Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T10:55:37.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dynamic preservation of Texel Inlet, the Netherlands: understanding the interaction of an ebb-tidal delta with its adjacent coast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2018

Edwin P.L. Elias*
Affiliation:
Deltares USA, 8601 Georgia Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
Ad J.F. van der Spek
Affiliation:
Deltares, P.O. Box 177, 2600 MH Delft, the Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author: Email: edwin.elias@deltares-usa.us

Abstract

Tidal inlets and the associated ebb-tidal deltas can significantly impact the coastal sediment budget due to their ability to store or release large quantities of sand. Nearly 300 million m3 (mcm) of sediments were eroded from Texel Inlet's ebb-tidal delta and the adjacent coasts following the closure of the Zuiderzee in 1932. This erosion continues even today as a net loss of 77 mcm was observed between 1986 and 2015. To compensate, over 30 mcm of sand has been placed on the adjacent coastlines since 1990, making maintenance of these beaches the most intensive of the entire Dutch coastal system.

Highly frequent and detailed observations of both the hydrodynamics and morphodynamics of Texel Inlet have resulted in a unique dataset of this largest inlet of the Wadden Sea, providing an opportunity to investigate inlet sediment dynamics under the influence of anthropogenic pressure. By linking detailed measurements of bathymetric change to direct observations of processes we were able to unravel the various components that have contributed to the supply of sediment to the basin, and develop a four-stage conceptual model describing the multi-decadal adaptation of the ebb-tidal delta.

Prior to closure of the Zuiderzee a dynamic equilibrium state (stage 1) existed with a stable ebb-tidal delta. The largest morphological changes occurred in roughly the first 40 years since the closure, and were dominated by the rotation and scouring of large tidal channels and landward retreat of the Noorderhaaks ebb shoal (stage 2; adaptation). Between 1975 and 2001 the general layout of main channels and shoals was stable, but large sediment losses continued to occur (stage 3; equilibrium erosional state). Since 2001, the erosion rates have significantly reduced to 2 mcm a−1 (stage 4; stabilisation).

Twenty-five years of data on ‘Dynamic Preservation’ prove that sand nourishments are well capable of keeping the coastlines adjacent to the Texel Inlet in place. Moreover, the abundant supply of sediment may also have compensated for the sediment losses on the larger scale of the southern part of the ebb-tidal delta, resulting in a recent stabilisation of its volume. This response illustrates the potential benefits of Dynamic Preservation not only for coastline resilience but also on the larger scale of the inlet system. Such knowledge is essential for future preservation, management and maintenance of inlet systems in the scope of climate change and accelerated sea-level rise.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © Netherlands Journal of Geosciences Foundation 2018 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Location plot of the western part of the Wadden Sea coast including details of the main channels and shoals forming the Texel Inlet and its ebb-tidal delta (based on 2012 measurements).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Median grain sizes on Texel ebb-tidal delta. Depth contours indicate the 1992 bathymetry (see McLaren et al., 1998, for details on measurements).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. (A) Wind rose for measurements of wind velocity at station Texel-Hors (1980–2016), and (B) wave rose based on measurements of significant wave height (Hsig) at the Eierlandse Gat wave buoy (1980–2016).

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Representative maps for the 1926–2015 time frame illustrating the morphodynamic adjustment of the ebb-tidal delta to the effects of the closure of the Zuiderzee completed in 1932.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Overview of placement of groins along the Texel and North-Holland coastlines (source data Verhagen & van Rossum, 1990).

Figure 5

Table 1. Overview of the nourishments placed along the coastlines of North-Holland and southwest Texel (km indication is distance to the inlet; see Fig. 5).

Figure 6

Fig. 6. (A) Overview of measured depth-averaged peak-ebb and peak-flood velocity vectors in Molengat and (Nieuwe) Schulpengat. Numbers indicate transect-averaged maximum ebb- and flood discharges in m3 s−1. (B). Residual velocity vectors and residual discharges in the same transects as in (A) (negative numbers indicate ebb dominance, positive numbers are flood-dominant). The residual velocity vectors near Den Helder are based on NIOZ ferry measurements for the year 1999 (Ridderinkhof et al., 2002). The right-hand panels show measured residual flow velocities in along-channel (C1, D1) and across-channel direction (C2, D2) for the Marsdiep (C) and Breewijd (D) transects. Red colours are flood velocities, blue colours represent ebb velocities.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Estimated morphological impact (MI) relative to direction based on data for the wave climate of station Eierlandse Gat over the time frame 1980–2016.

Figure 8

Fig. 8. (A) High-resolution multi-beam map of approximately 11 km2 of seafloor bathymetry covering the major part of the Nieuwe Schulpengat and Nieuwe Lands Diep channels (see Rab, 2004a,b for details). Arrows indicate slip-face orientations of the larger-scale bedforms. (B) Development of cross-section I–II over the interval 1965–2015.

Figure 9

Fig. 9. (A). (1) High-resolution multi-beam map of the bedforms present along the Helderse Zeewering (autumn 2002). (2) Details of multi-beam data collected along the northern part of Helsdeur in the spring of 2000, 2002 and 2004. (3) An example of annual bedform variability and migration in transect A–Aʹ by plotting the data taken during spring and autumn 2002. (B) Shallow seismic cross-section showing bedforms in Marsdiep and Texelstroom: (1) recorded data profile (I)–(VIII) (see (3) for location) (2) digitised and rescaled (in the vertical) profile of the bed surface, (3) location plot of the surveyed transects; the underlying DEM is based on 1997 measurements. Details of the flood-oriented bedforms are shown in insets (4) Texelstroom (transect VI–VII) and (5) Marsdiep (transect III–IV).

Figure 10

Fig. 10. (A) Overview of the bathymetric changes between 1986 and 2015. Based on selected depth contours: 0 m contour (A1), −2.5 m contour (A2), −5 m contour (A3), −7.5 m contour (A4), −10 m contour (A5) and −20 m contour (A6). (B1–7) Overview of the bathymetric evolution over the 1986–2015 time frame for selected cross-shore profiles (see Fig.1 for geographical reference). Numbers provide indications of the total movement between 1986 and 2015.

Figure 11

Fig. 11. (A) Details of the morphodynamic changes on the NUN based on Vaklodingen for 1986, 2001, 2006 and 2012 (left to right), and (B) the development of Jarkus profile 704 (see 2012 for location) over the time frame 1965–2015.

Figure 12

Fig. 12. (A) Observed sedimentation-erosion patterns and volume changes over the time period 1986–2015. (B) Table provides the volume changes for selected parts of the ETD. (C) Volume development of these elements through time (1986–2015).

Figure 13

Fig. 13. (A) Conceptual visualisation of sediment transport mechanisms for four different stages of ebb-tidal delta development at Texel Inlet: (A1) pre-closure, (A2) adaptation, (A3) erosional equilibrium state and (A4) present- day condition. (B) Summary of the observed flows, bedform directions and morphodynamic changes over the time frame 1986–2015.