DOCSLIB.ORG

Numerical Simulation of Coastal Erosion and Its Mitigation by Living Shoreline Methods: a Case Study in Southern Rhode Island By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Numerical Simulation of Coastal Erosion and Its Mitigation by Living Shoreline Methods: a Case Study in Southern Rhode Island By Numerical simulation of coastal erosion and its mitigation by living shoreline methods: A case study in southern Rhode Island By Scott Hayward1, M. Reza Hashemi2*, Marissa Torres2, Annette Grilli2, Stephan Grilli2, John King3, Chris Baxter2, and Malcolm Spaulding2 1) Ransom Consulting Inc., 400 Commercial Street, Portland, ME 04101; 2) Department of Ocean Engineering, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA; 3) Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA; * Corresponding author: Email [email protected] ABSTRACT Accelerated shoreline retreat due to sea level rise is a major chal- nested within this regional grid to simulate nearshore sediment lenge for coastal communities in many regions of the U.S. and transport processes and shoreline erosion. After validating the around the world. While many methods of erosion mitigation regional modeling system for a historical storm (Hurricane have been empirically tested, and applied in various regions, Sandy), Hurricane Irene (2011) was used to validate XBeach, on more research is necessary to understand the performance the basis of a unique dataset of pre- and post-storm beach pro- of these mitigation measures using process-based numerical files that was collected in our study area for this event. XBeach models. These models can potentially predict the response of showed a relatively good performance, being able to estimate a beach to these measures and help identify the best method. eroded volumes along three beach transects within 8% to 39%, Further, because nearshore sediment transport processes are with a mean error of 23%. The validated model was then used still poorly understood, there are many uncertainties in assess- to analyze the effectiveness of three living shoreline erosion ment of coastal erosion and mitigation measures. Hence, there mitigation methods that were recommended in a recent study is a need to better assess the capabilities and shortcomings of of coastal erosion in New England: beach nourishment, coastal numerical models as a way to improve them. In this work, a suite bank (engineered core), and submerged breakwater. Further, of numerical models was used to assess coastal erosion and the the effect of an artificial surfing reef on sediment transport performance of a number of recommended solutions, along a was also investigated. Conceptual designs were implemented section of coast in southern Rhode Island, US, which represents in the model and the eroded volume were computed, with and a typical coastal barrier system. The coupled modeling system without the presence of these solutions. Using two synthetic SWAN (Simulating Waves Nearshore), a third-generation storms, it was shown that erosion mitigation methods that fo- wave model, and ADCIRC (ADvanced CIRCulation Model), cus on reinforcing the beach face and dunes are more effective a two-dimensional depth integrated circulation model, was than those that reduce wave action. While this study showed applied over a regional grid encompassing northeastern U.S. how models such as XBeach can help examine the technical to compute offshore sea levels and wave conditions for speci- performance of erosion mitigation measures, more detailed fied storm scenarios, both historical and synthetic. The coastal assessments including cost-benefit analyses are necessary at wave-circulation and morphodynamic model XBeach was then the decision-making level. oastal communities on the East caused to coastal communities along the ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Coast of the United States (US) upper U.S. East Coast, the U.S. Army XBeach, ACDIRC, SWAN, living are likely to experience a greater Corps of Engineers (USACE) performed breakwater, beach nourishment, geo- Cimpact from tropical storms in the fu- the North Atlantic Coastal Comprehen- textile bank protection, recreational ture.1 In addition to sea level rise (SLR), sive Study (NACCS; Jensen et al. 2016), surfing reef. a number of studies have related climate which assessed resilience and adaptation change to an increase in the number of Manuscript submitted 13 July 2018, in the face of increased risk to ports, higher intensity tropical storm activity revised and accepted 19 October 2018. coastal communities, and businesses. As (Holland and Bruyere 2014; Yoshida et part of this study, both storm surge and al. 2017). Along the barrier beaches infrastructure is gradually reduced. With waves were modeled for 1,050 synthetic and barrier islands bordering the U.S. the perspective of increasing damage tropical and 100 historical extratropi- East Coast, severe storms often cause from the combination of more severe cal storms. Results of these simulations widespread dune and beach erosion, storms and SLR, coastal communities, were used to assess the vulnerability of resulting in beach recession and damage particularly along the U.S. East Coast, the U.S. East Coast to storms and SLR, to infrastructure. As beaches erode, the must adapt and increase their resilience and propose solutions to increase coastal natural protection they provide to coastal to these natural disasters. resilience. Although NACCS results were reasonably well validated in offshore 1) For more details visit the ongoing research at In the wake of superstorm Sandy regions, some studies have shown that NOAA’s GFDL lab: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/ (2012) and the widespread damage it global-warming-and-hurricanes. these results were not as accurate in near- Shore & Beach Vol. 86, No. 4 Fall 2018 Page 13 Figure 1. Computational domains of the study. Unstructured regional SWAN+ADCIRC mesh that covers the northeastern U.S. is shown in the top panel. The extent of the nearshore XBeach model in southern coast of Rhode Island is highlighted in the bottom panel. shore regions and around barrier beach these systems were significantly eroded, tures such as breakwaters, seawalls, and systems (Shaw et al. 2016). Nevertheless, flooding extent during an event similar similar structures and promote less in- both the synthetic tropical and historical to Hurricane Bob (1991) would increase vasive quasi-natural protection methods extratropical storms from NACCS can be by 200%, because natural dunes are the (Zeitlin-Hale et al. 2010). Besides beach useful to set up more accurate nearshore main protection against coastal flooding re-nourishment, such methods include models to estimate nearshore wave and in barrier beach systems. Schambach et dune restoration and using endemic storm surge conditions. al. (2018) recently used the coastal wave/ plants to reinforce the dunes. Narragan- circulation and geomorphodynamic sett town beach is one example of a RI With over 300 miles of mostly erodible model XBeach to simulate erosion of the beach community actively making ef- sandy coastline, the state of Rhode Island Charlestown, RI barrier beach system dur- forts to maintain the coastline by restor- (RI) in the Northeast of the U.S. is threat- ing Irene (2011) and for a synthetic 100- ing dunes and regularly re-nourishing ened by both tropical and extratropical year tropical storm. This study showed the most eroded sections of the beach storms. Barrier beach systems (i.e. coastal the effect of a dune system in reducing (Woods Hole Group 2011). The Woods ponds protected by barrier beaches, often coastal flooding and also the important Hole Group (2017) recently conducted confined between headlands) make up role of coastal vegetation in mitigating a coastal resilience study under the much of the southern RI coast and are dune erosion. Therefore, there is a growing auspice of the Northeastern Regional especially vulnerable to breaching and interest to protect and restore these valu- Association of Coastal Ocean Observ- overtopping due to a combination of able natural resources, which has led many ing Systems (NERACOOS). As part of storm waves and surge. Coastal commu- of the barrier systems along the southern that effort, they proposed simple tools nities such as Charlestown, Matunuck, coast of Rhode Island to be designated as and methodologies for most effectively Misquamicut, and Quonochontaug, RI, coastal barrier resource systems.2 increasing coastal resilience in New Eng- are located on and around barrier beach land. In particular, these tools can help systems, which recent studies have shown Regulations in several states, includ- determine the most effective approach are experiencing a trend of increased ing North Carolina and RI, prohibit for mitigating erosion in specific cases, coastal erosion (Boothroyd et al. 2016). using “hard” coastal protection struc- based on a number of factors such as Shaw et al. (2016) showed if dunes in 2) https://www.fws.gov/CBRA/). wave climate, available resources, tidal Page 14 Shore & Beach Vol. 86, No. 4 Fall 2018 range, and beach slope. Additionally, the tools can help decision-makers rule out the less effective approaches. Large-scale erosion mitigation proj- ects can be costly to develop and imple- ment. These projects are often recom- mended based on the success or failure of previous applications. Hence, for a case study, it is advantageous to use numeri- cal models to assess the performance of potential erosion mitigation methods, and reduce uncertainty before select- ing and further analyzing a design. As an illustration of this approach, in this work, we apply a suite of state-of-the-art numerical models to simulate the erosion of a barrier beach system in southern RI due to extreme storm surge and waves. We then perform additional simulations to assess and compare the performance of several conceptual living shoreline designs. Results and methodologies used in this work could be beneficial to similar case studies, particularly in areas that are protected by coastal barrier systems. Figure 2. Locations of observational water elevation (triangle), wave (diamond) METHODOLOGY and transect (dot) data used to validate the regional and nearshore models. Numerical models The zoomed region within the domain shows the XBeach model domain. The Two numerical models are used in location of the beach profile surveys at Charlestown Breakwater, Charlestown this work (Figure 1): (1) a coupled wave- Beach, and Green Hill Transects are also shown (CBW, CTB, GH).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Narrow River Watershed Plan (Draft)
    DRAFT Narrow River Watershed Plan Prepared by: Office of Water Resources Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 235 Promenade Street Providence, RI 02908 Draft: December 24, 2019, clean for local review DRAFT Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8 A) Purpose of Plan................................................................................................................. 8 B) Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Goals for the Watershed ........................................ 12 1) Open Shellfishing Areas ............................................................................................. 12 2) Protect Drinking Water Supplies ................................................................................ 12 3) Protect and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat ........................................................... 12 4) Protect and Restore Wetlands and Their Buffers ....................................................... 13 5) Protect and Restore Recreational Opportunities ......................................................... 14 C) Approach for Developing the Plan/ How this Plan was Developed .............................. 15 II. Watershed Description .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Living Shorelines Along the Georgia Coast
    Living Shorelines along the Georgia Coast A summary report of the first Living Shoreline projects in Georgia September 2013 Living Shoreline Summary Report Georgia Department of Natural Resources One Conservation Way Brunswick, GA 31520 Project Manager: Jan Mackinnon Biologist GA-DNR Coastal Resources Division Prepared By: Greenworks Enterprises, LLC 7617 Laroche Ave Savannah GA 31406 September 2013 This report should be cited as: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Living Shorelines along the Georgia Coast: A Summary Report of the First Living Shoreline projects in Georgia. Coastal Resources Division, Brunswick, GA. 43 pp. plus appendix. -2- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by Greenworks Enterprises under Cooperative Agreement # CD-96456206-0 to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Project Team responsible for the guidance, direction, and implementation of the living shorelines projects described in this document consisted of: Jan Mackinnon, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, Biologist; Christi Lambert, The Nature Conservancy, Georgia Marine and Freshwater Conservation Director; Dorset Hurley, Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve. Research Coordinator, Senior Marine Biologist; Fred Hay, GADNR: Wildlife Resources Division, Sapelo Island Manager; Sco Coleman, Ecological Manager, Lile St. Simons Island; Tom Bliss, University of Georgia Marine Extension Service;Conservancy; Alan Power, PhD, University of Georgia; These projects and this report have been made possible by their significant contributions and energies. The Project Team would like to thank all volunteers that made these Living Shoreline projects possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Resources Management Council
    650-RICR-20-00-01 650 – COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL CHAPTER 20 – COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SUBCHAPTER 00 – N/A PART 1 – COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM – RED BOOK Table of Contents 1.1 Authorities and Purpose, Definitions and Procedures 1.1.1 Authority and Purpose 1.1.2 Definitions 1.1.3 Alterations and Activities that require an Assent from the Coastal Resources Management Council (formerly § 100) 1.1.4 Applications for Category A and Category B Council Assents (formerly § 110) 1.1.5 Variances (formerly § 120) 1.1.6 Special Exceptions (formerly § 130) 1.1.7 Setbacks (formerly § 140) 1.1.8 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise (formerly § 145) 1.1.9 Coastal Buffer Zones (formerly § 150) 1.1.10 Fees (formerly § 160) 1.1.11 Violations and Enforcement Actions (formerly § 170) 1.1.12 Emergency Assents (formerly § 180) 1.2 Areas Under Council Jurisdiction 1.2.1 Tidal and Coastal Pond Waters (formerly § 200) 1.2.2 Shoreline Features (formerly § 210) 1.2.3 Areas of Historic and Archaeological Significance (formerly § 220) 1.3 Activities Under Council Jurisdiction 1.3.1 In Tidal and Coastal Pond Waters, on Shoreline Features and Their Contiguous Areas (formerly § 300) 1.3.2 Alterations to Freshwater Flows to Tidal Waters and Water Bodies and Coastal Ponds (formerly § 310) 1.3.3 Inland activities and alterations that are subject to Council permitting (formerly § 320) 1.3.4 Activities located within critical coastal areas (formerly § 325) 1.3.5 Guidelines for the protection and enhancement of the scenic value of the coastal region (formerly § 330) 1.3.6 Protection and enhancement of public access to the shore (formerly § 335) 1.3.7 Federal Consistency (formerly § 400) 1.4 Maps of Water Use Categories - Watch Hill to Little Compton and Block Island 1.5 Shoreline Change Maps 1.6 Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) Maps 1.1 Authorities and Purpose, Definitions and Procedures 1.1.1 Authority and Purpose Pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Download The
    COMPLIMENTARY JULYMAY 2021 2020 smithfieldtimesri.net Smithfield Town Fireworks at Bryant University, 2019 BOSTON MA BOSTON 55800 PERMIT NO. PERMIT PAID Our customers U.S. POSTAGE U.S. ECRWSS Local Postal Customer Postal Local are our owners. PRSRT STD PRSRT Federally insured by NCUA PROACTIVE PROACTIVE SOPHISTICATED CARE SOPHISTICATED CARE OUR PATIENTS ENJOY: OUR • Therapy PATIENTS up to 7 Days aENJOY: Week Raising the bar in the delivery • TherapyBrand New up State-of-the-artto 7 Days a Week Rehab Gym & Equipment Raisingof short-term the bar in rehabilitative the delivery • BrandIndividualized New State-of-the-art Evaluations & Rehab Treatment Gym Programs & Equipment ofand short-term skilled nursing rehabilitative care in • IndividualizedComprehensive Evaluations Discharge Planning& Treatment that Programs Begins on Day One and skilled nursing care in • ComprehensiveSemi-Private and Discharge Private Rooms Planning with that Cable Begins TV on Day One Northern Rhode Island • Semi-PrivateConcierge Services and Private Rooms with Cable TV Northern Rhode Island • Concierge Services CARDIAC ORTHOPEDIC PULMONARY REHABILITATION CARDIAC REHABILITATION ORTHOPEDIC PULMONARY CARE Under the REHABILITATION direction of a leading • Physicians REHABILITATION & Physiatrist On-Site • Tracheostomy Care CARE Cardiologist/Pulmonologist, our specialized Under the direction of a leading • PhysiciansIndividualized & Physiatrist Aggressive On-Site Rehab • TracheostomyRespiratory Therapists Care nurses provide care to patients recovering Cardiologist/Pulmonologist,
    [Show full text]
  • Ecologically Engineering Living Shorelines for High Energy Coastlines
    Ecologically engineering living shorelines for high energy coastlines Christine Angelini1, Ada Bersoza Hernandez1, Deidre Herbert1, Emily Astrom1, Patrick Norby1, Greg Kusel1, Scott Wasman1, Raymond Grizzle2, Nikki Dix Pangle3, Alex Sheremet1 1Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure & Environment, University of Florida; 2Jackson Lab, University of New Hampshire, 3Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve [email protected] Ocean ship traffic up 300% worldwide since 1990 Tournadre 2014, Geophysical Research Letters Large container ships & fishing vessels Boats Boats Boats Boats Boats Small boat traffic rarely monitored, but on the rise Ecological effects unknown Studies examining the effects of wakes on turbidity & wetland erosion Sorenson 1973; Zabawa & Ostrom 1980; Nanson et al. 1994; Osborne & Boak 1999;Castillo et al. 2000; Parnell & Kofoed- Hanson 2001; Bauer et al. 2002; Grizzle et al. 2002; McConchie & Toleman 2003; Glamore 2008; Houser 2010; Tonelli et al. 2010; Bilkovic et al. 2017 *Black text= primary literature/ Grey text = grey literature* Number of responses Experts in SE US indicate boat traffic in estuaries is high is estuaries in traffic boat US indicate in SE Experts Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) 3,000 miles of natural waterways & dredged channels Ponte Artery for commerce & recreation Vedra, FL Boat highway through low-energy coastal wetlands Mulberry Island, LA Little River, SC ICW ICW Palm Valley, Florida Wilmington, NC ICW ICW Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
    [Show full text]
  • National Coastal Resilience 2019 Grant Slate - Updated October 2020
    National Coastal Resilience 2019 Grant Slate - updated October 2020 NFWF CONTACTS Erika Feller Director, Marine and Coastal Conservation [email protected] 202-595-3911 Kaity Goldsmith Manager, Marine Conservation National Coastal Resilience Fund [email protected] 202-595-2494 PARTNERS Brown pelican ABOUT NFWF The National Fish and Wildlife OVERVIEW Foundation (NFWF) protects and On Nov. 18, 2019, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), NOAA, Shell and restores our nation’s fish and wild- TransRe announced the 2019 grants from the National Coastal Resilience Fund. life and their habitats. Created by Forty-four new grants totaling $29,806,904 were awarded. The 44 awards announced Congress in 1984, NFWF directs generated $59,668,874 in match from the grantees, providing a total conservation impact public conservation dollars to of $89,475,778. the most pressing environmental needs and matches those invest- The National Coastal Resilience Fund restores, increases and strengthens natural ments with private funds. Learn more at www.nfwf.org wildlife. Established in 2018, the National Coastal Resilience Fund invests in conservation projectsinfrastructure that restore to protect or expand coastal natural communities features while such also as coastal enhancing marshes habitats and forwetlands, fish and NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1133 15th Street NW and barrier islands that minimize the impacts of storms and other naturally occurring Suite 1000 eventsdune and on beachnearby systems, communities. oyster and coral reefs, forests, coastal rivers and floodplains, Washington, DC 20005 202-857-0166 (continued) National Coastal Resilience 2019 Grant Slate Identifying Priority Restoration Sites for Resilience in Point Hope, Alaska Grantee: City of Point Hope Grant Amount: ...................................$215,137 Matching Funds: .................................$216,076 Total Amount .
    [Show full text]
  • Living Shorelines: a Review of Literature Relevant to New England Coasts Jennifer E.D
    Journal of Coastal Research 00 0 000–000 Coconut Creek, Florida Month 0000 REVIEW ARTICLES www:cerf-jcr:org Living Shorelines: A Review of Literature Relevant to New England Coasts Jennifer E.D. O’Donnell Department of Marine Sciences University of Connecticut Groton, CT 06340, U.S.A. jennifer.o’[email protected] ABSTRACT O’Donnell, J.E.D., 0000. Living shorelines: A review of literature relevant to New England coasts. Journal of Coastal Research, 00(0), 000–000. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Over the last few decades, increasing awareness of the potential adverse impacts of traditional hardened coastal protection structures on coastal processes and nearshore habitats has prompted interest in the development of shoreline stabilization approaches that preserve intertidal habitats or at least minimize the destructive effects of traditional shoreline protection approaches. Although many terms are used to describe shoreline stabilization approaches that protect or enhance the natural shoreline habitat, these approaches are frequently referred to as living shorelines. A review of the literature on living shorelines is provided to determine which insights from locations where living shorelines have proved successful are applicable to the New England shorelines for mitigating shoreline erosion while maintaining coastal ecosystem services. The benefits of living shorelines in comparison with traditional hardened shoreline protection structures are discussed. Nonstructural and hybrid approaches (that is, approaches that include natural or manmade hard structures) to coastal protection are described, and the effectiveness of these approaches in response to waves, storms, and sea-level rise is evaluated. ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Coastal protection, soft stabilization, natural and nature-based features.
    [Show full text]
  • Living Shorelines Brochure
    Living Shorelines Benefit You By: Remember: • Reducing bank erosion and property loss to Living Shorelines you or your neighbor Any action on a single shoreline has the • Providing an attractive natural appearance potential to impact adjacent shorelines. An approach to shoreline • Creating recreational use areas management and erosion issues that Shoreline alterations • Improving marine habitat & spawning areas should be avoided is better for the environment and where they are not property owners • Allowing affordable construction costs really necessary. Offset (above) and straight gaps When erosion along • Improving water quality and clarity (below) maintain connections to a shoreline has the shoreline habitat and open water. potential to result in significant loss of property and upland improvement, then the consideration of shoreline erosion pro- tection activities may be appropriate. Preserving, creating or enhancing natural systems such as marshes, beaches and dunes is always the preferred approach Medium energy eroding marsh before (above) to shoreline erosion and after living shoreline treatment (below). protection. “Preserving one shoreline at a time” our coasts Photos of Hermitage Site by Walt Priest Project funded by the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program of the Department of Environmental Quality through Grant #NA07NOS4190178 Task #94.02 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration For more information: www.vims.edu/ccrm/ outreach/living_shorelines Visit our Website: Center for Coastal Resources Management vims.edu/ Virginia Institute of Marine Science Have a question about www. ccrm/outreach/ P.O. Box 1346 your living shoreline? living_shorelines Gloucester Pt., VA 23061-1346 Email: [email protected] 804-684-7380 Living Shorelines Overview Concern Services Design Site Specs Virginia has nearly 5,000 Living shorelines provide Several design options Several site characteristics miles of shoreline, marsh- valuable ecological servic- (see below) exist for living can be used to evaluate es, beaches, and tidal mud- es.
    [Show full text]
  • What Are Living Shorelines?
    1 A Community Resource Guide for Planning Living Shorelines Projects New Jersey Resilient Coastlines Initiative Ver 1 (March 2016) CONNECTING YOUR COMMUNITY TO LIVING SHORELINES The Community Resource Guide provides community leaders, citizens, and contractors with guidance on key factors that should be considered when embarking on a living shoreline project and links to additional resources that could be consulted during the planning process. This guide is best used as a companion to The Nature Conservancy’s Coastal Resilience Tool and the Restoration Explorer, an associated web-based application that allows users to visualize which living shoreline techniques are most appropriate for reducing erosion in a particular area of New Jersey’s coastline. IMPORTANT: Living shoreline projects have a variety of ecological and engineering requirements that can often be combined to tailor project designs to local conditions. It is important to consult with ecologists and engineers to determine the specific design requirements for any proposed project. It is also important to consult with federal, state and local officials regarding permitting requirements. Resources are listed throughout this guide. In addition, the Restoration Explorer application is not intended to provide rigid recommendations but rather to support initial collaborative discussions about Installing an oyster castle breakwater in the Delaware Bay. © The Nature Conservancy implementing a living shoreline project. This guide provides summary information and additional resources
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to Coastal Environmental Geology of Rhode Island's Barrier Beach Coastline
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository New England Intercollegiate Geological NEIGC Trips Excursion Collection 1-1-1981 Field Guide to Coastal Environmental Geology of Rhode Island's Barrier Beach Coastline Fisher, John J. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/neigc_trips Recommended Citation Fisher, John J., "Field Guide to Coastal Environmental Geology of Rhode Island's Barrier Beach Coastline" (1981). NEIGC Trips. 297. https://scholars.unh.edu/neigc_trips/297 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the New England Intercollegiate Geological Excursion Collection at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in NEIGC Trips by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 153 Trip B-6 Field Guide to Coastal Environmental Geology of Rhode Island's Barrier Beach Coastline fcy John J. Fisher Department of Geology University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881 Introduction The Rhode Island southern coastline, 30 km in length, can he classified as a barrier beach complex shoreline. Developed from a mainland consisting pri­ marily of a glacial outwash plain, it has been submerged by recent sea level rise. Headlands (locally called "points") composed of till and outwash plain deposits separate a series of lagoon-like hays (locally called "ponds") that are drowned glacial outwash channels. Interconnecting baymouth harriers (locally called "harrier "beaches") with several inlets make up the major shoreform of this coast (Figure l). This field guide is an introduction to the coastal environmental geology features of the Rhode Island harrier beach coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Westerly Harbor Management Plan 2016 Revised 10/28/19
    Town of Westerly Harbor Management Plan 2016 Revised 10/28/19 As Adopted by the Westerly Town Council, October 28, 2019 1 Contents INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3 WESTERLY HMC MISSION STATEMENT ................................................................... 4 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 5 HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... 18 WATER QUALITY.......................................................................................................... 20 NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 30 THE BEACHES................................................................................................................ 36 SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS ................................................................................... 41 HARBOR FACILITIES AND BOAT RAMPS ............................................................... 53 MOORING MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................... 60 STORM PREPAREDNESS.............................................................................................. 75 WESTERLY HARBOR MANAGEMENT PLAN-ORDINANCE ................................. 81 2 INTRODUCTION The Westerly Harbor Plan is formulated in order to
    [Show full text]
  • W R Wash Rhod Hingt De Isl Ton C Land Coun D Nty
    WASHINGTON COUNTY, RHODE ISLAND (ALL JURISDICTIONS) VOLUME 1 OF 2 COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER CHARLESTOWN, TOWN OF 445395 EXETER, TOWN OF 440032 HOPKINTON, TOWN OF 440028 NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE 445414 NARRAGANSETT, TOWN OF 445402 NEW SHOREHAM, TOWN OF 440036 NORTH KINGSTOWN, TOWN OF 445404 RICHMOND, TOWN OF 440031 SOUTH KINGSTOWN, TOWN OF 445407 Washingtton County WESTERLY, TOWN OF 445410 Revised: October 16, 2013 Federal Emergency Management Ageency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 44009CV001B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: October 19, 2010 Revised Countywide FIS Date: October 16, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume 1 – October 16, 2013 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1 1.3 Coordination 4 2.0
    [Show full text]