    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                                                    IFY'91           Task 55
    I                                                                     Final Product
                                                                      VA Coastal Resources  fgt. Program
                                                                             121I192

    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    l
    I

    I
    I
    I
    I
    I

    I       GB
            459.4
            .H36
    B-" 1992                              URS CONSULTANTS

    I

    I
                                                                Hampton Shoreline
                                                                      Coastal
                                                             Resources Management
                                                           Monitoring and Performance
                                                                       Report

    I

                        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                        COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                        2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                        CHARLESTON,  SC 29405-2413             Prepared For:

                                                                City of Hampton
    I
                                                               Under a Grant From:
                                                   The Virginia Council on the Environment

        _-I                                                 November 1992
        I-

           ,)        TE -   Prop2ty cf CSC Library

    I   URS Consultants, Inc. 5606B Virginia Beach Boulevard Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462

                                      -                  :      :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: '����i'-i�i�i;�

          I                              ~~~~~~~HAMPTON SHORELINE
                                 COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

                              MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE REPORT

               This report was funded, in part, by the Virginia Council on the Environment's
               Coastal Resources Management Program through Grant #NA170Z0359-01 of the
               National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal
               Zone Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as
    *          ~~~amended.

               November, 1992

    I        ~TABLE OF CONTENTS

    3        ~~~INTRODUCTION......................                       I
            HISTORICAL SHORELINE CHANGE ..1.............
            BUCKROE BEACH.....................                        3
            SHORELINE PROTECTION STRUCTURES.............              5
    3        ~~~BEACH NOURISHMENT...................                    8
            FILL DESIGN.......................                        8
    3        ~~~BORROW AREA ......................10
            PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ..................12
    3        ~~~MILITARY ORDNANCE....................12
            SURVEY BASELINE AND MONITORING..............13
    3        ~~~FILL MONITORING
                 JULY 1990OTO AUGUST 1990...............16
     1             ~~~~AUGUST 1990 TO JUNE 1991 ...............20
                 JUNE 1991 TO JULY 1992................25
     1             ~~~~JULY 1992 TO OCTOBER 1992...............27
            CONCLUSIONS ......................28
    I         ~~~RECOMMENDATIONS ....................31
            REFERENCES.......................33

            COMPARATIVE PROFILE PLOTS ............APPENDIX A

                 INTRODUCTION
     H                ~~~~~The shoreline of Hampton extends approximately five and a half miles along
                the Chesapeake Bay and includes Buckroe Beach, Salt Ponds Beach, White Marsh
    I          ~ ~~and Grandview (see Figure 1.) The southern beaches, Buckroe and Salt Ponds
                are separated from the northern beaches of White Marsh and Grandview by Salt
                 Ponds Inlet. Salt Ponds Inlet is a dredged and stabilized navigational channel
                which provides recreational boat access between the Salt Ponds and the
    I           ~~~Chesapeake Bay.  Fort Monroe, which supports a federally owned shoreline,
                extends an additional 2.8 miles south of Buckroe Beach.

     I                ~~~~~The shoreline along the city of Hampton is oriented approximately 17
                 degrees north. Local tides are semi-diurnal with a mean range of approximately
                 2.5 ft. As a result of the shoreline orientation and location, the Hampton beaches
                 are exposed to waves from both the north-northeast and the east-southeast.
    3           ~~~~Rosen (1 976) suggested that the winds vary directionally with the seasons. During
                the winter, prevailing winds are from the northwest, while during the summer winds
                 are predominantly from the southwest. Windroses local to the area indicate that
    I          ~ ~~winds occur from the southwest approximately 48 percent of the time and from the
                 northeast with a frequency of 25 percent. The strongest winds, however, are from
    3           ~~~the northern quadrant. Since these winds blow across the longest fetch area, they
                 typically have the greatest affect on the Hampton City beaches. Rosen (1976)
                 suggested that waves created by these wind fields generate an increase in the
                 longshore sediment transport to the south and are probably responsible for the
                 majority of the erosion along these beaches.

                 HISTORICAL SHORELINE CHANGE
                       Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc. and Langley and McDonald (1988)
                 provide rates of shoreline change for various reaches along the Hampton beaches.
    I           ~~~Shoreline positions from bathymetric charts and topographic maps dated 1853 and
                 1965 were analyzed at 1000 ft intervals to determine patterns of erosion and
    3           ~~~accretion.   Note, however, that these patterns of shoreline change were
                 documented prior to the construction of several shoreline protection structures
                 along the beaches, as well as the stabilization of Salt Ponds Inlet in 1979. The

                 groins, bulkhead, and jetty along the shoreline can significantly alter natural coastal

                                                       FACTORY POINT

                                                          GRANDVIEW

                a' ~~~~~~~~ _-"'-pROECT    2
                                        Ff"ECT^    aWHITE MARSH
                                    LOCATION

                                                     - ,SALT PONDS

                                                       BUCKROE BEACH

                                                          N
    '1

      C;.-    "                             no                           FORT MONROE

               'I~             ,           POINT COMFORT

      FIGURE 1:  SITE LOCATION MAP OF THE HAMPTON CITY BEACHES.

                 processes and therefore affect patterns of erosion and accretion.  The net
    I          ~ ~~~longshore transport along the Hampton shoreline is to the south; the only reported
                 exception is in the vicinity of Lighthouse Point where there is a reversal to the
                 north.

                       The southernmost section of shoreline along Hampton is Dog Beach which
    I          ~ ~~~is part of the Fort Monroe shoreline.  Historical shoreline rates suggest that this
                 area has been eroding at rates of -1.5 to -2.0 ft/yr. Similarly, Buckroe Beach, to
    I          ~ ~~the north has eroded at approximately -2.0 ft/yr. Rates of erosion continue to
                 increase to the north. Salt Ponds Beach Ojust south of Salt Ponds inlet) has
    U           ~~~~eroded at approximately -3.5 ft/yr.  Due to the interruption of the southerly
                 transport across the inlet, this rate of erosion has probably increased since the
                 time of construction of the north jetty at the entrance. Conversely, White Marsh
                 which historically eroded at -4.5 ft/yr has probably experienced a decrease in
                 recession as a result of impounded sediment on the north jetty. Grandview
    I           ~~~~continues to support the highest rates of erosion with rates averaging between -5.0
                 and -6.0 ft/yr. (The northernmost tip of Lighthouse Point is the only segment of
                 beach that showed any accretion. This northern tip is, however, very unstable and
                 can accrete, as well as rapidly erode.)

    U           ~BUCKROE BEACH
                       The most readily available beach in terms of public access and parking in
    I          ~ ~~the City of Hampton is Buckroe Beach which extends from Buckroe Fishing Pier
                 to Pilot Avenue (see Figure 2.) This beach is easily reached via several major
    I          ~ ~~roads including Mallory Street and Pembroke Avenue.  Buckroe Beach fronts
                 approximately .75 miles along the Chesapeake Bay and supports Buckroe Park,
    3            ~~~~a city park with public parking and beach facilities. As a result, this public area
                 supports the greatest density of recreational activity.

           (R'EVSISED>  RESIDENTIAL  R     P  UBLIC PARKN    R               /C
             I~��-� H, ST- STR

                    1BUCKROE         BEACH

                       2 -50  SAT.T

                       -,L lOC    ST            j S

                   Ni C.

    FIGURE 2:  LOCATION MAP OF BUCKROE BEACH IN HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.
              (REVISED FROM COASTAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING, INC.)

                            As previously stated, Espey, Huston, et al. (1988) evaluated shoreline
                      change along the Hampton beaches using bathymetric charts and topographic
                      maps dating from 1855 to 1965. The results of this analysis indicated that the
                      shoreline fronting Buckroe Beach eroded at an average rate of approximately -2.0
                      ft/yr. Beach profiles surveyed between 1974 and 1988 by the City of Hampton
                      were also analyzed to determine shoreline erosion. These data primarily document
                      the influence of small emergency beach fill projects. Since the surveys were often
                      measured after the projects, the data generally indicate that the beach accreted.
                      However, if the time period 1976 to 1986 is analyzed  (a period without
                      nourishment), the average background erosion rate is approximately -1.5 ft/yr.
                      This background rate corresponds closely to the historical rate of erosion as
                      reported by Espey, Huston, et al. (1988).   Therefore,  Buckroe Beach is
                      characterized by moderate erosion experiencing average rates of -1.5 to -2.0 ft/yr.
                      Storms, however, especially the northeasters have a significant impact on the
                      City's beaches and various structural solutions have been constructed to protect
                      upland areas from high tides and wave impact.

                      SHORELINE PROTECTION STRUCTURES
                             Espey, Huston, et al. (1988) reported on the existing shoreline protection
                      structures along the coast of Hampton, Virginia. An assessment was provided
                      regarding the condition and predicted life of the structures at the time of the report.
                      The primary structures along the project area include timber and sheetpile groins,
                      a timber bulkhead with a concrete cap, and a rock jetty on the north side of Salt
                      Pond inlet. Figure 3 depicts the approximate location and extent of the structures
                      along the limits of the project area.

                            Within the limits of Buckroe Beach there are seven (7) existing timber groins
                      of varying lengths ranging from 210 ft to 350 ft. Reportedly, these structures were
                      built during the mid to late 1960's. Additional groins exist to the south and north
                      of the fill area with the northernmost groin flanking the south side of Salt Ponds
                      Inlet. In the 1988 report, Espey, Huston, et al. assessed the groins to be in
                      generally poor condition as much of the sheeting between the piles had
                      deteriorated by that time, thus limiting the effectiveness of each structure. The
                      proposed structure life was estimated at up to five (5) years, which currently puts
                      the groins near the end of the proposed time limit of effectiveness.

    I                                                         5

                                                         VIR~~GRINIATP.

    ~~~~ OC ~ ~ ~ ~     ~     ~    ~OATIONOF OFWHORLIN  PROETONDSRCUE   NTEVCNT   FBCREBAH
        REVISED FIGURE FROM ESPEY-HUSTON, 1988).r

                       A timber bulkhead with a concrete cap extends the length of the fill area.
                The bulkhead also supports a concrete walkway which serves as a boardwalk. It
                 is estimated that the bulkhead was constructed during 1967 (Mann, Curtis, and
                 Daniel, 1992.) Espey, Huston, et al. (I1988) assessed the condition of the bulkhead
                 as fair with some deterioration at the toe. The majority of the cap was in fair to
                 good condition; however, the cap was cracked at several places in the vicinity of
                 Tappan and Pilot Avenues. The proposed remaining life of the timber bulkhead
                 was an additional fifteen years. Few repairs were recommended.

                        Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. (1992) reported that the entrance
    3           ~~~channel at Salt Ponds inlet was dredged and stabilized with a rock jetty in 1979.
                 Project plans specified that the entrance channel should have a bottom width of
                 250 ft and a controlling depth of at least -6 ft MLW. Prior to construction, the
    I         ~ ~~channel was shifted southward from its original proposed location to take
                 advantage of an existing groin which would supposedly aid in the stabilization of
                 the south side of the inlet. Espey, Huston, et al. (1988) reported that the north
                 jetty was in good condition and that the it should provide adequate protection in
    3           ~~~excess of 20 years. More recently, CPE (1992) suggested that the jetty appeared
                 sand-tight, with the major mode of sand transport into the inlet occurring around
                 the end of the jetty. CPE (1992) also reported that the timber groin stabilizing the
                 south side of the inlet should be replaced with a steel sheet pile jetty with a
                 concrete cap. Additionally, it was suggested that the terminal groin should have
                 a crest elevation of 6 ft MLW and extend 100 ft seaward of its current length.
                 Reportedly, in September of 1992, City forces repaired the south groin.

    *          ~BEACH NOURISHMENT
                        In more recent years, beach nourishment activities have been conducted
                 to alleviate erosion problems along the beach, as well as to provide storm
                 protection. In a letter to consultants, Daniel (1989) provided information on fill
                 activity prior to the nourishment project of 1990. There have been four such
                 projects that were documented. In 1975/1976 Hampton City records indicate that
                 approximately 20,000 cy of sand were placed along Buckroe Beach between
                 Beach Avenue and Pilot Avenue. Approximately 13,000 cy were placed along this
                 same area in 1986. In 1987, more than 80,000 cy of sand were dredged from the
                 channel at Salt Ponds Inlet and hydraulically pumped to the beaches between Pilot
                 Avenue and Buckroe Avenue. Finally, in 1988, due to the erosion resulting from
                 a spring storm, 5,000 cy of sand were placed along a critical section of beach
                 between Pembroke Avenue and Point Comfort Avenue.

                        As a result of the erosion along Buckroe Beach and the shoreline's
                 susceptibility to storm damage, the City of Hampton determined that Buckroe
                 Beach supported a need for beach nourishment and the construction of a

                 proposed 224,000 cy project was initiated in July, 1990.

    I           ~~FILL DESIGN
                        Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. designed the Buckroe Beach project
    I          ~ ~~~to provide storm protection against a 10-year storm condition along the fill area
                 throughout a 10-year project life. Figures 2 and 4 show the project area and the
    I           ~~~~typical cross-sectional design of the fill profile, respectively.  The berm was
                 designed to a fill elevation of 7.3 ft IVLW which is the expected peak water level
                 expected from a I10-year storm. A 52 ft beach width at that elevation was required
                 to protect the existing bulkhead from storm damage. In order to account for
    3           ~~~~background erosion and fill equilibration, a design width of 227 ft relative to the
                 bulkhead (or 200 ft relative to existing conditions) was suggested for the 10-year
                 project life. Approximately 224,000 cy was required to fill the design template

                 along the 3700 ft length of the nourishment area.

                                                                        TYPICAL

                         227' FT

                         200' FT

                 7.3 FT ML
                  7.3,                               SLOPE'- 1:10

    wo                                                                              MLW

     Ln      TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONAL
               VOLUME = 60' CY/FT

                                               250                                      S00
                                            DISTANCE (FEET)

          FIGURE 4: TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONAL DESIGN FOR BUCKROE BEACH NOURISHMENT.

    BORROW AREA
          The borrow area was located on Horseshoe Shoal approximately two miles
    east of Buckroe Beach (see Figure 5.) Initially, the area was designated as a
    potential source for beach quality material through a Sand Resources Inventory as
    performed by Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). A more complete
    geotechnical investigation completed in October, 1989 by Coastal Planning and
    Engineering and EXMAR identified an area along the shoal that contained
    approximately 4.18 million cubic yards of quality fill material. The design dredge
    area was 1000 ft long by 1200 ft wide and the dredge depth was set at 10.5 ft
    below the seabed. Sediment cores sampled within the borrow site indicated that
    4 to 5 ft of fine quartz sand was overlying approximately 10 to 12 ft of coarse
    quartz sand. The composite sediment characteristics of the borrow material were
    a mean grain size of 0.4 mm with 5 to 6 percent fines, while the native beach
    material at the project site was characterized by a mean grain size of .28 mm and
    I to 2 percent fines.

          At the time of the October, 1989 geotechnical investigation, a benthic survey
    was also conducted by VIMS to determine negative environmental impacts due to
    dredging at the borrow site. Results indicated that Horseshoe Shoal was not
    significantly used by fish or shellfish and there was no subaquatic vegetation in the
    area. Therefore, the conclusions of the study suggested that benthic resource
    value was relatively low and while dredging would temporarily destroy the benthic
    fauna, repopulation would occur within a year.

           In order  to  identify  potential  "submerged  cultural  resources",  a
    magnetometer survey was conducted along the borrow area in June, 1990 by
    Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. A single anomaly was targeted which indicated
    a submerged ferrous object of high mass. This type of anomaly was typical of a
    small ship anchor, cannon, or boat engine. A recommendation was made to flag
    this particular section and to notify the dredge operator to stay away from it.

                            \ N
             tm     A      ~ ~ ~~~~\ N. PRO JECT LOCATO

                .~'   "   LIGHTHOUSE PT.

                                              !- fHORSESHOE
         ..                                    I   SHOAL
         � ' :.                            / '~

     BUCKROE                                    I
     BEACH
                   FILL AREA
                                   BORROW AREA
          .1
              .~~~~~~"\-       I \

         ig.'--          \     I                              I

              ./ oo 30 CALIBER FIRING RANGE

    \ /
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
       BUKFT MONROE
           PT. COMFORT

             2                              ~~~~~~~~~~~5000  O  5000
                                                SCALE IN FEET

    FIGURE 5:  LOCATION OF BORROW SITE RELATIVE TO THE FILL
                AREA (REVISED FROM MANN, ET AL, 1092).
       I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
                       During the last two weeks in July of 1990, Norfolk Dredging positioned the
                 dredge and pipeline at the borrow site and earth moving equipment along the
                 Buckroe Beach shoreline in preparation for construction of the project. Pumping
                 began on the morning of August 3, 1990 at a point approximately 200 feet north
                 of Buckroe Avenue and berm construction progressed southward. Initially, the
                 berm was overfilled to an elevation of 7.8 ft MVLW to allow for compaction down to
                 the 7.3 ft MVLW template elevation. This over-fill in conjunction with an additional
                 pre-project erosion factor of approximately 8000 cy more than the design pre-
                 project condition greatly increased the amount of sand that was required to finish
                 the original project design volume of 224,000 cy. In order to decrease volume
                 requirements and keep the project within the budget, the southernmost and
                 northernmost sections of the project were redesigned without tolerance for overfill
                 and with a reduced beach width. The project was completed on August 20,1990.

                 MILITARY ORDNANCE
                       The only major problem documented during the construction of the project
                 were the deposition of "shells" or unexploded ordnance and munitions on to the
                 beach from the outfall pipe. Even though the borrow area was positioned several
                 thousand feet from the old bombing target, it was apparently close enough to
                 contain scattered deposits of ordnance. The magnetometer survey conducted
                 prior to project construction failed to locate these "shells." The munitions consisted
                 of a variety of "shells" ranging from 76 mm artillery projectiles to small arms
                 rounds. The age of the munitions ranged from possible civil war relics to a
                 predominance of World War II vintage stock.

                       Of primary concern was the risk factor for residents and visitors to Buckroe
                 Beach from these munitions. Some of the larger shells found were 'live' meaning
    *           ~~~~that the explosive projectile had not been detonated (the propulsion charge in the
                 shell casing had been spent.) Once the problem became apparent, the beach was
                 temporarily closed and several municipally organized teams, as well as the Corps
                 of Engineers and the U.S. Navy searched the beach for the ordnance and
                 transported them to the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station for proper disposal.

                                                       1 2

                There were continued incidence of ordnance findings both during construction and
    I           ~~~after the completion of the project.  In each case, the proper authorities were
                 notified and the ordnance were removed. A six-month ordnance monitoring
    *           ~~~program for the beach was initiated and has continued to date.

                       The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who is responsible for oversight and
    I          ~ ~~clean-up of these problems, rates the Buckroe project as a significant risk.
                 However, the quantity of high quality fill material, accessibility, and low cost per
    I           ~~~cubic yard continues to make this particular borrow area a primary choice for
                 future renourishment projects.

    U           ~SURVEY BASELINE AND MONITORING DATA
     3                ~~~~~A survey baseline has been established along the Hampton City shoreline
                 from the southern limits of Buckroe Beach north to Factory Point (see Figure 6).
                 This baseline includes the survey monuments located within the fill limits (R-1 to
                 R-6), as well as survey control for future monitoring programs along the remainder
                 of the Hampton shoreline to the south and north of the fill project. Figure 6 lists
                 the northing and easting coordinates of each monument along the baseline, as well
                 as the survey azimuth.

                       The beach berm and intertidal zone were surveyed using a rod and level to
                 measure elevation and a survey tape to measure distance. Survey azimuths of
                 each profile line were established nearly perpendicular to the shoreline. Elevations
                 were generally documented at 20 to 25 foot increments and at slope breaks along
    I          ~ ~~~the profile. The offshore region was surveyed with a fathometer to measure water
                 depth and a range-azimuth microwave system was used for positioning. The
    *            ~~~~offshore points were then merged with the beach berm and inter-tidal zone survey
                 to complete the profile. The established survey criteria included a minimum depth
                 of 10 ft MLW or at least 1000 ft offshore. Both conditions were satisfied on all
                 profile lines in each survey.

             I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13

      1~~~~~~~~~'
      A-~ ~ 3

                -E4  a-  -t Az -.o6,00'r

                         I,~~~~~~~'
                         K.                  ~~zU
                         A-14 AZ -loz$7

                          R-12 AZ.,o7O0''(

                   VJ                                          MON   NORTHING                A
                          _______________                        Si         262,672          2,643.890
                                                               S2        263,313           2,644,158
                                                                 1        264,051           2,644,428
                                                                 2        264,514           2.644,623
                          f-IO   A~iOSOOW     U                 2.2        264756            2,644,719
                                                               2.4        264,877           2,644,767
                    -z                          4                2.8         265,015          2,644,820
                                                               3.2        265,331           2,644,941
                                              ~a  ;00             4        265.743           2.645,091
                 0F ~   _______________ 005                                 266,435           2,645,319
    c                    a                                          6         267,020           2,645,493
                                                         0                                ~ ~~~~~~~~~~2,645,673
                                                                6.2        267,712           2,645,73
                                                                  7        268.204           2,645,794
                                                                  ~  AZ  8  269,257          2,646,211
                                                                  9        270.464           2,646,606
                                                                 I10       271,583           2,646,815
                                                                 ii        272,877           2,646,978
                                                                 12        273,659           2,647,244
                                                                 14        274,839           2,647,408
                                                                 16        276,004           2,647,684
                                                                 18       277,116           2,648,035
                                                                  19        277,620           2,648,361

           14 ~   ~     R2 Z4   ,                3
                                    Lmrxx

              ...-) r-.

              .05  -~L                   ~                           FIGURE 6: LOCATION OF BASELINE
                                                                        AND MONUMENTS ALONG THE HAMPTON

                   __________________________ SHORELINE.

                                                    14

                        To date, there are five (5) surveys available which document the
    I          ~ ~~nourishment project and the performance of the fill. These surveys include the
                 pre-project survey (July, 1990), the post-project survey (August, 1990), and three
                 additional monitoring surveys (May/June, 1991, June/July, 1992, and October,
                 1992.) The June/July, 1992 survey also established a baseline survey period for
                 profiles at all monuments on the baseline throughout the City of Hampton. All five
                 surveys are presented as a set of comparative profiles for each monument and are
                 located in Appendix A. Appendix A also includes the July, 1992 survey for all

                 monuments along the monitoring baseline.

     *                ~~~~~Profiles were compared and analyzed through time to determine changes
                 in shoreline position, beachface slope, and volume. Volume change calculations
    *           ~~~for the various survey periods are provided in tables following each monitoring
                 section of this report. Volumes for comparative profiles were calculated relative to
                 three different elevations: above 0 ft MLW, above -5 ft MLW, and above -10 ft
    I           ~~~~MLW. Each table indicates the length of the "volume" cell that is defined by the
                 relevant monument, the cross-sectional volume (cy/ft) at the monument, and the
                 total volume change (cy) for each cell. The cell "volumes" are totalled to provide
                 a change of sediment volume within the limits of the fill project. Two profiles north
                 and south of the project are also included in the tables in an attempt to document
                 movement of sediment. Aerial photography, however, indicates that fill material
                 moved outside the range of monitoring. Estimates are provided which list total

                 volume of fill moving both north and south of the project area.

     *                ~~~~~Profile plots were also compared to locate any potential survey errors
                 (survey "bust") and to determine if corrections were necessary. There did appear
                 to be one potential problem with the survey data. The offshore region of the June,
                 1991 survey averaged 0.3 ft lower in elevation than the post-project survey.
                 Consequently, the July, 1992 survey generally shows a similar 0.3 ft increase
                 above the June, 1991 offshore (to the approximate post-project offshore elevation.)
                 This indicates a potential bust in the offshore of the June, 1991 survey, especially
                 since any material moving offshore from the equilibration of the nourishment
                 project should have initially increased the offshore depth.

             I                                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~15

                       Volume change calculations were conducted using the original offshore as
    I          ~ ~~~well as the adjusted offshore (an elevation increase of 0.3 ft). The elevation bust
                does not significantly affect any comparison above the -5 ft MLW contour. The
                possible bust does potentially affect offshore comparisons directly between the
                questionable survey data of June, 1991 and any other survey period. This
                potential error, however, is evened or essentially canceled out after the two years
                of monitoring. As a result, the profile data and the volume tables include the
                 original offshore data.   The  individual  sections of this report describing
    I          ~ ~~~performance, however, present the original and the adjusted data for above -10 ft
                 MLW.

                 FILL MONITORING - JULY 1990 TO AUGUST 1990
     I                ~~~~The Buckroe Beach nourishment project was completed on August 20,
                 1990. The final pay volume of the nourishment project was 224,000 cy of sand;
                 however, an estimated 276,000 cy were placed along the beach as a result of
                 over-pumping (Mann, et al. 1992). Figure 7 presents an aerial view (as provided
                 by Virginia Institute of Marine Science) of pre- and post- project conditions. The
                 pre-project photo depicts an extremely recessed shoreline for typical "summer"
                 conditions. The post-project photo shows an extremely wide beach system with
                 relatively no taper north or south of the proj ect.

     *                ~~~~~TablelIand Figure 8depict the volume of sand placed within each cell
                 compartment. A comparison of pre- and post-construction profiles (July, 1990 and
                 August, 1990) indicate that approximately 267,000 cy of sand were placed within
                 the fill limits above -5 ft MLWK The volume of sand placed along the dry beach
                 (above 0 ft MLW) was calculated as 188,500 cy and the total volume of sand
                 placed above -10 ft MLW was 285,200 cy. Table I does not list an addition of fill
                 material outside the project limits. For the purpose of this monitoring report, it was
    *           ~~~~determined that there was not a significant background volume change during the
                 period of fill construction.

             *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 16

    TABLE 1: PRE- AND POST- NOURISHMENT VOLUME CHANGE ALONG BUCKROE BEACH BETWEEN JULY, 1990 AND
              AUGUST, 1990. NOTE THAT ALL ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE MLW CONTOUR.

      MON          LENGTH   ABOVE 0 FT  ABOVE -5 FT ABOVE -10 FT ABOVE 0 FT ABOVE -5 FT  ABOVE -10 FT
      NO.            (FTI       (CY/FfT       (CY/FT)        (CY/FT        (CYI         (CY)           (CY)
         1            405        45.1           71.0          86.5         18266         28755         35033
         2            690         62.3          92.8         101.3         42987         64032          69897
       2.8            335        54.1           71.8          71.9         18124         24053         24087
       3.2            345        50.0          63.5           64.1         17250         21908         22115
         4            615         51.6          67.4          68.0         31734         41451         41820
         5            660         52.7          79.6          85.0         34782         52536         56100
         6            620         40.9          55.2          58.3         25358         34224         36146
    ESTIMATED CHANGE WITHIN FILL LIMITS (CY)                              188500        266959        285197

    SOUTH               0          0.0           0.0           0.0             0              0             0
        S1            790          0.0           0.0           0.0              0             0              0
        S2            990         0.0            0.0           0.0             0             0              0
    ESTIMATED CHANGE SOUTH OF PROJECT (CY)                                      0             0              0

        6.2           675          0.0            0.0           0.0             0             0              0
         7            525          0.0           0.0           0.0              0             0              0
    NORTH               0          0.0           0.0           0.0              0             0              0
    ESTIMATED CHANGE NORTH OF PROJECT (CY)                                      0             0              0

    NET CHANGE THIS SURVEY INTERVAL (CY)                                  188500        266959         285197

     NORTH

       R-07--           | tv t JULr 1992

      R-6.2 0-  }
                      I*I               I I

                              , I          \     AUGUST 1l90
       R-06.-           ,
                                  'JUNE 1991

    - o  R-05-           ,,

      R-04                 OCTOBER 1992    ,
    o 0

       E-04.1- R32          1
    o       ' ,

       R-S1
    I.    R-2.8-

     SOUTH..  i
          -25          0           25          50          75          100

                                ABOVE' -5 FT MLW)

     FIGURE o:
     VOLUME CHANGE (CY/FT) ALONG BUCKROE BEACH SHORELINE,
                                   19

          Beach width and slope changes were also documented during this survey
    period.  Figure 9 documents the average fill width for each cell (+7 ft MLW
    contour). Note that the northernmost (represented by R-6) and southernmost
    (represented by R-1) cells were significantly under-filled relative to the center of the
    project. A comparison of the pre- and post-fill surveys indicate that the average
    increase in beach width along the project was 196 ft. This was slightly more
    narrow than the design fill width increase at that contour of 200 ft. As designed,
    the post-project inter-tidal slope was slightly more steep than the pre-project slope.
    The average gradient along the project area in July, 1990 was 1:16; whereas, the
    average gradient after project construction was 1:14.

    FILL MONITORING - AUGUST 1990 to JUNE 1991
          The monitoring period of August, 1990 to June, 1991 denotes the
    performance of the nourishment project approximately one year after construction.
    Clarke (1991) reported on the changes in the fill area after the first monitoring
    survey. Preliminary estimates indicated that 94,950 cy of fill were lost from the
    project limits. Of this loss, it was estimated that 40,000 cy were transported to the
    beaches south of the fill area, while 10,000 cy were transported north of the fill
    area. The remaining 45,000 cy were not accounted for, but it was not assumed
    that this volume was completely lost from the system. This letter report estimated
    that 181,000 cy of fill remained within the limits of the nourishment area.

          A comparison of August, 1990 to June, 1991 profiles indicate that there was
    a loss of 85,600 cy from the project area along the dry beach (above 0 ft MLW),
    a loss of 112,500 cy from above -5 ft MLW, and a loss of 117,100 cy from above -
    10ft MLW. These volume change calculations are slightly higher than the previous
    estimates provided by Clarke (1991). Table 2 and Figure 8 show the volumetric
    change within each fill compartment. The greatest percent of fill loss by
    compartment was from the north end of the project, while losses decreased
    towards the south end. The upper berm also eroded during this monitoring period
    with an average recession of 65 ft (+7 ft MLW contour). Figure 9 indicates that
    greatest losses were from the north and south ends of the project. In conjunction
    with the recession of the fill-beach, the intertidal zone significantly steepened. The
    average gradient along the project area in June, 1991 was 1:12.

                                           20

        NORTH,

          R-07- -            4

         R-6.2 -

         R-06.-                     I         I          I     AUGJST 1990

                                   JULY 1992 Ix         I
       C-) R-05--     ~JUNE 1991

         R-04--           JULY 1990
       z
       z            _j
      O R-3.2-      F               I

       o            0
         R-2.8--                   *I A
       uz

       *  Z  R-02--            OCTOBER 1992 A

    0�                                   - /         I /I

         R-S2--

         R-S1-I

        SOUTH                        I         I          I
             -50        0          50        100        150       200       250
                        BERM  WIDTH (FT) RELATIVE TO PRE-FILL SURVEY
                                    I7 lFT, MLW CONTOUR)

         FIGURE 9:
         CHANGE IN THE UPPER BERM (7FT MLW) ALONG BUCKROE BEACH.
                                         21

          The profiles, however, do not show a significant amount of material moving
    offshore. In fact, along the entire project area, there was only a total loss of 4600
    cy from between the -5 and -10 ft MLW contours. There is, however, a potential
    total error of +/- 4000 cy as a result of the possible offshore bust in the June,
    1991 survey. If the offshore data is adjusted +0.3 ft, then the section of beach
    between -5 ft and -10 ft MLW would increase in volume approximately 4000 cy.
    This potential error would account for less than 3 percent of the total fill above the
    -10 ft MLW contour and is not really significant when compared to the total
    volumetric losses from the project area.

          Since the offshore did not show significant accretion, it does not appear that
    the material is moving in an offshore direction. This is expected, since the fill
    material from the borrow area was reportedly more coarse than the native beach
    sand. In typical onshore/offshore models of sediment transport, coarser material
    placed on an equilibrium beach moves in the onshore direction, while the finer
    material moves offshore. Since it does not appear that the sand is moving
    offshore, it is then necessary to determine where the nourishment sand is being
    deposited.

                 A review of aerial photography flown immediately after the
    construction of the project and in October and April, 1991 (see Figure 10, courtesy
    of Virginia Institute of Marine Science) indicate that the beaches north and south
    of the fill limits accreted significantly during this time period. Unfortunately, profiles
    outside the project limits were not surveyed in August, 1990.  In order to
    quantitatively document movement of material outside the fill area, post-project
    profiles were created. MHW shoreline positions (denoted by the "wetted sand
    line") were compared for the post-project and April, 1991 aerial photography. This
    comparison indicated that north of the project at R-6.2 the MHW line accreted 55
    ft, while at R-7 the MHW accreted 20 ft. Additionally, south of the project limits, the
    MHW accreted 85 ft and 75 ft at R-S2 and R-S1, respectively. The June, 1991
    profile shapes at these monument locations were then shifted landward the
    calculated distance in an attempt to re-create approximate post-project (August,
    1990) conditions. Note that the offshore areas below -5 ft MLW were not adjusted.
    The assimilated profiles are plotted with the measured profiles in Appendix A.

                                          22

    TABLE 2:   VOLUME CHANGE ALONG BUCKROE BEACH BETWEEN AUGUST, 1990 AND JUNE, 1991. NOTE THAT ALL
                ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE MLW CONTOUR.

      MON          LENGTH    ABOVE 0 FT ABOVE -5 FT ABOVE -10 FT ABOVE 0 FT ABOVE -5 FT  ABOVE -10 FT
      NO.            (FT)        (CY/FT)       (CY/FT)        (CY/FT)        fCY~          (CY)           (CY)
         1            405         -20.7         -25.1          -28.7          -8384        -10166         -11624
         2             690        -27.9         -38.1          -37.9         -19251         -26289        -26151
       2.8            335         -21.5         -28.7         -29.3           -7203         -9615          -9816
       3.2            345         -16.8         -27.5         -29.1           -5796         -9488         -10040
         4             615        -20.5         -21.8          -20.0         -12608         -13407        -12300
         5             660        -25.8         -37.1          -40.3         -17028         -24486        -26598
         6            620         -24.7         -30.7          -33.2         -15314        -19034         -20584
    ESTIMATED CHANGE WITHIN FILL LIMITS (CY)                                 -85583        -112484       -117112

    SOUTH              770          7.6          12.8                          5852          9856
         S1            790          15.1          25.7                        11929          20303
         S2            990          14.8          33.2                        14652          32868
    ESTIMATED CHANGE SOUTH OF PROJECT (CY)                                    32433         63027

        6.2            675          10.8          18.1                         7290          12218
         7             525          4.0           6.5                          2100          3413
    NORTH                0          0.0           0.0                             0              0
    ESTIMATED CHANGE NORTH OF PROJECT (CY)                                     9390         15630

    NET CHANGE THIS SURVEY INTERVAL (CY)                                     -53150         -33827

          Volume calculations from the "assimilated" post-nourishment and the June,
    1991 survey (Table 2) indicate that approximately 15,650 cy migrated north above -
    5 ft MLW, while 63,050 cy migrated to the south above -5 ft MLW. These
    estimates are not unreasonable since the project, by design, was bound to
    experience "spreading" losses predominantly in the direction of net longshore
    transport. This results in a total unaccounted for loss of 33,800 cy from the project
    area above the -5 ft MLW contour which is a 13 percent loss of fill. Similarly,
    Clarke (1991) estimated an approximate 16 percent loss from the project area.

    FILL MONITORING - JUNE 1991 TO JULY 1992
          The second year of project performance is documented by the surveys of
    May/June,  1991  and June/July,  1992.  The  June/July,  1992 survey also
    establishes a baseline for future monitoring along the remaining shoreline in
    Hampton.

          Table 3 and Figure 7 show that the fill within the project limits continued to
    erode. Losses were predominantly from the middle of the project area. An
    inspection of the survey data indicates that the shoreline started to straighten
    towards a pre-project shape as the fill continued to equilibrate. Interestingly, the
    average intertidal slope in July, 1992 was a gradient of 1:13, which was nearly
    equal to the pre-project intertidal gradient of 1:14. Volume loss above 0 ft MLW
    was -22,800 cy, above -5 ft MLW was -29,500 cy, and above -10 ft MLW was -
    15,550 cy. (A 0.3 ft adjustment to the June, 1991 offshore would indicate a loss of -
    24,000 cy from above the -10 ft MLW contour). As of July, 1992 approximately
    125,000 cy of material had been transported out of the project limits from above
    the -5 ft MLW contour. Additionally, the upper berm continued to recede. The
    average horizontal decrease in the +7 ft MLW contour along the fill area was 50
    ft, resulting in an average remaining fill width of 81 ft.

          The beaches north and south of the project limits continued to accrete and
    likewise benefitted from the spreading losses from the beach nourishment. Table
    3 shows that the beaches to the north of the project accreted 9,650 cy above -5

                                          25

    TABLE 3:  VOLUME CHANGE ALONG BUCKROE BEACH BEWEEN JUNE, 1991 AND JULY, 1992.  NOTE THAT ALL
              ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE MLW CONTOUR.

    MON           LENGTH   ABOVE 0 FT ABOVE -5 FT   ABOVE -10 FT ABOVE 0 FT ABOVE -5 FT  ABOVE -10 FT
     NO.             (FT)       (CYIFT)       (CY/FT)        (CY/FT)        (CY/FT)      (CY/FT)        (CY/FT)
         1            405          -3.6          -8.6           3.3         -1458          -3483          1337
         2            690         -4.0           -6.9          -3.1          -2760         -4761         -2139
       2.8            335         -9.2         -10.3           -6.4         -3082         -3451          -2144
       3.2            345         -9.1          -6.5           -3.8         -3140         -2243          -1311
         4            615          -3.7          -5.1          -1.5          -2276         -3137          -923
         5            660         -11.5         -15.8         -14.5          -7590        -10428         -9570
         6            620          -4.0          -3.2          -1.3          -2480         -1984          -806
    ESTIMATED CHANGE WITHIN FILL LIMITS (CY)                               -22785         -29486        -15556

    SOUTH             770          0.0            0.0                            0             0
        S1            790         21.8           32.1                       17222         25359
        S2            990          4.0           2.0                         3960          1980
    ESTIMATED CHANGE SOUTH OF PROJECT (CY)                                  21182         27339

       6.2            675          2.4           6.8                         1620          4590
         7            525          5.8            7.6                        3045          3990
    NORTH                                                                     822          1077
    ESTIMATED CHANGE NORTH OF PROJECT (CY)                                   5487          9657

    NET CHANGE THIS SURVEY INTERVAL (CY)                                      -781         7511

    ft MLW, while the southern beaches accreted 27,350 cy. As a result of the
    volumetric gains north and south of the project, the study area actually gained
    sand during this time period. The estimated net change for the fill project and the
    areas north and south totalled an increase of 7,500 cy

          The accretion documented south of the project area appears slightly
    unrealistic since the increase in volume is nearly equal to the volumetric loss from
    the project area during this time period. The comparative plot in Appendix A for
    profile R-S1 shows a large increase in volume which is characterized by a sectional
    volume change of +21.8 cy/ft above -5 ft MLW. Note that in Table 3, there was
    no additional fill allowance included south of the cell compartment corresponding
    to R-S1. It was determined that in order for this compartment to gain so much
    sand, there either had to have been a seasonal reversal in the longshore transport
    or significant onshore movement of sediment. Since the profiles indicate continued
    berm and offshore erosion, then it is likely that some of the fill moved north during
    this time period. As a result, it was not realistic to assume any additional sediment
    gain further south than R-S1.

                 Since the increase in volume north and south of the project area was
    so high during this monitoring period, the net "unaccountable" loss of sediment
    since August of 1990 decreased to -26,350 cy (above -5 ft MLW). It is important
    to realize that although more than 50 percent of the fill material is not situated
    within the project limits, the beaches north and south of the project have accreted
    dramatically. This accretion is documented quantitatively in the monitoring profiles
    as well as qualitatively through beach inspection of Fort Monroe and north Buckroe
    Beach.

    FILL MONITORING - JULY. 1992 TO OCTOBER. 1992
           To determine short-term changes in the nourishment project, as well as to
    potentially document storm effects, a beach survey was completed along the
    project area in October of 1992.  Note that at the time of this report, only the
    beach portion of the survey was available for analysis and was still designated as
    "Preliminary". Typically, the wading portion of the profile extended to a depth of -
    2 to -3 ft MLW.  Profiles were extrapolated to the -5 ft MLW contour in order to
    provide estimates of volume change.

                                           27

                         There was only one notable storm documented during the survey period of
    U           ~~~July, 1992 to October, 1992. Tropical Storm Danielle skirted the Hampton Roads
                  area on September 25, 1992. Although no specific quantitative information is
                  readily available on this storm, tides were higher than normal and there was an
                  increase in the wind and wave activity along the study area.

      H                ~~~~~~Table 4 and Figure 8 indicate that the beach along the fill area continued to
                  erode. Interestingly, the northern and southern-most compartments within the
    I          ~ ~~~project limits showed the highest volumetric erosion. The fill area eroded -14,800
                  cy from above the 0 ft MLW contour and -14,200 cy from above -5 ft MLW.
                  Average berm erosion within the project limits was -13 ft at +7 ft MLW. The inter-
                  tidal beach slope flattened to an average gradient of 1:27. This flattening of the
    3           ~~~~foreshore is typical of offshore sediment movement resulting from increased wave
                  activity.

      I                ~~~~~During this survey period, the areas north and south of the project also
                  eroded at similar rates to the beach within the project limits. Although, it is not
    I           ~~~~possible at this time to determine the actual direction of sediment transport; initially
                  it appears that the material is moving offshore. Interestingly, it also appears that
                  the southern sections of the study area (both within and outside the fill limits)
                  eroded more than the northern sections. This would also possibly suggest a
                  change in the short-term littoral transport to the north.

                  CONCLUSIONS
                         The beach nourishment project along Buckroe Beach has not only
                  successfully created a wide and healthy recreational beach, it has also provided
    *            ~~~~substantial storm protection for upland properties and investments -both within
                  and outside the project limits. As of October, 1992, more than two years after the
    3            ~~~~construction of the Buckroe Beach nourishment project, approximately 41 percent
                  of fill material or 1 10,800 cy remained within the original design limits above the -5
                  ft MLW contour. Average remaining fill width at the +7 ft MLW contour was 68 ft
    U          ~ ~~~or 35 percent of the original fill width. While this percentage appears extremely low
                  for a projected design life of 10 years, there are several factors which should be
    3            ~~~~considered in the evaluation of this project, including shoreline benefits to adjacent
                  beaches.

             I                                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~28

    TABLE 4:   VOLUME CHANGE ALONG BUCKROE BEACH BETWEEN JULY, 1992 AND OCTOBER, 1992. NOTE THAT ALL
               ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE MLW CONTOUR.

     MON          LENGTH  ABOVE 0 FT  ABOVE -5 FT  ABOVE 0 FT ABOVE -5 FT
      NO.           (FT)      (CV/Fyl        CY/FT  (CY/FT  (CY
         1            405       -6.8          -7.9         -2754         -3200
         2            690       -3.5          -2.6         -2415         -1794
       2.8           335        -2.5         -1.8          -838           -603
       3.2           345        -2.0         -1.2          -690           -414
         4            615       -2.5          -2.4         -1538         -1476
         5            660       -5.1          -5.5         -3366         -3630
         6            620       -5.2          -5.0         -3224         -3100
    ESTIMATED CHANGE WITHIN FILL LIMITS (CY)             -14824         -14217

    SOUTH            770        -2.9         -1.0          -2233          -770
        S1           790        -3.2         -2.2         -2528          -1738
        S2           990        -2.5          0.4         -2475            396
    ESTIMATED CHANGE SOUTH OF PROJECT (CY)                 -7236         -2112

       6.2           675        -2.8         -4.3         -1890          -2903
         7            525       -3.3          -1.6         -1733           -840
    NORTH               0        0.0          0.0             0              0
    ESTIMATED CHANGE NORTH OF PROJECT (CY)                 -3623         -3743

    NET CHANGE THIS SURVEY INTERVAL (CY)                 .22060         -20071

                        It is important to note that due to the short length of the project relative to
    I           ~~~~the fill width, it was inherent that the project would initially erode as the beach
                  receded towards an equilibrium condition with the surrounding shoreline. This
    3            I~~~~ongshore transport of sand from the project area is typically referred to as a
                  "spreading loss". In the case of the Buckroe Beach nourishment project, the
                  shoreline to the north and especially to the south received significant benefits from
                  this project. As of October, 1992 an estimated net volume of 88,250 cy accreted
                  above -5 ft MLW within .5 miles south of the project, while 21,550 cy accreted
    I          ~ ~~~within .25 miles north of the project. Recent beach inspection of the Buckroe area
                  supports the documented "spreading loss" from the fill location to the adjacent
    *           ~~~~shoreline; thus providing increased storm protection and recreational area for a
                  much longer shoreline reach.

     U                ~~~~~In the conceptual design of the project, Coastal Planning and Engineering
                  determined that a berm width of approximately 52 ft at the +7.3 ft MVLW contour
    U          ~ ~~was necessary to prevent bulkhead damage during a 10-year storm event. Prior
                  to project construction, an average upper berm width of 25 ft fronted the seawall.
    3            ~~~~Currently, the beach supports an average protective berm width of 94 ft at +7 ft
                  MLW. Obviously, the nourishment project has receded at much higher rates of
                  erosion than the background rate of -1.5 to -2.0 ft/yr. This increased recession
                  is expected to continue until the nourishment project is in equilibrium with the
                  surrounding shoreline. At that point, the berm would then erode at a rate similar
    3            ~~~~to the background rate. Since the design requires a 52 ft berm in order to protect
                  the seawall, the project has an average width of 41 ft remaining prior to a
                  suggested renourishment interval. (The plots in Appendix A, however, show that
                  profiles R-5 and R-6 already have less berm than the project design requires for
                  upland protection. This could possibly have resulted from under-filling these
                  sections during project construction.) Since the rates of erosion have decreased
                  since the initial construction of the project, it is estimated that the project will
    I            ~~~~continue to provide protection from a10-year storm event for an additional 2to 3
                 years. Therefore, the actual renourishment interval is estimated at 4 to 5 years.

             I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 30

    *           ~RECOMMENDATIONS
                        The results of background research and monitoring of the fill project
                  suggest that Hampton's beaches (especially Buckroe Beach) recede at moderate
                  rates of erosion, but are severely sediment starved. As a result, the shoreline and
                  upland areas are extremely susceptible to storm impact. A wide, protective beach
    I           ~~~berm is perhaps one of the best defense mechanisms against upland storm
                  damage. As suggested in this report, an area such as Buckroe Beach supports
    3           ~~~~the need for a nourishment project. Although, the "spreading losses" to adjacent
                  beaches are a realized benefit, it is unlikely that a fill project will remain within the
                  design area due to the short length of the project. Therefore, it is suggested that
                  for future nourishment design, the northern limit of fill should be increased into the
                  private sector and the southern-most limit of Buckroe Beach account for the taper
    3           ~~~~(since it will benefit from the equilibration of the project.) Naturally, this could be
                  problematic as a result of legal consideration when extending a project onto private
                  property. Another alternative is to remove the deteriorating groins along Buckroe
                  Beach and to design and construct attached breakwaters to "anchor" the project.
                  Regardless of action, additional surveys should be conducted in order to determine
    I          ~ ~~~background erosion along the entire shoreline, as well as to further document fill
                  performance. Project monitoring is extremely important in providing information
    3            ~~~~for future design success.

     3                 ~~~~~When considering future projects along the remainder of the Hampton City
                  shoreline, a definitive management plan for Salt Ponds Inlet is imperative. Dredge
                  and fill activities resulting from inlet maintenance, as well as the interruption of
                  typical coastal processes resulting from any structural change at the inlet will
                  definitely have an impact on the shoreline and therefore management policies.
                  Once decisions have been rendered regarding the inlet, Salt Ponds Beach remains
                  a good candidate for future fill activities. A nourishment project in this area would
                  not only provide storm protection and a recreational beach at the site, but would
                  also provide benefrts resulting from spreading losses to the downdrift beaches (i.e.
                  towards Buckroe Beach). The beach along Grandview supports an extremely high
                  background erosion rate. Although a fill project could potentially provide storm
                  damage and recreational benefits to this area; a site specific study would be
                  necessary in order to successfully design a project that would have any extended
                  life due to the high erosion and reversal of longshore transport immediately north.

             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 J

                        A policy on the use of the current borrow site is also necessary in order to
    I         ~ ~~~determine the feasibility of future projects. This source of material contains a large
                  quantity of readily available sand at a very reasonable price. As a result of
                  sediment availability, cost, and quality, this is certainly a preferred borrow location,
                 especially when considering upland sources. Safety factors and precautions with
    3           ~~~~regards to dredge and fill activities, however, remain a primary concern.

                        There are several options available regarding the handling of ordnance
                  relative to fill activities. The most obvious choice is to find a new borrow site along
                  Horseshoe Shoal. It is possible that increased sensitivity in the anomaly scans or
                  alternative scanning methods may allow the location of a site "clear" of ordnance.
                  (Reportedly, Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi has
    3           ~~~researched and designed new-state-of-the-art equipment and procedures for
                  locating ordnance.) The most efficient and safest method of handling the
                  ordnance is to avoid them altogether. Another option is to intercept the ordinance
                  during the dredging operation. It is important to note that the dredging firms have
                  not objected to placing this material. Dredging operations would include screening
                 the fluidized fill material at the discharge point and collecting the ordnance for
                  disposal. The problem with this option is the increased risk of concentrating the
    3           ~~~~ordnance in one place. A third option is to place the fill sand in shallow layers and
                  scan each layer of placed material during fill operations. In terms of increased time
                  and personnel this option would significantly increase the cost of fill. Also, the
    I          ~ ~~~section of fill placed below the waterline could not be adequately scanned by this
                  method.

                        While it is not within the scope of this report to discuss all of the
                  ramifications of the military ordnance at Buckroe, it is important to understand its
                  possible impact on future nourishment projects. These impacts may include;
                  permit restrictions, increased costs, beach closure, and longer construction time.
    I          ~ ~~~While the overall benefits of obtaining high quality sand may still balance the
                  increased costs, an effort should be made to locate a source which is clear of
    3            ~~~ordnance.

             *                                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~32

    REFERENCES
    Clarke, Timothy R., 1991, "Buckroe Beach Maintenance Survey Report," Letter
          report submitted to Mr. Thomas H. Daniel, Director of General Services,
          Hampton, Virginia (September 12, 1991).

    Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc., 1992, "City of Hampton, Virginia - Salt
          Ponds Inlet Management Plan," submitted to City of Hampton, Virginia
          (Boca Raton, Florida).

    Daniel, Thomas H., 1989, Letter report to Mr. Mark Jamison of URS Consultants,
          Virginia Beach, Virginia (August 7, 1989).

    Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc. and Langley and McDonald, 1988, "Shoreline
          Enhancement Study for the City of Hampton," submitted to the City of
          Hampton.

    Mann, Douglas W., Lamont W. Curtis, and Thomas H. Daniel, 1992, "Short Beach
          Nourishment Fill Performance on an Irregular Coastline," Proc., Coastal
          Engineering Practice '92, Long Beach, California.

    Rosen, P.S., 1976, "The morphology and Process of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay
          Shoreline," Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Marine Science, The College of
          William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

                                         33

    I
    I
    I
              APPENDIX A
    I
    I
    I
                      COMPARATIVE PROFILE PLOTS
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I

       15.0_
                                   HANPTON BEACH   F- 82
       12.5

       10.0

                        -  \-~~~~~j~~\ -~~~~                    --~AUG  1 ?90 A
                   ~~~  5.0                                       ---~~~~~~~~~~~~~JUN 1 991
                        -  N                                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JUL 1 992
                         3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CT 1 992
    IL  2.6

                                                    A  IS AN        ASMLTDPROFILE.
       -2.5                                              (SEE EXPLANATION IN TEXT.

    Li       -

      -10.0_

      -12.5

              UR3 CONSUL  IT~

            0   50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                              DISTANCE SEAW-ARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

       15.0
                                HAMPFTON  BEACH           R- S1

         7 \
      7.5 ,_ "
                                                         - - AUG 1 990 A
                                                       5 - -- JUN 1991
             5.%0  "                                              ------- JUL 1 992
                                xt-~~~~~ 1~OCT 1992
    LL  2.5

              H- �~  -  \1 1\ <'~~~~~                  H11 IS AN ASSIMILATED PROFILE.
    <  -2.65                           i   >o(SEE EXPLANATION IN TEXT.
           - \ \
      -50.0
    L                    - .  ,>,,

       -7.5                                      -O

           5-

      -12.5

             UR D CONFSUL--ANTS:

           0   50  100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                           DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

       15.0
                                    HAMPTON  BEACH              R- 01
       12.5_

       10.0'

      r\7.5

        5.0 _                            N                           ,***. JUL 1990 (PRE)
                                                            - - AUG 1990 (POST)
                                                                 JUN 1991
    LL   2.5                                                                JUL 1992
           -                                                        -OCT 1992

    H-
       -2.5 _
    > ~
    w        -.

      -10.0 _~z
                     W                    *'ik~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      -12.5

               UR 33 CONSUL--ANTc:

            0    5s   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  8We
                              DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

         15.0_
                                   HAMPTON  BEACH             R- 02l~
         12.5

         10.0

                    N~~~~~~~~

           _                     '.0-* JUL 1 990 (PRE)
                                     N '~~~~                 - -~~~AUG 1990 (POST)
                                    \.~~~~~~~ -  -JUN 1991
      It  2.5 ----- JUL 1992
                         -  *     N\                             -  ~~~~~~~~~~OCT 1992

    .4 ~   0.

       <-7.5

           I 0.N 0>

                  -12.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5.

               UR3 CONSUL--ANTc:

             O   50  100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  760  800
                              DISTANCE SEAWAR~D OF MONUMENT (FT)

           15.0 _

                                         :HAMF'TON  BEACH            R- 2  2

                -;
           10.0 ;.    .  v

        3-  7.5

        -_       -               *      \
            5.0 '
                                  -                                  - -- JUN 1991
                                   , ------- JUL 1992
        LL   2.5                         x

    n   Z   0. 0                          "

        H  -2.5                                         x

        W -
        _X  -5.0                     '              -

         1w.    -
                _                                                  -.... ...
                - . 5                                             i.  _ -  ,   .

                -  UR3 CONSUL--ANTE:
          -15 ,0   I111111111 11 1111111 IIIII 11II I  IIIIIIIII  111111111 111111111  1111111I
                -10.0                     250  300  350  400 460 5_00  50  600  6G0  700  760  500
                                   DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

                                                                  HAV1FITON BEIACH                             FR- 2. 4
              12.5

              10.0_

           '-5 7.5            -

             0

                                                                        \   \                                  --- ~~~~~~~JUN 1 991
                                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----                                                      -JUL 1992
        W1      2. 5 _'.                                          '

    o   -)  Q                                                        --   -

          H-  12-E
                                          URN   CONSUL-'AN~~~~~~~c ~
                 -1 .    1 1 1 1   1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1   1 1 1 1   1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1   11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1   1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1
           w ~ 60                     10    5    0    5    0    3040405050    0   6 0 5 o
                    L~ ~~DI SAC SEWR FMOUET(T

     15.0_
                                 HAM'FITON  BEACH           R- 2. 8
     1 2. 5

     10.0

      7.                  *

             S.~~~~~~~ 0                                                JUL 1990 (PRE)

                 H    -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U 1990 (POST)
                 LL   2.5                                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JUN 1991
                      -         .~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~OCT 1992

    H   2.5 9

     10.0

    -12.5

            UR3" CONSUL--ANTE;

          0    50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  Boo  550  600  650  700  750  800
                            DISTANCE SEAW4ARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

       15.0 _
                                        HAMPTON  BEACH           F- 3 .
       12.5

       10.0
                  '6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~II7.5

        6. -                     \                                1**-*-* JUL 1990 (PRE)
                                                                    - -- AUG 1990 (POST)
             --                  `~e                               -     JUN 1991
    WL  2.5                                                            - JUL1992
             -                  *\ \   \                                 OCT 1992
           z~I                                   \

    w- 2

        -7.5

                UR 3CONSUL A~

             0  60   100  160  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                                  DISTANCE SEAW-ARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

       15.0_
                                        HAMPTON BEACH    R- 014
       12.6

       10.0

        E. 0 _N                                                       **.  JUL 1990 (PRE)
                           -   X                                     - - ~~~~~~~~~~~AUG 1990 (POST)
                    LL   2.5                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JUN 1991
          25V----                                                          JUL 1 992
                    Z    0.0                                         -~~~~~~~~~~~~~OCT  1992

     <-2.5E

    W       -E;
       -75

      -12. 5_

               UR3. CONSUL-ANTE:

            0    50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                                  DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

       15.0
                                     HAMPTON  BEACH            R- 0D
       12.5

       10.0

    7
         7.5         c      -_    N
      5.0

                                                                   AUG 1990 (POST)
                   I,  --                                       ---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JUN 1991
    LI  2.5                                ----- JUL 1992
            -            *   s,\                                      OCT 1992

      D~~~~~~~~                         N
      t-~ -
       -2.5 9

    _J -5.0 _

       -75 _""

      -12.5

               3UR  CONSUL--ANTE:
      -16-0   HilIlillf  111111111  111111111  11,111111f  111111111  rrlllIrlr lI~ l
            0   50  100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                               DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

       15.0_
                                        HAMP~TON BEACH    R- 06
       1 2.5 _

       10.0K

            E3                                                         ..*- JUL 1 990 (PRE)
                                     " \                             -  - ~~~~~~~~~AUG 1 990 ( POST
                    1~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-  -                           ---JUN  1991
    Li   2. 5                                                               ---- JUL 1992
                            -                                         -~~~~~~~~~~~~~OCT  1992

         I-~~N-

      - 2.5 _L

    Li..                                        ,N

      -12.6

                UR:'CON~SUL--ANTC:

             0    50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  600  550  600  650  700  750  800
                                  DISTANCE SEAWJARD OF MONUM1ENT (FT)

           15.0
                                          HAMPTON BEACH   R- 6. 2
           12.5

           10.0

                :\                                                       --AUG  1990 A
        Z   sr o                                                                JUN 1 991
            5. 0
                                                                    - ------  JUL 1992
                                                                         O  CT 1992
        LL   2.5

          0.0
           I~~~~~a ~
    N3 O
                H    ~~~~~~~=�~.                               NoT;E:
                                                            A  IS AN ASSIMILATED PPO ILE.
            -2.6                                                (SEE EXPLANATION IN TEXT.

           '-7.5

          -12.5

                   UR 9 CONSUL-ANTE;

                0    50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                                    DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

       15.0

                                  HAMFITON  BEACH           R- 07
       12.5 _

       75\\

         -7% E
                                                          --_ AUG 1990 A
                                                          -  -  ---JUN 1991
        5.0                                IN----JUL 1 992
                                                              -    OCT 1 992

    LL   2.5

      Z 0.0         ~~-~JTE
    ~   0    _A IS AN ASSIMILATED PF1OILEa
                                                  (SEE EXPLANATION IN TEXT.
       -<2.5

    w        -                                        - '
    1J -5.0
                                                        'S-
       -7.5                                                      -5 5.

                                                                    ' -~~-~z    ---- -
      -10.0

      -12.5

              UR 3 CONSUL--ANTc.;

           0    50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                             DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

      15. 0
                             HAM'PTON BEACH    R-080
      12.5

      10.0_

       5.0
                =,                ------- JUL 1992
    H-
    LL   2.5 E
    z �,

    II       --
    H-  -2.5

    _j -5.0
    W -

      -7.5 _-  --\~~__~_,

      -10.0

      -12.5

            UR3 CONSUL--ANTE:

          0   50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                         DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

                                     HAMP~TON  BEACH          fR- 09
        12.5_

        10.0_

                      S :e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----- UL19

     LL  2.5                                                           JLV'L

    0Z0

     <  -2.5                    -

      I -E;.O--.-------
                       w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ------
        -7.G

       -10.0_

       -12.5

                -    U CONSUL--ANTc;

             0   50  100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                                DISTANCEI SEAW-ARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

       15.0

                                       HAAMPFTON BEACH               R- 1 0
       12.5

        7.I
    -K
      '-S`'-'

                  50L---J                                                         1992
    LL   2.5

      -2.5

    Li        -`
    _j  -5.0--

       -7.5 -` '-

      -10.0

      -12.5_

                UR 2 CONSUL--ANTE;
       -15.0  Ill1ll1lt Il1lill1f  Ill1lf1ll Il1llil1l  flhlilfil  hhh1lhhht h1hlhhhil hlh1ff1ll 111111111 hhhhhhlff 111111111 IIIHIIII1 hlhhhlhhl hhhlhhhhh 111111111 hhhilhhhh
             0    50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                                 DISTANCE SEAWIARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

                               HAMPTON BEACH    R-1I1
     1 2. 5_

     10.0

                 5.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--- SUL 1992

    W2.5 _

    F-2.5 _

     -7.5                                                                ------

    -12.5

          -UR' CONSULANC
         0    50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  660  700  750  800
           -   ~~~DISTANCE SEAW4ARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

          I15. 0
                                   HAMPTON BEACH    R-i? 1
          12.5

           50.0

                    a  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ---- JUL 1992
       Li...  2.5

    000
       < -2. 5 _5.

           -7. 5_

         -10.0_

          -12.56

                -UR3 CONSUL--ANTc-

              0   50  100  160  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  560  600  650  700  750  Soo
                              DISTANCE SEAW4ARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

     15.0_
                              HAMPTON BEACH    R- 1 4
     12.5_

     I 0.~

       -. 0

                 5*0:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--- JUL 1992

    LL2.5

    Z0.0

    <-2.5

    -10.0_

    -12.5

            UR 3 CONSUL--ANTE:

         0    50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                          DISTANCE SEAWiARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

            15.0_
                                                        HAMPTON BEACH    R- I16
            12.5_

            10.0_

                                 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~---                                          JUL  1992

       LL    2.5

    N.)0.
    c   0

            -2.5_

                            w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ------ ----------

            -12.5 _

                        UfR'D  CONSUL--ANTE:
           - 1 5 . 01 1 1    1 1 1 1  11 1 4 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11  i l t l  1 1 1 1  1 11 i l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1  1 1 1 1  1 1 1 1
                    0     50    100   160   200   260   300   350   400   450   500   550   600   650   700   750   800
                                               DISTANCE SEAW~SARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

       15.0
                                HAMPTON BEACH    R- 18G

       10.0

       5. 0
                                                      -----JUL 1992
    Wi 2.56

     z 0.0

     H 2.5

       -7.5  -------

      -10.0

      - 12. 5

           - URD CONSUL--ANTE:

           0    50   100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  600  550  600  650  700  750  800
                           DISTANCE SEAW4ARD OF MONUMENT (FT)

          115.0_
                                         HAMPTON  BEACH             fR- 1 1)
          12. 5

          10.0_

         j' 7.5

           5.0_
                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----                        JUL 1992
      LL   2.5

    N~~~6 0

          -7.5_

                                                                       �-          � ------  --- �-------------
         -10.0_

         -12.5

               -  UR:' CONSUL~A~

               0   50  100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
                                   DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT)