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











                                                                             Project #93.4.10







                                          NORTHERN
                                    SEABROOK BEACH


                               COASTAL BEACH STUDY






























                   m CIVIL



                   MARINE


                  PLANNING


                STRUCTURAL

           TRANSPORTATION                                              Appledore Engineering, ln*c.


















                                              NORTHERN
                                       SEABROOK BEACH


                                  COASTAL BEACH STUDY










                                                       June 1995





                                                     Prepared For:

                                                   Town of Seabrook
                                                   99 Lafayette Road
                                                      PO Box 456
                                            Seabrook, New Hampshire 03870

                                                     Prepared By:

         3Q,                                   Appledore Engineering, Inc.
                                                600 State Street, Suite D
                                           Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801
                                                                                      NH Coastal Program


                 This report was funded in part by a grant from the Office of State Planning, New Hampshire
                  Coastal Program, as authorized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                      (NOAA), Grant Award Number NA370ZO277
              (816-003.DOC)











                       BACKGROUND


                       Purpos

                       The purpose of this study is to analyze existing beach conditions on. the northern section
                       of Seabrook Beach and evaluate options which would enhance the beach and improve
                       shore protection for the existing residential development. To accomplish the analysis of
                       existing conditions, AEI completed the following:

                              Review of Archival Data
                              Discussions with State and Local Officials
                              Topographic Survey
                              Littoral Material Sampling and Grain Size Analysis.

                       Our evaluation of options included:

                              Site Inspection of several local shore protection structures
                              Computer modefing of several options
                              Qualitative evaluation of the effectiveness of the options to achieve enhancement
                              of the beach and additional protection for the existing shorefront homes.

                       Study Area

                       Seabrook Beach forms part of the barrier beach system which extends from Plum Island to
                       Great Boars Head. The barrier beach is backed by an extensive salt marsh system, the
                       Blackwater River and portions of Hampton Harbor. The barrier beach has been heavily
                       developed, with, primarily, residential development on the ocean side and
                       commercial/residential development on the landward side. Route I -A runs along the
                       length of the barrier beach (see Figure I - Vicinity Map).

                       The study area for this report includes Seabrook Beach from Hooksett Street on the south
                       to the Hampton Harbor inlet on the north (see Figure 2 - Existing Conditions Plan). The
                       study area includes sections located within both the Town of Seabrook and the Town of
                       Hampton.

                       Immediately south of the study area, the residential development is set back approximately
                       200 to 400 feet from the high tide fine, allowing a dune system to exist between the high
                       tide line and the development. This dune system was recently restored by the Town of
                       Seabrook during the springs of 1993 and 1994 (EEP, Inc., 1988). Within the study area,
                       the residential development occurs between 50 feet and 120 feet of the high tide fine (see
                       Figure 3). No continuous dune system exists within the study area, although several small
                       dune systems and beach grass patches are evident.









                      The Hampton Harbor inlet is stabilized by jetties on both the north and south shores. The
                      inlet provides boating access into and out of Hampton Harbor.
                      Shore protection structures in the study area consist of various measures constructed by
                      individual property owners. Structures include concrete seawalls, stone revetments
                      (armored slopes), and small dunes, among others. No continuous shore protection
                      structure (either natural or man-made) is in place.

                      The location of the residential development with respect to the high tide line provides
                      limited usable recreational beach width. Due to the lack of dune system development and
                      proximity of houses to the high tide line, the study area is susceptible to damage during
                      storm events. The houses and other shorefront structures also act to trap wind blown
                      sand causing inconvenience and flooding concerns for the shorefront property owners.

                      One landmark within the study area is the exposed ledge located near mean low water,
                      between Concord and Franklin Streets. Both the US Geologic Survey (USGS) maps and
                      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) charts for the area refer to
                      this exposed ledge as "Thomas Rock." However, the US Army Corps of Engineers plans
                      and reports refer to this ledge as "Thompson Rock". Both Thomas and Thompson Rock
                      are used interchangeably throughout this study to designate the ledge,

                      Vertical Datum


                      The vertical datum for this report is mean low water (MLW) based on the 1960 to 1978
                      tidal epoch. Reports from as far back as 1932 were reviewed for this study. Therefore,
                      some reports reviewed were based on the 1941 to 1959 tidal epoch and others on the
                      1924 to 1942 tidal epoch. The 1932 report was most likely based on a mean low water
                      datum with reference to the National Geodedic Vertical Datum of 1929. Additional
                      shoreline information dates back to the late 1700's, when tidal data is relatively scarce.

                      Over the time period 1929 to 1995 there has been a relative rise in sea level of
                      approximately 0.36 feet for the study area (NOAA, 1988). This study has not attempted
                      to adjust data presented from previous reports for this relative rise in sea level.

                      Most published reports predict a continued relative rise in sea level, some suggesting an
                      increase in the rate of sea level rise (Titus, 1987). Fixed structures, such as the existing
                      seawalls and homes adjacent to the study area, would be subject to increased storm
                      damage as sea level rises. Higher water levels would allow for larger waves to break
                      closer to the existing structures. Natural barrier beach systems tend to retreat shoreward
                      during periods of rising sea level (Dolan and Lins, 1987). Developed barrier beaches, as is
                      the case with the study area, are not allowed to move shoreward without the displacement
                      of existing buildings and structures.

                      Vertical control was established for the beach surveys completed by Appledore
                      Engineering, Inc. (AEI) based on the USC&GS survey disk "Entrance" located adjacent
                      to the study area (see Figure 2). The elevation of this disk is 15.37 feet based on the 1960
                      to 1978 tidal epoch, mean low water datum (AE1, 1992).


                                                              2










                                                                                                                       2







                                                                                                                                       7



                                                                                                           3

                                                                                        2.5


                                                                                                                              6
                                                                                                     Hampton Beach






                                                                                                            2
                                                                               %;7'                                             10
                                                                         Boat
                                                                                                                          7
                                                                                                                Old Cell
                           r                                        . .......
                                                                                       H
                                     Z'
                                                                                                                                      @.t  Outer Sunk
                            A
                                                            ..........
                         fs la





                                                     ...........
                                                                                                                           7
                                                                                                  ec@"@Oint
                                                                                                                                 Inner Sunk
                                 r      ... 'N-v
                                                                                                  ......                          ocks,
                                                      oper
                                                                                  u
                                                                                  R          7                                            15
                                                                                                                        9-
                                                                                                        STUDY   AR
                                           r                                                                       EA
                                                . . . . . .                                 71homas
                      Val low                                                              Rock
                @iz & - -4.anom
                                                                                          S;@abrook Beach
                                                                                                                        12!
                                                                                                            a


              7
                                                                                                          @buter T@@pen
                                                                                                             Rock
                                                                  the-

                                                                                                                                       17
                                                                                                      Inner Tapjb6n
                                                                                                    .-Rock
                               '7
                                                                                                                  %

                                                                                                                      12
                                                                                                   6


                                                                                               Round
                                                                                               Rock



                                          CH
                                          "Wim
                                          Pmmha                         VICINITY        MAP                 NORTHERN SEABROOK BEACH
                                                                                                                COASTAL BEACH STUDY
              Appledore Engineering, Inc.
              600 State Street. Suite D                                1042      z!w                 4167      SEABROOK & HAMPTON
              Port=outh. NH 03801          (603)433-8818                                                             NEW HAMPSHIRE
                REFERENCE:                                               @1111
                USGS QUAD, EXETER-NH          1:25,000                        m Fm
                 DATE: JUNE 1995                                                                                                        FIGURE I
              (816MC)                     wo           THIS FIGURE WAS FUNDED IN PART BY A GRANT FROM THE OFFICE
                                                         OF STATE PLANNINr@ NEW HAMPSHIRE COASTAL PROGRAM. AS
                                                          AUTHOROM BY THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
                                                        ADMINISTRATICN (NOAA). GRANT AWARD NUMBER NA37OZO277.









                                                                          MITE
                                                                          ROCKS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        A TLAN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           OCEAP



                                                                                                                   2 ------------------------ -
                                                                                                                                                                     lk-                                AprA
                                                                                                                                                              S-3
                                                                            ---- - ------ -


                                                                                                                6
                                                               USC&GS DISK                                               -------
                                                             'ENTRANCE 1928"
                                                                                                                                                                                            0-
                                                                                                                                                                                                             S-6

                                                                                BECKMANS
                                                                               ROCK                                                                                           00"
                                                                                       x13.5
                                                                                                                                                                                     8         C
                                                                                                     14.60X
                                                                                                                                                                                                        -5
                                                                                                                                                                                                               FEMA 100 YR.
                                                                                                                                                                                    2
                                                                                                                                                                                                               ZONE VE (EL. 1


                                                                                                                                                 14.69
                                                                                                                                A-Z
                                                                                                                                                              4)v
                                                                                                                                                                                        &lc-4                                   -------

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1yolq'p.s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  20.9


                                                                                                                                                                                                                     x D.09












                                                                                                                                                                                                             FEMA 1    00    YR.
                                                                                                                                                                                                             FLOOD ZON       E
                                                                                     NOTES:                                                                                                                                  ) A117
                                                                                                                                                                                                             AE (EL. 13
                                                                                          1. DEPTHS ARE IN FEET AND ARE REFERENCED TO MEAN LOW WATER
                                                                                            (1969 TO 1978 TIDAL EPOCH).
                                                                                          2. CONTOURS WERE DEVELOPED FROM A SURVEY COMPLETED ON FEBRUARY 23, 1995 BY DOUCET
                                                                                            SURVEY INC. THE SURVEY CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS INDICATING THE CONDITIONS EXISTING
                                                                                            AT THAT TIME AT THE LOCATION COVERED ONLY. CONTOURS WERE COMPUTER GENERATED
                                                                                            USING AdCADD DTM VERSION 12.06, OPERATING WITHIN AUTODESK. AUTOCADD VERSON 12
                                                                                            (-6 AND -12 CONTOURS DIGITIZED FROM NOAA. 1990.)

                                                                                          3. VER71CAL BENCHMARK
                                                                                            DESIGNATION: "ENTRANCE - 1928"
                                                                                            STAMPING: ENT - 1928
                                                                                            MONUMENTATlION: SURVEY DISK
                                                                                            AGENCY/DISK TYPE: USACE & GS TIDAL BENCH MARK
                                                                                            SETTING CLASSIFICATION: STONE
                      TIDAL DATA:                               MLW DATUM                   ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE MLW (1960-1978 EPOCH): 15.37
                      ESTIMATED 100  YR FLOOD (WITH WAVES)           16.0,                  THE BENCH MARK IS SET IN THE SOUTH END OF A 15.0 FOOT WIDE SEAWALL,
                                                                                            LOCATED 150 FEET NORTH FROM THE END OF OCEAN DRIVE, 33.0 FEET NORTH,
                      ESTIMATED 100  YR FLOOD (STILLWATER)           13.0'                  FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROCK SLOPE TO THE BEACH. 385 FEET WEST FROM
                      HIGH TIDE LINE (H.T.L.)                        11.0ï¿½'                 A 20 FOOT HIGH HARBOR MARKER 7A.
                      MEAN HIGH WATER (M-K.W.)                        8.3'                4. FEMA FLOOD ZONES, REFERENCE: FEMA, 1986
                                                                      0.01
                      MEAN LOW WATER (M.LW.)                                                                  GRAPHIC SCALE                                                       LEGiND:
                      (1960 - 1978 TIDAL EPOCH)                      -0.3'                   100        0   50 1          2?0                400                                  S-8   APPROXIMATE BEACH MATERIAL
                      MEAN LOWER LOW WATER (M.L.L.W.)                                         @11119              90                                                              Q@  1@ SAMPLE LOCATION MAY 4, 1995
                      ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOW WATER (A.L.W.)            -2.0ï¿½'                                        IN FEET                                                         X
                      ES71MATED EXTREME LOW WATER (E.L.W.)           -3.5ï¿½1                                                                                                             SPOT GRADE








                                                                                                                                                                                      77









                                                   T    V-.


                                                                                                                                                              pk

                                                                                                                                           MEOW



                                                                                                                        THOMPSON
                                                                                                                               CK
                                                                                                                            .10                                                                       Nl\
                                                                                                                                                                                               s



                                                                                  STUDY AREA




                       Zi
                                                                                                                               .lfi@L4w-


                                                                                                                         ï¿½r.,


                                                   ''@Ao









                                                                   ad







                                                p-

                                                                                                                                                    IV,
                                                            eP                                                            f



                                                                                                                                    7A










                                                                           APPROMMATE      GRAPHIC    SCALE
                                                                         0       250      500               1000
                        REFERENCE:
                                                                                                                                                   man=














































                           JAMES W.       SEWALL, 1986
                                                                                          IN FEET











                       ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS


                       Review of Archival Data


                       The review of archival data included a review of reports and design memorandum from
                       the US Army Corps of Engineers (U.SACE). A complete list of references is presented in
                       Section V, Bibliography.

                       Prior to 1934/1935, when the Hampton Harbor inlet was stabilized, the harbor inlet
                       migrated considerably (see Figure 4). At times the study area has been located in the
                       middle of the inlet, to the north of the inlet or to the south, as it is at present. The inlet
                       stabilization was undertaken to prevent the fiirther northward migration of the inlet into
                       the developed section of Hampton Beach (USACE, 1932). In the 1932 USACE
                       Cooperative Study on Hampton Beach (USACE, 1932), it was noted that the installation
                       of the jetty on the southern side of the channel was not for beach protection, but was for
                       stabilization of the inlet. Two reference beach profiles (K-K and L-L) were located within
                       the study area as part of the 1932 study (see Figure 2).

                       Several studies/reports were completed for Seabrook Beach following the stabilization of
                       the Harbor inlet. A study completed in 1942 found no need for protection of Seabrook
                       Beach (USACE, 1953).

                       A report completed in 1.953 (USACE, 1953) summarized changes in the study area as
                       follows:


                         Location                               Dates         Elevation            Beach Change


                         Channel Entrance to Profile L-L        1931-1939     High water           170' accretion
                         Channel Entrance to Profile L-L        1931-1939     Low water            225' accretion
                         Channel Entrance to Profile L-L        1939-1940     High water           170' erosion
                         Channel Entrance to Profile L-L        1939-1940     Low water            100' erosion
                         Profile K-K                            1940-1952     Above high water     30' erosion
                         Profile K-K                            1940-1952     Between low and      accretion
                                                                              high water
                         Profile L-L                            1940-1952     Above high water     erosion
                         Profile L-L                            194071952     Between low and      erosion
                                                                              high water

                       Note: see Figure 2 for location of profiles.









                                                                  3









                      This report also noted that while "The predominant direction of littoral drift along the
                      region from Great Boars Head to Castle Neck is from north to south ..... In general, there
                      is no great predominance of drift in any one direction along this coastal region. Variations
                      in drift probably occur depending upon the direction of approach of on-shore winds and
                      waves which they generate". Strong tidal currents in the vicinity of the harbor inlet were
                      also noted to transport littoral materials especially north of Thompson Rock. The 1953
                      report noted that sand from the northern portion of the study area may be moving
                      northward over the breakwater and into the channel. This report, however, did not
                      recommend any improvements for Seabrook Beach.

                      The beach front homes in the study area appear to have been constructed in the mid to late
                      1940's. An aerial photograph of the study area taken between 1932 and 1936 shows that
                      residential development had not yet taken place (USACE, 1932). Plans from the USACE
                      do not show the development in 1942, but do in 1953 (USACE, 1953). One beach front
                      resident indicated that her home was built in 1947 (Manzi, 19 5 5).

                      A report completed in 1962 (USACE, 1962) found general accretion in the study area
                      between 1953 and 1959, with movement of the' high water line 25 to 50 feet seaward, and
                      up to 100 feet seaward movement near the northern end of the study area. The report
                      noted "Since stabilization of the inlet, Seabrook Beach has alternated between erosion and
                      accretion, the net effect of these changes resulting generally in only small shore line
                      movements". This report also noted that the movement of littoral material in the study
                      area is most predominantly on and off shore (east/west) not north/south along the beach.
                      Movement of littoral material was also attributed to tidal currents that carried sand over
                      the jetty, into and out of the harbor.

                      Location of the shorefiront homes within the study area was also discussed in the 1962
                      report. The report noted that the homes are located about 75 to 90 feet landward of the
                      high water line, and that seawalls and other shore protection structures have been built to
                      prevent damage to the homes by storm wave attack. Frequent maintenance and
                      construction activities were associated with the upkeep of these structures. Figure 5A
                      shows a section of Seabrook beach in 1958 and a similar photograph from 1995 is shown
                      in Figure 5C.

                      The 1962 report made two (2) recommendations.for Seabrook Beach: first, enlarge a
                      portion of the existing south jetty to pFevent sand from moving north along the beach and
                      into the channel and second, provide protection for the homes by constructing a protective
                      sand beach of sufficient width to dissipate storm wave energy.

                      In 1063, the USACE recommended and implemented navigation improvements to the
                      Hampton Harbor inlet. Recommended improvements included a 1,000 foot extension of
                      the north jetty, and raising the outermost 300 foot section of the south jetty and providing
                      a 180 foot spur to the south. The channel was also to be dredged to eight (8) feet at mean
                      low water. The USACE issued a detailed project report (USACE, 1963) outlining the
                      proposed work.



                                                              4
















                                                                                                                                                                U



                                                                                                                                                               o





                                                                                                                        NORTH WHO
                                                                                                                                                                                        ROCKS .0
                                                                                                             *@lyowft NOWS
                                                                                                      dun
                                                                                                                                                                %wooi
                                                                                                     ROCK                                                       '41       SECKMANS NOCK
                                                                                                                                                                          -1 op
                                                                                                                                SOUTH
                                                                                                                                      Su
                                                                                                                                  ROCKS                                        3
                                                                                                                                                                                           SOUT14 rim
                                                                                          BECK           4   "1311's                                         e;l          a
                                                                                                                                                                                             SOCKS

                                                                                                                                                                                 STUDY       AREA
                                                                                                                        STUDY AREA                                fTwopso
                                                                                                                                                                          ROM
                                                                                                                                                                 I




                                                                                                             17TS                                                         1855





















                                                                                    42-4'
                                                                                                                            4-          r54, 42-14,
                                                                                                                        MONTH SUNK                                        %        nanrNs
                                                                                                                                                                          \,           44UNE..
                                                                                                             TOWN            #KXKS                                                         Ka
                                                                                                             ROCKS

                                                                                                    OUR
                                                                                                   A..                                                            DUN ROCK
                                                                                                                                                         I                ECKMANS ROCK
                                                                                                             WHITT          ;..ZOUTM :UNK                I                -TE           -..IOUT- Stwx
                                                                                                             ROCKS        ::.    MOCK                                                        "O"S
                                                                                                      ECKMA              0
                                                                                                         IMAM
                                                                                                         Twompso"                                                  ,THOMPSON
                                                                                                         OC,
                                                                                                         411-        STUDY AREA
                        NOTE:                                                                                ROCK.                                                        NOCK   STUDY AREA'
                            Sh@f /Me of WS f0two Ovtljk AawwrWfy
                        coolff Of/Pop #bar* 6409 fron, U.S.C. a a $
                        CIA 0"M I V. S. 11. 0.  8 ond Analp a 0 IV. IV. %We        42-53'                                  +         . ....                                                     4t-ss,
                        .Viq*nwy offervar.
                            r'"#or &" vefteo'em J, of ^we I of                                                                                                                         +
                        evoth em"00 8"re's rep    owl cofte " lAts".
                                          LE,GENO                                                            1912                                                         193,
                                   H.W. SHORELINE
                                   L.W.SMORELINC



                                                          Morin*                       HAMPTON HARBOR INLET
                                                          M@ba                                                                                         NORTHERN SEABROOK BEACH
                                                         S&uc6wd                          SHORE LINE CHANGES
                                                         Tror"wortation                                                                                       COASTAL BEACH STUDY
                   Appledore Engineering, Inc.                                                           1776-1931
                   600 Stcte Street. Suite ID
                   Portsmouth, NH 03801                     (603)433-8818                                APPROXIMATE                                         SEABROOK & HAMPTON
                                                                                                         GRAPMC SCALE                                                     NEW HAMPSHIRE
                     REFERENCE:                                                           0          Z500          5.01w                     10,000
                     USACE.1953'


                      DATE: JUNE            1995
                                                                                                             ( Di FEET                                                                         FIGURE 4
                   (816MC)                                    a              THIS FIGURE WAS I`UNDED IN PART BY A GRANT FROM THE OFFICE
                                                                               OF   STATE PLANNING, NEW HAMPSHIRE COASTAL PROGRAM. AS
                                                                                                                                                                          'a







                                                                                                                                                                          8-5 5




















                                                                                       Ll
                   AV#







                                                      Q(                  t      AUTHORIZED BY THE NAT10MAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
                                                                               ADMINISTRATION (NOAA), GRANT AWARD NUMBER NA37OZ0277.


                                                                                                                                                                          COUM PROGUM













                                                                                                                                                             REFERENCE
                                                                                                                                                             POINT









                                                                                                                                                                                                 Z










                                                                                           do-

                                                                                               @i;'.             44'@4:
                                                                            gV4

                                                                                                                                                                                             A
                                                                                                                                                                                            -A



                                                                                                                                                                         --amp.





                                                                                                                                  FIGURE       5A:
                                                                                                            SEABROOK          BEACH, SEPTEMBER                 19,    1958.
                                                                                                                       REFERENCE: USACE, 1962













                                                                                                                                                                                         ALZ























                                                                                                                                  FIGURE       58:
                                                                                                         SEABROOK           BEACH, FEBRUARY                  6 OR 7,     1978.
                                                                                                                        REFERENCE: MANSI, 1995









                                                                                                                                         .REFERENCE
                                                                                                                                           POINT













                                                                                                                                  7z,-,












                                                                                                                                  FIGURE 5C:
                                                                                                                   SEABROOK BEACH, MAY 12, 1995.


                                                                                                                                                 JUNE 9, 1995
                                                                                                                                                        N.T.S.                                THIS FIGURE WAS FUNDED IN PAW INY A GRANT FROM
                                                       AMA-           NORTHERN SEABROOK BEACH                                            DATE,
                                                      Plw*kv                                                                             SCAUE-*                                  I             THE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING, NEW @MMIRE
                 Cz                                   sbljctwd               COASTAL BEACH STUDY                                         DESIGNED BY: 'FM
                                                      Tfwap-tott-                                                                        DRAWN BY,      NJE                                   COASTAL PROGRAM, AS AIJITIORIZED BY THE NATIOKIAL
                 @d                                                                                                                                                                            OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISM-RON (NOAA)
                        Appledore Engineering, Inc.                          SEABROOK & HAMPTON                                          APPROVED BY-  -F4MS
                        000 Ma" 91;@L Odto D                                                                                             PROJECT NO:    816                                         GRANT AWARD NUMBER NA37OZO277
                                       H..Pwi. amol (aaa) 433--eals                  NEW HAMPSHIRE                                       FILE NO:       W8S









                        The 1963 detailed project report noted that construction of the north jetty extension
                        would not be expected to reduce the supply of sand available for Seabrook Beach, but
                        recommended that Seabrook Beach be monitored for shoreline recession and nourishment
                        provided as necessary. As a condition for participating in the navigation improvements,
                        the USACE required that "local interests" accept responsibility to "provide such beach
                        nourishment at Seabrook Beach as may be required to off set a possible reduction in
                        supply because of inlet improvement".

                        Other reports from the USACE indicate that material from Hampton Harbor was dredged
                        and utilized for beach nourishment on Hampton Beach periodically including 193 5, 194 1,
                        1954, 1965, 1973, 1980, 1987 and 1993. The Hampton Beach nourishment project was
                        authorized as a federal beach erosion control project in 1954. The Hampton Harbor
                        entrance channel has been subject to more frequent dredging efforts including 1941, 1955,
                        1965, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1981 and 1984.

                        A report compiled by the Strafford Rockingham Regional Council (1978) detailing the
                        effects from the Blizzard bf 1978 did not indicate any long term changes in the study area
                        as a result of the storm. Some steepening of the beach profile and an increase in the off-
                        shore sand bar was noted after the storm. However, summer wave conditions returned
                        much of the sand to the beach. It was further noted that the riprap revetments and
                        seawalls along the northern portion of the beach were found to be insufficient for a storm
                        of this magnitude. A photograph of the study area taken during the blizzard of 1978 is
                        shown on Figure 5B.

                        The 1982 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hampshire Coastal Program
                        Ocean and Harbor Segment (NOAA 1982) did not list Seabrook Beach as an area of
                        significant erosion, but did list the Seabrook Dunes as an area requiring stabilization.

                        The Rockingham Planning Commission's 1986 update to "Assessment, Impact and
                        Control of Shoreline Change Along the New Hampshire's Tidal Shoreline" noted that
                        periodic erosion at Seabrook Beach is not critical but does' have the potential to impact the
                        homes located along the northern portion of the beach. This report did not recommend
                        improvements along the northern portion of the beach but did suggest restoration of the
                        dune system along the southern portion of the beach (as previously noted, the Seabrook
                        dunes underwent a restoration effort in 1993 and 1994). An on-going monitoring
                        program for all New Hampshire coastal areas was also recommended.

                        Review of data available from NOAA did not reveal any damage from Hurricane Bob in
                        August, 1991 (NOAA, 1991) for Seabrook Beach. However the destruction of one house
                        on Seabrook Beach during the "Halloween Storm", October 1991 was reported (NOAA,
                        1992).

                        Aerial Photographs of the study area were reviewed along with historic maps. This data is
                        summarized on Figure 6, Historic High Water Schematic Plan. Data from previous
                        USACE and recent AEI beach surveys was used to generate the historic beach profiles
                        shown in Figure 7. The high-water lines and profiles show significant variation from year
                        to year, but a long term pattern of erosion or accretion is not evident.
                                                                   5











                       Discussions with State and Local Officials


                       On May 11, 1995 a meeting was held with Dr. Frank Richardson, of the New Hampshire
                       Wetlands Board (NHWB) at the offices of the New Hampshire Coastal Program in
                       Portsmouth. Existing conditions and possible improvements to Seabrook Beac*h were
                       discussed. According to Dr. Richardson, the homes situated along the study area were
                       built by flattening the dune area of the beach. This construction took place prior to the
                       1970's implementation of NHWB regulations concerning activities in dune areas. He felt
                       that the area between the houses and high water line has been accretional and the system is
                       trying to naturally rebuild the dunes. He noted that the installation of snow fences in this
                       area will typically capture a substantial amount of sand. The build up of sand in front of
                       seawalls and riprap causes storm waves to run up the sand slopes and overtop the seawalls
                       causing concern among the homeowners. The Hampton portion of Seabrook Beach
                       received some beach nourishment in 1993 following the dredging of Hampton Harbor.
                       Dr. Richardson indicated that one solution may be to allow relocation of the sand which
                       accumulates in front of the walls on an annual basis. Dr. Richardson expressed support
                       for improvements which would "encourage establishment of a dune system in the study
                       area and he would also support nourishment of the beach.

                       Discussions were also held with Mr. Robert Moore, Seabrook Code Enforcement Officer
                       and Mr. E. Russell Bailey, Seabrook Town Manager on January 6, 1995. They noted that
                       the Town has concerns with erosion of Seabrook Beach causing a loss of usable beach
                       area and increasing the susceptibility of the beach front homes to storm damage. They
                       also noted that beachfront property owners have moved sand from in front of seawalls in
                       the past and continue to request permits to do so. It was their understanding that the sand
                       build-up allows storm waves to run-up and overtop the seawalls causing problems for the
                       beach front property owners. They were also concerned that if dunes were allowed to
                       develop, there would not be sufficient area for beach users. It was noted that the Town
                       has represented that it owns the beach from the seawalls to low' water.

                       Topogrgphic Surva

                       A topographic survey of the study area was completed on February 23, 1995, from the
                       existing seawalls down to approximately low water. The results of the topographic survey
                       data is shown on the Existing Conditions Plan (Figure 2). The data collected was also
                       compared to a previous beach survey completed by AEI in January 1992, and with historic
                       high water line data (See Figure 6). The 1992 AEI survey covered the northern 1,500ï¿½
                       foot section of the study area. This portion of the beach experienced a net accretion of
                       approximately 8,000 cubic yards between January 1992 and February 1995. The 1992
                       and 1995 survey data was also used in comparison with historic beach profiles taken at
                       profiles K-K & L-L (See Figures 2 and 7). Variation between the profiles is obvious but
                       no long term trends were noted.






                                                                 6








                                                                     MITE
                                                                     ROCKS                                                                                                                           A TLAN
                                                                                                                                                                                                        OCEA



                                         4;p
                                                                                                                                                                                            .4
                          40;                                                    1-1,     IF
                                           p"@                                       'v."o
                                                                                                             lqqo@
                                         4@V

                                                                                                                                                       ivy
                                                                          BECKMANS                                                                             004,
                                                                          ROCK
                                                                                                   23.27 x



                                                                                             14.6 x







                                                                                                                                     14,69X
                                                                                                                                             0
                             Jp                                                                                                                                         46?CA C'ji
                                                                                       cl)                                                                                                    Ho

                                                                                                                                                                                                20.9
                                                                                                          69













                                                                                                                                                                    co




                                                                                                                                                                                       co








                                                                                          PLAN REFERENCES;
                                                                                            USACE,   1953
                                                                                            USACE.   1962
                                                                                            USGS,   1973
                                                                                            USGS,   1985
                                                                                            JAMES   W. SEWALL. 1978
                                                                                            JAMES   W. SEWALL, 1986
                                                                                            NOAA. 1990
                                                                                            AEI, 1992
                                                                                            U.S. DEPARTEMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1974
                                                                                            U.S. DEPARTEMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 1981






                                                                                                     GRAPHIC SCALE
                                                                                       1            5.0  100    2DO               400
                      NOTE:                                                            ?o       ?
                        ENTIRE AREA DEPICTED WAS
                        BELOW LOW WATER IN 1776.                                                          IN PEET                                                                                       HIS






                                    f
                                   OCEAN
                                   DRIVE                                  APPROXIMATE LOCATION
                                   20                                     OF EXISTING BEACH                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   20
                                                                          FRONT HOMES

                                                 1992
                                   16                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         18



                                   12                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         12

                                                                            %
                                                                                                                   V MEAN HIGH WATER (EL. 8.3')
                                                                                        1952--
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                2   ag
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              4                     j   g,
                                   4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          E3 1L     3

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   V MEAN LOW WATER (EL 0')                                                                                                                                                   WLw-o           @32
                              ULW60



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -4
                                   -4



                                   -8


                                   -12                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      loso                                              -12





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       J      -20
                                   -20
                                     0          so          100         150        200         250         300        350         400         450         500         560        600        650         700         750        800         850        900         950        low         1050        1100       1150        12W         1250       imo         lmo        1400                0
                                                                                                                                                                                          PROFILE K-K                                                                                                                                                                                                               MOE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           z              6
                                   OCEAN                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            g     z
                                   DRIVE
                                                                        APPROXIMATE LOCATION                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        z
                                   20                                   OF EXISTING BEACH                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     20
                                                                        FRONT HOMES




                                                                                    fqq
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           rzi
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              12           QZI   ::D    Ff
                                   12                                     % %           la 60                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    E_4    0_  Ld
                                   8                                                                                               MEAN HIGH WATER (EL. 8.3')                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 8                             T-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            V)


                                   4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          4


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        u
                                                                                                                                                                                                         V MEAN LOW WATER (EL. 0')                                                                                                                                                            ktLw-o                    0
                             MLYA-0                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        M   Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           It,          <
                                   4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       tEZ@         Ld
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ----------

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            19A0

                                   -12                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        -12
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   1960

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        to




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -20
                                   -20
                                     0          50          loo         150        200         250         J00        3w          400         450         500         560        600        650         700         750        800        &W          900         950        1000        loso       1100        ilso        1200         2.50      1300       1350                     45(,                             to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        r.
                                        PLAN REFERENCES:                                                                                                                               PROFILE L-L
                                           USACE,1953
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        S.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        0
                                           USACE.1962
                                           AEI, 1992                                                                                                     HOREZONTAL SCALE                                                            VEFMCAL SCALE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 5          0    2jS    5          10                     20                                                                                                                                            0.1
                                        NOTE:                                                                                         50          0 25 50                100                   200
                                           1960,1952 &      1940 DATA NOT
                                           CORRECTED TO CURRENT TIDAL EPOCH DATUM
                                                                                                                                                                IN Fm                                                                     IN n"                                                                     HISTOMIC BEACH -PROFILES GURE 7









                      Littoral Material Sampling and Grain Si e Analysis

                      Nine (9) littoral material samples were collected on May 4, 1995. The approximate
                      locations for these samples are shown on Figure 2. Grain size analyses were conducted on
                      the nine (9) samples. The results of these analyses are presented in Appendix A. All
                      samples were primarily uniform fine to medium sand. No trends in grain size were
                      apparent either horizontally or vertically. The median grain size,(D5o) of the samples
                      varied from 0.31 mm to 0.50 mm.


                      The median grain size was compared to median grain size from beach samples collected in
                      August, 1932 (USACE, 1953). The median grain sizes in 1932 varied from 0.241 to
                      0.305 (fine to medium sand). It is not known if this variation in grain size is seasonal or
                      long term.

                      The beach median grain size was also compared to Hampton Harbor bottom material
                      samples collected by AEI in 1992 for the Hampton Harbor Dredging Project. Median
                      grain size for the 1992 samples varied from 0. 14 mm to 0. 6 5 mm, with over half of the
                      samples having median grain seizes above 0.30 mm. Therefore, it appears that much of
                      the bottom material in Hampton Harbor is fine to medium sand and would be suitable,
                      with respect to grain size, for beach nourishment on Seabrook Beach.

                      Modeling

                      The software program "Wave Run-Up" developed by Stone & Webster (198 1) was used
                      to evaluate the existing wave runup characteristics on Seabrook Beach. This software
                      package is the same as was used in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Seabrook Beach
                      Village District, New Hampshire (FENLA, 1986) and results compared favorably with the
                      FIS.


                      Various storm events were considered, including tide levels of annual high water, 10-year
                      high water and I 00-year high water and waves from five (5) to thirty (3 0) feet. Run-up
                      was examined at beach profiles L-L and K-K for conditions of both exposed seawalls and
                      san d covered seawalls. Under some wave/tide conditions, the exposed seawalls did
                      produce lower wave run-up values than the seawalls covered with sand. Wave conditions
                      where the exposed walls produced lower run-up values tended to be the smaller, shorter
                      period waves which would generally occur on a more frequent basis.

                      It should be noted that the seawalls examined are all located above the I 00-year still water
                      flood elevation. The FEMA flood map for the study area and the topographic survey
                      completed for this study indicate that all homes located directly adjacent to the beach are
                      above the 100-year flood elevation.







                                                              7









                     Analysis/Evaluation

                     Based on the data reviewed, the following observations regarding existing conditions on
                     Seabrook Beach are noted:


                     0       The beach front residences along the study area were built in an area that was and
                             is subject to periodic attack from storm waves.

                     0       The beach appears to have remained relatively stable following the 1934/1935
                             stabilization of Hampton Harbor inlet.

                     0       Seasonal and year-to-year changes in beach profile and volume occur. Depending
                             on the season and year, varying usable beach and protection for the shorefront
                             residences is provided.

                     0       Long term erosion or accretional trends, if present, are masked by the seasonal and
                             year-to-year variations, based on a relatively short time period (1932 to present).

                     0       Sand build up between the homes and the beach is to be expected on a barrier
                             beach system. The homes and shore protection structures contribute to sand build
                             up by locally reducing wind speed (similar to a snow fence).

                     0       Modeling of wave run-up on the beach profile indicates that under some
                             wave/storm conditions the build-up of sand in front of the existing seawalls does
                             promote greater run-up thanwith the seawalls exposed. The modeling did not
                             consider erosion of the sand in front of the walls during a storm event.

                     Conclusion


                     A long-term beach erosion problem has not been observed in the study area. Seasonal and
                     year-to-year beach erosion reduces usable beach width. Beach front residences are
                     located in an area which was and is subject to periodic storm water attack. Beach front
                     residences are also located in an area prone to wind blown sand accumulation.














                                                              8










                M. REVIEW OF OPTIONS FOR BEACH IMPROVEMENT


                        Ins.pection of Local Shore Protection Structures

                        On May 12, 1995 site inspections of various local shore protection structures were
                        completed. The inspection was intended to make visual observations regarding the
                        performance of each structure following the winter season. It should be noted that the
                        1994 - 1995 winter was relatively calm.

                        Plaice Cove, North Hampton, has similar shore protection measures as the study area.
                        There is a relatively narrow beach, with riprap, and seawalls protecting the waterfront
                        homes. There does not appear to be much usable beach at high water. At the southern
                        end of the cove, there appears to be a substantial elevation difference between the homes
                        and the high water line. Although of different construction, the shore protection structures
                        appear to provide a continual barrier along the entire cove. No damage from winter
                        storms was noted.


                        North Beach, Hampton has a recurved concrete seawall, p    rotecting Route I -A. In front
                        of the seawall, beach cobble provides toe protection for the seawall. It appears that there
                        is no sand beach at high water. No winter storm damage was noted.

                        Hampton Beach (main beach) has a concrete seawall shore protection structure fronted by
                        a broad sand beach. Beach width tapers to the North. This area has been nourished with
                        sand dredged from Hampton Harbor several times in the past. No obvious damage from
                        winter storms was noted.


                        Hampton Beach State Park, just north of the harbor entrance channel, has a dune system
                        with a sand beach for shore protection. The beach was nourished with sand from the
                        Hampton Harbor Dredging Project during 1993. Beach width is approximately 150' + to
                        the high tide line. The dunes show the remnants of a scarp, probably developed during the
                        winter of 1993/1994. No winter storm damage from 1994/1995 was noted.

                        The recently restored Seabrook Dunes, south of the study area, appeared to be performing
                        well. Sand appears to be continuing to build in the dune areas, and new stands of beach
                        grass were observed. The shoreside face of the dunes developed a minor scarp from
                        winter storms, a condition which would be expected to be naturally restored during the
                        summer months.


                        Salisbury Beach recently installed a "sacrificial" dune to provide additional shore
                        protection. The dune was created by importing sand from an upland off-site source
                        (Magnifico, 1995). The dune appeared to be on the order of five (5ï¿½) feet high. Snow
                        fence has been added.to try and accumulate additional sand. The base of the dune was
                        located at approximately the high tide line. According to State Beach personnel, the dune
                        will be planted with beach grass in the future (Magnifico, 1995). Although the dune did
                        not appear to have sustained damage from winter storms, it does appear vulnerable to
                        wave attack.




                                                                  9









                      Homes along Plum Island Beach are protected by 4 small dune system. Plum Island also
                      possesses a series of approximately 200 foot long stone groins spaced approximately 0.25
                      miles apart which were constructed sometime before 1958 (Saniuk, 1995). Over the past
                      ten (10) years, Plum Island has been experiencing beach accretion to a point where the
                      stone groins are totally buried under the beach. This has not always been the case, in
                      September 1972, tropical storm Carrie generated twenty five (25) foot ocean swells
                      which, coupled with high tides, eroded eighteen (18+) vertical feet of beach and sand dune
                      (Saniuk, 1995). Today more beach exists on the island than local residents can remember,
                      providing ample room (300 feet +) for beach users. Small dunes have formed in front of
                      many of the residences which are now vegetating with beach grass. The installation of
                      snow fence has been attributed to increasing the height of the sand dunes in front of some
                      residences (Saniuk, 1995) While the beach slope below high water was steep, no evidence
                      of winter storm damage was observed.

                      Alternative Analy-sis

                      The following is a list of alternatives which were considered, in our evaluation of possible
                      Seabrook beach enhancements:.


                      1.      No Action Alternative:


                              The beach would continue seasonal and year to year erosion/accretion cycles.
                              Sand would continue to accumulate in front of seawalls.


                              Evaluation:

                              During erosional periods the beach would not provide additional usable area for
                              beach users or protection for the shorefront homes. , The sand build up in front of
                              the seawalls would continue to cause wave run-up concerns for home owners.
                              There would be no initial construction costs. Continued maintenance and repair
                              costs for homes and shore protection structures should be expected.
                              Environmental impacts during severe storm events which destroy man-made
                              structures can be expected.

                      2.      Movement of Sand From In-Front of Seawalls:

                              Homeowners would be permitted to regrade sand fr      om in front of existing seawalls
                              on an annual or semi-annual basis.














                                                                10











                              Evaluation:


                              This alternative would not provide significant increased usable beach area nor
                              provide significant additional protection for shorefront property owners under
                              most storm conditions. It may reduce wave run-up for some wave and storm
                              conditions. The removed sand could be used to create a small berm near the high
                              water mark to provide some added shore protection. As long as the sand is not
                              removed from the beach, this alternative should not have a significant long term
                              effect on the beach. Annual maintenance costs would need to be assumed by the
                              shore front property owners or the Town. Short term disturbance of the beach
                              environment during sand removal activities should be expected. It may be possible
                              to combine this alternative with other alternatives.


                      3.      Installation of "Snow" Fence:


                              "Snow" fence would be installed between the high water line and the existing
                              seawalls to encourage a build up of sand, without reducing the efficiency of the
                              existing seawalls.

                              Evaluation:


                              This alternative would provide some additional short term, sacrificial protection
                              for the shorefront property owners. It may also reduce the amount of sand
                              building up immediately in front of the existing seawalls by "catching" the sand
                              before it gets to the seawalls. There would most likely be a reduction in usable
                              beach area if fence is in place during the summer. There would be minimal initial
                              cost, but maintenance/replacement costs due to storm damage should be
                              anticipated. No significant long term environmental impacts would be expected.

                       4.     "Sacrificial" Dune Construction:


                              A relatively small, five (5ï¿½) foot sand berm would be constructed between the high
                              water line and the existing seawalls. Sand would be "imported" to the beach from
                              either off-site upland sources or from dredging projects. The berm could be
                              planted with beach grass.

                              Evaluation:


                              This alternative would provide some additional short term, sacrificial protection
                              for the shorefront property owners. There would not be an increase in usable
                              beach area and there may be a reduction in beach area if the berm is planted with
                              beach grass. This option would not address the build up of sand against the
                              seawalls. Depending on the source of the sand, initial construction costs could be
                              high and frequent maintenance costs would be expected. No significant long term
                              environmental impact would be expected.











                     5.      Conventional Dune Construction:


                             A conventional twenty (20ï¿½) foot high sand berm would be constructed between
                             the high water line and the existing seawalls and planted with beach grass. Sand
                             would be "imported" from either off-site upland sources or from dredging projects.

                             Evaluation:


                             There does not appear to be enough space between the high water line and the
                             existing seawalls to establish a healthy, sustainable dune system. Therefore, this
                             alternative is not considered practical by itself

                     6.      Beach Nourishment:


                             The beach would be widened to a minimum of 200 feet to the high tide line to
                             provide a beach width similar to the portion of Seabrook Beach located
                             immediately to the south of the study area (see Figure 8).

                             Evaluation:


                             This alternative would provide for both long term increased usable beach area and
                             increased protection for the shorefront homes. By moving the high water line
                             away from the existing seawalls the chance of having wave run-up over top the
                             existing seawalls would be reduced.

                             If sand is available from local maintenance dredging activities, the initial
                             construction cost may be moderate. This alternative would be much less cost
                             effective if sand were to be brought in from off-site upland sources. Recurring
                             maintenance costs can be expected. Implementation of this alternative may also
                             require construction of an extension to the southern Hampton Harbor inlet
                             breakwater to prevent sand from rapidly migrating into the channel. No significant
                             long term environmental impact would be expected,

                     7.      Beach Dewatering System:

                             A drain line system would be installed under the beach and water pumped from the
                             drain line back into the ocean. The system theoretically creates a dewatered
                             section of beach which reduces wave back wash to the ocean and thereby traps
                             additional sand on the beach, promoting accretion.

                             Evaluation:


                             A beach dewatering system may provide more usable beach and additional shore
                             protection for the shorefront property owners. However, the technology is
                             relatively new and unproven over the long term. This alternative relies on a
                             mechanical system which would likely require high maintenance. Installation cost
                             would be moderate. Some environmental concerns would need to be addressed.


                                                             12












                                  00  co
                                  C - CL
                                  go 0
                                  ta 4
                    C-
                    c                                                                                 00     K)     a)     Q,
                    z
                    rri             M
                                  Goa

                    ch
                                                                                                                                         APP
                                                                                                                                         OF E
                                                                                                                                         FROl'


                                                                                                                                   EXISTING
                                                                                                         0 rn
                                  C9



                                                                            CD
          To
       >  N                                                                 m
                                                                            >
                                                                            0
                                            >
                             F4         >
                                            0
       >  M                  0                                              -u
             z               z                                                         Na
          >
       0  =i
       ;0                                   Z                                          51
       >  0        >                                                        0
       z z   >                          F   0                               fn                                       rn
         A >       In        >                                              F
       >  r-       't,       Fn
             2 CD  Z                                                        m
             M -(            -
       I     m .             2          -0  Lf)                                                                      0)
       0  Z'0  >                                                                                         0
       z     0 G)                       ;:0 3:                                                               X
             >                          0
          >z -0,                                                                                             C)
          0  p                                                                                               :c
                                            z
       z  >                             M                                                             m @c
       >  V    0
       (A 0                                                                                                  m
       14 (A
             >
             K                                                                                        0      z
                                                                                                             m
             >                                                                                           co
             W                    V)
               0                                                                                         L4
               rn                 M       t-3                                                                p
                                  >       :0
                             z    a) r,)                                                         L4   11
                             M                                                                   C3
                                  0
                                  0
                                          to
                             >


                                     cl@
                                  T-
                                  >
                                  R
                                  D
                                  i  t(z:@,:
                                  0
                                  z

                   co









                      8.      Sand By-Passing System:

                              A permanent or semi permanent dredge plant would be set up to pump sand from
                              the Hampton side of the Hampton Harbor inlet to Seabrook Beach.

                              Evaluation:


                              This type of system is generally utilized when breakwaters or other shore
                              protection structures interrupt the normal long shore transport of sand and cause
                              significant accretion upgradient of the structure and erosion down gradient. As
                              this accretion/erosion scenario does not appear to be a significant cause of the
                              current concerns at Seabrook Beach, this option is not considered practical.

                      9.      Off-Shore Breakwater Construction:


                              A rubble mound breakwater(s) would be constructed off shore and parallel to the
                              beach.


                              Evaluation:


                              This alternative would reduce storm wave height on the beach and provide long
                              term protection for the beach front homes. By reducing the wave environment, off
                              shore breakwaters tend to reduce beach erosion. However, with the reported
                              predominant movement of sand on-shore/off-shore, a breakwater(s) would need to
                              be carefully analyzed to determine the impact on the present beach equilibrium.
                              This alternative would have a high initial cost and significant environmental and
                              navigational concerns would need to be addressed. The impact on beach width
                              would need to be studied.


                      10.     Groin Construction:


                              A series of groins (stone, timber or concrete walls) would be constructed
                              perpendicular to the shore to trap sand.

                              Evaluation:


                              Groins are generally utilized where there is a significant long shore movement of
                              sand. As this does not appear to be the case with the Seabrook Beach, this option
                              is not considered practical.


                      11.     Continuous Seawall Construction:


                              A continuous shore protection structure, either concrete seawall or riprap stone
                              revetment, would be constructed on the entire length of the study area. All current
                              shore protection structures would be replaced by this system.




                                                               13







                            Evaluation:*

                            This alternative would not providemore usable beach area. It would provide
                            better long term protection for the beach ftont residents than the current piecemeal
                            shore protection structures. However, this alternative may have the same problem
                            with sand build up as existing seawalls. Toe scour and wave reflection would need
                            to be carefully considered in the design to prevent causing beach erosion problems.
                            This alternative would have high initial construction costs and substantial
                            environmental and liability concerns would need to be addressed.

                    12.     Elevating Existint! Homes:

                            The residences along the shoreside of Ocean Drive would be elevated on piles.

                            Evaluation:

                            This alternative would not provide significantly more usable beach area.
                            Protection for the existing beach front homes would be improved, but unless
                            additional shore protection is provided, Ocean Drive and homes shoreward of
                            Ocean Drive may be subject to wave attack under storm wave conditions. This
                            alternative would have a high initial cost and substantial social/political/economic
                            concerns would need to be addressed.


                    13.     Removal of Existing Homes and Dune Restoration:

                            The residences along the shoreside of Ocean Drive would be purchased (by the
                            Town/State/Federal government) and removed. Dunes would be restored to the
                            area either by encouraging sand accretion or importing sand.

                            Evaluation:


                            Under this alternative, there may be an increase in usable beach area (depending on
                            the equilibrium state established by the dunes) and protection of the beach front
                            homes would not be required. Homes located shoreward of Ocean Drive would be
                            afforded the long-term protection of an established dune system. This alternative
                            would have a very high initial cost and substantial social/ political/economic
                            concerns would need to be addressed.















                                                            14










              IV. RECOMMENDATIONS


                      The following are our recommendations for implementing improvements to Seabrook
                      Beach. These are broken down into both short-term and long-term. Order of magnitude
                      cost estimates are provided for each recommendation.

                      Preferred Short-Term Alternative


                      Establish annual regrading program to move sand away from existing seawalls and back
                      onto the beach (Alternative 2). This will reduce run-up on the existing walls, without
                      reducing usable beach area or long-term shore protection. Install "snow" fence between
                      the high water line and existing seawalls (Alternative 3). The snow fence will trap sand,
                      creating/enhancing a small berm. This berm will provide short-term, sacrificial shore
                      protection. This may also reduce sand build-up in front of existing seawalls. The snow
                      fence could be positioned to minimize reduction in usable beach area. A study should be
                      completed to determine optimal snow fence layout. The effectiveness of these
                      Alternatives and the need to move sand from in front of the existing seawalls should be
                      monitored on an on-going periodic basis (at least twice a year).

                      The typical design storm for this type of shore protection structure is a five (5) year storm
                      event. This indicates a twenty (20) percent chance that the snow fence/berm would need
                      to be replaced in any given year.

                      Engineers Preliminary Cost Estimate:

                              Layout Study, Permitting and Design Specifications:                   $    5,000.00
                              Snow Fence (Material and Installation) - 5,000 linear feet:           $12,500.00
                              Regrade Sand Away From Existing Seawalls (8,000 cy first year)        $ 20,000.00
                              Monitoring (first year)                                               $ 2,500.00
                                                      Estimated Total                               S 40,000.00*

                                              Does not include annual maintenance or continued monitoring
                                              costs. Annual maintenance for Alternative 3 may be estimated as
                                              20% of initial construction of this type of shore protection system.















                                                                15










                      Preferred Long Tenn Alternative

                      Nourish beach with 100,000 cy of sand to provide a minimum of 200ï¿½ feet of distance
                      between the high water line and the existing seawall (see Figure 8). From an economic
                      stand point, nourishment should be completed with fine and medium sand removed from
                      Hampton Harbor or the Hampton Harbor inlet during maintenance dredging activities
                      (both the harbor and inlet require frequent periodic maintenance dredging). In addition to
                      providing additional usable beach area (from 50ï¿½ feet to 200ï¿½ feet at high water) the
                      nourished beach would also provide additional long-term protection for the shorefront
                      property owners assuming current beach erosional/accretional trends continue. As shown
                      in Figure 9, the average storm damage cost to a structure is related to the location of the
                      structure relative to the shore line (Dena and Wang, 1992). By adding width to the beach
                      you can effectively increase a structures distance from the shore and reduce storm damage
                      costs. This increased storm protection should lessen home owner concerns of wave run-
                      up overtopping the existing seawalls due to sand build-up.

                      After beach nourishment takes place, consideration can be given to establishing a dune
                      system on the widened portion of the beach. Either use of snow fence to catch sand or
                      additional dredge material in conjunction with beach grass plantings could be used to
                      encourage dune development.

                      A feasibility study should be completed to determine existing sand budgets for the area
                      along with the proposed nourishment project and to determine the need for an extension
                      of the southjetty. The annual maintenance cost for the nourished beach should also be
                      estimated. Previous estimates from the USACE (USACE, 1963) indicated required
                      maintenance of 4,000 cy per year. Semi-annual surveys of the beach should be completed
                      to monitor the nourishment project.

                      The Town should contact the appropriate state and federal agencies responsible for
                      dredging Hampton Harbor and the inlet to determine schedules for maintenance dredging
                      and to indicate the desire to use the dredge material for nourishment of Seabrook Beach.



















                                                                16










              200
          0 Q
          I. CD
          Wvz 160
           fie.

             r
           (n 120
           W
          W cc
                                 CL
               80-


          UJI M
          >
               40-



                0
                 150 -100  -50    0    50    100 150
                       Seaward    i   -  Landward
                 DISTANCE FROM CONTROL LINE (ft)


                     Damage to Structure in Relation to its Location
                     with Control Line (Resulting From Study of 540
                     Structures in Bay County After Hurricane Eloise,
                     by Shows, 1978).


               C"
                       DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES NORTHERN SEABROOK BEACH
               S&Uctwd
                        VERSUS LOCATION TO COASTAL BEACH STUDY
     Appledore Engineering, Inc.
     600 State Street, Suite DSHORE LINE
     Portsmouth, NH 03801  (603)433-8818  SEABROOK & HAMPTON
      REFERENCE.                            NEW HAMPSHIRE
     DEAN & WANG,1992

      DATE: JUNE 1995
     L@                                            FIGURE 91
     (816mc)        14S FIGURE WAS FUNDED IN PART BY A GRANT FROM THE OFFICE
     A61



              9
              '@'v   OF STATE PLANNING. NEW HAMPSHIRE COASTAL PROGRAM. AS
                I..
              L  J.\
                     AUTHORIZED BY THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
                     ADMINIsTRA-nON (NOAA), GRANT AWARD NUMBER NA37OZO277.
                                           XT&
                                            NN-- --
                                           1"n CWM Fam"








                      Engineers Preliminary Cost Estimate:

                                                                      Without Dredging          With Dredging
                                                                             Costs*                  Costs"
                       Feasibility Study                              $    20,000.00          $    25,000.00
                       Permitting                                     $     10,000.00         $    25,000.00
                       Placement and Grading of Sand
                               on Beach - 100,000 cy                  $  300,000.00           $ L000,000.00
                                               Estimated Subtotal     $  330,000.00 to        $ 1,050,000.00
                       Dune Construction from Dredge
                              Material - 150,000 cy (if needed)       $  500,000.00           $ 1,300,000.00
                       200ï¿½ feet Jetty Extension (if needed)          $  500,000.00           $ 500,000.00
                       Final Engineering                              10% of                  10% of Construction
                                                                      Construction Cost       Cost
                       Monitoring (first year)                        $      5,000.00         $     5,000.00
                                                  Estimated Total     $ 1,470,000.00 to       $ 3,135,000.00***

                                      Assumes navigational dredging of the harbor or channel completed
                                      independently by the State or Federal Government.
                                      Assumes dredging completed only to obtain material for beach
                                      nourishment.
                                      Does not include annual maintenance or monitoring costs.

                      Recommended Plan of Action


                      I .     Implement preferred short term alternative.

                      2.      Determine schedule for maintenance dredging activities in Hampton Harbor and
                              inlet from appropriate State and Federal Agencies.

                      3.      Complete feasibility study for preferred long term alternative. Feasibility study to
                              address:


                                      Existing sand budgets in project area
                                      Effect on sand budget of proposed nourishment project
                                      Required maintenance volumes and cost
                                      Need for jetty extension
                                      Permitting issues
                                      Dredging issues (it applicable)
                                      Cost/benefit analysis for beach nourishment and dune restoration









                                                               17










             V.      BIBLIOGRAPHY


                     Appledore Engineering, Inc. (AEI), Topographic Survey of Seabrook Beach, January
                     1992.


                     AEI, "Hampton Harbor Maintenance Dredging, Hampton and Seabrook, New Hampshire,
                     Plans and Specifications" prepared for New Hampshire Department of Resources and
                     Economic Development, revised April 19, 1993.

                     Bascom, Willard, "Beaches", Scientific American, 203 (2), 1960.

                     Bruun, Per, "The Coastal Drain: What Can It Do Or Not Do", in Journ.al of Coastal
                     Research, Charlottesville, VA, Winter, 1989.

                     Dean, Robert G., and Grant, Jonathan, "Development of Methodology for Thirty-Year
                     Shoreline Projections in the Vicinity of Beach Nourishment Projects", Coastal and
                     Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, December 15, 1989.

                     Dean,.Robert G., and Wang, Hsiang, "Beach Nourishment", American Society of Civil
                     Engineers, Continuing Education Services, March 8, 1992.

                     Dolan, Robert and Lins, Harry, "Beaches and Barrier Islands", Scientific American.-
                     257(l), 1987.

                     Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Study "Seabrook
                     Beach Village District, New Hampshire", August 5, 1986.

                     FEMA, Flood Insurance Rate Map "Seabrook Beach Village District, New Hampshire"
                     Community Panel Number 330854 0001A, August 5, 1986.

                     Fessenden, Franklin W., "Hampton New Hampshire Beach Nourishment Project" in:
                     American Society of Civil Engineers, "Coastal Engineering Practice '92", Proceedings of a
                     Specia4y Conference on the Planning, Design, Construction and Performance of Coastal
                     Engineering Projects, Long Beach, California, March 9 - 11, 1992.

                     Fink, Kenneth L., Jr., Letter Report "Manzi, O'Hara, Shaub, and Walsh Application for
                     Sand Removal at Seabrook BeacW', July 8, 1984.

                     Humphries, Stanley M., Letter Report, IEP, Inc., October 22, 1984.

                     IEP, Inc., "Environmental Assessment for the Seabrook Dune Improvement Project,
                     Seabrook, New Hampshire", September 1988.

                     James W. Sewall Company, Aerial Photograph, March 31, 1986.

                     James W. Sewall Company, Aerial Photograph, December 22, 1978.



                                                           18









                    Kimball Chase Company, Inc., "New Hampshire Coastline Erosion and Deposition Study
                    for Rockingham Planning Commission", August 8, 1986.

                    Liberman, A.S. and O'Neill, C.R., Jr. "Vegetation Use in Coastal Ecosystems", Cornell
                    Cooperative Extension Bulletin 198, 1988.

                    Magnifico, Michael, Principal Forest and Park Supervisor, Salisbury Beach State
                    Reservation, Personal Communication, 1995.

                    Manzi, Susan, Personal Communication, May 31, 1995.

                    Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), "Coastal Protection", NAVFAC DM-
                    26.2, December 1981.

                    NAVFAC, "Coastal Sedimentatio  n and Dredging", NAVFAC DM-26.3, December 1981.

                    NAVFAC, "Seawalls, Bulkheads and Quaywalls@', NAVFAC, DM-25.4, July, 1981.

                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Coastal Zone
                    Management and New Hampshire Office of State Planning, "New Hampshire Coastal
                    Program Ocean and Harbor Segment and Final Environmental Impact Statement", April
                    1982.


                    NOAA, Bathymetric Fishing Map "Gloucester", 1: 100,000, 1986.

                    NOAA, "Sea Level Variations for the United States, 1855 - 1986, Rockville, MD,
                    February, 1988.

                    NOAA, Nautical Chart "Portsmouth to Cape Ann, New Hampshire - Massachusetts -
                    Maine" 1:80,000,. January 20, 1990.

                    NOAA, "Effects of Hurricane Bob on Water Levels", Data Report, Ocean and Lake
                    Levels Division, Office of Ocean and Earth Sciences, National Ocean Service, Rockville,
                    Maryland, October 1991.

                    NOAA, "Effects of the Late October 1991 North Atlantic Extra - Tropical Storm on
                    Water Levels", Data Report, Ocean and Lake Levels Division, Office of Ocean and Earth
                    Sciences, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland, January 1992.

                    NOAA, Nautical Chart "Portsmouth Harbor to Boston Harbor, Maine - New Hampshire -
                    Massachusetts" 1:40,000, June 18, 1994.

                    New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Bureau of Public Works, "Dredging Plan
                    Hampton Harbor, Hampton, New Hampshire" October 1, 1986.

                    Normandeau Associates, Inc., "Seabrook Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Summary of
                    Technical Studies", January 1989.


                                                          19









                    Rockingham Planning Commission, "Assessment, Impact, and Control of Shoreline
                    Change Along New Hampshire's Tidal Shoreline, Update", September 1986.

                    Saniuk, Thomas, Plum Island Summer Resident Since 1958, Personal Communication,
                    1995.


                    State of California, Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, "Study of Beach
                    Nourishment Along the Southern California Coastline", October 1977.

                    Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Manual for Wave Runup An "Isis Coastal
                    Flood Insurance Studies, Prepared For Federal Insurance Administration, Federal
                    Emergency Management Agency", November 198 1.

                    Strafford Rockingham Regional Council, "Blizzard of 1978 Net Effect on Shoreline
                    Change", November 1978.

                    Titus, John, Editor, Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise and Coastal Wetlands, US
                    Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.

                    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), "Cooperative Study Hampton Beach, New
                    Hampshire, 1932.

                    USACE, "Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of Hampton Beach New
                    Hampshire", August 14, 1953.

                    USACE, Letter from, "Shore of the State of New Hampshire, Beach Erosion Control
                    Study", May 21, 1962.

                    USACE, "Small Navigation Report, Hampton Harbor, New Hampshire Detailed Project
                    Report". July 1963.

                    USACE, "Design Memorandum on Hampton Beach, Hampton, New Hampshire", January
                    22, 1965.

                    USACE, Plans "Hampton Beach Hampton New Hampshire Sand Fill (From Dredging at
                    Hampton Harbor)", July 1965.

                    USCAE, Public Brochure: "Alternatives and Their Pros and Cons Erosion Control, Ediz
                    Hook, Port Angeles, WashingtotV, in Spits and Bars, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.,
                    1972.


                    USACE, "Navigation Improvement Study, Hampton Harbor, Hampton and Seabrook,
                    New Hampshire: Unpublished Letter Report on Inlet Erosion Problems", November
                    1974.


                    USCAE, "Low Cost Shore Protection: A Guide for Engineers and Contractors", 198 1.

                    USCAE, "Low Cost Shore Protection: A Property Owners Guide", 198 1.

                                                         20









                   USACE, Shore Protection Manual, Volumes I and II, Coastal Engineering Research
                   Center, Vicksburg, MS, 1984.

                   USCAE, "Design of Coastal  Revetments, Seawalls and Bulkheads", EM 1110-2-1614,
                   April, 1985.

                   USCAE, "Design of Breakwaters and Jetties", EM 1110-2-2904, August, 1986.

                   USACE, Condition Survey "Hampton Harbor New Hampshire eight (8) Foot Channel",
                   September, 1990.

                   US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Aerial Photograph, March 27, 1974.

                   USDA, Aerial Photograph, 198 1.

                   US Geological Survey (USGS), Quadrangle "Hampton, New Hampshire" 1:24,000, Photo
                   revised 1973.


                   USGS, Quadrangle"Exeter, New Hampshire - Massachusetts", 1:25,000, 1985.

                   Vesterby, H., "Coastal Drain System: A New Approach to Coastal Restoration", Geo-
                   Coast '91, September 1991, Yokohama, Japan.

                   Wright Pierce Engineers and IEP, Inc., "Plans of Improvements to Seabrook Dune, Town
                   of Seabrook, New Hampshire", June 13, 1988.
























                                                         21




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I              APPENDIX A
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
'I






              GRAIN       SIZE       DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT

                        CM
                    C  r   C                                   0  CS
                               CQw                             v  0
                                                 fu      w      -W
         100        M N      rn                          -W



           90



           BO
           70                                    :A I   I         I:

           60
        w
        z



        z: so


        w 40
        0-


           30



           20



           10




             200  100          10.0            1.0            0.1           0.01
                                              GRAIN SIZE   mm


                                                % SAND                 % SILT        %
        Tes     +3         GRAVEL                                                      CLAY
       0 4     0.0          0.0                  '39. 7     -4                0.3


           LL       PI       DE35     D60      D50      D30      D15     D10      cc       CU
       0                   0.79     0.50     0.43    0.335   0.2777 0.2609      0.86     1.9





                         MATERIAL DESCRIPTION                         USCS           AAS HTO

       0 Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt                                   SP           A-1-b



        roject No.: N95179G                                         Remarks:
       Project: APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. '(AEI #816)
                                                                    L197-95_
         Location: S-1




       Date: Maq 11   1995

                 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
               JAWORSKI GEOTECH, INC.                               Figure No. I









                         GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA             Test No.: 4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:                  May 11, 1995
Project No.:           N95179G
Project:               APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #816)
----------------------------------------------------------------      I----------------
                                     Sample Data
         --------------------------------------------------------------------
Location of Sample: S-1
Sample Description: Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt
USCS Class:            SP                   Liquid limit:
AASHTO Class:          A-1-b                Plasticity index:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Notes


Remarks: L197-95

Fig. No.:              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Mechanical Analysis Data

                       Initial
Dry sample and tare==    348.59
Tare
Dry sample weight        348.59
Tare for cumulative weight retained= 0
  Sieve           Cumul. Wt.     Percent
                  retained       finer
     4                 0.00        100.0
     10                0.65        99.8
     20                42.42       87.8
     40              181.05        48.1
     60              325.72         6.6
     100             344.83         1.1
     200             347.65         0.3

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fractional Components
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  + 3 in.     0.0       GRAVEL     0.0      SAND   99.7
  FINES = 0.3


D85=    0.79 D60=     0.498 D50=     0.431
D30=    0.3346 D15=     0.27765 D10= 0.26092
Cc      0.8620 Cu       1.9077






              GRAIN        SIZE      DISTRIBUTION                TEST REPORT


                              'T CU co      CP    0    0  0       0
                              11 \ %,             w    V,
         100   ko   M  CU     M   M         !W.
                                                 Nil
           90



           130



           70


        z:
           60



           so
        w  40                       11H
        a-


           90



           20








             200 100            10.0            1.0           0.1            0.01          0.001
                                              GRAIN SIZE    mm
        TesT F/.+3       %  GRAVEL               % SAND                %  SILT 0.4    % CLAY
           5   0.0          0.0                   99.6





           LL       PI        D85     D60       DSO     D30       D15     D10      Cc      CU
       0                    0.60    0.39      0.36    0.295 0.2570 0.228B        6.9e     1.7





                          NATERIAL DESCRIPTION                         USCS          AASHTO

       0 Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt                                    SP            A-3




        roject No.: N95179G                                         Remarks:
       Project: APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #B16)
                                                                    L198-95
       0 Location: S-2




       Date: May 11, 1995

                 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
               JAWORSKI GEOTECH, INC.                               Figure No. 1









                          GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA             Test No.: 5

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:                  May 11, 1995
Project No.:           N95179G
Project:               APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #816)



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Sample Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location of Sample: S-2
Sample Description: Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt
USCS Class:            SP                   Liquid limit:
AASHTO Class:          A-3                  Plasticity index:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarks: L198-95

Fig. No.:              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Mechanical Analysis Data

                       Initial
Dry sample and tare=      307.00
Tare                        0.00
Dry sample weight         307.00
Tare for cumulative weight retained= 0
  Sieve            Cumul. Wt.    Percent
                   retained      finer
     4                 0.00        100.0
     10                0.14        100.0
     20                9.04         97.1
     40                99.21        67.7
     60              270.37         11.9
     100             305.33           0.5
     200             305.92           0.4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fractional Components
----------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
  + 3 in.      0.0       GRAVEL     0.0     SAND    99.6
  FINES     0.4


D85=    0.60 D60=     0.391 D50=      0.356
D30=    0.2955 D15=      0.25704 D10= 0.22882
Cc      0.9761 Cu        1.7080





            GRAIN,SIZE            DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
                      ru ..5
                         C                                0 C9
                          v  W co       ca    0   0  0    V- co
        100   w   Cn CU   "  \ 11  v    -     pi  V, %D     CU




          BO



          70
                                                 7


          60
       LL-

       z: so
       w

       0
       w  40                      1H
         @



          30
                                              :111N          :11
          20



          10




           200 100           10.0           1.0          0.1           0.01        0.001
                                          GRAIN SIZE   mm


                                             % SAND
       Tes     +3"    % GRAVEL                                   % SILT        % CLAY
      0   4  0.0         0.0                  9B.8                      1.2





          LL      PI       D85     D60      D50    D30      D15     D10     cc      Cu
      0                  0.87    0.58     0.50   0.371   0.2815  0.2529   0.95     2.3





                       MATERIAL DESCRIPTION                      USCS         AASHTO

      * Tan fn/mod SAND, trace Silt                               SP          A-1-b




      Project No.: N95179G                                    Remarks:
      Project: APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #816)          L199-95
      0 Location; S-3




      Date: Mag 11, 1995

               GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
             JAWORSKI GEOTECH, INC.                           Figure No. 1









                          GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA             Test No.: 4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:                  May 11, 1995
Project No.:           N95179G
Project:               APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI 1816)



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Sample Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location of Sample: S-3
Sample Description: Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt
USCS Class:            SP                   Liquid limit:
AASHTO Class:          A-1-b               -Plasticity index:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Notes


Remarks: L199-95

Fig. No.:              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Mechanical Analysis Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Initial
Dry sample and tare=      322.18
Tare                        0.00
Dry sample weight         322.18
Tare for cumulative weight retained= 0
   Sieve           Cumul. Wt.    Percent
                   retained      finer
     4                 0.00         100.0
     10                1.40         99.6
     20                53.73        83.3
     40              201.91         37.3
     60              291.55          9.5
     100             316.78          1.7
     200             318.34          1.2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fractional Components'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   + 3 in.     0.0       GRAVEL     0.0     SAND    98.8
   FINES    1.2


D85=    0.87 D60=     0.575 D50=      0.501
D30=    0.3711 D15=      0.28151 D10= 0.25293
Cc      0.9462 Cu        2.2751





             GRAIN,SIZE             DISTRIBUTION                TEST REPORT

                               cu co       CD    w   W   co      M
                                                 fu  V,  to      cu
         100       Cn CJ



           9 0



           so



           70

        w
           60



           50
        w


        w  40






           20



           10



                               7 7
           01
            200 100            10.0            1.0           0.1            0.01         0.001
                                             GRAIN SIZE    mm                      r---@
        Test 7%+3"      %  GRAVEL               % SAND                % SILT        % CLAY
      0   7   0.0          0.0                   99 . 3                      0.7





           LL      PI        D95     D60       D50     D30       DIS    D10      cc       Cu
      0                    0.81     0.54     0.48    0.359 0.2851 0.2645       0.90      2.1





                        MATERIAL DESCRIPTION                          USCS         AASHTO

        Tao fn/med SAND, tr8ce Silt                                    SP           A-1-b



      Project No.: N95179G                                         Remarks:
      Project: APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC.    (AEI #B16)            L2"00-95
      0 Location: S-4




      Date: May 11   1995

                 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
              JAWORSKI GEOTECH., INC.                              Figure No. 1









                         GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA             Test No.: 7

-----                  --- --- ----
Date:                  May 11,  1995
Project No.:           N95179G
Project:               APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #816)



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Sample Data
                                     ------ ----
Location of Sample: S-4
Sample Description: Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt
USCS Class:            SP                   Liquid limit:
AASHTO Class:          A-1-b                Plasticity index:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Notes


Remarks: L200-95

Fig. No.:              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Mechanical Analysis Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Initial
Dry sample and tare=     352.52
Tare                       0.00
Dry sample weight        352.52
Tare for cumulative weight retained= 0
  Sieve           Cumul. wt.     Percent
                  retained       finer
     4                 0.00        100.0
     10                0.06        100.0
     20                46.89        86.7
     40              210.52         40.3
     60              330.60         6.2
     100             348.69         1.1
     200             350.02         0.7

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fractional Components
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  + 3 in.     0.0       GRAVEL     0.0      SAND = 99.3
  FINES = 0.7


D85=    0.81 D60=     0.543 D50=     0.475
D30=    0.3589 D15=     0.28510 D10= 0.26455
Cc      0.8974 Cu       2.0512






             GRAIN SIZE             DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT

                           .5
                           C                                  0 CS)
                               w w               0      to    V, CS)
                                     v           (v     Q       C%J
               %D  M  CU    M        -0




          90


          E30


          70

        Ld
        z
          60
        LL-


          50



          40
        CL


          30


          20



          10



            200 100            10.0            1.0           0.1           0.01          0.001.
                                             GRAIN SIZE   mm
        TesTF/. +3"     % GRAVEL               % SAND                 % SILT        % CLAY
      9  5 1 0.0           0.0                   99.7                        0.3
         +


           LL      PI       DeF>     D60      D E>0    D30      D15     D10      cc      Cu
      0                    0.70    0.46      0.10   0. 327 0. 2796 0. 2652     0.88     1.7





                        MATERIAL DESCRIPTION                         USCS          PASHTO

      0 Tan fn/med  SAND, trace Sill                                  SP            A-3



      Project No.: N95179G                                        Remarks:
      Project: APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #816)              L201-95
         Location: S-5




      Date: May 11, 1995

                 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
              JAWORSKI GEOTECH, INC.                              Figure No. I










                  ----------------

                         GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA              Test No.: 5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:                  May 11, 1995
Project No.:           N95179G
Project:               APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #816)



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Sample Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location of Sample: S-5
Sample Description: Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt
USCS Class:            SP                   Liquid limit:
AASHTO Class:          A-3                  Plasticity index:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Notes

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarks: L201-95

Fig. No.:              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Mechanical Analysis Data

                       Initial
Dry sample and tare=     258.51
Tare                        0.00
Dry sample weight        258.51
Tare for cumulative weight retained= 0
  sieve            Cumul. Wt.    Percent
                   retained      finer
     4                 0.00        100.0
     10                0.01        100.0
     20               11.81        95.4
     40              119.48        53.8
     60              247.41         4.3
     100             257.48         0.4
     200             257.70         0.3

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fractional Components
                      - ------ - ---      - ---- - ----
  +  3 in.    0.0       GRAVEL     0.0      SAND    99.7
  FINES     0.3


D85=    0.70 D60=     0.457 D50=      0.404
D30=    0.3270 D15=     0.27958 D10= 0.26516
Cc      0.8821 Cu       1.7239






              GRAIN SIZE             DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT


                                                               CD M
                             V  0iw        Ca     0   0  ep      C9
                                      v           (M             CU
         100        M CU     M
                                         J@kl
           90



           80



           70



           60


        z: 50
        Ld
        U
        Li 40
        0-


           go



           20



           10




            200  100           10.0             1.0           0.1           0.01          0.00
                                             GRAIN SIZE    mm
        TesTT/.-+3"     %  GRAVEL               % SAND                 % SILT 1.0    % CLAY
      0    6   0.0         0.0                    99 . 0





           LL       PI       DeE;     D60      D50     D30       D15     D10      cc       CU
                           0.47     0.34      0.31   0. 258 0. 1954 0. 1758     1.12     1.9


                         NATERIAL-DESCRIPT, ION                      IUSCS          AASHTO
      0 Grey fn/med SAND, trace Silt                                   SP             A-3



      Project No.: N95179G                                         Remarks:
      Project: APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (PEI #816)               L202-95
         Location: S-6
                                                                                        POO C










      Date: May 11, 1995

                 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
               JAWORSKI GEOTECHY INC.                              Figure No. 1









                          GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA             Test No.: 6

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Date:                  May 11, 1995
 Project No.:           N95179G
 Project:               APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #816)



 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Sample Data
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Location of Sample:    S-6
 Sample Description:    Grey fn/med SAND, trace Silt
 USCS Class:            SP                  Liquid limit:
 AASHTO Class:          A-3                 Plasticity index:
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Notes

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Remarks: L202-95

 Fig. No.:              I
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Mechanical Analysis Data

                        Initial
 Dry sample and tare=     168.91
 Tare                       0.00
 Dry sample weight        168.91
 Tare for cumulative weight retained= 0
   Sieve           Cumul. Wt.    Percent
                   retained       finer
     4                  0.00        100.0
     10                 0.34        99.8
     20                 8.72        94.8
     40                37.00        78.1
     60              123.89         26.7
     100             165.35           2.1
     200             167.22           1.0

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fractional Components
 ---------------------------------------------     ----------------------------------
   + 3 in.     0.0       GRAVEL     0.0      SAND   99.0
   FINES = 1.0


 D85=   0.47 D60=     0.339 D50=      0.309
 D30=   0.2579 D15=      0.19543 D10= 0.17579
 Cc     1.1169 Cu        1.9275





              GRAIN,,SIZE            DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
                         tv
                     r C 1, C                                   0 C9
                             ;  CUM         C9     C9  w  CD      CD
                         1    11\ \                fu             CM
          100        M cli   M



            90



            80



            70

         Ld
            so
         z: so                       IH
         Li


         w  40


            30



            20



            10




             200  100           10.0             1.0           0.1           0.01            001
                                              GRAIN SIZE    mm
         TesT F/.+3"     % GRAVEL                % SAND                 % SILT 0.4    % CLAY
       0    8  0.0          0.0                    913.6          1




            LL       PI       Des      DSo      D50     D30       D15     D10      cc       Cu
                            0.71     0.47      0.41   0.324 0. 2716    0.2562    0.87      1.8





                          MATERIAL DESCRIPTION                         USCS          AASHTO

       0  Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt                                   SID            A-3




       Project No.: N95179G                                         Remarks:
       Project: APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC.     (AEI #B16)           L203-95
       0 Location: S-7




       Date: May 11   1995

                  GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
               JAWORSKI GEOTECH, INC.                               Figure No. 1









                          GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA             Test No.: 8

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:                   May 11, 1995
Project No.:            N95179G
Project:                APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #816)



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Sample Data
                                      ------ ----
Location of Sample: S-7
Sample Description: Tan     fn/med SAND, trace Silt
USCS Class:             SP                   Liquid limit:
AASHTO Class:           A-3                  Plasticity index:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         Notes


Remarks: L203-95

Fig. No.:               I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Mechanical Analysis Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Initial
Dry sample and tare=      217.22
Tare                        0.00
Dry sample weight         217.22
Tare for cumulative weight retained= 0
  sieve            Cumul. wt.    Percent
                   retained       finer
     4                  0.00        100.0
     10                 0.01        100.0
     20                11.26         94.8
     40              104.26          52.0
     60              200.06          7.9
     100             215.57          0.8
     200             216.45          0.4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fractional Components
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  + 3 in.     0.0        GRAVEL     0.0      SAND   99.6
  FINES = 0.4


D85=    0.71 D60=     0.471 D50=      0.410
D30=    0.3240 D15=      0.27164 D10= 0.25615
Cc      0.8700 Cu        1.8387





              GRAIN,SIZE             DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT

                             It CM CD       Q     0   0  0
                             11\  \   v     -     (V     W       CM
          100       0, C'J   fn   M



           90



           80



           70


           60



        Z
                                                  :111A
        w  40






           20



           10




            200  100           1                1.0           0.1            0.01         0.001
                                              GRAIN SIZE   mm


                                                                       % SILT        % CLAY
        Te tT-/-.+B,-   %   GRAVEL              % SAND
      0   9    0.0         0.0                    99. 8                       0.2.





           LL       PI       D95      DGO       D50     D30      DIE;    D10      cc       Cu
      0                    0.66     0.42      0.38   0.309   0. 2664 0. 2535    0.91      1.6





                         MATERIAL DESCRIPTION                         USCS          AASHTO

      * Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt                                    SP             A-3




      Project No.: N95179G                                          Remarks:
      Project: APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC.     (AEI #816)            L201-95
        Location: S-e




      Date: May 11, 1995

                 GRAIN S12E DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
               JAWORSKI GEOTECHY INC.                               Figure No. 1









                         GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA             Test No.: 9

-----                  --- --- ----
Date:                  May 11,  1995
Project No.:           N95179G
Project:               APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #816)



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Sample Data
                                     ------ ----
Location of Sample: S-8
Sample Description: Tan    fn/med SAND, trace Silt
USCS Class:            SP                  Liquid limit:
AASHTO Class:          A-3                 Plasticity index:
---------- 7 --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Notes


Remarks: L204-95

Fig. No.:              I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Mechanical Analysis Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Initial
Dry sample and tare=     224.38
Tare                       0.00
Dry sample weight        224.38
Tare for cumulative weight retained= 0
  sieve           Cumul. Wt.     Percent
                  retained       finer
    10                 0.00        100.0
    20                12.84         94.3
    40                88.48         60.6
    60               205.27         8.5
    100              223.62         0.3
    200              224.01         0.2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fractional Components
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  + 3 in.     0.0       GRAVEL     0.0     SAND    99.8
  FINES     0.2


D85=    0.66 D60=     0.417 D50=     0.378
D30=    0.3094 D15=     0.26638 D10= 0.25351
Cc      0.9057 Cu       1.6444






             GRAIN         SIZE     DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT


                             V CU CD       C9     CD  CD to    v C9
                      w      11\  11  @r   -      CU     W       C%J
         100   w             M    M



          90



          80



          70


        z:
          60



          50


        Ld 40
        0-





          20








            200 100            10.0             1.0          0.1            0.01          0.001
                                             GRAIN SIZE    mm
        Tes@ F/.+3"     %  GRAVEL               % SAND                 % SILT        % CLAY
      *  10   0.0          0.0                    9 9. 13                     0.1





           LL      PI        D85      D60      D50     D30       D15     D10      cc       Cu
      0                    1.19     0.58      0.17   0.338 0.2707 0.2469        0.80     2.3





                         MATERIAL DESCRIPTION                         USCS          PASHTO

      *  Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt                                   SP           A-1-b



      Project No.: N95179G                                         Remarks:
      Project: APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #B16)               L205-95
         Location: S-9
                                                                                   @10 10 e







      Date: May 11, 1995

                 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
              JAWORSKI GEOTECH., INC.                              Figure No. 1








                         GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA             Test No.: 10

-----                  --- --- ----
Date:                  May 11,  1995
Project No.:           N95179G
Project:               APPLEDORE ENGINEERING INC. (AEI #816)



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Sample Data
                                     ------ ----
Location of Sample: S-9
Sample Description: Tan fn/med SAND, trace Silt
USCS Class:            SP                   Liquid limit:
AASHTO Class:          A-1-b                Plasticity index:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Notes


Remarks: L205-95

Fig. No.:              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Mechanical Analysis Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Initial
Dry sample and tare=     211.17
Tare                       0.00
Dry sample weight        211.17
Tare for cumulative weight retained= 0
  sieve            Cumul. Wt.    Percent
                   retained      finer
     4                 0.00        100.0
     10                2.73        98.7
     20                53.31       74.8
     40              120.04        43.2
     60              189.85        10.1
     100             210-09         0.5
     200             210-97         0.1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fractional Components
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  + 3 in.     0.0       GRAVEL     0.0      SAND = 99.9
  FINES     0.1


D85=    1.19 D60=     0.575 D50=     0.471
D30=    0.3381 D15=     0.27071 D10= 0.24689
Cc     -0.8045 Cu       2.3308









                                                                                                                                RY






























































                                        Appleclore Engineering, Inc.

                                         600 State Street, Suite D
                                         AEl




                                    Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801

                                    (603) 433-8818 a FAX (603) 433-8988