DUNE VEGETATION IS NOT SHOWN. 
• 

I 

!Ill 

Ill 

11111 

1111 

!Ill 

• I 

Ill 

Ill 1 

11111 

• 
• 

I 

1111 

Ill 

1111 

Ill 

Ill 

1111 

1111 I-VI.JO 

II 

1111 
$1. 

$ 
 xlix

w 

0 

·-'+-' 

co 

s..,_ 

Q.) 

-0 

·-(/') 

C 

0 

() -

co 

+""' 

C 

(]) 

0 

s..,_ 

·-

lllll 
Ii 

Ill 13 

Ill. 

on 
I I 

111 - 

111 < :nnrr~~r A\M~rn I J~TA - '/4 J 16 

1111 -15 
1 

Ill 

II