WOODS HOLE a GROUP Feswseace WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM MEMORANDUM DATE June 26, 2018 TO Town of Marshfield Planning Department FROM Woods Hole Group Main Telephone: (508) 540-8080 Memorandum #11: Existing Conditions - Marshfield Shoreline and Green Harbor “The memorandum summaries existing conditions along the Town of Marshfield shoreline and within the outer Ce nctarbor system east of Dyke Road. lnformation provided in this memorandum was obtained from the following existing studies, databases, and web sites. ‘Town of Marshfield Assessors Database (Town of Marshfield, 2018) Green Harbor River Tide Gate Study (Applied Coastal Research & Engineering, 2017) NHESP Priority and Estimated Habitats of Rare Species (MassGIS, 2017) Marshfield Beach Management Plan (Woods Hole Group, 2018) Coastal Processes Study and Resiliency Recommendations for Duxbury Beach and Bay (Woods Hole Group, 2016) «cae Erosion, Sediment Transport, and Prioritization Management Strategy Assessment for Shoreline protection Scituate, Massachusetts (Applied Coastal Research & Engineering, 2016) «= Brant Rock and Fieldston Areas Marshfield, Massachusetts Hurricane and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Report Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Assessment (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2016) « Constal Marshfield Brant Rock (Hewitt’s Point) Marshfield, Massachusetts ~ Draft Environmental ecozament, Finding of No Significant Impact and Section 404(b)(2) Evaluation for Section 24 (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2016) «= Hoad insurance Study Plymouth County Massachusetts (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2016) ‘Town of Marshfield, Massachusetts 2015 Master Plan (VHB, 2015) Marshfield Harbor, Rivers, and Waterways Management Plan (Marshfield Waterways Committee, 2018) Wave Information Studies (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2014) « Miixtachosetts Shoreline Change Mapping and Analysis Project, 2013 Update (Thieler et.al, 2023) Sea Level Rise Study ~ Towns of Marshfield, Duxbury, Scituate, MA (Kleinfelder, 2023) «Green Harbor River Tidal Hydraulics Study (Applied Coastal Research & Engineering, 2007) 81 Technology Park Drive, East Falmouth, MA 02536 USA aa 1: +1 808540.8080 F: +1 508.540.1001WOODS HOLE a GROUP frou since WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM * South Shore Coastal Hazards Adaptation Study (Metropolitan Area Planning Council, 2011) Inlet Hydraulics at Green Harbor Marshfield, Massachusetts (Weishar and Aubrey, 1988) ‘* MassDEP Wetlands (MassGIS, 2009) USACE and Town dredging records Marshfield Coastline A Shoreline Change Information on historical shoreline change along the Town of Marshfield coastline was obtained from the Massachusetts Shoreline Change Mapping and Analysis Project, 2013 Update (MSCP; Thieler et. al, 2012). The MSCP compiled relative positions of shorelines between 1844 and 2009 for all seaward facing coastal areas within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The MSCP included shoreline positions in Marshfield for the following years: 1858, 1952, 1978, 1994, 2000, 2001, and 2008. Shorelines for the mid-1800s to 1994 were derived primarily from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) topographic map sheets (T-sheets) and aerial photographs. Shoreline data for 2000 were derived from LIDAR. The 2001 and 2008 shorelines were digitized from high resolution color orthophotography. The shoreline positions obtained from NOAA T-sheets, aerial photographs and high-resolution orthophotographs used the high water line (HWL) as the shoreline proxy, while the LIDAR-derived shorelines used mean high water (MHW). To correct for differences between the two shoreline proxies, the MSCP applied a proxy-datum bias correction to the rates of shoreline change, This correction was applied to reconcile the horizontal offsets between the MHW and HWL shoreline proxies Both long- and short-term rates of shoreline change were determined by fitting a least squares regression line to the shoreline positions measured at 2 series of shore normal transects. Long-term rates for the Town of Marshfield were computed using all seven (7) shorelines between 1958 and 2008 (Figure 1), while the short-term rates were computed using the five (5) shorelines between 1978 and 2008 (Figure 2). The slopes of the regression lines at each transect were the rates of shoreline change. Negative values indicate erosion and positive values indicate accretion. The rates of shoreline change in Figures 1 and 2 are labeled in feet/year for every third shore ‘normal transect; the transects are also color coded to indicate rates of change. Figures 3 and 4 show graphs of long- and short-term rates of shoreline change with the 90% confidence interval bands as a function of location along the shoreline from north to south. Long-term rates of change shown in Figures 1 and 3 indicate areas of erosion and accretion. At the northern end of town the long-term data are influenced by the presence of Old North River inlet, which was present In the vicinity of Rexhame Beach in the 1858 shoreline dataset. Changes in shoreline position associated with this inlet, including its closure following 1858, result in higher rates of shoreline change on the order of +2.4 to -2.7 ft/yr. Between Rexhame Beach and approximately 5" Street the data show an average long-term erosion rate of -0.3 fi/yr. Between 5 Street and Brant Rock the long-term data show accretion rates that range from +0.1 to +0.5 ft/yr. The headland area south of Brant Rock shows long-term erosion (-0.1 ft/yr), while long-term data for the Bluefish Cove area indicates an average accretion rate of +0.6 ft/yr. South of Green Harbor the long-term trend 's primarily erosion, especially when the shoreline straightens out and extends beyond the influence of the jetties. The short-term rates of shoreline change in Figures 2 and 4 generally show more variability than the long-term rates, in part because shoreline change that occurs over a short time span is characterized by cyclic or episodic nonlinear behavior. The higher short-term variability also increases the uncertainty of the rates relative to the long-term data. The more recent shoreline change data for Marshfield shows erosion in the area of Rexhame 2of32woons HOLE GROUP frewsoace WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Beach. The area between the public beach and Rexahme Road shows significant short-term accretion with average rates of +2.3 ft/yr. South of Rexahme Road the trend in shoreline change switches to erosion, with rates gradually tapering to 2 more stable shoreline in the area south of Brant Rock. Short-term shoreline change in Bluefish Cove is erosional with an average rate of -0.5 ft/yr. South of Green Harbor the short-term trend is. erosional with an average rate of 1.0 ft/yr. In many places along the Town of Marshfield coastline, the ability of the shoreline to retreat has been impacted by the construction of seawalls and revetments. Historically the shoreline was able to retreat, but once the hard structures were encountered, continued landward migration was halted. In these cases, the elevation of the beach generally lowers as storm waves interact with the seawalls and sediment is pulled offshore. While this phenomenon is not reflected in the shoreline change data it continues to have a negative impact on the beach resource. a2. Tides and Storm Surge Tides along the Marshfield coastline are semi diurnal, with two high and two low tides of about the same height each day. The mean tide range is approximately 9.0 ft. Specific tidal datums for the open coast of Marshfield are presented in Table 1. Also shown in Table 1 are key storm surge elevations for the Marshfield shoreline. These surge elevations and return periods were obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (2016). Table 1, _ Tidal Datums and Storm Surge Elevations for the Marshfield Shoreline. Tidal Datum or Flood Condition Naiticen, | Tidal Flood 100-Year Return 95 Tidal Flood 50-Year Return 91 Tidal Flood 10-Year Return 83 High Tide Line (HTL) 650 [ Mean Higher High Water (FW) aa ‘Mean High Water (MW) 08 wAvDRE ° ‘Wean Low Water (MLW) 457 | ‘Mean Lower Low Water (MLW) 529 3.0f32WOODS HOLE a GROUP Fron tence WOODSHOLEGROUP.cOM ‘GZM Shoreline Change | Long-Term Rates (18008-2008) Figure 1. Long-term linear regression rates of shoreline change for Marshfield. 4 0f32WOODS HOLE @ GROUP fsiwionce WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM C2M Shoreline Change Short-Term Rates (1978 - 2008) Figure 2. Short-term linear regression rates of shoreline change for Marshfield.WOODS HOLE a GROUP Frew since WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM x10! Long-Term Shoreline Change 0. Rexhame Beach 05 € @ & | 34 4 3 Sth Street e — ie ie 15) 8 2 3 Brant Rock a 2 Bluefish Cove Green Harbor 25 C ¢ - 0 5 10 15 Rate (ft/year) Figure 3. Long-term linear regression rates of change with 90% confidence intervals as a function of distance from north to south along the Marshfield coastline.WOODS HOLE @ GROUP Frewsoace WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM x10 Short-Term Shoreline Change ox 7 € iat ae £ 34 | 5 SthStreet FE 2 & £ a 15 8 £ 3 | Brant Rock a 2 Bluefish Cove —— | Green Harbor ; f 25) 1 & 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 Rate (ft/year) Figure4, _Shortterm linear regression rates of change with 90% confidence intervals as a function of distance from north to south along the Marshfield coastline. 7 0f 32WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frowconce WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM AB. Wave Climatology The regional wave climatology along the open ocean coast of Marshfield is the primary force that drives the local sediment transport pathways. In order to identify priority beach nourishment sites for beneficial reuse of sediment dredged from Green Harbor, an understanding of the regional wave climate is required. While detailed wave transformation modeling is beyond the scope of this study, there is much that can be learned about the regional wave climatology from offshore wave buoys, long-term hindcast data sets, and model studies conducted for the neighboring Towns of Duxbury and Scituate. The National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) and the US Army Corps of Engineers Wave Information Study (WIS) provide two different types of time series data for the Marshfield coastline (Figure 5). Table 2 provides information on the closest NDBC buoy and WIS station to the project area. Both datasets provide long-record time series wave data (30 years vs. 33 years) to characterize the offshore wave climatology. Review of the data indicates similar wave conditions at both sites. Figure 6 shows the distribution of significant wave height from WIS station 63059 ‘on a wave rose plot. The colors indicate the magnitude of the wave height, the circular axis represents the direction of wave approach (coming from) relative to true north (0 degree}, and the extending radial lines indicate Percent occurrence within each magnitude and directional band. Offshore Wave Data Nose a019 ? ms.sc88 . Figure 5. Wave data locations offshore of Marshfield. B0f32WOODS HOLE @ GROUP 5,252 WoopsHoLecRour.con Table2. Stes with Long-Term Wave Osta Near Marsh Station NDBC (44013) ‘WIS 63059. tatude 42358 a225"N Tongtude 70850 70a2W Water Depth a 22 me Period ye 62015 02012 vrei) . / 40 | . | LE : Figue6. Wave ros rom Wis Staton 62058 ‘The wave rose in Figure 6 indicates that most waves tend to arrive from the east (90 degrees), with higher energy events occurring from the northeast. Statistical analysis of the WIS data shows a significant wave height of 2.6 ft and a period of 7.8 sec for normal (average annual) conditions. Most of these waves approach from the east. Larger storm-generated waves that approach from the north northeast are summarized in Table 3, Table 3. Offshore Storm Waves at WIS Station 63059. [Event Storm Surge. Wave Height ‘Wave Period Wave Direction (f, Navas) i) (sec) (=n) To-Year 33 23 12.0 354 50-Year | 91 26.2 133 55.4 100-Vear 35 28.2 138 55.8 90f32‘WOODS HOLE a GROUP frewsonce WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM ‘As waves travel from offshore to the nearshore zone they undergo refraction, diffraction, shoaling and breaking at the regional and local levels. Both refraction and diffraction can have a significant impact on the effects that waves have on the shoreline, especially in areas where the shoreline is curved and irregular like the Marshfield coastline around Green Harbor. Wave refraction and diffraction produce an uneven distribution of wave energy along the coast and affect sediment transport rates and pathways. Detailed wave transformation modeling has been conducted by previous studies for the neighboring towns of Scituate and Duxbury (ACRE, 2016; WHG, 2016). Portions of the regional wave modeling from both of these studies include the Marshfield shoreline, and thus can be used to illustrate the effects of refraction, diffraction, and shoaling (Figures 7 and 8). ora “ wt Figure 7. Scituate regional grid output for average wave conditions from the north northeast (angle band = 33 deg, mean wave height = 4.1 ft, mean wave period = 5.6 sec; Figure from ACRE, 2016). 10 of 32,woops Hote & GROUP frowsisce WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Figure 8. Duxbury regional grid output for average wave conditions from the north northeast (angle band = 11.25 to 33.75 deg, mean wave height = 3.4 ft, mean wave period = 6.8 sec; Figure from WHG, 2016). ‘The reds and yellows in Figures 7 and 8 show areas of higher wave heights, while blues and greens show lower wave heights. The arrows indicate peak wave direction. Both regional wave models show the effects of shoaling and wave refraction in the vicinity of Green Harbor. The larger wave heights offshore of Brant Rock are indicative of areas of focused wave energy for this north northeast approach direction. The models also show reduced wave energy to the south of Brant Rock near the entrance to Green Harbor with waves from the northeast. In these cases, the headland at Brant Rock serves to shelter the Green Harbor entrance from the larger waves. Refraction around Brant Rock also results in changes in wave approach direction around Green Harbor. ‘The only source of site specific wave data for the south end of Marshfield near Green Harbors from a US Army Corps of Engineers Miscellaneous Paper published in 1988 (Weishar and Aubrey, 1988). Directional wave data were acquired off Green Harbor for nearly a full year from June 15, 1983 through June 1, 1984. The wave gage was deployed approximately 1.3 miles south southeast of the Harbor entrance. The study showed wave refraction in the region immediately offshore of the Harbor such that waves approaching the area at oblique angles were turned toward the entrance. This localized wave refraction was found to influence sediment ‘transport patterns in the area of Green Harbor. Aa ‘Sediment Transport Rates and Dire 11 of 32WOODS HOLE @ GROUP freowgince WoOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Information on sediment transport rates and directions was derived from a combination of aerial photography and review of existing studies. The large groin that connects the shoreline with Brant Rock suggests a net transport direction to the south in this area (Figure 9), but the paucity of sediment in the nearshore system further to the north provides few other visual indicators of trends in sediment transport direction. The coastal erosion and sediment transport study conduced in Scituate by ACRE (2016) found variations in sediment transport directions along Humarock Beach near the northern border of Marshfield. The gross transport model results (i.e., the total transport to both the north and the south directions) indicated that transport in both directions was nearly balanced, and the net transport at a specific location was generally a small value relative to the gross. Net rates between 500 and 3,000 cubic yards per year were modeled for the southern end of Humarock Beach In the absence of other more detailed data, sediment transport trends and rates for the northern end of Marshfield ‘were assumed to be similar to Humarock Beach. Figure 9. Google Earth image from April 14, 2017 showing evidence of sediment accumulation on the north side of the Brant Rock groin indicating net transport to the south. sof 32WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frowocs WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM ‘The WHG model study conducted for Duxbury (WHG, 2016) provides an indication of sediment transport at the southern end of Marshfield. Figure 10 shows potential net longshore transport rates from the WHG study for Duxbury Beach. The results indicate average annual sediment transport rates that move sand to the southeast away from beaches at the south end of Marshfield. Net transport rates in the area closest to Marshfield range from 25,000 to 35,000 cubic yards per year. isto Shoring ‘rosion Rats (Gasp2015, chapters) fem osteo tyr ex ess tyr S ser01yr = 220K Potent NetUstora ‘Transport Rate 5000 ascot ‘009i ‘4s000t0 $000 or Figure 10. Net longshore transport rates along Duxbury Beach (immediately south of Marshfield) from the WHG model study (Figure from WHG, 2016). 13 0f 32,WOODS HOLE @ GROUP Fasc! woonstotesrour.com Weishar and Aubrey (1988) looked at sediment transport directions and rates in the area surrounding Green Harbor. They found that sediment transport on the adjacent shorelines is primarily wave-dominated, Directional wave data collected during the study and small-scale refraction analyses were applied to an empirical equation linking sediment transport at and adjacent to the harbor entrance to breaking wave conditions. The resulting sediment transport directions and potential rates of transport are illustrated in Figure 10. Weishar and Aubrey (1988) found that sediment is transported towards the Green Harbor entrance from both the north and south. ‘Average potential transport to the south from the Brant Rock area was estimated at 26, 150 cubic yards per year, while approximately 8,500 cubic yards per year was found to be transported into the Harbor from the south. These values represent potential transport rates assuming ample quantities of sediment are available for ‘transport. Given the rocky nature of the coast to the north of Green Harbor, itis likely that the 26,150 cubic yards per year is a generous estimate, and the actual rates are somewhat lower. Figure 10. Sediment budget estimates from Weishar and Aubrey (1988) for the Green Harbor area. 14 0f 32‘WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frowidecce WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM The Weishar and Aubrey (1988) report suggests a total transport of 34,650 cubic yards per year into the Harbor Which compares well with the annual dredging records published by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The divergence in transport south of Green Harbor is also consistent with the regional wave transformation modeling conducted by ACRE (2016) and WHG (2016), and the estimated southerly transport rate of 17,650 cubic yards per year is similar to the WHG (2016) findings for transport rates along Duxbury Beach. Long-term shoreline erosion in the area south of Green Harbor (Figures 1-4) is also consistent with the transport divergence shown by Weishar and Aubrey (1988). AS. Sediment Characteristics Information on sediment characteristics along the Marshfield coastline was obtained from the Marshfield Beach Management Plan (WHG, 2018) and sediment sampling conducted specifically for this study in May 2018. Figure 111 shows the locations of sediment samples from each study. [name tonne 7 secret Pan “a mene ‘nmin sete ‘ei Figure 11. Locations of sediment samples collected to characterize Marshfield beaches. 15 of 32WOODS HOLE Qa GROUP acu sence WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM The sediment data provide insight on the local energy and/or sediment supply along the beach. For example, areas that have a higher percentage of coarser grain size material (gravel or cobble) are more likely to experience higher energy and/or have a reduced sediment supply. Table 4 provides summaty statistics for the Marshfield beaches and for sediment dredged from the navigation channel at Green Harbor during May 2018. In general, the beaches are composed of sand (48.9 to 99.9%) with moderate to moderately high percentages of gravel (5.1 105.8%). Itisinteresting to note that the beaches were considerably coarser during the May 2018 sampling period (CZM) than the previous August 2017 period sampled for the Beach Management Plan (BMP). Given the severe winter storm season of 2018, itis likely that much of the sand present during the previous summer had been transported offshore. While some recovery of the beaches was evident during the May 2018 sampling effort, itis possible that lower energy waves during the summer of 2018 will help to restore the finer sand-sized material to the beaches. Laboratory results for the May 2018 samples are provided in Appendix 1-1. Sediment from the navigation channel in Green Harbor is also predominantly sand (59.5%) with moderate percentages of gravel (37.7%. Given the variability in sediment characteristics found for the Marshfield beaches depending on sampling season, the sediment dredged from the navigation channel should be considered compatible with the nearby beaches, Table 4. __ Summary Grain Size Statistics for Marshfield Beaches. eation Deo (ram) %Gravel %Send [Sika Cay | Rexhame Beach 032 0.0 99.8 2 Sunrise & Fieldston (BMP) 037 5.4 93.9 Sunrise & Fieldston (CZM) 336 44.0 55.4 | Brant Rock 0.42 7.0 92.5 (Green Harbor South (SMP) 037 5 94.2 (Green Harbor South (CZM) 487 50.8 48.9) Green Harbor Channel 0.65 377 | 59.5, A& Environmental Resources Environmental resources along the Town of Marshfield coastline were evaluated using a combination of MassGIS data and on-site field investigations, Coastal beach, coastal dune, barrier beach, rocky intertidal shore and salt marsh resources shown in the MassDEP wetlands layer are shown in Figures 12 through 15. In areas with seawalls and revetments the primary wetland resource is coastal beach (Figure 12). Coastal dune resources are present in the areas without shore protection structures such as Rexhame Beach and Winslow Ave Beach, as well as around Green Harbor (Figure 13). Portions of the Marshfield shoreline around the South River and Green Harbor are also classified as barrier beach (Figure 14). Rocky intertidal shore resources are present between Brant Rock and Blue Fish Cove, just north of Green Harbor (Figure 15). Select ground photos of these resource areas are shown in Figures 16 through 18. Review of the MassGIS database indicates no eelgrass resources offshore of Marshfield’s beaches. The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (OMF) has designed areas offshore of Marshfield as suitable habitat for Blue Mussel and Surf Clam (Figure 19). Areas inside Green Harbor are also designated as suitable for Soft Shelled Clam, Blue Mussel and Surf Clam (Figure 19). 16 of 32,woops HOLE & Figure 12. FOR EARTH, Fron sPack GROU WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM MassDEP Wetland Resources, Coastal beach resources along the Marshfield shoreline (from MassGIS}. 17 of 32,‘WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frou sence WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM See ; Figure 13. Coastal dune resources along the Marshfield shoreline (from MassGIS).. 18 of 32,WOODS HOLE @ GROUP WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Figure 14, Barrier beach resources along the Marshfield shoreline (from MassGIS). 19 0f 32WOODS HOLE @ GROUP Frew conde WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM ‘MassDEP Wetland Resources IE nooer wrennontshowe —N Figure 15. Salt marsh and rocky intertidal shore resources along the Marshfield shoreline (from MassGIs}. 200632WOODS HOLE @ GROUP Frew conc WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Figure 16. Coastal beach resources backed by seawalls in the Green Harbor South (top photo) and Fieldston Beach (bottom photo) areas of Marshfield, 21 of 32WOODS HOLE @ For eanrs, GROUP Frew sence WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Figure 17. Coastal dune resources at Rexhame Beach (top photo) and low lying cobble dune resources at Winslow Ave Beach (bottom photo). 22032woons HoLe (4 GROUP Frswsince WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Figure 18. Rocky intertidal shore resources in the nearshore zone just north of Brant Rock Marshfield is home to five endangered species, three threatened species, and seven species of special concern, as listed by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). Habitats and estimated habitats at Rexhame Beach and in areas offshore of Brant Rock and Green Harbor have been mapped for Least Tern and the Piping Plover (Figure 20). 23 0f 32WOODS HOLE a GROUP fro gince WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Figure 19. Massachusetts DMF shellfish suitability areas along the coast of Marshfield. 24 0f 32WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM WOODS HOLE @ GROUP freisnce Figure 20. 25 0f32‘WOODS HOLE @ GROUP Frowsonce WoOODSHOLEGROUP.cOM Az. Property Ownership Review of the Town of Marshfield assessors database indicates that that very few shorefront properties are actually owned by the town (Figure 21). Despite this fact, the town provides public beach services at the following six (6) locations: Rexhame, Winslow Avenue, Fieldston, Sunrise, Brant Rock, and Green Harbor Beach. In the event that the Town of Marshfield or the US Army Corps of Engineers funds the beneficial reuse of sediment dredged from Green Harbor on any of these private beaches, it will be necessary to secure the appropriate easements from the property owners. The easements would grant in perpetuity a public on-foot right-of-passage along and across the shore of the coastline between the mean high water line and the entire nourished area. As part of the planning process for publicly funded beach nourishment, the Town of Marshfield has drafted sample "Beach Nourishment Easement”, “Release of Land Damage”, and “Notification Letters” that would be issued to all affected property owners in the event of @ nourishment project. Copies of these documents are provided in Appendix 1-2. Figure 21. Publicly-owned parcels in the Town of Marshfield 26 of 32WOODS HOLE @ GROUP 25 woopsHoLEBROUNCOH B. Green Harbor Green Harbor is located along the lower portion of the Green Harbor River, which at one time was a tidal stream. ‘meandering through salt marshes for a distance of about six miles. The current harbor occupies the lower 2/3 mile of the river below a dyke which was constructed in 1872 to reclaim the marsh lands above the dyke for agriculture. A road was built over the dyke in 1879 connecting the villages of Green Harbor and Brant Rock. Due to protection by natural features and proximity to prime fishing grounds, Green Harbor serves as a harbor of refuge for both recreational boats and commercial fishing vessels. Presently, Green Harbor is home to approximately 47 moorings used year-round by commercial vessels. ‘The entrance to Green Harbor is protected by two jetties. The east jetty is 645 feet long and the west jetty is 850 feet long. The original rubble mound jetties were constructed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1898- 1899. A 196-foot concrete wall was added by the state at the east jetty’s landward end in 1931, and until 1968 the state maintained the jetties and performed periodic maintenance dredging in the entrance channel and anchorage basin. In 1965 the federal government adopted the project under authority of the Rivers and Harbors ‘Act. The Army Corps of Engineers modified the jetties and sealed and lengthened the west jetty by 200 feet on the seaward end and raised the east jetty to 9 feet above NNAVOB8. ‘The federal navigation project at Green Harbor consists, of the following components (Figure 22): . A channel extending 4,000 feet from deep water to a six-foot deep turning basin located below the Route 139 Bridge. The channel design is six feet deep (MLW) from just inside the outer end of the jetties to the ‘turning basin and eight feet deep (MLW) from deep ‘water to just the inside jetties, and 100 feet wide. . ‘An anchorage six feet deep and five acres in the area adjacent to the Town Pier. Figure 22, Federal navigation project at Green Harbor. 27 of 32WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frorgince WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Ba. Shoaling and Dredging Green Harbor has a long history of shoaling and sedimentation problems. As 9 result, annual dredging by the US Army Corps of Engineers is required to maintain safe navigation to the anchorage area, town pier, and turning basin for the year-round commercial fishing fleet and many recreational boaters. US Army Corps of Engineers records show that maintenance dredging has been performed in the federal navigation channel thirty (30) times since the project was first authorized by the federal government in 1965 (Table 5). An average of 31,000 cubic yards of sediment per year must be removed from the channel to provide safe passage for boaters (Figure 23). Over the lifetime of the federally authorized project, approximately 900,140 cubic yards of sediment has been dredged from Green Harbor. Shoaling problems are typically focused on the outer portion of the channel between the ends of the jetties and the narrowest part of the channel known as the “narrows” where sediment tends to accumulate on a bar attached to the northeastern shoreline. Shoaling along the edges of this bar act to pinch the channel at the “narrows” causing constriction of the navigation channel. Historically, the US Army Corps of Engineers has used the Currituck dredge to maintain Green Harbor. The Currituck is a US Army Corps of Engineers split hull hopper dredge that hydraulically removes sediment from the channel, temporarily stores the sediment in its hopper, and then navigates to the approved disposal site where the sediment is released from the bottom of the hopper. During maintenance dredging in 2017 and 2018, the US Army Corps of Engineers utilized long reach excavators operating from the bar on the northeast side of the channel to remove coarse material (ie., cobbles and gravel) from the “narrows” in advance of the Currituck dredging. The long reach excavators were required to remove the coarser material that the Currituck cannot dredge. The excavators removed a mixture of sand, gravel and cobbles and temporarily stockpiled the material on the bar. Once the Currituck arrived to dredge the sandy outer portion of the channel, the excavators were used to mechanically load the Currituck with the coarser grained dredged sediment, This two-stage process of dredging the channel will be required as long as coarser grained sediments accumulate in the “narrows”. Table 5. _ History of Maintenance Dredging at Green Harbor. Work Dates Maintenance Dredging Work Accomplished Stat } ] 8-ft entrance channel with 2-f overdepth, 6-ft MLW inner channel, turning Jul 041973 | snd anchorage basins | un—sul1g77 | ®fentrance channel, ower end of 4 MLW inner channel, both to-6fE | 54 09g Mow ‘Mar 1980-F¥ | 8-ftentrance channel, lower end of 6ft MLW inner channel, both to-6ft |. ayy 1981 uw : Fy 1983 | 8-fe entrance channel, lower end of 6t MLW inner channel | oct 198s 8-ft entrance channel 30,000 Feb-Jul 1987 | &t entrance channel 36,000 28 0f 32WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frewsoace G ) WoOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Work Dates Maintenance Dredging Work Accomplished Sta May 1990 | ft entrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck | 2ae7s ‘Apr-Jun 1991 | 8-ftentrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck | 34,740 May 1992 | @ft entrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck 35,600 May-Jun 1993 | ft entrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck 51,800 May -Jun 1994 | t entrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck 30,101 May 1995 | 8t entrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck 23,060 May 1996 _| #tentrance channel, by US hopper dredge Currituck : 33,000 May 1997 _| 8t entrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck 19,000 May 1998 __| Bt entrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck 20,340 ‘Apr-May 1999 | ft entrance channel by US hopper dredge Currituck | 36,005 May 2000 _ &t entrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck [33360 | May-Jun 2002 | 8-ft entrance channel; by US hopper dredge Cucrituck 29,00 | May 2002 __| ft entrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck 16,070 May 2003. ft entrance channel by US hopper dredge Currituck 23,890 | May 2004 | ftentrance channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck 26,260 May 2005 | &t entrance channel and 6-f inner channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck | 25,500 apes 2007 | Sf etane chnnl andthe tine channel at he We arows: | eer ‘Apr-May 2010 | 6 ft inner channel and anchorage; by mechanical dredge 15,464 May2011 | B-ftentrance channeland 6ftinner channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck | 19,681 | May 2012 | ft entrance channel and 6-ft inner channel; by US hopper dredge Currituck | 10,565 May 2013 | eft entrance channel and 6-f inner channel 30,000 May 2015 _| ft entrance channel and 6-f inner channel 20,000 May 2017 __| ft entrance channel and 6-t inner channel 35,000 May 2018 | 8t entrance channel and 6-f inner channel Pending 29 0f 32WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frou ence WOODSHOLEGROUP.cOM History of Sediment Volume (cy) Dredged from Green Harbor 1977-2017 80,000 — 70000 | _ & sac = 50000 5 40.000 | x ‘$ 2000 - 4 - he: * Witalthiiihitl = HAM TE REREERSSGERERGRREREEEESE R225 Figure 23. Dredge volumes removed from Green Harbor since 1977 Dredged sediment removed from the federally authorized channel, turning basin, and anchorage area is deposited offshore at an approved location approximately 0.5 miles south of the Harbor entrance and approximately 0.3 miles offshore of the northern Duxbury coastline (Figure 24). Although the disposal site is located within the depth of closure for this area (calculated to be 32.1 ft MSL}, there are no data to indicate the sediment is benefiting ‘Marshfield or Duxbury beaches immediately to the west. Furthermore, review of the offshore bathymetry in the disposal area suggests that the dredged material may be dispersed over time, since the contours do not indicate the persistence of a seafloor mound. The beaches south of Green Harbor are some of the most critically eroded in the Town of Marshfield and would benefit by the direct placement of beach nourishment. 82. Remediation for Shoaling at Green Harbor ‘A number of studies have been conducted on the causes of shoaling at Green Harbor and recommendations have been made for remedial steps to alleviate the shoaling problem. Most recently, the US Army Corps of Engineers began a Section 216 study to evaluate alternatives for minimizing the need for annual maintenance dredgin the Harbor. Under Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611, 33 U.S.C. §549a), the US Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to review operations of a completed project. The 216 study includes an economic cost-benefit evaluation using existing studies to determine whether further study is warranted on alternatives for alleviating shoaling. If the review recommends further study, then a Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Small Navigation Project Study could be initiated under Section 107 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. As part of the current project funded by CZM, contact was made with the Project Manager for the US Army Corps of Engineers Section 216 study to discuss the status of the study (see Appendix 1-3). The study is looking at two potential alternatives for the site: (i) redesign of the jetty on the north side of the Harbor to reduce the volume of incoming sediment, and (li) creation of settling basin on the inside of the north jetty to reduce the frequency of Fequired maintenance dredging. Results of the Section 216 study were scheduled for release to the Town in the Spring of 2018. As of the date of this memorandum, the study had not yet been released. 300f32FOR EARTH, ROM SAC WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM WOODS HOLE @ Gl Figure 24. Authorized offshore disposal site for dredged materials from Green Harbor. 310f32woops Hote (4 GROUP friwionce WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM C. References Applied Coastal Research and Engineering (2017). Green Harbor River Tide Gate Study. Marshfield, MA. 46 p. Applied Coastal Research and Engineering (2016). Coastal Erosion, Sediment Transport, ond Prioritization Management strategy Assessment for Shoreline Protection. Scituate, MA. 199 p. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2018). Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Priority and Estimated Habitats of Rare Species. MassGIS (Bureau of Geographic Information), Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOTSS. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2016). Flood insurance Study. Plymouth County, MA. 148 p. Kleinfelder (2013). Seq Leve! Rise Study. Towns of Marshfield, Duxbury, Scituate, MA. 136 p. Marshfield Waterways Committee (2014). Marshfield Harbor, Rivers, and Waterways Management Plan. Marshfield, MA. 118 p. Thierler, €.8,, Smith, T.L. Kinsel, JM. and Sampson, D.W. (2013). Massachusetts Shoreline Change Mapping and ‘Analysis Project. 2013 Update: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1189, 42 p. Town of Marshfield (2018). Town of Marshfield Assessors Database. Retrieved from http://marshfield.patriotproperties.com/default.asp. USACE (2014). Wave Information Studies. Retrieved from http://wis.usace.army.mil/ USACE New England District (2016). Brant Rock and Fieldston Areas: Marshfield, MA. Hurricane and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Report, Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment. 76p. USACE New England District (2016). Coasto/ Morshfield Brant Rock (Hewitt’s Point}: Marshfield, MA Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact and Section 404(b)(1) Evalu 1445p. n for Section VHB (2015). 2015 Master Plan. Town of Marshfield, MA. 214 p. Woods Hole Group (2018). Marshfield Beach Management Plan. Marshfield, MA. 148 p. Woods Hole Group (2016). Coastal Processes Study and Resiliency Recommendations for Duxbury Beach and Boy. Duxbury, MA. 32 0f32