WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frow sence WooDSHOLEGROUP.com MEMORANDUM DATE June 27, 2018 TO Town of Marshfield Planning Department FROM Woods Hole Group Main Telephone: (508) 540-8080 Memorandum #4: Evaluation of Beach Nourishment Design and Performance Results from the placement alternatives evaluation (Memorandum #3) were used to develop conceptual beach nourishment designs at the selected beach locations and conduct performance modeling to help assess the benefits of beneficial reuse of dredged material from Green Harbor. Existing elevations at the selected sites were surveyed to provide necessary information for the modeling. Conceptual nourishment designs were developed using the annual volume of sediment available from the Green Harbor dredging. Conceptual designs for larger beach nourishment projects at the selected beaches were also developed to assess the performance of alternate designs that would provide flexibility for the Town of Marshfield to accept dredged materials from other nearby projects, if the opportunity presents itself. Recent correspondence with the USACE indicates that sandy dredged material from Cohasset was recently placed at the disposal site offshore of Green Harbor, and an additional 41,000 cubic yards may be generated from planned dredging in Plymouth. If the Town of Marshfield has nourishment sites designed and permitted, they would be in a better position to take advantage of these nearby dredging projects. Performance of the conceptual beach restoration designs were evaluated through the use of cross-shore and longshore spreading analyses. Results of the modeling were used to provide information on levels of storm damage protection provided by the designs as well as longevity, or performance of the project. ‘A. Nourishment Designs Potential nourishment designs evaluated for Marshfield included variations in location, offshore slope, berm width, berm elevation, and nourishment volume. An example schematic of a beach nourishment case showing the design elements is shown in Figure 1. For Marshfield, four (4) nourishment cases were developed and evaluated for beach performance. Based on results of the placement alternatives assessment, two locations (one at Green Harbor Beach South, and one at Sunrise/Fieldston Beaches) were selected. Representative shore- normal transects were utilized for modeling purposes (Sth St transect for the Sunrise/Fieldston location, and a Pearl St transect for the Green Harbor South location). Two cases (with varying nourishment volumes, nourishment lengths, offshore slopes, berm heights, and berm widths) were evaluated for each location/transect. The modeling transects were developed using topographic survey data obtained using 2 ‘Trimble® R8 GPS receiver (real-time kinematic global positioning system) and grain size data obtained by Woods Hole Group on May 21, 2018. Grain size information from material obtained from the Green Harbor Navigation Channel was utilized for all nourishment cases. Table 1 summarizes the design parameters for each of the four cases evaluated for this study. 4&1 Technology Park Drive, East Falmouth, MA 02536 USA T: #1508.540.8080 F: +1 508.540.1001 1of13woons HOLE & GROUP (8 wooostoLecrour.com Vertical scale exaggerated Figure 1. __ Example beach nourishment template with increased berm width (note that vertical scale is exaggerated). Table 1. Beach Nourishment Templates Evaluated for Level of Protection Provided. Berm | Berm | Offshore | Nourishment | Jo. | Grainsize case width | Elevation | slope | — Length a (nm) (f)__| (faves) | (Hv) (fy) Green Harbor — eiyveee 30 55 tos 70 35,000 | Green Harbor — Langer Nourishment _& ta 1395 118,000 | ps0:0.65 ‘Sunrise/Fieldston ~ Das: 30.4 Rae 30 ss 0 740 35,000 Sunrise/Fieldston— |. A an a a0g0 Larger Nourishment Figure 2 shows the approximate footprints of the four (4) cases evaluated. The Green Harbor South and Fieldston/Sunrise sites were each evaluated for a 35,000 cubic yard volume nourishment (based upon the approximate amount of material dredged from the Green Harbor navigation channel annually), as well as a larger nourishment that would accommodate sediment dredged from other nearby projects and also provide increased storm damage protection and flood control 20f13‘WOODS HOLE Qe GROUP fronds WoODSHOLEGROUP.COM 35,000 cy rence oe ney Figure 2. Conceptual beach nourishment designs and volumes for the selected beaches. B. Engineering Evaluation of Nourishment Templates The feasibility assessment utilized coastal engineering tools and numerical models to evaluate the design life for the various nourishment templates developed for Marshfield. Two different models were utilized to evaluate the performance of the design and spreading of sand away from the original placement area. XBeach was used to evaluate cross-shore sediment transport (onshore/offshore) caused by average annual conditions as well as a 30f13WOODS HOLE Qa GROUP frow grace WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM S:year return period storm. An evaluation of longshore transport was performed to predict the spreading of sand away from the original placement area under normal conditions. The spreading analysis used analytical methods to estimate the percentage of fill remaining within the project area, as well as changes in beach width ‘through time. Bil. Cross-shore Sediment Transport XBeach is an open-source numerical mode! developed to simulate wave, hydrodynamic and morphodynamic processes. It has been developed with support of various agencies including the US Army Corps of Engineers, Rijkswaterstaat_ and the EU, together with a consortium of UNESCO-IE, Deltares (formerly WL[Delft Hydraulics), Delft University of Technology, and the University of Miami XBeach includes the hydrodynamic processes of short wave transformation (refraction, shoaling and breaking), Jong wave (infragravity wave) transformation (generation, propagation and dissipation), wave-induced setup and unsteady currents, as well as overwash and inundation. The morphodynamic processes include bed load and suspended sediment transport, dune face avalanching, bed update and breaching. Effects of vegetation and of hard structures can also be simulated. The model has been validated with a series of analytical, laboratory and field test cases using a standard set of parameter settings. Further details of the XBeach model and its theory can be found in the XBeach Technical Reference (Deltares, 2015). ‘The model was utilized to simulate cross-shore transport for each of the nourishment alternatives under both average annual and storm conditions. For the storm scenarios, a synthetic surge hydrograph was developed for input into XBeach using the peak water level for a 5-year storm event obtained from the USACE North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (NACCS), save point 95. The storm hydrograph was created from 72 hours of normal tidal data, with water levels ramping up and down to/from the storm surge value over a 24-hour period, For the average annual condition simulations, a synthetic tidal signal developed from the Boston NOAA tide ‘gauge was utilized at the offshore boundary for 72 hours to allow the profile to equilibrate. Figure 3 shows the water level boundary conditions utilized for the average annual and 5-year storm scenarios. Design Water Levels —5-ear storm Suree mi Fe —Normai rides 32 go z2 BS ga Boo os 1 4s 2 2s 3 Days Figure 3. Input water-level conditions for average annual and 5-year storm scenarios. 40813WOODS HOLE @ GROUP frowns WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Wave characteristics (height, period) for the S-year storm event were derived from an extremal analysis of data obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wave Information Study (WIS) database. The WIS database provides 33-yrs of hindcast wave climatology at nearshore locations along the U.S. coast. An extremal analysis ‘was performed on data from the closest station to Marshfield (63059) to provide significant wave height and period for the 5-year storm. A time series of significant wave height and period for the storm corresponding to the 5-year return period was simplified for use in XBeach. Figure 4 shows the significant wave height and wave period time series obtained from WIS, as well as those utilized for the 5-year storm simulation for Xbeach. For average annual conditions, a significant wave height of 2.6 ft and a period of 7.8 seconds was utilized over the entire 3-day simulation, corresponding to the average wave height and period at WIS station 63059 for the entire database time pe Wave Heights and Periods for 5-Year Storm NBEACH Input Wave Hetght —— Keach input Wave Period = Wis Wave Height = Wis Wave Period Signicant Wave Height and Wave Period ol - ° os a as 2 25 3 Days Figure 4, Input wave conditions for S-year storm scenarios. WIS wave conditions were obtained from WIS station 63059 from 02/25/2010 to 02/28/2010, when wave heights corresponded to a 5-year event. The seawalls were defined in all simulations as non-erodible, preventing erosion landward of the seawall, but allowing model interaction with the seawall. A sediment grain size with a DSO of 0.65 mm and a 85 of 30.4 mm was specified in the model simulations, corresponding to data obtained from the Green Harbor navigation channel, Figures 5 and 6 show the results of the average annual condition simulations and the 5-year storm simulations, respectively, for each of the four cases evaluated. The plots show the topographic profile of the shore-normal transect both before and after each simulation, as well as the existing topography (prior to nourishment), The mean high water and mean low water lines are shown on each plot for reference. Sof13WOODS HOLE @ GROUP Frow'dence WooDSHOLEGROUP.coM Pa Green Harbor Beach - Normal Conditions — Existing Topography 35,000 cy nourishment = 12 | 35,000 cy Nourishment - Eroded $ =| 119,000 cy Nourishment £10 | ~~=~119,000 cy Nourishment - Eroded — g = = -Mean Low Water =5 High Ws BO 5 19 - _—t__t 18800 18850 18900 18950 19000 19050 19100 Distance Along Model Transect (ft) PO Sunrise/Fieldston - Normal Conditions Existing Topography 45 | ———~35,000 cy Nourishment =e —— 35,000 cy Nourishment - Eroded Big 390,000 cy Nourishment 2 ——-390,000 cy Nourishment - Eroded 3 = = = Mean Low Water ° Elevation (ft, -10 - | 11800 1185011990, ccHASO moa POsoct (908 «12200-12150 Figure 5. XBeach results for average annual condition simulations at Green Harbor Beach South and Sunrise/ieldston Beach. 60f13woops HOLE GROUP frouseace WOODSHOLEGROUP.cOM Green Harbor Beach - 5 Year Storm —— Existing Topography x 8 35,000 cy Nourishment 8 —— 35,000 cy Nourishment - Eroded Elevation (ft, NAVD88) ° ag U1 __1 ___] ft 18700 18750 18800 18850 18900 18950 19000 1905019100 Distance Along Model Transect (Ft) Sunrise/Fieldston - 5 Year Storm 20 | Existing Topography 15. 35,000 cy Nourishment S__—- ——35,000cy Nourishment - Eroded 10 ——390,000 cy Nourishment a 3, _--- 390,000 cy Nourishment eroded” 50 5 8.5 “10 -15 11500 11600 11700 11800 11900 12000 12100 Distance Along Model Transect (ft) Figure 6. XBeach results for 5-year storm simulations at Green Harbor Beach South and Sunrise/Fieldston Beach. 7o0f13WOODS HOLE a GROUP Fron sonct WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM The conceptual nourishment designs were evaluated on the basis of the remaining high tide and low tide beaches after each simulation. Table 2 presents the results of the simulations in terms of cross:shore beach width for both the high tide and low tide beaches. For both the Green Harbor South and Sunrise/Fieldston locations, the high tide beach remains the same width as existing conditions after the 35,000-cy nourishment, during average annual conditions after the profile equilibrates. After the 5-year storm simulations, all cases resulted in erosion approximately back to the seawall, with lowering of the beach directly abutting the seawall representing undercutting of the wall. Under average annual conditions, as well as after the 5-year storm, the low tide beach is wider than the existing beach as material spreads seaward from the nourishment location. Table 2. Approximate cross-shore beach widths for all evaluated simulations. Case Green Harbor | Sunrise/Fieldston | Green Harbor | Sunrise/Fieldston 35,000cy | 35,000cy | _119,000cy | 390,000 cy Existing (No | tiigh | Nourishment) oft 20m ot | _2aft Tide | Normal Conditions oft 29 ft sof | _7aft Beach 8 ok | 208 g "| Existing (No - - T | Low | Nourishment) 141 ft 190 ft 141 ft | Tide | Normal Conditions aaift ark | 240k Beach_| 5-¥r Storm 207 ft 276 ft 2k 5.2. Longshore Sediment Transport Longshore sediment transport causes sand on the beach to diffuse, or spread over time. This is true not only for natural beaches, but also for beaches that have been nourished, especially during the period immediately after construction. Analytical procedures that combine the conservation of sediment equation with the linearized transport equation were used to evaluate the design life of the four (4) different nourishment scenarios for the Town of Marshfield Design life computations are an additional measure of beach replenishment performance that predict the ‘amount of material left in the origianl project area and the berm width as a function of time. The longevity of a project depends on the geometry of the original project, the size of the fill material, and the wave climatology. ‘The most critical factor however, is the alongshore length of the project, where longevity is generally considered to be proportional to the square of the alongshore project length. The percentage of sand remaining and the berm width will decrease with time, but it should be noted that the material is not necessarily lost from the system. Rather the material typically spreads to regions outside the original nourishment template, acting to ‘supply sand to nearby beaches. Although the sediment no longer falls within the initial nourishment template, it has not disappeared from the system as a whole, and will help to buffer the impacts of storm waves throughout the system. B0f13woons Hote & GROUP Frew sence WooDsHOLEGROUP.coM Figure 7 displays the percent of the volume of fill remaining in the original project area for the smaller volume designs, while Figure 8 shows the percent of fill remaining in the original footprint for the larger volume designs. ‘The results are shown for a time period starting at the point of initial construction. The fill material is shown to initially spread relatively quickly, as indicated by the decrease in percentage of fill remaining, as the shoreline adjusts to a new equilibrium. This behavior is typical of beach nourishment response, since @ large perturbation has been added to the coastline, After a few years, however, this trend begins to decelerate and the material remaining stabilizes. Volume Remaining cuble yards) ‘Time after nourishment (Years) | Figure 7. Beach nourishment design life expressed in terms of percent of fill remaining in the original project. areas for the smaller 35,000 cubic yard designs. Pearl Sts representative of the Green Harbor South nourishment location while Sth Sts representative of the Sunrise/Fieldston location. 90f13,woops Hote & GROUP fro gince WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Volume remaining in template area | aaa rent t-ssc000% 8 8 g 8 ‘Volume Remaining cubieyards) 8 8 I ‘Time after nourishment (Years) Figure 8. Beach nourishment design life expressed in terms of percent of fill remaining in the original project areas for the larger nourishment designs. Pearl St is representative of the Green Harbor South nourishment location while 9th St is representative of the Sunrise/Fieldston location. ‘As would be expected, both of the 35,000 cubic yard nourishments yield the shortest project lifetime. Within a year after initial placement, less than 1,000 cubic yards of the nourishment remains. The two larger nourishments have longer design lives. However, the 119,000 cubic yard nourishment at Green Harbor South still loses most of its volume over the first year, with approximately 15,000 cubic yards of material remaining after a year. The larger nourishment at Sunrise/Fieldston remains in the nourishment area longer, due to the greater nourishment length, as well as the increased volume, After two years, approximately 100,000 cubic yards of materials still within the project area ‘As a general rule of thumb, re-nourishment is generally considered appropriate when 30 to 40% of the fill is, remaining in the original project area. For the 35,000 cubic yard nourishments, as well as the larger nourishment at Green Harbor, nourishment would be needed less than 6 months after placement. For the larger project at Sunrise/Fieldston, re-nourishment would be needed 1-2 years after the placement. Figures 9 and 10 show the width of the berm at the project areas as a function of time, for all cases. As the nourishment spreads over time, the available width of beach is reduced. For the 35,000 cubic yard cases, the 10 of 13,woops Hote & GROUP Frew sence WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM berm starts at 30 ft and is reduced to less than 3 ft after less than 6 months. For the Green Harbor 119,000 cubic yard nourishment, the berm starts at 50 ft and is reduced to 6 ft after a year. For the Sunrise/Fieldston 390,000 cubic yard nourishment, the berm starts at 50 ft and is reduced to 14 ft after 2 years. | Beach Berm Width Remaining. rete snomen [OO FEEEE oo ‘Time after nourishment (Years) Figure 9. Beach nourishment design life for the smaller 35,000 cubic yard designs expressed in terms of berm width. Pear! St is representative of the Green Harbor South nourishment location while 9th St is representative of the Sunrise/Fieldston location. a1of13,WOODS HOLE @ Figure 10. Beach nourishment desig GROUP Frew sence WOODSHOLEGROUP.COM Beach Berm Width Remaining EEE EES ® Beach Berm Width (ft) Time after nourishment (Yeats) life for the larger nourishment designs expressed in terms oi width. Pearl St is representative of the Green Harbor South nourishment location while Sth St is representative of the Sunrise/Fieldston location. . Conclusions and Recommendations Information generated during the CZM funded project entitled "Feasibility Assessment and Design for Beach and Dune Enhancement Through Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials from Green Harbor” has been summarized in a series of four (4) Memorandums. The following findings and conclusions regarding the feasibility of beneficial reuse of dredged sediment from Green Harbor for beach nourishment were drawn from the study: Average annual dredge volumes required to maintain navigability In Green Harbor are 31,000 cubic yards, ‘Sediment accumulation in the “narrows” is considerably coarser than the outer end of the channel. ‘The presence of this coarse material has required the USACE to supplement traditional dredging by the Currituck with mechanical dredging by long-reach excavators. Current USACE Base Plan costs for maintaining Green Harbor are estimated to be $15 per cubic yard. From an engineering and constructability standpoint, alternate methods of dredging and associated beach nourishment are feasible. 12 0f13WOODS HOLE @ GROUP Fro seace WooDSHOLEGROUP.coM Costs to the Town of Marshfield for dredging and associated beach nourishment (31,000 cubic yards) ‘above and beyond the USACE Base Plan cost, would range from a low of $188,000 to a high of $431,000 annually. Beaches at Green Harbor South and Fieldston/Sunrise were identified as the priority sites for beach nourishment, Conceptual designs for beach nourishment at Green Harbor South and Fieldston/Sunrise using the average annual dredge volume from Green Harbor have a design life (30% fill remaining) of less than year. Given the high cost of construction and the short design life for the smaller nourishment projects, the benefits to the Town of Marshfield do not outweigh the costs. Conceptual designs for larger beach nourishment projects at Green Harbor South and Fieldston/Sunrise show improved storm damage protection for upland infrastructure and reasonable design lifetimes. ©The USACE may seek authorization to dispose of sand dredged from other nearby navigation projects at the Green Harbor disposal site (Le., 41,000 cubic yards from Plymouth). It is recommended that the Town of Marshfield proceed with the final design and permitting for the larger beach nourishment footprints, so they would be in a better position to take advantage of material generated by these nearby dredging projects. D. References Roelvink, D., Van Dongeren, A., McCall, R., Hoonhout, 8., Van Rooijen, A., Van Geer, P.,.. & Quataert, E. (2015). xBeach Technical Reference: Kingsday Release, Delft, The Netherlands: Deltares, Technical report Cialone, M. A., Massey, T. C., Anderson, M. E,, Grzegorzewski, A. S., Jensen, R.E., Cialone, A.,.. & McAlpin, T. 0. (2015). North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (NACCS) coastal storm model simulations: Waves and water levels (No. ERDC/CHL-TR-15-14), Engineering and Research Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, Coastal and Hydraulics Lab. 13 0f 13