High-resolution, sea-floor mapping techniques, including sidescan-sonar and subbottom profiling, were used to investigate how the geologic framework of the inner-continental shelf influenced the Holocene evolution and modern behavior of the Fire Island barrier-island system, Long Island, New York. The inner-continental shelf off Long Island is divided into two physiographic provinces by a broad outcrop of Cretaceous coastal-plain strata offshore of Watch Hill; this outcrop was part of a subaerial headland during the Holocene marine transgression. Erosion of the headland during transgression furnished sediment to the inner-continental shelf downdrift to the west. The sediment was, in turn, reworked by oceanographic processes into a series of shoreface-attached sand ridges. The oldest (~1200 yr BP) and most stable part of the barrier-island system is immediately landward of the outcropping coastal-plain strata and thickest sand ridges. East of Watch Hill, Pleistocene sediment either is exposed on the inner-continental shelf or is buried by a veneer of modern reworked sediment. Here the barrier-island system has migrated landward at a faster rate than the segment west of Watch Hill and has been breached by numerous historic inlets. Because the Pleistocene sedimentary deposit is generally of uniform thickness throughout the study area and unconformably overlies the Cretaceous coastal-plain strata, both the Holocene and historical evolution of the Fire Island barrier-island system are controlled by the physiography of this regional unconformity. In particular, the shoreface-connected sand ridges appear to be a significant source of sediment to the western portion of Fire Island. Previous attempts to develop a sediment budget for this coastal system have failed to explain volumetric discrepancies, primarily because poor assumptions were made about the nature of sediment transport in the system. A more realistic sediment budget must include a significantly larger spatial scale, including sediment input from the inner-continental shelf.

New York↗

USGS2000

The use of mathematical models to predict beach behavior for U.S. coastal engineering: A critical review

A number of assumed empirical relationships (e.g., the Bruun Rule, the equilibrium shoreface profile, longshore transport rate equation, beach length: durability relationship, and the renourishment factor) and deterministic numerical models (e.g., GENESIS, SBEACH) have become important tools for investigating coastal processes and for coastal engineering design in the U.S. They are also used as the basis for making public policy decisions, such as the feasibility of nourishing recreational beaches. A review of the foundations of these relationships and models, however, suggests that they are inadequate for the tasks for which they are used. Many of the assumptions used in analytical and numerical models are not valid in the context of modern oceanographic and geologic principles. We believe the models are oversimplifications of complex systems that are poorly understood. There are several reasons for this, including: (1) poor assumptions and important omissions in model formulation; (2) the use of relationships of questionable validity to predict the morphologic response to physical forcing; (3) the lack of hindsighting and objective evaluation of beach behavior predictions for engineering projects; (4) the incorrect use of model calibration and verification as assertions of model veracity; and (5) the fundamental inability to predict coastal evolution quantitatively at the engineering and planning time and space scales our society assumes and demands. It is essential that coastal geologists, beach designers and coastal modelers understand these model limitations. Each important model assumption must be examined in isolation; incorporating them into a model does not improve their validity. It is our belief that the models reviewed here should not be relied on as a design tool until they have been substantially modified and proven in real-world situations. The 'solution,' however, is not to increase the complexity of a model by increasing the number of variables. What is needed is a thoughtful review of what beach behavior questions should or could be answered by modeling. Viable alternatives to the use of models do exist to predict the behavior of beaches. Three such alternatives to models are discussed for nourished beach design.

Journal of Coastal Research↗

USGS2000