Nassau Report V1.2

w w w . b a i r d .
c o m
Baird
oceans
engineering
lakes
design
rivers
science
watersheds
construction
DRAFT REPORT
Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts

Nassau Harbour Port Improvement Project
August 7, 2008
11326.000
Navigating New Horizons

w w w . b a i r d . c o m
Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts

Prepared for
Cox & SHAL Engineering

and the Government of the Bahamas
Prepared by
W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd.
For further information please contact

Derek Williamson at (613) 731-8900
11326.000
Issue Date Status Comments Prepared Reviewed

V1 June 25, 2008 Draft DCW RDS
V1.2 August 7, 2008 Draft SHAL comments included DCW KJM
This report was prepared by W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd. for Cox & SHAL Engineering and
the Government of the Bahamas. The material in it reflects the judgment of Baird & Associates
in light of the information available to them at the time of preparation. Any use which a Third
Party makes of this report, or any reliance on decisions to be made based on it, are the
responsibility of such Third Parties. Baird & Associates accepts no responsibility for damages,
if any, suffered by any Third Party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this
report.
Navigating New Horizons

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Objective .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Site Description.................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Tidal Conditions ................................................................................................. 3
2.0 OFFSHORE WAVE HINDCAST ............................................................................... 4

2.1 Methodology Overview ...................................................................................... 4
2.2 Atlantic Hindcast................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Bahamas Wave Modeling .................................................................................. 8
2.4 Deepwater Wave Climate................................................................................. 10
3.0 HURRICANE MODELING....................................................................................... 12

3.1 Historical Hurricane Tracks............................................................................. 12
3.2 Numerical Modeling of Hurricane Waves....................................................... 14
3.3 Wave Model Validation .................................................................................... 15
3.4 Wave Simulation of Individual Storm Events ................................................ 17
3.5 Monte Carlo Hurricane Simulations ............................................................... 19
3.6 Storm Surge Simulations ................................................................................ 21
3.6.1 Numerical Modeling of Wind Setup ....................................................................21
3.6.2 Return Periods for Storm Surge .........................................................................23
4.0 NEARSHORE WAVE CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 25

4.1 Nearshore Wave Transformation Model......................................................... 25
4.2 Nearshore Non-Hurricane Waves ................................................................... 27
4.3 Nearshore Hurricane Waves ........................................................................... 29
4.4 Waves at the Breakwater ................................................................................. 31
5.0 EFFECTS OF DREDGING ON WAVES IN THE HARBOUR.................................. 33

5.1 Proposed Harbour Modifications.................................................................... 33
5.2 Changes in Wave Heights Due to Dredging Boussinesq Wave Modeling 34
5.3 Changes in Waves & Currents Due to Dredging HYDROSED Modeling.... 40
5.3.1 Existing conditions ..............................................................................................42
5.3.2 Proposed Dredged Harbour Conditions ............................................................46
Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 1

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
5.3.3 Comparisons of Existing and Dredged Harbour Conditions Results .............48
6.0 BEACH STABILITY IN NASSAU HARBOUR ........................................................ 55

6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 55
6.2 Site Conditions................................................................................................. 55
6.3 Historical Beach Positions and Beach Evolution.......................................... 57
6.4 Dredging Impacts............................................................................................. 61
6.4.1 Waves Inside the Harbour ...................................................................................61
6.4.2 Beach Stability Within Nassau Harbour .............................................................64
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 69

7.1 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................. 69
7.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 69
7.2.1 Beach Profiling .....................................................................................................70
7.2.2 Harbour Wave Assessment.................................................................................70
8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 71

APPENDIX A DISCUSSION OF BREAKWATER DAMAGE AND REPAIR ............ 72
APPENDIX B HYDROSED RESULTS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ................... 73
APPENDIX C HYDROSED RESULTS FOR PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................ 74
APPENDIX D HYDROSED WAVE DIFFERENCE COMPARISIONS ...................... 75
APPENDIX E HYDROSED WAVE HEIGHT TRANSECT RESULTS ...................... 76
APPENDIX F HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS.......................................... 77

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Objective
Nassau Harbour has been used extensively by large ships, and was dredged and constructed to its
present form throughout the 1960s 70s and 80s. With the use of larger cruise ships and
commercial vessels, the harbour needs to be deepened and widened in order to serve the future
needs of the harbour.
Modifications to the underwater bathymetry will affect the amount of wave energy that enters the
port. This could have implications to the berths that lie at the east end of the site, as well as the
other berths in the harbour area. The change in wave energy and the different wave refraction
patterns that will occur along the proposed dredge slope may also have implications for the
stability of the beaches that lie along the south shore of the harbour.
Baird & Associates was retained to complete a study of the wave conditions in and around Nassau
Harbour and to assess the implications that these wave conditions may have on beach stability.
Other aspects of this study also included as assessment of the design conditions at the east
breakwater, which was severely damaged in 1991. A discussion of remedial approaches to this
breakwater is provided under a separate letter, outside this report.
1.2 Site Description
The Nassau region is in an area that is offered some protection from the neighboring islands of the
Bahamas. Open ocean swells can reach the site, but only from limited directions. The harbour,
which is shown in Figure 1.1, takes advantage of natural protection from Paradise Island.
Figure 1.1 Aerial Image of Nassau Harbour

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Within the harbour area, to the west of the cruise ship terminal and east of Arawak Cay, beaches
exist along a stretch of roadway and some hotel developments. This beach is relatively sheltered,
but does respond to large wave events, or moderate wave events that approach directly through the
entrance channel. An example of the beaches in Nassau Harbour is shown in Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2 Nassau Harbour Beach
The breakwater to the east of the entrance channel has a large opening where the breakwater meets
the shore, as shown in Figure 1.3. The connection between the shore and the breakwater,
consisting of 19 ton Tri-bars was destroyed by a storm in 1991.
Figure 1.3 Damaged East Breakwater

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
1.3 Tidal Conditions
Tides in the region of Nassau are semi diurnal, meaning that high and low tides occur twice per
day (12.42 hour period). Spring tide levels have a range in the order four feet, while the average
tide range is just under three feet. Highest astronomical tides may reach close to 4.5 feet, while
other variations in the water level due to meteorological effects must be considered and are
discussed later in this report.
Flood tides enter the harbour region through the navigation channel, and ebb tides exit through the
navigation channel. Past studies indicate that the magnitude of these currents is similar on both
ebb and flood, suggesting that there is not a significant residual (or net flow) in the harbour.
However, due to the open water to the east of the cruise ship berths and the connections around
Arawak Cay, the current patterns will be affected by east or west winds and will result in variable
movement of water through these channels, and at times a net flow in one direction.
Due to the existing width and depth of the navigation channel, the change in the cross sectional
area of the harbour as a result of the proposed dredging will be very limited. Therefore, tidal
currents should remain very similar pre and post dredging, with the exception of a few isolated
areas where more difference may be observed. Furthermore, these currents are mild enough that
they will have no significant impact on waves and beach stability. Therefore, tidal currents will not
be discussed further in this report.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
2.0 OFFSHORE WAVE HINDCAST
2.1 Methodology Overview
The offshore wave hindcast will provide the basis for the nearshore and in-harbour wave analyses.
Waves at the site are a combination of locally generated waves in the vicinity of Nassau, and swells
that propagate from the NNE from the open North Atlantic Ocean. These wave conditions can be
further categorized into hurricane (using the term loosely to define all waves from tropical cyclones
of all strengths) and non-hurricane waves. Hurricane waves will be discussed in greater detail in
Section 3, while the non-hurricane wave analyses are described in this section.
The offshore wave hindcast was completed using the numerical model WaveWatch 3 (WW3). This
is a wave generation and propagation model that was developed by the U.S. National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and is used extensively by researchers
and consultants around the world. This model was applied in two stages: an outer model of the
full Atlantic Ocean; and an inner model of the Bahamas. The inner model provides the high
resolution needed to define the islands and bathymetric features of the Bahamas. Where possible,
these models are compared to measured data to validate the waves heights produced by the model.
2.2 Atlantic Hindcast
The WW3 model of the Atlantic Ocean

covered the entire ocean as shown in Figure
2.1. The bathymetry in this region was
represented on a grid spacing of 1.25 degrees
longitude, and 1.0 degrees latitude. The
model was run using a time step of 20
minutes and was simulated from 1983 to
March 2008.
Wind was applied to the model to generate

the waves, based on the global reanalysis
wind archive from the U.S. National Centers
for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). These
data are one of the many outputs from the
global meteorological model. Baird further
improves these wind data through use of an
in-house statistical adjustment based on
winds recorded by the QuikScat satellite.
The QuikScat satellite is a polar orbiting

satellite that crosses most locations on earth
at 06:00 and 18:00 local time each day. The
satellite has been in operation since 1997 and Figure 2.1 WaveWatch 3 Grid for the Atlantic Ocean
is continuing to operate today. Based on a

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
procedure that examines water surface roughness, the wind speed and direction is measured in a
swath as the satellite moves over the ocean. Figure 2.2 shows an example of typical QuikScat data.
Figure 2.2 Example of QuikScat Wind Data
For each grid node in the WW3 model, statistics were developed to document systematic over or
under-prediction of the winds from the NCEP reanalysis dataset. These data were compiled over
the approximately 10 year duration of the QuikScat data, and were then applied to the full set of
reanalysis data.
Validation of the Atlantic hindcast was completed through comparisons with NOAA buoys in the
region of the Bahamas, but away from protection from small islands and shoals. Buoys 41047 and
41046 were used for this validation. An example of a wave time series comparison is shown in
Figure 2.3, while a statistical comparison of the wave conditions is shown in Figure 2.4. This figure
is a Quantile-Quantile (QQ) plot, which shows a comparison of wave height exceedence for the two
data sets, for concurrent data samples. A QQ plot that lies close to the 1:1 line indicates that the two
data sets would have essentially equal wave height exceedence statistics. This would indicate a
good statistical fit between the hindcast and the measurements. The lower half of the plot shows
the matching data points that also cluster close to the 1:1 line.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 2.3 Time Series Validation for Buoy 41047
From the Atlantic hindcast, data were archived along the boundaries to the higher resolution
Bahamas grid. The archived data were full two-dimensional spectra so that the details of the wave
conditions were properly passed to the inner model.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 2.4 QQ-Plot for Buoy 41047

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
2.3 Bahamas Wave Modeling
Due to the smaller scale of the islands and shoals that exist in the region of the Bahamas, the wave
simulations for this area needed to be completed at a smaller grid spacing than the full Atlantic
Ocean hindcast. The Bahamas grid is shown in Figure 2.5 and used a resolution of 11 km to define
the area. The north, east and west boundaries to this grid were transfer boundaries that applied
wave spectra from the outer model. The south model boundary was just north of Hispanola and
was blocked by the island of Cuba and was therefore treated as a closed boundary.
Figure 2.5 Bahamas Grid for the WaveWatch 3 Simulations
Due to the smaller grid spacing for the Bahamas model, a shorter time step was required. Output
data were again recorded at a time interval of one hour for the duration of the hindcast.
Validation of the Bahamas grid was completed through comparisons with Buoy 41016, whichis
located as shown in Figure 2.5. This is a more protected buoy than the open-ocean buoys that were
used for comparison for the Atlantic model in the previous section. An example of a time series
comparison between the measured and hindcast data is provided in Figure 2.6.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 2.6 Time Series Comparison of Measured and Hindcast Waves
A statistical comparison of the measured and hindcast data are provided in the QQ-plot in Figure
2.7. This plot shows a slight over prediction relative to the recorded data (from the early 1990s).
However, given the complexity of the bathymetry and waves in this region, this was deemed to be
an acceptable result and would offer slightly conservative results.
Figure 2.7 QQ-plot for Measured and Hindcast Waves at Buoy 41016 in the Bahamas Region

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
2.4 Deepwater Wave Climate
The deepwater wave climate north of Nassau was obtained from the Bahamas grid described in the
previous section. Wave data were available from January 1, 1983 to March 31, 2008. These wave
conditions are yet to be transformed to the harbour mouth and are representative of wave
conditions in water about 500 m deep to the north of the site.
Figure 2.6 presents wave roses for the site based on both wave height and wave period. This wave
rose shows that the peak wave direction is typically from the NNE through the NE, corresponding
to the open exposure to the North Atlantic. These waves can be much longer in period than those
that approach from the other directions. The wave period rose shows the NNE to NE waves are
often in the 6 to 16 second range, while those approaching from the east are rarely greater than 4
seconds in period.
Figure 2.6 Wave Height (left) and Period (right) Roses for Deepwater North of Nassau
From the deepwater wave record, the largest non-hurricane waves were identified from the wave
record. Table 2.1 presents the largest wave events in the offshore data set from the non-hurricane
wave database. Note that these wave heights need to undergo nearshore transformations before
they will be representative of nearshore conditions. One storm of note is the third storm in the list,
which represents the wave conditions from the Halloween Storm of 1991 (later renamed the
Perfect Storm following the book and movie). This was one of the larger waves in the record and
had a very long period (>16 sec) compared to the remainder of the storms. This storm is reported
to be the event that damaged the east breakwater.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Table 2.1 Top Twenty Storm Events in the Nassau Deepwater Wave Hindcast
Date/Time Wave Height Wave Period Wave Dir
(Hm0, m) (Tp, s) (DPK, deg)
1996/11/16 13:00 4.3 10.1 47
2001/11/06 12:00 4.3 9.5 31
1991/11/01 00:00 4.3 16.2 36
2000/01/15 13:00 4.0 10.6 29
1994/11/14 08:00 4.0 9.6 48
1991/12/20 12:00 3.9 10.3 31
2005/02/05 12:00 3.9 14.5 46
1992/12/16 01:00 3.9 14.6 36
2007/10/30 13:00 3.8 9.4 47
2000/12/26 01:00 3.8 9.0 37
1983/02/22 03:00 3.8 14.3 41
1990/02/27 06:00 3.8 9.1 38
1996/02/07 04:00 3.7 9.4 36
1987/11/08 11:00 3.7 10.0 40
1989/03/11 19:00 3.7 12.5 30
1984/01/23 08:00 3.6 11.6 35
1985/11/19 00:00 3.6 9.3 45
1987/01/07 02:00 3.6 11.2 31
1984/10/09 03:00 3.6 10.2 44
1988/01/30 01:00 3.5 8.5 42
Note: Hm0 is the characteristic wave height based on the wave spectrum and is approximately
equal to the significant wave height (average of the highest one-third of the waves) in deep water.
Tp is the peak wave period. DPK is the direction from which the peak of the wave energy is
approaching.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
3.0 HURRICANE MODELING
3.1 Historical Hurricane Tracks
Hurricane tracks were obtained from NOAAs Best Track archive, which provides a six-hourly
record of storm position and intensity in the North Atlantic for the period of 1854 to 2007. These
tracks were processed to obtain all the tracks that approached with 200 km of the site. The severity
of these storms as they pass the site is shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Number of Storms within 200 km of Nassau
The occurrence of these near-site hurricanes is heavily weighted towards the months of August,
September and October (averaging about 29 % each), while the months of June, July and November
each have about four percent of the occurrences.
The number of storms per year was found to be variable in both the short term and the long term.
Figure 3.2 shows the number of storms per year within 200 km of the site. This figure shows the
variability, with many years having no storms and the years of 1933 and 2005 having four storms
each. Figure 3.3 shows the number of storms per year based on both a five year and a twenty year
running average. The long term (20 year) average varies between 0.5 and 1.5 storms per year, with
most of the recent rise in these datasets being attributed to the four storms in 2005. Not counting
these storms removes the upwards trend at the end of the plot.
The lower frequency at the beginning of the record may be a result of insufficient reporting of
storms. Therefore, determination of the average number of storms per year is based on 1900 to
present, resulting in a value of 0.82 storms per year. Allowing some conservatism in the value for
the possibility of climate change, a number in the order of 1.0 storms per year may be appropriate.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
If one considers only storms that reach category one hurricane status or stronger, then the number
of storms per year drop to about half, or about 0.5 hurricanes per year.
4
Storms Per Year
0
1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Figure 3.2 Storms Per Year Within 200 km of Nassau
2.5
Storms per Year (5 yr ave)
Storms per Year (20 yr ave)
2
Storms per Year
1.5
0.5
0
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Figure 3.3 Average Number of Storms per Year

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
3.2 Numerical Modeling of Hurricane Waves
Numerical modeling of hurricanes was completed using the model WAVAD. WAVAD is a second
generation wave generation and propagation model, developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Hurricane simulations are completed on bathymetric grids with a resolution of about 5
to 10 km in size, in order to adequately resolve the detailed wind fields that comprise hurricanes.
Due to the close proximity of islands in the vicinity of Nassau, a grid spacing of 5 km was chosen
for this application. Figure 3.1 shows the bathymetric grid that was used for the hurricane
simulations.
Nassau
Figure 3.1 Grid Domain used for Hurricane Simulations
The wind model used to describe the hurricane wind field is described in Holland (1980). The wind
field is generated based on the hurricane statistics (position, central pressure, maximum wind
speed) obtained from the historical track data. Other information such as the radius to maximum

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
winds and wind field shape parameters are available for some more recent and more severe events,
but are not available for other events. The shape parameter in Hollands model is known as the B
parameter, and has the impact of narrowing or broadening the wind field. For weaker storms,
lower B values (typically slightly greater than 1.0) are used resulting in a broader wind field. For
more intense storms, B values in the range of 2 to 3 result in much more "peaky" wind fields.
Figure 3.2 shows the influence of the B value on the storm shape. The B value was adjusted to
match known storms, but randomly selected for storms with insufficient documentation.
50
45 B=1
40 B=2
Wind Speed (m/s)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Radius (km)
Figure 3.2 Effect of B Value on Storm Profile
The hurricane model is driven with wind conditions that are applied every 60 minutes throughout
the approximately 48 hour simulation. The time step for the model was 15 minutes, with winds
interpolated at intermediate time steps between the hourly winds.
3.3 Wave Model Validation
Probably the greatest source of error in hurricane wave modeling is a poorly defined wind field
that describes the storm. Incorrectly specifying any one of a number of parameters (the maximum
speed, radius to maximum wind, shape parameter, forward speed) can have significant impacts on
the wind field as well as the resulting wave field. For this reason, validation of the model should be
carried out with well documented storms rather than storms with sparse data. Note that the winds
recorded by satellite altimeter during tropical cyclones are of questionable quality due to
contamination of the record by rainfall.
Validation of the model will be demonstrated with a number of hurricanes in the Atlantic from
1999 to 2004. The model is driven by wind fields that are well documented by the National
Hurricane Center in the United States. Data from these storms include aircraft overflight data, GPS
dropsondes, radar, satellite, and recorded winds from buoys and land stations. Waves are also
measured at numerous buoys in the region. The validation simulations were carried out after
transforming the one minute sustained wind speed to the ten minute sustained wind speed.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figures 3.3 to 3.5 show comparisons of measured and model wind wave conditions for two strong
storms on the U.S. East Coast.
16
14 Hm0 Measured
Hm0 Modeled
12
Wave Height (m)
10
0
1999/09/12 1999/09/13 1999/09/14 1999/09/15 1999/09/16 1999/09/17 1999/09/18
Figure 3.3 Waves During Hurricane Floyd 1999, NOAA Buoy 41010
16
Hm0 Measured
14
Hm0 Modeled
Wave Height (m) and Period (s)
12 Tp Measured
Tp Modeled
10
0
1999/09/12 1999/09/13 1999/09/14 1999/09/15 1999/09/16 1999/09/17 1999/09/18
Figure 3.4 Waves During Hurricane Floyd 1999, NOAA Buoy 41009

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
16
14
12 Hm0 Measured
Wave Height (m)
10 Hm0 Modeled
Tp Measured
8
Tp Modeled
6
0
2004/09/03 2004/09/04 2004/09/05 2004/09/06 2004/09/07
Figure 3.5 Waves During Hurricane Frances 2004, NOAA Buoy 41010
The plots previously discussed show results for simulations that used detailed gridded wind fields
obtained from the National Hurricane Center. To demonstrate the validity of the wind model used
to create the wind field for the work near Nassau, the simulation of Hurricane Floyd was repeated
using the Hwind model. Results from this simulation showed a maximum wave height of 14.6 m
compared to about 14.7 m from the more detailed simulation (shown in Figure 3.3). The rate at
which the waves increased and decreased was somewhat different as a result of the more complex
wind field compared to simply using the Holland model. However, the general conclusion is that
the approach of using the Holland model is valid when detailed wind fields are not available.
3.4 Wave Simulation of Individual Storm Events
To understand the history of hurricane induced storms that have impacted the site, a number of the
more intense storms in the region were simulated. A list of these storms is provided in Table 3.1, in
addition to the deepwater wave conditions that existed during these storms at the site.
Table 3.1 Selected Historical Storms near Nassau (Deepwater)

Storm Wave Height, Hm0 Comment
Betsy, 1965 (a) 6.3 m, 17.6 s, 22 Long period waves. Paused NE of site for a day
Betsy, 1965 (b) 10.5 m, 11.6 s, 340 Turned & moved over site from NE (8.4 m in 15 m water)
David, 1979 4.3 m, 7.5 s 87 Waves from east limited impact at site
Andrew, 1992 6.1 m, 8.9 s, 310 Hurricane passed site relatively quickly
Floyd, 1999 8.7 m, 11.0 s, 352 Peak wave occurred while waves from the north
Michelle, 2001 2.7 m, 6.5 s, 8 Small waves compared to others
Frances, 2004 10.3 m, 12.9 s, 326 Waves of 10 m, 12 s from North a few hours before
Jeanne, 2004 4.5 m, 12.2 s, 21 Waves two hours later 3.5 m from north

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 3.6 presents the wave field during Hurricane Frances.
Figure 3.6 Wave Field From Hurricane Frances, 2004
The historical hurricane simulations revealed that the maximum wave conditions typically occur
from the NNE or NNW, where the fetches are longer. However, waves from the north can also
occur with a very large wave height as a result of an intense storm passing over the site. The
limited fetch from a due-north direction does not offer any significant protection to the site. Some
of the longer wave periods that occur from a larger storm farther away (likely to the NNE or NE)
will shoal significantly and can produce severe waves at the site at the breakwater location (for
example).
From the available track information and the simulations completed, it appears that Hurricane
Frances in 2004 was one of the more severe recent storms, along with Betsy in 1965.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
3.5 Monte Carlo Hurricane Simulations
Simulation of historical storms can be useful for understanding past conditions, but must be used
with care for predicting storm return periods. The variability of historical tracks can create a
situation where two areas that may be within 100 km of each other may have experienced
significantly more or less direct hits than the regional average. An analysis of these two different
sites may then result in a prediction of storm frequency that is unjustifiably different in adjacent
areas. To overcome this problem, it is necessary to simulate a large number of synthetic storms and
draw on these results for assessing the return period events.
A series of 200 WAVAD simulations was completed based on 44 historical hurricane tracks, as
shown in Figure 3.7. For each simulation, the track was randomly selected and randomization was
also applied to the position of the track (translated in the north/south and east/west directions),
the speed of the storm, and the shape parameter. Since 200 storms were simulated, this series of
storms represents approximately 400 years worth of hurricanes, based on the assumption of 0.5
hurricanes per year within 200 km of the site.
Figure 3.7 Historical Storm Tracks Used for Randomization
This method for determining hurricane wave heights is focused on determining maximum wave
conditions, rather than the frequency of smaller waves that approach from more distant storms.
This would require a larger model domain and significantly more time to complete this wide range
of simulations.
The tracks of the 200 synthetic hurricane simulations are shown in Figure 3.8.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 3.8 Synthetic Hurricane Tracks used in WAVAD Simulations
Following completion of the WAVAD simulations, the waves were extracted and the maximum
wave condition from each storm was determined. Table 3.2 provides a list of the larger wave
conditions that were simulated in this data set. These represent the wave conditions in deepwater
outside the harbour, irrespective of the wave direction. It is likely that some of these synthetic
storms will produce the largest waves at the harbour entrance at another hour of the storm when
the waves may have been smaller and from a more northerly direction. Transformation of the
wave conditions as a result of the nearshore bathymetry and the return period of waves at the
structure are described in subsequent sections.
Table 3.2 Maximum Deepwater Wave Conditions from Synthetic Storms

Storm Rank Wave Height Wave Period Wave Direction
Hm0 (m) Tp (s) (deg from)
1 11.4 12.6 7
2 11.4 11.0 27
3 11.2 12.0 43
4 10.8 12.1 36
5 10.3 12.8 11
6 10.2 11.5 47
7 10.2 11.8 41
8 10.1 10.9 14
9 9.7 11.9 89
10 9.6 12.2 51

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
3.6 Storm Surge Simulations
Storm surge occurs due to the onshore movement of water from onshore wind, and from the rise in
the mean sea level as a result of low pressures in the center of a storm. In Nassau, storm surge is
typically related to the passage of a tropical storm or hurricane.
The wind setup component of storm surge is most pronounced in bays and broad coastal areas with
very shallow water. The beaches within Nassau Harbour have a relatively narrow stretch of
shallow water fronting them, with a deep dredged channel outside this. This deep dredged
channel acts as a relief valve to the buildup of water in the harbour; were this area shallow the
surge would be much greater in the harbour. Wind setup will also be limited to the case of winds
from the north, or winds directions with a significant northerly component.
Pressure setup at the site can be approximated with the inverse barometer approach. In the open
ocean, the sea level rises to meet the reduction in pressure in the center of a storm. Nassaus
proximity to relatively deep water to the north means that the pressure setup at the site will be
close to that in the open ocean. Therefore, pressure setup can be approximated as 1 cm of setup for
every millibar of reduction in pressure.
3.6.1 Numerical Modeling of Wind Setup
The hydrodynamic numerical model MIKE21 was used to simulate wind setup at the site, in order
to develop a relationship between wind speed and wind setup. The model domain was limited to a
relatively small harbour area and extended to deep water offshore. The flow of water away from
the main harbour area was prevented; these are conservative assumptions that significantly
simplify the modeling process. The northern model boundary was fixed at a low tide level of 0.0 m
MLWS, as the wind setup will be slightly greater for lower water levels (another conservative
assumption). Figure 3.9 shows the bathymetric grid for the area, which was represented with a
grid spacing of 10 m.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 3.9 Bathymetric Grid for Storm Surge Simulations
Constant northerly winds were applied to the model and the amount of setup that occurred along
the beach was documented. The relationship between the northerly winds and setup is
summarized in Figure 3.10. The results from the synthetic hurricane simulations are also plotted in
Figure 3.10. The scatter of the data below the line for northerly winds corresponds to the different
directions at which the wind occurred.
The changes in the dredge depths were not found to have any significant affect on the wind setup
in the area, especially relative to the pressure setup and wave setup that must also be considered.
In the region close to the east breakwater, there was not significant wind setup as a result of the
deep water in the area.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 3.10 Relationship Between Wind Speed and Wind Setup for Northerly Winds
3.6.2 Return Periods for Storm Surge
The synthetic storm events from the hurricane wave analysis were processed to determine the
surge level (wind and pressure setup, not wave setup) that would have occurred during these
storm events. A time series of the surge was calculated for each hour of the storm based on the
northerly component of wind and the pressure. The maximum surge during each storm was
entered into an extreme value analysis. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 3.11,
which provides at the return periods for storm surge at the position of the harbour beaches.
For locations away from the shallow harbour beaches, the effect of wind setup will be diminished.
In the vicinity of the breakwaters, the deep water around them will result in a setup that is a result
of pressure fluctuations only. The return periods for the pressure setup is presented in Figure 3.12.
The actual water level that is selected for the design of coastal works in the area must also consider
wave setup, sea level rise, tidal variations and general variations in the mean sea level that can
occur of a period of weeks or more. Wave setup is not discussed in detail in this report, but can be
approximated as 10 per cent of the effective offshore wave height (following refraction, diffraction
etc.) at the shore. Therefore, with an effective offshore wave height of 4 m, an estimate of the 100
year storm surge level would be in the order of 1.2 m above a mean high tide level (assuming about
0.8 m of wind and pressure setup). Further to this elevation, an allowance for sea level rise should
be included. This must be assessed relative to any long term subsidence or emergence of the
Nassau area (which was outside the scope of this report), and is thus not quantified in this report.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 3.11 Storm Surge Return Periods (Wind and Pressure Setup) at Harbour Beaches
Figure 3.12 Pressure Setup Return Periods in Deepwater Areas Near Nassau

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
4.0 NEARSHORE WAVE CONDITIONS
There are different stages of nearshore wave modeling that are required for different aspects of the
study. Wave climates discussed in previous sections have suggested wave conditions in
deepwater, prior to the wave shoaling, refraction and other processes that influence the waves as
they approach shore. The first stage of wave transformation was to simulate the waves from the
offshore area to a location in front of the breakwater and harbour. Subsequent to that, modeling of
wave conditions from the harbour entrance shoreward was completed.
4.1 Nearshore Wave Transformation Model
The wave transformation modeling from offshore to the harbour entrance was completed using the
MIKE21 Nearshore Wave Module (M21NSW). M21NSW is a spectral wave transformation model
that simulates refraction, breaking, shoaling and approximates wave diffraction.
The bathymetric grid for this model was developed based on the NOAA Chart 26309, as shown in
Figure 4.1. This figure also shows the depths survey by Hydrographic Consultants Ltd in 2008 for
this project. Grid generation for these and other simulations used the newer data where available,
and used the chart soundings in offshore areas.
Figure 4.1 Bathymetric Sources for Nearshore Modeling

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Due to the limitations of M21NSW, wave conditions within the harbour were simulated, but must
be considered carefully, being aware of the shortcomings. The M21NSW model only allows waves
to turn by about 70; therefore wave conditions in very sheltered areas can be underestimated. The
model also does not consider reflections from revetments or vertical walls. For these reasons, the
M21NSW model was used to determine the wave conditions in front of the harbour entrance, and
to provide a preliminary view of waves propagating into the harbour.
In order to develop a transfer function from an offshore location to a location at the harbour
entrance, a wide range of wave periods and directions were simulated. Since the simulations are
used for assessing deepwater transformations, a wave height of one metre was used for all the
simulations. Note that wave refraction and shoaling are based on wave period and direction, and
are independent of wave height.
Figure 4.2 shows the results from one of the wave conditions simulated in M21NSW. This figure
shows a wave from 40, with a peak period of 16 s and a significant wave height of 1 m. From this
figure, the change in wave direction from offshore to shallow water is evident, in addition to the
shoaling of the waves in shallow water. Penetration into the harbour is also evident, although this
model was not used to examine this process.
Figure 4.2 Example of M21NSW Simulation Results
Following simulations of numerous wave period and direction combinations, a transfer function
was developed representing the wave transformation to a location in 15 m of water near the head of
the breakwater and the entrance to the harbour. This transfer function is provided in Figure 4.3.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 4.3 Wave Transfer Function from Offshore to 15 m Water Depth
4.2 Nearshore Non-Hurricane Waves
The transfer function described in the previous section allowed the transformation of waves from
offshore to a depth of 15 m of water. This transformation was carried out on an hour by hour basis
to produce a 25 year wave history offshore from the harbour. The results from this transformation
are provided in Table 4.1.
In order to determine the return period wave heights at this location, a list was compiled of the
largest wave heights at the site. The wave storm list, presented in Table 4.2, provides a list of the
largest wave events in the record based on a Peak Over Threshold (POT) approach, rather than an
annual maximum approach. Note that this wave time series does not include hurricane events.
The Halloween (Perfect) Storm of 1991, which was a combination of hurricane remnants and an
extratropical low, resulted in swells at the site and falls into the category of a North Atlantic storm
that was not a hurricane.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Table 4.1 Wave Height/Period Table for Nearshore Waves
Table 4.2 Wave Storm List for 15 m Water Depth

Date/Time Wave Height Wave Period Wave Direction
Hm0 (m) Tp (s) DPK (deg)
1991/11/01 00:00 4.2 16.3 19
2001/11/06 13:00 3.7 10.1 23
1992/12/16 01:00 3.6 14.8 19
2005/02/05 10:00 3.6 14.6 22
2000/01/15 13:00 3.5 10.9 18
1996/11/16 14:00 3.4 10.2 27
1991/12/20 12:00 3.4 10.4 21
1983/02/22 02:00 3.4 14.4 21
1989/03/11 19:00 3.3 12.6 19
1996/02/07 03:00 3.2 9.4 24
1993/02/04 20:00 3.2 15.0 19
1987/01/07 02:00 3.2 11.4 20
2000/12/26 01:00 3.2 9.0 24
2005/04/18 01:00 3.1 13.5 19
1990/02/27 06:00 3.1 9.1 25
1984/01/23 07:00 3.1 11.8 20
2004/02/29 08:00 3.1 12.5 19
1984/01/01 13:00 3.1 11.1 17
1986/03/24 11:00 3.0 12.4 20
1987/11/08 09:00 3.0 10.0 24

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Extreme value analyses must be carried out on datasets from the same population. In other words,
extreme waves from North Atlantic storms are different in their origin than hurricane waves that
are being actively generated in the waters off Nassau, and must be treated separately.
From the storm list provided in Table 4.2, return period events were estimated using a three
parameter Weibull distribution. Figure 4.4 shows the fit of the distribution, as well as return period
values in the embedded table.
Figure 4.4 Non-Hurricane Wave Return Periods for Wave Height at 15 m Depth
4.3 Nearshore Hurricane Waves
Hurricane waves will transform as they approach the site, based on the relationship outlined in
Figure 4.3. However, as the waves get larger, this relationship will start to fail since the larger
waves will be breaking in the 15 m water depth for which the analysis was completed. The
procedure for accounting for the breaking condition is very water depth dependent and is
considered based on the process described in the following section. Therefore, the information
presented below is for nearshore conditions prior to breaking and must be transformed in a site-
specific manner to account for breaking.
Hurricane waves from the 200 synthetic storms were transformed to the site using the relationship
described in Figure 4.3, based on the full two-dimensional spectra. This implies that a confused sea
state, which can occur in a hurricane, is considered piece by piece (the pieces refer to different wave
directions and wave frequencies) rather than as a single unidirectional wave. The maximum storm
events from the synthetic storm events are provided in Table 4.3, and include refraction and
shoaling to the 15 m contour, but do not include breaking.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Table 4.3 Maximum Nearshore Wave Conditions from Synthetic Storms

Storm Rank Wave Height Wave Period Wave Direction
Hm0 (m) Tp (s) (deg from)
1 10.3 12.7 354
2 8.9 12.9 355
3 8.9 11.0 1
4 8.9 12.0 16
5 8.6 12.1 22
6 8.0 12.0 25
7 8.0 11.1 2
8 8.0 11.9 356
9 7.8 12.1 2
10 7.7 11.8 5
Compared to the offshore data, these events are now from a more northerly direction. Wave
periods are typically in the range of 11 to 12 seconds. An extreme value analysis was completed
using these storms, and the remainder of the storm list. These 200 storms were assumed to
represent a hypothetical 400 year period, with an average of 0.5 hurricanes per year within 200 km
of the site. The extreme value analysis is represented in Figure 4.5
Figure 4.5 Hurricane Wave Return Periods for Nearshore Wave Height (Breaking Excluded)

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Due to the process that was employed to examine wave heights at the site, there would be some
smaller hurricane or tropical storm waves that would not be represented in this approach.
Therefore, the lower end of this relationship is likely not valid, which is why the table within this
figure only provides estimates for 10 years or greater. Longer return periods such as 200 or 500
years must also be considered carefully in the event that climate change or other long-term factors
affect the frequency and/or intensity of storms.
4.4 Waves at the Breakwater
Design conditions at the breakwater could result from hurricane waves; however, past evidence is
that non-hurricane waves from November 1991 caused the damage to the east breakwater. While
the non-hurricane waves are typically much smaller than the larger hurricane waves, the long wave
periods can be problematic due to the breaking process that takes place.
Nearshore wave transformations discussed to date were computed for a water depth of 15 m,
primarily as a result of the need to use this water depth for the Boussinesq wave modeling. Waves
in this water depth have been transformed by the processes of refraction and shoaling, but breaking
has not been considered. To evaluate the breaking at the breakwater, the design breaking wave
height is determined using the method of Goda (2000).
The breaking process of waves at the breakwater is affected by the nearshore slope, which was
generally assessed to be 35:1 (H:V). Figure 4.6 shows the significant breaking wave height based on
Goda (2000) for three different wave periods and a nearshore 100 year wave height of 9.3 m.
12
Breaking Wave Height (m) .
11
10
9
7 18 sec
6 12 sec
8 sec
5
4
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Water Depth (m)
Figure 4.6 Breaking Wave Height Versus Water Depth for Different Periods

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Note that this approach uses linear wave theory for the shoaling calculation, which is non-
conservative for longer wave lengths and/or shallow water. Design of any remedial measures for
the breakwater must assess non-linear shoaling in the determination of the design wave height for
the selected water depth. This would best be done with a physical model of the cross section. This
figure indicates that for a region with water depths of 9 m, the design wave height would be in the
order of 6..5 m. Physical modeling may allow for the refinement and possible reduction in this
wave height, and corresponding cost savings. Also note that vertical walled structures do not use
the significant breaking wave height, but instead use the maximum breaking wave height as
described in Goda (2000).
The damage that occurred in the past at the breakwater was apparently caused by some long-
period waves. Stability equations for breakwater armour layers such as Hudson (1984) do not
consider wave period in their relationships. However, other formulations such as van der Meer
(1988) do include the period as a variable, resulting in particularly poor armour stability for the case
of a plunging breaker.
Figure 4.7 shows an example situation with a 6 m wave (2 per cent exceedence wave height) and
the resulting armour stone mass to be considered stable in van der Meers equation. The peak in
the required stone size at a period of 15 seconds is 73 per cent larger than the stone required at 10
seconds. The position where this peak occurs will vary with the wave height, and period, but must
be considered carefully for breakwater stability assessment.
30
25
Armour Stone Mass (M50 t)
20
15
10
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Wave Period (s)
Figure 4.7 Example Armour Stone Mass vs. Wave Period
Further discussion of waves at the breakwater and the past damage to the structure is provided in
Appendix A.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
5.0 EFFECTS OF DREDGING ON WAVES IN THE HARBOUR
5.1 Proposed Harbour Modifications
The proposed changes to the harbour are shown in Figure 5.1. The existing bathymetric depths are
shown with the soundings, while the new proposed dredge limits are denoted by the black lines.
These proposed changes are summarized as follows:
A. The entrance channel is deepened and widen along the west side. This change is primarily
in front of the west breakwater. Region A is dredged to 40 ft.
B. The existing approach channel exceeds 40 ft. No dredging is required.
C. The existing turning basin exceeeds 38 ft. No dredging is required.
D. The northern shallows near the entrance are removed (to 38 ft) to widen the navigable area.
E. The southern shallows are dredged to 38 ft.
F. The easternmost portion is dredged to 38 ft
Figure 5.1 Proposed Dredging Limits and Modifications

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
5.2 Changes in Wave Heights Due to Dredging Boussinesq Wave Modeling
Boussinesq wave modeling provides a good indication of the waves in the harbour under pre and
post dredge conditions, and can be used to assess the difference in the wave height close to the
beaches. This model provides the greatest level of detail and is the most computationally intensive
modeling for harbour regions. The advantage that Boussinesq modeling has over the spectral wave
models such as M21NSW (Section 4.1) and HYDROSED (Section 5.3) is that it simulates wave
reflections and provides a better representation of wave diffraction processes. However, the model
has limitations with breaking and is more difficult to couple with a hydrodynamic model to predict
wave generated currents. For the initial assessment of the waves near the beach and the waves near
the harbour, the MIKE 21 Boussinesq Wave Model (M21BW) was used. The M21BW model is also
the appropriate model for assessing the differences in the wave conditions in regions further from
the entrance where reflections and wave diffraction become more important.
The bathymetry for the M21BW modeling was based on the same data as the M21NSW model, but
resolved the bathymetry at a grid spacing of 4 m. The model bathymetry for the proposed harbour
dredging is shown in Figure 5.2. The M21BW model has similarities to a wave basin that is used for
physical model testing in laboratories. The model perimeter is surrounded by closed boundary
walls, and wave generation takes place through the use of an internal wave generator. Around the
perimeter of the model, waves are absorbed by sponge layers in regions where they would
otherwise have passed into open water. These sponge layers can also be used to absorb waves
along shores that are away from the region of interest, so as to further reduced unnecessary wave
reflections in the area.
Figure 5.2 Model Bathymetry for the Boussinesq Model

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
In regions such as revetments and beaches, the surfaces are made partially reflective through the
use of porosity layers. Revetments and steep rocky shores are typically given a porosity value to
achieve reflections in the forty to fifty percent range, while gentler slopes such as beaches have
about 10 percent reflection. Around the east breakwater and the head of the west breakwater, the
porosity is used sparingly, as past studies have found that absorbing waves in these areas can be
non-conservative. The strong breaking and refraction around the head of the breakwater can
actually increase the wave disturbance in the harbour.
Conditions were simulated for three wave conditions, corresponding to 14 second waves from the
NNE and the NE, as well as 10 second waves from the NNE. All simulations were intended to
represent North Atlantic swell conditions and were simulated with a wave height of 1 m. Note that
the wave processes simulated in the Boussinesq model are largely independent of wave height.
Simulations were carried out with a time step of 0.25 seconds, and spanned a duration of one hour
in the model. The first ten minutes of the simulation were used to allow the waves to penetrate the
model and establish a steady state condition. Following this, the wave disturbance values were
extracted and are expressed as the ratio of the wave height inside the harbour to the height of the
incoming waves. Simulations were completed for both the existing and dredged conditions.
For each pair of simulations the difference in the wave height was plotted. This was completed
both by subtracting one result from another, and from extracting the results along the red line at the
toe of the beach, as shown in Figure 5.3. Figures 5.4 to 5.6 each show the wave height for existing
and proposed, as well as the difference between the two scenarios. The difference plots are
expressed as a difference in meters based on a 1 m offshore wave height. These differences also
represent a portion of the offshore wave height. For example, 0.1 in the difference plot represent
10% of the offshore wave height, which would be 20 cm for a 2 m offshore wave, or 10 cm for a 1 m
offshore wave, etc..
Figure 5.3 Location of Wave Height Extraction Comparison Location for M21BW
(plotted over example contours of wave height difference (m) for a 1 m offshore wave)

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
The wave conditions in the vicinity of the cruise ship berths will slightly increase, as shown in
Figures 5.4 to 5.6. The wave conditions are presently estimated to be in the range of 0.05 to 0.10 of
the wave height near the harbour entrance for the common NNE to NE swell conditions. The
increase in the wave height may be as much as an additional two to five percent of the offshore
wave height.
Only a limited number of wave conditions were simulated in the Boussinesq model, and therefore
it is difficult to assess the potential change for all of the wave conditions. Implications to the
operations at the port as a result of this wave increase have not been considered in this analysis.
This could be completed with simulations of ship motion based on the typical vessel parameters. If
this type of work were to be considered, it would likely also need to include wave monitoring in
the harbour to verify the model results. The Port Department has advised Cox & SHAL that
existing wave conditions at the cruise ship berth do not present operational problems. If waves are
well below the threshold for concern, then the increase in wave heights would not be a concern. If
the port is borderline, then this increase may be significant and may require further investigation.
It is estimated that the additional dredging on the north side of the channel (near Paradise Island)
may be the main reason for this increase in wave height.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 5.4 Wave Height for (a) Existing, (b) Proposed and (c, d) Wave Height Difference, NNE 1m, 10s

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 5.5 Wave Height for (a) Existing, (b) Proposed and (c, d) Wave Height Difference, NNE 1m, 14s

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 5.6 Wave Height for (a) Existing, (b) Proposed and (c, d) Wave Height Difference, NE 1m, 14s

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
5.3 Changes in Waves & Currents Due to Dredging HYDROSED Modeling
A numerical modeling effort was undertaken to estimate waves and the associated nearshore
currents in the harbour area, in order to assess the impacts that the dredging may have on the
beaches. HYDROSED is a 2DH hydrodynamic model for coastal areas. It consists of a spectral wave
transformation and breaking model and a hydrodynamic model to describe wave generated
nearshore currents and circulations (driven by radiation stresses predicted with the spectral wave
transformation model). The advantage of this approach is that it provides a full spatial description
of nearshore currents in and around the harbour. However, compared to the Boussinesq model in
the previous section, it does not include reflections and has a less robust representation of
diffraction. Therefore, the HYDROSED results are most appropriate for assessing the beaches in the
more exposed harbour areas, but are less appropriate for assessing the waves near the cruise ship
berths.
The bathymetry for the calculation domain was created using a combination of the 2008 bathymetry
by Hydrographic Consultants Ltd and the NOAA chart 26309 as shown in Figure 4.1. A 482 660
mesh (cross-shore alongshore) with grid size of 5 m was applied. The depth at the offshore
boundary of the calculation domain was about 250 m. Figure 5.7 shows the calculation domain for
the existing conditions.
The model was run for the wave conditions shown in Table 5.1 with the existing bathymetry and
harbour conditions, as well as with the proposed dredged bathymetry. In total, 22 wave conditions
were simulated. The selected wave conditions were representative of the predominant and extreme
events of the 25-year hindcast dataset including hurricanes.
Table 5.1 Modeled Wave Conditions

Wave Direction
Wave Height 0 40 320
1.0 m 8s 6, 10, 16 s 8s
2.0 m 8s 6, 10, 16 s 8s
3.0 m 8s 6, 10, 16 s 8s
4.0 m 8s -- --
4.5 m -- 6, 10, 16 s --
11 m 12 s 12 s 12 s
To facilitate the discussions in this section, Figure 5.8 shows a key map of the Nassau Harbour area
and its beaches. As shown in this figure, the beach along the south shore of the harbour has been
divided into 5 parts by the existing groin/outfall structures and a seawall. The beaches have been
labeled by letters A to E from west to east and the groins from 1 to 5 in the same manner.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 5.7 HYDROSED calculation domain and bathymetry for existing conditions.
Figure 5.8 A key map of the Nassau Harbour area.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
5.3.1 Existing conditions
Example results corresponding to a storm with 3 m wave height, 8 s period, and 320 or NW
direction are presented in Figure 5.9. Waves from NW direction do not occur frequently (less than
2% of the time), but can penetrate into the harbour more than waves from other directions (thus
representing a worst case scenario). Waves coming through the harbour entrance are refracted
towards the southern beaches, while the berthing area is well sheltered by Paradise Island against
the waves. Longshore currents outside the harbour are strong and towards the east. A large
counterclockwise circulation is predicted inside the harbour just east of Arawak Cay. Wave
refraction along the southern edge of the navigation channel inside the harbour is visible in Figure
5.9. Longshore currents are towards the east along Beaches B to E under this wave condition, with
calculated depth averaged currents along the beaches less than 10 cm/s. Longshore currents along
Beach A (Esplanade Beach) are very weak as a result of normal incidence of waves on this beach. A
small clockwise circulation is observed at the east end of Beach A, and is likely responsible for
beach erosion at this location.
Figures 5.10 shows the results corresponding to a storm with 3 m wave height, 8 s period, and 0 or
N direction. Figure 5.11 presents the results for an extreme wave condition with 4.5 m wave height,
16 s period, and 40 or NE direction. Longshore currents outside the harbour change their
direction according to the input wave direction. Inside the harbour and along the southern
beaches, nearshore current patterns stay similar to those described for NW waves but with smaller
magnitudes. More results are presented in Appendix B.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 5.9 Wave Heights (top) and Nearshore Currents (bottom) for 3 m, 8 s NW waves

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 5. 10 Wave Heights (top) and Nearshore Currents (bottom) for 3 m, 8 s N waves

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 5. 11 Wave Heights (top) and Nearshore Currents (bottom) for 4.5 m, 16 s NE waves

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
5.3.2 Proposed Dredged Harbour Conditions
Bathymetry of the calculation domain for the proposed dredged conditions is shown in Figure 5.12.
The southern bank of the proposed extended channel is more linear with a sharp corner compared
to the curved shape of the existing channel. Example results corresponding to a storm with 3 m
wave height, 8 s period, and 320 or NW direction are presented in Figure 5.13. Waves penetrating
the harbour entrance are refracted on different channel banks and divided accordingly, creating a
lower wave height zone around the east end of Beach A. Longshore currents are towards the east
along Beaches C to E and slightly stronger than those under the existing conditions. Longshore
currents along Beach B, however, are towards the west (there is a divergence point at Groin 3). This
means that the alignment of Beach B is likely to change somewhat once the channel is dredged.
Similar results were observed for other wave conditions as presented in Appendix C.
Figure 5.12 HYDROSED calculation domain and bathymetry for the proposed dredged conditions.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 5.13 Wave Heights (top) and Nearshore Currents (bottom) for 3 m, 8 s NW waves, Proposed
Dredging

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
5.3.3 Comparisons of Existing and Dredged Harbour Conditions Results
In order to better demonstrate the effect of dredged bathymetry on wave height distribution inside
the harbour, plots of wave height difference between existing and dredged conditions were
prepared using HYDROSED results. Figure 5.14 shows the wave height difference plot
corresponding to the storm with 3 m wave height, 8 s period, and 320 or NW direction. It should
be mentioned again that waves from NW direction do not occur frequently (less than 2% of the
time), but can penetrate into the harbour more than waves from other directions and therefore
represent the worst case scenario. Wave heights after dredging will increase through the harbour
entrance and from there along the new channel edge towards Beaches D and E for this wave
condition. The increase in wave height is less than 0.5 m. A corresponding decrease in wave height
is observed in front of the Esplanade Beach (Beach A). Figures 5.15 and 5.16 show comparisons of
calculated existing and dredged wave heights along Transects 1 and 2 (Figure 5.8) for all NW wave
conditions. These figures also indicate a slight increase in wave height across the harbour entrance
(Transect 2) and in front of Beach B to E and reduction of wave height in front of the Esplanade
Beach.
Figure 5.14 Wave height difference plot for NW waves.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Variation of Wave Height Along Transect 1: Existing & Dredged Conditions

0
3
Depth (m)
6
Dredged Depth
9 Existing Depth
12
H = 3 m, T = 8 s, Dir = 320o
Wave Height (m)
0.5
0
H = 2 m, T = 8 s, Dir = 320o Wave Height (Dredged)
Wave Height (Existing)
Wave Height (m)
0.5
0
H = 1 m, T = 8 s, Dir = 320o
Wave Height (m)
0.5
0
Groin 1 Groin 2 Groin 3 Groin 4 Seawall Groin 5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
West Distance along the Transect (m) East
Figure 5.15 Wave height comparisons along Transect 1 for NW waves.

0
3
Depth (m)
Dredged Depth
6
Existing Depth
9
12
15
H = 3 m, T = 8 s, Dir = 320o
2
Wave Height (m)
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
H = 2 m, T = 8 s, Dir = 320o
2
Wave Height (Dredged)
Wave Height (m)
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
H = 1 m, T = 8 s, Dir = 320o
2
Wave Height (m)
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Southwest Northeast
Distance along the Transect (m)
Figure 5.16 Wave height comparisons along Transect 2 for NW waves.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 5.17 shows the wave height difference plot for 3 m wave height, 10 s period from 40 or NE
direction which is the predominant wave direction at this site. For this wave condition, wave
heights at the harbour entrance show only minor changes after dredging. Inside the harbour,
however, there is a slight (less than 15 cm) increase in wave height over the east half of the harbour
area. Again, a corresponding decrease in wave height is observed in front of the Esplanade Beach.
Figure 5.18 shows the results for 4.5 m wave height, 16 s period from NE direction which is a longer
period wave and undergoes more refraction compared to the previous case. Wave heights across
the harbour entrance are predicted to be very similar before and after dredging. Inside the harbour
there is about 25 cm increase in wave height over the east half of the harbour area with a
corresponding decrease in wave height in front of the Esplanade Beach. Figures 5.19 and 5.20 show
comparisons of calculated wave heights for existing and dredged conditions along Transects 1 and
2 for 16 s waves from NE direction. The results are in agreement with BW model results presented
in Figures 5.5 and 5.6.
Figure 5.17 Wave height difference plot for 10 s NE waves.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 5.18 Wave height difference plot for 16 s NE waves.

0
Depth (m)
4
Dredged Depth
8 Existing Depth
12
H = 4.5 m, T = 16 s, Dir = 40o
Wave Height (m)
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
H = 3 m, T = 16 s, Dir = 40o
Wave Height (m)
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
H = 2 m, T = 16 s, Dir = 40o
Wave Height (m)

0.9
0.6
0.3
0
H = 1 m, T = 16 s, Dir = 40o
Wave Height (m)
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Figure 5.19 Wave height comparisons along Transect 1 for 16 s, NE waves.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------

0
Wave Height (m) Depth (m)
5
Dredged Depth
10 Existing Depth
15
3 H = 4.5 m, T = 16 s, Dir = 40o
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
H = 3 m, T = 16 s, Dir = 40o
Wave Height (m)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Wave Height (m)
3 H = 2 m, T = 16 s, Dir = 40o
2.5 Wave Height (Dredged)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
H = 1 m, T = 16 s, Dir = 40o
Wave Height (m)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Southwest Distance along the Transect (m) Northeast
Figure 5.20 Wave height comparisons along Transect 2 for 16 s, NE waves.
Figure 5.21 shows the wave height difference plot for 11 m wave height, 12 s period hurricane wave
from 320 or NW direction. The model has predicted that waves in general are larger for dredged
bathymetry over most of the harbour. Waves are about 0.5 m larger in front of beaches B to E
under this wave condition; however, some breaking is occurring and the difference in the wave
height becomes less as the waves approach the shore. The model shows similar results for
hurricane waves from N and NE directions. Hurricane wave heights arriving at the beaches B to E
are about 0.2 to 0.5 m larger for the dredged bathymetry depending on offshore wave direction.
Figures 5.22 and 5.23 show comparisons of calculated wave heights for existing and dredged
conditions along Transects 1 and 2 for hurricane waves from different directions. These figures also
indicate insignificant change in wave height across the harbour entrance (Transect 2) and increase
in wave height in the area east of Groin 2 along Transect 1. A complete set of wave height
difference plots is presented in Appendix D. Complete wave height comparisons along Transects 1
and 2 are presented in Appendix E.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 5.21 Wave height difference plot inside the harbour for NW hurricane waves.
Variation of Wave Height Along Transect 1 for Hurricane Conditions: Existing & Dredged Conditions
0
3
Depth (m)
6
Dredged Depth
9 Existing Depth
12
H = 11 m, T = 12 s, Dir = 320o
Wave Height (m)
1.5
0.5
0
H = 11 m, T = 12 s, Dir = 0o Wave Height (Dredged)
1.5
Wave Height (m)
0.5
0
H = 11 m, T = 12 s, Dir = 40o
Wave Height (m)
1.5
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Figure 5.22 Wave height comparisons along Transect 1 for hurricane waves.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Variation of Wave Height Along Transect 2 for Hurricane Conditions: Existing & Dredged Conditions
0
Depth (m) 3
Dredged Depth
6
Existing Depth
12
15
4.8
Wave Height (m)
3.6
2.4
1.2
H = 11 m, T = 12 s, Dir = 320o
0
4.8
Wave Height (m)

3.6 Wave Height (Existing)
2.4
1.2
H = 11 m, T = 12 s, Dir = 0o
0
4.8
Wave Height (m)
3.6
2.4
1.2
H = 11 m, T = 12 s, Dir = 40o
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Southwest Northeast
Distance along the Transect (m)
Figure 5.23 Wave height comparisons along Transect 2 for hurricane waves.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
6.0 BEACH STABILITY IN NASSAU HARBOUR
6.1 Introduction
The proposed dredging of Nassau Harbour may result in a change to the severity of the waves
entering the harbour, but also to the wave directions as they approach the beach. As waves
transform from the deepwater of the navigation channel to the shallow water near the shore, the
waves change direction and some focusing of wave energy occurs. To assess these potential
changes, beach stability was examined for both the existing and proposed conditions.
The beach stability analysis was based on the numerical modeling described in the previous
sections. This involved both the recently surveyed bathymetric conditions, and the proposed
bathymetric conditions following harbour dredging. The emphasis of the present study was to
document the changes that may occur from the existing conditions and to look at typically long-
term stable beach shapes and predict how these may change.
6.2 Site Conditions
A series of sediment samples were obtained from the beaches in the region of concern. Samples
were obtained at three locations in the study area, with samples at three elevations on the beach at
each site. The locations and sieve analysis results are summarized in Figure 6.1. In general,
sediment on the beaches is composed of medium to coarse carbonate sand.
In some regions, there is larger cobble size material, as shown in Figure 6.2. The approximate range
over which this material was observed (shown as the red line in Figure 6.1) corresponds to the
eroded area around the east end of the Esplanade beach. Numerical modeling results indicated
that this area is currently exposed to larger waves (see Figure 5.19) during NE swell events. The
cobble size material was most visible as a steeper band of material along the back-beach, while the
area closer to the shore was sand. The presence of this material on this beach is an indicator of
higher energy waves of the area that can carry coarse material onshore due nonlinear wave orbital
motion. Some scattered cobble was also evident throughout many other regions of the site, existing
primarily near the top of the tidal range.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 6.1 Sediment Samples in Nassau Harbour
Figure 6.2 Larger Cobble Size Material in Reach A

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
6.3 Historical Beach Positions and Beach Evolution
Existing beach positions were surveyed as part of this study in April 2008 by the survey crew from
Hydrographic Consultants Ltd. Beach positions were documented through regularly spaced shore
perpendicular beach profiles that were measured using RTK GPS. This survey provided the
baseline beach conditions from which past and present changes to the beach were compared.
The beach positions prior to the construction of Arawak Cay are not clearly defined based on the
information collected for this report. Based on the Corps of Engineers Report (1965), it appears that
the curvature of the west end of the beach to the north did not exist, and developed in response to
the construction of Arawak Cay (perhaps through artificial and natural processes). The amount of
shelter this area would be much greater than the past and the beaches are likely wider and consist
of finer grain sand than would have likely previously existed. However, this is speculation and
cannot be confirmed at present.
Aerial photographs were obtained from 1982, 1989, 1995 and 2004, and a Quickbird satellite image
was obtained from 2006. These photographs were obtained as digital images and were then
orthorectified and georeferenced based on survey landmarks (perimeter of various piers)
established from Hydrographic Consultants Ltd.s RTK GPS survey.
The older photographs showed a number of changes to the beach areas, in addition to various
phases of construction that occurred. The photographs are provided in Figures 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5.
These figures show a comparison of the East Breakwater region, the main part of the harbour and a
zoomed in comparison of the main beach area respectively. Note that the 2004 and 2006 images
showed essentially the same shoreline positions, as seen in Figure 6.5 (2004 photo, 2006 linework).
Based on the aerial photographs and communication with Cox & SHAL (2008), the following
observations about the site conditions were made.
The central portion of the beach is somewhat stabilized by a number of storm outfalls, which act as
groynes extending into the water. Prior to about 1992, the outfalls were concrete and were
deteriorated, filled with sand and ineffective as outfalls. In approximately 1992, they were
reconstructed using a double row of steel sheet pile training walls that appear to be similar in size
and position. Different photographs have some inconsistencies in the length of the structures;
however, these are believed to be a result of submerged pipe or armour that extends beyond the tip
of the main part of the structure. It appears that the groins have remained relatively similar in
length and position since 1982 (date of first photo) and perhaps much longer.
In the 1995 photograph, the eastern of the two bridges to Arawak Cay does not exist, but instead
access to Arawak Cay is across sand fill. As part of the new bridge construction, an east west
seawall was built south of the east end of Arawak Cay, extending east from the bridge. This has
effectively created a new groyne extending eastward into the Harbour. This likely supports the
west end of the beach, although the 1995 photo does show the existence of the wider beach at the
west end of the site.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
5
Imagery: 2006 digitized shoreline 2006
digitized shoreline 1995
Imagery: 1995
Imagery: 1989
Imagery: 1982
0 60 120 180 Photo Date: 2006, 1995, 1989, 1982

m
Breakwater Shoreline Comparison
ft Figure 6.3
Spatial Reference: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 18N
0 200 400 600

Nassau, Bahamas
Baird
5
Imagery: 2006
Imagery: 1995 digitized shoreline 2006

Imagery: 1989
Imagery: 1982
0 200 400 600 Photo Date: 2006, 1995, 1989, 1982

m
Shoreline Comparison
ft Figure 6.4
0 300 600 900

Nassau, Bahamas
Baird
5 digitized shoreline 1995

0 50 100 150 Photo Date: 2004

m Shoreline Comparison Figure 6.5
ft
0 200 400 600
Nassau, Bahamas
Baird
A relatively large volume of sand was required to create the larger beach at the west end of the site,
and the origin of this material is suspected, but not confirmed. As part of the last Harbour
expansion in 1988-90, dredged material was stockpiled on Arawak Cay with the decant basin
located in the channel south of Arawak Cay, east of the original bridge (see 1989 aerial photo in
Appendix F). This decant basin contained most of the finest material and resulted in a build up of
material blocking the south channel between Arawak Cay and the mainland. The material was so
soft that the contractor placed signs saying "Danger Quicksand", which remained in place several
years after completion of construction. It is believed that this material from the decant basin may be
a major contributor to the material that makes up the beach. The 1989 photo also shows dredging
activities in the vicinity of the beach and it is possible that some fill may have been placed directly
in the area. The beach positions from 1982 and 1989 were not in equilibrium at the west end, since
sand could be moved towards this area by strong easterly conditions, but there is no mechanism to
move sand out of this area. The 1995 and 2006 photos likely represent a stable beach orientation at
the west end.
The conclusions relating to the different beach conditions observed in the photographs and shown
in Figure 6.5 are as follows:
In the beaches described as B, C and D, there has not been a systematic change to the beaches over
the 24 year span of the photographs. Beach B may be experiencing a small amount of erosion,
while beach D may have an opposite trend. However, these changes are not consistent and are not
supported by the 1995 photograph for example.
Beach A shows a more systematic change to the alignment of the beach, with a gradual recession of
about one metre per year at the east end. This appears to be a slower rate in the time period from
1982 to 1995 as compared to 1995 to 2006. However, with the difficulty in assigning a waters edge
to the photo and the different tide levels that exist, a general statement of gradual erosion in this
area is all that can be provided with confidence.
Beach E, at the east end of the area of interest, shows some variability in the beach position, but no
clear changes over time.
6.4 Dredging Impacts
6.4.1 Waves Inside the Harbour
Based on the results of the M21BW and HYDROSED modeling, the impacts of dredging on waves in
the Nassau Harbour is better understood. There are five significant regions where changes are
outlined, as described in Section 5.1 and Figure 5.1, and labeled A through E. The impact of these
specific regions is discussed below.
Region A, on the southwest side of the entrance channel will have limited impact on the
wave conditions in the harbour. For the more rare northwesterly conditions, the amount of

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
refraction of waves towards the west breakwater will be slightly reduced. However, the
constriction point at the head of the west breakwater remains, and therefore the influence is
expected to be minimal. The penetration of the harbour by the more common NE swells
will not change due to dredging in Region A.
Region B, no deepening of the approach channel is anticipated; changes are in adjacent

areas. Therefore Region B and Region C will not change the wave conditions in the harbour.
Region D provides a shallow region on the north side of the approach channel that resulted
in wave refraction to the north, directing wave energy towards the north shore of the
harbour. As waves were drawn to the north, the remaining waves in the central part of the
channel would have shifted some of their energy north through the process of diffraction.
Dredging in Region D will lessen the amount that wave energy is expended on the north
shore, resulting in a slight increase in the amount of wave energy reaching the cruise ship
berths. This increase may be in the order of five per cent. This minor increase in the wave
energy is not expected to affect the beaches.
Region E is a region that is presently shallow and will be dredged to become a deeper area.
The distance between the deep area and the beach is still quite large and this removal of
shallows will not cause an instability in the toe of the beach. The key issue here is that the
alignment of the edge of the dredged area controls how the waves refract and hence redirect
as they encounter shallow water.
Figure 6.6 shows a pair of plots (existing and proposed) that are shaded according to the mean wave
direction. These plots are produced from an analysis of the M21BW results, and have a good
representation of refraction and diffraction. The transition from green/red to purple/blue shows the
change in wave direction from having an easterly component (direction from) to having a westerly
component. The manner in which the dredged slope changes the wave directions is also clearly
visible on these plots by the abrupt change in the direction colour. At the western end of the beaches
(Beach A) there is a very slight shift in the wave direction to having a more easterly direction.
Towards the east end of the beaches, the wave direction has taken on a slightly more westerly
direction as a result of the dredging.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 6.6 Plots of Wave Direction for 14 s 1 m NNE Wave, Existing (top) and Proposed (bottom)

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
Figure 6.7 presents a comparison of wave height vectors along Transect 1 for hurricane waves
predicted by HYDROSED. The length/magnitude of each vector represents the wave height. The
wave direction is shown assuming that the vertical axis is towards the north. Similar to M21BW
results, waves west of Groyne 2 have a more easterly direction, while waves east of Groyne 3 show
a more westerly direction and are larger after dredging. This is in agreement with the prediction of
slightly stronger eastward longshore currents along Beaches C to E.
Variation of Wave Direction Along Transect 1: Existing & Dredged Conditions
0
3
Depth (m)
9 Water Depth (Dredged)

Water Depth (Existing)
12
H = 11 m, T = 12 s, Dir = 320o
H = 11 m, T = 12 s, Dir = 0o
H = 11 m, T = 12 s, Dir = 40o
Wave Direction (Existing)

Wave Height (0.8 m) Wave Direction (Dredged)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Figure 6.7 Plot of Wave Height Vectors Predicted by HYDROSED for Hurricane Waves for Existing (black)
and Proposed (red) Bathymetry.
6.4.2 Beach Stability Within Nassau Harbour
Based on changes in wave direction discussed in Section 6.4.1 and changes in nearshore current
pattern and the limited change in wave height described in Section 5, it is expected that the beach
will change in subtle ways, but will not undergo any major changes under non-hurricane waves.
This is particularly the case as the existing groyne structures will continue to anchor the beaches
through preventing alongshore movement of sand. The region immediately west of Groyne 2 in
Beach A is presently a narrow beach suffering erosion. Numerical results indicate a reduction in
wave height in front of this beach. It is likely that slightly smaller waves in this area may be helpful

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
for the beach if sand is supplied/added to this site in the future. It is expected that Beach B may
realign slightly to face a more westerly direction; however, this change will likely be very small and
may be in the order of a few degrees. No significant changes are expected in the alignment of
Beaches C to E.
Hurricanes generate the most severe wave conditions inside Nassau Harbour. It was shown in
Section 5 that dredging would result in up to 0.5 m increase in hurricane wave heights inside the
harbour. The effect of this increase on beach profile stability was investigated using the COSMOS
model. COSMOS is a deterministic cross-shore numerical model suitable for simulation of the
extent of beach erosion during storm events.
The cross-shore analysis was completed using Hurricane Frances (Sept. 2004) waves. Hurricane
Frances was selected, as it was the largest hurricane in the record that has hit the Nassau area. Peak
hurricane waves of this storm were generally from the northwest, which is the most vulnerable
direction for the Harbour. Waves from Hurricane Frances were available at a point offshore from
Baird hurricane simulations. Using HYDROSED results, offshore waves were transformed to a
point inside the harbour at the offshore end of the COSMOS profile for both the existing
bathymetry and the proposed bathymetry. The resulting wave parameters (wave height, period,
and direction) are shown in Figure 6.8 to 6.10.
COSMOS simulations were completed for a beach profile across Beach B as shown in Figure 6.11. A
water level of 0.5 m was assumed to account for storm surge. A median grain size of 500 microns
(0.5 mm) was used for the beach the sand. This is a finer grain size than what is on most of the
Nassau Harbour beaches (see Figure 6.1) and is thus a conservative assumption.
The results from the COSMOS modeling are shown in Figure 6.12 and Figure 6.13. The beach is
predicted to see some erosion under this hurricane event. The results show slightly more erosion
for the dredged bathymetry than the existing conditions. The erosion at the ordinary waterline (0.0
m CD) is approximately 1.5 m and 2 m erosion for the existing and dredged conditions,
respectively. It is possible that the actual erosion rates would be less than the predicted values
because of the existence of coarse sediments. Coarser sediment in a sand mixture tend to expose
themselves and armour the bed, resulting in less transport of sediment compared to the case of
uniform sand. Nevertheless, slightly more erosion of the beach is expected under dredged
conditions. In either case, the eroded material is predicted to stay in the vicinity of the shoreline (in
waters shallower than 1 m) and, therefore, is likely to come back to the beach under the action of
long-period swells.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
12
11
Hurricane Frances - Offshore
10 Hydrosed (Dredged) - Harbour
Hydrosed (Dredged) - Harbour
8
Wave Height (m)
0
Sep-02 Sep-03 Sep-03 Sep-04 Sep-04 Sep-05 Sep-05 Sep-06 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-07
12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00
Time (2004)
Figure 6.8 Wave Heights during Hurricane Frances
18
17 Hurricane Frances - Offshore

16 Hydrosed (Dredged) - Harbour
Hydrosed (Existing) - Harbour
15
14
13
12
11
Wave Period (s)
10
0
12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00
Time (2004)
Figure 6.9 Wave Periods during Hurricane Frances

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
360
300
Hurricane Frances - Offshore

240
Hydrosed (Dredged) - Harbour
Wave Direction (deg)
Hydrosed (Existing) - Harbour
180
120
60
0
12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00
Time (2004)
Figure 6.10 Wave Directions during Hurricane Frances
Figure 6.11 COSMOS Profile Locations

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
4.0
Initial Profile
3.0 Final Profile (Existing)
Final Profile (Dredged)
Water Level
2.0
1.0
Elevation (m, CD)
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Distance From Offshore (m)
Figure 6.12 Results from COSMOS Modeling
1.50
Initial Profile
1.25
Final Profile (Existing)
Final Profile (Dredged)

1.00
Water Level
0.75
0.50
Elevation (m, CD)
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235
Distance From Offshore (m)
Figure 6.13 Results from COSMOS Modeling Near the Shoreline
In summary, beaches in Nassau Harbour are dynamic as they respond to different swell events and
tropical storm events. The changes that are expected to occur due to the dredging will likely
remain within the natural variation that occurs along these beaches.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Summary and Conclusions
Proposed dredging in Nassau Harbour was examined to assess the possible impacts on beach
stability in the area. Extensive wave modeling has been completed for Nassau and the entire
Atlantic Ocean in order to understand the wave conditions in the harbour. The site is primarily
affected by waves from the NNE to NE that approach the site from the open Atlantic, and secondly
by tropical systems. Both day-to-day wave conditions have been assessed in addition to hurricane
waves.
The design wave height (Hs) for the site has been determined based on historical and synthetic
storms, and is estimated to be in the order of 8.2 m for a 50 year return period. Shallow water
depths will cause a reduction in this wave height and need to be assessed on a case by case basis.
Storm surge at the site is primarily a result of pressure setup, while wind setup is less of a problem
due to the deep water depths in the navigation channel. In areas near the beaches, some additional
wind setup may be experienced; however, this is limited in magnitude to about 0.2 m for a 50 year
return period. The primary impact of this setup if that it allows larger waves and related energy to
reach the beaches inside the harbour. The combined wind and pressure surge is about 0.6 m for a
50 year return period, or about 0.8 m for a 100 year return period. Wave setup, mean high tide and
an allowance for sea level rise relative to Nassau must also be considered.
Wave transformation modeling was completed to examine the wave conditions within the harbour
and near the beaches. This was completed with two different numerical models for both existing
and proposed conditions, and differences in the wave characteristics were examined. The
conclusion from these simulations was that the beaches in the area would see only minor changes
in their shape and position due to the proposed dredging, with most of this variation within the
range of normal historical beach adjustment.
Wave conditions near the cruise ship berths will increase slightly as a result of the dredging. This
will likely be an increase in the order of two to five per cent of the offshore wave height. The
harbour presently has protection that results in waves of only 0.05 to 0.10 ( 5 to 10 %) of the offshore
wave height, so this small increase is significant compared to the presently existing wave
conditions. If the harbour rarely if ever has downtime due to waves, then this increase may not be
a problem. However, if the harbour does have occasional problems, then the frequency and
severity of these problems may increase.
7.2 Recommendations
There are two recommendations pertaining to the impacts that dredging may have. Beach profiling
is recommended and should start immediately, while a further assessment of waves near the berth
may also be required.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
7.2.1 Beach Profiling
Beaches in the harbour will likely remain in a similar position to that of today. In order to verify
and document this, a monitoring program should be implemented. This monitoring should be
completed as a series of breach profiles. For beaches B through E, one profile in the middle and one
profile at each end is adequate. For Beach A, eight profiles should be distributed along the length
of the beach. In addition, the position of the water line should be surveyed over the study area.
These surveys should be completed four times a year, as well as after any large swell or tropical
event. Profiling should commence immediately to establish some baseline conditions prior to
dredging, including the natural variation that occurs.
In the event that the beaches in the harbour respond to the dredging in an unexpected manner, the
amount of change will be documented. This will assist in the installation of additional works such
as another groyne or an offshore structure, and will provide information necessary to make beach
replenishment recommendations if any are requried.
7.2.2 Harbour Wave Assessment
If the increased wave heights are expected to be a problem, then further modeling of this process
should be completed. This would involve simulating more wave conditions and instrumenting the
area with a wave gauge both outside and inside the harbour. The gauges would provide
verification of the existing wave conditions and could be used to calibrate computer models of
various wave conditions. Computer modeling could then be used to examine both the extent of the
problem and possible remedies to the increase in wave conditions at the cruise ship berths.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
8.0 REFERENCES
Goda, Y. 2000. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. Advanced Series on Ocean
Engineering Volume 15. Published by World Scientific.
Hluchan, T. 2008. Personal communication.
Holland, G.J. 1980: An Analytical Model of the Wind and Pressure Profiles in Huricanes. Monthly
Weather Review Vol. 108, 1212-1218.
Russell, L.J. 1971: Probability distributions for hurricane effects. Journal of Waterway, Harbours
and Coastal Engineering. Vol. 97 139-154.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1965a: Selection of Optimum Plan for Improvements in Nassau
Harbour, Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas. Technical Report No. 2-696
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1965b: Stability of Rubble-Mound Breakwaters, Nassau Harbour,
Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas. Technical Report No. 2-697
Willoughby, H.E. and Rahn, M.E. 2004 Parametric representation of the primary hurricane vortex.
Part I: Observations and evaluation of the Holland (1980) model. Monthly Weather review Vol
132 3033-3048.
Young, I.R. 1998: Observations of the spectra of hurricane generated waves. Ocean Engineering,
Vol 25 261-276.

11326.000 -----------DRAFT REPORT---------
APPENDIX A
DISCUSSION OF BREAKWATER DAMAGE AND REPAIR
Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Appendix

11326.000
Baird & Associates
July 22, 2008
1145 Hunt Club Road, Suite 500
Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1V 0Y3
Baird Mr. Tom Hluchan

President
T. 613 731 8900
F. 613 731 9778
Shal Consulting Engineers Limited
202-20 Packam Cir.
Brampton ON L7A 2N6
oceans Dear Mr. Hluchan:

engineering
Re: Preliminary Review/Assessment of Damage to East Breakwater, Nassau Harbour
lakes
Further to our discussions, we have undertaken a preliminary review/assessment of the damage to the
design
East breakwater at the entrance to Nassau Harbour. In addition, we have identified several alternative
rivers concepts for remedial works that may warrant consideration. This letter provides a summary of our
science preliminary review/assessment.
watersheds
Review of Available Information
construction Baird has reviewed the following information, as provided by SHAL:
Faxed copy of original design cross-sections (poor quality);

USACE (1965) model study report of wave agitation for various harbour improvement
concepts (3D model);
USACE (1965) model study report for stability of West breakwater (2D model);
Hydrographic survey completed by Hydrographic Consultants Ltd. (refer to Figure 1).
The abutment section of the East breakwater (the transition/connection of the breakwater to Paradise
Island) has been severely damaged, with a complete breach of the structure over a length of
approximately 100 m. The damage is clearly visible in the aerial photograph presented with the
hydrographic survey data (Figure 1), and in photographs provided by yourself and Rob Roman, as well
as in photographs available at www.skypic.com and www.marinas.com. An overwash debris field is
evident to the south of the original breakwater alignment (refer to Figure 2). It is understood that a
diver inspection of this area showed that the debris is composed of a mix of stone materials and broken
Tribar armour units.
W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. www.baird.com

Mr. Tom Hlulchan
July 22, 2008
Page 2 of 9
Baird
Figure 1 - Hydrographic Survey Data near Breakwater (Hydrographic Consultants Ltd.)
Figure 2 - Damage to the East Breakwater

Mr. Tom Hlulchan
July 22, 2008
Page 3 of 9
Baird Numerical Model Simulations of the Perfect Storm

It is reported that the damage to the East breakwater was caused by a storm in late October/early
November 1991 (often referred to as the Perfect Storm or the Halloween Storm). This storm event
is included in the hindcast database developed by Baird (2008) for the Nassau dredging study. The
hindcast model results indicate that the offshore wave conditions during this event peaked at Hso = 4.3
m, Tp = 16.2 s from the NNE-NE. It is noted that this storm event was characterized by very long
period waves (swells) due to the fact that the active wave generation zone (i.e. area of strong winds)
was some distance away from Nassau. In addition, no significant storm surge would have occurred at
Nassau due to its distance from the meteorological disturbance (i.e. low pressure/high winds).
Baird has undertaken preliminary wave transformation modeling of this storm event using the MIKE21
NSW model. The initial results (refer to Figure 3) suggest wave heights in the order of Hs = 4.5 to 5 m
along the length of the East breakwater, with some wave focusing in the area of interest. The wave
heights incident on the abutment section of the breakwater would likely have been lower due to
depth-limited wave breaking. However, an accurate estimate of the actual wave heights incident on the
breakwater would require more detailed hydrographic data and additional modeling due to the complex
bathymetry in this area.
Figure 3 Nearshore Wave Conditions During the Perfect Storm of 1991

Mr. Tom Hlulchan
July 22, 2008
Page 4 of 9
Baird Review/Assessment of Original Design

The East breakwater includes four zones, including the roundhead, two trunk sections (referred to as
Reaches 1 and 2) and the abutment section. The design crest elevation was +15 ft Shattuck (+13.5 ft
MLWST) over the entire length of the structure.
The primary armour layer for the roundhead and Reach 1 was 35.5 T Tribars (with 19 T units on the
rear slope), while that for Reach 2 was 19 T Tribars (with 5-6 T rock on the rear slope). These cross-
sections included a filter layer and core stone.
The abutment section provided a transition between the breakwater and Paradise Island. The
abutment section was constructed on top of the west end of Paradise Island, and consisted of a
homogenous trapezoid of 2-6 T rock with a crest width of 6 ft. The original design called for excavated
toe trenches (6 ft wide by minimum 3 ft deep) in the surface of the islands smooth rock surface; these
trenches are visible in recent photographs of the site.
Based on our preliminary review of the available information, as well as preliminary analyses
undertaken for this assessment (see Attachment 1), it is hypothesized that the damage likely initiated in
the abutment section of the breakwater. Once this section had failed, it is likely that the stability of
the shoreward section of Reach 2 (protected by 19 T Tribars) was compromised, leading to a
progressive unraveling of the breakwater from the shoreward end.
At this time, it is Bairds opinion that the severe localized damage that has occurred to the East
breakwater may be the result of several factors, potentially including:
Wave focusing due to complex bathymetry;

Smooth, hard rock foundation in shallow water (difficult/complex design issue);
Inadequate design (toe trenches, armour stone size, crest elevation/width);
Construction issues (placement, stone quality).
In addition, it is Bairds opinion that additional damage may occur during future storm events,
characterized by progressive unraveling of the breakwater from the shoreward end.
It is our understanding that the outer end of the East breakwater and the West breakwater have not
suffered any significant damage in recent years. Baird has NOT assessed the stability of the original
designs for these areas (i.e. trunk and roundhead sections). Hence, no opinion has been developed
regarding the risk of damage to these areas during future storm events.

Mr. Tom Hlulchan
July 22, 2008
Page 5 of 9
Baird Conceptual Alternatives for Remedial Works

Baird has identified four conceptual alternatives that may warrant consideration for the
repair/rehabilitation of the damaged root of the East breakwater.
1. A more robust version of original design concept (i.e. larger/deeper toe trenches, larger armour,
higher/wider cross-section), with a suitable transition to the main breakwater. This would require
much larger stone, ideally higher quality imported stone rather than the locally available stone.
Concrete armour units could also be considered, particularly for the deeper areas, with the
selection of the preferred alternative dependent upon the relative costs of imported stone versus
pre-cast concrete armour units.
2. A large, reinforced concrete structure, anchored into the rock island/seabed, with a suitable
transition to the main breakwater. A key issue with this concept is the location/depth to transition
from the concrete structure to the rubblemound breakwater. In addition, construction of a
concrete structure would be challenging given the site conditions, in particular the limited water
depth (which prevents the use of large elements that could be floated into place) and the risk of
wave action during construction.
3. Construction of rubblemound breakwater/revetment along a revised alignment to the north of
Paradise Island, terminating at the N/S shoreline section to east (near UTM Easting 262,830).
Given the steep nearshore slopes adjacent to the island (in the order of 1:4), the stability of the toe
will be a key issue for this concept. Specifically, prior experience has demonstrated that it is
difficult to develop a stable toe on a steep rock seabed exposed to breaking waves. The
construction of an underwater trench is also very difficult. These factors may require that the toe
be located in a significant water depth (in the order of 5 to 6 m), with the associated requirement
for a significant volume of material to build the structure.
4. Construction of rubblemound breakwater/revetment along a revised alignment to the south of
Paradise Island, with the north toe of the structure placed against the south shore of the island. A
key advantage of this alignment is that it provides some level of shelter to the new structure, as
some wave energy will be dissipated on the front face of the island. A potential disadvantage
with this approach is encroachment on the navigation channel. In addition, the structure will be
exposed to complex and severe wave-induced flows. Key design issues will include the toe detail
and the termination of the rubblemound structure (i.e. keying in the toe and east end of the
rubblemound structure to the south shore of the island).
Considering the rubblemound alternatives (1, 3 and 4 above), it may be possible to develop designs
using either armour stone (imported) or concrete armour units, with the selection dependent upon the
relative costs of imported stone versus pre-cast concrete units. Slender armour units, such as the
Tribars used for the original construction (as well as Tetrapods and Dolos) are generally no longer in
use, having been replaced by a new generation of bulky armour units, including the AccropodeTM and
Core-LocTM. These bulky armour units provide a better balance of hydraulic stability and structural
integrity. For smaller units (< 20 tonnes), the Core-LocTM would likely be the preferred alternative, as
it is more efficient in terms of required volumes of concrete. However, for larger units (> 20 tonnes),

Mr. Tom Hlulchan
July 22, 2008
Page 6 of 9
Baird the AccropodeTM would likely be the preferred alternative, as experience has shown that it is a more
robust unit. While the Tribar unit would not be the preferred alternative, if the original forms were still
available in Nassau, this alternative would warrant consideration, as the costs of new forms would make
up a significant portion of the total cost for this (relatively small) repair project.
Discussion
Additional investigations would be required to develop preliminary designs and cost estimates
sufficient to identify the preferred design alternative. Ideally, the final design would be supported by a
site-specific three-dimensional (3D) physical model investigation in order to simulate/address the
complex wave-structure interactions and difficult design issues associated with the nearshore
bathymetry and rock foundation conditions.
It is noted that there will be considerable uncertainty in any design that is developed without such a
model, thereby requiring a conservative approach in order to minimize the risk of future damage. For
example, it is noted that the USACE (1965) completed 3D model tests of the overall harbour, and 2D
model tests of the stability of the trunk of the West breakwater. However, no stability tests were
undertaken for the East breakwater. Although the 2D test results might be applicable to the outer trunk
section of the East breakwater, they would not be applicable to the head of either breakwater, or the
abutment section of the East breakwater, due to the complex 3D processes that exist at these locations.
As noted earlier, the lack of significant damage to the outer end of the East breakwater and the West
breakwater suggests that the original design of these sections was generally adequate. However, the
severe damage to the abutment section of the East breakwater highlights the consequence of not
completing a 3D physical modeling of the East breakwater.
We understand that the damage occurred during the Perfect Storm in 1991, almost 20 years ago. As
such, it appears that the wave agitation associated with this breach, as well as the materials that were
displaced from the structure towards the channel, are not significant issues with respect to present
operations in Nassau Harbour. Repair of the breakwater will be costly, and will only reduce the wave
agitation in the harbour by a small amount. A cost/benefit analysis may be warranted to assess the need
to repair the breach in the breakwater. The benefits could be further categorized for extreme storm
waves versus typical (day to day) conditions. If the benefits are primarily for typical conditions, then
the crest of the structure could be lower, allowing overtopping during severe storm events. However,
the design of a low-crested structure would need to consider the risk of damage by severe overtopping
to the crest and rear slope. This complex design issue is best addressed in a physical model.
Finally, we note that it may be possible to produce a design without the assistance of a physical model
study. However, given the complexity of this site, and the associated uncertainty in wave-structure
interactions, this approach would require conservative assumptions. Further, it would not be possible to
reliably quantify the anticipated performance of, or risk of damage to, the structure; this could only be
done through the completion of a site-specific three-dimensional model study. Based on Bairds
experience, it is likely that the construction cost savings associated with an optimized/refined design

Mr. Tom Hlulchan
July 22, 2008
Page 7 of 9
Baird that could be developed with a model study would more than offset the cost of the model study. As
such, we strongly recommend that a site-specific physical model study be considered if
repair/rehabilitation of the East breakwater is to be completed.
Based on past projects of a similar scope, it is likely that a physical model study would be in the range
of $US 200,000 to 300,000. This includes the cost the lab facility in addition to Bairds personnel to
complete the model study and summarize the results. Following this study, the final design process
would need to be completed and plans and specifications would be produced with an additional cost in
the range of $US 100,000. The method that is chosen for the repair would also affect the cost that
might be required for the final design, plans and specs. It should be noted that designing a repair to a
section of breakwater is typically much more complex than design of a new breakwater.
We trust that the information provided in this letter meets your requirements at this time. Clearly,
more extensive investigations and design analyses, potentially including a physical model study, are
required to support the development of final designs for any of the repair/rehabilitation concepts
presented herein.
We look forward to discussing this information with you at your convenience, and to the possibility of
working with SHAL on the development of a repair/rehabilitation design for the East breakwater.
Sincerely,
W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd.
Derek Williamson, P. Eng.

Associate
File No.: P11326.000
Encl. as noted

Mr. Tom Hlulchan
July 22, 2008
Page 8 of 9
Baird Attachment 1
East Breakwater - Abutment Section
Assessment of Original Design
The original design for the abutment section of the East breakwater indicates the use of 2 to 6 T armour
stone in a homogenous trapezoidal cross-section, with a crest elevation of +15 ft Shattuck (+13.5 ft
MLWST) and a crest width of 6 ft. In addition, the original design called for excavated toe trenches (6
ft wide by minimum 3 ft deep) in the surface of the islands smooth rock surface. The following
paragraphs provide a discussion of Bairds assessment of the original design, including armour layer
stability, wave overtopping and toe detail.
Armour Layer Stability

Assuming a median stone size (W50) of 4 tonnes, a specific gravity (SG) of 2.65 (imported stone) and a
slope of 1:1.5, Hudsons equation (USACE, 2001) suggests a no damage design wave height of Hs =
3.15 m; this is much lower than the wave conditions estimated during the 1991 storm event. Assuming
a design wave height of Hs = 4.5 m, Hudsons equation suggests a median stone size of 12 tonnes if
imported armour stone (SG = 2.65) is used. Based on these calculations, it is apparent that the armour
stone gradation specified in the original design for the abutment section was inadequate.
It is important to note that Hudsons equation is based on two-dimensional flume tests of simple
breakwater cross-sections, and does not consider a number of issues that may be critical to the stability
of this structure, such as steep seabed slope, toe stability, long period waves, plunging breakers and
three-dimensional effects. This results in considerable uncertainty in the estimate of the required
armour stone size. Further, it is noted that the armour stone size is only one of several critical design
parameters that must be considered in the development of a remedial design for this structure. As such,
the estimated stone sizes presented above should be considered as a preliminary estimate assessment
that might be used as a starting point for testing in a physical model.
Wave Overtopping
The peak nearshore wave conditions during 1991 storm event were estimated to reach Hs = 4.5 to 5 m,
with no significant storm surge. Assuming the peak wave conditions coincided with a mean high tide,
this results in a relative freeboard (F/Hs) in the order of 0.7. This suggests the potential for damage to
the crest and rear slope of the breakwater due to severe overtopping, particularly given the narrow crest
width. This damage mechanism is supported by the presence of a debris field to the south of the
original alignment of the breakwater.
As an aside, it is noted that the stability of interlocking concrete armour units, such as the Tribar, is
significantly reduced on the crest of a breakwater, as their placement in a horizontal layer does not
allow the development of the full interlocking effect that is achieved on a slope. Hence, it is possible
that an armour unit that is stable on the front slope of the breakwater may not be stable on the crest if it
is subject to severe overtopping. The design of a low-crested structure must consider the risk of

Mr. Tom Hlulchan
July 22, 2008
Page 9 of 9
Baird damage by severe overtopping to the crest and rear slope; this can be addressed through the use of
larger armour units (i.e. to resist the wave overtopping), or a higher/wider crest (i.e. to reduce wave
overtopping). This complex design issue is best addressed in a physical model.
Toe Detail
As noted above, the original design of the abutment section of the East breakwater included a toe trench
(6 ft wide by minimum 3 ft deep) at the base of the front and rear slopes of the structure. The original
toe trenches are visible in recent photographs of the site, as the structure has been completely destroyed
in this area.
Prior experience, including physical modeling for other projects, has demonstrated that it is difficult to
develop a stable toe on a steep rock seabed exposed to breaking waves, as the severe offshore flows
associated with wave downrush at the toe are sufficient to extract armour units (even oversized units)
from the toe. In these cases, the toe must be structurally anchored into the seabed. This may be
achieved through the use of a raised toe beam or an excavated trench. The height of the toe beam or
depth of the trench must be sufficient to prevent the toe stone from being extracted/displaced. In
practice, this corresponds to a height/depth of at least two-thirds of the nominal dimension of the
armour unit. The width and shape of the trench (i.e. edges) are also important parameters in order to
contain the toe units and prevent any movement.
It is Bairds opinion that the depth and width of the toe trench specified in the original design was
inadequate. However, as noted above, this is only one of several factors that contributed to the severe
damage that has occurred to the abutment section of the breakwater. The development of a stable toe
detail will be a critical design issue for any repair/rehabilitation of this structure.

Nassau Report V1.2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Nassau Report V1.2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

w w w . b a i r d .

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts

Navigating New Horizons

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts

Cox & SHAL Engineering

W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd.

For further information please contact

Issue Date Status Comments Prepared Reviewed

Navigating New Horizons

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

2.0 OFFSHORE WAVE HINDCAST ............................................................................... 4

3.0 HURRICANE MODELING....................................................................................... 12

4.0 NEARSHORE WAVE CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 25

5.0 EFFECTS OF DREDGING ON WAVES IN THE HARBOUR.................................. 33

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 1

5.3.3 Comparisons of Existing and Dredged Harbour Conditions Results .............48

6.0 BEACH STABILITY IN NASSAU HARBOUR ........................................................ 55

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 69

8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 71

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 2

1.1 Study Objective

1.2 Site Description

Figure 1.1 Aerial Image of Nassau Harbour

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 1

Figure 1.2 Nassau Harbour Beach

Figure 1.3 Damaged East Breakwater

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 2

1.3 Tidal Conditions

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 3

2.0 OFFSHORE WAVE HINDCAST

2.1 Methodology Overview

2.2 Atlantic Hindcast

The WW3 model of the Atlantic Ocean

Wind was applied to the model to generate

The QuikScat satellite is a polar orbiting

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 4

Figure 2.2 Example of QuikScat Wind Data

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 5

Figure 2.3 Time Series Validation for Buoy 41047

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 6

Figure 2.4 QQ-Plot for Buoy 41047

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 7

2.3 Bahamas Wave Modeling

Figure 2.5 Bahamas Grid for the WaveWatch 3 Simulations

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 8

Figure 2.6 Time Series Comparison of Measured and Hindcast Waves

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 9

2.4 Deepwater Wave Climate

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 10

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 11

3.0 HURRICANE MODELING

3.1 Historical Hurricane Tracks

Figure 3.1 Number of Storms within 200 km of Nassau

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 12

Figure 3.2 Storms Per Year Within 200 km of Nassau

Figure 3.3 Average Number of Storms per Year

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 13

3.2 Numerical Modeling of Hurricane Waves

Figure 3.1 Grid Domain used for Hurricane Simulations

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 14

Figure 3.2 Effect of B Value on Storm Profile

3.3 Wave Model Validation

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 15

Wave Climate and Dredging Impacts Page 16