[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


                                  -                  :      :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: 'ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½i'-iï¿½iï¿½i;ï¿½ 














      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~ï¿½ï¿½-ï¿½ 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
     ï¿½ ' :.                            / '~




 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

0ï¿½                                   - /         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- ï¿½~  -  \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    ~~~~~~~=ï¿½~.                               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 ï¿½,


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_

                                                                   ï¿½-          ï¿½ ------  --- ï¿½-------------
     -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)