HomeMy WebLinkAboutNantucket Land Council Letter 04_10_2017 1
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc.
766 Falmouth Road
Suite A-1
Mashpee, MA 02649
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 12, 2017
To: Emily Molden and Cormac Collier, Nantucket Land Council
From: Trey Ruthven and John Ramsey
Subject: Review of SBPF’s Annual Review of Sconset Geotextile Tube Project Report
We have reviewed SBPF’s Annual Review of Sconset Geotextile Tube Project report,
dated December 13, 2016, along with the supplemental reports included in the appendices. The
review also included the Interim Monitoring Update Sconset Bluff Geotextile Tube Project, dated
August 12, 2016. The documents provide a wide range of data, analysis, and interpretation of the
monitoring data collected on behalf of SBPF and then draws conclusion on the severity of erosion
being experienced, the need for mitigation, and collection of data into the future. There are three
main conclusions made by SPBF regarding the performance of the Geotextile Tube Project
which the data provided does not support. The three points which are most critical to evaluate
are highlighted below, where errors in the analysis and misinterpretation of the data can lead to
incorrect conclusions regarding the data. These analysis errors lead to inappropriate or
unsupported recommendations regarding appropriate mitigation quantities.
• A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the variability of the measurements
contained in the beach monitoring datasets and how the variability limits the value of data
as a useful tool to evaluate the performance of the geotube project. Variability and noise
are common in datasets collected in coastal and ocean environments, as such, there are
numerous techniques, methods, and analysis tools that are routinely utilized by coastal
engineers/scientists to understand and draw conclusions from these types of datasets.
• The bluff monitoring program was utilized to compute the volume of material contributed
from the unprotected bluff to the littoral system. The two bank areas chosen for evaluation
of bank erosion lead to an underestimation of the volume of sediment being contributed
to the littoral system. In addition, the fact that the Geotextile Tube Project was located at
the point where the highest historical bank erosion has been measured was not discussed,
nor included in the analysis. It is to be expected that the areas to the north and south of
the project area would contribute lower volumes of sediment as they are located outside
the initial project area.
• SBPF claims that the mitigation volume required for the geotube project is 1.5 times the
average annual bluff contribution rate, which is not supported by the data or their analysis.
The required mitigation rate of 22 cy/lf/yr was arrived at through scientific and engineering
studies and analysis conducted by SBPF consultants on previous Sconset Beach projects.
Review of the information provided over the years suggests that the annual contribution
2
rate from the coastal bank is likely higher than 22 cy/lf/yr required as part of the mitigation
for the geotube project.
Monitoring Data Analysis
The monitoring reports place a great deal of emphasis on the uncertainty contained within
the beach and bluff monitoring data. Viewed over a relatively short temporal window, it is true that
data can appear inconclusive or even random. However, when viewed over longer time periods,
the uncertainly of the short term fades away as distinct trends and patterns emerge. For example,
Figure 1 presents water surface elevation data from the NOAA’s Woods Hole gaging station.
Looking from point to point it is difficult to discern a trend upward, downward, or even flat. Isolating
the period from 1969 to 1990 from the rest of the dataset, it is possible to get a perfectly flat trend
in sea level, which we know not to be true. When the entirety of dataset is examined, a clear trend
of the annual mean water level increasing becomes clear. Analyzing coastal and ocean datasets
with variability and noise is standard practice. The beach and bluff monitoring program began in
1995, and has been continuously monitored for more than 20 years. The dataset represents a
wealth of information that can be used to analyze and isolate changes in the littoral system along
Sconset Beach, as well as to discern if the geotube project is having an effect on neighboring
shorelines.
Figure 1. Annual mean water levels recorded at Woods Hole, Massachusetts between
1932 and 2013 indicate a linear trend in sea-level rise over the past 80+ years
of approximately 2.82 mm per year (data source: NOAA, 2014).
Epsilon evaluated the shoreline monitoring data at six beach monitoring transects,
immediately around and within the geotube project area, in the 2016 Interim Monitoring Update.
The analysis focused on the landward and seaward movement of the mean low water (MLW) line
over time. The six transects all show a degree of variability of the shoreline position over short
time periods, but it is clear that six profiles are eroding over the long-term (Figures 2 through 7).
The major conclusion drawn from the analysis by Epsilon was the shoreline position after the
3
geotube project was constructed is seaward of the long-term linear prediction of the present
shoreline position as well as being seaward of the maximum historical landward erosion point,
thus indicating there is no adverse effect associated with the geotube project. While the current
MLW shoreline position is seaward of the most landward recorded position, that does not provide
a basis for claiming the Geotextile Project is not having an adverse impact. Examining the
monitoring data at Profiles 90 and 90.6 (south of the geotextile tubes), Profiles 91 and 91.5
(geotextile tube area), and Profiles 92 and 92.5 (north of the geotextile tubes) show the shoreline
retreating over the period from 1995 to 2011/2012. In 2011, beginning with the southern transects
and continuing to the northern transects, the MLW shoreline accretes significantly. The accretion
event results in the shoreline moving seaward anywhere from 20 to 40 feet depending on the
profile. The Geotextile Project was constructed between December 2013 and January 2014. The
data collected after the geotube project was constructed shows the shoreline began to retreat
again. The long-term erosional pattern would likely have continued with or without the project, as
the accretional period was likely due to a sand wave moving alongshore (similar but smaller in
scale to the sand wave that moved in front of Cod Fish Park following the 2001 winter storm
season) or a nearshore sand bar welding to shore. Let us examine the first of Epsilon’s
conclusions, the current MLW shoreline is seaward of the maximum historical landward erosion
point; therefore, there is no adverse effect associated with the geotube project. The maximum
landward position of the MLW shoreline occurred in 2005/2006 timeframe, approximately 8-years
before the geotube project was constructed, the shoreline recovered; however, the overall erosion
trend continued. The erosional outlier event does not provide any reasonable measure of the
performance regarding the Geotextile Project; at most it highlights the variability in the system.
The second conclusion that post-geotube shoreline position is seaward of the predicted long-term
linear shoreline position is true. The geotube project was constructed following a significant
natural accretion event, but before the system had a chance to reach equilibrium following this
event. In this case, the predicted long-term shoreline position by itself does not provide any
measurable marker of success or failure relative to the geotube system. To determine the impact
of the geotube project, the long-term erosion rate should be compared to the erosion rate
occurring in the 2-years post-construction. At the six profiles examined by Epsilon, the erosion
rate post geotube construction is higher than the historical long-term erosion rate. It should be
pointed out that regardless of 22.0 cy/ft/yr of annual mitigation and the lack of severe storm events
since the project was constructed, the shoreline is eroding more quickly than it had historically.
Figures 2 through 7 illustrate the acceleration in erosion rates resulting from the placement of the
geotube project, where the erosion rate since the geotubes were put in place is higher than the
pre-geotube erosion rate for all 6 transects evaluated.
Unprotected Bluff Sediment Contributions
In addition to evaluating the position of the MLW location on the beach face, Epsilon also
evaluated bluff erosion based upon topography survey information. The analysis of the bluff
erosion compares the topography derived from aerial surveys in July 2013 and April 2016. The
analysis focuses on two sections of unprotected bluff, one south of the geotube project and one
to the north. The goal of the analysis was to determine the volume of material provided to the
system from the unprotected sections relative to the mitigation volume required as part of the
Geotextile Project. The conclusion Epsilon drew from their analysis was that the average bluff
erosion rate of 12.9 cy/ft/yr is significantly smaller than the required mitigation volume of 22
cy/ft/yr. In addition, the unprotected bank contribution is lower than the volume contributed
annually from the mitigation template, which on average has provided 18.1 cy/ft/yr. The
conclusion ignores several critical facts and warrants reevaluation. First, the southern section of
4
unprotected bluff is 210 feet long, located between the Geotextile Project and Mr. Weymar’s coir
and jute terrace stabilization system. Both projects minimize erosion along the beach and bluff,
and hence obscure the erosion rate of the unprotected bluff due to the large volumes of sediment
being supplied for mitigation and maintenance along the small length of shoreline. Since the
Epsilon analysis does not evaluate the large-scale contribution of sediments from Mr. Weymar’s
nearby project to the overall bank stability within this region, it is inappropriate to conclude that
the sediment contribution only from the geotube project is responsible for any reduction on bluff
erosion rates.
The northern section of bluff is longer at 800 feet and offers a more representative
reference point to evaluate background erosion rates of unprotected bluff. The northern section
only has mitigation nourishment along the southern end of the evaluation, where this section abuts
the geotube project. Between 2013 and 2016, the northern bluff section contributed 14.2 cy/ft/yr.
Over the long-term November 1994 to September 2013 time period, immediately prior to the
installation of the geotube project, the shoreline change data from 61st Southeast Nantucket
Beach Monitoring Report, by Woods Hole Group, for Profiles 92 and 92.5 (105 and 113 Baxter
Road, respectively), was utilized to calculate that the northern bluff was eroding at a rate of 7.7
and 9.6 cy/ft/yr (assuming an active profile height of 94 ft). Therefore, the long-term 1994 to 2013
bluff erosion rate was significantly lower than the post-geotube bluff erosion rate, 7.7 to 9.6 cy/ft/yr
and 14.2 cy/ft/yr, respectively. This indicates that the existing mitigation volume may not be
enough to offset the impacts of the geotube project to the bluff to the north of the installation.
As part of the initial justification for the geotube installation, Epsilon utilized the severe
bluff erosion during the 2012-to-2013 storm season (2013 Baxter Road and Sconset Bluff Storm
Damage Prevention Project NOI). An evaluation of the measured erosion rates during this time
period yielded bluff contribution rates in the northern section ranging from 16 cy/ft/yr to 101 cy/ft/yr.
The bank contribution rates within the geotube project bounds range from 75 cy/ft/yr to 104
cy/ft/yr. These rates likely overexaggerate the typical annual contribution rates since they are
based on a single year of measured bluff retreat during a severe winter season. However, these
extreme erosion rates highlight how much sediment can be provided by the bluff along the project
area if the system were allowed to naturally evolve. Therefore, an appropriate mitigation plan
should account for these types of contributions to the littoral system, as they are critical to the
long-term stability of the adjacent Nantucket beaches.
Mitigation Volumes
The suggestion that the mitigation rate is 1.5 times the annual bank contribution is not
supported by SBPF’s own survey data, or the analysis provided by their current or previous
engineers and scientists. Below is a brief synopsis of previous evaluations of sediment
contributions by SBPF consultants:
• Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (SBPF engineering consultant) – Developed
a sediment budget for the Sconset shoreline for the period 1995 to 2005 that was
submitted on behalf of SBPF to Nantucket Conservation Commission in November
2006. The sediment budget shows that 24.2 cy/ft/yr of sediment eroded from the
Sconset shoreline. SBPF in the past has criticized Coastal Planning & Engineering
sediment budget stating the sediment budget was not conducted for evaluating
revetments or other bank stabilization structures, however this is completely
unfounded, sediment budgets are simply an accounting of the littoral transport
along a shoreline and not dependent on proposal of coastal engineering structure.
This effort represents the only significant effort by SBPF to use coastal processes
5
data and numerical modeling to quantify sediment transport along the Sconset
Bluff region. The analysis indicated the bluff/beach system in the project region
provides approximately 24.2 cy/ft/yr. It should be noted that this sediment budget
likely under-predicts the current volumes of sediment provided by the coastal bank
since a significant portion of the coastal bank along the project area was not
eroding over the period the sediment budget was evaluated.
• SBPF’s 2012 Notice of Intent for gabion project (produced by SBPF consultant
Epsilon Associates, Inc.) estimated 19.1 to 19.5 cy/ft/yr. These values excluded
13% of the total volume eroding from the bank due to presence of fines within the
eroded sediment. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management guidelines make no
allowance for discounting the volume of material eroded when calculating
mitigation volumes. Correcting for the exclusion of fines, provides bluff contribution
rates ranging from 20.8 to 22.2 cy/ft/yr.
• Ocean and Coastal Consults, Inc. (SBPF engineering consultant) estimated
20.7 cy/ft/yr from the September 2010 Siasconset Coastal Bank Stabilization and
Beach Preservation Project Alternatives Analysis submittal on behalf of SBPF to
Nantucket Conservation Commission.
• Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management calculated volumes between 15 to 26 cy/ft/yr
(Letter to the Conservation Commission dated August 26, 2013). Epsilon has been
extremely critical of the long-term MCZM shoreline change analysis in the past but the
criticism has not been based upon sound scientific or engineering principles. The points
have been discussed and refuted for the Nantucket Conservation Commission in the
past and can be provided again if it would assist the Conservation Commission in
understanding the dynamics of the littoral system.
All the data and analysis highlights the complexity of the littoral system along Sconset
Beach and the need for an accurate and defensible approach when determining appropriate
mitigation volumes. The mitigation rates set by Massachusetts Department of Environment
Protection and the Nantucket Conservation Commission were not set arbitrarily, the mitigation
volume was determined by a thorough review of the data and analysis provided by SBPF. To
reduce the mitigation volume would increase the erosional forces along adjacent shorelines,
jeopardizing infrastructure, homes, and public lands outside the limits of SPBF’s Geotextile
Project.
Alterations to the Monitoring Plan
We agree with Epsilon that the aerial bluff monitoring should continue on an annual basis.
The program could be expanded to monitor changes in the aerial beach profile, which could
provide important information regarding the position of the geotube toe relative to the highwater
line. At the conclusion of the 3-Year Special Conditions window required as part of the permit for
the geotube project, the shoreline monitoring could be shifted from a quarterly basis to spring and
fall surveys without jeopardizing the dataset. However, we disagree that the profile surveys should
be truncated at the waterline and not include the nearshore bathymetry. The shape of the aerial
and subaerial beach profile is important for understanding and monitoring the dynamics of the
littoral system.
Reducing the number of survey profiles was discussed. Prior to any reduction in the
number of profiles, it is important to understand which profiles would be eliminated. It is important
to ensure that long-term monitoring stations are not eliminated, nor monitoring stations that will
6
provide the first evidence of potential adverse impacts associated with the geotube project, as
well as future projects which SBPF are preparing.
Conclusions
The review of the data and analysis presented in the Annual Review highlights the need
for accurate and defensible analysis to demonstrate the true effects the Geotextile Project has
upon the Sconset Beach littoral system. The data and analysis highlights the complexity of the
littoral system; however, SBPF’s data shows erosion has increased since the Geotextile Project
was constructed. This indicates that the existing mitigation volume (22 cy/ft/yr) may not be enough
to offset the impacts of the Geotextile Project. Therefore, to reduce the mitigation volume as SBPF
has suggested, would increase the erosional forces along adjacent shorelines, jeopardizing
infrastructure, homes, and public lands outside the limits of SPBF’s Geotextile Project.
Figure 2. MLW shoreline position at Profile 90 with linear regression lines illustrating the
long-term and post geotube construction erosion rates (data source: Epsilon
Associates).
y = -0.4764x -54.274
R² = 0.6165
y = -0.8408x + 96.555
R² = 0.5993
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
-200.0
-180.0
-160.0
-140.0
-120.0
-100.0
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
01224364860728496108120132144156168180192204216228240252264276288300Change in MLW Position from Nov 1994 Baseline (ft)Time (months)
Profile 90 (1200' south of geotubes)
7
Figure 3. MLW shoreline position at Profile 90.6 with linear regression lines illustrating
the long-term and post geotube construction erosion rates (data source:
Epsilon Associates).
Figure 4. MLW shoreline position at Profile 91 with linear regression lines illustrating the
long-term and post geotube construction erosion rates (data source: Epsilon
Associates).
y = -0.4093x -41.258
R² = 0.6186
y = -1.0444x + 166.52
R² = 0.9547
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
-180.0
-160.0
-140.0
-120.0
-100.0
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
01224364860728496108120132144156168180192204216228240252264276288300Change in MLW Position from Nov 1994 Baseline (ft)Time (months)
Profile 90.6 (600' south of geotubes)
y = -0.4761x -22.036
R² = 0.7892
y = -0.7691x + 86.077
R² = 0.7751
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
-180.0
-160.0
-140.0
-120.0
-100.0
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
01224364860728496108120132144156168180192204216228240252264276288300Change in MLW Position from Nov 1994 Baseline (ft)Time (months)
Profile 91 (in project area)
8
Figure 5. MLW shoreline position at Profile 91.5 with linear regression lines illustrating
the long-term and post geotube construction erosion rates (data source:
Epsilon Associates).
Figure 6. MLW shoreline position at Profile 92 with linear regression lines illustrating the
long-term and post geotube construction erosion rates (data source: Epsilon
Associates).
y = -0.3495x -4.9824
R² = 0.7969
y = -0.7378x + 106.09
R² = 0.6881
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
-140.0
-120.0
-100.0
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
01224364860728496108120132144156168180192204216228240252264276288300Change in MLW Position from Nov 1994 Baseline (ft)Time (months)
Profile 91.5 (in project area)
y = -0.3071x + 3.6594
R² = 0.7497
y = -0.3899x + 35.793
R² = 0.446
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
-140.0
-120.0
-100.0
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
01224364860728496108120132144156168180192204216228240252264276288300Change in MLW Position from Nov 1994 Baseline (ft)Time (months)
Profile 92 (100' north of geotubes)
9
Figure 7. MLW shoreline position at Profile 92.5 with linear regression lines illustrating
the long-term and post geotube construction erosion rates (data source:
Epsilon Associates).
y = -0.1508x -18.158
R² = 0.5933
y = -0.6239x + 104.69
R² = 0.8066
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
-140.0
-120.0
-100.0
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
01224364860728496108120132144156168180192204216228240252264276288300Change in MLW Position from Nov 1994 Baseline (ft)Time (months)
Profile 92.5 (500-600' north of geotubes)
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Hugh E. Ruthven III Page 1 of 4
APPLIED COASTAL
Hugh E. Ruthven III, M.C.E., B.S.
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE
20 (15 with Applied Coastal; 5 with others)
EDUCATION M.S.E., Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan,
1997
B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, Purdue University, 1996
REGISTRATION Engineer in Training, State of Indiana
AFFILIATIONS Association of Coastal Engineers
American Shore & Beach Preservation Association
PROFILE Mr. Ruthven is a coastal engineer specializing in numerical modeling of
hydrodynamics, nearshore coastal dynamics, coastal structures, and physical
modeling. He is experienced in hydrodynamic modeling, wave and sediment
modeling, inlet processes, hydrographic analysis, coastal mitigation, and the
design, rehabilitation, and permitting of shore protection structures. Mr. Ruthven
is skilled in the application of computer programs for two-dimensional hydraulic
and hydrologic modeling, and has performed numerous two-dimensional
analyses to characterize hydrodynamics, sediment transport, littoral transport,
and nearshore contaminant trapping, as well as inland waters.
RELEVANT
EXPERIENCE
Improving the Coastal Resiliency of Dr. Bottero and Chapin Beach Road,
Town of Dennis, MA.
• Though a 2016 CZM Green Infrastructure for Coastal Resilience Grant,
Mr. Ruthven identified and evaluated long-term resilient infrastructure
alternatives to mitigate the severe erosion along Dr. Bottero Road and
improve the resilience and natural function of a barrier beach. This
involved the preparation of an expanded Alternatives Analysis involving
a wide range of possible alternatives. Due to the complicated regulatory
hurdles associated with viable alternatives, including retreating the
roadway across the salt marsh and construction of new coastal
engineering structures, a series of pre-application regulatory meetings
and stake holder meets were conducted to obtain feedback and build
consensus from local, state and federal permitting agencies.
Design and Permitting of Dead Neck/Sampson’s Island (DNSI) Restoration
and Management Project, Barnstable, MA.
• Mr. Ruthven has been conducting the monitoring of the DNSI shoreline
since 2005 as part of the restoration project to enhance and protect
wildlife habitat and nesting habitat for coastal waterbirds of high
conservation Priority. The monitoring involves cross-shore profile
measurements along the eastern 2,400 feet of the island to document
the erosion of the island and loss of Piping Plover habitat. The western
end of the island is being monitored to focus on management of sediment
migrating toward the west end of the barrier beach system and the
impacts to the navigational channel. Mr. Ruthven has also developed the
Pre- and Post-Construction monitoring protocols as well as supporting
Numerical modeling of estuarine hydrodynamics and water quality
Analysis of tidal inlet dynamics and sediment transport
Coastal processes analysis
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Hugh E. Ruthven III Page 2 of 4
APPLIED COASTAL
the engineering and permitting associated with backpassing dredged
material from the western end of the island and using the material to
maintain the integrity of the barrier beach/dune system adjacent to the
eastern end. The restoration of the eastern end of the island will restore
and protect essential shorebird and wildlife habitat.
Hydrodynamic Tidal Study of Buttermilk Bay and William H. Dalton
Memorial Bridge, Bourne and Wareham, MA.
• Carried out a hydraulic optimization study for the new 5-span bridge over
Cohasset Narrows between Bourne and Wareham. The optimization
study involved collecting water surface elevation, current, and
bathymetry data for development of a two-dimensional hydrodynamic
model that was used to examine the bridge crossing and evaluate how
the bridge design influenced tidal attenuation, tidal hydrodynamics, and
tidal flushing within the Buttermilk Bay. The optimized waterway
configuration reduced the number of piers within the channel, positioned
the piers along the periphery of the main channel, and moved the bridge
abutments further landward meeting the redesign goal of improving upon
the tidal circulation within the estuary system. The work was performed
for Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MDOT) under a
contract with AECOM.
Cobble Nourishment Design and Environmental Permitting for Plymouth
Long Beach, MA.
• The Plymouth Beach Restoration Program was initiated to improve the
storm protection capacity of the beach design a mixed grained
nourishment along with a redesign of exist groins to stabilize the
nourishment and enhance sand bypassing. Mr. Ruthven served as
project engineer for the nourishment and structure design as well a
supporting the environmental permitting. Services included an historical
shoreline change analysis, beach sediment characterization, wave and
sediment transport modeling to evaluate the present and proposed
conditions along the beach, and design of the revised groin layout and
profile as well as the beach nourishment template.
Sesuit Marsh Restoration, Dennis, MA.
• Sesuit Marsh is located along the southern coastline of Cape Cod Bay
the upper portion of the system was divided from the lower marsh by a
roadway embankment and connected through a small culvert resulting
in very limited tidal exchange. The health of the upper marsh system
suffered significantly, to address the problem a data collection program
was conducted followed by a hydrodynamic and water quality study to
examine various alternatives for restoring the natural tidal exchange to
the upper marsh in order to assist in the restoration of the marsh system.
The developed model provided the necessary tools for evaluating the
impacts to the system and ensuring the restoration of the marsh was
successful. The project was awarded the 2008 Coastal America
Partnership Award. The work was performed for Town of Dennis and
NOAA.
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Hugh E. Ruthven III Page 3 of 4
APPLIED COASTAL
Round Hill Marsh Restoration, Dartmouth, MA.
• Conducted a wave transformation study along the shoreline fronting
Round Hill Marsh for NOAA, to examine the sediment transport
characteristics along the shoreline. The goal of the study was to assess
the impacts that the existing offshore breakwater and groins have upon
the inlet to the marsh system and to examine alternative to improve the
inlet stability for an ongoing marsh restoration project within Round Hill
Marsh. The inlet is unconstrained and migrates along the beach face
requiring periodic relocation of the inlet to avoid impacts to downdrift
properties and improve the flushing in the marsh system.
Muddy Creek Hydrodynamic and Scour Evaluation, Pleasant Bay, MA.
• A hydrodynamic and flooding analysis of Muddy Creek was performed to
determine the impacts and engineer requirements associated with the
widening of the inlet channel under Route 28. An existing stone culvert
structure connects Muddy Creek to Pleasant Bay restricts tidal exchange
between the creek and the Bay, which has a direct effect on water quality,
habitat, and salt marsh coverage above the Route 28 dike. The proposed
bridge would significantly increase the hydraulic beneath the roadway,
restoring tidal flow to the upper reaches of the system, which required a
quantification of the proposed tidal hydraulics, flooding response and
magnitude, scour potential associate with the new bridge structure, and
an evaluation of the outer channel and ebb shoal to determine the
extents which the increase tidal prism could alter the barrier beach form.
Mr. Ruthven continues to monitor and conduct measurement of the salt
marsh and inlet channel post-construction to document the estuarine
restoration. Performed for the Division of Ecological Restoration through
CDR Maguire.
Calcasieu Ship Channel and Pass, Louisiana. Lake Charles, LA.
• Performed a study of hydrodynamic and sediment transport process in
Lake Calcasieu to support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
Orleans District DMMP and SEIS for the Calcasieu Ship Channel and
Pass. The numerical analysis evaluated physical processes governing
circulation and sediment transport necessary to develop long-term
solutions for dredged materials management. The modeling effort
afforded a thorough understanding of the sediment sources and sinks,
as well as the associated sediment transport pathways, while taking into
account the complex circulation patterns that dominate the Lake
Calcasieu estuarine system. Performed for the Corps of Engineers, New
Orleans District under a contract with GBA.
Hydrodynamic and Wave Study of St. Lucie Inlet, Martin County, FL.
• As part of the USACE General Design Memorandum for St. Lucie Inlet,
a hydrodynamic, sediment transport and wave study was undertaken to
provide design recommendations for mitigating downdrift impacts and
navigation issues resulting from shoaling within the inlet. The study
updated and refined the existing sediment budget, providing important
information that allowed for the assessment inlet features including the
navigation channel and impoundment basin along with structural
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Hugh E. Ruthven III Page 4 of 4
APPLIED COASTAL
modifications and various dredging alternatives. Performed for Martin
County, Florida under a contract with GBA.
Whittier Bridge Replacement along I-95, Newburyport, MA.
• As part of the I-95 redesign for MDOT, we preformed hydrodynamic and
scour analyses for Whittier Bridge along the Merrimack River to provided
design recommendations for mitigating flooding impacts, navigation
issues, and ensuring a stable engineering design and layout of the bridge
piers and abutments. The development of the engineering analysis and
numerical models required the collection of single and multi-beam
bathymetry, water surface measurements, and riverine and tidal current
measurements. The datasets formed the basis of data required to
develop the complex two-dimensional hydrodynamic, flooding, and scour
models. The detailed analysis leading to the optimization of the pier
layouts and design, increased clearance along the navigation channels,
and no impact to localized flooding along the Merrimack River. The work
was performed for MassDOT.
Coastal Processes Evaluation and Development of Shore Protection
Alternatives for Ram Island, MA.
• Long-term erosion of Ram Island, located in Buzzards Bay, has
decreased the available habitat for the endangered Roseatte Tern
population. As part of funding established to evaluate shoreline
damages associated with a recent oil spill, NOAA hired Applied Coastal
to evaluate local coastal processes that are causing erosion of the
fringing marsh, as well as loss of upland sediments associated with storm
wave overtopping. A detailed numerical wave modeling analysis using
SWAN was performed to determine the dominant forces controlling the
erosion process. In addition, a long-term shoreline change analysis was
utilized to determine the island’s longevity. Based on the coastal
processes analysis, regulatory constraints, constructability,
sustainability, maintenance requirements, and cost, a series of
engineering alternatives ranging from beach nourishment to near-shore
stone breakwaters were evaluated relative to selection of a final
conceptual design. Mr. Ramsey served as project manager and lead
coastal engineer for this project. The work was performed for NOAA
under a contract with IEC.
Technical Project Review for State of Massachusetts, Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management (MCZM).
• Served as the coastal engineering consultant to MCZM. Provided coastal
engineering expertise, analysis, and design guidance during the
regulatory review process for projects including cobble nourishments,
beach nourishments, dune design, coastal and sediment transport
analysis, coastal structures, and wave-induced flood damage
assessments. The work was performed for MCZM.
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. John S. Ramsey Page 1 of 7
APPLIED COASTAL
JOHN S. RAMSEY, PE, D.CE Principal Coastal Engineer
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE
30 (18 with Applied Coastal; 12 with others)
EDUCATION M.C.E., Civil (Coastal) Engineering, University of Delaware, 1991
B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, 1985
REGISTRATION Professional Engineer:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts #38532
State of Connecticut #27392
State of Louisiana #38818
AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers
• Coastal Zone Management Committee
• Coastal Engineering Practice Committee
Association of Coastal Engineers
• President (2006-2014)
• Vice-President (2004-2006)
Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association
American Shore & Beach Preservation Association
PROFILE Mr. Ramsey is a co-founder and Principal Coastal Engineer at Applied
Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. (Applied Coastal) and has served as
Project Manager and/or Principal Investigator for coastal embayment
restoration projects, regional shoreline management plans, beach
nourishment and coastal structure designs, estuarine water quality/flushing
studies, geotechnical engineering, hydrodynamic and sediment transport
evaluations, and environmental studies required for permitting of coastal
projects. He has co-authored several papers related to littoral processes
analysis and has employed innovative numerical methods to develop
alternative solutions for complex coastal engineering problems. Mr. Ramsey
is well-versed in modern analytical and numerical techniques for evaluating
coastal, estuarine, and salt marsh processes. In addition, he is responsible
for oversight of engineering services at Applied Coastal.
RELEVANT
EXPERIENCE Design and Permitting of Beach Nourishment and Terminal Structure to
Provide Shore Protection along Winthrop Shore Drive, Winthrop, MA.
• Mr. Ramsey evaluated a large beach erosion and rehabilitation project
at Winthrop Beach in Massachusetts. This project involved numerical
modeling of wave refraction and diffraction, sediment transport, and
shoreline change. Results from these models were used to evaluate a
series of beach management alternatives, including beach
nourishment, groins, and breakwaters. Approximately 500,000 cubic
yards of beach nourishment and modifications to an existing groin field
were constructed to enhance storm protection. Applied Coastal
provided beach nourishment and coastal structure design services
and was a key contributor to the EA/EIR. In addition a major portion of
this project involved the state-sponsored Pilot Program to back-pass
Evaluation and design of coastal structures and beach nourishment
Numerical modeling of estuarine hydrodynamics and water quality
Analysis of tidal inlet dynamics and sediment transport
Coastal processes analysis
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. John S. Ramsey Page 2 of 7
APPLIED COASTAL
nourishment material and construction of a new terminal structure to
extend the design life of the nourishment.
Design Services Related to Various Department of Conservation and
Recreation Revetments and Seawalls in Massachusetts.
• Mr. Ramsey served as project manager and lead coastal engineer for
the evaluation of appropriate design wave climate studies (including
wave forces, storm wave overtopping rates, and wave run-up), as well
as further design guidance needed to assure appropriate construction
methodology and mitigation. Projects included shore protection design
for Squantum Point, seawall repairs at Rocky Beach and Short Beach
(Revere/Winthrop), emergency revetment design for Winthrop Beach,
revetment re-design along the Lynn Harbor side of the Nahant
Causeway, re-design of the Point Allerton revetment (Hull), and re-
design of George’s Island shore protection. Typical projects included
numerical wave modeling of extremal conditions to develop
appropriate engineering design parameters. Utilizing state-of-the-art
techniques, wave overtopping, run-up, and forces can be determined
to formulate an appropriate shore protection design. Applied Coastal’s
involvement often included techniques designed to minimize wave
reflection and/or downdrift impacts. As an example, Applied Coastal
designed a cobble berm at Point Allerton to reduce wave reflection
and maintain the revetment foundation. The work was performed for
the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation under
contracts with Bourne Consulting Engineering, Vollmer Associates,
and Parsons Brinckerhoff.
Design and Permitting of Dead Neck/Sampson’s Island (DNSI)
Restoration and Management Project, Barnstable, MA.
• Mr. Ramsey provided the engineering design and permitting services
to Three Bays Preservation, Inc. for the back-passing of dredged
material from the western end of Sampson’s Island to the eastern end
of Dead Neck for the purposes of constructing a beach and dune
nourishments. DNSI provides protection of wildlife habitat and nesting
habitat for coastal waterbirds of high conservation Priority. In addition,
DNSI provides flood control and storm damage protection for the bays
and estuaries to the north. Applied Coastal provided quantitative
assessment of the potential impacts associated with proposed
dredging activities in the Cotuit entrance channel, the following
analyses were performed: a) An historical analysis of shoreline; b) a
numerical modeling assessment of the alterations to tidal
hydrodynamics as well as the influence coastal erosion potential; c)
the influence of the existing barrier beach spit on preventing flood
protection and/or storm damage prevention for properties landward of
the barrier beach system; and d) permitting and engineering support
through the MEPA and subsequent Local, State, and Federal
permitting process.
Beach Nourishment Design and Environmental Permitting for Plymouth
Long Beach, MA.
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. John S. Ramsey Page 3 of 7
APPLIED COASTAL
• The Plymouth Beach Restoration Program was initiated to improve the
storm protection capacity of the beach by reconstruction of an existing
dike together with an extensive beach nourishment. In 2002, Applied
Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. (Applied Coastal) was hired
by the Town of Plymouth to provide a beach nourishment design and
prepare permitting documents for the proposed work. Mr. Ramsey
served as project manager and lead coastal engineer for the beach
design and environmental permitting. Services included an historical
shoreline change analysis, beach sediment characterization, and
wave and sediment transport modeling to evaluate the present
conditions along the beach, and also to model several design
alternatives to determine the relative performance of each. Long-term
recommendations made by Applied Coastal to the Town were
developed to address the continued deterioration of the barrier beach
and partial loss of natural sediment supply. The recommended
alternative consisted of a 300,000 yd3 nourishment to protect the
beach and backshore from erosion and overwash and to provide
sediment supply to maintain downdrift beaches. An optional element
is repair of the existing Corps dike, to improve the stability of the
structure and to bring the structure to its original design height.
Assessment of Beach Nourishment and Groin Optimization for Oak
Bluffs Shoreline South of the Harbor Entrance, Oak Bluffs, MA.
• Mr. Ramsey served as project manager for a comprehensive study of
the entire eastern Nantucket Sound facing coast of the Town of Oak
Bluffs on Martha’s Vineyard was performed in order to help quantify
erosion rates and develop possible management solutions to help
maintain public beach recreational resources. Sediment transport
potential was computed for entire Town shoreline, and the southern
half of the shoreline was modeled using a one-line shoreline change
model developed by Applied Coastal. Inputs to the model included
average wave conditions computed using the 2-D wave model SWAN.
Beach fill scenarios in the range between 12,000 and 56,000 cubic
yards were simulated for different sections of the coast. These
scenarios included options to reconfigure existing groins along the
shoreline in order to improve their utility. Subsequent services
included assessment of jetty improvements at the harbor entrance to
enhance navigation safety.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, Coastal Hazards Atlas for
the South Coast of Massachusetts.
• Mr. Ramsey served as project manager for the development of the
South Coast Coastal Hazards Atlas. The South Coast atlas strives to
bridge the gap between sound science and policy, delivering a wealth
of relevant coastal data in an easily understandable format. Concise
text compliments each coastal hazards variable and map which is
presented, covering more than 60 miles of shoreline which comprise
the South Coast. The atlas provides a vital tool for local Conservation
Commissions, as well as state and federal agencies, to review
projects within a context of their regional setting relative to coastal
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. John S. Ramsey Page 4 of 7
APPLIED COASTAL
hazards. Shoreline change, evaluation of littoral cells, wave climate
and dominant coastal processes for each cell were determined.
Additional risk factors were also defined and evaluated, including
storm surge elevations, changing sea level and an index for assessing
the stability of coastal bluffs in the region.
Coastal Processes Analysis and Shore Protection Design, Spectacle
Island, MA.
• Following capping of the landfill on Spectacle Island, the island was
converted to a park owned by the State and the City of Boston.
Environmental permitting requirements required that a coastal
processes evaluation be performed and shore protection be designed
and constructed to address long-term erosion issues along the
shoreline. Applied Coastal performed an analysis of waves and wave-
driven sediment transport. Following this in-depth study of coastal
processes, shore protection alternatives were evaluated to ensure
longevity of the beach system, while minimizing marina shoaling. In a
related project, a revetment was designed along the western shoreline
of the island to protect the landfill cut-off wall. Following design
development, Applied Coastal provided periodic inspection services
during construction. The work was performed for the City of Boston
under a contract with CDM.
Beach Nourishment Monitoring and Design Services for Dead Neck,
Barnstable, MA.
• Mr. Ramsey serves as project manager and lead coastal engineer for
ongoing services to Three Bays Preservation, Inc. related to beach
nourishment monitoring and design, as well as related activities
associated with estuarine water quality and coastal sediment
transport. In order to enhance the storm protection capability of the
eastern end of Dead Neck, major beach nourishment projects
designed by Gahagan and Bryant, Inc. (GBA) were performed in 1985
and again in 1999. Since the completion of the 1999 nourishment,
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering Inc. has monitored the
migration of the Dead Neck shoreline and subsequent performance of
the 225,000 cubic yard nourishment. Cross-shore profile
measurements along the eastern 2,400 feet of the island have been
taken periodically since 1993, with Applied Coastal staff performing
the surveys beginning in 2005. Ongoing work has focused on
management of beach materials migrating toward the west end of the
barrier beach system. Possible options include dredging the western
end of the island and using the material to maintain the integrity of the
barrier beach/dune system adjacent to the eastern end (i.e. recycling
of littoral sediments).
St. Lucie Inlet Federal Navigation Project, Martin County, FL.
• Mr. Ramsey served as project manager and lead coastal engineer for
the hydrodynamic, wave, and sediment transport modeling effort
undertaken to update the sediment budget, and to assess impacts
associated with various engineering alternatives proposed to reduce
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. John S. Ramsey Page 5 of 7
APPLIED COASTAL
maintenance dredging frequency and/or to provide inlet sediment to
downdrift shorelines. The study examined modifications to inlet
features including an impoundment basin, sand-tightening of the north
jetty, the lengthening the south jetty, sand disposal options, flood
shoal dredging, and modifications to the navigation channel.
Subsequent work included environmental permitting support for a
proposed flood shoal dredging project needed to back-pass inlet
sediments, as well as a reassessment of the sediment budget based
on updated data through 2014. The work was performed for Martin
Count under contracts with Gahagan & Bryant Associates and Atkins.
Cockle Cove Sediment Transport Study and Design Guidance for Beach
Nourishment, Chatham, MA.
• Mr. Ramsey served as project manager for this study to develop
engineering alternatives for addressing shoreline recession on Cockle
Cove Beach, in Chatham, MA. A quantitative approach was used to
evaluate dominant coastal processes along this stretch of coastline.
Two numerical models were used for this evaluation; a wave
refraction model and the shoreline change model GENESIS. With the
development of a calibrated GENESIS model for Cockle Cove, it was
possible to test different scenarios for possible fill designs along the
beach. Model results for each beach fill help to evaluate the
expected longevity, and general effect of the adjusted profile. Five fill
scenarios where considered for this part of the study. In addition to
the fill scenarios, two additional cases were modeled to represent the
range of future shorelines that may result if no action is taken to
nourish Cockle Cove Beach. Beach nourishment was implemented in
2003 following the modeling recommendations and the subsequent
performance of the fill project agreed with model predictions.
Coastal Processes Analysis and Assessment of Shore Protection
Alternatives, Jupiter Island, FL.
• An alternatives and shoreline change analysis were performed to
optimize the use of coastal engineering structures and beach
nourishment along Jupiter Island Beach, Florida. This study
combined numerical model analyses of offshore wave climate, wave
refraction and diffraction, and longshore and cross-shore sediment
transport. The wave modeling phase of this study was completed to
develop an understanding of the wave climate and beach stability
along the shoreline of Jupiter Island. Both cross-shore and longshore
sediment transport models were developed to evaluate nearshore
processes and predict beach nourishment performance. The study
results were utilized to guide the design of the beach nourishment
programs conducted in 1996 and 2003 by Gahagan & Bryant. More
recently, Applied Coastal upgraded the wave and sediment transport
models for Jupiter Island to predict the influence of offshore borrow
sites on the shoreline. Mr. Ramsey served as project manager and
lead coastal engineer for this work conducted by Aubrey Consulting
and more recently by Applied Coastal. The work was performed for
the Town of Jupiter Island under a contract with Gahagan & Bryant
Associates.
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. John S. Ramsey Page 6 of 7
APPLIED COASTAL
Sediment Transport Study and Evaluation of Causeway Impacts on
Coastal Processes, Westport, MA.
• Mr. Ramsey served as project manager and lead coastal
engineer/modeler for this project performed by Aubrey Consulting. A
comprehensive evaluation of regional sediment transport processes
was performed for the shorelines of Horseneck Beach, Gooseberry
Neck, East Horseneck Beach, and Little Beach in the Towns of
Westport and Dartmouth. Sediment transport patterns and
alternatives for beach stabilization were evaluated, along with various
management and engineering alternatives, for the causeway
connecting Gooseberry Neck to the mainland. The analysis and
modeling effort consisted of an historical shoreline change analysis,
collection and evaluation of beach profile data, development of a
wave refraction and diffraction model (REFDIF1), as well as
development and calibration of both longshore (GENESIS) and cross-
shore (SBEACH) shoreline prediction models. Results of the
comprehensive modeling effort indicated that East Horseneck Beach
could be effectively stabilized with a beach nourishment program;
however, the Gooseberry Island causeway was not the cause of
observed erosion.
SELECTED
PUBLICATIONS
Ramsey, J.S., S.W. Kelley, and B. Scheer. 2015. “Balancing Shore Protection
and Public Access Concerns: Engineering a Solution for an AMTRAK Track
Realignment.” Proceedings of the Coastal Structures and Solutions to
Coastal Disasters 2015 Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Boston, MA.
Ramsey, J.S., J.R. Orfant, R.J. Burckardt. 2015. “Winthrop Beach: Utilizing a
Mixed Sediment Nourishment Regime to restore an Urban Beach.”
Proceedings of the Coastal Structures and Solutions to Coastal Disasters
2015 Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers. Boston, MA.
Ramsey, J.S., J.R. Orfant, and J.F. Burckardt, 2008. “Restoration of an
Urban Beach Using a Mixed Sediment Nourishment Material.” Proceedings
of the Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2008 Conference, American Society of
Civil Engineers. Oahu, Hawaii. pp. 618-629.
Kelley, S.W. and J.S. Ramsey, 2006. “Shoreline ‘Hot-Spot’ Development Due
to Sand Mining Offshore Jupiter Island, Florida.” Proceedings of the 30th
International Conference on Coastal Engineering, (J.M. Smith, ed.), San
Diego, CA. pp. 3567-3577.
Ramsey, J.S., H.E. Ruthven, S.W. Kelley, and B.L. Howes, 2006. “Quantifying
the Influence of Inlet Migration on Tidal Marsh System Health.” Proceedings
of the 30th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, (J.M. Smith, ed.),
San Diego, CA. pp. 2082-2094.
Kelley, S.W., J.S. Ramsey, and M.R. Byrnes, 2004. Evaluating the physical
effects of offshore sand dredging for beach nourishment. Journal of Coastal
Research, Volume 20, No. 1, Coastal Education and Research Foundation,
Inc., West Palm Beach, FL. pp. 89-100.
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. John S. Ramsey Page 7 of 7
APPLIED COASTAL
Ramsey, John S., Don Donaldson, Rick McMillan, 2004. “Influence of
Improved Impoundment Basin on Estuarine Circulation and Sediment
Transport Patterns within St. Lucie Inlet.” Proceedings of the 17th Annual
National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology. Florida Shore and
Beach Preservation Association.
Ramsey, John S., Brian L. Howes, Sean W. Kelley, and Feng Li, 2000.
“Water Quality Analysis and Implications of Future Nitrogen Loading
Management for Great, Green, and Bournes Ponds, Falmouth,
Massachusetts.” Environment Cape Cod, Volume 3, Number 1 (May 2000),
Barnstable, MA, pp. 1-20.
Ramsey, John S., 1999. “Analysis of Sediment Transport Processes at
Westport, Massachusetts.” Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Coastal Engineering and Science of Coastal Sediment Processes. American
Society of Civil Engineers. Hauppage, Long Island, NY. pp. 1994-2009.
Wood, Jon D., John S. Ramsey, and Lee L. Weishar, 1996. “Beach
Nourishment along Nantucket Sound: A Tale of Two Beaches.” Proceedings
of the 9th Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology.
Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association.
Ramsey, John S., Robert P. Hamilton, Jr., and David G. Aubrey, 1995.
“Nested Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling of the Delaware
Estuary.” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Estuarine and
Coastal Modeling, ASCE Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division.