Public Beach Assessment Report-Newport News, VA by Virginia Institute of Marine Science

PUBLIC BEACH ASSESSMENT REPORT Huntington Park, Anderson Park, and King-Lincoln Park City of Newport News, Virginia

by Donna A. Milligan C. Scott Hardaway, Jr. George R. Thomas

Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

A Technical Report Obtained Under Contract with The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation via the T

oint Commonwealth Programs Addressing Shore Erosion in Virginia

September

1995

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Newport News has three public beaches within its limits: Huntington Park beach, Anderson Park beach, and King-Lincoln Park beach. Each beach and its associated park has undergone or is undergoing improvements. The purpose of this report is to assess the rates and patterns of beach change at these three public beaches. Field survey data, aerial photos, wave hindcasting data, and computer modelling were utilized for this report. The computer model used was RCPWAVE, a wave hydrodynamic model developed by the Corps of Engineers. Huntington Park is located along the James River immediately to the northwest of the James River Bridge. The beach enhancement and facilities upgrade, which began in 1986, as completed included a riprap revetment along the northwest section of the park in front of the eroding bluffs, a riprapped boat basin and ramp, and the placement of approximately 13,000 cy (10,200 m3) of sand on the beach. In March 1992, an additional 1,500 cy (1,150 m3) was placed on the beach. Beach profiles, sediment data, and volume calcu.lations indicate that since the fall of 1993, the beach at Huntington Park has been relatively stable. Shore morphology and profile analysis suggest that this is a pocket beach which responds to changes in the wave direction by altering its orientation and curvature. The wide, shallow nearshore region as well as the sheltering by the James River Bridge abutment tends to limit the wave energy along the shoreline. Volume calculations show that sediment is not generally lost to the system but appears to move back and forth along the beach with profile line 3 as a nodal point. Between October 1993 and April 1995, only 830 cy (635 m3) of material was lost, but aerial photography indicates that eolian transport most likely deposited this sand in the grassy area behind the baseline and the parking lots behind the beach. Anderson Park is located on the northwest shoreline of Hampton Roads. It is bounded on the north by Salters Creek and extends approximately 3,000 ft (914 m) to the southwest where Christopher Shores, a private subdivision begins. Between 1937 and 1953, the entrance to Salters Creek was stabilized with stone jetties, the channel dredged, and the sand placed over the marsh headlands at Anderson Park. In the early 1940's, a large steel groin was placed at the end of what is now the Christopher Shores subdivision. By 1963, sand eroded from the Anderson Park beach and bank was stacked up against the groin filling it to capacity. Due to the severe bank erosion, a riprap revetment constructed in the 1970's along the first 1,500 ft (457 m) from Salters Creek. In the early 1980's, erosion at Anderson Park along the nonprotected shoreline continued as the supply of sand was reduced by the Salters Creek channel jetties and riprap revetment up drift. In 1985, Four 180 ft (55 m) long wood groins were installed 300 (91 m) apart. In addition, 16,000 cy (12,200 m3) of sand was placed on the beach. To reduce downdrift impacts, two spurs and about 400 cy (306 m3) of sand were installed in February 1988. The strong net southwestward component of littoral transport can be well documented along the Hampton Roads shoreline south of Salters Creek. The

---

direction of wave approach as well as tidal currents tend to move sediment to the southwest. While local episodes of erosion and accretion have occurred at Anderson Park, overall, only a small amount of net erosion has taken place. Erosion downdrift of the project was initially severe as the Christopher Shores shoreline became embayed and began to adjust to the wave climate. However, the rate of erosion in this region appears to decreased with little net change taking place between 1992 and 1993. King-Lincoln Park is located on Hampton Roads at the southern portion of the Peninsula. Since 1937, a small sandy beach has existed in there. Erosion has been minimal along this shoreline betv\'een 1937 and 1963 except for the western section of the beach. In January 1995, approximately 50,000 cy (38,200 m3) of sand was placed along the shoreline and plans have been made to construct vegetated dunes from the replenishment sand along the backshore/upland interface. Overall, little natural change has occurred at King-LIncoln since 1993. Prior to the fill, what sand was lost during the winter was generally regained or nearly regained over the summer. Profile 5 has been accreting since 1993 demonstrating the southwestward component of littoral transport. No other trends describing the local patterns and rates of change could be derived from the data due to the placement of the fill.

-- - - --

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVESUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

II.

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 A. Background and Purpose B. Limits of the Study Area C. Approach and Methodology

1 3 4

Huntington Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

A. Coastal Setting

1. Hydrodynamic Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

a. Wave Climate b. Tides ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Storm Surge . ..

.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . ... . .

2. Physical Setting

9 9 .. 9 9

a. Sedin1ents b. Shore Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. c. Sediment Transport

9 11 12

B. RCPWAVE

C. Beach Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

1. Beach Profiles and their Variability 2. Variability in shoreline position

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

3. Beach and Nearshore Volume Changes

III

16 22 22

III.

Hampton Roads Reach - Anderson Park and King-Lincoln Park. . . . . . . "

A. Coastal Setting

1. Hydrodynamic

Processes.

a. Wave Climate b. Tides .. . . . c. Storm Surge

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

.. ..

. . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... ..

25 26 26

a. Sediments b. Shore Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. c. Sediment Transport

26 27 34

2. Physical Setting

B. RCPWAVE

C. Anderson Park Beach Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

1. Beach Profiles and their Variability

2. Variability in Shoreline Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

3. Beach and Nearshore Volume Changes

D. King-Lincoln Park Beach Characteristics

1. Beach Profiles and their Variability

2. Variability in Shoreline Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

3. Beach and Nearshore Volume Changes

IV.

Summary and Conclusions

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58

VI.

References.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Appendix I.

Additional References about Littoral Processes and Hydrodynamic modeling

Appendix II.

Anderson Park Beach Profiles

Appendix III.

Huntington

Park and King-Lincoln Park Sediment Data lV

----

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.

Study site locations and location of Thimble Shoals wave gage

Figure 2.

Basemap of Huntington

Figure 3.

Basemap of Anderson Park Beach with profile locations

Figure 4.

Basemap of King-Lincoln Park Beach with profile locations

Figure 5.

Beachprofile demonstrating terminologyused in report. . . . . . . . . .. 8

Figure 6.

Wave refraction patterns in a static equilibrium bay (Silvester and Ho,

Figure 7.

Park Beach with profile locations

. . . . . . . . . ..

6 7

1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Huntington Park bathymetric grid location for running RCPW AVE

. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Figure 8A.

Huntington Park wave vector plots for m!=,dalconditions at MLW ..

Figure 8B.

Huntington Park wave vector plots for modal conditions at approximately SHW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Figure 9.

Wave vector plot from RCPWAVE for storm conditions across the

model

Huntington

Park grid .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Figure 10.

Huntington

Park plots depicting change at profiles 1 and 2

Figure 11.

Huntington

Park plots depicting change at profiles 3 and 4

Figure 12.

Huntington

Park plot depicting change at profile 5

Figure 13.

Huntington

Park distance of MHW from the survey baseline

. . . . .. 23

Figure 14A. Huntington Park subaerial beach volume calculationsby cell. . . . .. 24 Figure 14B. Huntington Park nearshore beach volume calculations by cell Figure 15. Figure 16.

Aerial photos showing Anderson Park and Christopher Shores morphology in 1937, 1953, 1963, and 1985 Aerial photos showing King-Lincoln Park morphology in 1937, 1953,

and

1963

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

24 29

Figure 17.

Photo mosaic of latest shoreline photos, June 1995

Figure 18.

Historical shoreline positions indicating change

Figure 19.

Hampton Roads bathymetric grid (KLA grid), including Anderson Park and King-Lincoln Park, for running the RCPW AVE model. . ..

Figure 20A. KLA grid wave vector plots for southeast modal condition

Figure 20B. KLA grid wave vector plots for the south modal condition

Figure 20C. KLA grid ,,,,ravevector plots for the northeast modal condition . . . ..

Figure 21A. KLA grid wave vector plots for average 1988 northeast storm condition

Figure 21B. KLA grid wave vector plots for average 1989 northeast storm condition

Figure 21C. KLA grid ,,,rave vector plots for average 1985 east storm condition..

Figure 22.

Anderson Park plots depicting change at profiles 13 and 14 . . . . . ..

Figure 23.

Anderson Park plots depicting change at profiles 15 and 16 . . . . . ..

Figure 24.

Anderson Park distance of MHW from the survey baseline

Figure 25A. Volume change behveen pre- and post-fill Oun 1984 and Apr 1985).

Figure 25B. Volume change betv,reen post-fill (Apr 1985) and Jun 1986

Figure 26A. Volume change between Jun 1986 and May 1987

Figure 26B. Volume change behveen May 1987 and Apr 1988

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Figure 27A. Volume change between Apr 1988 and Jul1989

Figure 27B. Volume change between Jul1989 and Sep 1990

Figure 28A. Volume change between Sep 1990 and Nov 1992

Figure 28B. Volume change between Nov 1992 and Oct 1993

Figure 29.

Net subaerial volume change between post-fill (Apr 1985) and Nov 1992

Figure 30.

King-Lincoln Park plots depicting change at profiles 1 and 2

Figure 31.

King-Lincoln Park plots depicting change at profiles 3 and 4

Figure 32.

King-Lincoln Park plot depicting change at profile 5

Figure 33.

King-Lincoln Park distance of MHW from the survey baseline. . . ..

Figure 34A. King-Lincoln Park subaerial beach volume calculations by cell. . . ..

Figure 34B. King-Lincoln Park nearshore beach volume calculations by cell

Vll

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.

Percent sand and gravel, in relation to the whole sample, at selected morphologic points along profile 3 at Huntington Park beach

Table 2.

Percent sand and gravel at midbeach on 11 April 1995 for all five profile lines at Huntington Park beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11

Table 3.

Percent sand and gravel at selected morphologic points along profile 3 at King-Lincoln Park beach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28

Table 4.

Percent sand and gravel at midbeach on all file profile lines at KingLincoln Park beach .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Table 5.

Anderson Park groin sand fillet orientations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Table 6.

KLAgrid summary input wave data conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35

Vlll

I. INTRODUCTION A. Background and Purpose The City of Newport News has three public beaches within its limits. Since the early 1980's, interest in preserving and revitalizing these beaches has been growing. These beaches are Huntington Park, Anderson Park, and King-Lincoln Park (Figure 1). 1. Huntington Park Huntington Park Beach is located along the James River immediately to the northwest of the James River Bridge. Presently, the beach is bounded to the southeast by the James River fishing pier and extends northwest approximately 750 ft (230 m) to the boat ramp. In July 1986, the City of Newport News in cooperation with the Public Beach Board undertook a comprehensive project to upgrade not only the beach at Huntington but also the other facilities as well. The entire project included an enhanced beach, a boat ramp facility, and protection of the large bluffs overlooking the James River in the northwest section of the park. Hobbs et al. (1974) found that these 25 ft (8 m) bluffs were eroding at about 2 ft/yr (0.6 m/yr). By August 1989, the boat basin as well as the rip rap revetment along the northwest section of the park in front of the bluffs were already installed. In 1990, about 13,300 cubic yards (cy) (10,200 cubic meters(m3Âť of sand were placed at Huntington to create a beach 100 to 125 feet (31 to 38 m) wide and 9.7 ft (3 m) above mean sea level (MSL) high. In March 1992, an additional 1,500 cy (1,150 m3) was placed on the beach.

2. Anderson Park Anderson Park Beach is a city-owned recreational area located on the northwest shoreline of Hampton Roads and is three-fourths of a mile southwest of the Newport News/Hampton city line. The park consists of approximately 18 acres, is bounded on the north by Salters Creek, and extends approximately 3,000 ft (914 m) to the southwest where Christopher Shores, a private subdivision, begins. To the west, the park is adjacent to and backed by Stuart Gardens Apartments. The shoreline along the first 1,500 ft (457 m) from Salters Creek is a riprapped revetment. Presently, the sandy beach and groinfield south of the riprap is approximately 1500 feet (457 m) long. Since 1854, the unprotected shoreline along Anderson Park has been eroding at rate of 2 ft/yr (0.6 m/yr)(Hobbs et ai., 1974). In the early 1940's, a large steel groin about 400 ft (122 m) long was constructed at what is now the present southwestward boundary of Christopher Shores. Over the next twenty years, the fastland bank near Salters Creek experienced significant erosion. Due to the bank erosion, the first 1000 ft (300 m) from Salters Creek was part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Erosion Control Project which installed riprap along the shore in the mid 1970's. Additional

... ., .

." .-..... ..........--. -0."

". .'_" ...:)... '<:t Q:)

'<:t "" Q...

.,.

,.:.:..

_.V.

'1;7 !"---::t"

\I')

8"'InC"L 811..(I

~..

Figure 1.

6 = . =:! I)

Study site locations and location of Thimble Shoals wave gage.

riprap was added in 1978 to extend the revetment to 1,500 ft (457 m) long and 25 ft (7.6 m) high (US Army CaE, 1994).

In the early 1980's, erosion at Anderson Park along the non-protected shore continued as the supply of sand was reduced by the Salters Creek channel jetties and riprap revetment up drift. The Anderson Park Erosion Control Project, partially funded by the Public Beach Board, called for the installation of four 180 ft (55 m) long groins about 300 ft (91 m) apart. In addition, approximately 16,000cy (12,234 m3) of sand was placed on the beach, and the upland bank was graded. The system of beach fill and groins was designed for shore protection as well as to provide a recreational area. The project was completed in March 1985. To reduce downdrift impacts to Christopher Shores, two spurs were installed in February 1988. One spur was placed on the south side of the storm drainage pipe in the northern section of the beach. The other spur was placed on the south side of the southernmost groin at Anderson Park. In order to abate erosion in the scour area of the groin, approximately 400 cy (306 m3)of sand was placed on the beach. 3. King-Lincoln Park King-Lincoln Park is located on Hampton Roads at the southern portion of the Peninsula. It is approximately 1000 feet in length and historically, has had a moderate erosion rate of between 1 and 3 feet per year (Hobbs et al., 1974). Recently, it has been the focus of a planned rehabilitation project which includes shoreline restoration and facility upgrades. In January 1995, approximately 50,000 cy (38,200 m3) of sand was dredged from the boat basin and placed at King-Lincoln in order to reduce the impacts of shoreline erosion. In addition, plans have been made to construct vegetated dunes from the replenishment sand along the backshore/ upland interface. The purpose of this report is to assess the rates and patterns of beach change at the three public beaches within the City of Newport News. In addition, those changes will be related to the hydrodynamic forces and littoral processes operating in the study areas. Recommendations for further actions in any of the shoreline reaches will be provided based on the analyses contained in this report.

B. Limits of the Study Area The analyses for this report have two distinct areas of study (Figure 1). For Huntington Park, which is located on southern side of the Peninsula, a reach of shoreline extending from the James River Bridge northwest for approximately 5000 ft (1500 m) was analyzed. In order to ascertain the littoral processes affecting Anderson Park and King-Lincoln Park, the entire shoreline reach from the Small Boat Harbor to Salters Creek adjacent to Hampton Roads was evaluated.

C. Approach and Methodology Field survey data, aerial photos, and computer modelling were used to address the aforementioned report objectives. Data analyzed for this report include beach profiles surveyed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) as well as by the City of Newport News. The vertical and horizontal controls are based on site benchmarks established by the City. The vertical datum is mean sea level (MSL) for Anderson Park Beach and mean low water (MLW) for both Huntington and KingLincoln Park beaches. Historic and recent aerial images were evaluated to map changes in shoreline position. VIMS established a baseline for profiling Huntington Park beach in October 1993. Five profile lines were established between the fishing pier and the constructed boat basin (Figure 2). The Anderson Park beach (Figure 3) has been profiled by the City since 1983. In 1985, additional profile lines were surveyed along the Christopher Shores beach to monitor shoreline changes next to the project. The King-Lincoln Park beach baseline, with a total of five profiles between the Virginia Department of Transportation building and the pier, was established in December 1993 (Figure 4). Figure 5 gives a pictorial definition of the profile terminology used in this report. The nearshore data were calculated by taking into account all the sand below MLW to the end of each profile. The subaerial beach occurs above MLWand is divided into beach face and backshore regions.

For this report, the hydrodynamic forces acting along the Newport News beaches were evaluated using RCPWAVE, a computer model developed by the V.S Army Corps of Engineers (Ebersole et al., 1986). RCPWAVE is a linear wave propagation model designed for engineering applications. This model computes changes in wave characteristics that result naturally from refraction, shoaling, and diffraction over complex shoreface topography. To this fundamental linear theory based model, VIMS has added routines which employ recently developed understandings of wave bottom boundary layers to estimate wave energy dissipation due to bottom friction (Wright et al., 1987).

I I .. llie

. ..

l ....

'. '"

, , ,

\ ;i

. .. .. ...

拢t f'

...

100 I

. .

-&...

III

~. ..

I I

...

III

'i ..

\ \ \

.o~

\ \

路

Figure 2.

. ..

Basemap of Huntington 5

Park Beach with profile locations.

13 -15 17 19 21

Ii. j!

",'

- ---

..'

~-~~

..c=~ :'-cr

Figure

3. Basemap of Anderson Park Beach with profile locations.

400

J U N 95

IJ'. f" ~'Jl', ~

200. .L. FT

100 ...L.. FT

200

\ \

\ \ \ \ \

v:'

.~. : ~. ,.

...

~.;o:' .!'

.,."~,, . .

ti:

'...

路

Figure4.

~" .

\. ~

,....

'\:Al

~..\~

': \

t".~~

,. "1-' : r~"'.~~~ -1

y: p;_ ,,~~ _ Tl..

\,..

, i~~.:1I.""

'h.~

<:....~

. " .

..)'*

. ~

"i>

...,'

, ."",.

Basemap of King-Lincoln Park Beach with profile locations.

NEARSHORE

COAST

UPLAND

ZONE

BEACH OR SHORE BACKSHORE

INSHORE -FORESHORE

MHW co

Figure 5.

Beach profile demonstrating

terminology

used in report.

BREAKERS

OFFSHORE

II.

HUNTINGTON PARK A. Coastal Setting 1. Hydrodynamic Processes

a. Wave Climate The wave climate at Huntington Park beach is affected by local waves and currents as well as nearshore bathymetry and tidal currents. The nearshore region at Huntington is characterized by a gentle slope to the southeast for approximately 4,900 ft (1,500 m) where the bottom drops abruptly from 12 ft (4 m) to 35 ft (11 m). Byrne et al. (1987) found that the average near-surface, non-tidal currents were approximately 0.02 knots (1 cm/ sec) in the downstream direction. Wind-induced waves from northwest, west and southwest impact Huntington Park the greatest. However, the James River Bridge abutment shelters Huntington Park Beach from waves traveling from the Bay up the James River. Wave induced erosion of the bluffs occurs when high northwest or southwest winds pile up water on the Newport News side of the river and attack the toe of the fastland (Hobbs et al., 1974).

b. Tides The mean tidal range at Huntington spring range of 3.1 ft (94.5 cm).

Park Beach is 2.6 ft (79.2 cm) with a

c. Storm Surge Boon et al. (1978) statistically determined storm surge frequency for both extra tropical and tropical storm events. In the Hampton Roads area, the storm surge levels for 10 year, 25 year, 50 year and 100 year events are 4.5 ft (1.4 m), 4.8 ft (1.5 m), 5.5 ft (1.7 m), and 6.1 ft (1.9 m), respectively. These surge levels are heights above MSL. There is little difference between the surge levels at Huntington Park and Hampton Roads. 2. Physical Setting

a. Sediments In general, the sediments at Huntington Park beach consist of sand and gravel in varying proportions. The percent of silt and clay in the samples taken are less than five percent and will be disregarded in this analysis. Additional sediment data is available in Appendix III. Samples were taken on three different dates along beach profile line 3 at certain morphologic points. The backshore sample represents the area of the beach that is influenced by eolian transport and run-up from occasional storm events. Sediments were also taken at last high tide (LHT), midbeach, step, toe, and offshore.

9 - ----

The step is an ephemeral morphologic feature that results from wave action on the ~

shoreline and shifts up and down the beach as the tide rises and falls. The toe of the

beach is located at the break in slope between the beach face and the nearshore region. It is also evidenced by a distinct change in sediment type; at Huntington, the sand becomes finer and the gravel is not in such a high proportion.

The grain size distribution of beach sand generally varies across shore and, to a lesser degree, alongshore as a function of the mode of deposition. The coarsest sand particles are usually found where the backwash meets the incoming swash in a zone of maximum turbulence at the base of the subaerial beach; here the sand is abruptly deposited creating a step or toe. Just offshore, the sand becomes somewhat finer. Another area of coarse particle distribution is the berm crest where runup deposits all grain sizes as the swash momentarily stops before the backwash starts. The dune or backshore generally contains the finest particles because deposition here is limited to the wind's ability to entrain and move sand (Bascom, 1959; Stauble et a1., 1993). Huntington Park beach does not follow this general grain size distribution pattern (Table 1). The backshore region contains relatively coarse material which probably is a lag deposit of the original fill material. However, since May 1994, the backshore has been accumulating sand, thus reducing the proportion of gravel. The edge of vegetation in the backshore area has been receding landward, probably due to use, allowing more sand mobility. LHT is finer than midbeach, which has been increasing in coarseness since May 1994. The step has also been increasing its percent of gravel. Some pieces of gravel were retained on the -3 phi (8.0 mm) sieve. Table 2 lists the percent of sand and gravel, in relation to the whole sediment sample, at midbeach on all five profiles at Huntington. These samples were taken on 11 April 1995. Midbeach at profile 3 has by far the greatest amount of gravel in the alongshore direction.

10 - --

Table 1. Percent sand and gravel, in relation to the whole sample, at selected morphologic points along profile 3. LHT

BACK SHO

MID BCH

Date

%Grv

%Snd

Dso (mm)

%Grv

%Snd

Dso (mm)

%Grv

%Snd

Dso (mm)

May94

12.8

85.4

0.2909

0.0

99.4

0.3559

9.2

80.0

0.5147

Oct94

15.1

82.1

0.2616

0.6

98.8

0.4031

23.3

76.4

0.7143

Apr95

9.4

87.0

0.3096

3.6

95.5

0.4667

36.9

62.4

0.9370

STEP

TOE

OFF SHO

Date

%Grv

%Snd

Dso (mm)

%Grv

%Snd

Dso (mm)

%Grv

%Snd

Dso (mm)

May94

6.4

92.9

0.4638

41.2

58.0

0.6183

35.4

63.2

0.3066

Oct94

17.1

82.1

0.8048

26.1

72.9

0.4654

3.3

95.0

0.3622

Apr95

30.0

68.9

0.9696

42.0

56.7

0.4179

26.1

71.2

0.3683

Table 2. Percent sand and gravel at midbeach on 11 April 1995 for all five profile lines.

Profile Number

% Gravel

% Sand

19.5

76.8

16.0

83.9

36.9

62.4

18.8

80.4

11.1

88.2

b. Shore Morphology The shore morphology is determined by long-term impact of the impinging wave climate after the waves have been altered by the nearshore bathymetry and tidal currents. The overall shape of Huntington Park beach is that of a pocket beach which is described as the embayment between two headlands. The planform of the headland-bay beaches is dependant on the predominant direction of wave attack (Yasso, 1965; Silvester 1974). Headland-bay beaches are often referred to as crenulate, pocket, or log-spiral bay beaches. The "headlands" that mark the boundaries of the

embayment at Huntington are the riprapped boat basin and the James River Bridge abutment. The fairly straight shoreline between these two headlands indicates a wave climate that is affected by the shallow nearshore region which tends to refract the waves to a direct onshore approach. The tangential section of the shoreline in a pocket beach can be measured to determine the long-term wave climate (Figure 6) since the tangential beach aligns itself parallel to the direction of approach of wave crests. Measurements of the orientation of the tangential section of shoreline on the eastern side of the beach near the Bridge indicates a long-term wave impact from the west. Approaching waves are refracted around the boat basin to a nearly onshore approach but travel unrefracted to the abutment shoreline in a direct onshore approach.

c. Sediment Transport When a pocket beach is in static equilibrium, the wave crests approach the tangential section of the beach in a direct onshore approach. The incoming wave crests will refract and diffract in the bay such that their approach is also parallel to the shoreline. A stable beach planform is achieved when either the sediment supply is depleted or the shoreline has eroded to a condition where littoral drift is reduced to zero (Silvester and Hsu, 1993). This lack of littoral drift implies that the waves are approaching normal to the shoreline and that there is no longshore gradient in breaking wave energy for sediment transport. However, small changes can occur in the beach planform on a seasonal basis as the wave climate varies. Huntington Park beach has a stable beach planform and is in static equilibrium. Some seasonal changes have occurred along the shoreline, but these indicate that the sediment is not being lost to the system, but probably is being transported back and forth along the beach between the "headlands" depending on the direction of wave approach. Eolian transport also is responsible for some loss of sand from the backshore region. High winds blow sediment into the grassy area and parking lots behind the beach.

B. RCPWAVE A detailed discussion of wave processes, sediment transport, and numerical modelling is beyond the scope of this report; the interested reader can refer to Appendix II for a listing of pertinent references. In order to determine the wave climate at Huntington Park beach, RCPWAVE was employed. The use of RCPWAVE to model the hydrodynamics at Huntington Park assumes that only the offshore bathymetry affects wave transformation; the application does not include the effects of tidal currents. A grid (Figure 7) of the study region was digitized from a bathymetric map. The waves impinging the shoreline were predicted by the following process, developed and used during a previous projects (Hardaway et al., 1991; Hardaway et al., 1993):

12 ----

RAY No. 123"567

Figure 6.

Wave refraction patterns in a static equilibrium bay (Silvester and Ho, 1972).

---

- ---

'r...... 25' '0'"

North 12

>,. I

\.. \'", ~'8-f

r ;3

: ~

0 4

., ,..'

~.... .-'-.f! ...~

Figtire 7.

Huntington model.

Park bathymetric

grid location for running RCPW AVE

,,-

1. Determine effective fetch for three directions. This was accomplished using procedures outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual (1977) for northwest and south directions from the midpoint of the riverward extent of the grid. This also involves measuring a bathymetric transect across the river in both the directions. 2. Use the above data as input into 5MB program which provides wave height, period and length for a suite of wind speeds. In this case, wind speeds of 5 to 19 m/sec (11 to 43 mph) were used at 2 m/sec increments. The results of this step are used to create a data file of wind speeds with associated wave heights and periods for both subject directions. 3. Wind data for 10 years, 1980-1990,along with the data file from step 2, are the input requirements for running the program WINDOW (Suh, 1990). WINDOW takes the data file as input parameters from step 2 and matches them with wind speed and direction from each of the subject directions for each year to produce another data file of wave heights, periods and directions through a series of vectoraveraging steps. The limiting criterion is that the wind must be blowing from within the assigned directional window for at least nine hours. In other words, winds recorded at the Norfolk Airport must be blowing from, for example, 1810and 3010 true for nine or more hours to qualify for this analysis. 4. The result of step 3 is a file for each year giving date, hour beginning, wave height, wave period, local wave direction, and duration of each qualifying event. These data then are mean weighted to provide a weighted mean for wave height, period and direction with duration as the independent variable for each year. 5. The results of step 4 were mean-averaged for each year to produce average wave parameters for the directional window. These results were used as input into RCPWAVE for annual modal conditions. 6. Four significant events were identified during the extent of the wind analysis: 26 October 1982, 4 November 1985, 13 April 1988, and 8-9 March 1989. On and around these dates, an event was recorded in the wind data. The wind speeds and directions for each event were pulled from the data and averaged. The averages were compared manually to the data file created in step 2 rather than using the WINDOW program described in step 3. The wave parameters obtained for each event were used as storm input to RCPW AVE. RCPW AVE takes an incident wave condition at the seaward boundary of the grid and allows it to propagate shoreward across the nearshore bathymetry. Frictional dissipation due to bottom roughness is accounted for in this analysis and is relative in part to the mean sand size. Waves also tend to become smaller over shallower bathymetry and remain larger over deeper bathymetry. In general, waves break when the ratio of wave height to water depth equals 0.78 (Komar, 1976).

,,--

Upon entering shallow water, waves are subject to refraction, in which the direction of wave travel changes with decreasing depth of water in such a way that wave crests tend to parallel the depth contours. Irregular bottom topography can cause waves to be refracted in a complex way and produce variations in the wave height and energy along the coast (Komar, 1976).

Figure 8A and B are plots of wave vectors across the Huntington Park grid for the modal (decadal average) wave conditions at MLW and approximately Spring High Water (SHW): Wave Height (H) =0.33m Wave Period (T) =2.2 sec Wave Bearing(A) = 90째True North (TN) The average wave condition within the Huntington Park grid was a wave traveling from west to east or approximately downriver. At MLW the waves do not break, but rather diminish in height until they reach the shoreline. At MLW and modal conditions, the waves are refracted as they cross the shallow nearshore such that they impact the beach shore normal. However, at higher water, the waves are reduced in height but only refracted slightly as they travel across the nearshore zone. Figure 9 shows wave vectors under conditions experienced during the November 1985 storm (H=1.46 m, T=2.5 sec, A=45째) assuming a water level at approximately SHW. The storm average of wave conditions within the Huntington grid was a wave generated by southwest winds traveling towards the northeast. Waves can be reduced by up to 85% in height across the shallow nearshore and are refracted to a nearly shore normal approach. Because of this, storms do not seem to affect the general stability of the beach planform at Huntington Park beach.

C. Beach Characteristics 1. Beach Profiles and their Variability Five profile lines were established in October 1993 to document changes at Huntington Park beach. Distances between profile lines vary along the shoreline. Profile lines 1 through 4 begin in the backshore area of the beach and extend some distance out into the James River onto the gently sloping nearshore area. However, in order to keep a straight baseline, profile 5 begins in the parking lot approximately 102 ft (31 m) from the sand level on the beach and ends abruptly offshore where it crosses the dredged boat channel. Figures 10, 11 and 12 are plots of the profiles at Huntington. Profile numbers, survey numbers and dates are found in the figure legends. Little change has occurred at Huntington beach since 1993. Profile line 2 indicates slight erosion. Profile line 3 showed no change at all while profiles I, 4, and 5 had varying episodes of erosion and accretion. In the fall months when the beach was surveyed (survey numbers 100 and 102), a small storm berm had developed at profile 5.

Ho =0.330

T = 2.2

Wave Vectors

5, RNGLE (deg) = 90 0.330 m

North o

'( (k m)

0 0

X (k m)

Ho =0.330 m, T = 2.2 S. RNGLE (deg) = 90 Wave Vectors 0.330 m

1.84

2.59

y (k m)

o o

(k m)

2.60

"Wave vector scales vary.

Figure 8.

Huntington Park wave vector plots for modal conditions at A.) MLW and 8.) approximately SHW. 17 --

North

Ho =1.460 m, Wave Vectors 1

. 84

Huntington

T = 2.5

RNGLE (degJ 1 460 m

Park

y (k m)

Figure9.

(k m)

2.59

Wave vector plot from RCP'''' AVE for storm conditions across the Huntington Park grid.

Huntington Park Beacn 30 L1ne

Survey 100 101 102 103

Date 6 OCT 6 MAY 13 OCT 11 AP~

93 94 94 95

I-

1.1..

C 0

-'to

> c:> w 0

-10

----------

200

100

300

400

Distance.

--..-..-..

500

600

700

BOO

Huntington Park Beacn 30 Une 2 2 2 2

20 '

Survey 100 101 102 103

Date 6 OCT 6 MAY 13 OCT 11 APR

93 94 94 95

I"-

C 0

...

....

to > CI) .....

' \ \

HLW

-10

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

BOO

Distance. FT

Figure 10.

Huntington

Park plots depicting change

at profiles 1 and

-10 o

100

200

300

400

Distance.

500

600

700

800

500

600

700

800

-10 o

100

200

300

400 Distance.

Figure 11.

Huntington Park plots depicting change at profiles 3 and 4. 20

Huntington

Park Beach

Line

Survey

5 5 5 5

20 .

100 101 102 103

Date 6 OCT 93 6 AY 54 13 OCT 54 11 APR 95

I.J...

-'-rt1 C 0

-wQJ

-10

100

\..'

200

300

400 D1stance.

Figure 12..

Huntington

500

600

700

BOO

Park plot depicting change at profile 5. 21

2. Variability in shoreline position

The position of MHW can be used to demonstrate changes in the beach shape over time. Since Huntington Park beach began being surveyed in 1993, little change has occurred along the embayed shoreline (Figure 13). The beach appears stable with only slight episodes of erosion or deposition. In addition, profile line 3 has not changed at all in the past two years indicating that it may be a nodal point for the beach with sediment shifting up and down the shore between the James River Fishing Pier and the riprap enclosed boat launch area at Huntington Park. Komar (1976) found that a pocket beach responds to changes in the wave direction by altering its curvature and orientation. The shoreline then "wobbles" between the two headlands because of changes in the wave direction. Typically, our data show that while profiles 1 and 2 eroded, profiles 4 and 5 accreted and vice versa. However, the amount of change at the beach is small, and the patterns may be insignificant. 3. Beach and Nearshore Volume CIumges

The amount of material either lost or gained along the shore zone can be measured by changes in area and converted to volumes along a profile line or in a shore cell. Subaerial beach volume calculations extend from the baseline to MLW whereas nearshore calculations extend riverward from MLW. Shore cells are defined by profile lines. Cell 1 is between profiles 1 and 2, cell 2 occurs between profiles 2 and 3, and so on. Volume calculations at Huntington show a continuation of the trend of little change. A combined total of 14,800 cy (11,300 m3) of sand from the two nourishment projects in 1990 and 1992 was placed on the beach. Between October 1993 and April 1995, the entire subaerial beach (Figure 14A) lost only 830 cy (635 m3) of material most of which was probably deposited in the parking lot by eolian transport. Over that same time period, the nearshore region (Figure 14B) gained about 77 cy (59 m3).

22 --

200 180 ----.--........-----.......--------.------------------------------------.....--.-..-.--------------------------------

-----------

1 1

e.......

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

:r:

.9100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

uc:

ro 80 ------------------------------.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(/)

-------.-..----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

3 Profile Number

1---OCT93-2r

Figure 13.

Huntington

MAY94",,*-

OCT94

-)(-

APR95

Park distance of MHW from the survey baseline.

Net Subaerial

Beach

Volume

Change

=-327

(cy) Qct93-May94

N~_~!!~.~{I?1_~QI.4'm_~~.lCY).MiI~_=::~?~~

Net Subaerial Beach Volume Change (cy) Oct94.Apr95

=.227

......

..O'....

A .....................

....................................................................-............................................

.....................................---............

..............-......-...-...........................-................---...--............--..--......-...........-..................-.................................-..............--

Cell Number 1-- 0c:I9J.Ma)94 ~ May94.0a94 "* Qcl9<.Apr95

Net Nearshore

Bead!

Volume

Change

= '32

(cy) Oct93.May94

et-Nearshore Beach >.10111,.,,& Ghange-{cy) May94-0as.;.~ Net Nearshore

Beach

Volume

Chance

lev) Oct94.ADr95

o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o o.o

o.o...o.o

leG = .235

o-.o__.o

o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o

o...o.o...o.o.o.o..o.o.o...o.o..............

o..o

o...o...o.o...o

o.....

CI) C)

~ U

..o.o.o.o

o.o.o..o

o.o.o...o..o.o.o.o.o

o.o.o.o.o...o.o.o.o.o.o o...o.o..o.o...o.o.o.o

.. o

CI)

o.o.o

o.o

o...o.o.o

o.o.o.o...o

o...o.o...o

o...o..o.o...._

CI)

E ::I :g I!! o .r:.

o.o.o.o.o...o..o.. _.

o.o.o...

o.o

o...o

o.o.o

o.o......

o.o

o.o.o...o

o...o

_.o

o..o..

o...o.o.o

o...o

o.o

o...

o.o.o

o..o.o.o...o.o

o..o...o.o...o.o...o

o.o.o..............

Cell Number

I--

Figure 14.

0c:I9J.Ma)94 ~

May94-Ocl94"*

0cI94-ApI95

Huntington Park beach volume calculations by cell for the A.) subaerial beach and B.) nearshore region. 24

III.

HAMPTON ROADS REACH ANDERSON PARK AND KING-LINCOLN

PARK

A. Coastal Setting 1. Hydrodynamic Processes

a. Wave Climate The wave climate within the lower Chesapeake Bay has been the focus of recent study (Boon et al., 1990;Boon et al., 1993). VIMS has deployed a bottommounted wave gage in the Thimble Shoals area of the lower Chesapeake Bay since 1988 (Figure 1). While the wave and current data sensed at the gage cannot be directly translated to conditions experienced at Anderson and King-Lincoln, the general types of conditions are relevant. One of the features. reported in the Thimble Shoals wave data set is the bimodal distribution of wave directions reflecting dual energy sources which impact the area. Boon et al. (1990) found that 40 to 60% of all waves measured each month were between 0.67 feet (0.20 m) and 1.97 feet (0.60 m) in height. During late spring and summer months, about 80% of the measured waves were traveling towards the west-northwest, thus generated outside the Bay. During fall and winter months, only ---

slightly more than half of the 0.67 (0.20 m) to 1.97 feet (0.60 m) waves were generated outside the Bay. Bay-external waves result from swell and ocean shelf-originated wind waves. Of the fall and winter waves with heights greater than 1.97 it (0.60 m), almost all were directed south, thus generated within the Bay. These fall and winter waves result from northeasters (extratropical storms) and northwesters, which produce strong north winds along the maximum fetch of the Bay. As the James River is located at the southernmost end of the Chesapeake Bay, it is effected by waves generated over the whole north-to-south fetch of the Bay (over 100 miles, 160 km). The passage of extra tropical, low pressure storms also produces elevated water levels which further increases the reach of wave energy. Thus, the higher wave energy in winter generally causes beach erosion while calmer conditions in summer tend to cause beach accretion.

Hampton Roads is exposed to waves from the lower Bay, which includes those generated both inside and outside the Bay, through the mouth of the James River. Hobbs et al. (1974) describe maximum fetch in Hampton Roads to the south and east of 3 to 4 nautical miles (nm) whereas the effective fetch to the northeast was calculated at approximately 7 nm. The US Army COE (1994) found that the prevailing winds in Hampton Roads were from the northeast and north during Feb., Mar., Aug., Sep., and Oct. while the rest of the year, the prevailing winds were from the southwest or south. The annual average wind speed was 11 mph (5 m/ s) at Norfolk International Airport. 25

The wave climate at Anderson and King-Lincoln is greatly influenced by several nearshore features. Hampton Flats, located on the western side of Hampton Roads, is a relatively shallow shoal of approximately 4,500 acres with depths generally less than 12 ft (3.7 m) (Byrne et al., 1987). Newport News Bar is an elongate shoal on the southwestern end of Hampton Flats. It parallels the lower end of the Newport News Peninsula near King-Lincoln Park and ranges between 6 to 12 ft (2 to 4 m) in depth. Landward of Newport News Bar, accelerated flood currents have scoured and maintained a subsidiary channel, which has maximum depths of 19 ft (6 m), parallel to the shoreline (Byrne et al., 1979). b. Tides The mean tide range at Anderson Park and King-Lincoln Park is 2.5 feet (76.2 cm) with a spring range of 2.9 feet (88.4 cm). Tidal currents near Newport News Creek are approximately 46 cm/ s during flood and 67 cm/ s during ebb (US Army CaE, 1994). However, tidal speeds along the Hampton Roads reach can vary due to the position of Newport News Bar and Hampton Flats. During flood stage, water moving across Hampton Flats is diverted around both sides of the shoal creating two distinct flows, one inshore and one offshore. The inshore flow forms first and can reach speeds greater than 50 cm/ s at the surface (Byrne et al., 1987). Byrne et al. (1987) found that the flood transport around Newport News Bar is greater inshore than offshore with a net flooding of water over the tidal cycle inshore and a net ebbing offshore. During ebb, the flow of water coming down the James River has to make a 90째 turn around Newport News Point. As it does, an eddy begins to develop on Hampton Flats. As ebb stage is ending, the eddy has fully developed into a counterclockwise circulation pattern. This circulation not only advances the flood stage of the tide but also enhances the strength of the flood current in the early stage of flood (Byrne et al., 1987). c. Storm Surge Boon et al. (1978) determined statistically storm surge frequency for both extratropical and tropical storm events. In the Hampton Roads area, the storm surge levels for 10 year, 25 year, 50 year and 100 year events are 4.5 ft (1.4 m), 4.8 ft (1.5 m), 5.5 ft (1.7 m), and 6.1 ft (1.9 m), respectively. These surge levels are heights above MSL. 2. PhysicalSetting

a. Sediments Beach and nearshore sediment samples were not taken at Anderson Park beach, but analyses were performed on samples taken at King-Lincoln. See Appendix III for more sediment data. Samples were taken at the base of dune (BOD), storm berm or backshore region, midbeach, toe, and offshore. Prior to the beach fill project, the sediments

26 -

-- --

sampled at King-Lincoln Park generally followed the cross-shore pattern established by Bascom (1959) and Stauble et al. (1993) (See section II,A,2,a of this report). With midbeach as the reference sample (Table 3), LHT would be slightly coarser but was not sampled. The storm berm and BOD do become finer as they are generally influenced only by eolian transport. In the offshore direction of midbeach, samples at the toe are the coarsest, with the offshore samples becoming much finer. The sand that was placed during the fill project was relatively uniform across and along the beach (Table 4). The nearshore samples taken at King-Lincoln contained more than 5 percent silt and clay (mud). In June 1994, 6.3% of the whole sample was mud. Although no sample was taken, December 1994 probably would have shown a similar percentage. In April 1995, the nearshore region had two distinct layers. The mud content of the original bottom was significantly increased and overlain by a blanket of the fill material. In order to determine the characteristics of each individual layer, two separate samples were taken at the same location. The top sandy layer is listed in Table 3 and contained only 3.5% mud. The muddy layer underneath was 0% gravel, 30.8% sand, 37.7% silt, and 31.5% clay. As the sand was placed on the beach, the finer sediments were winnowed out of the subaerial beach and deposited in the nearshore region. This was covered by a thin layer of sand either placed in the nearshore or washed out from the subaerial beach. Byrne et al. (1987) found that the sources for sediment to Hampton Flats are shore erosion and suspended solids advected over the Flats by tidal currents. The surface sediments of the Flats are fine to medium sand with the mud fraction varying between 3 and 25 percent. The innermost and northeastern sections of Hampton Flats tend to have a higher mud content whereas the western end tends to be coarser (Byrne et al., 1987). The 60 ft (18 m) contour appears to be the limiting depth for sediment samples to contain at least 75 percent sand (Boon and Thomas, 1975). Deeper than this, mud are larger portions of the bottom sample. Byrne (1972) found that sediment in the Salters Creek entrance was silt and clay with a large organic content.

b. Shore Morphology The morphology of a shoreline represents the long-term impact of the impinging wave climate after the waves have been altered by the nearshore bathymetry, tidal currents, and coastal structures. The overall shape of the shoreline fronting Hampton Roads is evidence of a strong northeast to southwest movement of littoral material. Figure 15 shows the shoreline morphology in 1937, 1953, 1963, and 1985 of the Anderson Park shoreline. In 1937, what is now Anderson Park Beach was marsh. Sometime between 1937 and 1953, the entrance to Salters Creek was stabilized with stone jetties, the channel was dredged, and the sand placed on Anderson Park beach. After the installation of the large steel groin at Christopher Shores in the 1940's, sand eroded from Anderson Park began stacking up against it. The area just south of the

27 ---

. . -. --...

-- dandG

-.lected ...

hol .

. -

n.__ ____O

- _.-.,fil --

BOD BERM MIDBEACH TOE OFFSHORE DATE %GRV % SAN D50 (mm) %GRV % SAN D50 (mm) %GRV % SAN D50 (mm) %GRV % SAN D50 (mm) %GRV % SAN D50(mm) 17JUN 1994 91.8 0.1 99.2 0.2945 7.4 0.2472 27.8 71.3 0.4088 80.7 18.8 0.0 0.8473 93.8 0.1129 12 DEC1994 0.0 0.4310 94.3 99.7 0.3160 0.1 99.1 0.2550 52.6 46.8 4.8 0.6330 NA NA NA 11APR 1995 99.0 0.0 1.9 95.6 0.2398 0.0 0.2559 1.8 96.6 0.2702 97.6 0.1638 0.0 96.4 0.1418

N 00

111' r .._ . ,file .n ___. - - -. --- Sand and . . . _.. n'dbeach __. _n_ 12 DEC 1994 11 APR 1995 17JUN 1994 PROFILE 8 DEC 1993 # % GRVL % SAND % GRVL % SAND % GRVL % SAND % GRVL % SAND 95.0 24.9 74.3 1.5 97.5 3.7 94.9 1 3.9 1.6 0.5 97.9 97.2 99.3 27.4 71.8 2 0.0 71.3 . 52.6 1.8 96.6 27.8 46.8 3 8.1 91.4 5.7 8.1 90.7 93.5 1.4 97.0 4 98.7 0.0 91.0 1.5 96.9 0.7 97.9 0.5 98.1 8.3 5

- - --

".' 11937 ~I

-- -

---

Ii -- 1953

Anderson Park

Christopher Shores

1985

Figure 15.

Aerial photos showing Anderson Park and Christopher Shores morphology in 1937, 1953, 1963, and 1985.

29 --

----

- - - --- - - -- - - - . . - _...

- .-. .. .

steel groin was bulkheaded before 1937 and dredged immediately following the groin installation. However, between 1953 and 1963, sand eroded from Anderson Park beach and bank and stacked up against the groin at what is now the Christopher Shores boundary filling it to capacity. The 1985 photo shows the characteristic "saw tooth" appearance of the groins installed at Anderson during the 1980's as sand fillets stack on the southern side of the groin compartments. Between 1854 and 1918,the shoreline at King-Lincoln Park underwent dramatic erosion which locally averaged 6 ft/yr (1.8 m/yr) (Byrne, 1972). However, Byrne (1972) found that little change has occurred between 1918 and 1966 with only the western section of the King-Lincoln shoreline eroding at 2 ft/yr (0.6 m/yr). Figure 16, showing the King-Lincoln shoreline in 1937, 1953 and 1963, demonstrates that little change has occurred there over time. Since 1937 at least, a small sandy beach has existed there. Byrne (1972) found that the beach was 30 ft (9.1 m) wide with a backshore bank increasing in height to about 6 ft (1.8 m) and had been about the same width since 1937. Presently (Figure 17), the beach is greatly expanded due to the latest beach nourishment project. Figure 17 shows the Hampton Roads shoreline on 21 June 1995. Most notable is the fill at King-Lincoln. The sand in the four groin compartments at Anderson has stacked up along the southern side of each compartment indicating that they are aligned with an impinging wave climate from the northeast with a net alongshore component of littoral transport to the southwest. Between the last groin and spur of the Anderson Park project and the large steel groin that marks the end of Christopher Shores, an spiral embayment has formed. These groins are the "headlands" that denote the boundaries of the embayment. In addition, Figure 17 also shows that sand is being transported along the shoreline since the sections of shoreline facing the northeast are filled with sand.

According to Byrne (1972),in 1918, the entrance of Salters Creek was about 1,000 ft (305 m) to the southwest of its present position exiting to Hampton Roads where today, the riprap revetment is at Anderson Park. Figure 18 is a summary of the shoreline change between 1937 and 1963. The extent of the Salters Creek marsh is evidenced by the numerous marsh headlands along the shore. By 1953, Salters Creek was stabilized, the dredged sand used as fill over the marsh along Anderson Park, and the steel groin installed at the southwest boundary of Christopher Shores. However, very little changed along the rest of the shoreline reach. By 1963, the shoreline at Anderson Park was receding. Sand had stacked up against the steel groin and filled it to capacity. Other areas of the Hampton Roads shoreline reach, including King-Lincoln, varied between erosion and accretion between 1953 and 1963. Measurements of the orientation of the sand fillets were performed on the aerial imagery available for t~e four groin compartments created with the 1980's installation (Table 5). The orientation of the tangential section of each groin was measured. Net-sand-fillet orientations for the tangential sections are east southeast.

The groin compartments are actually shoreline embayments and the tangential 30 -

. .. .,

1/-

., .. : ,0 ' .. .~1' - .-r

.l<ing-Lincoln.Park

1953

---.......

Figure 16.

11963

Aerial photos showing King-Lincoln Park morphology in 1937, 1953, and 1963.

----

t JU N 95

Figure 17.

500 ...... FT

1000 &

Photo mosaic of latest shoreline photos, June 1995.

32 -

HAMPTON ROADS

/ 5,,1---1 t

/,-.t

~~~..'f..

..~

CJJ CJJ

Figure 18.

,q1.1 .'

, ..

"DO

2~DO

,,~(,~

t1tP~ '(.).~'\-~"Ill<

Historical shoreline positions indicating change.

sections tend to orient themselves into the direction of wave approach. Compartment 1 is not a true groin compartment since its northernmost side is anchored by the riprapped section of the beach. Therefore it was not used in the calculation of the average long-term wave approach at Anderson Park. The average orientation for 1985, 1990, 1994, and 1995 in compartments 2, 3, and 4 was 1100representing a wave heading to 2900or about west northwest. Table 5. Anderson Park Sand Fillet Orientations by Compartment number in degrees True North. Com 1

Com 2

Com 3

Com 4

Avg of Com 2,3,4

22 August 1985

101

108

110

109

25 May 1990

100

103

110

104

29 October 1990

100

119

111

114

20 July 1994

105

115

27 February 1995

100

105

109

111

108

21 June 1995

107

106

110

108

Average

109

111

110

Date

c. Sediment Transport The strong net southwestward component of littoral transport can be well documented along the Hampton Roads shoreline. The development of sand fillets along the southern side of the groin compartments demonstrates sand movement. A component also probably goes offshore. Also noticeable in Figure 15 are the nearshore sand waves nearly perpendicular to the shoreline that are indicative of an active littoral system and possibly transport to the southwest. Byrne (1972) found that the eastern jetty of Salters Creek was trapping some sand but was not full so little sand was by-passing the Creek entrance. However, between 1953 and 1963, the steel groin at the end of Christopher Shores filled to capacity (Figure 15). The dredged area just south of the steel groin is obvious in the 1963 photo, but by 1985, sand had by-passed the groin and begun to fill in the dredged shore. The mechanisms for sediment transport is related to both wave and tidal energy. Waves from the Chesapeake Bay enter Hampton Roads through the northeast facing mouth of the James River. During both flood and ebb tide stages, tidal mechanisms tend to move water and energy southwestward along the shoreline. The counterclockwise circulation of the ebb eddy also probably moves sediment offshore to Hampton Flats.

B. RCPWAVE Using wind speeds and directions, wive hindcasting was performed by the process described in section lIB of this report to produce a significant wave height and period for three fetch exposures northeast, southeast and south of the Anderson and King-Lincoln RCPWAVE grid (Figure 19). Evident on the grid is Hampton Flats, Newport News Bar, the subsidiary channel scoured by tidal currents just offshore and parallel to King-Lincoln Park, and the dredged Newport News shipping channel. The modal conditions (Table 6) were run at about MLW while the storm conditions assumed a 5.2 ft MLW (1.6 m) storm surge which is approximately the 5 year storm surge level (Boon et al., 1978). The storm situations that were run were 1988 and 1989 northeasters as well as a 1985 storm whose winds generally blew from the east and generated waves traveling approximately west. Table 6. KLA grid summary input wave conditions. Height.

Period

Wave Bearing

Average Duration

(m)

(see)

eTN)

(hours)

South

0.31

2.12

008

14.9

Northeast

0.36

2.27

250

16.7

Southeast

0.27

1.96

311

12.3

1988 Storm

1.25

4.2

252

1989 Storm

1.04

3.8

252

1985 Storm

1.33

4.4

280

General Fetch Exposure or Storm

Only waves from the southeast, traveling approximately northwest, approach normal to the shoreline (Figure 20A) and show little refraction or alteration in the wave patterns due to Hampton Flats. In the south and northeast average conditions (Figure 20B&C), the waves begin to be refracted and diminished in height when they reach the 6 ft (1.8 m) contour just offshore. Their approach to the shoreline is somewhat more shore normal, but they still are at a slight angle when they break.

Figures 21A, B, and C are wave vector plots for the 1988 northeast storm, 1989 northeast storm, and 1985 east storm, respectively. During northeast storm conditions, the waves reduce in height over Hampton Flats, but are not refracted so that the wave crests are parallel to the shore. The waves that diminish over Newport News bar offshore from King-Lincoln Park can reform over the subsidiary channel. Waves traveling the eastern edge of Hampton Flats are reduced by about one-third as they travel over the shallowest portion of Newport News bar. As this same wave moves from Newport News bar over the subsidiary channel it can increase in size up to 43% greater than it was over the bar. The approach of waves from the east during

~.:.;--.:.;'~

.'=:';~;:;,:

===~._-

~"i~~..=-~=-;..

..... ~:~"'::"~-:'. ,.....

-_.-.

.U'__... .. .. .

North

VJ 0'\

..~...

. '., ~,~~~;'''1./:.;. " ,..

.,"\., ~

,., I: It' ~.

Figure 19.

.. i..

~:'.. ~..,.

Hampton Roads bathymetric grid (KLA grid), including Anderson Park and King-Lincoln Park, for running the RCPWAVE model

II. = 0.36 111,T = 2.3 see. A ng = 250"

Wave Vec lors

3. 72

r i I

Salters

Creek

S.C

S.c. . i

i I I

I k m) ,I:)

W '-J

'"or

i I

II I

King~lncoln

o X (k m)

Figure 20.

2.73

X Ik m)

8'V:eVl'vl'clnr sct1h's \'ary.

KLA grid wave vector plots for modal conditions for the A.) southeast, B.) south, and C.) northeast fetch exposure.

0.360m

North H. = 1.25

m. T

= 4.2

sec. Ang = 252.

Wave Vec tors

3. 72

J.250 m

= 1.04

III, T

=3.8

Wave Vec tors

sec. Ang =252"

II. = 1.33 III, T = 4.4 sec, Ang = 280.

J.040

Wave Vedors

1.330 m

S.c.

Salters Creek

Amlerson Puk AN

(k m) VJ CO

Klng-Uncoln

o X

(k m)

Figure 21.

(k m)

Wave vector scales vary.

(k m)

KLA grid wave vector plots for average conditions during the A.) 1988 northeast storm, 13.)1989 northeast storm, C.) 1985 east storm.

2.73

a storm (Figure 20C) are reduced in wave height by Hampton flats, but the waves are refracted only slightly and still approach the shoreline at an angle. However, at the southwestern portion of the grid near King-Lincoln Park the waves are nearly shore normal. The angle of wave vector approach to the Hampton Roads shoreline for the modelled storm conditions indicate that net alongshore component of littoral drift will drive sediment towards the southwest down to Newport News Point.

C. Anderson Park Beach Characteristics 1.

Beach

Profiles and their Variability

Presently, 29 profiles lines have been set up along the shoreline at Anderson Park beach and Christopher Shores. Profile number 16 is the southern limit of the public beach area, and numbers 17-29 extend through Christopher Shores. While not all the profiles are surveyed regularly, some portion of the beach was surveyed annually. Figures 22 and 23 are plots of five significant survey dates (pre-project=1983; post-project=1985; intermediate dates=1987 and 1989; present shoreline=1992 or 1993) taken along profiles 13, 14, 15 and 16 at Anderson Park beach. Profiles 13, 14, and 15 are located in groin compartment 4, and profile 16 is at the end of Anderson Park beach where the spur was placed in 1988. Additional profile lines and survey dates are located in Appendix II.

Profiles 6, 9, 12, and 15 are located on the right side (looking riverward) of the groin compartments. These profiles have undergone some episodes of erosion and accretion but presently their shoreline is in approximately the same position as the post-fill survey (April 1985) or has accreted slightly riverward. Profiles 8, 11, and 14 are located in the center of their groin compartments. Overall, these profiles have changed very little since the groin installation and fill project. Profiles 7, 10, 13, and 16 are located on the left side of the groin compartment (looking riverward). In 1987, these profiles showed severe erosion of the shoreline probably due in part to the passage of Hurricane Gloria in fall of 1985,but in Feb 1988, the spur was added at profile 16 and approximately 400 cy (306 m3) of sand was placed on that profile. Between 1988 and 1989,profiles 7, 10, and 13 accreted. This probably was due to transport over the groin in the backshore and on the beach face. Presently, these three profiles are eroding, but due to the sand transported across the groins, these profiles have not eroded back to their pre-project shoreline. This pattern of groin compartment development tends to develop where the net alongshore component of littoral transport is to the southwest or from left to right of the groin compartment. In addition, the groin compartments adjust their shape to the wave field. Profiles 17 through 29 are located along Christopher Shores. As a result of the project at Anderson Park and the passage of Hurricane Gloria, profile 17 initially lost approximately 45 ft (14 m) MSL of shoreline, but since 1987,it has had only slight episodes of erosion and accretion. Profiles 18 and 19 show the same general trend -between 1985 and 1987, a significant amount of sand was lost from the backshore and on the beach face such that the shoreline receded about 57 ft (17 m) or at an average rate of 27 ft/yr (8 m/yr). From 1987 to 1989, there was not much change in shoreline position at profiles 18 and 19, but between 1989 and 1992 approximately 22.9 ft (7 m) was lost at an average rate of 6.7 ft/yr (2.0 m/yr). Between 1992 and 1993, there was little change on these profile lines. 40

City

of NewportNews. Anderson Park 8each

--.

15+

..... LI..

Line 13 13 13 13 13

Survey 100 U5 125 135 146

Date 13 JUL 83 30 APR 85 27 MAY 87 3 JUL 89 19 OCT 93

C 0

... rc >

QJ -uJ

HSL

'?.:2I_

-5 -10

200

400

600 Distance.

City of Newport

News.

800

1000

1200

Anderson

Park 8each

20 Llne 14 14 14 14 14

..... LI..

Survey 100 115 125 135 146

Date 13 30 27 3 19

JUL APR MAY JUL OCT

83 85 87 89 93

0 ... ro > QJ

-uJ

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 DIstance.

Figure 22.

800

1000

1200

Anderson Park plots depicting change at profiles 13 and 14 41

Cjty of Newport News. Anderson Park BeaCh 20

llne 15 15 15 15 15

15+

Survey 100 115 125 135 146

Date 13 JUL 30 APR 27 MAY 3 JUL 19 OCT

B3 B5 B7 B9 93

10 lJ...

C 0 oj

<tI

-QJ UJ

:SL

'1\......

-5

-10

200

400

600 DIstance.

CIty of Newport

News.

BOO

1000

1200

Anderson Park Beach

20 llne 16 16 16 16

Survey 115 125 135 146

Date 30 APR 27 MAY 3 JUL 19 OCT

B5 B7 B9 93

c o

.~ oj <tI

> QJ

:-1SL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Djstance.

Figure 23.

BOO

1000

1200

Anderson Park plots depicting change at profiles 15 and 16 42 --

- --

- - -- - -- -.

- - - .- --

. - -.

.._ __._ _______

. -. - - - . - - - -- - - - -- .

___. ____

_n+ ._ _. ______

Profiles 20 to 22 show the same trend but the amount of erosion changes down the shoreline to the southwest. Progressively alongshore, less erosion took place between 1985 and 1987 at profile 22 than at profile 18. Between 1989 and 1992, progressively more erosion took place at profile 22 than at profile 18. This could be due to the development of a spiral bay feature (Figure 6) in the scour area of the last groin at Anderson Park as the last groin and spur act as a natural headland. As the more northern portion of the shoreline obtains a dynamic equilibrium, erosion is shifted down the shore. In dynamic equilibrium, there is a continual supply of sediment from upcoast or within the embayment passing through the bay (Silvester and Hsu, 1993). The tangential portion of the Christopher Shores beach will eventually align with the impinging wave climate. However, since profiles 23 through 28 were only established in 1992, long-term trends could not be discerned along what is probably the tangential section of shoreline; little change has occurred between 1992 and 1993 along this shoreline. 2. Variability. in shoreline position

The change of lateral position of MHW depicts movement of the shoreline. Figure 24 shows the changes of Anderson Park and Christopher Shores over time from 1983 to 1993. July 1983 is the pre-project shoreline; April 1985 is the postproject shoreline. The jagged shape of the shoreline after 1985 is the result of the groin installation. In 1983, the average distance to MHW from the baseline was 76 ft (23 m). After the groin installation and sand placement, the average distance to MHW increased approximately 40 ft (12 m). Also evident in the 1985 survey was the wide beach at Christopher Shores that developed after the 1940's installation of the groin at profile number 29. During the next two years, the shoreline eroded somewhat across the entire Anderson Park shore, but severe erosion occurred at profiles 7, 10, 13, and 16 prompted the placement of spur and fill material obvious on the 1989 shoreline at profile 16. The erosion just south of the last groin at Anderson Park created an embayed shoreline between two "headlands" along the Christopher Shores shoreline. Profiles 16, 17, and 18 lost an average of 54 ft (17 m) MHW. Profile 16 increased about 53 ft (16 m) from the spur and fill project completed in Feb 1988 and shown in the July 1989 survey. Profiles 7, 10, and 13, which are immediately down drift of the groins, accreted an average of 31 ft (9 m). 1992 and 1993 show the present state of the beach. Erosion rates have decreased such that little change has occurred at MHW between those two surveys.

3. Beachand Nearshore Volume Changes Since survey data along the profile lines is sporadic, total volume calculations along the Anderson Park shoreline could not be computed. However, shoreline trends and events are shown in the volume calculations based on available data (Figures 25 to 29). Subaerial beach calculations extend from the baseline to ML W, but nearshore calculations extend from MLW to varying distances into the nearshore.

43 -----

200 180

1-------------------------------------------

160 140

g 120 I ::;:E

.9100 Q)

u c

CtS

C/)

(5 60

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

4_____

4______________________________________________________

1 2 3

456

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Profile Number

-a- APRB5 N0V92'""*" 1--- JULB9 JUL83-%S-

Figure 24.

NOV93 MAY87

Anderson Park distance of MHW from the survey baseline

Volume change between pre and post fill 3'

*Net Subaerial Beach volume change (cy) = 13,940 *Net Nearshore Beach volume change (cy) = 150.--.......

....

...J

Anderson Park Beac!'l

JChristoPher

Shores

l..............

...-..

-..O'

-1 1

--..

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Cell Number

I-&- subaerial

I.BaSed on available profile datal

nearshore

Volume change between Post-fill(85) ana June 1986

3 .Net Subaerial Beach volume change (cy) " .3.509 "Net Nearshore Beach volume change (cy) " .70

---. ---------------

-.o. _..o.

-.-.......................

Ande<son Park Beach o."'.."'

IChristoPher Shores I ...............

Q) C) ffi .s::.

...

o.o.o.o...

.........

E :J

...

-1 1

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Cell Number

1--- subaerial

Figure 25.

I.Basedon availableprofiledatal nearshore

Volume change between A.) pre- and post-fill Gun 1984and Apr 1985) and B.) post-fill (Apr 1985) and Jun 1986. 45

Volume change between June 1986 and May 1987

3 *Net Subaerial Beach volume change (cy)

=.3,478 = -63-- ---

*Net Nearshore Beach volume change (cy)

O'..

__ _..O'

J Anderson Pari< Beach I... ... ... ...

___

O'..

.IChristoPher Shores

-- --

__.............._..

........

-- ---.......................-......

---

-..

-.......

o .500

.. ,

1234567

10 l'

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cell Number I"BaSed on available profile datal 1-liI- subaerial *

nearshore I

Volume change between May 1987 and April 1988

3 "Net Subaerial Beach volume change (cy) = 381 "Net Nearshore Beach volume change (cy)

=.-..-..... 46 ........

...1..~~~~.~~ ~~. .I

...

.l~~.~~~~~.~~ ~~~~~~l ............

-.--...... ....----

o .5~..."".."

"."

"'.".".."

"...".".

.........

.1 1

Figure 26.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Cell Number subaerial

nearshore I

I"Based on ava~able profile datal

Volume change between A.) Jun 1986 and May 1987 and B.) May 1987 and Apr 1988. 46

---

-- -

Volume change between Apr 1988 ana Jul1989

=644

*Net Subaerial Beach volume change (cy)

-Net Nearshore Beach volume change (cy) = 186

-....................................

.... . .. . ___________

.... . ..I

AndersonParkBeach I.. __

"'.-"

.JChristoPher

.... . ..

.... . . . . .

....

........

Shores I

-..-.....

...

...-.....

500

-.............

I-

.... . ..... . . ..

....

..................

o -500 .......................................................................................................................................................... -10

1 2 3

4 5

6 7

-T--

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Cell Number

subaerial "* nearshore

I-Based on ava~able profile datal 1

Volume change between Jul1989 ana Sep 1990

-Net Subaerial Beach volume change (cy) = -750 .Net Nearshore Beach volume change (cy) =-777 ...

o..oo..oo.o

,,,00-1

c 113 ~ (,)

, rvv't"+..

.. J

o.o...o

o.o.o..o

o..o

Anderson Park Beach

o...o... __.o

o.o

o...o..o...o.o...-

_..... ._

_o.o

o.o..o..

_o.

......._.

o.....

-'ChristoPherShoresI.....................

Q) C)

oI...

...............................

.;!

rw~..

",..

...........

o -5

o.o

- _.....................

.10

1 2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Cell Number I-Based on available profile datal 1--- subaerial "* nearshore I

Figure 27.

Volume change between A.) Apr 1988 and Ju11989 and B.) Ju11989 and Sep 1990. 47

Volume change between Sep 1990 and Nov 1992 3

"Net Subaerial Seach volume change (cy) =378 "Net Nearshore Seach volume change (cy) 238

-.. ............................

-1

_.....

.1. ... J ChristopherShores L

AndersonPat\<BeaCh I.

Q) 0>

ffi

---

.s:: () Q)

......--........

.........................................................................

:J (5

...........

O'__.......................

> o -500 .1

OoOoOo.OoOo .Oo..

Oo..

OoOo

..............

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Cell Number

l"saSed

I Volumechange between Nov1992and Oct 1993 I

subaerial

nearshore

on available profile datal

3 "Net SubaerialSeach

volume change (cy) = 47

"Net Nearshore Beach volume change (cy) Oo.Oo

~Q)

--.

1"rvl

=....... 50 .........

J AndersalPat\<BeaCh

.--'ChristoPher Shores l.................

0> C ro

.J::.

OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOo.OoOo Oo

...............................

() Q)

E ~

...._........

o Oo

_. _.........................

.1 1

Figure 28.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Cell Number subaerial

I"sased on available profiledatal nearshore

Volume change between A.) Sep 1990 and Nov 1992 and B.) Nov 199: and Oct 1993. 48

Volumechangebetween Post-fill(85)and Nov 92 *Anderson Park Net Subaerial Beach volume change (cy) =-416 *Christopher Shores Net Subaerial Beach volume change (cy) = -6,254

~----------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------------------

IAnderson Park Beach

Christopher Shores

~-----------------------------------------------

500

Q) C)

jg ()

E ::J <5

"------------------------------------------------

-5 -10

-15.v~

-20

~..............._-_._..-...-.-.__.....--------...

Figure 29.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . Cell Number I *Based on available profile data

Net subaerial volume change between post-fill CApr 1985) and Nov 1992.

-----

- -- --

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

_ _._

_. _.

_. _ __ __ _ _ _

__. __n

The distance used in the calculations is determined by the length of the shortest profile being compared. Approximately yearly net volume change was calculated for both the subaerial and nearshore portions of the beach. Net volume change is the total amount lost and/ or gained by the beach over a given period of time. Since the figures are based on available data, the numbers can only be used to indicate trends along the beach rather than actual changes. The subaerial and nearshore regions were synchronized in episodes of net erosion and accretion. When one eroded, so did the other and vice versa. Figure 25A is the volume change between pre- and post-fill. Not all the fill material appears in the available data, but approximately 16,000 cy (12,234 m3) was placed on the beach. Following the 1985 project (Figure 25B), shoreline adjustment was erratic along the Anderson Park shoreline, but a scour area had developed down drift of the last Anderson Park groin. Cell 16, itself, lost approximately 700 cy (535 m3) of sand in the year following the project installation. Between 1986 and 1987 (Figure 26A), the erosion was shifting along the shoreline such that cell 19 showed the greatest loss of volume, almost 600 cy (460 m3). Also during this time, cells 7, 10 and 13 each lost an average of 220 cy (170 m3). Figure 26B shows the volume change between 1987 and 1988. It includes the second project at Anderson Park which included the installation of spurs and the placement of about 400 cy (306 m3) of sand at profile 16. However, cells 15 and 16 showed a combined accretion of approximately 860 cy (660 m3). Figure 27A shows accretion at cells 7, 10, and 13 of 584 cy (447 m3). However, these same cells lost about 630 cy (480 m3) the following year (Figure 27B). Since 1990 (Figures 28A&B), the net change between the subaerial and nearshore portions of the beach are approximately the same in volume, and the total amount of net change is decreasing. Also, some nearshore data could not be calculated for figure 28B. Figure 29 is the net subaerial beach change that has occurred between post-fill (Apr 1985) and Nov 1992. Erosion and deposition both occurred along the Anderson Park shoreline; however, Christopher Shores only eroded, particularly the scour area downdrlft of the last groin. Again, this graph is based on available data and does not accurately represent the true amount of volume change at Anderson and Christopher Shores, only trends. In addition, an additional fill of 400 cy (m3) was added in 1988.

50 ------

D. King-Lincoln Park Beach Characteristics 1. Beach Profiles and their V Q1'iability

Five profile lines were established perpendicular to the shoreline in December 1993. The distance between successive profile lines varies between 207 and 217 feet.

Figures 30, 31 and 32 are the plots of each profile for the four survey dates available. Profile numbers, survey numbers, and dates are found in the figure legends. Small episodes of accretion and erosion are seen in the 1993 and 1994 surveys of the beach, but overall, there was little change along the profile lines. However, Survey 103, which was made in April 1995, indicates the placement of the beach fill. Little fill was placed along the northernmost portion of the beach near the pier on profile 1 while profiles 2 and 3 received a significant amount of sand on the beach. Placement along profiles 4 and 5 was both on the beach and in the nearshore region. The current shape of the beach varies significantly from previous surveys since beach fill was placed along the southern portion of King-Lincoln Beach. However, plans are underway to redistribute the sand across the beach and into dunes. 2. Variability in Shoreline Position

The lateral movement of the active beach through time can be depicted by plotting the position of MHW. Figure 33 shows the distance of MHW from the baseline for each profile date. Over the winter of 1993 and the spring of 1994, the beach at King-Lincoln accreted an average of 8 ft (2.5 m) along the beach. From June 1994 to December 1994, profiles 1 through 4 lost an average of 2.4 ft (0.7 m); however, during that same period, the southernmost profile (5) gained approximately 19 ft (5.8 m). In April 1995, the position of MHW increased greatly from north to south along the beach reflecting the placement of the fill material. To show the difference in distribution of sand along the beach, profile 1 gained 2.8 ft (0.9 m) while profile 5 gained 192 ft (58.5 m) in the distance to MHW. 3. Beach and Nearshore Volume Changes

Overall, little natural change has occurred at King-Lincoln Park beach since the inception of VIMS's surveying. The subaerial portion of the beach between December 1993 and December 1994 had a net accretion of 12 cy (Figure 34A) while the nearshore region had a net erosion of 290 cy (Figure 34B). In general, what was lost over the winter and spring was regained or nearly regained over the summer and fall. The large volume of sand on the beach in April 1995 was the result of the beach fill project. Of the total amount of sand within our survey area approximately 62% was placed on the"subaerial beach, the rest in the nearshore region. 51 --

-----

-10

100

200

300

400 Distance.

KING-LINCOLN

PARKPUBLIC

500

600

700

800

BEACH

30 Line

Survey 100 101 102 103

2 2 2 2

20--L

Date 8 17 12 11

DEC JUN DEC APR

93 94 94 95

lLL

0 .....

It! > QJ

..... w

-10

..,.." ,'\.

100

!fLY

-.'-..-..-.--

200

"-..-

300

400 D1stance.

Figure 30.

500

600

700

BOO

King-Lincoln Park plots depicting change at profiles 1 and 2. 52 -

KING-LINCOLN

PARKPU8LIC

8EACH

Llne 3 3 3 3

Date 8 DEC 17 JUN 12 DEC 11 APR

Survey 100 101 102 103

93 94 94 95

tlJ..

C 0

.w 10 >

-III w

I -\\---,.."

.-. ,

"--

tlLlI --...-..-...-

-10

100

300

200

400

Distance.

KING-LINCOLN

PARKPUBLIC

500

600

700

800

BEACH

30 Line 4 4 4 4

20 '

Date

Survey 100 101 102 103

8 17 12 11

DEC JUN DEC APR

93 94 94 95

tlJ.. C

.-0

10 >

I ,... ........--....,..........,

III

-10

" ,

.............................-

MLII ...........-..-...

100

200

300 400 Distance.

500

600

700

800

Figure 31. . King-Lincoln Park plots depicting change at profiles 3 and 4. 53

KING-LINCOLN

PARKPUBLIC

BEACH

Une

Survey 100 101 102 103

5 5 5 5

Date B 17 12 11

DEC JUN DEC APR

93 90d 90d 95

IIJ.. C 0

. ..... It)

> cu

-w .;;:""""

.........-........

............

MLII

- _.~.~-...-...-..-..

-10

100

200

300

400 DIstance.

Figure 32.

500

700

BOO

King-Lincoln Park plot depicting change at profile 5.

54 --

500

----

400

350

.--.--....-----...--..--.....---..........--.------------------------------------------------------------------------

250

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------.----------------

o 200 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ffi 1i5

150

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

--------------------------------------.-----------------------------.-

-----------------.------------------------------------------------------.-------------------..----------

100 ----------

I !

I o

Figure 33.

ill-

DEC93 -ÂŁ JUN94 "*

DEC94

APR95

King-Lincoln Park distance of MHW from the survey baseline.

---

3 Profile Number

7000

= = .62 74

Net Subaerial Beach Volume Change (cy) Dec93.Jun94 Net Subaerial

Beach Volume Change

(cy) Jun94-Dec94

..~!~.~~~~.~.~~..~.~=.~u~~!~_~_~_~_~_~,,_~~_Jc:YL~_c:~~~~P._~~"~"~'§':~'~~'''''''''''_h'''''''''''_''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''_...................................

6000

5000 ..-.................................................................................................................

................................................................................................

4000 Q) 0)

c Ct! .£:

.................................................................................................

3000..................................-.....-.............-.......

E :J

> ""6

2000..................................

...............................................................................-......................

1000

..................._.....................................................-.........................

o -1000

Cell Number

-8- Dec93-Jun94 ~

7000

6000

Net Nearshore

Beach Volume Change

(c}') Dec93.Jun94

Net Nearshore

Beach Volume Change

(cy) Jun94.Dec94

..~.~.~.~.~.!'.~~.~~.~.!..~.~.!'.~.~..Y.~.~~.~.!..~.~.o.".~.e.

""*- Dec94-Apr9S

= .1.098 = 808

..(.c:.¥.)..!:)~.c. ~.~:.":p'.r~~..~.

.'. ~.~~9!...

................................

5000-................................................................................

>: ~

Jun94-Dec94

B ........................................................................................

........................................................................................

....... . ........................................................................................................

4000

Q) 0)

c Ct! .£:

3000

E :J

....................................-...................

> ""6

1000....-..........-..-..--.---..--...--..................................................................-.........................-....-..-................................-.-..-..................................-..

-1000 2

Cell Number

1-8-

Figure 34.

Dec93-Jun94 ~

Jun94-Dec94 ""*- Dec94-Apr9S

King-Lincoln Park volume calculations by cell for the A.) subaerial beach and B.) nearshore region. 56

IV.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

With the upgrades to the public beaches and associated recreation areas, the City of Newport News has created usable parks and stable beaches. Huntington Park beach has changed very little during the time period of this analysis and is judged to be a stable beach. It's limited fetch exposure and the shelter provided by the bridge abutment in conjunction with the wide shallow nearshore region reduces the wave energy impact. Since it is an embayed shoreline, sediment is not generally lost to the system, but rather the shoreline "wobbles" back and forth between the "headlands" in response to differing wave conditions. Some sand is lost through eolian transport into the area behind the beach. The Hampton Roads shoreline reach has a net alongshore component of littoral drift to the southwest towards Newport News Point. Historical and present day aerial photos show the effect of projects on the shoreline. The Anderson Park shoreline was originally amarsh area, but the stabilization of Salters Creek entrance and the dumping of sandy dredge spoil along the shoreline created a sandy beach. Since then, sand has been eroding from Anderson Park and was deposited against the steel groin at the southern boundary of Christopher Shores. With the installation of the groins and fill in the 1980's, shore erosion was minimized at Anderson Park. Episodes of local erosion and accretion occurred within the groin compartments and across individual profiles as the result of the active littoral transport system and the sand in the groin compartments adjusting to the changing wave climate, but based on available data, overall little net change has occurred at Anderson Park. Downdrift at Christopher Shores, the Anderson Park project created an embayed shoreline resulting in severe erosion initially just south of the last groin at Anderson. However, as the shoreline adjusted to the wave climate, the rate of erosion in this area seems to have decreased dramatically such that little change in volume occurred between 1992 and 1993. Further south along the Christopher Shores beach, erosion may continue as this shoreline continues to adjust to the wave climate, but most likely, rates will eventually decrease in this area also.

King-Lincoln Park beach changed little prior the fill project in January 1995. Local episodes of erosion and accretion occurred, but essentially, there was not change in volume on the subaerial beach between December 1993 and 1994. The nearshore region did, however, lose slightly more than it gained during this period. Overall, King-Lincoln appears to have changed very little since 1937.

RECOMMENDATIONS 1.

Huntington Park beach is a stable pocket beach along the James River. Little change has occurred along this shoreline, but continued monitoring is recommended.

With a limited sand supply, erosion will continue at Anderson Park beach. Anderson is scheduled for a major beach nourishment project in the fall of 1996. Approximately 25,000-30,000cy (19,100-22,900m3) of sand will be obtained from dredging the navigation channel to the Small Boat Harbor. A breakwater system is presently being designed to accommodate this project. The breakwaters are scheduled for construction in the spring of 1996. Continued monitoring is necessary to assess the performance of the project.

King-Lincoln"Park is presently undergoing rehabilitation. The shoreline has been nourished, but the sand does need to be spread more evenly along the beach as well as regraded to fill in low spots. In addition, vegetated dunes are planned to be constructed along the backshore/upland interface. Continued monitoring will be necessary to discern local patterns and rates of change as well as the fate of the fill material.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Woody Hobbs for his editorial review. Thanks to Jim Alvis of the Engineering Department of the City of Newport News and his staff for their role in the collection of data.

58 ---

VI. REFERENCES Bascom, W.N., 1959. The relationship between sand size and beach face slope. Am. Geophys.Union Transactions32(6):866-874. Boon, J.D. and G.R Thomas, 1975. Report on Environmental Effects of the Second Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Construction: Sediment Distributions and Bottom Characteristics. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.

Boon, J.D., C.S. Welch, H.S. Chen, R.J. Lukens, C.S. Fang, and J.M. Zeigler, 1978. A Storm Surge Model Study, Vol. 1. Storm Surge Height-FrequencyAnalysis and Model Predictionfor ChesapeakeBay. SRAMSOENo. 189. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA. 149 pp. + app. Boon, J.D., S.M. Kimball, K.D. Suh, and D.A. Hepworth, 1990. ChesapeakeBay Wave Climate. Data Report No. 32, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, 38 pp. + app. Byrne RJ, 1972. Part II. Impact on shoreline, Hampton Flats, and Newport News Area. In: (C.S. Fang, principal investigator) Physicaland GeologicalStudies of the ProposedBridge-TunnelCrossingof Hampton Roadsnear CraneyIsland. SRAMSOE No. 24. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA. Byrne, RJ., A.Y. Kuo, RL. Mann, J.M. Brubaker, E.P. Ruzecki, P.V. Hyer, RJ. Diaz,

and J.H. Posenau, 1987. New Port Island: An Evaluationof Potential Impactson Marine Resourcesof the LowerJamesRiver and Hampton Roads. SRAMSOENo. 283. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, 276 pp.

Byrne, RJ., K.P. Kiley, A.P. Mizzi and T.J. Brooks, 1979. Part Two: Geological Effect

Study. In: (C.S. Fang, principal investigator) JamesRiver Hydraulic Model Study

with Respectto the ProposedThird Bridge-TunnelCausewayin Hampton Roads. SRAMSOE No. 212. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, 159 pp.

Ebersole, B.A., M.A. Cialone, and M.D. Prater, 1986. RCPWA VE - A Linear Wave PropagationModelfor EngineeringUse. U.S. Army Corps of EngineersReport, CERC-86-4, 260 pp.

Hardaway, C.S., Jr., G.R Thomas, and J.H. Li, 1991. ChesapeakeBay Shoreline Studies: Headland BreaJ..-waters and Pocket Beachesfor Shoreline Erosion Control.

SRAMSOE

No. 313. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point~VA, 153 pp. 59 --

Hardaway, e.S., Jr., D.A. Milligan and G.R Thomas, 1993. Public BeachAssessment Report: Cape Charles Beach, Town of Cape Charles, Virginia. Technical Report,

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, 42 pp. + app.

Hobbs, III, e.H., G.L. Anderson, W.D. Athearn, RJ. Byrne, and J.M. Zeigler, 1974.

Shoreline Situation Report - Newport News, Virginia. SRAMSOE No. 54, Virginia

Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, 65 pp.

Hsu, J.Re., R Silvester, and Y.M Xia, 1989. Generalities on static equilibrium bays. Coast. Eng. 12: 353-369. Komar, P.D., 1976. BeachProcessesand Sedimentation. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 429 pp. Silvester, R, 1974. CoastalEngineering,Vol. II. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 338 pp. Silvester, Rand S.K. Ho, 1972. Use of crenulate shaped bays to stabilize coasts. Proc. 13th Inter. Conf. Coast. Eng. ASCE 2: 1347-65. Silvester, Rand J.Re. Hsu, 1993. Coastal Stabilization: Innovative COl1cepts. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 578 pp.

Stauble, D.K., A.W. Garcia, N.e. Kraus, W.G. Grosskopf, and G.P. Bass, 1993. Beach Nourishment Project Responseand Design Evaluation: Ocean City, Maryland.

Technical Report CERC-93-13,Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Suh, K.D, 1990. WINDOW Program. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977. Shore Protection Manual. Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994. Newport News Creek,Newport News, Virginia. Draft Feasibility Report, US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. Wright, L.S., e.S. Kim, e.S. Hardaway, Jr., S.M. Kimball, and M.a. Green, 1987. Shorefaceand BeachDynamics of the Coastal Region from Cape Henry to False Cape, Virginia. Technical Report, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.

Yasso, W.E., 1965. Plan geometry of headland bay beaches. ]. Geology78: 703-714.

60 --

Bagnold, RA., 1963. Beach and nearshore processes; Part I: Mechanics of marine sedimentation. In M.N. Hill (ed.), The Sea, Vol. 3, Wiley-Interscience, pp. 507-528. Bowen, A.J., D.L. Inman, and V.P. Simmons, 1968. Wave "set-down" and "setup." ]. Geophys.Res. 73:2569-2577. Bretschneider, c.L. and RD. Reid, 1954. Modification of wave height due to bottom friction, percolation and refraction. BeachErosionBoardTech.Memo, No. 45. Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1984. ShoreProtectionManual. 4th ed., U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Christoffersen, J.B. and I.G. Jonsson, 1985. Bed-friction and dissipation in a combined current and wave motion. Ocean Enginr. 12(5):387-424.

Dally, W.R, RG. Dean, and RA. Dalrymple, 1984. Modelling wave transformation in the surf zone. U.S. Army EngineerWaterwaysExperiment Station Misc. Paper,CERC-84-8,Vicksburg, MS. Dean, RG., 1973. Heuristic models of sand transport in the surf zone. Proceedings, Con! Enginr. Dynamics in the Swf Zone, Sydney, pp. 208-214. Eaton, RD., 1950. Littoral processes on sandy coasts. Proceedings, 1st IntI. Con! Coastal Enginr., pp. 140-154.

Grant, W.D. and 0.5. Madsen, 1979. Combined wave and current interaction with a rough bottom. ]. Geophys.Res. 84:1797-1808. Grant, W.D. and O.S. Madsen, 1982. Movable bed roughness in unsteady oscillatory flow. ]. Geophys.Res. 87:469-481. Inman, D.L. and RA. Bagnold, 1963. Beach and nearshore processes; Part II: Littoral processes. In M.N. Hill (ed.), The Sea, Vol. 3, Wiley-Interscience, pp. 529-553. Jonsson, I.G., 1966. Wave boundary layers and friction factors. Proceedings, 10th Inti. Con! Coastal Enginr., pp. 127-148.

Kamphuis, J.W., 1975. Friction factor under oscillatory waves. ASCE,]. Wat. Harb. Div., ASCE, 102(WW2):135-144. Kinsman, B., 1965. Wind Waves, Their Generation and Propagation 011the Ocean Surface. Dover, New York, 676 pp.

Komar, P.D., 1975. Nearshore currents: Generation by obliquely incident waves and longshore variations in breaker height. Proceedings,Symp. Nearshore Sediment Dynamics,Wiley, New York. Komar, P.D., 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 429 pp.

Komar, P.D., 1983. Nearshore currents and sand transport on beaches. In Johns (ed.), PhysicalOceanographyof CoastalShelf Seas,Elsevier, New York, pp. 67-109. Komar, P.D. and D.L. Inman, 1970. Longshore sand transport on beaches. ]. Geophys.Res. 73(30):5914-5927. Kraus, N.C. and T.O. Sasaki, 1979. Effects of wave angle and lateral mixing on the longshore current. CoastalEnginr. in Japan22:59-74. LeMehaute, B. and A. Brebner, 1961. An introduction to coastal morphology and littoral processes. C.E. ResearchReportNo. 14, Dept. of Civil Enginr., Queen's Univ., Kingston, Ontario. Longuet-Higgins, M.S., 1972. Recent progress in the study of longshore currents. In RE. Meyer (ed.), Waves on Beaches and Resulting Sediment Transport,Academic Press, New York, pp. 203-248. Longuet-Higgins, M.S. and RW. Stewart, 1962. Radiation stress and mass transport in gravity waves, with application to surf beats. ]. Fluid Mech. 13:481-504.

Madsen, O.S., 1976. Wave climate of the continental margin: Elements of its mathematical description. In D.J. Stanley and D.J.P. Swift (eds.), Marine Sediment Transportand EnvironmentalManagement,Wiley, New York, pp. 65-90. Munch-Peterson, J., 1938. Littoral drift formula. BeachErosionBoardBull. 4(4):1-31. Nielsen, P., 1983. Analytical determination

of nearshore wave height

variation due to refraction, shoaling and friction. CoastalEnginr. 7(3):233-252.

Savage, RP., 1962. Laboratory determination

of littoral transport rates.

WW and Harbours Div., ASCE 88(WW2):69-92.

Weggel, J.R, 1972. Maximum breaker height. ]. WW and HarboursDiv., ASCE 78(WW 4):529-548.

Wright, L.D., 1981. Beach cut in relation to surf zone morpho dynamics. Proceedings,17th IntZ.ConJ.CoastalEnginr.,Sydney, Australia,pp. 978-996.

- --

Wright, L.D. and A.D. Short, 1984. Morphodynamic variability of surf zones and beaches: A synthesis. Mar. Geol.56:93-118. Wright, L.D., R.J. Guza, and A.D. Short, 1982. Dynamics of a high energy dissipative surfzone. Mar. Geol.45:41-62. Wright, L.D., A.D. Short, and M.O. Green, 1985. Short-term changes in the morpho dynamic states of beaches and surfzones: An empirical predictive model. Mar. Geol.62:339-364. Wright, L.D., P. Nielsen, N.C. Shi, and J.H. List, 1986b. Morphodynamics of a bar-trough surfzone. Mar. Geol.70:251-285.

Ci t Y a f Newport

News.

Anderson

Park

Beach

20 Line 1 1 1 1 1

Survey 100 105 110 115 135

Date 13 4 11 30 3

JUL OCT JUN APR JUL

B3 B3 B4 B5 89

10 lLl.. C 0 ..... ..... 10 > 11) .... UJ

-5

-10

XSL

I o

200

400

600 Distance.

----

800 FT

1000

1200

City

Newport News. Anderson Park

Line 2 2 2 2 2

Beach Survey 100 105 110 115 135

13 4 11 30 3

Date JUL OCT JUN APR JUL

B3 B3 B4 B5 B9

IÂŁ. C 0 ....

.....

> OJ .... W 0

~ISL ;;::;;..-..-..

-5 -10

200

400

600 Distance.

BOO FT

1000

1200

City of Newport

News.

Anderson

Line 3 3 3 3 3

IU. C 0 .....

Park Beach Survey 100 105 110 115 135

13 4 11 30 3

Date JUL 83 OCT 83 JUN 84 APR 85 JUL 89

10 > QJ .... UJ

0 ..-----.-.---.-....

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

MSL

-.:::::.-------.

800 FT

1000

1200

City

of Newport News.

Anderson

Park Beach

20 Line 4 4 4 4 4

Survey 100 105 110 115 135

Date 13 4 11 30 3

JUL OCT JUN APA JUL

83 63 84 85 89

10 u..

\ -

rf 0 ....

.... 10 > QI

-UJ 0

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

City

Newport

News.

800

1000

1200

Anderson

Park

Beach

20 Line

---

4 4

Survey 135 140

Date 3 JUL 89 10 SEP 90

10 u.. rf 0 .... ....

-UJ QI

.. ..

MSL

-5

-10 o

200

400

600 Distance.

800 FT

1000

1200

City of Newport

News.

Anderson

ParI< Beach

Line 5 5 5 5 5

Survey 100 105 110 115 120

Date 13 JUL 4 OCT 11 JUN 30 APR 12 JUN

83 83 84 85 86

10 u. c: 0

to > QJ

....

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

Distance.

1000

800

600

1200

City of Newport News. Anderson

ParI< Beach

20 Line 5 5 -.-.- 5

Survey 120 135 140

Date 12 JUN 86 3 JUL 89 10 SEP 90

15r 10 u. c: .0

to > QJ ....

HSL

--5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

800 FT

1000

1200

Ci ty Of Newport

News.

Anderson

Park

Beach

Line 6 6 6 6 6

Survey 100 105 110 115 120

Date 13 JUL B3 4 OCT B3 11 JUN B4 30 APFI B5 12 JUN 86

10 IU. C 0 ....

-'It)

OJ .... UJ

MSL

'-'--'-..-.--

"--'-. '-==-=

.............-----

-5

-10

200

Distance.

City

of Newport

BOO

600

400

News.

1200

1000

Anderson

Park

Beach

Line 6 6 6 6 6

Survey 120 125 130 135 140

Date 12 JUN B6 27 MAYB7 30 APFI BB 3 JUL B9 10 SEP 90

10 IU. C 0 ....

-'It)

> OJ .... UJ

-5

-10

200

400

BOO

600 Distance.

1000

1200

City

0 f Newport

News.

Anderson

---

Park

Beach

Line 6 6

Survey 140 145

Date 10 SEP 90 17 NOV 92

U. C

0 ....

> CIJ ....

tSL

-5

-10

200

400

BOO

600 Distance.

1000

1200

City

of Newport News. Anderson

Park Beach

Line

Date

Survey

7 7 7 7 7

100 105 110 115 120

13 4 11 30 12

JUL OCT JUN APR JUN

83 83 84 85 86

10 lLL. C 0 .....

.j,J 11)

> OJ .... W MSL

.--.--. :

-'-..

-5

-10

200

400

600

800

1200

1000

Distance. FT

City of Newport News. Anderson

Park Beach

20 Line 7 7 7 7 7

-10

200

400

600 Distance. FT

- ---------

800

Survey 120 125. 130 135 140

1000

Date 12 27 30 3 10

JUN MAY APR JUL SEP

86 B7 88 89 90

1200

City

of Newport

News. Anderson Park Beach

---

Line 7 7

Survey 140 145

Date 10 SEP 90 17 NOV 92

LL C 0 .... ..... It!

CIJ ....

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

BOO

600 Distance.

1000

1200

City

of Newpo~t News.

Ande~son

Pa~k Beach Line 8 8 8 8 8

Suvey 100 105 110 115 120

Date 13 JUL 83 4 OCT 83 11 JUN 84 30 APR 85 12 JUN 86

10 l-

C 0

....

ro > OJ ... UJ

MSL

-5

-10

Distance.

City

of Newpot

News.

Andeson

---.-

15+

1200

1000

BOO

600

400

200

Pak

Beach

Line B B 8 8 8

Suvey 120 125 130 135 140

12 27 30 3 10

Date JUN 86 MAY87 APR 8B JUL 89 SEP 90

C 0

....

ro > OJ ... UJ

MSL

'. ... ..

..-.--........

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

800 FT

1000

1200

City

of Newport

News.

Anderson

---

Park

Beach

Line B B

Survey 140 145

Date 10 SEP 90 17 NOV92

u.. C 0 ....

...., It!

QJ .... W

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

BOO FT

1000

1200

City

of Newpo~t News.

Ande~son

Pa~k Beach Line 9 9 9 9 9

Suvey 100 105 110 115 120

Date 13 JUL 4 OCT 11 JUN 30 APR 12 JUN

83 83 84 85 86

U. C c ... to >

QJ .... UJ

~ISL

.:::-"=="=:-':::-.:----.-.--.-.-.-

-5

-10

200

400

Distance.

City

of Newpo~t

1200

1000

800

600 FT

News. Ande~son

Pa~k Beach Line 9 9 9 9 9

Suvey 120 125 130 135 140

Date 12 27 30 3 10

JUN 86 MAY87 APR 88 JUL 89 SEP 90

U. C c ... to >

QJ .... UJ

MSL

0 '''';;;:''

-5 -10

200

400

800

600 Distance.

1000

1200

City

of Newport

News. Anderson Park Beach

20 Line 9

---

Survey 140 145

Date 10 SEP 90 17 NOV 92

I.L. C

0 ....

..... It!

> cu --

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

- --

800 FT

1000

1200

City of Newport

News.

Anderson

0 ...,

Beach

Line 10 10 10 10 10

IU.

Park

Survey 100 105 110 115 120

13 4 11 30 12

Date JUL 63 OCT 63 JUN 64 APR 65 JUN 66

IC > OJ .... W

MSL

--.---.-------.-.-.-.-.-.--.-~------

-5 -10

200

400

600 Distance.

City

of Newport

600

1000

1200

News. Anderson

Park

Beach

20 Line 10 10 10 10 10

IU.

Survey 120 125 130 135 140

Date 12 JUN 66 27 MAY67 30 APR 66 3 JUL 69 1>0SEP 90

.-0 ..,

IC > OJ .... W

,......-

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

600 FT

1000

1200

City

of Newport News. Anderson Park Beach

---

Line 10 10

Survey 140 145

Date 10 SEP 90 17 NOV 92

LL. C 0

.... ->J Itj > Q) .... UJ

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

800

600 Distance.

1000

1200

City

of Newport

News. Anderson Park Beach

Line

Survey 100 105 110 115 120

11 11 11 11 11

Date 13 4 11 30 12

JUL OCT JUN APR JUN

83 83 84 85 86

10 lI£. c: 0 .... ..., rc > QJ .... w

J -10

\>'\

_._'~ -

"":::::"..

200

400

of Newport

.-:-.~

600

Distance.

City

HSL

,_.

800

1200

1000

News. Anderson

Park

8each

20 Line 11 11 11 11 11

Survey 120 125 130 135 140

12 27 30 3 10

Date JUN 86 MAY87 APR 88 JUL S9 SEP 90

10 lI£. c: 0 .... ..., rc >

QJ ....

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600

Distance.

SOO FT

1000

1200

City

of Newport

News.

Anderson

Park Beach Line 11 11

Survey 140 145

Date 10 SEP 90 17 NOV 92

I-

U. C

.... ... It) > (II .... UJ

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

BOO

600 Distance.

1000

1200

City of Newport

News.

Anderson

Park

Beach

Line 12 12 12 12 12

Survey 100 105 110 115 120

Date 13 JUL 83 4 OCT 83 11 JUN 84 30 APR 85 12 JUN 86

10 LL..

0 .... .....

> QJ .... UJ

-5

-10

MSL

......... ------

200

400

600 Distance.

City

of Newport

News.

800

1000

1200

Anderson

Park

Beach

Line 12 12 12 12 12

Survey 120 125 130 135 140

12 27 30 3 10

Date JUN 86 MAY87 APR 88 JUL 89 SEP 90

10 LL..

C 0

.... .....

> QJ .... UJ

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

800 FT

1000

1200

City

of Newport News. Anderson Park Beach

---

IU.

Line 12 12

Survey 140 145

Date 10 SEP 90 17 NOV 92

0 .... .... 10 > c:J .... UJ

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

BOO

600 Distance.

1000

1200

City

of Newport

News. Anderson

Park

8each

Line 13 13 13 13 13

Survey 100 105 110 115 120

13 4 11 30 12

Date JUL OCT JUN APR JUN

83 83 84 85 86

LL. C 0 ... .... It) >

III .... UJ

MSL

'-"'-----.-.

'-'~'_.

_.~

-5

-10

200

400

Distance.

City

of Newport

800

600

1000

1200

News. Anderson

Park

8each

Line 13 13 13 13 13

Survey 120 125 130 135 140

Date 12 JUN 86 27 MAY87 30 APR 88 3 JUL 89 10 SEP 90

LL.

0 ... .... It) > III .... UJ

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

800

600 Distance.

1000

1200

City

Of Newport

News.

Anderson Park Beach

Line 13 13 13

Survey 140 145 146

Date 10 SEP 90 17 NOV 92 19 OCT 93

10 to-

IJ..

C 0

ItI

o I

HSL

-5 -10

200

400

600 Distance.

BOO FT

1000

1200

City of Newport

News.

Anderson Park Beach

Line 14 14 14 14 14

Date

Survey 100 105 110 115 120

13 4 11 30 12

JUL B3 OCT 83 JUN 84 APR 85 JUN 86

10 ..... lL.

C 0

.... .., to > QJ ... UJ

~ISL

'-'-'-.-..

-5 -10

200

400

800

600 Distance.

1200

1000

City of Newport News, Anderson Park Beach 20

-.-.-

15-+

Line 14 14

14 14

Survey 120 125 130 135 140

12 27 30 3 10

Date JUN 86 MAY87 APR 88 JUL 89 SEP 90

lL.

0 ....

..,

to > QJ ... UJ 01

MSL .-...E::

-5 -10

200

400

600 Distance.

800 FT

1000

1200

City of Newport News. Anderson Park Beach

20 Line 14 14 14

Survey 140 145 146

Date 10 SEP 90 17 NDV 92 19 DCT 93

10 I.L

/0 > QJ

M5L

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

BOO FT

1000

1200

CIty

of NewportNews. Anderson Park Beach

20 Line 15 15 15 15 15

Date

Survey 100 105 110 115 120

13 4 11 30 12

JUL OCT JUN APR JUN

83 83 84 85 86

10 lLL C 0

.... ...., It)

> QJ

UJ 0

MSL

. '-''::::'''.::,...",

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

City

Newport

News.

800

1000

1200

Anderson

Park

Beach

20 Line 15 15 15 15 15

Survey 120 125 130 135 140

Date 12 27 30 3 10

JUN MAY APR JUL SEP

86 87 88 89 90

10 lLL C 0 ....

...., It)

-UJ QJ

MSL

-5

-10

200 .

400

600 Distance.

800

1000

1200

City

of Newport News. Anderson Park Beach

L1ne 15 15 15

Survey 140 145 146

Date 10 SEP 90 17 NOV 92 19 OCT 93

10 I-

C 0

....

It!

> QJ

UJ 01

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance. FT

BOO

1000

1200

City

of NewportNews. Anderson Park 6each

20 I

Line 16 16 -.-.- 16 16 16

15+

Survey 105 110 115 120 125

Date 4 OCT 63 11 JUN 64

30 APR 65 12 JUN 66 27 MAY 67

10 u. c: 0 .....

to > QJ .....

...

HSL

째l :::=

-:",-'.

----....:::::..

\ I

-5

-10

200

400

600

600 Distance.

1200

1000

City of Newport News. Anderson Park 6each 20

Line 16 16 16 16 16

Survey 125 130 135 140 145

Date 27 MAY 30 APR 3 JUL 10 SEP 17 NOV

67 66 69 90 92

10 u. c:

.....

to > QJ .....

UJ 01

\.- \

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

600 FT

1000

1200

10 .... I.L.

0 ....

CIJ

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600

Distance.

800 FT

1000

1200

City

of Newport News. Anderson Park

-.-.-

15+

Beach

Line 17 17 17 17 17

Survey 115 120 125 130 135

30 12 27 30 3

Date APR B5 JUN 86 MAYB7 APR 88 JUL 89

II.. C 0 .... ..., It! >

QJ .... UJ

MSL

0 ....;

-5

-10

200

.<100

Distance.

City

of Newport News. Anderson Park Line 17 17 17 17

15+

1200

1000

800

600

Beach Survey 135 1.<10 1.<15 1.<16

3 10 17 19

Date JUL 89 SEP 90 NOV 92 OCT 93

II.. C 0 .... ..., It! >

QJ .... UJ

ISL

-5 -10

200

.<100

600 Distance,

800 FT

1000

1200

City

of NewportNews. Anderson Park Beach

20 .

Line 1B 18 -.-.- 18 18 18

I 15+

Survey 115 120 125 130 135

Date 30 APR 12 JUN 27 MAY 30 APR 3 JUL

85 86 87 88 89

10 IU. r: 0

....

> QJ UJ

MSL

-5

-10

200

Distance.

City of

Newport

800

600

400

News.

1200

1000

Anderson Park Beach

20 Line 18 18 18

Survey 135 145 146

Date 3 JUL 89 17 NOV 92 19 OCT 93

10 u.

r: 0 ...

-QJ UJ

liSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

800 FT

1000

1200

City of Newport News. Anderson Park Beach

20 Line 19 19 19 19 19

Date

Survey 115 120 125 130 135

30 APR 85 12

..JUN 86

27 MAY B7 30 APR 8B 3

..JUL 89

10 llL.

C 0 ....

oW /0

> QJ ....

UJ 0'

MSt

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

800

1200

1000

City of Newport News. Anderson Park Beach

20 Line 19 19 19

Survey 135 145 146

Date 3

..JUL 89

17 NOV 92 19 OCT 93

10 llL.

C 0

....

oW /0 > QJ .... UJ

!'1St

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

BOO FT

1000

1200

City

of NewportNews. Anderson Park Beach

20 .

-.-.-

15+

Date 30 APR B5 12 JUN B6 27 MAYB7 30 APR BB 17 NOY 92

Survey 115 120 125 130 145

I-

Line 20 20 20 20 20

U. 0 .... It) >

QI .... I.LI

MSL

. .--5

-10

200

400

BOO

600

1200

1000

Distance.

City of Newport News. Anderson Park Beach 20

---

I-

Line 20 20

Survey 145 146

Date 17 NOY 92 19 OCT 93

U. 0

....

It)

> QI .... I.LI

MSL

-5 -10

200

600

400

Distance.

BOO FT

1000

1200

City

of Newport News. Anderson ParK Beach

Line

Survey

21 21 21 21 21

115 120 125 130 145

Date 30 12 27 30 17

APR JUN MAY APR NOV

B5 B6 B7 BB 92

10 u. C 0 ....

<6J It)

> III .... UJ

. \.--\.\ -

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

BOO

600

1000

1200

Distance. FT

City 20

Newport

News.

Anderson

---

15..J..

ParK Beach

Line 21 21

Survey 145

Date 17 NOV 92

146

19 OCT 93

10 u. C

0 .... <6J It) > III .... UJ

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance. FT

BOO

1000

1200

City

of Newport News. Anderson Park Beach

20 I

Line 22 22 -.-.- 22 22 22

15+

Survey 115 120 125 130 145

Date 30 APR 12 JUN 27 MAY 30 APR 17 NOY

85 86 87 88 92

10 u.

C 0

....

o>J

10 > GJ ...

. \\..

MSL

0 \..-..

'--

-5

-10

200

800

600

400

Distance.

1200

1000

City of Newport News. Anderson Park Beach 20

---

Line 22 22

Survey 145 146

Date 17 NOY 92 19 OCT 93

10 u.

C 0

....

o>J 10 > GJ ...

UJ 01

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

800 FT

1000

1200

10 ....

C 0

.....

> C1I .....

MSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

BOO

1000

1200

City of Newport News. Anderson Park Beach 20

---

15 '

Line 24 24

Survey 145 146

Date 17 NOV 92 19 OCT 93

10 ....

.....

> C1I ....

tlSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

BOO FT

1000

1200

City of Newport News. Anoerson Park BeaCh 20

Line 25 -. 25

Survey 1~5 1~6

Date 17 NOV 92 19 OCT 93

10 u.

C 0

.oW It) > III

.....

!!SL

-5

-10

200

~OO

600 Distance.

City of Newport

News.

BOO

1200

Anderson

20 I

--.

15-J..

1000

Park BeaCh

Line 26 26

Survey 15 16

Date 17 NOV 92 19 OCT 93

10 u.

.oW It) > III

.....

MSL

-5

-10

200

~OO

600 Distance.

BOO FT

1000

1200

.... ....

.-0 oW

> QJ .... w

HSL

-5

-10

200

400

600 Distance.

.... ....

800

1000

1200

0 .oW

> QJ ....

HSL

'.\

-5 -10

200

400

600 Distance.

800 FT

1000

1200

.-.

Huntington

Sample HN86JMH HN94M3-1 HN94M3-2 HN94M3-3 HN94M3-4 HN94M3-5 HN94M3-6 HN9403-1 HN9403-2 HN9403-3 HN9403-4 HN9403-5 HN9403-6 HN95A1-1 HN95A2-1 HN95A3-1 HN95A3-2 HN95A3-3 HN95A3-4 HN95A3-5 HN95A3-6 HN95A4-1 HN95A5-1

gravl % 0 12.8 0.0 9.2 6.4 41.2 35.4 15.1 0.6 23.3 17.1 26.1 3.3 19.5 16.0 9.4 3.6 36.9 30.0 42.0 26.1 18.8 11.1

Park Summary

Sediment

Sample

-..

----

Data

Percent of Sample Sand fraction only Mz Mz Md SI SKI KG sand silt clay mud % mm % % % phi phi 99.9 0.04 1.1950 0.437 1.1710 0.2990 0.2090 1.2310 85.4 0.5 1.3 1.8 1.5803 0.334 1.7813 0.8051 -0.3730 0.5941 99.4 0.1 0.5 0.6 1.4720 0.360 1.4904 0.5973 -0.0527 0.5903 90.0 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.9701 0.510 0.9582 0.7033 0.0921 0.8121 92.9 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.0693 0.477 1.1085 0.7015 -0.0071 0.9327 58.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.7461 0.596 0.6937 0.8807 0.2057 0.8842 63.2 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.7940 0.288 1.7058 0.7847 0.0351 0.7527 82.1 1.0 1.8 2.8 1.8433 0.279 1.9348 0.6824 -0.2417 0.5679 98.8 0.1 0.5 0.6 1.2979 0.407 1.3107 0.3815 -0.0419 0.5081 76.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4900 0.712 0.4853 0.5425 0.0817 0.8699 82.1 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.3736 0.7720.3133 0.5733 0.3758 1.5386 72.9 0.1 0.8 0.9 1.0762 0.474 1.1034 0.8772 0.0081 0.6606 95.0 0.5 1.3 1.8 1.4816 0.358 1.4651 0.7102 0.0056 0.7012 79.8 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.5093 0.703 0.4448 0.7346 0.2761 1.1929 83.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2249 0.856 0.1322 0.6680 0.3723 1.8659 87.0 1.4 2.3 3.6 1.6298 0.323 1.6917 0.7676 -0.1372 0.6219 95.5 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.9976 0.501 1.0993 0.8771 -0.0900 0.8343 62.4 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.2696 0.830 0.0939 0.7968 0.5286 1.8169 68.9 0.2 0.9 1.1 0.1574 0.897 0.0445 0.7872 0.4537 2.0986 56.7 0.1 1.3 1.4 1.2019 0.435 1.2587 1.1247 0.0073 0.8131 71.2 0.6 2.0 2.6 1.5533 0.341 1.4412 1.1687 0.1155 0.8718 80.4 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.7084 0.612 0.6442 1.0560 0.1882 0.9775 88.2 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.5433 0.686 0.5995 0.4007 -0.2087 0.7403

= Mean

=Median

(Dso)

SI = Sorting SKI = Skewness KG = Kurtosis

_. d U . _ ._

King-Lincoln Park Summary Sediment Sample Data

Sample

gravl % 3.9 KN9301-1 KN9302-1 0.0 KN9303-1 8.1 KN9304-1 0.0 KN9305-1 0.5 KN94J1-1 24.9 KN94J2-1 27.4 0.1 KN94J3-1 KN94J3-2 7.4 KN94J3-3 27.8 80.7 KN94J3-4 KN94J3-5 0.0 KN94J4-1 8.1 KN94J5-1 8.3 1.5 KN9401-1 KN9402-1 1.6 0.0 KN9403-1 KN9403-2 0.1 KN9403-3 52.6 KN9403-4 94.3 5.7 KN9404-1 KN9405-1 1.5 KN95A1-1 3.7 KN95A2-1 0.5 KN95A3-1 1.9 KN95A3-2 4.7 0.0 KN95A3-3 KN95A3-4 1.8 KN95A3-5 0.0 KN95A3-6A 0.0 KN95A3-68 0.0 1.4 KN95A4-1 KN95A5-1 0.7

Percent sand % 95.0 99.3 91.4 98.7 98.1 74.3 71.8 99.2 91.8 71.3 18.8 93.8 90.7 91.0 97.5 97.2 99.7 99.1 46.8 4.8 93.5 96.9 94.9 97.9 95.6 93.8 99.0 96.6 97.6 96.4 30.8 97.0 97.9

of Sample silt clay % % 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 2.1 4.2 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.1 1.3 0.0 1.6 1.5 0.9 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.1 2.4 37.7 31.5 0.2 1.3 1.3 0.1

Mz phi 1.5642 1.4015 1.3496 1.5998 2.0433 1.2455 1.2437 1.7486 1.9703 1.4287 0.5012 3.0609 1.5461 1.7855 0.3416 1.5904 1.6531 1.9656 1.3791 1.2029 1.3665 1.6731

Mz mm 0.338 0.379 0.392 0.330 0.243 0.422 0.422 0.298 0.255 0.371 0.707 0.120 0.342 0.290 0.789 0.332 0.318 0.256 0.384 0.434 0.388 0.314

1.9856 1.6104 1.9820 1.8054 2.6029 2.8440 3.1272

0.253 0.328 0.253 0.286 0.165 0.139 0.114

Sand fraction only Md SI SKI phi 1.6130 0.5853 -0.2307 1.4222 0.5051 0.0459 1.3065 0.7761 0.1797 1.5836 0.5190 0.0978 2.0675 0.6831 -0.0478 0.5527 1.2297 0.6914 0.8501 1.2202 0.3942 1.7637 0.5030 -0.0663 2.0163 0.6321 -0.1075 1.2907 1.1924 0.1331 0.2390 0.9194 0.6270 3.1472 0.5233 -0.2453 1.6554 1.2756 -0.0786 1.8686 0.6877 -0.1718 0.3509 0.2616 -0.0229 1.5410 0.6330 0.1531 1.6620 0.3273 -0.0666 1.9714 0.6383 -0.0624 1.2144 1.0816 0.1855 0.6598 1.5406 0.4568 1.1703 0.9798 0.2734 1.7362 0.9436 -0.1029

2.0603 1.5981 1.9664 1.8880 2.6099 2.8179 3.0804

0.6209 0.8500 0.5188 0.7236 0.3378 0.3924 0.5265

-0.2000 -0.0479 -0.0136 -0.2460 0.0077 0.0817 0.0508

Mz = Mean

Md = Median (Dso) SI = Sorting SKI = Skewness. KG = Kurtosis

KG 0.7393 0.5659 0.7020 0.5636 0.4844 0.4974 0.6778 0.5151 0.5088 0.6053 2.0503 0.3447 0.6800 0.5720 0.9043 0.5004 0.3599 0.5089 0.6507 0.5595 0.5985 0.6802

0.5385 0.6300 0.4550 0.6072 0.2681 0.2890 0.3352