The Impact of Riprap on Coastal Erosion in Miramichi, New Brunswick

The Impact of Riprap on Coastal Erosion in Miramichi, New Brunswick

By David Williams

June 22, 2015



By: David Williams

June 22, 2015

For: NBCC Environmental Technology Program

Applied Research for Engineering and Science-Based Technologies

ETTG 1016

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................viii

1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................1

2.0 Background....................................................................................................................2

2.1 Land use.....................................................................................................................3

2.2 Ecoregion...................................................................................................................3

2.3 Site Geology..............................................................................................................4

2.4 Climate and erosion...................................................................................................5

2.5 Exposure....................................................................................................................6

2.6 Coastline protection...................................................................................................7

3.0 Methodology..................................................................................................................8

3.1 Geo-referencing Photos.............................................................................................8

3.2 Coastline and riprap identification.............................................................................8

3.3 Calculating area of eroded materials.........................................................................8

3.4 Calculating area of materials deposited.....................................................................9

3.5 Calculating erosion and deposition rate change per year..........................................9

3.6 Change in amount of riprap.....................................................................................10

4.0 Results..........................................................................................................................11

iv

4.1 Erosion and deposition............................................................................................11

4.2 Change in rate of erosion and deposition................................................................12

4.3 Coastline and riprap.................................................................................................13

4.4 Lateral movement....................................................................................................13

4.5 1944 to 1954............................................................................................................14

4.6 1954 to 1965............................................................................................................17

4.7 1965 to 1976............................................................................................................19

4.8 1976 to 1983............................................................................................................21

4.9 1983 to 2002............................................................................................................23

4.10 2002 to 2012..........................................................................................................25

5.0 Discussion....................................................................................................................27

5.1 The impacts of riprap on coastal erosion.................................................................27

5.2 Lateral movement....................................................................................................28

5.3 Sources of error........................................................................................................30

5.4 Recommendations....................................................................................................31

6.0 Conclusion...................................................................................................................31

7.0 References....................................................................................................................33

Appendix A: Project Proposal...........................................................................................35

v

Appendix B: Mathematical Equations and Results...........................................................44

Appendix C: Coastline analysis.........................................................................................55

Appendix D: Tables of results...........................................................................................57

Appendix E: Coastline pictures.........................................................................................59

Appendix F: Pixel sizes.....................................................................................................71

List of Figures

Figure 1: The coastline that is being analysed. Map modified from Service New

Brunswick............................................................................................................................2

Figure 2: The locations of Site A, Site B and Site C. Map modified from Service New

Brunswick............................................................................................................................3

Figure 3: Kouchibouguac Ecoregion. (New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources,

2007)....................................................................................................................................4

Figure 4: Area of materials eroded and deposited.............................................................11

Figure 5: Deposition rate change.......................................................................................12

Figure 6: Change in erosion rates......................................................................................13

Figure 7: Lateral movement of the coastline.....................................................................14

Figure 8: Coastlines from 1944 (red) to 1954 (yellow).....................................................15

Figure 9: Coastlines from 1944 (red) to 1954 (yellow) and Site A (yellow), B (green), and

C (red)................................................................................................................................16

vi

Figure 10: Coastlines from 1954 (red) and 1965 (yellow)................................................17

Figure 11: Coastlines from 1954 (red) to 1965 (yellow) and Site A (yellow), B (green),

and C (red).........................................................................................................................18

Figure 12: Coastlines from 1965 (red) and 1976 (yellow) and riprap (black)...................19

Figure 13: Coastlines from 1965 (red) to 1976 (yellow) at Site A (yellow), B (green), C

(red) and riprap (black)......................................................................................................20

Figure 14: Coastlines from 1976 (red) and 1983 (yellow) and riprap (black)...................21

Figure 15: Coastline from 1976 (red) to 1983 (yellow) at Site A (yellow), B (green), C


Figure 16: Coastlines from 1983(red) and 2002(yellow) and riprap (black).....................23

Figure 17: Coastline from 1983 (red) to 2002 (yellow) at Site A (yellow), B (green), C


Figure 18: Coastlines from 2002(red) and 2012(yellow) and riprap (black).....................25

Figure 19: Coastline from 2002(red) to 2012(yellow) at Site A (yellow), B (green), and C

(red)....................................................................................................................................26

List of Tables

Table 1: Coastline and riprap.............................................................................................13

vii

Executive Summary

The introduction of riprap along the coastline between East Point and Schooner Point,

near Miramichi New Brunswick, has disrupted erosion and deposition. Three specific

sites (Site A, Site B, and Site C) were identified along the coastline. Both Site A and Site

C have had no riprap structures along there coastlines while Site B was the first section of

the coastline to be riprapped between 1965 and 1976.

Historical aerial photographs and orthophotos were used to identify the effects that riprap

had on the coastline. ESRI ArcGIS was used to identify the position of the coastline at

the time when each photo was taken and measure the area of land eroded or deposited

between consecutive coastlines.

By 2012 over 89% of the coastline was riprapped and the rates of erosion along the

protected sections decreased by 37% between 1965 and 2012. Unprotected sections have

seen rates of erosion that were never experienced when the coastline was undeveloped

between 1944 and 1954. The rate of erosion at Site A increased by 5317% between 1983

and 2002 and at Site C, the rate of erosion increased by 2912% between 1965 and 1976.

When analysing the results it became apparent that many factors influence coastal erosion

and riprap has affected these rates.

The installation of riprap has not been effective at preventing erosion along protected

sections, only slowing erosion. Riprap installation has caused the unprotected coastline to

erode quicker than what might have occurred if the coastline was never riprapped.

viii

1.0 Introduction

Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association (2011) states that coastal erosion is a

natural weathering of rocks and sediments at the shoreline. This erosion can take place

both above and under the water. As shorelines erode, the coastline moves landward as a

result. This landward movement often threatens roads and infrastructure, buildings and

other coastal structures. In North East New Brunswick, the coastline is experiencing

erosion rates up to 1.2 meters per year (Government of New Brunswick, 2014).

Along the Schooner Point coastline, riprap was installed to protect properties from the

impacts of coastal erosion. This riprap only protected sections of the coastline that were

developed while undeveloped areas were left in their natural unprotected state.

Riprap can be effective at slowing the rate of erosion experienced along waterways and

along coastlines. Riprap is composed of large heavy stone blocks that interlock to

withstand the energy from waves; a sloping face with high permeability can absorb wave

energy while minimizing wave reflection and scour (Atlantic Climate Adaptation

Solutions Association, 2011). Protecting a section of coastline with riprap can influence

unprotected sections by causing erosion rates to increase and deposition rates to decrease.

The section of coastline in Schooner Point, near Miramichi New Brunswick, has sections

of coastline protected by riprap and non-riprapped sections. Riprap was installed on

various portions of this coastline a number of times between 1966 and 2012. The impact

of the installed riprap on the coastline between East Point and Schooner Point is currently

unknown.

This project shall analyze this section of coastline using historical aerial photos and

orthophotos to determine the impact that riprap has had on the natural erosion and

deposition processes. The impact of riprap on unprotected sections of the coastline will

be determined and recommendations regarding coastal erosion and riprap placement will

be made.

1

2.0 Background

The section of coastline that will be analyzed in this project is located on the south side of

Miramichi Bay east of the former town of Chatham, NB. The analyzed section of

coastline starts at East Point extending to Schooner Point. Figure 1 is a location map that

indicates the section of coastline to be analyzed.

Figure 1: The coastline that is being analysed. Map modified from Service New Brunswick.

Three sites were visually identified using aerial photos. The site locations (Site A, Site B,

and Site C) were chosen based on the presence or absence of riprap along the coastline.

The site locations are seen in Figure 2.

Site A and Site C are two sections of coastline that have never been riprapped

completely. The first section of coastline to be riprapped and has been riprapped a

number of times since 1976 was the coastline along Site B.2

2.1 Land use

Land along the coastline is divided into small lots that are used for summer cottages and

year round residences. Each lot has beach access and ocean views of Miramichi Bay.

Figure 2: The locations of Site A, Site B and Site C. Map modified from Service New Brunswick.

2.2 Ecoregion

According to New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources (2007), the Schooner

Point area is part of the Eastern Lowlands Ecoregion. The ecoregion is comprised of a

large wedge of flat to gentle rolling terrain that starts near Bathurst in the northeast and

extends to Sackville in the southeast section of the province.

The New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources (2007) states that the land

immediately surrounding the Schooner Point area is part of the Kouchibouguac

Ecoregion.

3

The Kouchibouguac Ecoregion extends from Miramichi Bay to Cape Tormentine along

the eastern coastline of NB; dominated by river estuaries, sand dunes, and peat bogs. The

Kouchibouguac Ecoregion is outlined by the solid black line in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Kouchibouguac Ecoregion. (New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, 2007)

2.3 Site Geology

The bedrock of the Kouchibouguac Ecoregion is composed primarily of Pennsylvanian

grey and red sandstone, mudstone, and conglomerate (New Brunswick Department of

Natural Resources, 2007). The sediments in this area are lacustrine/marine deposits

(Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Minerals).

The long-term coastline recession rate along of cliffs composed of sandstone,

conglomerate and mudstone is generally less than 0.20 m/yr. but can be over 0.60 m/yr. 4

depending on structure and exposure (D. Berube, personal communication, March 9,

2015).

2.4 Climate and erosion

Rising sea levels, wind and waves cause coastal erosion. As the sea level rises (SLR) the

coastline will tend to move landward. The Government of Canada (2014) states that

Atlantic Canada will experience:

more storm events

increasing storm intensity

rising sea level

storm surges

increased coastal erosion

increased flood events

Climate change is considered the primary reason for these weather related events. Sea-

level rise and armoured coastlines can cause a “coastal squeeze effect”. As the water

level rises, natural beaches, estuaries, and salt marshes have to move inward to survive

(Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association, 2011). If the coastline is armoured

using riprap these natural features will not move landwards and will be “squeezed”

between the coastline and the rising ocean causing them to become submerged.

According to Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions (2011), the main driving force of

coastal erosion is waves that also, contribute to coastal flooding events. During storms,

the Atlantic Coast can experience waves that have heights of 10 m or more. These wave

heights are becoming greater as climate change has caused the sea level to rise by 30 cm

in the past 100 years. This 30 cm rise does not have the same effect on waves in deep

water offshore as it does on waves in shallow water near shore. The increase in the depth

of water directly affects the height of waves breaking against a shoreline. Sea level rise

is predicted to be between 66 cm – 76 cm over the next 100 years. The chances of

coastal flooding will increase with SLR. The higher seas will reduce the amount of

5

freeboard (space between the water’s surface and the top of the cliff) between the surface

of the water and the land’s surface.

Most shoreline protection is designed for current day-to-day wave heights; this does not

take into account sea level rise or an increase in storm intensity causing greater wave

heights (Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association, 2011).

Another factor that affects the rates of coastal erosion is storm surges. The National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2014) states that storm surges result from an

abnormal rise in water caused by a storm. When a storm surge combines with a normal

high tide the water level can rise up to 7 meters. Any land and riprap structure that is less

than 7 meters above sea level can be severly flooded and damaged by these storm surges.

Hurricanes that track northeastward of the United States coastline and become extra-

tropical when reaching Canadian water are the primary drivers of coastal erosion in

Atlantic Canada (Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association, 2011).

Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association (2011) states that shorefast ice and

sea ice also affect coastal erosion and deposition rates though this ice erosion is much

less significant than erosion caused by waves. Shorefast ice can also protect shorelines

from wind and wave energy preventing coastal erosion.

2.5 Exposure

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) states that an estuary is a

sheltered body of water along the coast where fresh water from rivers and streams mix

with saltwater. Estuaries are influenced by tides but are protected from the full force of

wind by penninsulas and barrier islands.

The Miramichi Bay has a total of five islands at the mouth of the bay which shelter the

Schooner Point coastline from waves and wind that are generated in the Gulf of Saint

Lawrence. The five barrier islands are Egg Island, Bay Du Vin Island, Hay Island, Fox

Island and Portage Island. There are five rivers that drain into Miramichi Bay: Miramichi

6

River, Bay Du Vin River, Bartibog River, Napan River and Black River as well as many

other smaller streams.

2.6 Coastline protection

Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association (2011) states that there are many

methods used to prevent erosion of the coastlines. Coastal protection is not used along

undeveloped coastlines and the erosion process is allowed to occur naturally. Protection

of developed coastlines requires protection due to the value of the land. Often the value

of the land justifies the cost of installing and repairing infrastructure. There are proactive

and reactive measures that can be taken in response to coastal erosion; riprap is a reactive

measure.

Riprap is often constructed to protect land surrounding infrastructure and buildings from

erosion. The riprap along the analysed coastline has been installed and maintained to

protect residential properties from erosion that was occurring in the past and is currently

occurring today. This is costly, as the stone used in riprap construction has to be

transported to the site, installed by qualified contractors and maintained. The riprap

structures should be designed by qualified coastal engineers and inspected by coastal

engineers at regular intervals after construction has been completed. (Atlantic Climate

Adaptation Solutions Association, 2011).

According to Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association (2011) there are four

methods that are used in response to coastal erosion:

1. Construct and maintain riprap along developed coastlines (Hold the Line)

2. Create a line of defensive structures offshore to prevent wind and wave energy

from eroding the shoreline (Advance the Line)

3. Develop a strategy to move buildings and infrastructure inland or prevent

development next to the coastline (Manage Realignment)

4. Take no action and let erosion occur naturally

7

Currently along the coastline between East Point and Schooner Point, a “Hold the Line”

approach has been taken.

3.0 Methodology

The section of Schooner Point coastline was selected based on suggestions from

instructors in the Environmental Technology program familiar with the coastline. The

photos were visually geo-referenced in ArcMap before the coastline could be photo-

interpreted.

3.1 Geo-referencing Photos

Five aerial photos and two ortho-photos were acquired from DNR. Three black and white

aerial photos were taken in 1944, 1954 and 1965. The remaining two aerial photos taken

in 1976, 1983, and two ortho-photos from 2002 and 2012 are in color.

The photos were geo-referenced using ArcMap 10.2.2. The “geo-reference toolbar” was

used to “fit” the pictures to display and the “effects toolbar was used to change the

transparency and contrast of the photos to aid the geo referencing process. A minimum of

four control points that have an average root mean square (RMS) residual level below 4.0

were used for each individual photo to assure higher accuracy. The lower the residual

level, the more accurate the process of geo-referencing.

3.2 Coastline and riprap identification

Coastlines and riprap were visually identified for each photograph. A File Geodatabase

(FGB) was created to catalog the identified coastal features. The line of vegetation along

the coast was used to determine the position of the coastline. To identify riprap, a

separate line feature class was created for the areas of coastline that was riprapped in

each photo.

3.3 Calculating area of eroded materials

Erosion can cause the position of a coastline to move landward past the position of a

previous coastline’s position. To determine the area of coastline lost to erosion, a polygon

layer was used that outlined these eroded sections.

8

The average area of land eroded is found using Equation 1. The letter “E” represents area

of land lost due to erosion in square meters (m2) per year, “A” indicates the area of land

lost due to erosion in square meters (m2) and “T” represents the number of years that

passed since the first photograph and the next photograph were taken.

E = A/T (1)

3.4 Calculating area of materials deposited

A polygon layer was created in to outline the area of deposition. If the position of the

coastline moved towards the ocean past its previous location, this was deemed deposition.

The total area of deposition per year was determined using Equation 2. The letter “D”

represents area deposited in square meters (m2) per year, “A” represents area of

deposition in square meters (m2) and “T” represents how many years has passed since the

previously determine coastline in years.

D = A/T (2)

3.5 Calculating erosion and deposition rate change per year

Erosion and deposition rate changes were calculated by comparing the amount of erosion

or deposition that occurred per year later to the amount of erosion or deposition per year

that occurred between 1944 and 1954. This provides a percent of change regarding

erosion or deposition for the analysed coastline and the three specific sites. Changes in

erosion rates were calculated using Equation 3.

ER% = {(E2 / E1) * 100} - 1 (3)

The change in the erosion rate is represented by “ER%”. The letter “E2” represents the

amount of erosion that occurred later in square meters per year and “E1” is the square

meters of erosion per year that occurred between 1944 and 1954.

9

The change in deposition rate was found using Equation 4.

DR% = {(D2 / D1) * 100} - 1 (4)

Deposition rate change is represented by “DR%”, “D2” represents amount of deposition

that occurred at later dates, and “D1” represents the amount of deposition that occurred

between 1944 and 1954.

3.6 Change in amount of riprap

The amount of riprap installed during 1976 was used to calculate the difference of riprap

installed at later periods. The percentage of riprap installed was found using Equation 5.

RR% = (RR2/RR1) * 100 - 1 (5)

The difference for riprap installed along the coastline is represented by “RR%”, “RR2”

represents the amount of riprap that was installed between 1965 and 1976, and “RR1”

represents the amount of riprap installed along the coastline after 1976. This was not

done for Site A or Site C as no riprap was installed along those sections of coastline.

3.7 Average lateral movement of coastline

The average lateral movement of coastline was calculated using Equation 7. The result

indicates how far the coastline moved laterally; if the result was negative, the coastline

moved landwards otherwise the coastline moved away from land.

R = (D – E) / L /T (6)

The letter “R” represents average lateral erosion rate expressed in meters (m) per year,

“D” represents area of deposition in square meters (m2), “E” represents area of erosion in

square meters (m2), “L” represents the length of coastline in meters (m) and “T”

represents how many years passed since the previous coastline position.

10

4.0 Results

The results of the coastline analysis, specific site location analysis and pictures of the

coastline during each period is discussed below. The mathematical equations used for

analysis is referenced in Appendix B.

Tables for the coastline and each site were generated indicating the number of years that

has passed between photos, the change in the coastline’s length, and the amount of riprap

that was installed.

Tables of the coastline and the sites analysis can be referenced in Appendix C. The tables

that the graphs and figures in the following sections are based upon can be referenced in

Appendix D. Larger pictures of the coastlines can be seen in Appendix E.

4.1 Erosion and deposition

The amount of land lost due to erosion along the schooner point coastline varies greatly

from photo to photo. Negative values are an indication of erosion and positive values

indicate deposition. The results of the analysis can be seen in Figure 4.

1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976* 1976-1983* 1983-2002* 2002-2012* Average-500.00

-400.00

-300.00

-200.00

-100.00

0.00

100.00

Coastline Site A Site B Site C

Figure 4: Area of materials eroded and deposited11

The area of deposited and eroded materials were found using Equations 1 and 2

respectively. The values are expressed in square meters (m2).

4.2 Change in rate of erosion and deposition

The rate of deposition and erosion varied greatly between 1944 and 2012. The deposition

rate of change was calculated by comparing to the current rates of deposition for each

period to the rate of deposition that occurred between 1944 and 1954. The results

displayed in Figure 5 were calculated using Equation 4.

A positive value indicates and increase and a negative value indicates a decrease. The

rate of deposition only increased four separate times between 1944 and 2012. The

average deposition rate change compared to 1944-1954 is displayed in Figure 5.

1954-1965 1965-1976* 1976-1983* 1983-2002* 2002-2012* 1965-2012*-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%


NOTE: The (*) indicates that riprap was installed along sections of the coastline.

Figure 5: Deposition rate change

Erosion rate change compared to 1944 - 1954 can be seen in Figure 6. These values were

calculated using Equation 3. There were only positive changes regarding erosion rates;

negative rates would be an indication of deposition.

12

1954-1965 1965-1976* 1976-1983* 1983-2002* 2002-2012* 1965-2012*0%

1000%

2000%

3000%

4000%

5000%


NOTE: The (*) indicates that riprap was installed along sections of the coastline.

Figure 6: Change in erosion rates

4.3 Coastline and riprap

The Schooner Point coastline had no riprap installed along any section until the period

between 1965 and 1976. Seen in Table 1 is the length of the coastline, length of riprap,

percent of the coastline protected and increases regarding riprap for each series of photos.

The increases of riprap along the coastline was calculated using Equation 5.

Table 1: Coastline and riprapYears 1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976 1976-1983 1983-2002 2002-2012Coastline length (m) 1118.39 1110.49 1126.01 1149.49 1190.07 1168.21Riprap (m) 84.1 186.57 884.15 1039.46Coastline Protected 7% 16% 74% 89%Changes in RipRap 0% 122% 951% 1136%

4.4 Lateral movement

When the coastline was eroded or when deposition occurred, it moved laterally toward

the land because of erosion or away from land as the result of deposition. Negative values

in Figure 7 are the result of erosion while positive values are an indication of deposition.

13

The lateral movement values were calculated using Equation 6. The values indicate

lateral meters of movement per year per meter of coastline.

1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976* 1976-1983* 1983-2002* 2002-2012* 1944-2012-0.70

-0.50

-0.30

-0.10

0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

Coastline (m) Site A (m) Site B (m) Site C (m)

Figure 7: Lateral movement of the coastline

4.5 1944 to 1954

Between 1944 and 1954 there was no riprap protecting the coastline and land,

development along the water was minimal. The coastline position in 1944 and 1954 is in

in Figure 8.

Between 1944 and 1954, the coastline gained 121.06 m2 of land which and 138.55 m2

was eroded. These two values were used as a basis to calculate the rates of erosion and

deposition that occurred at later periods. The areas that were eroded and or experienced

deposition from later periods were compared to the 1944 to 1954 rates to calculate rate of

change. The coastline lost 17.49 m2 more that was deposited translating to 0.02 m of

average lateral movement per year. This rate of lateral movement is below the average

0.50 m lateral movement experienced along coastlines in North Eastern New Brunswick.

14

Figure 8: Coastlines from 1944 (red) to 1954 (yellow).

The three sites and their section of coastline are outlined in Figure 9. Outlined in yellow

is Site A, Site B is outlined in green and Site C is outlined in red. The area of land eroded

during this period at Site A was 1.20 m2 while 9.17 m2 was deposited, Site B lost 18.33

m2 and gained 0.77 m2 while Site C lost 0.57 m2 and gained 11.67 m2. Again, these values

were used as a comparison when determining future rates and amounts of erosion and

deposition at these sites.

Even though the vegetation along the bank was removed at Site A, it gained 7.98 m2

during this period. Since there were no coastal structures west of the site, which could

interfere with erosion, the sediment may have been deposited due to longshore transport.

The shoreline moved away from land at a rate of 0.07 m per year. When compared to the

average lateral movement of 0.02 m experienced along the coastline, this gain was

substantial, illustrating that erosion and deposition was occurring naturally at this time.15

Figure 9: Coastlines from 1944 (red) to 1954 (yellow) and Site A (yellow), B (green), and C (red).

The amount of land lost at Site B is far greater than the amount lost at the other two sites.

The coastline along Site B lost 17.56 m2 and moved landward at a rate of 0.19 m a year

during this period. Even though this lateral rate is nine times greater than the coastal

average, it is still far below the average lateral movement rate experienced in North

Eastern New Brunswick.

During this time, Site C seen only 0.57 m2 erode and 11.21 m2 of land deposited. The

coastline moved away from land at a rate of 0.27 m per year, the largest amount of

seaward lateral movement seen during this period and third largest amount of lateral

movement that occurred between 1944 and 2012. It is very likely that the land eroded at

Site B was deposited at Site C because of their close proximity.

16

4.6 1954 to 1965

Between 1954 and 1965, the roads known as East Point road and Schooner Point road

were constructed (originally one road as seen in Figure 10). There is also evidence of

vegetation being cleared along the coastline.

The coastlines from 1954 and 1965 are seen in Figure 10. Again, as in the previous

photo, there is no riprap installed along the coastline; erosion and deposition appear to be

occurring naturally.

Figure 10: Coastlines from 1954 (red) and 1965 (yellow).

Total land lost increased from 138.55 m2 (1944-1954) to 217.93 m2 while deposition

slightly decreased to 120.99 m2. The coastline lost 96.93 m2. As a result, the coastline

moved landwards at a rate of 0.09 m, four times greater than the previous calculated rate.

The coastlines from 1954 and 1965 along Site A, B, and C are found in Figure 11.

17

A total of 48.54 m2 was eroded along Site A. This was a 3955% erosion rate increase

over the previous erosion rate from 1944 to 1954. In addition to the increased rate of

erosion, no deposition occurred. The shoreline moved at a rate of 0.48 m landwards; still

below the 0.50 m average shoreline retreat experienced in the region.

Figure 11: Coastlines from 1954 (red) to 1965 (yellow) and Site A (yellow), B (green), and C (red).

The coastline along Site B had 13.66 m2 eroded away while 3.34 m2 of material was

deposited; 10.32 m2 shoreline was eroded. The coastline moved landward at a rate 0.11 m

per year per meter of coastline during this time.

No erosion occurred at Site C though 11.62 m2 of material was deposited. The deposited

amount was 0.52 m2 more than the previous amount of 11.10 m2 (1944-1954).A lateral

seaward movement rate of 0.29 m occurred which was the second time the coastline

moved away from land. After 1965, the coastline at Site C only moved landward. Before

18

riprap was installed along the coastline between East point and schooner Point, the

coastline at Site C was continually moving seaward.

4.7 1965 to 1976

The coastlines from 1965 and 1976 and the 84.10 m section of riprap that was installed

can be seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Coastlines from 1965 (red) and 1976 (yellow) and riprap (black).

Between 1965 and 1976, 84.10 m of riprap was installed along the coastline at Site B.

This 84.10 m section of riprap covered 7% of the coastlines 1126.01 m length.

The coastline lost 165.30 m2 and gained 189.38 m2 of deposited material. Over this 12-

year period, the coastline gained 24.09 m2 more material than was eroded. This is the

only time that the coastline gained material. This is very likely due to the installation of

the riprap.

19

The coastline along Site A did not erode but gained 53.31 m2 of material. These deposited

sediments caused the coastline to move seaward at a rate of 0.46 m a year. This could be

due to re-vegetation of the shoreline naturally occurring. The coastlines at each site and

installed riprap can be seen in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Coastlines from 1965 (red) to 1976 (yellow) at Site A (yellow), B (green), C (red) and riprap (black).

The land eroded from Site B was 13.78 m2 while 7.04 m2 of land was deposited. It is

interesting to note that with the riprap installed, the site lost 6.74 m2 of land to erosion.

The actual rate of deposition dropped by 25% compared to the deposition that occurred

between 1944 and 1954. The rate of erosion increased by 813%. This increase in erosion

could be caused by presence of riprap along this section of coastline.

The coastline along Site C lost 17.05 m2 of materials. This is the first time more material

was lost than was deposited. The riprapped section of coastline at Site B ends directly

east of this site.

20

4.8 1976 to 1983

The coastlines from 1976 to 1983 are seen in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Coastlines from 1976 (red) and 1983 (yellow) and riprap (black).

Between 1976 and 1983, only eight years passed; the shortest number of years between

the two photos. During this period, the coastline lost 485.63 m2; the largest amount of

land lost due to erosion between 1944 and 2012. The amount of material deposited along

the coastline was at its lowest point over these years; only 33.05 m2 of material was

deposited along the coastline. The coastline moved towards land at 0.39 meters per year;

the highest lateral rate of movement occurring between 1944 and 2012.

The amount of riprap increased from 84.1 m to 186.57 m. The riprap was installed along

16% of the coastline. This equaled a 122% increase of riprap present along the coastline

21

compared to the amount installed between 1965 and 1976. Seen in Figure 15 are the

specific sites and their respective sections of coastline.

The rate of erosion along the coast increased by 251%, the highest increase from all

periods while the coastline seen a 73% rate of deposition decrease. This deposition

decrease was the first time it occurred and the highest of all subsequent periods.

Figure 15: Coastline from 1976 (red) to 1983 (yellow) at Site A (yellow), B (green), C (red) and riprap (black).

During this time, Site A lost 58.82 m2 of land while no deposition occurred. The rate of

erosion increased by 4815%, the second highest rate to occur at the site between 1944

and 2012.

A small amount of deposition occurred at Site B equaling 2.23 m2 while 22.31 m2 of

material was lost. During this time, the coastline at Site B lost 20.07 m2 of material while

22

the rate of erosion increased by 163% and the rate of deposition dropping by 81%. The

coastline moved landward at a rate at 0.20 m per year.

The coastline at Site C gained 9.06 m2, and lost 0.64 m2 of material. Overall, the coastline

accumulated 8.42 m2; this is the last time any material was gained at this site. The rate of

deposition dropped by 22% and the rate of erosion increased by 12% during this time.

The coastline moved towards the ocean at a rate of 0.21 m per year.

4.9 1983 to 2002

The greatest amount of time passed between the two photos analyzed in this section; 20

years. During this time, the length of riprap installed along the coastline increased to

884.15 m covering 74% of the coastline. The position of the coastline during this time

and riprap can be seen in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Coastlines from 1983(red) and 2002(yellow) and riprap (black).

23

Between 1983 and 2002, 212.78 m2 of material was removed by erosion while 36.03 m2

of material was deposited along certain sections. The coastline lost 176.75 m2 of material

overall and moved landward at a rate of 0.15 m per year.

The highest amount of land loss occurred at Site A that lost 64.83 m2 of material along

the coastline; no deposition occurred at the site. The rate of erosion increased by 5317%

during this time when compared to the rate observed between 1944 and 1954. This was

the highest rate of erosion seen at any site at any time. The coastline retreat can be clearly

seen in Figure 17. The coastline retreated 0.62 meters per year; this is the highest amount

of coastal retreat observed between East Point and Schooner Point.

Figure 17: Coastline from 1983 (red) to 2002 (yellow) at Site A (yellow), B (green), C (red) and riprap (black).

The smallest amount of coastal change occurred at Site B that lost 3.48 m2 of material

and gained 2.03 m2 of material, adding up to 1.45 m2 of material lost. The rate of

24

deposition decreased by 81% and the rate of erosion increased by 163%. The coastline

along Site B moved landward at a rate of 0.05m per year.

The coastline at Site C lost 12.18 m2 of material, gaining none during this time. Because

of the lost material, the coastline retreated toward land at a rate of 0.22 m a year. The rate

of erosion was 2051% greater than what was seen along this section between 1944 and

1954.

4.10 2002 to 2012

By this time the only sections of coastline that did not have riprap was the sections of

coastline along Site A, Site C and at a small beach access road just west of Schooner

Point. The amount of riprap installed was 1039.46 m that covered 89% of the coastline.

Seen in Figure 18 is the coastlines at during this time.

Figure 18: Coastlines from 2002(red) and 2012(yellow) and riprap (black).

25

The coastline saw the second greatest amount of land loss during this period, losing

221.57 m2 and only gaining 46.17 m2 of material. Overall, 175.40 m2 of material was

removed and the coastline retreated at a rate of 0.15 m per year. The rate of deposition

decreased by 62% and the rate of erosion increased by 60%.

The coastline along Site A lost 36.44 m2 of material and gained none. The coastline

retreated towards land at a rate of 0.30 m because of the erosion.

The rate of erosion at Site A was 2945% greater than the erosion that occurred along this

coastline between 1944 and 1954. The sites can be seen in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Coastline from 2002(red) to 2012(yellow) at Site A (yellow), B (green), and C (red).

The amount of material lost at Site B was 9.14 m2 and material gained equaled 4.69 m2.

The total loss of material amounted to 4.44 m2 and the coastline move landward at a rate 26

of 0.05 meters per year. The rate of erosion during this time was 509% greater than what

was observed during the period between 1944 and 1954.

The material removed along Site C was 15.69 m2 while no deposition was observed. The

rate of erosion increased by 2690% compared to the rate of erosion that occurred between

1944 and 1954. The coastline retreated at a rate of 0.03 m a year.

5.0 Discussion

Riprap and the impact that this type of seawall has on the Schooner Point coastline will

be discussed in the following subsections. Sources of potential error that may have

influenced the analysis of the coastline will be examined as well.

5.1 The impacts of riprap on coastal erosion

Between 1944 and 2012, the coastline between East Point and Schooner Point has

undergone many natural and manmade changes. The biggest change along the coastline

was the installation of riprap. Over 89% of the coastline has been armoured (protected) to

prevent erosion and protect coastal properties. The coastline has also been extensively

developed for residential use. Every residential property has a coastline that is protected

by riprap. This subsection will explore the direct connection between riprap, erosion and

deposition.

The rates of erosion, rates of deposition, and lateral movement changed extensively

between 1944 and 2012. Not all of these changes can be attributed to riprap as the ocean,

weather, land subsidence and SLR also influence coastal erosion rates. However, the

results do show that riprap has affected the coastal erosion process along this section of

coastline.

The Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association (2011) states that protecting one

portion of an eroding cliff coast can affect unprotected portions of coastline by increasing

the rate of erosion. Even though there are other factors to consider when determining

coastal erosion rates, the riprap at Site B appears to have affected the coastline along Site

C.

27

Before riprap was installed between 1965 and 1976, Site B lost 17.56 m2 during the

period from 1944 to 1954 and lost another 10.32 m2 between 1954 and 1965. During

those two periods, the coastline was largely undisturbed by man; Site C gained 11.10 m2

and 11.62 m2 of material during the two periods respectively.

After Site B was riprapped between 1965 and 1976, Site C lost 17.05 m2 of material. The

coastal erosion was prevented from naturally occurring at Site B because of the riprap. As

such, there were no eroded sediments available to be deposited at Site C. During the same

period, 7% of the coastline was riprapped and gained 24.05 m2 of material.

The effect of riprap on erosion and deposition can also be seen at Site A. However, some

of the coastal erosion experienced there may have been influenced by other

environmental factors. The riprapping of the coastline decreased deposition and increased

erosion at this site. After 1976, the rate of erosion at Site A was significant and continued

to be for every period afterward. Between 1983 and 2002, the rate of erosion was 5317%

greater that the erosion rate experienced between 1944 and 1954. This huge jump appears

to have been partially caused by the 884.15 m of riprap that was installed on both sides of

Site A. As 74% of the coastline was riprapped, there was only 26% of the coastline not

protected, which would allow sediments to be eroded and deposited elsewhere.

5.2 Lateral movement

Natural Resources Canada (2011) states that riprap replaces a shoreline and protects the

shoreline’s position. As erosion is directly related to lateral movement, the riprap has

been effective at decreasing the amount of landward lateral movement. It should be noted

that the riprap did not stop the erosion process; only slowing the process.

The protection of the shorelines position is evident at site B. The coastline along Site B

retreated at a rate of 0.15 m per year between 1944 and 1965. After riprap had been

placed between 1965 and 1976, the landward movement rate decreased from 0.19 m

(1944-1954) and 0.11 m (1954-1965) to 0.08 m per year.

28

Between 1976 and 1983, the lateral movement of the coastline increased to 0.20 m per

year. This was the highest level experienced at this site thought it was lower than the

coastline’s rate of 0.39 m per year. The shoreline did retreat quicker along the

unprotected coastline compared to the coastline at Site B. Weather conditions and other

environmental factors may have caused this retreat, not the installation of riprap. The

structural failure of the riprap along Site B, seen in Figure 15, may have caused the

coastline to retreat 0.20 m per year along that section. The coastline from 1983 moved

landward past the previous coastline from 1976 though it was riprapped showing that it

failed to protect the coastline’s position. At this same time, the coastline gained material

along Site C (possibly receiving material because of the riprap failure at Site B) moving

towards the ocean at a rate 0.21 m per year.

Natural Resources Canada (2011) states that shoreline protection such as riprap can fail

due to overtopping, flanking, scour or geotechnical instability. Anyone of these reasons

could be the cause of the riprap failure at Site B. Overtopping of the riprap caused by

tidal surges and waves would be a valid explanation because the vegetation line moved

landward behind the riprap as well.

According to Natural Resources Canada (2011), poorly designed riprap offers only short

term protection against erosion and can actually increase erosion. Also, more than one

property should be considered when protecting the shoreline; the entire coastal system

should be examined. This is clearly illustrated at Site A (the section of the coast that was

cleared for marine navigation and never riprapped). At Site A, between 1983 and 2002,

the rate of landward coastal movement increased to 0.62 m per year from 0.15 m per

year. The use of riprap and prevention of erosion along other sections of the coastline

appears to have caused this unprotected section of coastline to erode more quickly.

Overall, lateral movement decreased along the entire section of analysed coastline after

riprap was used to prevent erosion. Between 1983 and 2002, the lateral movement at Site

B (the first riprapped section) decreased to 0.02 m per year and was 0.05 m a year

between 2002 and 2012. Those two lateral movement rates are much lower than the rates

29

before the coastline was protected; between 1944 and 1954 the rate was 0.19 m per year

and 0.11 m a year ocurred between 1954 and 1965. After 1983, no section of the

coastline moved towards the ocean.

The only section whose lateral movement increased during 2002 to 2012 was Site C. The

coastline retreated at a rate 0.30 m per year. At this time 89% of the coastline was

riprapped preventing erosion and deposition.

5.3 Sources of error

Many potential sources of error can occur when using aerial photos and orthophotos to

determine coastal erosion. The resolution of the pictures can cause distortion based on the

size of the pixels and influencing the accuracy of the geo-referencing process. The height

of the aircraft when the photos were taken, the aircrafts pitch or yaw, time of year, time

of day, color, and weather conditions can all cause errors. However, there are many

possible sources of error when photo interpreting this is the approved method used by

coastal geo-morphologists.

Resolution and pixel size is an inverse relationship; the higher the resolution the smaller

the size of the pixels. For example, the picture from 1944 had a pixel length of 0.8m;

therefore all measurements are only accurate to ±0.8m. The pixel size for all pictures can

be referenced in Appendix F. These inaccuracies only compound when determining area

of erosion or deposition.

The vegetation line was also obstructed by shadows, structures and vegetation in each

photo causing inaccuracies when determining the coastline. The black and white photos

had areas that were hard to distinguish due to the various shades of grey and the features

tended to blend into the surrounding area on the photo.

If the height of the plane was greater than normal a bigger area was photographed and the

pixels covered a larger area; this is noticeable when looking at the picture from 1976

having a pixel size of 1.0 m. The angle of the plane affected the line of sight as vegetation

obscured different features.

30

Other potential sources of error that cannot be determined by looking at a photo is the

type of soil along the coastline, the soil’s structure, and if bedrock is exposed along the

cliff face.

The two photos taken in 1983 and 2002, covered a period of 20 years. During the 18

years that passed between the two photos, many land use activities as well as coastal

changes had occurred. The installation and maintenance of riprap that occurred during

this time may have been identified as deposition. This could have influenced the coastline

analysis.

5.4 Recommendations

To gain a more complete understanding of erosion and deposition along the Schooner

Point coastline; many other factors must be analysed. The exposure of the coastline to

wind and wave action, tidal forces, weather and climate, sediment budget, subsidence, as

well as soil structure and soil type should be analysed to better understand the impact that

riprap has had and will have.

Instead of continuing to use the “Hold the Line” approach to protect the coastline it may

be more cost effective to retreat from the coast than to try to install or maintain the riprap

structures. Riprap is only designed to last for 50 to 70 years. Since some of the properties

are very close to the coastline and there is very little development inland behind these

properties, a realignment approach should be considered in the future.

6.0 Conclusion

In conclusion, the coastline has undergone many natural and unnatural changes due to the

installation of riprap between 1944 and 2012. Though there are many factors to consider

when analysing coastal erosion and deposition not covered in this analysis; it is apparent

that riprap has had some impact on the section of coastline. The results of the

photointerpretation has shown that as more riprap was installed along the coastline the

rates of erosion increased at Site A and Site C while the rates of deposition decreased

along the entire section of coastline. The rate of erosion experienced by protected

sections of coastline decreased and was not prevented.31

Before riprap is installed along a section of the coastline, the entire coastal system should

be analysed to understand the impact the structure(s) may have on unprotected sections.

The riprap structures have protected properties by slowing the rate erosion while

unprotected sections eroded at much higher rates. Because riprap only slows erosion,

increases rates of erosion along unprotected coastlines and is only designed for 50 to 70

years requiring regular maintenance, a more economical approach would be to move

structures further inland rather than trying to maintain the current coastline’s position.

32

7.0 References

Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association. (2011). Climate Change and

Shoreline Protection in Atlantic Canada. Retrieved from Atlantic Climate

Adaptation Solutions: http://atlanticadaptation.ca/node/318

Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association. (2011). Coastal Erosion and Climate

Change. Retrieved from Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions:

http://atlanticadaptation.ca/sites/discoveryspace.upei.ca.acasa/files/Coastal

%20Erosion%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Minerals. (n.d.). Generalized surficial

geology map of New Brunswick. NR-8 (scale 1 : 500 000): Department of Natural

Resources and Energy, Minerals, Policy and Planning Division, 2002.

Government of Canada. (2014, 05 26). Chapter 4 - Atlantic Canada . Retrieved from

Natural Resources Canada:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/environment/resources/publications/impacts-adaptation/

reports/assessments/2008/ch4/10341

Government of New Brunswick. (2014). Coastal Erosion. Retrieved from Environment

and Local Government:

http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/elg/environment/content/

climate_change/content/climate_change_indicators/indicators/water/

coastal_erosion.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2014, 09 05). Storm Surge

Overview. Retrieved from National Hurricane Center:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/

New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources. (2007). Our Landscape Heritage.

Retrieved from Government of New Brunswick:

33

http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/natural_resources/ForestsCrown

Lands/content/ProtectedNaturalAreas/OurLandscapeHeritage.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, March 6). Basic Information

about Estuaries. Retrieved from Water: Estuaries and Coastal Watersheds:

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/about.cfm

34

Appendix A: Project Proposal

1.0 Introduction

The North East region of New Brunswick is experiencing high erosion rates of 1.2 meters

per year (Government of New Brunswick, 2014). Riprap has been installed to prevent the

erosion of the coastline; which impacts tourism, infrastructure, and waterfront properties.

The purpose of this project is to determine the impact of seawalls on the natural erosion

process in the Schooner Point area of New Brunswick using historical data, photographs,

and ArcGIS.

This document outlines the purpose of the project, the schedule for the project, the

methods used to determine erosion rates and what is required to successfully complete

the project on schedule.

2.0 Project Definition

This project will identify seawalls and determine their impact on the erosional process on

the Schooner Point coastline using ArcGIS. To successfully complete this project;

orthophotos, aerial photos, and Arc GIS 10.2.2 will be used.

2.1 Purpose

The goal of the project is to identify seawalls and determine how they affected the

erosion of the coastline. The natural erosion of the coastline can impact waterfront

property in Schooner Point area, while the prevention of erosion using seawalls can lead

to habitat loss as well as increase the rate of erosion experienced by unprotected

coastlines.

2.2 Objectives

The goal of this project to identify the seawalls and determine erosional rates before and

after the installation of seawalls. To ensure the successful completion of this project the

following objectives are required:

35

Identification of sea walls along the coastline using orthophotos, aerial photos and

ArcGIS 10.2.2 by March 28th, 2015.

Calculate amount of land lost due to erosion by April 18th, 2015

Determine the impact of seawalls on the unprotected Schooner Point coastline by

April 25th, 2015

Wall plate must be completed on June 20th, 2015

2.3 Scope

The scope of the project includes the identification of seawalls along the Schooner Point

coastline as well as analyzing their impact on the natural erosion process using

orthophotos, aerial photos and ArcGIS 10.2.2.

The stretch of coastline to be analyzed starts at East Point and continues until reaching

the tip of Schooner Point roughly 1km of coastline.

This project concerns the riprap installed from 1940 to 2015 and how riprap influences

coastal erosion by calculating the change to the erosion process on protected and

unprotected sections of coastline, as well as the geology of the 1 km stretch of coastline.

This project will not analyze the causes or prevention of sea level rise and storm events.

Identifying riprap barriers and calculating erosion rates will be accomplished using

orthophotos, aerial photos and ArcGIS. Inspecting the riprap/erosion on the ground will

not be part of this project.

3.0 WBS

Listed below is the steps that are required for the project to be completed successfully.

1. Determine the impact that seawalls have on erosion rates

1. Create a GIS layer indicating seawalls

a) Use ArcGIS 10.2.2 to analyze photos

i. Identify seawalls

ii. Geo-reference photos

iii. Purchase photos

36

2. Determine amount of land lost due to erosion

a) Create a GIS layer indicating change to coastline

i. Identify vegetation along coastline

ii. Geo-reference photos

iii. Purchase photos

2. Write technical report

1. Format paper

2. Write introduction section

3. Write background section

a) Research Coastal Geology

b) Research Coastal Erosion and Deposition

c) Research riprap

4. Write methodology section

a) Write results section

i. Seawall/Coastline analysis

5. Write results section

6. Write discussion section

7. Write conclusion

8. Proof read and edit paper

3. Present applied project

1. Prepare applied project Power Point

4. Create wall plate

1. Export photos highlighting the seawalls and land lost due to erosion

4.0 Schedule, Gantt

The Gantt chart for the project can be seen below in Figure: 1. This Gantt chart is based

upon the project schedule that can be found in Appendix A-1.

37

4.0 Present applied project PP

2.0 Write technical report

1.1 Create a GIS layer indicating

seawalls

1/15/15 3/6/15 4/25/15 6/14/15

Project Schedule

Figure-A 1: Project Gantt chart

5.0 Resources & Procurement

There are several resources needed to complete the project successfully. Table 1 below

provides information on what is needed and the procurement dates.

Table-A 1:Required resources and datesRequired Resources Date Required ProcurementOrthophotos March-23-15 Download from GeoNBAerial Photos March-23-15 Purchase from Service New BrunswickArcGIS 10.2.2 March-23-15 Provided by the NBCC Environmental Technology program3 x 4 Wall Plate May-29-15 Purchase from Taylor Imaging

6.0 Budget

The items that have to be bought are:

Five aerial photos at a cost of $12.00+HST each

Two orthophotos at a cost of $12.00+HST each

One 3 x 4 Wall plate at a cost of $120.00 including HST

38

The total budget required for the project will be $220.00 including HST.

7.0 Project Stakeholders

The project stakeholders are Mr. Linwood Dunham and the NBCC Environmental

Technology program. The NBCC Environmental Technology program is responsible for

supplying the funds to acquire aerial photos and a licensed copy of ArcGIS 10.2.2.

8.0 Risk Management Plan

There are varieties of risks that can affect this project if they are not addressed

immediately and accordingly. The risks, their impacts, solutions and likelihood of

occurrence are listed in Table 2 at the top of the next page. The major risks that can have

a severe impact on this project involve the technology required to complete the various

stages.

9.0 Project Change Process

Problems that may affect the outcome or prevent the completion of the project or its main

objectives will be addressed accordingly. Requested changes will be recorded on the

project change form found in Appendix A-2. This change form will be completed by the

project manager, changes will be listed, impact on project will be determined and

required solutions will be suggested and noted. Linwood Dunham must approve changes

prior to any implementation of the change.

10.0 Assumptions

The following items are assumed true for the duration of this assignment:

Orthophotos will be available from Service New Brunswick

Aerial photos will be available from Service New Brunswick.

The Environmental Technology Program will cover the costs the aerial photos

and orthophotos

A licensed copy of ArcGIS 10.2.2 will be provided by the Environmental

Technology Program at the NBCC Miramichi campus

Sea walls can be identified using orthophotos, aerial photos and ArcGIS 10.2.2

Land loss due to erosion can be calculated using ArcGIS 10.2.239

Land loss can be measured using ArcGIS 10.2.2

The aerial photos can be geo-referenced using man-made/permanent features in

ArcGIS 10.2.2

Table-A 2: Project risk management planRisk Probability Impact SolutionRequired Orthophotos are not available

Low Low Analyze different section of coastline

Hard drive malfunctionLow Severe

Back up project onto two separate hard drives every week and online

Aerial photos unavailable

Moderate Low Analyze different section of coastline

ArcGIS freezing or crashing

Moderate Low

Restart ArcGIS. Save project to hard drive every 15 minutes if possible

Computer hardware malfunction

Low Low Replace hardware. Use another computer.

Failure to identify riprap due to shadows or picture quality

Moderate Moderate Seek guidance from Linwood Dunham.

11.0 Constraints

The constraints that may affect the successful completion of this project are:

Inability to geo-reference aerial photos

Inability to identify vegetation along coastline

Unable to calculate amount of land lost due to erosion

Unable to identify seawalls using orthophotos, aerial photos and ArcGIS

Project paper must be submitted by May 29th, 2015

Power Point must be presented on June 19th, 2015

Wall plate must be completed by May 29th, 2015

40

12.0 References

Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association. (2011). Climate Change and

Shoreline Protection in Atlantic Canada. Retrieved from Atlantic Climate

Adaptation Solutions: http://atlanticadaptation.ca/node/318

Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association. (2011). Coastal Erosion and Climate

Change. Retrieved from Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions:

http://atlanticadaptation.ca/sites/discoveryspace.upei.ca.acasa/files/Coastal

%20Erosion%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Minerals. (n.d.). Generalized surficial

geology map of New Brunswick. NR-8 (scale 1 : 500 000): Department of Natural

Resources and Energy, Minerals, Policy and Planning Division, 2002.

Government of Canada. (2014, 05 26). Chapter 4 - Atlantic Canada . Retrieved from

Natural Resources Canada:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/environment/resources/publications/impacts-adaptation/

reports/assessments/2008/ch4/10341

Government of New Brunswick. (2014). Coastal Erosion. Retrieved from Environment

and Local Government:

http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/elg/environment/content/

climate_change/content/climate_change_indicators/indicators/water/

coastal_erosion.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2014, 09 05). Storm Surge

Overview. Retrieved from National Hurricane Center:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/

New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources. (2007). Our Landscape Heritage.

Retrieved from Government of New Brunswick:

41

http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/natural_resources/ForestsCrown

Lands/content/ProtectedNaturalAreas/OurLandscapeHeritage.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, March 6). Basic Information

about Estuaries. Retrieved from Water: Estuaries and Coastal Watersheds:

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/about.cfm

Appendix A-1 Project Schedule

Task Start Dates End Dates Duration (Days)1.0 Determine the impact of seawalls on the coastline 2015-03-21 2015-05-02 43

1.1 Procurement of Materials 2015-02-02 2015-02-27 261.1 Create a GIS layer indicating seawalls 2015-03-21 2015-04-25 361.2 Determine amount of land lost due to erosion 2015-03-29 2015-05-02 35

2.0 Write technical report 2015-01-30 2015-05-29 1202.1 Format paper 2015-01-30 2015-02-01 32.2 Write introduction section 2015-02-01 2015-02-07 72.3 Write background section 2015-02-02 2015-04-09 672.4 Write methodology section 2015-03-21 2015-04-09 202.5 Write results section 2015-05-02 2015-05-08 72.6 Write discussion section 2015-05-02 2015-05-16 152.7 Write conclusion 2015-05-16 2015-05-23 82.8 Proof read and edit paper 2015-05-23 2015-05-30 8

3.0 Create wall plate 2015-05-17 2015-05-29 133.1 Export photos highlighting sea walls and land lost due to erosion 2015-03-21 2015-04-25 36

4.0 Present applied project PP 2015-06-19 2015-06-19 14.1 Prepare applied project Power Point 2015-05-30 2015-06-18 20

Schedule for Applied Project (How Seawalls Impact the Schooner Point Coastline Natural Erosion Process)

42

Appendix A-2 Project Change Form

Change Approved or Declined: Date:

Decision made by who:

How will proposed changes be implemented:

Reasons for decision:

Buget Affected (Yes or No): If budget is affeted state why and by how much:

Other options if requested change is not feasible:

Recommendations:

Change Request Outcome

Priority (High, Medium, Low):

Reason for Change:

Impact of Ignoring Change:

Analyzing ChangeChange to Project Scope:

Change to Project Objective:

Project Request Change FormChange Request #: Requested By: Date Requested:

Description of ChangeRequested Change:

43

Appendix B: Mathematical Equations and Results

Average Coastline Erosion per Year (Equation 1)

| E = area eroded per year | A = area eroded | T = years passed |

E = A/T

Total Coastline

1944 – 1965: 1524.00 m2 / 11yrs = 138.55 m2 per year

1954 – 1965: 2615.10 m2 / 12yrs = 217.93 m2 per year

1965 – 1976: 1478.67 m2 / 9yrs = 165.30 m2 per year

1976 – 1983: 3885.07 m2 / 8yrs = 485.63 m2 per year

1983 – 2002: 4255.51 m2 / 20yrs = 212.78 m2 per year

2002 – 2012: 2437.24 m2 / 11yrs = 221.57 m2 per year

Site A

1944 – 1954: 13.17 m2 / 11yrs = 1.20 m2 per year

1954 – 1965: 582.43 m2 / 12yrs = 48.54 m2 per year

1965 – 1976: no erosion

1976 – 1983: 470.57 m2 / 8yrs = 58.82 m2 per year

1983 – 2002: 1296.56 m2 / 20yrs = 64.83 m2 per year

2002 – 2012: 400.84 m2 / 11yrs = 36.44 m2 per year44

Site B

1944 – 1954: 201.60 m2 / 11yrs = 18.33 m2 per year

1954 – 1965: 163.94 m2 / 12yrs = 13.66 m2 per year

1965 – 1976: 124.01 m2 / 9yrs = 13.78 m2 per year

1976 – 1983: 178.44 m2 / 8yrs = 22.31 m2 per year

1983 – 2002: 69.57 m2 / 20yrs = 3.48 m2 per year

2002 – 2012: 100.51 m2 / 11yrs = 9.14 m2 per year

Site C

1944 – 1954: 6.23 m2 / 11yrs = 0.57 m2 per year

1954 – 1965:

1965 – 1976: 153.461 m2 / 9yrs = 17.05 m2 per year

1976 – 1983: 5.09 m2 / 8yrs = 0.64 m2 per year

1983 – 2002: 243.63 m2 / 20yrs = 12.18 m2 per year

2002 – 2012: 173.74 m2 / 11yrs = 15.79 m2 per year

45

The average area of deposition per year (Equation 2)

|D = area of deposition per year| A = area of deposition| T = years|

D = A/T

Total Coastline

1944 – 1965: 1331.65 m2 / 11yrs = 121.06 m2 per year

1954 – 1965: 1451.91 m2 / 12yrs = 120.99 m2 per year

1965 – 1976: 1704.46 m2 / 9yrs = 189.38 m2 per year

1976 – 1983: 264.42 m2 / 8yrs = 33.05 m2 per year

1983 – 2002: 720.451 m2 / 20yrs = 36.02 m2 per year

2002 – 2012: 507.83 m2 / 11yrs = 46.17 m2 per year

Site A

1944 – 1965: 100.91 m2 / 11yrs = 9.17 m2 per year

1954 – 1965: no deposition occurred

1965 – 1976: 479.83 m2 / 9yrs = 53.31 m2 per year




46

Site B

1944 – 1965: 8.48 m2 / 11yrs = 0.77 m2 per year

1954 – 1965 40.08m2 / 12yrs = 3.34 m2 per year

1965 – 1976: 63.36 m2 / 9yrs = 7.04 m2 per year

1976 – 1983: 17.85 m2 / 8yrs = 2.23 m2 per year

1983 – 2002: 40.58 m2 / 20yrs = 2.03 m2 per year

2002 – 2012: 51.64 m2 / 11yrs = 4.69 m2 per year

Site C

1944 – 1965: 128.36 m2 / 11yrs = 11.67 m2 per year

1954 – 1965 139.42 m2 / 12yrs = 11.62 m2 per year


1976 – 1983: 72.44 m2 / 8yrs = 9.06 m2 per year



47

Rate of Erosion (Equation 3)

ER% = [(E2 / E1) * 100] – 1

| ER% = erosion rate change| E2 = erosion at a later date| E1 = erosion that occurred

between 1944 – 1954|

Analysed Coastline

1944 – 1954: [(138.55 / 138.55) * 100] – 1 = 0% change

1954 – 1965: [(217.93 / 138.55) * 100] – 1 = 57% change

1965 – 1976: [(165.30 / 138.55) * 100] – 1 = 19% change

1976 – 1983: [(485.63 / 138.55) * 100] – 1 = 251% change

1983 – 2002: [(212.78 / 138.55) * 100] – 1 = 54% change

2002 – 2012: [(221.57 / 138.55) * 100] – 1 = 60% change

Site A

1944 – 1954: [(1.20 / 1.20) * 100] – 1 = 0% change

1954 – 1965: [(48.54 / 1.20) * 100] – 1 = 3955% change

1965 – 1976: no erosion occurred

1976 – 1983: [(58.82 / 1.20) * 100] – 1 = 4815% change

1983 – 2002: [(64.83 / 1.20) * 100] – 1 = 5317% change

2002 – 2012: [(36.44 / 1.20) * 100] – 1 = 2945% change

48

Site B

1944 – 1954: [(18.33 / 18.33) * 100] – 1 = 0% change

1954 – 1965: [(13.66 / 18.33) * 100] – 1 = - 25% change

1965 – 1976: [(13.78 / 18.33) * 100] – 1 = - 25% change

1976 – 1983: [(22.31 / 18.33) * 100] – 1 = 22% change

1983 – 2002: [(3.48 / 18.33) * 100] – 1 = - 81% change

2002 – 2012: [(9.14 / 18.33) * 100] – 1 = - 50% change

Site C

1944 – 1954: [(0.57 / 0.57) * 100] – 1 = 0% change

1954 – 1965: No erosion occurred

1965 – 1976: [(17.05 / 0.57) * 100] – 1 = 2912% change

1976 – 1983: [(0.64 / 0.57) * 100] – 1 = 12% change

1983 – 2002: [(12.18 / 0.57) * 100] – 1 = 2051% change

2002 – 2012: [(15.79 / 0.57) * 100] – 1 = 2680% change

49

Rate of Deposition (Equation 4)

DR% = [(D2 / D1) * 100] – 1

| DR% = deposition rate change| D2 = deposition at a later date| D1 = deposition that

occurred between 1944 – 1954|

Analysed Coastline

1944 – 1954: [(121.06 / 121.06) * 100] – 1 = 0% change

1954 – 1965: [(120.99 / 121.06) * 100] – 1 = 0% change

1965 – 1976: [(189.38 / 121.06) * 100] – 1 = 56% change

1976 – 1983: [(33.05 / 121.06) * 100] – 1 = - 73% change

1983 – 2002: [(36.02 / 121.06) * 100] – 1 = - 70% change

2002 – 2012: [(46.16 / 121.06) * 100] – 1 = - 62% change

Site A

1944 – 1954: [(9.17 / 9.17) * 100] – 1 = 0% change

1954 – 1965: no deposition

1965 – 1976: [(53.31 / 9.17) * 100] – 1 = 4355% change




50

Site B

1944 – 1954: [(0.77 / 0.77) * 100] – 1 = 0% change

1954 – 1965: [(3.34 / 0.77) * 100] – 1 = 333% change

1965 – 1976: [(7.04 / 0.77) * 100] – 1 = 813% change

1976 – 1983: [(2.23 / 0.77) * 100] – 1 = 189% change

1983 – 2002: [(2.03 / 0.77) * 100] – 1 = 163% change

2002 – 2012: [(4.69 / 0.77) * 100] – 1 = 509% change

Site C

1944 – 1954: [(11.67 / 11.67) * 100] – 1 = 0% change

1954 – 1965: [(11.62 / 11.67) * 100] – 1 = 0% change


1976 – 1983: [(9.06 / 11.67) * 100] – 1 = - 22% change



51

The increase in the amount of riprap installed along the analysed coastline

(Equation 5)

RR% = (RR2/RR1) * 100 – 1

|RR% = riprap change| RR2 = length of riprap installed at a later date| RR1 = length of

riprap present in 1976|

Analysed Coastline

1965 – 1976: (84.10 / 84.10) * 100 – 1 = 0% change

1976 – 1983: (186.57 / 84.10) * 100 – 1 = 122% change

1983 – 2002: (884.15 / 84.10) * 100 – 1 = 1051% change

2002 – 2012: (1039 / 84.10) * 100 – 1 = 1136% change

The average lateral movement of the coastline (Equation 6)

R = (E/L) / T (NOTE: + = coastline moved away from land, - = coastline moved toward

land)

|R = average lateral rate of erosion| E = area eroded (m2)| L =coastline length| T = years|

Total Coastline

1944 – 1954: (1331.65m2 – 1524.00m2) / 1118.39m / 11yrs = -0.02 meters per year


1965 – 1976: (1704.46m2 – 1487.67m2) / 1126.01m / 9yrs = 0.02 meters per year

52



2002 - 2012: (507.86m2 – 2437.24m2) / 1168.21m / 11yrs = -0.15 meters per year

Site A







Site B







53

Site C







54

Appendix C: Coastline analysis

Table C-1: Analysed section of coastline

Years 1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976 1976-1983 1983-2002 2002-2012No. of Years 11 12 9 8 20 11Erosion (m2) 1524.00 2615.10 1487.67 3885.07 4255.51 2437.24Deposition (m2) 1331.65 1451.91 1704.46 264.42 720.45 507.86Riprap (m) 84.10 186.57 884.15 1039.46Erosion per year (m2) 138.55 217.93 165.30 485.63 212.78 221.57Deposition per year (m2) 121.06 120.99 189.38 33.05 36.02 46.17Changes In Erosion Rates 0% 57% 19% 251% 54% 60%Changes in Deposition Rates 0% 56% -73% -70% -62%Changes in RipRap 100% 122% 951% 1136%Coastline length (m) 1118.39 1110.49 1126.01 1149.49 1190.07 1168.21Lateral movement (+/- m) -0.02 -0.09 0.02 -0.39 -0.15 -0.15

Table C-2: Site A coastline Analysis

Years 1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976 1976-1983 1983-2002 2002-2012No. of Years 11 12 9 8 20 11Erosion (m2) 13.17 582.43 470.57 1296.56 400.84Deposition (m2) 100.91 479.83Erosion per year (m2) 1.20 48.54 58.82 64.83 36.44Deposition per year (m2) 9.17 0.00 53.31Changes In Erosion Rates 0% 3955% 4815% 5317% 2945%Changes in Deposition Rates 0% 481%Coastline length (m) 117.47 101.48 115.59 108.96 104.05 122.59Lateral movement (+/- m) 0.07 -0.48 0.46 -0.54 -0.62 -0.30

55

Table C-3: Site B coastline analysis

Years 1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976* 1976-1983* 1983-2002* 2002-2012*No. of Years 11 12 9 8 20 11Erosion (m2) 201.60 163.94 124.01 178.44 69.57 100.51Deposition (m2) 8.48 40.08 63.36 17.85 40.58 51.64Erosion per year (m2) 18.33 13.66 13.78 22.31 3.48 9.14Deposition per year (m2) 0.77 3.34 7.04 2.23 2.03 4.69Changes In Erosion Rates 0% -25% -25% 22% -81% -50%Changes in Deposition Rates 0% 333% 813% 189% 163% 509%Coastline length (m) 90.36 91.76 91.03 99.90 95.31 93.63Lateral movement (+/- m) -0.19 -0.11 -0.07 -0.20 -0.02 -0.05

Table C-4: Site C coastline analysis

Years 1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976 1976-1983 1983-2002 2002-2012No. of Years 11 12 9 8 20 11Erosion (m2) 6.23 0.00 153.46 5.09 243.63 173.74Deposition (m2) 128.36 139.42 72.44Erosion per year (m2) 0.57 17.05 0.64 12.18 15.79Deposition per year (m2) 11.67 11.62 9.06Changes In Erosion Rates 0% 2912% 12% 2051% 2690%Changes in Deposition Rates 0% 0% -22.40%Coastline length (m) 41.41 40.00 39.72 40.50 54.57 51.73Lateral movement (+/- m) 0.27 0.29 -0.43 0.21 -0.22 -0.31

56

Appendix D: Tables of results

Figure 4 is based on Table D-1.

Table D-1: Area of material deposited and eroded along the coastline

Years 1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976 1976-1983 1983-2002 2002-2012 AverageCoastline (m2) -17.49 -96.93 24.09 -452.58 -176.75 -175.40 -149.18Site A (m2) 7.98 -48.54 53.31 -58.82 -64.83 -36.44 -24.56Site B (m2) -17.56 -10.32 -6.74 -20.07 -1.45 -4.44 -10.10Site C (m2) 11.10 11.62 -17.05 8.42 -12.18 -15.79 -2.31

Figure 5 is based on Table D-2.

Table D-2: Lateral movement of the coastline in meters per year

Years 1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976* 1976-1983* 1983-2002* 2002-2012* TotalCoastline (m) -0.02 -0.09 0.02 -0.39 -0.15 -0.15 -0.13Site A (m) 0.07 -0.48 0.46 -0.54 -0.62 -0.30 -0.23Site B (m) -0.19 -0.11 -0.07 -0.20 -0.02 -0.05 -0.11Site C (m) 0.27 0.29 -0.43 0.21 -0.22 -0.31 -0.03NOTE: An asterisk (*) indicates riprap along coastline

The determined depositional rate changes can be found in Table D-3.

Table D-3: Depositional rate changes

Years 1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976* 1976-1983* 1983-2002* 2002-2012* 1954-2012Coastline 0% 56% -73% -70% -62% -30%Site A 0% 481% 96%Site B 0% -25% -25% 22% -81% -50% -32%Site C 0% 0% -22% -5%

The determined rate change that erosion underwent can be found in Table D-4.

57

Table D-4: Erosional Rate Change

Years 1944-1954 1954-1965 1965-1976* 1976-1983* 1983-2002* 2002-2012* 1944-2012Coastline 0% 57% 19% 251% 54% 60% 88%Site A 0% 3955% 4815% 5317% 2945% 3406%Site B 0% 333% 813% 189% 163% 509% 402%Site C 0% 2912% 12% 2051% 2690% 1533%

58

Appendix E: Coastline pictures

Figure E-1: Coastline pictures: 1944(red) – 1954(yellow)

59

Figure E-2: 1954(red) – 1965(yellow)

60

Figure E-3: 19659red) – 1976(yellow)

61


62


63


64

Figure E-7: Coastline: 1944(red) – 1954(yellow) Sites: Site A (yellow), Site B (green), Site C (red)

65


66

Figure E -9: Coastline: 1965(red) – 1976(yellow) Sites: Site A (yellow), Site B (green), Site C (red)

67


68


69


70

71

Appendix F: Pixel sizes

Pixel sizes for each photo can be found in Table F-1.

Table F-1: Pixel sizes

Year Pixel Size (meters)1944 0.81954 0.71965 0.71976 1.01983 0.62002 0.52012 0.3

72

Documents

The Impact of Riprap on Coastal Erosion in Miramichi, New Brunswick