‘WOODS HOLE @ GROUP Frew dence WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM MEMORANDUM DATE June 26, 2018 TO Town of Marshfield Planning Department FROM Woods Hole Group Main Telephone: (508) 540-8080 Memorandum #3: Evaluation of Placement Alternatives This memorandum summarizes the methods used to evaluate and select dredged material placement alternatives along the Town of Marshfield shoreline, as well as the results from the analysis. Spatial data were compiled and developed for key selection parameters, and were used to identify, delineate, and prioritize potentially suitable dredged material placement sites for further evaluation. Specific selection criteria were developed and compared between potential placement sites using an alternatives matrix. The methods and results of this task are described below. Preliminary results from the placement alternatives assessment were presented at a public meeting held in Marshfield on April 12, 2018, The meeting was advertised in the Marshfield Mariner and a story about the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) funded project was also published. A copy of the public notice, the newspaper article, the presentation and the attendance list are provided in Appendix 3-1. A. Spatial Data Compilation and Development Spatial data were compiled for erosion rates, distance of mean high water from the seawall, economic value of upland parcels, sensitive wetland resource areas, shellfish suitability areas, National Heritage Endangered Species Program (NHESP) Estimated and Priority Habitats, sediment transport directions, and potential construction access points. Each of these datasets is described below. AL Shoreline Change and Distance from Seawall 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., 2013), Rates of change from a recent time period (1978 ~ 2008) were evaluated for each potential dredged material placement site. These short-term rates of shoreline change were determined by fitting a least squares regression line to the shoreline positions measured at a series of shore normal transects (Figure 1). In addition, the most recent Marshfield shoreline developed through the MSCP, 2008, was utilized to determine the distance between MHW and an existing coastal protection structure (e.g., seawall, revetment, etc.). 81 Technology Park Drive, East Falmouth, MA 02536 USA a T. +1 508.540.8080 F: +1 508.540.1001WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frovtoace WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM ‘C2M Shoreline Change Short-Term Rates (1978 - 2008) oe =o Li, Figure 1. Short-term linear regression rates of shoreline change for Marshfield, 20f17WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frowsonce WOODSHOLEGROUP.cOM A2 Value of nearby parcels The Town of Marshfield Assessor’s database (2017) contains information on property values for each of the parcels in Town, 3. Sensitive wetland resource areas The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection maintains a spatial dataset of wetland resource areas statewide. The wetland boundaries in this dataset were interpreted from 1:12,000 scale, stereo color- infrared (CIR) photography by staff at UMASS Amherst. The photography was captured in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1999, 2000, and 2005. In addition to other wetland habitat types, this dataset contains polygons that delineate Salt Marsh and Rocky Intertidal Shore resource areas. Salt marshes are coastal wetland that extend landward up to the highest high tide line, and are characterized by plants that are well adapted to, or prefer living in, saline soils. Dominant plants typically include salt meadow cord grass (Spartina patens) and salt marsh cord grass (Spartina olternifiora. Salt marshes are significant to protection of marine fisheries, wilde habitat, and where there are shellfish, to protection of land containing shelifish, and prevention of pollution and are likely to be significant to storm damage prevention and ground water supply (310 CMR 10.32). Rocky intertidal shores are naturally occurring rocky areas, such as bedrock or boulder-strewn areas between the mean high waterline and the mean low water line, Rocky intertidal shores are likely to be significant to storm damage prevention, flood control, protection of marine fisheries and wildlife habitat and where there are shellfish, protection of land containing shelfsh (310 CMR 10.31). Areas of salt marsh and rocky intertidal shore ‘mapped by MassDEP in Marshfield are shown in Figure 2. Aa Shellfish Suitability Areas The Shellfish Suitability data layer was compiled by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (Marine Fisheries), and represents areas that are believed to be suitable for shellfish based on the expertise of Marine Fisheries and local Shellfish Constables, input from commercial fishermen, and information contained in maps and studies of shellfish in Massachusetts. The areas covered include sites where shellfish have been observed since the mid-1970's, but may not currently support any shellfish. Therefore, these maps represent potential habitat areas. The total dataset includes potential habitat areas for ten different species of shellfish. Only three Of these species have mapped potential habitat in the Marshfield area. The potential shellfish suitability areas for these three species, blue mussel, softshell clam and surf clam, are shown in Figure 3. AS. NHESP Estimated and Priority Habitats Marshfield is home to five endangered species, three threatened species, and seven species of special concern, as lsted by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). The Priority Habitat polygons represent the geographic extent of Habitat of state-listed rare species in Massachusetts based on ‘observations documented within the last 25 years in the NHESP database. Estimated Habitats are similar, but do not include areas delineated as Priority Habitat for rare plants or for rare wildlife with strictly upland habitat requirements. Priority 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. All NHESP Estimated and Priority Habitats in the Marshfield area are shown in Figure 4. AS. Sediment Transport Information concerning sediment transport directions and volumes were obtained from a combination of ai photography and review of existing studies, as described in the existing conditions memorandum. The resulting sediment transport directions and potential rates of transport are illustrated in Figure 5. 30f17‘WOODS HOLE @ GROUP #25.25% WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Sensitive Wetland Resource Areas HI 000 vrerrion. store sx MARH 02 OS Figure 2. “Sensitive wetland resource areas: salt marsh and rocky intertidal shore. 4of17‘WOODS HOLE @ GROUP freon WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM ‘Shelifish Suitability Areas Blue Mussel Soft-shelled Clam HERE. nna Figure 3. “Shellfish Suitability Areas for blue mussel, soft-shell clam and surf clam. Sof 17WOODS HOLE @ GROUP fow once WoOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Figure 4, ne [-] NHESP Estimated & Priority Habitats N LZ & 4 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) Estimated and Priority Habitats. oft?‘WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frovioice WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Figure 5. Summary of sediment transport and sediment budget information for the Town of Marshfield. oft?WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frewsonce WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM AZ. Potential Construction Access Points Information from interviews with Town staff were combined with aerial photo interpretation to determine potential locations where trucks and construction equipment could enter the beach. Such access would be necessary if the dredged material is to be transported by truck, as well as for beach access for equipment and machinery to spread and grade the sand on the beach regardless of the sediment delivery mechanism. A map of potential equipment access sites is presented in Figure 6. enue %* Equipment Access “ae nA * * * * * * Ex * | ESSER. coment mc Figure 6. Potential equipment access locations to the beach. B0f17‘WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frowsrcet WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM B. __ Identify Potential Dredged Material Placement Sites Eleven different potential dredged material placement sites were identified along the Town of Marshfield coastline (Figure 7). Site differentiation was based on a combination of factors, including defined geographic or structural breaks between potential placement sites (e.g., the large jetty at Brant Rock separates “Brant Rock (South)’ from the “Ocean Street Area”), change in sediment transport direction (e.g., Green Harbor Beach was, divided into two different potential placement sites - North and South — based on a divergence of the predominant sediment transport direction), and established recreational beach areas within Town (e.g., the break between Sunrise Beach and Fieldston Beach corresponds to different beach management areas for the Town) The data described in Section A were then used to evaluate various criteria to determine which potential dredged material placement sites 1.) have the biggest need, 2.) would result in the least amount of adverse impacts to existing resource areas, 3.) would have the greatest benefit, and 4.) would provide feasible logistics in terms of transportation and construction. The specific criteria used to evaluate these goals are described in Section C below. sof17WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frowseace WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Mig , some — > Rexhame Beach (North) 21300, Rexhame Beach (South) 18600 Winstow Avenue Beach 116300 Brant Rock (North) 8300 $150,000) were ranked the highest (green) with respect to the need to reduce adverse economic impacts to the Town, areas within a middle range of average home values ($100,000 to $150,000) were ranked moderate (yellow) in terms of need, and areas with the lower valued buildings and structures (<$100,000) were ranked the lowest (red) with respect to this criterion, Public use: This criterion specifies whether each stretch of coastline is used by the public for recreation. It is important to consider public use since public funds will be used to finance the beach nourishment projects considered by this analysis. As such, each potential placement site was categorized by its level of public use. Publically managed recreation beach areas were given a “Yes” (green) for this criterion, while private or semi- private beach areas with no public access were given a "No" (red). Beach areas where public access is technically permissible, but essentially allow access only for pedestrians (ie., no public parking is available), given a moderate ranking (yellow). Other: One other criterion was considered under this category, but was not used in the ranking process. It was retained to provide additional information about each potential placement site. This criterion is whether or not a particular beach site is backed by a coastal protection structure (e.g, seawall, revetment, etc). Project partners felt that sites falling into both categories should be considered equally for beach nourishment. Although an unarmored section of coastline lacks the protection of a seawall, and would certainly benefit from the added coastal resiliency gained by additional sediment, the unarmored areas of Marshfield tend to be more stable and resilient systems to start with. On the other hand, although armored sections of shoreline have a seawall or revetment to provide protection for upland properties and structures, the beach in front of many of these structures is eroding vertically, and will eventually undercut and undermine these structures. As such, it was decided not to give preference to one level of armoring over the other, but the information was retained C.1.b. Criteria that compare the benefits and impacts to existing conditions and resource areas Sediment compatibility: Evaluating sediment compatibility is important in selecting a site that is a suitable disposal location for a source of dredged materials with a known grain size composition. In fact, MassDEP’s Guide to Best Management Practices for Projects in Massachusetts: Beach Nourishment (March 2007) states that one of the most important factors for beach nourishment projects is that the grain size distribution of the source material should be comparable to the native beach material. To address this, sediment grain size was evaluated for a sample taken from the material dredged from Green Harbor, as well as 6 other stations located along the Marshfield coastline (see Existing Conditions memorandum for sediment grain size analysis results). Potential placement sites were then categorized as compatible ("Yes"; green) or incompatible ("No”; red) with the Green Harbor sediment grain size results. Three potential placement sites, Bluefish Cove, Brant Rock (North) and Rexhame Beach (South), did not have nearby sediment sampling stations. As such, these locations were categorized as “Unknown” (yellow) for sediment compatibility. 120f17‘WOODS HOLE @ GROUP Frew eonct WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Sensitive resources: This criterion evaluated the potential impact to various sensitive resources, including salt marsh, rocky intertidal shore and shellfish. Maps of these resource areas are provided in Section A above. Because there is no existing salt marsh along any of the potential dredged material placement locations, this resource area is not called out specifically in the alternatives matrix. itis, however, important to note that the potential impact to salt marsh was evaluated. With respect to a potential placement sites proximity to mapped shellfish suitability areas (referred to as “shellfish habitat” in the matrix) and rocky intertidal shore (RIS), each beach area was classified as “No sensitive resource areas within site” (green), “Shelifsh habitat within site” and/or “RIS near site” (yellow), or “RIS and shellfish habitat within site” (red). This ranking scheme ranks sites with no sensitive resource areas within or near the potential dredged material placement areas higher than sites with sensitive resource areas nearby or within the site boundary. NHESP Estimated and Priority Habitat: Similar to the sensitive resource criterion above, the NHESP criterion aims to prioritize areas that are outside mapped NHESP areas to avoid potential adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species. As a result, potential sites are classified as “No NHESP Habitat” within or near the placement site (green), “Adjacent to NHESP Habitat” (yellow), or “Within NHESP Habitat” (red) Sediment transport: When placing nourishment material on a beach, it is important to consider where wind, waves, and currents will likely transport that sediment. Using the sediment transport data presented in the Existing Conditions memorandum and summarized above in Figure 5, general predictions were made as to the potential fate, positive or negative, of any dredged material placed on the different sites. Consideration was given to potential beneficial impacts of the placement site serving as a feeder beach, providing additional material to sediment starved coastlines downdrift of the placement site. Potential adverse impacts were also considered, including potential smothering of nearby rocky intertidal shore habitat and/or potentially being transported towards the Green Harbor entrance, further exacerbating the shoaling issue occurring there. Six sites were ranked highly (green) for this criterion, as they could have a beneficial effect on downdrift beaches by serving as a feeder beach of additional sediment (“Feeder beach to areas to the south”). Once site was given a ‘middle ranking (yellow) for this criterion because although it could potentially serve as a feeder beach, it also had the potential of adverse impacts by supplying sediment to a nearby rocky intertidal shore area. The remaining four sites were ranked low (red) for this criterion because they would likely result in only negative impacts, either through serving as a sediment supply to Green Harbor or adversely affecting nearby rocky intertidal shore areas. C.Le. Criteria that compare the logistics of delivering and spreading dredged material at each potential placement site: Construction access: In order to successfully construct a beach nourishment project, heavy equipment such as dump trucks to deliver material, and bull dozers and excavators to move and grade the material must be able to access the beach. To evaluate this criterion, access points were counted for each site. Sites with more access points provide a greater flexibility for access and construction methodologies and were therefore considered ‘more appealing. All sites had at least one access point, so no site was given a low (red) ranking for this criterion, Sites with a single access site were given a middle ranking (yellow), while sites with 2 or more access points were ranked high (green) for construction access. Longest distance from access: Having at least one construction access point is important, but it is also important to consider how far trucks and machinery may need to travel across the coastal beach resource area during construction. To evaluate this, the longest distance within a site area from any access point was calculated. This 13 0f 17WOODS HOLE @ GROUP fron soace WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM represents the farthest machinery would have to travel over the beach to reach the outer extents of a given placement area. Sites with longer over-beach travel distances were ranked lower than sites with shorter distances between access points and placement site boundaries. Sites with maximum over-beach travel distances less than 1,000 feet were ranked high (green), sites with maximum over-beach travel distances between 1,000 and 2,000 feet were given a middle rank (yellow), and sites with distances over 2,000 feet were ranked low (red). Trucking distance: When considering the feasibility of transporting dredged material from Green Harbor to any of the proposed placement sites, a major consideration in terms of cost is how far the material would have to travel to reach each site. Assuming the material would have to be transported using dump trucks, the road miles between the dredge site and the placement site must be considered. This criterion quantifies the miles a truck would have to drive from where dredged material could be loaded onto a vehicle on the eastern shore of Green Harbor to any of the potential placement areas. Sites within a 1.5 mile driving distance were ranked highly (green) for this criterion, sites within 1.5 to 4 miles driving distance were given a middle ranking (yellow), and sites that would require a one way drive of more than 4 miles were ranked the lowest (red). Pumping distance: This criterion is similar to trucking distance, but assumes instead that the material could be hydraulically pumped through a pipeline laid along the coastline. As with trucking, the further away a placement site is from the dredge site, the more costly a project will be. This criterion quantifies the linear feet a pipeline would need to extend to pump dredged material from Green Harbor to any of the potential placement areas. Each site is given a range of lengths, indicating the distance to both the closest and farthest part of each placement area. Sites within 5,000 linear feet along the coast were ranked highly (green) for this criterion, sites within 5,000 to 10,000 linear feet along the coast were given a middle ranking (yellow), and sites that would require a pipeline along the shoreline of more than 10,000 feet were ranked the lowest (red). Other: One other criterion was considered under this category, but was not used in the ranking process. It was retained to provide additional information about each potential placement site. This criterion is the approximate length of each site. This is useful when considering how much material could ultimately be placed at each site. However, because only approximately 35,000 cubic yards is dredged at any one time from Green Harbor, any of the potential dredged material placement sites would be able to accept this volume. This criterion is therefore not important when selecting between potential sites to receive Green Harbor sediment. The total size of each site may, however, be important in future decisions if a larger volume of sediment becomes available. C2. _ Site Selection Preferred placement sites were selected based on an evaluation of the data summarized and ranked in the alternatives matrix (Table 1). Overall ranking was done in a qualitative way. Potential placement sites that were ranked highly (green) for the majority of the selection criteria, were given a “High” overall ranking. Similarly, sites that were ranked low (red) for the majority of the selection criteria, were given a “Low” overall ranking. Sites where the majority of the criteria were given a medium ranking or where the number of high and low ranked criteria essentially canceled each other out were given a “Medium” overall ranking. The results of the alternative matrix analysis included 3 highly ranked potential placement sites (Green Harbor Beach ~ South, Sunrise Beach and Fieldston Beach}, 6 potential placement sites with a medium overall ranking (Green Harbor Beach — North, Bluefish Cove, Brant Rock ~ North, Winslow Avenue Beach, Rexhame Beach ~ aot 17WOODS HOLE @ GROUP froionce WoODSHOLEGROUP.COM South, and Rexhame Beach ~ North), and 2 potential sites ranked low (Ocean Street Area and Brant Rock ~ South), 15 of 17et sei dNowo (70H sacomWOODS HOLE @ GROUP frewsonce WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM D. Conclusions The evaluation of placement alternatives described above provides the selection of the three most suitable dredged material placement sites along the Town of Marshfield shoreline: Green Harbor Beach (South), Sunrise Beach, and Fieldston Beach, Further evaluation of these three potential placement sites, including the most reasonable nourishment template, the level of protection that could be provided, and the life time of the placement material (I., how long would the nourished material stay within the template given average conditions, as well as storms), will still be necessary to fully evaluate the potential benefits provided by a nourishment project at one of these sites. Subsequent tasks of this Coastal Zone Management (CZM) funded project have been designed to provide additional information to the Town on these specific details, so that an informed decision can be made as to how best to proceed. D. References Thierler, ER., TL, Smith, J.M. Kinsel, and D.W. Sampson. 2013. Massachusetts Shoreline Change Mapping and ‘Analysis Project. 2013 Update: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1189, 42 p. Haney, R., L. Kouloheras, V. Malkoski, J. Mahala, and Y. Unger. 2007. Beach Nourishment: MassDEP’s Guide to Best Management Practices for Projects in Massachusetts. March 2007 47 of 17