Technical Report CERC-94-5 April 1994 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Noyo River and Harbor, California, Design for Harbor Entrance Protection Coastal Model Investigation . Wore \ by Robert R. Bottin, Jr. aRtN CaO KS * ee ee O Zz Y No) aww ee a COM 2S Wo Ss gee c a hiear NC en \ Sai na \ Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited CB 450 non Uo cerc-44-S Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. Technical Report CERC-94-5 April 1994 Noyo River and Harbor, California, Design for Harbor Entrance Protection Coastal Model Investigation by Robert R. Boitin, Jr. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Final report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 0030110001162 U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco Prepared for San Francisco, CA 94105-1905 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Al Ir My ‘ih, FOR INFORMATION CONTACT : PS s/t | PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE LABORATORY —} Ye Iie) * Hi , U. S. ARMY ENGINEER y Ux [tiie — WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION 3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI 39180-6199 PHONE : (601)634-2502 STRUCTURES LABORATORY SCALE o AREA OF RESERVATION = 2.7 sq km Waterways Experiment Station Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bottin, Robert R. Noyo River and Harbor, California, design for harbor entrance protection : coastal model investigation / by Robert R. Bottin, Jr. ; prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco. 135 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. — (Technical report ; CERC-94-5) Includes bibliographic references. 1. Harbors — California — Noyo. 2. Breakwaters — California — Noyo Harbor. 3. Noyo Harbor (Calif.) 4. Hydraulics models. |. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. San Francisco District. II. U.S. Army Engi- neer Waterways Experiment Station. Ill. Title. IV. Series: Technical re- port (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; CERC-94-5. TA7 W34 no.CERC-94-5 Contents Pre Pa Ce ee a rere ia REM eo DR WIL aerate, Meh leas egien iv Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement ........ Vv 1 TNtrOdUCtION Ts eC ee ee ee Mose tea hee Sey totes acte stuaptiet aetdiat Pals 1 IMS LEK OLAT IS GS o ols es Ui duels Go do Ob 5 od one 6 Od OG. 1 WHE REFODLSMM ys rhe es ete races Cah ose me pee eae ec ot on colars 1 Proposed Improvements .......:2.-..025-22+++2200 0% 4 Previously Reported Model Tests and Conclusions ......... 4 Purpose of the Current Investigation ..............-.. 6 Wiavie=Herght Criterion yet.w 1 ici uaoeseeiret re) oh sicicer milo ke piorns ike 6 Pom) By olid 04 Koya Ved legs Wavelet aby vet eu ares ilies create a onesu beavis Ts hel unter guts! ae ores Ie Ue ES W Destenrol: Mode lee riercic ace easieomian een yen eorculomlelen lolienicse di Model andvAppurtemances cn s0 5 sys. cucrs ais cute ebeiued oomied ol enelion 10 3—Test Conditions and Procedures ..............2+.2+2-. 13 Selection of hest:Conditions 5 ss a es 2 eee wel) sp ol 13 Analysisiot/ModeleDatawerr ect cn ganas iets tt sn cytes tel -icnaiie 17 4—NestskandlResults: Aes ie i ey RU ON vat 5 ata leas RAS he oles 18 SDNY ASP cP DARN nm thine Samal oy aa Ure te ey Be Raat a Sonata ae eos Od Se eS Lice p 18 IREStltsie pe icncuieiacmneciea rename, Wen aly cman meen se Sunt e miesecc un Chl Bang 20 5 Conclusionsis 2 eter ai ty eee tarees seein dertyateek Shisnerays od cpacwte ed teh comets 27 REfELENCES yay. eh iy Lhe hay eee Coen CRT elas eH ISDE epee, anamels 29 Tables 1-23 Photos 1-90 Plates 1-23 SF 298 Preface A request to reactivate and conduct additional testing on the existing Noyo River and Harbor model was initiated by the U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco (SPN). Authorization for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station’s (WES) Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) to perform the study was subsequently granted, and funds were authorized by SPN on 8 June 1992, 11 January 1993, and 15 Decem- ber 1993. Model testing was conducted at WES intermittently during the period from December 1992 through January 1994 by CERC personnel under the direction of Dr. James R. Houston and Mr. Charles C. Calhoun, Jr., Director and Assistant Director, CERC, respectively; and under the direct supervision of Messrs. C. E. Chatham, Jr., Chief, Wave Dynamics Divi- sion, and Dennis G. Markle, Chief, Wave Processes Branch (WPB). The tests were conducted by Messrs. Hugh F. Acuff and Larry R. Tolliver and Ms. Bettye E. Stephens, Civil Engineering Technicians, and Mr. Joe Trahan, contract student, under the supervision of Mr. Robert R. Bottin, Jr., Research Physical Scientist. This report was prepared by Mr. Bottin. During the course of the investigation, liaison was maintained by means of conferences, telephone conversations, and monthly progress reports. Messrs. Jeff Cole and Joe Hooks, SPN, visited WES to observe model operation during the course of the study, and Mr. Bottin visited the SPN office and the city of Fort Bragg, California, prior to the initial investigation. Initial test results for the model were reported in WES Technical Re- port CERC-88-15, “Noyo River and Harbor, California, Design for Wave and Surge Protection; Coastal Model Investigation,” dated September 1988. Results for additional tests were reported in WES Technical Report CERC-89-18, “Noyo River and Harbor, California, Design for Wave Pro- tection, Supplemental Tests; Coastal Model Investigation,” dated Decem- ber 1989. Dr. Robert W. Whalin was Director of WES during model testing and the preparation and publication of this report. COL Bruce K. Howard, EN, was Commander. Conversion Factors, Non-SI to Sl Units of Measurement Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI units as follows: Eee Ps es square miles (U.S. statute) _ —— SE = es 1 Introduction The Prototype Noyo River and Harbor are located on the California coast in Mendocino County, approximately 135 miles! north of San Francisco and 87 miles south or Eureka (Figure 1). The shoreline in the locality consists of broken, irregular cliffs about 40 to 80 ft high with numerous rocks ex- tending several hundred yards offshore. Small pocket beaches are found at the heads of coves in the immediate vicinity. The Noyo River empties into Noyo Cove, which is approximately 1,800 ft wide, north.to south, and 2,000 ft long, east to west. The existing Noyo River and Harbor project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1930 (U.S. Army Engineer District (USAED), San Francisco 1979), and construction was completed in 1961. It consists of a jettied entrance at the river mouth; a 10-ft-deep, 100-ft-wide entrance channel; and a 10-ft-deep, 150-ft-wide river channel extending upstream about 0.6 mile. Noyo Mooring Basin is located on the south bank of the river at the upstream limit of the dredged river channel. Further upstream, approximately 1.1. miles from the river mouth, a privately owned harbor (Dolphin Marina) is located on the south bank. An aerial photograph of the area is shown in Figure 2. The Problem Noyo Cove is open to the Pacific Ocean and is exposed to large waves generated by local coastal storms accompanied by strong winds (sea) and distant ocean storms with and without local winds (swell). Waves in ex- cess of 20 ft in height approach the cove from the southwest clockwise through northwest directions. Heavy seas sweep across the cove and 1 t 9 ate A table of factors for converting non-SI units of measurements to SI units is presented on page v. Chapter 1 Introduction CALIFORNIA NEVADA $¢ SACRAMENTO x #HSTOCKTON 120 pew Figure 1. Project location through the jettied river entrance, making them impassable for entry or de- parture during these periods. In addition to these adverse wave conditions, the harbor has experienced strong surging problems due to long-period wave energy resulting in damages to small craft moored there. Shoaling in the river channel also occurs due to the deposition of material brought down the river during the winter rainy season. This causes navigational difficulties in the shallow river channel, particularly upstream of Noyo Harbor. Vessels are subject to damage by grounding and are forced to wait for favorable tide conditions to provide adequate depths. Improvements at Noyo River and Harbor would result in the reduction of boat and harbor damages, a harbor of refuge for vessels during storm activity, increased commercial fish catch, and increases in recreational boating. The project construction would employ local (currently unem- ployed) labor and enhance area redevelopment. The improvements should also improve the overall commercial fishing operation, thereby contribut- ing to the local economic base. Chapter 1 Introduction Figure 2. Aerial view of prototype site Chapter 1 Introduction Proposed Improvements Authorization for improvements at Noyo River and Harbor was granted by the River and Harbor Act of 1962. Under this authorization, however, breakwaters were proposed to protect the outer cove for development. The massive breakwaters required were not economically feasible (due to the high cost of construction and maintenance), resulting in the project’s being transferred to an inactive category. The Water Resources Develop- ment Act (WRDA) of 1976 modified the 1962 project to provide for con- struction of up to two breakwaters without a specific location to protect the harbor entrance (USAED, San Francisco 1979). The location of break- waters in more shallow water would reduce construction cost signifi- cantly. The 1976 WRDA also included additional channel improvements (deepening, widening, and extending) as deemed necessary, subject to ap- plicable economic and environmental criteria. Previously Reported Model Tests and Conclusions The Noyo River and Harbor model was constructed initially to investi- gate both short- and long-period wave and river-flow conditions in the river and harbor for comprehensive test conditions. Qualitative informa- tion on the effects of the proposed breakwaters on sediment moving down the river also was provided. Details of the investigation were published in Bottin, Acuff, and Markle (1988). Conclusions derived from results of these tests are mentioned below. Plan numbers in the following subpara- graphs refer to the previous investigation. a. Existing conditions are characterized by very rough and turbulent wave conditions in the Noyo River entrance during periods of storm wave attack. b. Deepening of the entrance channel will not improve wave conditions in the existing river entrance, considering all test conditions. c. The originally proposed breakwater location (Plan 3) resulted in excessive wave heights (up to 8.8 ft) in the river entrance. d. Of the 40 expedient rubble-mound breakwater plans (Plans 5 through 42) tested, the alignment of the 637-ft-long breakwater of Plan 39 appeared to be optimum with regard to wave protection, navigation, and economics. e. The 637-ft-long dolosse breakwater of Plan 43 (same alignment as Plan 39) was selected as the optimum improvement plan for protection of the Noyo River entrance. Chapter 1 Introduction f. The breakwater configuration of Plan 43 will result in improved surge conditions due to long-period wave energy in Noyo River and Harbor. g. The breakwater configuration of Plan 43 will not interfere with the movement of riverine sediment seaward into Noyo Cove; however, the structure will direct sediment to the northern portion of the cove. The Noyo River and Harbor model was reactivated to determine the op- timum breakwater plan that would provide the fishing fleet protection from hazardous wave conditions while traveling through the jettied en- trance. The breakwater plan was developed for 14-ft design waves, as op- posed to waves up to 32 ft in the initial study. During storm conditions above a certain threshold (approximately 14-ft waves) fishermen presum- ably do not go out to fish; therefore, there are fewer benefits for protect- ing the entrance under these extreme conditions. Most benefits would be derived for wave conditions with heights of 14 ft or less. Details of the supplement tests were published in Bottin and Mize (1989). Conclusions based on results of these tests are listed below. Plan numbers refer to the supplemental investigation. a. Existing conditions are characterized by very rough and turbulent wave conditions in the Noyo River jettied entrance for 15-sec, 14-ft incident design wave conditions. Waves with maximum heights ranging from 9.3 to 11.7 ft will occur in the entrance, depending on direction of wave approach. b. Of the test plans involving a shore-connected outer north breakwater and a detached inner breakwater (Plans 1 through 14), Plan 14 (300-ft-long outer and 250-ft-long inner breakwaters) will meet the established 6.0-ft wave-height criterion in the existing entrance for design wave conditions from all directions. Wave heights in the entrance for waves from the predominant west-northwest direction will be 3.5 ft or less. c. Incremental removal of the Plan 14 outer breakwater (Plans 27 through 31) indicated that the 250-ft-long inner breakwater alone (Plan 31) would meet the established criterion for design wave conditions from all directions. Wave heights up to 5.8 ft will exist in the entrance for waves from the predominant west-northwest direction. d. Neither the outer shore-connected north breakwater and outer detached south breakwater (Plan 15) nor the outer detached south breakwater plans (Plans 16 through 18) will meet the established wave-height criterion for design wave conditions. Maximum wave heights will range from 7.4 to 11.2 ft in the existing entrance for these plans. e. Of the improvement plans involving a curved breakwater seaward of the existing entrance (Plans 19 through 22), the 450-ft-long Chapter 1 Introduction structure of Plan 22 will meet the established wave-height criterion for design wave conditions from all directions. Maximum wave heights of 6.0 ft will exist in the entrance for waves from the predominant west-northwest direction. f. Of the improvement plans involving two inner detached breakwaters (Plans 23 through 26), the 375-ft-long north structure and 250-ft-long south breakwater (Plan 26) will meet the established wave-height criterion in the entrance for design wave conditions from all directions. Wave heights in the existing entrance will be up to 5.8 ft for waves from the predominant west-northwest direction. Subsequent to testing of the supplemental tests, a conference was held at the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) with representatives in attendance from Noyo Harbor, the U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific (CESPD), and the U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco (CESPN). Wave height tests were conducted for an outer offshore breakwater config- uration provided by CESPN. Breakwaters were constructed expeditiously with mixed stone, and wave height tests were conducted for 11 test plan configurations (Bottin 1989). A plan which included a 400-ft-long struc- ture located in the cove approximately 2,000 ft from the river entrance looked promising; however, test results indicated there would be periods when 14-ft-high incident waves would exceed the 6.0-ft criterion and break in the entrance. Purpose of the Current Investigation The Noyo River and Harbor model was reactivated at the request of CESPN to refine the design of the 400-ft-long offshore structure tested during the 1989 conference. A breakwater with the appropriate transmis- sion characteristics was installed and subjected to a wide range of wave conditions. The impact of the structure on long-period wave conditions in the harbor and on wave-induced and riverine bed-load sediment patterns also was evaluated for the optimized structure. Wave-Height Criterion Completely reliable criteria have not yet been developed for ensuring satisfactory navigation and mooring conditions in small-craft harbors dur- ing attack by waves. For this study, however, CESPN specified that for an improvement plan to be acceptable, maximum significant wave heights were not to exceed 6.0 ft in the existing Noyo River jettied entrance for in- cident wave heights of 14 ft or less. Chapter 1 Introduction 2 The Model Design of Model The Noyo River and Harbor model (Figure 3) was constructed to an un- distorted linear scale of 1:75, model to prototype. Scale selection was based on such factors as: a. Depth of water required in the model to prevent excessive bottom friction. b. Absolute size of model waves. Available shelter dimensions and area required for model construction. 9 d. Efficiency of model operation. Available wave-generating and wave-measuring equipment. % f. Model construction costs. A geometrically undistorted model was necessary to ensure accurate re- production of wave and current patterns. Following selection of the linear scale, the model was designed and operated in accordance with Froude’s model law (Stevens et al. 1942). The scale relations used for design and operation of the model are shown in the following tabulation: Dimension’ e = 2 = 10, | 1 M, = L3 = 1:421,875 Test 218166 V, = Li’? = 1:8.66 | I | | | | Lvs n, = LI’ = 1:2.054 Q, aie =. 4:48\7414 Chapter 2 The Model ynoAe| japo~= =“ GuNnBig 1300 [eC aes ee 3AdALOLOYd Sdid HON 9-7 YALLINSNVYL ONY BEML MO1d DILaNDWW dWNd S40 € / \ \ i FICHE | ON \ FAO OAON AWH FLV: & PRS SS SSS ~ / / S ° RS S i) N 5 WoILd3ayIG 153M —HOLvy3Ng9~ 3AVM SIND 14 2 NO SONINSdO 'CIOJINVW did HONI 95, (M71) 83.1VM M07 ¥3M07 NV3W Ol 034Y3I3Y 1334 NI NMOHS SNOLLWA313 ONY SYNOLNOD '3.LON ig = + 14S2- Lid YOLVYSNIS SAVM Chapter 2 The Model The proposed breakwaters at Noyo included the use of concrete armor units (Accropodes). Since the porosity of these armor units differs from that of rock and since the units could not be reproduced to scale (due to cost and time requirements), two-dimensional wave transmission tests were conducted at a scale large enough to have negligible scale effects (i.e., 1:43) to deter- mine the correct transmission through the proposed structures. This transmis- sion then was duplicated at a scale of 1:75 using a rock cross section, and the three-dimensional model structures were built accordingly. These tests are detailed in Smith and Hennington (in publication). Parts of the existing jetties at Noyo River entrance are rubble-mound structures. Experience and experimental research have shown that consid- erable wave energy passes through the interstices of this type structure; thus, the transmission and absorption of wave energy became a matter of concern in design of the 1:75 scale model. In small-scale hydraulic models, rubble-mound structures reflect relatively more and absorb or dissipate rel- atively less wave energy than geometrically similar prototype structures (LéMéhauté 1965). Also, the transmission of wave energy through a rubble- mound structure is relatively less for the small-scale model than for the prototype. Consequently, some adjustment in small-scale model rubble- mound structures is needed to ensure satisfactory reproduction of wave- reflection and wave-transmission characteristics. In past investigations (Dai and Jackson 1966, Brasfeild and Ball 1967) at WES, this adjustment was made by determining the wave-energy transmission characteristics of the proposed structure in a two-dimensional model using a scale large enough to ensure negligible scale effects. A section then was developed for the small-scale, three-dimensional model that would provide essen- tially the same relative transmission of wave energy. Therefore, from pre- vious findings for structures and wave conditions similar to those at Noyo, it was determined that a close approximation of the correct wave-energy transmission characteristics would be obtained by increasing the size of the rock used in the 1:75-scale model to approximately 1.5 times that re- quired for geometric similarity. Accordingly, in constructing the rubble- mound structures in the Noyo River and Harbor model, the rock sizes were computed linearly by scale and then multiplied by 1.5 to determine the actual sizes to be used in the model. The values of Manning’s roughness coefficient, n, used in the design of the main river channel were calculated from water-surface profiles of known discharges in the prototype. From these computations and experi- ence, an n value of 0.030 was selected for use in the main river channel. In addition, based on experience, an n value of 0.050 was selected for overbank roughness. Therefore, based on previous WES investigations (Miller and Peterson 1953, Cox 1973), the various model areas from the Noyo Harbor entrance extending upstream were given finishes that would represent prototype n values of 0.030 and 0.050. Ideally, a quantitative, three-dimensional, movable-bed model investi- gation would best determine the effects of the proposed structures with regard to the deposition of sediment at the river mouth and in Noyo Cove. Chapter 2 The Model 10 However, this type of model investigation is difficult and expensive to conduct, and each area in which such an investigation is contemplated must be carefully analyzed. In view of the complexities involved in con- ducting movable-bed model studies and due to limited funds and time for the Noyo River and Harbor project, the model was modeled in cement mortar (fixed-bed) at an undistorted scale of 1:75, and a tracer material was obtained to qualitatively determine the deposition of riverine sedi- ment (degree of accretion, etc.) at the river mouth for existing conditions and the offshore breakwater plan. Model and Appurtenances The model reproduced the lower 15,000 ft of Noyo River, both Noyo Harbor and Dolphin Marina (located on the south bank), Noyo Cove, ap- proximately 5,500 ft of the California shoreline on each side of the river mouth, and underwater topography in the Pacific Ocean to an offshore depth of 60 ft with a sloping transition to the wave generator pit elevation of -75 ft. The total area reproduced in the model was approximately 12,000 sq ft, representing about 2.4 square miles in the prototype. A gen- eral view of the model is shown in Figure 4. Vertical control for model construction was based on mean lower low water.! Horizontal control was referenced to a local prototype grid system. Model waves were generated by a 45-ft-long piston-type generator. The horizontal movement of the piston plate caused a periodic displace- ment of water incident to this motion. The length of the stroke and the frequency of the piston plate movement were variable over the range nec- essary to generate waves with the required characteristics. In addition, the wave generator was mounted on retractable casters which enabled it to be positioned to generate waves from the required directions. A water circulation system (Figure 3) consisting of a 6-in. perforated- pipe water-intake manifold, a 3-cfs pump, and a magnetic flow tube and transmitter was used in the model to reproduce steady-state flows through the river channel that corresponded to selected prototype river discharges. An Automated Data Acquisition and Control System (ADACS), designed and constructed at WES (Figure 5), was used to secure wave-height data at selected locations in the model. Basically, through the use of a minicom- puter, ADACS recorded onto magnetic media the electrical output of capaci- tance-type wave gages that measured the change in water-surface elevation with respect to time. The magnetic media output of ADACS was then ana- lyzed to obtain the wave-height data. 1 F 2 2 5 All elevations (el) cited herein are in feet referred to mean lower low water (mllw) un- less otherwise cited. Chapter 2 The Model Figure 4. General view of model A 2-ft (horizontal) solid layer of fiber wave absorber was placed around the inside perimeter of the model to dampen any wave energy that might otherwise be reflected from the model walls. In addition, guide vanes were placed along the wave generator sides in the flat pit area to en- sure proper formation of the wave train incident to the model contours. As discussed previously, a fixed-bed model was constructed and a tracer material was selected to qualitatively determine the deposition of sediment in Noyo Cove and at the river mouth. Using the prototype sand characteristics (median diameter, D50 = 0.25 mm, specific gravity = 2.69), the tracer was chosen in accordance with the scaling of Noda (1972), which indicates a relation or model law among the four basic scale ratios, i.e., the horizontal scale, 1; the vertical scale, m; the sediment size ratio, nD; and the relative specific weight ratio, ny. These relations were deter- mined experimentally using a wide range of conditions and bottom materi- als. Although several types of movable-bed tracer materials were available at WES, previous investigations (Giles and Chatham 1974, Bottin and Chatham 1975) indicated that crushed coal tracer more nearly represented the movement of prototype sand. Therefore, quantities of crushed coal (specific gravity = 1.30; median diameter, D50 = 0.76 mm) were selected for use as a tracer material. Chapter 2 The Model 11 12 CHANNEL SELECTION CIRCUITRY LINES SELECTED FOR DISPLAY AND RECORDING CHANNEL SELECTION CIRCUITRY WAVE ROD AND POTENTIOMETER LINE PAIRS FOR EACH WAVE STAND CONTROL LINES TO WAVE ROO STANDS WAVE ROD SIGNAL AMPLIFIER q CALIBRATION POTENTIOMETER SIGNAL Figure 5. MULTIPLEXER AND ANALOG TO DIGITAL CONVERTER STRIP CHART RECORDERS WAVE STAND CALIBRATION STATUS LIGHTS WAVE STAND CONTROL * CIRCUITRY DIGITAL OUTPUT CONTROL LINES DIGITAL EQUIPMENT DISK / TAPE CONTROLLERS len WAVE GENERATOR DIGITAL TO ANALOG CONVERTER PROGRAMS, TEST PARAMETERS, AND DATA Automated Data Acquisition and Control System Chapter 2 The Model 3 Tests Conditions and Procedures Selection of Test Conditions Still-water level Still-water levels (swl’s) for wave action models are selected so that the various wave-induced phenomena that are dependent on water depths are accurately reproduced in the model. These phenomena include the re- fraction of waves in the project area, the overtopping of structures by the waves, the reflection of wave energy from various structures, and the transmission of wave energy through porous structures. In most cases, it is desirable to select a model swl that closely approxi- mates the higher water stages which normally occur in the prototype for the following reasons: a.. The maximum amount of wave energy reaching a coastal area normally occurs during the higher water phase of the local tidal cycle. b. Most storms moving onshore are characteristically accompanied by a higher water level due to wind tide and shoreward mass transport. c. The selection of a high swl helps minimize model scale effects due to viscous bottom friction. d. When a high swl is selected, a model investigation tends to yield more conservative results. The swl’s of 0.0 and +7.0 ft were selected by CESPN for use during model tests. The lower value (0.0 ft) represents mllw, and the upper value (+7.0 ft) represents a monthly occurrence at the site. The 0.0-ft swl was used during testing of riverine sediment patterns, and the +7.0-ft swl was Chapter 3 Tests Conditions and Procedures 13 14 used while testing long-period wave conditions. Both the 0.0- and the +7.0-ft swl’s were used for testing short-period storm wave conditions. Factors influencing selection of test-wave characteristics In planning the testing program for a model investigation of harbor wave-action problems, it is necessary to select dimensions and directions for the test waves that will allow a realistic test of proposed improvement plans and an accurate evaluation of the elements of the various proposals. Surface-wind waves are generated primarily by the interactions between tangential stresses of wind flowing over water, resonance between the water surface and atmospheric turbulence, and interactions between indi- vidual wave components. The height and period of the maximum wave that can be generated by a given storm depend on the wind speed, the length of time that wind of a given speed continues to blow, and the water distance (fetch) over which the wind blows. Selection of test wave condi- tions entails evaluation of such factors as: a. The fetch and decay distances (the latter being the distance over which waves travel after leaving the generating area) for various directions from which waves can attack the problem area. b. The frequency of occurrence and duration of storm winds from the different directions. c. The alignment, size, and relative geographic position of the navigation entrance to the harbor. d. The alignments, lengths, and locations of the various reflecting surfaces inside the harbor. e. The refraction of waves caused by differences in depth in the area seaward of the harbor, which may create either a concentration or a diffusion of wave energy at the harbor site. Wave refraction When wind waves move into water of gradually decreasing depth, trans- formations take place in all wave characteristics except wave period (to the first order of approximation). The most important transformations with respect to selection of test wave characteristics are the changes in wave height and direction of travel due to the phenomenon referred to as wave refraction. The change in wave height and direction is determined by using the numerical Regional Coastal Processes Wave Transformation Model (RCPWAVE) developed by Ebersole, Cialone, and Prater (1986). This model predicts the transformation of monochromatic waves over com- plex bathymetry and includes refractive and diffractive effects. The model is very efficient for modeling large areas of coastline subjected to Chapter 3 Tests Conditions and Procedures widely varying wave conditions and, therefore, is an extremely useful tool in the solution of many types of coastal engineering problems. When the refraction coefficient K, is determined, it is multiplied by the shoaling coefficient K, to yield a conversion factor for transfer of deepwa- ter wave heights to shallow-water values. The shoaling coefficient, a func- tion of wave length and water depth, can be obtained from the Shore Protection Manual (1984). Refraction and shoaling coefficients and shallow-water directions were obtained at Noyo for various wave periods from five deepwater wave di- rections (northwest counterclockwise through southwest) and are pre- sented in Table 1. Shallow-water wave directions and refraction coefficients represent an average of the values in the immediate vicinity of the Noyo site (approximately the location of the wave generator in the model). Shoaling coefficients were computed for an 81-ft water depth (75-ft pit elevation with 6-ft tide conditions superimposed) corresponding to the simulated depth at the model wave generator. The wave-height ad- justment factor K, x K, can be applied to any deepwater wave height to ob- tain the corresponding shallow-water value. Based on the refracted directions secured at the approximate locations of the wave generator in the model for each wave period, the following test directions (deepwater direction and corresponding shallow-water direction) were selected for use during model testing. Selected Shallow-Water Test Direction (Seo Southwest, 225 Prototype wave data and selection of test waves Measured prototype wave data on which a comprehensive statistical analysis of wave conditions could be based were unavailable for the Noyo Harbor area. However, statistical deepwater wave hindcast data represen- tative of this area were obtained from the Sea-State Engineering Analysis System (SEAS) by Corson (1985). Deepwater SEAS data are summarized in Table 2. These data were converted to shallow-water values by applica- tion of refraction and shoaling coefficients and are shown in Table 3. Characteristics of test waves, wave period and significant wave height, used in the model (selected from Table 3) are shown in the following tabulation: ke) Chapter 3 Tests Conditions and Procedures 16 — — Selected Test Waves Deepwater Direction Period, sec FMeignt to e | Northwest 8, 14, 20 | 6, 12, 20 Ht HT , | —_ —_ —_ NI N wo | 7 11 5 Ne eal 6, 10, 18 6, 14, 24 15 10, 14, 20, 30 10, 20, 28 8,14,20 asian | Ree 7 11 «a | = N [| Oo 10, 14, 20, 32 esaaieh al rrr aE mR Reset iit 1s sect in 13 17 10, 14, 20, 32 22 Chapter 3 Tests Conditions and Procedures River discharges The Noyo River drains an area of approximately 106 square miles. River discharge data obtained from water discharge records during the period 1952-1981 were available from a water-stage recorder gage located 3.5 miles east of the river mouth. Based on these data, the following river discharges and recurrence intervals were projected by SPN and simulated in the model. | vischarge, | cfs pBecurrence| intemal Interval, DD Analysis of Model Data Relative merits of the improvement plan were evaluated by: a. Comparison of wave heights at selected locations in the model. b. Comparison of sediment tracer movement and subsequent deposits. c. Visual observations and wave-pattern photographs. In the wave-height data analysis, the average height of the highest one- third of the waves, significant wave height, recorded at each gage location was computed. All wave heights were then adjusted to compensate for ex- cessive model wave-height attenuation due to viscous bottom friction by application of Keulegan’s equation. ! From this equation, reduction of wave heights in the model (relative to the prototype) can be calculated as a function of water depth, width of wave front, wave period, water viscos- ity, and distance of wave travel. G. H. Keulegan. (1950). “The gradual dampening of a progressive oscillatory wave with distance in a prismatic rectangular channel,” unpublished data, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, prepared at request of Director, WES, Vicksburg, MS, by let- ter of 2 May 1950. Chapter 3 Tests Conditions and Procedures 17 18 4 Tests and Results Tests Existing conditions Prior to testing of the improvement plan, tests were conducted for exist- ing conditions (Plate 1) to establish a base from which to evaluate the ef- fectiveness of the improvement plan. Short period wave-height data were obtained in the cove and harbor entrance and along the center lines of the proposed breakwaters (for design wave information) for the selected test wave conditions. Wave-pattern photographs were secured for representa- tive test waves from the five test directions, and riverine sediment tracer patterns were obtained for various river discharges as well as wave-induced sediment tracer movement and subsequent deposits. Long-period wave test data obtained for existing conditions in previous studies (Bottin, Acuff, and Markle 1988) were used for comparison of test results with the proposed plan. Improvement plan The improvement plan (Plate 2) consisted of a 400-ft-long offshore breakwater constructed in the cove approximately 2,000 ft from the Noyo River and Harbor jettied entrance. The breakwater had a crest el of +20 ft with side slopes of 1V:1.33H along the trunk and 1V:1.67H at the heads. As stated earlier, the structure was constructed of stone in the model, but represented an accropode armored structure (based on transmission charac- teristics obtained during two-dimensional model testing). Short-period wave-height tests, riverine and wave-induced sediment tracer patterns, and long-period wave tests, as well as wave-pattern photographs, were secured for the proposed improvement plan. Chapter 4 Tests and Results Short-period wave-height tests Wave-height tests for existing conditions and the improvement plan were conducted for the selected test waves and directions listed in Chap- ter 3. Wave gage locations are shown in Plates 1| and 2. Sediment tracer tests Riverine sediment tracer tests were conducted for existing conditions and the offshore breakwater plan using river discharges ranging from 7,000 to 41,000 cfs. Tracer material was introduced into the model in the lower reaches of the river to represent bed-load sediment. These tests were also conducted with various wave conditions from west and west- northwest superimposed for existing conditions and the offshore breakwa- ter plan. Wave-induced sediment tracer tests were also conducted for waves from northwest and southwest. Tracer material was introduced north and south of the cove to represent sediment along those shorelines. Long-period wave tests Long-period (60 to 200 sec) wave tests were conducted for the break- water improvement plan and compared with tests conducted previously (Bottin, Acuff, and Markle 1988) for existing conditions. These tests were conducted using test waves from the west. Two types of tests in- volved with investigating long-period waves are as follows: a. Frequency response tests involved the placement of wave sensors at strategic locations throughout the harbor to measure the amplitude of the oscillations. By plotting the ratio of the measured wave height at each gage to the incident wave height (response factor) versus the wave periods tested, frequency response curves showing resonant peaks were obtained. b. Surface-float tests were conducted using small white squares of styrofoam confetti to determine oscillation patterns. The confetti was spread over the surface of the channel and basins, and subsequent movement by each wave period was observed. Through visual observations, the oscillation patterns and location of nodes and antinodes were determined. Wave patterns Wave patterns (black and white photographs and color slides) were ob- tained for existing conditions and the offshore breakwater plan for repre- sentative test waves from the five selected test directions. Chapter 4 Tests and Results 19 20 Results In evaluating test results, the merits of the improvement plan were based on an analysis of measured wave heights in the harbor entrance. Model wave heights (significant wave heights or H7/3) were tabulated to show measured values at selected locations. Wave heights in the jettied entrance also were plotted graphically versus various wave conditions to show the impact of the offshore breakwater. The impact of the improve- ment plan on long-period wave conditions was determined through fre- quency response curves (response factor versus wave period), and the general movement of riverine sediment tracer material and subsequent de- posits was shown in photographs. Arrows were superimposed onto these photographs to depict sediment movement patterns. Short-period wave-height tests Results of short-period wave-height tests conducted for existing condi- tions are presented in Tables 4-13 for test waves from the five directions with the 0.0- and +7.0-ft swl’s. For the 0.0-ft swl, maximum wave heights! were 12.2 ft in the entrance (Gage 1) for 17-sec, 28-ft test waves from west; 27.1 ft at the proposed breakwater location (Gage 9) for 17-sec, 22-ft test waves from northwest; and 28.7 ft at the alternate breakwater lo- cation (Gage 5) from 17-sec, 20-ft test waves from west. For the +7.0-ft swl, maximum wave heights were 15.2 ft in the entrance for 13-sec, 22-ft test waves from west-northwest; 30.9 ft at the proposed breakwater loca- tion for 17-sec, 28-ft test waves from west-northwest; and 30.3 ft at the alternate breakwater location for 13-sec, 20-ft test waves from northwest. For waves of 14 ft or less (operational waves), maximum wave heights in the jettied entrance were 9.7 ft for 15-sec, 14-ft test waves from west- northwest and 17-sec, 10-ft test waves from west with the 0.0-ft swl. For the +7.0-ft swl, maximum wave heights in the entrance were 13.7 ft for 17-sec, 14-ft test waves from west-southwest and 13-sec, 14-ft test waves from southwest for waves of 14 ft or less. Typical wave patterns obtained for existing conditions are shown in Photos 1-20. Short-period wave-height test results conducted with the offshore breakwater plan installed are shown in Tables 14-23 for test waves from the five directions with the 0.0- and +7.0-ft swl’s. For the 0.0-ft swl, max- imum wave heights were 11.3 ft in the entrance for 19-sec, 22-ft test waves from west-northwest; and with the +7.0-ft swl, 14.6 ft in the en- trance for 15-sec, 30-ft test waves from west-northwest. For operational wave conditions (14-ft waves or less) maximum wave heights were 9.0 ft in the entrance for 15-sec, 14-ft test waves from west-northwest with the 0.0-ft swl; and 9.3 ft in the entrance for 11-sec, 14-ft test waves from west 1 6 ena : Refers to maximum significant wave heights throughout report. Chapter 4 Tests and Results with the +7.0-ft swl. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan are shown in Photos 21-40. Discussion of short-period wave tests Results of wave-height tests for existing conditions indicated rough and turbulent wave conditions in the cove and jettied entrance to Noyo River. Considering all test conditions, wave heights ranged from 22.0 to 30.9 ft at the proposed breakwater location in the cove and from 12.2 to 15.2 ft in the entrance, depending on incident wave direction. For opera- tional wave conditions (14-ft waves or less), wave heights ranged from 8.5 to 13.7 ft in the entrance from the various incident wave directions. Wave-height tests with the offshore breakwater plan installed revealed 8.7- to 14.6-ft waves in the entrance for the various incident wave direc- tions, considering all test conditions. For operational wave conditions, maximum wave heights ranged 6.3 to 9.3 ft in the entrance, depending on incident wave direction. Comparisons of maximum wave heights in the Noyo River jettied en- trance for existing conditions and the offshore breakwater plan are shown in Plates 3-12. Wave-height values for test waves from northwest with the 0.0- and +7.0-ft swl’s (Plates 3 and 4) and from west-northwest with the 0.0-ft swl (Plate 5) were similar for both existing conditions and the break- water plan. Most operational waves that exceeded the 6-ft wave-height criterion for existing conditions also exceeded it for the breakwater plan. Test results for waves from west-northwest with the +7.0-ft swl (Plate 6) revealed that 12- to 14-ft incident waves were within the established 6.0-ft criterion for the offshore breakwater plan and exceeded it for existing con- ditions. Results for test waves from west (Plates 7 and 8) indicated that the breakwater plan was slightly better than existing conditions; however, the wave-height criterion was still exceeded for several operational test wave conditions. In general, test waves from west-southwest (Plates 9 and 10) and southwest (Plates 11 and 12) resulted in significantly reduced wave heights in the entrance for the offshore breakwater plan versus exist- ing conditions. The wave-height criterion will be exceeded by some oper- ational wave conditions from west-southwest with the +7.0-ft swl (Plate 10). An analysis of maximum wave heights obtained in the jettied entrance for existing conditions and the offshore breakwater plan versus the num- ber of occurrences of 14-ft waves or less from Table 3 is shown in the fol- lowing tabulation: Chapter 4 Tests and Results 21 22 Based on the hindcast data in Table 3, total occurrences with incident waves of 14 ft or less were 35,585 for all five test directions. Occur- rences in which the 6.0-ft wave-height criterion in the jettied entrance is exceeded were 10,133 for existing conditions and 6,360 for the offshore breakwater plan (based on wave heights obtained in the model). These data indicate that for operational waves (14 ft or less) approaching from northwest counterclockwise to southwest, the criterion is currently ex- ceeded 28.5 percent of the time, and with the breakwater plan installed the criterion will be exceeded about 18 percent of the time. The breakwater plan will result in the entrance criterion being achieved 37 percent more of the time for operational wave conditions than it currently is for existing conditions. This is equivalent to about 23.5 days per year on the average. In summary, the offshore breakwater plan will increase the amount of time wave heights in the harbor entrance meet the 6.0-ft criterion; however, the criterion will not be met for all operational wave conditions. For all operational wave conditions (14 ft or less) generated in the model study, the values of the maximum wave heights in the entrance were averaged for existing conditions and the offshore breakwater plan. Average values per direction are shown in the following tabulation: Average Values of Operational Waves Direction Northwest Average Chapter 4 Tests and Results The average values of wave heights in the entrance for all operational wave conditions and all five directions are 6.2 ft for existing conditions and 4.5 ft for the offshore breakwater plan. These data indicate that the magnitude of the average wave height in the jettied entrance is decreased by about 27 percent as a result of the offshore breakwater. Sediment tracer tests Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions are shown in Photos 41-45 for river discharges ranging from 7,000 to 41,000 cfs with no waves. The 2-year discharge (7,000 cfs) barely moved the tracer mate- rial, but each successively larger flow resulted in tracer deposits further seaward in Noyo Cove. Sediment tracer patterns from the river with the offshore breakwater in- stalled are shown in Photos 46-50 for river discharges ranging from 7,000 to 41,000 cfs with no waves. Again, the 7,000-cfs discharge hardly moved the tracer material out of the river mouth, but successively larger discharges moved the material further seaward in the cove. The offshore breakwater prevented the maximum (41,000 cfs) discharge from moving the tracer material as far seaward as it moved under existing conditions. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions are shown in Photos 51-66 for river discharges ranging from 20,000 to 41,000 cfs with 13-sec, 14-ft and 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest and west. For waves from west-northwest (Photos 51-58), sediment tracer migrated sea- ward from the river entrance. Instead of moving directly down the axis of the channel, the material moved slightly northerly as it entered the cove. Successively larger discharges resulted in the material moving further sea- ward and into a counterclockwise eddy in the cove. For 13-sec, 14-ft test waves from west (Photos 59-62), riverine sediment patterns were similar to the west-northwest patterns. After clearing the jetties, material moved northerly, and larger discharges resulted in seaward migration of the mate- rial in a counterclockwise eddy. For 15-sec, 20-ft test waves (Photos 63- 66), however, material entering the cove moved slightly south of the jettied entrance and then into a clockwise eddy. The material did not move as far seaward in the cove for the larger discharges as it had done in previous tests. Sediment tracer patterns from the river with the offshore breakwater plan installed are presented in Photos 67-82 for 20,000- to 41,000-cfs river discharges with 13-sec, 14-ft and 15-sec, 20-ft test waves from west- northwest and west. For test waves from west-northwest (Photos 67-74), riverine sediment moved into a counterclockwise eddy immediately out- side the jettied entrance for the 20,000-cfs discharge. Successively larger discharges resulted in the material moving in a slightly northerly path to- ward the seaward head of the offshore breakwater. Larger discharges re- sulted in more seaward deposits. For 13-sec, 14-ft test waves from west (Photos 75-78), material migrated from the entrance toward the head of Chapter 4 Tests and Results 23 24 the offshore structure with the larger discharges moving the sediment fur- ther seaward. For 15-sec, 14-ft test waves from west (Photos 79-82), mate- rial moved into a counterclockwise eddy once in the cove, and larger discharges resulted in sediment movement and subsequent deposits more northerly in the vicinity of the seaward head of the offshore breakwater. Wave-induced sediment tracer patterns and subsequent deposits for ex- isting conditions are shown in Photos 83-86 for test waves from northwest and southwest. For waves from northwest, material generally moved into the cove and deposited in a clockwise eddy in the northern portion of the cove. Test waves from southwest resulted in material migrating into the cove and generally depositing in a counterclockwise eddy. Northwest waves moved the material further toward the center of the cove than did wave conditions from southwest. Results of wave-induced sediment tracer tests for the offshore breakwa- ter plan are presented in Photos 87-90 for test waves from northwest and southwest. For test waves from northwest, tracer material moved into the cove and deposited in a clockwise eddy in the northern portion similar to existing conditions. For waves from southwest, some sediment material migrated into the cove between the breakwater and the shoreline, and some deposited seaward of the breakwater in a counterclockwise eddy. Discussion of sediment tracer tests A comparison of riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing condi- tions and the offshore breakwater plan with no waves indicates that the patterns are similar, with the exception of the 100-year (41,000 cfs) dis- charge. The breakwater prevented the material from moving as far sea- ward in the cove as it did under existing conditions. A comparison of riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan with wave conditions from west-northwest and west indi- cates that the breakwater slightly changes the paths of migration and sub- sequent deposits for some river discharges and does not for others. For 13-sec, 14-ft test waves from west-northwest, tracer material moved fur- ther seaward into the cove without the breakwater in place, in particular for the 20,000- and 27,000-cfs discharges. The higher discharges (33,000 and 41,000 cfs) resulted in similar patterns for existing conditions and the breakwater plan for these wave conditions. For 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west, sediment moved straight out of the river into the cove with the break- water installed for the various discharges. Without the structure in place, material migrated more northerly after entering the cove. Successively larger discharges also resulted in material moving in a slightly more north- erly path than it did with the structure installed. For 15-sec, 20-ft test waves from west-northwest, sediment tracer patterns in the cove were sim- ilar for the various discharges both with and without the offshore struc- ture. These wave conditions from west resulted in material migrating slightly further seaward for the 27,000- to 41,000-cfs discharges with the Chapter 4 Tests and Results breakwater installed. In general, considering all test conditions, riverine sediment deposited in an area in the cove between the existing Noyo River jetties and the proposed structure location, whether the breakwater was in- stalled or not. A comparison of wave-induced sediment tracer tests for existing condi- tions and the offshore breakwater plan reveals that the breakwater had lit- tle effect on tracer patterns and subsequent deposits for test waves from northwest. For test waves from southwest, however, the breakwater re- sulted in a slight shift of the tracer path as it entered the cove. The break- water prevented the material from penetrating as deeply shoreward into the cove as it did under existing conditions. Long-period wave tests Long-period (60 to 200 sec) wave tests were conducted during previous studies (Bottin, Acuff, and Markle 1988) for existing conditions using waves from the west direction with a +7.0-ft swl. The gage arrangement for these tests is shown in Plate 13. To ensure accurate determination of incident wave height, the first 10 gages were placed in an array at the river entrance to measure nodes and antinodes of possible standing waves. The incident wave height was then calculated from the following relationship: H +d H ea a Sa eT i 2 where H; = incident wave height wave height at antinode H,, = wave height at node Test results obtained with the gage array were used to determine incident wave heights in the entrance and corresponding wave-machine stroke set- tings. During the tests, squares of styrofoam confetti were spread over the water surface and observed over the 60- to 200-sec period range. Areas of maximum horizontal movement (nodes) and minimum horizontal move- ment (antinodes) were identified through this series of visual observa- tions. Wave gages were placed in antinodal areas. Measured wave heights at a particular gage location were divided by the incident wave height for that period to obtain the response factor or R = H/H,. Fre- quency response (response factor versus wave period) curves were subse- quently plotted for Gages 11-20. Frequency response curves for existing conditions are shown in Plates 14-23. These test results indicate that resonant peaks (with amplifi- cation factors in excess of 1.0) will occur at various stations in Noyo Chapter 4 Tests and Results 25 26 River (Gages 11-15 and 19) for wave periods of 60, 90, 95, 110, 115, 130, 150, 155, 165, and 185 sec. Resonant peaks (with amplification factors in excess of 1.0) will occur in Noyo Harbor (Gages 16-18) for wave periods of 75, 95, 102.5, 115, and 155 sec. The maximum peak in Dolphin Marina (Gage 20) occurred for a 110-sec wave period with an amplification factor of 0.95. Frequency response curves obtained for the offshore breakwater plan also are shown in Plates 14-23. Results indicate that resonant peaks (with amplification factors in excess of 1.0) will occur at various stations in Noyo River for wave periods of 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 115, 120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 150, 155, 160, 165, 170, 175, 180, 185, 190, 195, and 200 sec. Resonant peaks with amplification factors greater than 1.0 will occur in Noyo Harbor for wave periods of 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 140, 145, 150, 155, and 160 sec. The maximum peak in Dolphin Marina occurred for a 140-sec wave period and had an amplification factor of 0.55. Discussion of long-period wave tests A comparison of long-period wave test results for existing conditions and the offshore breakwater plan indicates similar frequency response con- ditions in Noyo Harbor. Maximum response factors of 1.92 and 1.97 oc- curred for existing conditions and the breakwater plan, respectively, in the southern corner of the harbor (Gage 16). In some cases, response factors were slightly larger for existing conditions for some wave periods, and in other instances, they were slightly larger for the offshore breakwater plan for some wave periods. In general, it appears that construction of the off- shore breakwater will not have any negative impacts on surge conditions in Noyo Harbor. Maximum response factors of 0.95 and 0.55 occurred in Dolphin Ma- rina for existing conditions and the offshore breakwater plan, respectively. Frequency response over the entire period range was generally slightly lower for the offshore breakwater plan than for existing conditions. A comparison of frequency response in Noyo River indicated maxi- mum values of 2.9 and 2.33, respectively, for existing conditions and the offshore breakwater plan. In the lower reaches of the river, however, for some period ranges the offshore breakwater plan resulted in slightly larger frequency response values with wider peaks than existing conditions did. Since surging has not been a problem in this area in the prototype, it is not expected to become a problem with the offshore breakwater installed. Chapter 4 Tests and Results 3 Conclusions Based on the results of the hydraulic model investigation reported herein, it is concluded that: a. Existing conditions are characterized by rough and turbulent wave conditions in the Noyo River entrance. Maximum wave heights ranged from 8.5 to 13.7 ft in the entrance for operational conditions (incident waves with heights of 14 ft or less) and from 12.2 to 15.2 ft for extreme conditions (waves up to 32 ft in height), depending on incident wave direction. . The offshore breakwater plan will result in maximum wave heights ranging from 6.3 to 9.3 ft in the entrance for operational wave conditions and 8.7 to 14.6 ft for extreme conditions, depending on incident wave direction. The offshore breakwater plan will not meet the 6.0-ft wave-height criterion in the entrance for all incident waves of 14 ft or less (operational conditions). Based on hindcast data, however, the breakwater plan will result in the criterion being achieved 37 percent more of the time than it currently is for existing conditions when operational waves are present. This is equivalent to an average of 23.5 days per year. The magnitude of the average wave height in the jettied entrance will be decreased by about 27 percent as a result of the offshore breakwater for operational waves. . With no waves present, the offshore breakwater resulted in riverine sediment patterns similar to those obtained for existing conditions except for the 100-year (41,000 cfs) discharge. For this condition, the breakwater prevented material from moving as far seaward in the cove as it did under existing conditions. With waves present from west-northwest and west, the offshore breakwater slightly changes the paths of migration and subsequent deposits for some river discharges and does not for others. In general, considering all test conditions, riverine sediment will deposit in an area in the cove between the existing jettied entrance 27 Chapter 5 Conclusions 28 and the proposed structure location, both with and without the breakwater installed. f. The offshore breakwater will not interfere with the migration of wave-induced sediment into the cove for waves from northwest; however, for waves from southwest, the breakwater will prevent some sediment from penetrating as deeply shoreward in the cove as it did under existing conditions. g. The offshore breakwater plan will have no adverse impact on surge conditions due to long-period wave energy in Noyo Harbor, Dolphin Marina, and the lower reaches of the river. Chapter 5 Conclusions References Bottin, R. R., Jr. (1989). “Noyo Harbor model conference and test re- sults,” Memorandum for Record, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex- periment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Bottin, R. R., Jr., and Chatham, C. E. (1975). “Design for wave protec- tion, flood control, and prevention of shoaling, Cattaraugus Creek Har- bor, New York; Hydraulic model investigation,” Technical Report H-75-18, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicks- burg, MS. Bottin, R. R., Jr., and Mize, M. G. (1989). “Noyo River and Harbor, Cali- fornia, design for wave protection, supplemental tests; Coastal model investigation,” Technical Report CERC-89-18, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Bottin, R. R. Jr., Acuff, H. F., and Markle, D. G. (1988). “Noyo River and Harbor, California, design for wave and surge protection; Coastal model investigation,” Technical Report CERC-88-15, U.S. Army Engi- neer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Brasfeild, C. W., and Ball, J. W. (1967). “Expansion of Santa Barbara Harbor, California; Hydraulic model investigation,” Technical Report No. 2-805, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicks- burg, MS. Corson, W. D. (1985). “Pacific Coast hindcast deepwater wave informa- tion,” WIS Report 14, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta- tion, Vicksburg, MS. Cox, R. G. (1973). “Effective hydraulic roughness for channels having bed roughness different from bank roughness: A state-of-the-art re- port,” Miscellaneous Paper H-73-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Dai, Y. B., and Jackson, R. A. (1966). “Design for rubble-mound break- waters, Dana Point Harbor, California; Hydraulic model investigation,” Technical Report No. 2-725, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi- ment Station, Vicksburg, MS. References 29 Ebersole, B., Cialone, M., and Prater, M. (1986). “Regional coastal pro- cesses numerical modeling system; Report 1, RCPWAVE A linear wave propagation model for field use,” Technical Report CERC-86-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Giles, M. L., and Chatham, C. E. (1974). “Remedial plans for prevention of harbor shoaling, Port Orford, Oregon; Hydraulic model investiga- tion,” Technical Report H-74-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exper- iment Station, Vicksburg, MS. LéMéhauté, B. (1965). “Wave absorbers in harbors,” Contract Report No. 2-122, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicks- burg, MS, prepared by National Engineering Science Company, Pasa- dena CA. Miller, I. E., and Peterson, M. S. (1953). “Roughness standards for hy- draulic models: Study of finite boundary roughness in rectangular flumes,” Technical Memorandum No. 2-364, Report 1, U.S. Army Engi- neer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Noda, E. K. (1972). “Equilibrium beach profile scale-model relation- ship,” Journal, Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal Engineering Divi- sion, American Society of Civil Engineers, 98(WW4), 511-528. Shore Protection Manual. (1984). 4th ed., 2 Vols, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Smith, E. R., and Hennington, L. (in publication). “Noyo Harbor, Califor- nia, breakwater stability and transmission tests,” Technical Report CERC-94- , U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicks- burg, MS. Stevens, J. C., et al. (1942). “Hydraulic models,” Manuals of Engineer- ing Practice No. 25, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco. (1979). “Plan of study for advance engineering and design, Noyo River and Harbor, Mendocino County, California,” San Francisco, CA. 30 References Shallow-Water Refraction’ Shoaling? Wave-Height | | Wave Period, sec Azimuth, deg Coefficient Coefficient Adjustment Factor | ae ohne eete rst kaa Norliwes SiSdeuht cor ett | Northwest, 315 deg 2 fe) ~ ro.) ° © —_ N ° co) oS © —_ a (Pee @ © N wo NI _ iii o N _ I ! i} | | | | I i i} | | i | © o o-) fea | pare —_ | | o!]N oo |= N | ~ © ee RS pS ° rt) © o ° wo o © nm | o@ |o@ a ln N | _ Bal ° ro) ORES wo N —_ ° © N N 1.054 N mM | M NIN o|s i —_ o | oO oO | | S/o }o] Ore —_ N 1 | i] i) ~N i=) pS oO o N [e*) i=) © N _ (eudies —_ | N o |= | © | iN S/o Solinelisalis ° © © = ° io @ co) 270.6 0.975 evant Tee Mees tt | : = paren nn mals MS : o i=) o © © ao oa o oO i=) © o N _ = N Saoe TS o o o i=) N for) (Continued) Table 1 (Concluded) SE — Shallow-Water Refraction Shoaling Wave Period, sec Aximuth, deg Coefficient Coefficient Wave-Height Adjustment Factor Southwest, 225 deg 0.988 (€ 40 £ yaeys) "G6 1-9S61 Poued 10} palidwoo seouesino99 ; esg'zz o9e'2 eo. | 8ze'h pLL Eloy g'ze< 8'Ze-S'6z S'62-2'92 \ 292-622 92 PL 622-9'6| H _| Loe ¢9 9p 9°61-€°91 | eceaaca QpZ't lve Bel gt €'91-0'EL meen 6r9'e oz! 6L ee eus't opp'y 99 zoe 09 sz6 ose 902 6z S JSOMYTION-ISEM lZiph z zs Sees z9e'L sye'e gle'z or0'9 [e10) z z 2'92-6- 22 lp et im f al ol 622-961 161 6 ze 0z tL | 89 fl 9°61-€°91 916 —s ee at +81 stil Lye ey gcz Set €'91-0'E1 giz'z See Ree ae Lt 996 SLL zso'l y9-Le sz 9 Se emMYYON e101 LBb-p'st ester CEL-B'LE L'Lb-9°0L S‘0l-1'8 WW ‘IuBleH enem 90S ‘polled anes sed jSeouesins99 pejzedipu] SUO!}I9IIG 84} WO} JOGQJe} OAON Hulyoeoiddy (jjams pue eas) sevem, Ja}emdaeqg Jo epnyiubew peyewnsy @ aqeL (e $0 Z jeays) vt 6 Zaz eres | 6L 622-961 els S zal r01 ZL aoe 9°61-€°91 eS — € sez gz 68 ee e'9L-0'eL 129 bao Z rm 162 $9 16 O'el-2'6 sie i Sa 6 lzk elt +9 Le-v'9 Ve-0 JSemMYyINOS-}seM 5 609'8 682 zzz sole 192'2 20S poz |SCPIOL @ v @ G'62e-2'92 POL Sar | OL oe \ 9°61-€°91 682 $s oz e°9L-0'e! e 2st bez) oO ce Ss 1e-0 sem 1e}0L fers b’Sb-b'St E'Sb-p'eb CEL-O LE Zbb-9OL S'OL-L'8 uy ‘WUBIeH onem | = Tt oO oO - = laa | 90S ‘pojied eaem sed seduesinds09 (panuluod) z aiqeL J (€ 40 € jaeys) OvI'L Z 68 261 Sle 192 102 leI0L | ee eee 8 z aze-se2 seceoccreainietias ee ead] e 6 Seaver eee ee im Lp 2°92-6'22 1e-0 ysemMUNOS Lal-b'sh e'st-b'er C'EL-B LL ZbL-9°01 S‘Ol-1'8 0'8-b'b Uy WUBIeH even 285 ‘pojJeg ene Jed seouedN900 (pepnjauod) z ajqeL (g 40 | yeous) 'GZ61-9961 poled 10) pojjdwoo seouesINI9O \ OB 8-9 JOMUVON 908 'pojiod enum 40d ,Beous1no99 . poyeojpuy SUO}oe11q OY} WO JOGUeH OAON Buyyoeoiddy (jams pue Beg) SeAeM J9}eM-MOj|eYS JO epnyubew poyeuysy € 91qeL (g 40 z eays) 02-81 pl-at a N wo vv ISOMYHON-ISOM 908 ‘pojied eABM Jed se0ueINI99 (g Jo € jeays) 609'8 682 Zpe'z Sa 192'2 20S poz e104 a | ot veze eee =o] el z + =e € 06-82 ’ z aS z 92-92 ozt Pe | zg € 9z-bz ee a SS Se es ne ——— asz $9 rh fl zoe | 6E0'L —— = pOL 992 \ | 02-81 Cee 04 08 B18) sal gse'z es a vee LiL eez ¢s 02 ol-rl r6s't — ee eee eee ve ase 126 giz zs 01-8 1S 1S 8-9 rie zz 1Sh Sel o-p = isem | = wien | bel-b'sh e'St-p'eb Cele LE riser] sorre | 08h" uy IUBIeH enem 98S ‘pojied eve Jed SeduesINIIO = (penuijuod) € aqeL | (S 30 p keys) ss9'z oe Ley bez 998 18e Ole [e}0L [pera Fo Reerrae wey oem at ee ee ee zoe | = es Se eee para aaeeal ee [eee eel | ge Spl el ZI: S| €9 8 22-02 Zee @ 02-81 6ZL vol eZ aE 81-91 08 a4 see : e a | 46 vl-ch L6z s9 Zt-OL =] ebb 9 01-8 vi 8-9 Se t ve oF JSOMUYINOS-]SeM == [801 cei< bSt-p°St ESL-veL CEL-B LL ZL LL-9OL S'OL-b'8 O'8-b'b Us WBIeH eaem 98S ‘poyied eABM Jed SeoueIINIIO ———= 4 nn wo a Kn wo od o ~ N - ———| (panunuod) ¢ a1qeL =) 7 ee (g $0 § jeays) 9PL'h @ 68 a c6L SZe 282 Loe 1e}0) ae dt 6 92-%e € € 9-7 aa ysemuNoSs aay SOL-L'8 vb ‘yBleH eae 18301 ZBL< L'Ob-b'St SL-beL SELB Lb Zbb-9'OL 90S ‘pojied eABM 10d Se9Ue1INI99 (papnjau0d) ¢§ ajqeL ebb ert e'9l 002 6'ce 6h 66 Sr 6:02 681 e'2z Pr) pees) SOL z'6 v6 ii 9°0L | get | ier 8'2z ZZk 6'bh Ob) 22 Z'01 Ee eas) Liz Zz 8S} BEL bh 6'2z 88 O'eL VLb vied Ol 6b} 8'SL e Lh Lk L‘Ob a eon Baer zZk LoL 9°81 9 z's eS 9°9 $9 8 06 g's EL 8'6 6zZh z6L Liz O'SI vith 6h 6 LL OZ gz) gz) oe si] O'vL eb zs oe oz 8 Z ZL eben LL e6e5 | o1 a6e5 6 a6ey g abe y-)°)-13) 9 aBey cg e6bey py ebey Z aHey L eBey YW oas 14B19H Pojsad Wy ‘1YBjaH aAeM SABM ISAL Lea 0°0 = IMS ‘JSOMYWON WOd} SAARAA ISA] 10} SUOINIPUOD BuNsixy 10) s}ybIey ane v aiqeL oe See ee ee orc €0Z 0's} 9°91 9°81 Farad o'8L ost Let LOL zz ] [| So |- oan | oan) L6h | Sra Lk $91 702 Leh 66 Ze eZ 61 | ete] eat] see | ove [= cer] y9l Gkz L6L $02 eLt LL y'0l Hy eos ce $02 ecco) |e 891 6% ara 8°61 oe vel £01 | Sell ois | ar) gst vLh LOL L142 vk Ozt vzh | an een | ea eLt : 66h 2 LOL er OL “sr Zeb ELL OSL 0°91 evk vel 622 Oe zz vl ebL Ol e'9L eS} Sl vl vk vk ze S°6 16 SOL eZ 66 Lp zy 9 el Eyal [= Sor] aan sel a0) Ozh 9°91 0'91 v2 701 [cet | | '0z Z'9L L'zh Zeb vk op | | ee ee ed Z 6z 9 HE] Zab Leb eb z'8h Ger vol Loz 8k ObL 90h 06 OLb [Sao 69 zs [eS on) | et | Z'6 eek v'0z oa 6'El fae 8°02 EE a 69 Qt 16 19 Ov z's vs GZ Qe 6S zg ez v2 8 Z cad LL e6esy | o1 eben 6 aBey cua 2 e6ey 9 aBey g eben p eben € e6ey Z a6ey L aBey YW | Soa | 1yBjaH polied YW ‘WYyBjaH eae SABA SAL 4 0°0 = IMS ‘JSAMYWON-ISEM WO1) SAAPAA ISA] 10J SUOI}IPUOD Huljsixy 10) s}UBIay SARA g a1qeL 8°Sl Zvl 9°91 St BEL ev vel ok SLi ovl OVI Cp 2) pe & o Zyl 2 9l LY Ztk ech bs ZL a6ey evi eLt b6L 28k kee € v02 SSI a] e9 8h “St i SLL Ste 6cl vst Sl “gs Lb Zyt 6 vl 9°9L Z 6h eel 9SI GLb ve | LL eben | 01 eben Zyl OZt ° ~ 6 e6ey 6'S1 Sh 9°8L vel SOL Lhe el? och SEL acl VLE 0 Zt O'vL Ge), C2) Oe | O| o 2 Ol ech Ge o ° = ev 9°6 o€ s'8 02 06 vl 8I NN = N N Kn rc = vi g aber 7-)°):19) 9 abey G e6ey p e6ey € ebey ie Zz abey L abe | as é PO}sed Uy ‘TYBJaH ave BABA SAL 13 0°0 = IMS ‘JSOAA WO’ SOAP S92] 10} SUOI}IDUOD Bunsixy JO} s} ybIaH OACAA 9 a/qeL OLE vel Ze orale 16 skh 9'St rae Let 8'rh vv a vl eS Let 9'EL vel 26 cae 6 Lt 28 ZL eben ere ramet are BEL 9'eL vk ost 8°81 16 O'bt 8'ZI 8'0l O'Lt Lak LOL 6 Lt GLb 6'6 Le "St 06 wi LL e6ey SOL 60 vel O61 26h e 9b Bch 6 vl eel 8'8l S'6h OVI OSI 0'€2 6 LL 6 9b Oc oh 8°9L 9°Sk Lvl och Syl OVE GLt 661 Bel Gt REA Lvl Z8L 6 El Ol? Z9L LOL cvh 8°0l eel bok ost ssl ev 6SL 661 Z6l vt 6 Ll ale 6 vl v6L och 8°9l 691 vel VEL e vb Oel bch ZGt a S vl vel O'9L 0°61 vile 8'Sl LZt b'vk O91 vst eZ Lyk b’Sh LOL e38 Lvl “tt SOL est (aac) cek OZh Leh 8 ZI 8°0l se Ss 6v he ee vv cv Sel 8 el 9°91 OSI cel 9EL cial 6 SI eZ BL 8 bs 08 6 e6ey g ebey 2 e6ey 9 e6ey5 Gg abe YW ‘TyBaH eae Ss8L 6 SI 6 LL Z8 82 OLI 6 vk vor L's 02 9°02 LOL (aaa 96 vl ZI 8st 8°0L S'6 e8 ce eet vel 6'0l 06 02 6h Lvl OLE 62 vl evi Zeb ZO0L 06 OL SI 9b vol 66 G2 ce SOL 87k O?cl 68 02 VI vel VIL 62 vl OOL cel ol L'6 OL el ZSt Leb BL 6S 0€ O?L BLL s'6 el 0c ect Och OLE v9 vi 26 vob Z8 Zs OL LL O'Sl 8°Ol GL 9°9 oe S vl 8 v8 €9 vi ee Ke Le vl 9 6 SL SEL v6 9°9 02 6 Eel 06 Zs 67 vl vs 8's 87 vv 8 Z y e6e5 € obey z a6ey L een yu 9as 1469H pojiad ABM ISAL . 0'0 = IMS ‘JSOMUINOS-]SA/M\ WO’) SAAC ISA] 10} SUOIIPUOD BHuljsixy 10} SJYBHIOH BAeAA Z9iqel eLh | gor] vst Lh ZOb Leh g'0z e'6l L'6L e'vl S'6 zz Li 8'Ol 6 ze ev 8'OL LL t+ o;rT i=) o| + - | N | | oO polled yy ‘WYBaH ane OABA\ 1SOL 0'0 = IMS ‘JSAMUINOS WO SAAPAA ISAL 10} SUOI}IPUOD HuNSIxy 10) S}yUBIOH SAC g age 8Zh L6h ae ee Zeb eel cea 9'Zh 9'6 $9 Lg ge Zk 61 | a ee we ee ape a epee w6IeH | — pojed ¥ ‘IyBJaH aAeM SABM SAL Wy O'Z+ = [MS ‘JSOMUWON WOl SAABA ISAL 10) SUONIPUOD HulIsIxy 10) s}yBIo}H eAeM 6 a1qeL [ es och | ere) Llz Sk O'6h 0°02 192 S'6l zh 6bh gz) zz alt Z9L 2 6t OZ 9°OL + wo - o © - My Nn - ise) o - vel eLL 88h ost | est vel | kee far vst Sh L0¢ Nn N N Nn r = o 6K al Ss (S) = wee) ve “Zh Phe 3 - = Ge iS fe) fe) ras ZZb | esi 9°EL | eh 8°91 Zt e6ey | LL e6e5| o1 eben 6 e6e5 = g a6e5 2 e6e5 9 e6ey g e6e5 py abe € eben Zz abey L a6ey u as 14B12H pojied YW ‘IYBjay eae aABM 1SAL WOLF = IMS ‘JISOMUMON-]SO/AA WO1J SOACAA ISAL 10} SUOIIPUOD Hullsixy JO} s}UubIOH SACK OL e1geL 4) Kn a foe) J nw vT S nN o wv Kn oO bs wo t+ ps - o - = oI I 90S pojied LL 9/QEL}. ces eeccn 0°92 6'8l eLL vb Lg | Set] ree | $02 | ate, eS} Pa Obb Sarg ooh FP eecce pene e6l 6'EL TES, | ooze | sZt eters reo seh Zzzh gel | 9 6LL cel aon L'6L Pam Leh ara ES e8| | Sty SESE) ay ees © N f=) N Zt N o vt - oO N + - fo) = SI 6 ey eZ 08 6 SOL Sen a Lh 08h Sl Let Sel ze S81 SOL Zk zel oz ‘02 Z6L as KR - Nn ce) - N oO — nu 3 fo) a — ia - °o ~~ ~ Ww) = Kn w - “Lb | eat 9'EL Sen) po|ied zi ebey| 11 e6e5| 1 obey oe g abe ee 9 abey SAB ISAL HW O'Zt = IMS ‘JSA@MUINOS-}]SAM WOl SEAPAA ISA] 10} SUOIIPUOD BHuljsixy 40) S}yBIa}] aAeM cl a1geL 8 Zt 2 2as vst ele Lyk Z6L 96h cvh O'eL 26 0'S2 Z8t 8°02 6'ce 6'S2 ole c' 6h L'6h 6 vl (44 Zi 8 Sh 7°02 9°62 v'b2 bbz o'r} BEL een eee) 6°02 Z6L ‘ve vr 202 Let z'02 Ss 9°22 Let r2l eal St : L'2z Lez = ez L'0z [= ares) eyal “bh EL GEL Lee LL ree sel z'6L z°Sh ; : 2} o o!;o ZO ebb bZ vs 87 v6 62 OEL Lv 256 8 Z zt e6ey| Leben! 1 eben 6 e6ey g e6e5 2 e6e5 9 ebey G e6e5 z e6ey T L e6ey % y das WH1eH polled Y ‘YBloy aACAR SABAA SOL W.O°Z+ = [MS ‘yS@MYyINOS WOd} SOAR ISO] 10} SUOI]IPUOD Buljsixy JO} s]ubieH SABA EL ajqeL [from = swi = 0.0 ft | Test wave | Wave Wave Height, ft | | | i | | i} l I Table 15 Wave Heights for the Offshore Breakwater Plan for Test Waves from West-Northwest, swi = 0.0 ft Test Wave Wave Height, ft sec —| lTable 16 |Wave Heights for the Offshore Breakwater Plan for Test Waves lfrom a swil = 0.0 ft Test | TestWave | Wave Height, ft fal lind eld wl nl acd | sec Ni o — — A ot (e) Oo oa [eo fos [os ou oS a|~n|~ oOo }]o | —_ S| @ N | & z bh = o N ~ o oO Oo —_ —_ yy i) pS fo.) ro.) N a a . yy N iy N oy ° —_ —_ a © —_ ale N —_ —_ x ; ro) N =k N N ( oF 2° ras) ° —_ Eales N aS N o ie) —_ C Lb) a — 3 N o Oo oO —_ —_ 14 6.0 6.9 8.6 7.6 a i) i) i N a fo>) o}rn N | @ —_ —_ 1 ow o;A fo) ro) N ro) o}o oo + SEO re tee Table 19 Wave Heights for the Offshore Breakwater Plan for Test Waves from Northwest, swl = +7.0 ft Test Wave Wave Height, ft Period Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage sec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v [2 [ee fo [naa [va foe far [vr [eo fos or —_ Ts nN 9 ro —_ Ba [A = wo = >! . oS fo.) fo) N ro) ° pS oO =_y Le) ny o N = (ev) aS = £ = N =_ oO = _ pS o N aR = ip o -S = ° “I io Ge mA ° Table 20 Wave Heights for the Offshore Breakwater Plan for Test Waves from West-Northwest, swl = +7.0 ft Test Wave ’ Wave Height, ft Period | Height | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage Gage sec ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Table 21 Wave Heights for the Offshore Breakwater Plan for Test Waves from west, swl = +7.0 ft Test Wave Wave Height, ft sec |e [ae [oe [oo [oe [re [or for lor _ N o one . Oo ua Table 22 “| Wave Heights for the Offshore Breakwater Plan for Test Waves from West-Southwest, swi = +7.0 ft Test Wave Wave Height, ft Period | Height | Gage | Gage sec ft 1 2 Gage | Gage | Gage 6 7 8 pe fos fon fe _[ne_ [oz foo fie [ow be [edie Joes eo SE Table 23 Wave Heights for the Offshore Breakwater Plan for Test Waves |from Southwest, swl = +7.0 ft H H Test Wave Wave Height, ft | | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage | Gage 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a0 [oe [eo [oe [or for [or] 3. 0.1 Period sec G 1 2 a age 9 4 fw : fa lee [or [se [oe [ar [ow [or for _| > [eo [sa [se [es lar [oo [oe [or | pe fe les [oo [oe [se [oe [ar [oe [or fa fen [er [ss [a7 [sr [os foo [oz [= les [sr [2s [roe [7s [oe [oa [os nfo [es [es [se [oo [oe [eo foe os fe oe ee Uath 8.0 4.9 5.2 0.4 0.2 fe jer_[ee [or [oe [oo [so [ow for us = i aaa efor 15 =| 17 22 6.9 8.3 10.7 14.9 13.8 9.2 0.7 0.3 (REO I: | Photo 1. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 9-sec, 20-ft waves from northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 2. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 14-ft waves from northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 3. __ Typical wave patterns for exixting conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from northwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 4. ‘Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 17-sec, 22-ft waves from northwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 5. ‘Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 6. ‘Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 17-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 7. ‘Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 8. _ Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 9. _—‘ Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 10. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 11. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 12. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 13. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 11-sec, 20-ft waves from west-southwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 14. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-southwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 15. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 20-ft waves from west-southwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 16. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 14-ft waves from west-southwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 17. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 11-sec, 20-ft waves from southwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 18. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 14-ft waves from southwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 19. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from southwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 20. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from southwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 21. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 9-sec, 20-ft waves from northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 22. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 14-ft waves from northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 23. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from northwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 24. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 17-sec, 22-ft waves from northwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 25. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 26. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 27. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, -14-ft waves from west; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 28. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 29. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 11-sec, 20-ft waves from west-southwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 30. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-southwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 31. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 20-ft waves from west-southwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 32. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 14-ft waves from west-southwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 33. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 11-sec, 20-ft waves from southwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 34. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 14-ft waves from southwest; swl = 0.0 ft iL Photo 35. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from southwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 36. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from southwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 37. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 38. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 17-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 39. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 40. Typical wave patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = +7.0 ft Photo 41. Riverine sediment patterns for existing conditions; 7,000-cfs river discharge Photo 42. Riverine sediment patterns for existing conditions; 20,000-cfs river discharge Photo 43. Riverine sediment patterns for existing conditions; 27,000-cfs river discharge Photo 44. Riverine sediment patterns for existing conditions; 33,000-cfs river discharge Photo 45. Photo 46. Riverine sediment patterns for existing conditions; 41,000-cfs river discharge Riverine sediment patterns for offshore breakwater plan; 7,000-cfs river discharge Photo 47. Riverine sediment patterns for offshore breakwater plan; 20,000-cfs river discharge Photo 48. Riverine sediment patterns for offshore breakwater plan; 27,000-cfs river discharge Photo 49. Photo 50. Riverine sediment patterns for offshore breakwater plan; 33,000-cfs river discharge Riverine sediment patterns for offshore breakwater plan; 41,000-cfs river discharge Photo 51. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 20,000-cfs river discharge Photo 52. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 27,000-cfs river discharge Photo 53. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 33,000-cfs river discharge Photo 54. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 41,000-cfs river discharge Photo 55. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 20,000-cfs river discharge Photo 56. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 27,000-cfs river discharge Photo 57. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 33,000-cfs river discharge aaa Ce Photo 58. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 41,000-cfs river discharge Photo 59. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 20,000-cfs river discharge Photo 60. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 27,000-cfs river discharge Photo 61. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 33,000-cfs river discharge Photo 62. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 41,000-cfs river discharge Photo 63. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 20,000-cfs river discharge Photo 64. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 27,000-cfs river discharge Photo 65. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 33,000-cfs river discharge Photo 66. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 41,000-cfs river discharge Photo 67. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 20,000-cfs river discharge Photo 68. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 27,000-cfs river discharge Photo 69. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 33,000-cfs river discharge a SF Photo 70. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 41,000-cfs river discharge Photo 71. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 20,000-cfs river discharge ee Photo 72. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 27,000-cfs river discharge Photo 73. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 33,000-cfs river discharge Photo 74. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west-northwest; swl = 0.0 ft, 41,000-cfs river discharge Photo 75. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 20,000-cfs river discharge Photo 76. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 27,000-cfs river discharge Photo 77. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 33,000-cfs river discharge Photo 78. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 41,000-cfs river discharge Photo 79. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 20,000-cfs river discharge Photo 80. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 27,000-cfs river discharge Photo 81. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 33,000-cfs river discharge Photo 82. Riverine sediment tracer patterns for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from west; swl = 0.0 ft, 41,000-cfs river discharge Photo 83. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 84. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 85. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for existing conditions; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from southwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 86. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for existing conditions; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from southwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 87. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 88. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from northwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 89. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for the offshore breakwater plan; 13-sec, 14-ft waves from southwest; swl = 0.0 ft Photo 90. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for the offshore breakwater plan; 15-sec, 20-ft waves from southwest; swl = 0.0 ft I seal Rs Ui Wak te AdALOLONd SS ee '4 0001 00s [°) SIWIS SNOILIGNOS ONILSIXS UNIAN IAOD NHS TOG 00s Z g Am a or 390148 TON AMH 31V1S (M11) ¥31VM MO ¥Y3MO1 NV3W O1 03443534 1333 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 ONV SYNOLNOD : 3LON NOILVDON 3999 @ ONS95S7 Plate 1 44 000! YNISVW JAOD NiHd 100 S [-) 3dALOLO¥d 00S 0 SIWIS NW Id YSLVMyVSYs AYOHS340 00S “(W111N) Y3LVM MOT Y3MO1 NV3W OL O3YY3I39N 1335 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SYNOLNOD | 3LON NOILV9O1 3909 @ ONISST 39014e TON AMH 31VLS Plate 2 14 0°0= 1MS ‘LSSAMHLYON WOYS NV1d YSLVMVSYe NOIWALIHO LHOISH 3AVM AYOHSASO SHL GNV SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS HOS TSANNVHO NVid USLVMAVINE SYOHSIIO JONVYLNA NI SLHSISH SAVM WNWIXVW 40 NOSIYVdNOO SEE D829) TELS GN39371 NOILIGNOD SAVM Ne “ x 4; xn” wy 9 yy yy onranroomarwonwzranreo Frrerrrrr re 14‘ LHDISH SAVM Plate 3 14 0°4+ = IMS ‘LSSAMHLYON WOUS NV 1d YALVMV>Aea SYOHSSSO SHL GNV SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS YOs TANNVHO JONVYHLN]A NI SLHDISBH SAVM WNWIXVW JO NOSIYVdNOO NOILIGNOD SAVM MV © P NOIWSLIVO LHDISH SAVM NV1d HaLVMNVSYe SYOHSIIO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS 0 b rd € v S 9 Z 8 6 O} bh cl el vi Sh 9 2 14‘ LHDISH SAVM Plate 4 14 0'0 = 1MS ‘ LSAMHLYON-LSSM WOUS NV1d YSLVMNVSYa NOS.LIUO LHOISH 3AVM AYOHSIAO SHL GNV SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS HOS TANNVHO NVid HAL VMAVaHE SHOHS40 JONVYLNA NI SLHSISH SAVM WNWIXVW JO NOSIUWdNOO seen ag ee NOILIGNOD SAVM M LHDISH SAV 44° 0 b @ € v S 9 Z 8 6 Ol bb cl et vi SI 9} 14 0'24+ = MS‘ LSAMHLYON-LSSM WOYS NV1d YALVMaVSue JYOHS4SO SHL GNV SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS YOS IANNVHO JONVYLN]S NI SLHDISH SAVM WNWIXVN SO NOSIYVdNOO NOILIGNOD SAVM NOIWS LINO LHSISH SAVM NW 1d HaLVMYVSYE SHOHSIIO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIX3 0 b C € v S 9 Z 8 6 Ol bb cl et vi St 91 14‘ LHDISH SAVM Plate 6 14 0°0 = IMS ‘LSAM WOYS NV1d HSLVMyVSHE NOIALIBO LHOISH JAVA SYOHSASO SHL GNV SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS HOS TSNNVHO NV'ld HALVMVSYE SHOHSIIO JONVYLNA NI SLHDISH SAVM WNWIXVW JO NOSIUVWdNOO SNOILIGNOD ONILSIXS NOILIGNOS SAVM N N N S Vv ON OS O& So G&G © GS © $§ PP EP SF ® ®' e' WO S G4 © 2 IP . 14‘ LHSISH 3AVM OoMmwvrQOnreonmaruounwTr QanNs-dO FrTrerrrerrerer es Plate 7 14 0°4+ = 1MS ‘LSAM WOUS NV1d HALVMyV3HE NOIHSLIHO LHOISH SAVM AYOHSASO SHL GNV SNOILIGNOO SONILSIXS YOs TANNVHO NVid UALVMAVEYE JYOHSIIO JONVYLNSA NI SLHDISH SAVM WNWIXVW 4O NOSIYVdNOO SNOLLIGNOD SNILSIXS NOILIGNOOD SAVM a] “ o \ ™ a aX at PSPS S FS 0 b é € v S 9 Z 8 6 Ol bb oh el LAS St 9} 143‘ LHSISBH SAVM Plate 8 14 0°0 = IMS‘ LSSMHLNOS-LSSM WOYS NVid YSLVMNVSUE NOISLIHO LHOISH AWM SYOHSASO SHL GNV SNOILIGNOO SNILSIXS HOS TANNWHO NV1d U3 VMVUE SHOHS440 SJONVYLNA NI SLHDISH SAVM WNWIXVWN 4O NOSINWdNOO SNOWING? Mite GN3931 NOILIGNOD SAVM Ne aNE Ne EN Lt & 8S xv 8% 8% 8 9 y YY Y Pe = > < m < om G) <= + Tl = Plate 9 14 0'2+ = IMS‘ LSAMHLNOS-LSSM WOUYS NV1d YSLVMYVSHE NOIWS.LIHD LHOISH SAV AYOHSSASO SHL GNV SNOILIGNOO SNILSIXS YOS TANNVHO NV'ld H3LVMVaHe SHOHSIIO JONVYLNA NI SLHDISH SAVM WNWIXVW 4O NOSIYWdNOO phases hl QN3931 NOILIGNOOD SAVM NI AN ~ ON x \ N wv gy S N © \Y N\ S © S SSS g* ov _® Bes Raia SP SP SE a: SP on SF. Cd 9 Rg oS Pow a oo ow Ss Ss x Ss 5 FFF MF FF B® 0 b é € v S 9 Z 8 6 Ol Pod = owwer ON Trees = 44‘ LHSISH SAVM 14 0'0= IMS ‘“LSSMHLNOS WOYS NV1d HSLYMyVvaua NOTES Leto! LHOISH SAV AYOHSASO SHL GNV SNOILIGNOO SNILSIXS HOS TENNVWHO NVid BALVMV3HE SYOHS430 JONVYULN]A NI SLHDISH SAVM WNWIYVW 4O NOSINWdWOO SNOT NOS SONIESIXS QN39371 NOILIGNOD SAVM Oe 28 NNO GY IDEN ON UO GN EN gy GN aN 8g eo eo o eo eo e AY N .) od ! oS ' oS ® 9 e Ce ® ad e Cd ® “9 ®' 3 e ca e' “9 ® “9 . Ca e Ce e Cd ®' oP ®' oS S S SPP IPS PPP HA Y SF PF PF PF BP S PP SP oh SS St St St gh at yt 8° 8° 8 8 YV VY VY VV YP VP YP YP PP PVP VY VS omMmwvTrgnr oomronmnwTane-o ererrerrrre LHSISH SAVM 14° Plate 11 14 0°2+ = IMS ‘LSSMHLNOS WOYS NV1d YSLVMyV3YE JYOHS3SSO SHL GNV SNOILIGNOO SONILSIXS YOsS TANNVHO JONVYLNA NI SLHDISH SAVM WNWIXVINN 40 NOSIYVdNOO NOILIGNOD 3AVM ge ae > y Py NOIWSLIHO LHDISH SAVM NV1d YSLVMyVS"E SYOHSIIO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS 0 b @ € v S 9 Z 8 6 Ol bb cl el vi SI 9} v LHSISH SAVM 44° Plate 12 UNIS VW S1iS31l 3AVM GOl¥3d - SNOT YOJ SNOILVDO1 39V9 SAVM NlHd 100 3901Ne TON AMH J1V1LS “(MT1W) Y3LVM MOT 43MO1 NV3W OL 034333" 1335 NI NMOHS SNOILVAZ13 ONV SYNOLNOD NOILVDO1 39V9 @, ON3931 Plate 13 Lt JDVD AAVM YAAIY OAON NI ASNOdS3Y AONSNOAYA JO NOSIYVdWOO 03S ‘GOIYad SAVM 00e O6+t oO8t oO24t O9+tF OSt OvE OEt Ot JONVYLNS YSAIY OAON LV LHSISH SAVM ='H J9V9 LV LHDISH SAVM = H YOLOV4 ASNOdSSY = HY : SLON NV1d YSLVMMVSYE SYOHSIAO SNOILIGNOOD ONILSIXS QN3931 Olt OOF 06 08 02 mol m (@)) U fe) 4 a) m . > QO = fe) ae J i} as Sit. = oe Plate 14 ct JADVD AAVM Y3AAId OAON NI ASNOdS3Y AONSANDAYS JO NOSIHYVdNOO NV1d HALVMMVSYs SHOHSIIO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS QN39531 O4S ‘GOldsd SAVM Ovi O€F O2t OFF OOF JONVYLNA YSAIY OAON LV LHSISH SAVM ='H 39V9 LV LHDISH SAVM = H YOLOV4 ASNOdS3Y = HY : SLON me] m (o)) U é m Tl > (?) + O 0) a u =x = Plate 15 Et ADVSD AAVM YSAIW OAON NI SSNOdS3Y AONSNODSYSA AO NOSIEVdWOO NW1d HW3LVMxWSaYE SHOHSIIO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIX3 GN3931 O3S ‘GOIH3d SAVM oSt Ovt O€+F Oct OF SJONVYLN]A Y3AlY OAON LV LHSISH SAVM ='H 39V9 LV LHDISH SAVM = H WYOLOV4S SSNOdS3Y = YU: SLON wD m ) U oO 2 () m Tl > ?) + oO Bt) =) a <= = = Plate 16 vl JDVSD SAVM YAAIW OAON Ni ASNOdS3Y AONSNOAYS JO NOSIYWdNOO NVid YSLVMMVSYE SYOHSIAIO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS QN35371 O3S ‘GOldsd SAVM OSt Ovt OE O02! JONVYLNS YSAIY OAON LV LHDISH 3AVM ='H ISVS LV LHDISH SAVM = H YOLOVS ASNOdSAY = HY: 2 =) m (%) U Oo Zz o) m mu > Q 4 Oo a) IH/H=u ' Plate 17 Gt ADV AAVM YAAIW OAON NI AJSNOdS3Y AONSANOAYA AO NOSIYVdWOO NWid YSLVMNVSYs JYOHSIIO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXA QN3931 O3S ‘GOIWad SAVM Ovt O&F Oct Ott SJONVYLNA YSAld OAON LV LHDISH SAVM ='H d9V9 LV LHDISH SAVM = H YOLOV4S ASNOdSAY = Y : SLON 9 Bs) m ) U Oo 2 ?) m Tl > ?) + O at) =) i] <= = Plate 18 91 ADVS SAVM YOSYVH OAON Ni JSNOdS3Y AONSANODAYS JO NOSIYVdNOO NVi1d HAaLVMyVSHs SYOHSISO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS QN4531 03S ‘GOI¥Sad SAVM OSt Ovt O€F O2t OFF OOF 06 08 02 09 JONVYLNS YSAIY OAON LV LHSISH SAVM ='H J5V9 LV LHDISH SAVM = H YOLOV4 ASNOdS3Y = HY: J m ) °) Oo Z x) m 7 > QO 4 Oo =) Bo) i] <= _ = Plate 19 Zt ADVS SAVM YOSYVH OAON NI ASNOdS3Y AONSANODSYA JO NOSIYVdWOO NV1d YSLVMxVSYs SYOHSIIO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS QN3941 O3S ‘GOIldSd SAVM Ovt O€+ O2t OFF OOF 06 08 OZ JONVYLNS YSAlY OAON LV LHSISH SAVM ='H JDVS LV LHDISH SAVM = H YOLOVS SASNOdS3Y = YH : SLON BY) m o) U O Zz 7) m Tl > Q + O JD =) " <= ~~ = 81 ADVD AAVM YOSYVH OAON NI SSNOdS3Y AONSNOAYS JO NOSIYVdINOO NV1ld YALVMYWSYsS SYOHSIIO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS QN3931 03S ‘GOIWSd SAVM Ovlt O€F Oct Olt JONVYLNA Y3AIY OAON LV LHSISH 3SAVM ='H . JDVO LV LHDISH SAVM = H YOLOVA ASNOdS3Y = HY : SLON J m 2) U Oo yA ” m TN > Q + O =) =) i] <= ~ = Plate 21 61 ADVD AAVM YAAIW OAON NI AISNOdS4aY AONSNOAYA AO NOSIYWdWOO 03S ‘dOld¥ad 3AVM Ovlt OFF Od JONVYLNS YSAIY OAON LV LHSISH SAVM ='H JSV9 LV LHDISH SAVM = H YOLOVA ASNOdSAY = HY: SLON NV1d HALVMXVSYs SYOHSIAO SNOILIGNOO ONILSIXS QN3931 BY m wo U oO z2 w m mu] > QO | (eo) BY) D i] x = = Plate 22 02 ADVD SAVM VNIGVW NIHd 100d NI ASNOdS3aY AONANDAYS AO NOSIYWdWOO NV1d YSLVMNVSYHs JYOHSIIO SNOILIGNOOD ONILSIXS QN39531 03S ‘COlWad SAVM Ov! O€F Oct Obl JONVYLNA YSAIY OAON LV LHSISH SAVM ='H 39V9 LV LHDISH SAVM = H YOLOVS ASNOdS3Y = HY : SLON BS m oO U oO Z o m mu) > QO + oO a. D t] x =~ = Plate 23 Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments r egarding this burden estimate or any T aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden. to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate f $e nformation Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0 188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) | 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED ; April 1994 Final report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Noyo River and Harbor, California, Design for Harbor Entrance Protection; Coastal Model Investigation 6. AUTHOR(S) Robert R. Bottin, Jr. 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Technical Report CERC-94-5 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco 211 Main Street, San Francisco,CA 94105-1905 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) A 1:75-scale undistorted hydraulic model was used to determine wave conditions at the entrance to Noyo River and Harbor as a result of an offshore breakwater. The impact of the improvements on long-period wave conditions in the harbor as well as wave-induced and riverine bed-load sediment patterns was evaluated. The model reproduced the river from its mouth to a point approximately 15,000 ft upstream, both Noyo Harbor and Dolphin Marina located on the south bank, approximately 3,400 ft of the California shoreline on each side of the river mouth, Noyo Cove, and sufficient offshore area in the Pacific Ocean to permit generation of the re- quired test waves. A 45-ft-long wave generator, crushed coal sediment tracer material, and an automated data acquisition and control system were utilized in model operation. It was concluded from the model investiga- tion that: a. Existing conditions are characterized by rough and turbulent wave conditions in the Noyo River en- trance. Maximum wave heights ranged from 8.5 to 13.7 ft in the entrance for operational conditions (incident waves with heights of 14 ft or less) and from 12.2 to 15.2 ft for extreme conditions (waves up to 32 ft in height) depending on incident wave direction. (Continued) 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 135 16. PRICE CODE 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 14. SUBJECT TERMS Breakwaters Noyo River and Harbor, California Harbors, California Wave protection Hydraulic models 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescnbed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298-102 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 13. (Concluded). b. The offshore breakwater plan will result in maximum wave heights ranging from 6.3 to 9.3 ft in the entrance for operational wave conditions and 8.7 to 14.6 ft for extreme conditions depending on incident wave direction. c. The offshore breakwater plan will not meet the 6.0-ft wave height criterion in the entrance for all inci- dent waves of 14 ft or less (operational conditions). Based on hindcast data, however, the breakwater plan will result in the criterion being achieved 37 percent more of the time than it currently is for existing condi- tions when operational waves are present. The magnitude of wave heights also will be decreased by about 27 percent as a result of the offshore breakwater for operational waves. d. With no waves present, the offshore breakwater resulted in riverine sediment patterns similar to those obtained for existing conditions except for the 100-year (41,000-cfs) discharge. For this condition, the break- water prevented material from moving as far seaward in the cove as it did for existing conditions. e. With waves present from west-northwest and west, the offshore breakwater slightly changes the paths of riverine sediment migration and subsequent deposits for some river discharges and does not for others. In general, considering all test conditions, riverine sediment will deposit in an area in the cove between the ex- isting jettied entrance and the proposed structure location, both with and without the breakwater installed. f. The offshore breakwater will not interfere with the migration of wave-induced sediment into the cove for waves from northwest; however, for waves from southwest, the breakwater will prevent some sediment from penetrating as deeply shoreward in the cove as it did under existing conditions. g. The offshore breakwater plan will have no adverse impact on surge conditions due to long-period wave energy in Noyo Harbor, Dolphin Marina, and the lower reaches of the river. Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. T@0G-202cd0 YH NOLSed 5 300 TNEMYD O0T ae H 2NLIY. ul] SNOZ WLSYOD SLIZSnHoyssyH T /2T 1/6 Ge "ON LIWYad SSeUISNG [eIONO SH“ OuNASHITA a Oa YISOd °S"n tie oMIVd J9ViS0d °S°0 6619-08166 IddISSISSIW ‘DUNESHOIA 4 S5919 HLenis OVO ANU34 STIVH 6066 ay WII3dS — SUBSNIONS 40 SdHO9 ‘NOLS LNSWIH3dX3 SAVMUBLWM, | AWYV SHL AO LNAWLYVd3ad SHIP]Y JBIUBLUUOLIAUA JO BOI “8X9 sip Woe INIWASVNVI SNOZ IVLSVOO v66L T§ AVN QSAISa0su