Baird, W.F. and Associates Coastal Engineering Ltd. Detailed Study ...

5.2.5 Bypassing Analysis at the Salmon River Jetties 

The COSMOS sediment transport estimates were completed with consecutive beach 

profiles for ELO to evaluate the influence of changes in the wave climate and shoreline 

orientation on the direction and magnitude of LST. Although this approach is very 

effective at assessing regional trends in LST, it can not evaluate the influence of harbors 

or jetties, since these structures have a 3D affect on the local wave climate, which can not 

be simulated with the 2D beach profile. 

Therefore, a 2D hydrodynamic and sediment transport model (HYDROSED) was applied 

to the Salmon River Jetties to investigate wave propagation, refraction and diffraction for 

the current morphology at the site. HYDROSED is a state of the art model that consists 

of a spectral wave transformation module, where the wave field is calculated by the 

spectral energy conservation equation of Karlsson (1969), with the breaking dissipation 

term of Isobe, (1987), a hydrodynamic module (Nishimura, 1988) to describe wave 

generated nearshore currents and circulations (driven by radiation stresses predicted with 

the spectral wave transformation module) and a sediment transport module presented by 

Dibajnia et al (2001). The sediment transport model considers the influence of non-linear 

orbital velocities and undertow and is based on the sheet flow transport formula of 

Dibajnia and Watanabe (1992), which was extended by Dibajnia (1995) to consider 

suspended transport over ripples as well as the bedload transport. Dibajnia et al (2001) 

also conducted a sensitivity test and showed that the model response under various actual 

nearshore wave environments is satisfactory. For a given wave condition, HYDROSED 

can provide a full spatial description of nearshore currents and sand transport within the 

model domain. The model has been verified through laboratory experiments as well as 

field measurements and has been extensively applied to projects by Baird & Associates. 

A map of the lakebed contours in the vicinity of the Salmon River is presented in Figure 

5.40, along with the model domain for HYDROSED. The grid was 900 by 600 cells, 

with a cell size was 5 m. Therefore, there were 540,000 cells or computations for each 

model run. 

The spatial extent of the Salmon River Jetties in Figure 5.40 is noted with the black 

shading. The tip of the structures only extends to the 2 m depth contour, which is very 

shallow for jetties in the Great Lakes. 

Baird & Associates 185 Detailed Study Sites for the 

Coastal Performance Indicators

Figure 5.40 

Lakebed Contours and HYDROSED Model Grid (blue shading) 



As discussed previously, the first step in predicting sediment bypassing rates at the 

harbor is running the nearshore spectral wave module of HYDROSED. Radiation 

stresses from this simulation are used as input to the hydrodynamic module to predict 

currents and general circulation, which is depicted graphically for a 1.0 m wave height 

approaching the harbor from 15 degrees south of normal in Figure 5.41. 

Figure 5.41 

Current Predictions for 1.0 m Wave Height Approaching from 15 Degrees South of 

Normal 

The current field from the south is very strong at it approaches the south harbor jetty. 

There is a slight reduction in the currents along the south jetty. Due to the shallow 

depths at the tip of the structure, the increase again as they move past the smaller north 

jetty. 



The resultant current prediction from the hydrodynamic module for a 5.0 m wave height 

approaching the jetties from 15 degrees south of normal is summarized graphically in 

Figure 5.42. The predicted current field is very large for these big waves. A very strong 

bypassing current develops around the tip of the jetty and continues in a northerly 

direction. 

Figure 5.42 

Current Predictions for 5.0 m Wave Height Approaching from 15 Degrees South of 

Normal 

The results from the nearshore spectral wave module and the hydrodynamic module are 

used to drive the sediment transport predictions in HYDROSED. Figure 5.43 presents a 

sample of the model predictions for a range of wave heights (1 to 5 m) approaching the 

site from 15 degrees south of normal. A water levels of 0.5 m above Chart Datum was 

used for all simulations, which is representative of the conditions during the fall, winter 

and spring storm season. 

The location of the harbor jetties are noted with two vertical black lines in Figure 5.43 (at 

2,000 m on the x-axis). The sediment transport rates for a 1 m wave height are very 

small. For an input condition of a 2 m wave height, the predicted LST rate is 



3 

approximately 40 m /hr. Plus, the rate of LST does not change significantly from south 

to north, suggesting there is full bypassing for this wave condition. Although there is 

slightly more variability for the 3, 4 and 5 m wave height, the rate of LST moving 

towards the jetties is approximately equal to the rate of LST moving north of the jetties 

(2,500 to 4,000 on the x-axis). 

300 

250 

200 

Alongshore distribution of LST around Salmon River when WL=0.5 m above CD 

Wave direction = +15 deg. 

H = 5 m 

H = 4 m 

H = 3 m 

H = 2 m 

H = 1 m 

LST (m 3 /hr) 

150 

100 

50 

0 

-50 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 

Distance alongshore (m) 

Figure 5.43 

Estimates of Longshore Sediment Transport Across the Model Grid for Waves from 

the Southwest (south is represented by 0 on the x-axis, harbor jetties plotted as two 

vertical black lines) 

Therefore, we can conclude from this series of simulations and other similar model runs 

that the rate of sediment bypassing from the south to the north is very close to 100%. 

To investigate bypassing in a southerly direction at the Salmon River Jetties, a series of 

runs were completed for waves approaching from the northwest. The results are plotted 

in Figure 5.44. In these examples, the longshore current is moving from 4,500 m on the 

x-axis to 0 m. The harbor jetties are located between 2,000 and 2,200 m on the x-axis. 



A very similar trend was observed for the input wave conditions (from 1 to 5 m in height) 

as observed for the waves from the south. The jetties have very little affect on the rate of 

longshore sediment transport. Therefore, we conclude that waves approaching from the 

northwest are able to bypass close to 100% of the incoming sediment. 

-250 

-200 

Alongshore distribution of LST around Salmon River when WL=0.5 m above CD 

Wave direction = -5 deg. 

H = 5 m 

H = 4 m 

H = 3 m 

H = 2 m 

H = 1 m 

LST (m 3 /hr) 

-150 

-100 

-50 

0 

50 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 

Distance alongshore (m) 

Figure 5.44 

Estimates of Longshore Sediment Transport Across the Model Grid for Waves from 

the Northwest (south is represented by 0 on the x-axis, jetties at approximately 2,000 

to 2,200 m on the x-axis) 

In summary, due to the shallow depths at the tip of the Salmon River jetties and to a 

lesser extent the orientation of these structures, wave generated currents are capable of 

bypassing close to 100% of the incoming sediment from the southwest and north. It 

should be noted that these simulations are based on the 2001 bathymetry. The presence 

3 

of a south fillet beach, which is estimated at 100,000 to 150,000 m , indicates that the 

jetties did initially trap some of the sediment from the south. 



5.2.6 Sediment Budget Findings 

The results of the sediment budget calculations are summarized below. 

Sediment Sources 

Since Eastern Lake Ontario is bounded by two bedrock headlands, new sediment is 

3 

limited to internal sources. One of the most surprising sources was the 64,000 m /yr 

contributed by isostatic rebound and erosion of the large sand sheet on the lake bed. 

Nearshore lakebed and beach erosion also contributes some sediment in the center of the 

littoral cell. The eroding drumlins and glacial till plains contribute some sand and gravel, 

as well as the rounded cobbles and pebbles. Historically, prior to the construction of 

dams and the harbor jetties, the Salmon River may have contributed sand to the 

lakeshore. 

The largest sediment sink quantified in the sediment budget is inlet migration at North 

3 

Pond. Since the late 1800s, approximately 58,000 m /yr of sediment has accumulated in 

the pond. The majority of this sediment is thought to be sand on the pond side of the 

barrier beach. The southward migration of the inlet at North and South Colwell pond is 

3 3 

responsible for approximately 1 million m of sediment or 8,000 m /yr. Inflation of 

younger dune systems and accumulation of sand in dune blowouts is also a sediment 

sink, although the volume is unknown. Finally, the fillet beaches at the Salmon River 

Jetties represent a small sink of sand. 

Wave generated currents transport sediment towards the center of the littoral cell, where 

the majority is deposited into North Pond. 

5.2.7 Impacts of Lake Level Regulation at ELO 

It is difficult to quantify the impacts of water level regulation at Eastern Lake Ontario, 

since the site features a combination of dynamic natural areas and heavily altered 

shoreline due to home construction and engineering protection structures. For example, 

as discussed in Section 6.2, the occasion high lake period and associated embryo dune 

erosion would maximize the health of the dune grasses at ELO and ensure these 

vegetation communities don’t stabilize or reach a point of senescence. However, high 

lake levels and erosion will eventually lead to more shoreline protection structures for the 

homes constructed on the dunes. 

Another threat of high lake levels is the potential for the present inlet to close and a new 

inlet to develop, possible to the north of the present location. Such an event would lead 

to another significant period of sedimentation in North Pond, which is the major sediment 



sink at Eastern Lake Ontario. Therefore, from an inlet stability and sediment budget 

standpoint, avoiding high lake levels is recommended. 

Low lakes would also be beneficial, as beaches would recover naturally and aeolian 

processes could build new embryo dunes. In addition, during periods of low lake levels, 

the lakebed profile will be out of equilibrium with the wave climate, leading to the 

onshore transport of sand. This process is similar to the long term impacts of isostatic 

rebound, only it would occur much quicker. 



6.0 BARRIER BEACHES AND DUNES 

Section 6.0 of the report will review the studies completed for the barrier beaches and 

dunes Performance Indicator. The history of the former barrier at Braddock’s Bay will 

be reviewed, plus shoreline change measurements and computer modeling will be 

summarized at the study sites to highlight the impacts of lake levels on dune erosion. 

6.1 Braddock’s Bay Barrier Beach Case Study 

Braddock Bay is located in Greece, New York on the south shore of Lake Ontario. The 

community of Greece is located west of the Genesee River and north of Rochester, in 

Monroe County. Figure 6.1 presents an old map of the area dated 1902. Historically, the 

bay was separated from Lake Ontario by a sandy barrier beach. 

Figure 6.1 

1902 Map of Braddock Bay (Tomkiewicz and Husted) 



With the industrialization of the Rochester economy in the late 1800s and early 1900s, 

the growing population of Monroe County was looking for expanded access to 

recreational opportunities on Lake Ontario. Cottage developments were constructed 

along the lake, as depicted in the historical photograph in Figure 6.2. 

Figure 6.2 

Cottage Development along Lake Shore, near Rochester NY (Tomkiewicz and 

Husted) 

In addition to the cottage development, a rail link from Rochester to Greece was 

constructed to bring vacationers to the lakefront. The line continued along the lakeshore, 

including a link across the Braddock Bay barrier to reach the community of Manitou 

Beach. A picture of the old trolley is presented in Figure 6.3. 

Figure 6.3 

Manitou Beach Trolley (Tomkiewicz and Husted) 

A trestle was used to cross the inlet to the bay and reach Manitou Beach (refer to the map 

in Figure 6.1 and picture in 6.4). As the barrier beach started to erode in the early 1900s, 



the size the inlet increased and the exposure of the trestle to lake storms increased. It was 

rebuilt further inland but eventually abandoned. 

Figure 6.4 

Manitou Beach Trolley (Tomkiewicz and Husted) 

A series of old maps chronicle the history of the barrier and the development of the 

waterfront. They were scanned and geo-referenced in GIS to align with the 1995 

orthophotograph. Although these old maps were often only sketches of the historical 

landscape and not based on traditional land surveying techniques, they captured the 

beach conditions between 1811 and 1925, a period when modern mapping was not 

available. These historical maps were overlaid with the modern 1998 orthophotograph in 

a series of map panels in Figure 6.5. The linework from the historical maps is presented 

in yellow to provide contrast. 

In 1811 Braddock Bay was completely sheltered from Lake Ontario by the barrier beach 

and only featured a small inlet. The 1852 map depicts a similar condition. In 1872 a 

barrier beach also protected the bay and sheltered the marsh community. The inlet 

appears to have migrated northwest towards Manitou Beach. The 1902 map, which was 

presented earlier in Figure 6.1, depicts a large inlet into Braddock Bay and is the first 

time the rail line is depicted on the old maps. By 1928, the barrier beach only protects 

approximately half of the bay. 

In Figure 6.6, a series of aerial photographs were registered from 1958 to 2001. In 1958 

and 1966, the western arm of the former barrier was about 500 m in length and still 

featured a somewhat natural morphology. By 1978 the western arm had retreated back to 

the perimeter of the bay, where it has remained for the last three decades. 

By 1958 the eastern arm of the barrier had decreased to approximately 200 m in length 

and was migrating into the bay. By 1966, the remaining portion of the eastern barrier had 

been anchored in place with shoreline protection to shelter a marina (SE corner). 



Figure 6.5 

Braddock Bay, Monroe County, South Shore of Lake Ontario from 1811 to 1928 (Old Maps from Tomkiewicz and Husted) 



Figure 6.6 Braddock Bay, Monroe County, South Shore of Lake Ontario from 1958 to 2001 



A comprehensive study was not completed to quantify the factors that contributed to the 

slow demise of the Braddock Bay barrier beach. However, based on the data presented 

above and several site visits to the area, the following probable factors are identified: 1) 

disruption of the natural barrier beach and dune system with the construction of homes, 

roadways and rail lines along the shoreline, 2) reduction in the supply of new sand and 

gravel due to the construction of shoreline protection, 3) interruption of the natural 

patterns of longshore sediment transport due to harbour structures on the south shore of 

Lake Ontario. The relative contribution of these three factors to the ultimate demise of 

the barrier is not known. 



6.2 Site #13 – North Pond Barrier Beach, Eastern Lake Ontario 

North Pond is sheltered from Lake Ontario by a large barrier beach with a dynamic 

migrating inlet. Refer to the orthophotograph and bathymetry in Figure 6.7. 

Figure 6.7 

North Pond Barrier Beach, Eastern Lake Ontario 



The barrier beach is approximately 6 km in length and features large relic coastal dunes 

in some locations, while aeolian processes are re-building new dunes in others. Detailed 

computer modeling was completed at two locations along the North Pond barrier beach in 

conjunction with the species at risk group of the Environmental Technical Working 

Group (ETWG). There was three primary objectives: 1) investigate the impacts of lake 

levels and storms on beach and dune erosion at the two sites, 2) interpret the impacts of 

these erosion events on three endangered plant species found on the barriers at ELO, 

including ammophila champlainensis, Prunus pumila var. pumila and Salix cordata, and 

make recommendations for a future regulation plan that will enhance the conditions for 

these three endangered plant species. These plant species, which collectively will be 

referred to as beach grass, are listed as endangered by the NY State Department of 

Environmental Conservation. 

6.1.1 Wave Climate 

The storm conditions offshore of North Pond were assessed based on the 1961 to 2000 

wave climate at Station 2995. All the storms were selected from the hourly data that 

featured wave heights in excess of 2.0 m for a minimum of 6.0 hours. A total of 344 

storms were identified and summarized in Figure 6.8 based on the month of occurrence. 

This analysis considers the historical ice conditions, which reduces the number of events 

in February and March. 

100 

80 

# of Storm Events 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Month 

Figure 6.8 

Storm Climate Offshore of North Pond at 10 m Depth Contour (1961 to 2000 waves, 

344 events) 



The fall, winter and spring periods are clearly the stormiest at the Eastern Lake Ontario 

site. However, these storms also occur when the lake levels are near the low point of the 

seasonal cycle, not the summer peak. Therefore, the storm selection was further analyzed 

to select storm events that occur during the summer months. Two storms were selected 

for the analysis of dune erosion, July 5-7, 1973 and August 13-17, 1979, as summarized 

in Table 6.1 below. 

Table 6.1 

Wave Conditions for Two Historical Storms at ELO (conditions at 10 m depth 

contour) 

Date 

July 5-7, 1973 

August 13-16, 1979 

Duration 

(hours) 

Direction 

(deg) 

Peak Height 

(m) 

61 ~260 1.83 6.4 

97 ~270 2.27 7.85 

Peak Period 

(s) 

6.2.2 Beach and Dune Profiles 

Two sites along the North Sandy Pond barrier beach were selected, one south of the 

current inlet (Photo 2080) and one north of the inlet (Photo 2086). Refer to Figure 6.9. 

Figure 6.9 Plan View of Profile Location for Photo 2080 and 2086 



Oblique aerial photographs of the two sites taken on August 6, 2003 are presented in 

Figures 6.10 and 6.11 for reference. Photo 2080 is the location of the former inlet and 

features an active embryo dune covered in dune grasses. The primary dune ride and a 

secondary ridge that marked the boundary of the former inlet are now vegetated with 

pioneer shrub and tree species. Photo 2086 captures the barrier conditions at a very 

susceptible location adjacent to an older relic dune, which is eroding. The barrier ridge is 

very narrow, low crested and generally devoid of vegetation. 

PROFILE 

Figure 6.10 Location of Profile for Photo 2080 

PROFILE 

Figure 6.11 Location of Profile for Photo 2086 



The COSMOS model was used to simulate cross-shore profile response for the two storm 

events at a range of water levels. The results for the average summer storm (July 5, 

1973) and a lake level of 1.0 m are presented below in Figure 6.12. The input profile, as 

captured by the detailed LIDAR bathymetry and topography for the site, is depicted in 

Figure 6.12, along with the zone of active dune grass vegetation. The storm resulted in 

some beach erosion, however, this zone was limited to the profile below the beach grass. 

5 

Elevation (m above CD, 74.2 m IGLD'85) 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

-1 

-2 

Post-Storm Profile 

Pre-storm Profile 

Zone of Ammophila 

Lake Level 

-3 

1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 

Distance (m) 

Figure 6.12 

Profile 2080 Response to Average Summer Storm at 75.2 m (1.0 m above CD) 

The average summer storm was re-run for Profile 2080 with a lake level of 75.7 m (1.5 m 

above CD). The results are presented in Figure 6.13. It is worth noting that this is an 

extreme high summer water level that has only occurred on a few occasions since Lake 

Ontario regulation began in 1960. 


5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

-1 

-2 

Pre-storm Profile 

Post-Storm Profile 


Lake Level 

-3 

1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 

Distance (m) 

Figure 6.13 

Profile 2080 Response to Average Summer Storm at 75.7 m (1.5 m above CD) 



A 10 m wide zone of the dune grass on the embryo dune is eroded for the simulation that 

assumes an average summer storm occurs at a very high summer lake level. The erosion 

scarp on the dune extends up to the 3 m contour. The event would disrupt the dune grass 

community and eliminate the late successional stage that can occur with storm exposure 

at the toe of the dunes. 

The profile response simulations were repeated with the COSMOS model at Profiles 

2080 and 2086 for the severe summer storm that occurred on August 13, 1979. The 

results at Profile 2080 for a lake level of 75.2 m (1.0 m above CD) are presented in 

Figure 6.14. Significant beach and dune erosion was predicted with the model, including 

disruption of the dune grass community. 

5 

Elevation (m, IGLD'85) 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

-1 

-2 

Post_Storm Profile 

Pre-Storm Profile 


Lake Level 

-3 

1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 

Distance offshore (m) 

Figure 6.14 

Profile 2080 Response to Severe Summer Storm at 75.2 m (1.0 m above CD) 

The severe summer storm was re-run for Profile 2080 assuming a high summer lake level 

of 75.7 m. Refer to results in Figure 6.15. Significant beach and dune erosion is 

predicted across a 50 m zone for Profile 2080. Dune erosion is predicted up to the crest 

of the primary dune 4.5 m above Chart Datum. The entire beach grass community would 

be disrupted. 

The COSMOS prediction for a severe summer storm at Profile 2086 with a summer lake 

level of 75.7 m is presented in Figure 6.16. For this narrow and low crested portion of 

the barrier beach, the model predicts wave overtopping and erosion of the entire dune 

profile. These results must be interpreted within the context of the model functionality. 

For example, predicting the precise dune erosion response and wave overwash processes 

with a computer model such as COSMOS is difficult. However, a few important 

observations can be made. First, wave runup and overtopping may occur during severe 

summer storms at high summer lake levels. Although this type of event will disrupt the 

dune grass communities, which is desired to avoid dune stabilization and a late 

successional stage for the vegetation, there is a very series risk of a breach in the barrier 



each during severe storms at high lake levels. Locations such as Profile 2086 are 

particularly susceptible since the beach is narrow and the dune ride is low crested. 

Elevation (m, IGLD'85) 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

-1 




Lake Level 

-2 

-3 

1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 

Distance offshore (m) 

Figure 6.15 



5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

-1 

-2 



Lake Level 

-3 

1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 

Distance (m) 

Figure 6.16 


In summary, the barrier beach at Eastern Lake Ontario is a dynamic sandy geomorphic 

feature. Beach erosion and recovery is a natural process, as is inlet migration. An 

environment that is constantly changing ensures the vegetation communities, particularly 

the endangered dune grasses, will remain healthy and avoid a condition of dune 

stabilization or a late successional stage, also known as senescence. The computer 



modeling of beach and dune response to Lake Ontario storms indicates that occasionally 

the combination of higher than average summer conditions and storms would provide the 

necessary disruption to the dune grass communities to ensure they don’t stabilize. 

However, this objective is ad odds with the current development pattern along Eastern 

Lake Ontario, which has permitted the construction of homes in the dynamic and fragile 

dune environment. In some locations, homes and cottages are build right on top of the 

dunes. In these locations, it will be very difficult to achieve the desired disruption of the 

dune grass communities without threatening capital investments in homes and cottages. 

In addition, these types of storms often lead to the construction of shoreline protection, 

which further disrupts the natural system and reduces the supply of new sand threw 

natural background erosion. 

For additional details on the assessment of dune erosion and impacts on dune grass 

communities, refer to the ETWG report (2004) entitled “Water Level Regulation Impacts 

on Endangered Dune Species.” 



6.3 Site #14 – North and South Colwell Pond, Eastern Lake Ontario 

North and South Colwell Pond are located within the Eastern Lake Ontario barrier beach 

complex, north of the Sandy Pond Site. The barrier beach is almost 300 wide in some 

locations and supports a large dune complex. The inlet is presently at the southern end of 

South Colwell Pond, as depicted in Figure 6.17. 

Figure 6.17 Study Site #14 

Oblique digital photographs of the site where collected on August 6, 2003. A view of the 

inlet to South Colwell Pond is provided in Figure 6.18. A submerged channel in the 

lakebed is observed through the sandy nearshore zone. Also, the wide and vegetated 

barrier ridge is seen to the north of the inlet. 

This is a dynamic environment and the inlet is occasionally closed due to sedimentation 

from the lake, as observed on April 12, 2002. Refer to Figure 6.19. By the time of the 

August 2003 oblique aerials, the channel had re-opened. This type of channel is 

classified as an ephemeral inlet. 



Figure 6.18 Inlet to South Colwell Pond, August 6, 2003 

Figure 6.19 Inlet to South Colwell Pond Temporarily Closed, April 12, 2002 

The wide barrier ridge and channel between North and South Colwell Pond is presented 

in Figure 6.20. Successive dune ridges are not visible in the orthophotograph, suggesting 

some processes other than a progradational shoreline has built this wide stable barrier 

ridge. 



Figure 6.20 Barrier Ridge and Channel Between North and South Colwell Pond, August 6, 2003 

A series of historical maps and aerial photographs of the sites was used to evaluate the 

geomorphic formation and evolution of this barrier beach. Refer to Figure 6.21 for 

images of the barrier from 1878, 1893, 1974, 1983 and 1998. 

In 1878, there was only a partial barrier and a series of small islands protecting North 

Colwell Pond. The barrier beach was continuous along South Colwell Pond but 

considerably narrower than the modern condition. The beach and pond conditions 

identified on the 1893 map were very similar to 1878. There is a large gap between the 

next available data, 1974, which documents a mature and wide barrier ridge, with the 

inlet slightly north of the present location. In 1983, the mouth of the inlet was closed, 

similar to the conditions documented in the spring of 2002. The location and 

morphology of the inlet has not changed significantly between 1983 and 1998. In 

summary, in the late 1800s, North Colwell Pond was open to Lake Ontario. In the 100 

years following the old maps to the 1974 condition, it appears the inlet migrated 

southward to its present location adjacent to Montario Point and a wide barrier has 

formed. 

One possible explanation for the formation of the wide barrier beach fronting North and 

South Colwell Pond is a southward migrating inlet. As the inlet migrated south, the old 

channels filled with sediment and ultimately aeolian transport created the modern dune 

landscape. When the terminus of the current inlet in the pond is observed, the 

morphology of the sand ridges provides some possible clues to support this hypothesis. 

If this inlet filled with sediment, ultimately the two terminal sand ridges would merge and 



create a rounded promontory into South Colwell Pond. When the backside of the barrier 

is examined in Figure 6.17, similar rounded promontories can be observed. 



Figure 6.21 History of Barrier Ridge Growth and Migration at North and South Colwell Pond, 1878 to 1998 



The impacts of lake level regulation was not investigated with computer models at North 

and South Colwell Pond. However, the results from North Sandy Pond, which is located 

a few kilometers to the south, can be interpreted for Study Site #14. First, the absence of 

shoreline development, such as houses and roads, will permit this beach and dune 

environment to respond dynamically to erosion and sedimentation events. Even the most 

extreme prediction of beach and dune erosion for a severe summer storm at high lake 

levels would not have a lasting negative impact on the site, since the barrier beach is very 

wide and it could recover during low and average water level conditions. 

A typical view of the barrier beach fronting the ponds is presented in Figure 6.22. The 

image was taking in April 2002 and thus it is difficult to evaluate the presence or absence 

of dune grasses, such as those listed as endangered by the NYS DEC. However, the 

abundance of mature deciduous trees along the foredune ridge suggest the beach and 

dune system has been stable over the last several decades. 

Figure 6.22 

Typical View of the Beach and Dune Fronting North and South Colwell Pond, April 

12, 2002 

If the southward migrating inlet theory is correct, it appears the channel is close to or has 

reached it southern maximum, since Montario Point now anchors this feature to the 

south. Therefore, it is possible the inlet could fill in during a large sedimentation event 

and never re-open. Or at least re-open in a different location, likely the northern corner 

of North Colwell Pond. 



6.4 Site #15 – Huyck’s Bay Barrier Beach 

Huyck’s Bay Barrier Beach is located on the south shore of Prince Edward County, 

between Presqu’ile Point and the community of Wellington. A site map of the bay, 

which features partial orthophotograph coverage, is presented in Figure 6.23. The MNR 

general lakewide depth contours are also plotted for reference. There was no detailed 

SHOALS data collected for this site. 

Figure 6.23 

Study Site #15, Huyck’s Bay 



Huyck’s Bay is sheltered from Lake Ontario by a narrow sand and gravel barrier beach, 

as seen in Figure 6.23. The barrier beach is anchored on the north and south by two 

limestone headlands and thus functions similar to a large pocket beach. A series of 

photographs are presented to document the site conditions on September 15, 2002. 

The headland that anchors the pocket beach to the south features shelving bedrock at the 

tip, eroding limestone banks and is heavily vegetated. Refer to Figure 6.24. At the actual 

point in the shoreline, there is not beach material. Closer to the actual barrier beach, the 

beach consists of large slabs of limestone, then progressively grades to smaller pieces of 

shingle, cobbles and sand. All of this material is eroded locally from the bank. 

Figure 6.24 Eroding Limestone Headland at South End of Huyck’s Bay, Sept. 15, 2002 

A view of the limestone beds in the eroding bank is presented in Figure 6.25. The water 

bottle is sitting on a 

large slab of limestone, 

while the layers above 

feature smaller 

fractured pieces of rock 

that will eventually 

become washed shingle 

on the beach. The 

limestone is capped 

with a thin soil 

horizon. 

Figure 6.25 Close-up of Eroding Limestone Bank, Huyck’s Bay, Sept. 15, 2002 



At the southeast corner of the bay, the beach transitions from slabs of limestone and 

shingle to cobbles and pebbles, as seen in Figure 6.26. The marsh conditions behind at 

barrier beach are presented in Figure 6.27. 

Figure 6.26 

Study Site #15, Huyck’s Bay 

Figure 6.27 Huyck’s Bay Marsh, Looking Northeast, Sept. 15, 2002 

At the time of the site visit, the current inlet to Huyck’s Bay was closed with a wide 

gravel bar. Refer to Figure 6.28. Although this bar separates and shelters the marsh from 

lake waves, it is very porous and water was observed draining through the gravel bar. 

For example, a pool of water above lake level was observed and featured a cascading 

flow of water across the cobbles and pebbles. A picture is provided in Figure 6.29. 



Figure 6.28 

Gravel Bar Across the Mouth of Huyck’s Bay 

Figure 6.29 

Bay Water Draining Through the Gravel Bar due to Hydraulic Head 

The middle of the barrier beach is sandy with scattered deposits of shingle and gravel. 

Small patches of dune grasses were observed, along with shrubs and deciduous trees. A 

very small erosion scarp was observed but overall site observations suggested the barrier 

beach was stable. Refer to Figure 6.30. 



Figure 6.30 

Center of Barrier Beach Features a Sand Beach with Isolated Shingle 

Near the northwest corner of the bay, the shelving bedrock re-appears at the waterline. A 

typical view of the limestone bedrock is presented in Figure 6.31. Based on a review of 

the lake bottom contours in Figure 6.23, it appears this bedrock extends below the lake 

surface in a prominent ridge or shoal. If this bedrock high extends inland, it may also 

explain the topographic separation between the two interior marshes. 

Figure 6.31 

Shelving Bedrock at the Waterline in the Northwest Corner of the Bay 



Pleasant Bay inlet drains the adjacent marsh and was open to the lake during the 

September 15, 2002 field visit. The beach is sandy with some gravel and shingle present. 

The inlet was sheltered from wave attack by a crescent shaped bar. The photograph of 

the inlet in Figure 6.32 was taken from the bar looking through the inlet and into the 

marsh. 

Figure 6.32 

Pleasant Bay Inlet in the Northern Section of the Barrier 

The northwest corner of the bay is anchored by shelving limestone bedrock at and below 

the waterline. There are not low banks, as seen at the south end of the barrier. 

Deciduous trees growing at the waterline suggests there is a slow erosion rate at this 

location, since these trees will not root and grow in such an energetic environment. 

Rather, they matured to their present size when the shoreline was further lakeward. See 

Figure 6.33. Also, the absence of bark on the lake facing trunks suggest sand and gravel 

entrained in breaking waves and wave runup reaches the base of the trees. 

Figure 6.33 

Bedrock Headland at the Northwest Corner of the Bay 

6.4.1 Long Term Shoreline Change Rates 

It was not possible to register any historical aerial photographs at Site #15 due to a lack 

of repeatable ground control in the photographs, such as roads and buildings. Therefore, 



it was not possible to measure shoreline changes rates for the barrier beach protecting 

Huyck’s Bay. The field observations indicate there is a slow long term recession rate of 

the bedrock headlands that anchor the beach. Overall, the barrier beach appeared to be 

stable with the exception of a few isolated locations of erosion. The barrier may feature a 

very small long term recession rate. 

6.4.2 Lake Bottom Profiles 

Six lake bottom profiles were extracted from the MNR bathymetry grid and are plotted in 

Figure 6.34. Refer to Figure 6.23 for the location of the profiles. Profile 1 extends south 

into Lake Ontario and features the steepest slope. Profile 3 connects the southeast 

bedrock headland to the offshore island. At two locations, the bedrock is close to chart 

datum. Profiles 4 and 5 are located in the center of the bay, while Profile 6 extends 

lakeward of the northwest bedrock headland. 

5 

Profile 1 

0 

Profile 2 

Profile 3 

Profile 4 

Depth (m) 

-5 

-10 

Profile 5 

Profile 6 

-15 

-20 

-25 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 

Distance (m) 

Figure 6.34 

Lake Bottom Profiles at Huyck’s Bay 

6.4.3 Beach Profiles 

The barrier beach fronting Huycks Bay and Pleasant Bay was surveyed on September 25, 

2002. The survey was completed with a Total Station and the start and end points of the 

profile were recorded with hand held GPS equipment. The limits of vegetation, beach 

sand and bottom substrate was noted where possible. 



The results for the profile across the inlet and gravel bar at Huyck’s Bay are plotted in 

Figure 6.35. At the 74.2 m contour (CD), the gravel bar is approximately 35 m in width 

and has a maximum crest elevation of 75.8 m (1.6 m above CD). At the time of the 

survey, the bay featured a lake level of 75.2 m (1.0 m above CD), while the lake was only 

74.6 m (0.4 m above CD). This field survey supports the observations from September 

15, 2002 when bay water was observed flowing through the barrier beach. The profile 

adjacent to the Pleasant Bay inlet is plotted in Figure 6.36. The barrier beach at this 

location is very low crested. Since there is a hydraulic connection, the water levels in the 

bay and lake were in equilibrium. 

76.0 

75.5 

Elevation (m IGLD '85) 

75.0 

74.5 

74.0 

Huycks Bay 

Limit of Beach Cobbles 

Lake Ontario 

73.5 

73.0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 

Distance (m) 

Figure 6.35 

Beach Profile Across Gravel Barrier at Huycks Bay Inlet 

75.2 

75.0 

74.8 

Edge of Gravel Barrier 

Edge of Gravel Barrier 

Elevation (m IGLD '85) 

74.6 

74.4 

74.2 

74.0 

73.8 

Pleasant Bay 

Edge of Cobble 

Lake Ontario 

73.6 

73.4 

73.2 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Distance (m) 

Figure 6.36 

Beach Profile Across Sandy Barrier at Pleasant Bay Inlet 



6.4.3 Waves and Hydrodynamic Modeling at Huyck’s Bay 

A deep water wave rose offshore of Huyck’s Bay is presented in Figure 6.37. It is clear 

this site is dominated by waves from the WSW, which corresponds to the long axis of the 

lake and the dominate westerly winds. 

Figure 6.37 

Wave Rose Offshore of Huyck’s Bay, 1981 to 2000 (deep water) 

Two wave heights were selected from these data to represent the upper and lower bounds 

of typical wave conditions for simulations with the HYDROSED model: 1 m and 5 m 

from 255 degrees. The goal of the modeling was to investigate wave propagation, 

refraction and diffraction patterns for the current morphology of the headland – pocket 

beach shoreline. Refer to Section 5.2.5 for additional details on the HYDROSED model. 

The results for the 1 m wave height from the WSW are presented in Figure 6.38. The 

modeling grid was 4.5 by 4.5 km and included the offshore island. The incident waves 

converge across the shoal between the island and the southeast headland. Waves also 

focus on the northwest headland and break on the shallow shelving bedrock. 



There is also some wave focusing on the bedrock outcrop identified in Figure 6.31. In 

most locations, the waves that propagate into the bay approach at normal angles to the 

beach. In other words, they are in equilibrium with the orientation of the bay and 

headlands. Very little longshore sediment transport would be expected, since the waves 

approach at a normal angle (right angle to beach orientation). 

Figure 6.38 

Wave Propagation for HYDROSED Simulation (1 m Hs, 255 degrees) 



The same model grid and domain was used for the second simulation, which featured 5 m 

waves from 255 degrees. The results are presented in Figure 6.39. A similar pattern of 

wave refraction around the island is observed, along with convergence on the shoal 

between the island and the southeast headland. There is also wave convergence at the 

northwest headland, however, these large waves start to break in deep water and the zone 

of energy dissipation is very large. The waves that attack the corners of the bay approach 

at oblique angles and thus have the potential of moving sediment into the center of the 

bay. The waves that propagate into the barrier beach approach at a normal angle to the 

shoreline orientation and thus very little longshore sediment transport would be expected. 

Figure 6.39 

Wave Propagation for HYDROSED Simulation (5 m Hs, 255 degrees) 



In summary, the Huyck’s Bay is a classic pocket beach anchored by two bedrock 

headlands. The barrier beach shelters and maintains two large marsh ecosystems. 

During the site visit, the southern marsh was draining through a pervious gravel bar, 

while the northern marsh featured a sandy inlet. Site observations indicate the limestone 

headlands are eroding and these features are the primary sources of new shingle and 

cobbles/pebbles for the barrier beach. There are no significant additional sources of sand 

and gravel for this beach, thus it is essentially a closed system. The presence of mature 

deciduous trees on the beach and near the waterline suggests the barrier has a slow long 

term recession rate. In other words, it is slowly migrating into the marsh, possibly due to 

wave overwash processes during large storms at high lake levels. 

The absence of buildings and road infrastructure along the barrier allow this headland 

beach system to respond dynamically to high lake levels and episodes of erosion, which 

are often followed by recovery periods. It also appears to be good alignment with the 

dominate wave direction and thus the longshore transport of sediment is likely quite 

minimal. It should also be mentioned that the barrier ridge is very low crested in some 

locations and the overall volume of sand and gravel in the beach system is very small. 

Prolonged periods of high lake levels and storm activity could results in significant 

erosion of the barrier beach. Since there is very little natural supply of new sediment to 

this beach system, it would be very difficult for the beach to recover naturally. Also, 

with the current range of lake levels, a significant amount of the storm energy is 

dissipated on the shelving bedrock in the nearshore zone. With higher lake levels, more 

energy will reach the beach, leading to higher recession rates. 



7.0 BEACH ACCESS PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 

A total of six provincial and state parks were selected for the analysis of water level 

impacts on beach visitation. Presqu’ile and Sandbanks Provincial Parks were included in 

Ontario. The following New York State Parks were included: Hamlin, Southwick, 

Westcott and Wilson Tuscarora. The beaches will be described, economic impacts will 

be discussed and the findings of the beach survey will be summarized. 

7.1 Site #11 Beaches 

Observations from the site visit and surveying at four of the six beach sites are 

summarized below. 

7.1.1 Presqu’ile Provincial Park 

An aerial photograph and oblique view of Presqu’ile Provincial Park was provided in 

Figures 5.3 and 5.4. The park beach is very sandy and gently sloping, providing 

excellent conditions for a recreation and swimming. A picture of the beach on June 6, 

2003 is provided in Figure 7.1. At the back of the beach access to the parking lots is 

controlled and the embryo dunes are well vegetated. The secondary dunes are also very 

well vegetated and stable. 

Figure 7.1 

View of Sand Beach at Presqu’ile Provincial Park 

Several beach profiles were surveyed at Presqu’ile Provincial Park in the Fall of 2003. A 

typical profile is presented in Figure 7.2, along with the profiles from the other three 

beaches surveyed. The wide flat beach conditions are evident, especially when compared 



to the other three locations. When lake levels approach 75.5 m (1.3 m above CD) the dry 

portion of this beach would be mostly submerged in water. Thus, this location is very 

susceptible to high lake levels. 

Figure 7.2 

Beach Profiles Surveyed for the Study (all profiles aligned to 75.2 m on the Y-axis) 

7.1.2 Sandbanks Provincial Park 

The swimming beach at Sandbanks Provincial Park is a classic pocket beach anchored by 

two bedrock headlands. The park is a very popular summer tourist destination for day 

beach visitors and overnight campers. In 2002, the park had over 500,000 visitors. 

The beach is narrower than Presqu’ile and much steeper. Refer to the typical profile in 

Figure 7.2. From the average summer water level (75.2 m) to the edge of the dune 

vegetation, the beach is approximately 40 m wide. 

Refer to Figure 7.3 for a typical view of the beach at Sandbanks. The sand is groomed 

with equipment and picnic tables and garbage cans are provided. The dune at the back of 

the beach is heavily vegetated and access is provided at controlled locations. 



Figure 7.3 

Typical View of Sandbanks Provincial Park Beach, Looking South 

7.1.3 Southwick Beach State Park 

Southwick Beach State Park is located within the Eastern Lake Ontario barrier beach 

ecosystem, north of the Lakeview WMA. A typical view of the beach is provided in 

Figure 7.4. In some locations, the back of the beach transitions to a hardwood forest, as 

seen in Figure 7.4. 

Figure 7.4 

Southwick Beach State Park (northern beach, looking south) 



In the southern half of the park, the beaches transition to a dune environment. Figure 7.5 

was taken at a location where active dune management is ongoing to rebuild the 

important embryo dunes. These young frontline dunes are a natural line of defense from 

shoreline erosion, especially during periods of high lake levels. 

Figure 7.5 

Southwick Beach State Park (southern beach, looking south) 

The profile at Southwich Beach was surveyed at the northern half of the park presented 

in Figure 7.4. The beach is very similar to Sandbanks in width and slope. 

7.1.4 Hamlin Beach State Park 

An oblique aerial view of the groins and swimming beaches at Hamlin Beach State Park 

is provided in Figure 7.6. Several life guard stations are visible at the waterline. 

Figure 7.6 Oblique Aerial View of Hamlin Beach State Park (August 5, 2003) 



A ground level view of the beach is presented in Figure 7.7. The back of the beach 

transitions to wooded areas, grassed open spaces and trails. There are no protective 

dunes at the back of the beach. 

Figure 7.7 

Ground Level View of Hamlin Beach State Park 

The beach sand between the groins is coarse and may have been trucked to the site from 

upland sources. The combination of the coarse sand and the groins results in a steep 

beach profile at Hamlin. Refer to the typical profiles in Figure 7.2. 



7.2 Economic Impacts of Beaches 

Based on statistical data available for the six parks, combined the annual visitation is 

approximately 2.0 million people. Not all the individuals visiting these six parks will 

visit the beach, as other activities such as camping, hiking and fishing may be the 

preferred leisure activity. However, it is certain that a significant percentage of these 

visitors utilize the beach resources at the six parks. 

Economic data on the expenditures of these park visitors was available for the two sites 

from the Ontario Parks User Survey. Table 7.1 summarizes the results for the 517,000 

visitors to Sandbanks Provincial Park in 2002 based on the information in the report. 

Day visitors spent a total of 22.5 million dollars, while the campers spent 4.5 million 

dollars. The total expenditures for the park visitors at Sandbanks in 2002 was 27 million 

dollars. 

Table 7.1 Estimated Expenditures for Beach Visitors at Sandbanks Provincial Park in 2002 

Economic Impact ($CAD) 

Annual Day Visitor Expenditures $22,307,750.76 

Annual Day Visitor Entrance Fees 

$154,670.69 

Total Annual Day Visitor Expenditures $22,462,421.46 

Annual Camper Expenditures per night $3,584,936.75 

Annual Camper Entrance Fees $909,370.01 

Total Camper Visitor Expenditures $4,494,396.76 

Camper and Day Use Total Economic Impact $26,956,728.22 

Information on the economic impacts of park visitors for the four sites in New York State 

was not available. However, if we assume expenditures were of a similar magnitude to 

data for Sandbanks, the combined annual expenditures for visitors to all the parks 

exceeds 100 million dollars. For reference, the expenditures are sub-divided into four 

categories: fuel and transportation, food and beverages, attractions and entertainment and 

miscellaneous. 

On an annual basis, visitation and by extension expenditure for these six parks is likely 

linked to a variety of factors, including weather, physical characteristics of the beach, 

water quality, and overall economic prosperity of the economy. The impacts of water 

levels on visitation was investigated with a site survey at Sandbanks and Hamlin. The 

results are described in Section 7.3. 



7.3 Sandbanks and Hamlin Beach Survey 

The beaches at Sandbanks and Hamlin were selected for a user survey to determine if 

lake levels affect visitation to the parks. In other words, if lake levels were higher or 

lower than the long term summer average (approximately 1.0 m above CD), would 

visitors refrain from going to the beach or substitute this activity with another leisure 

alternative, such as interior camping. 

A beach profile was surveyed at each park noting the horizontal coordinates of the –1 to 

+3.0 m contour at 0.5 m intervals. In other words, the –1, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1.0, etc. contour 

was located on each profile and a GPS point was stored. During the actual beach survey, 

which followed afterwards, wooden stakes with blue flags were located at each 0.5 m 

contour interval across the profile. Refer to the Sandbanks profile in Figure 7.8. In the 

lake, buoys attached to anchors were used to locate the contours below water. 

Figure 7.8 

Blue Flags at 0.5 m Contour Intervals at the Sandbanks Profile 

A survey tent was setup at each location to collect information from the beach visitors. 

Refer to the tent setup in Figure 7.9 at Sandbanks. Once a volunteer was identified to 

participate in the survey, they were given brochure with general in formation on the IJC 

study and specific details on the actual beach survey. A metric version of the handout is 

provided in Figures 7.10a and b. 

The survey participants were asked some general information about their beach visit, 

such as travel distance and frequency of visitation. The focus of the survey was the 

potential impacts of different lake levels on future visitation. For example, the 



participants were asked if they would visit the beach if they had advanced information 

that the waterline was at each flag. 

Figure 7.9 

Survey Tent Setup at Sandbanks Provincial Park 

The results for the survey at Sandbanks are presented in Figure 7.11 and they were 

similar to the findings at Hamlin. The lake level during the survey was approximately 

1.0 m and all visitors indicated they would visit the beach if the waterline was in a similar 

position. If the waterline was at 1.5 m and 0.5 m, approximately 95% of the respondents 

agreed they would still visit the beach. In other words, the slightly higher or lower lake 

levels would have little impact on visitation statistics. 

However, if the waterline was at the 2.0 m contour at Sandbanks, approximately 78% of 

the respondents would still visit. At this water level, the beach would be significantly 

smaller (approximately 20 m narrower) and this may be the reason for the slight 

reduction in visitation. 

When the respondents were asked if they would visit the beach if the waterline was at the 

2.5 and 3.0 m flag, only 40% would be willing to visit the beach. This is a dramatic 

reduction. Although the participants were not asked for a reason why they wouldn’t 

attend, the reduction in beach width and concerns about over crowding was mentioned by 

some respondents. 

A similar trend was observed in the answers for summer water levels lower than the 

conditions in 2003 (approximately 1.0 m above CD). At each flag below the 1.0 m 

contour, an increasing percentage of the respondents indicated they would not visit the 

beach if they had advanced information on lake levels. For example, at 0.5 and 1.0 m 

below Chart datum, only 70% of the respondents indicated they would still visit the 

beach. Refer to Figure 7.11 for a summary of the data. 



Figure 7.10a Front Page of Beach Survey Handout (metric version) 



Figure 7.10b Back Page of Beach Survey Handout (metric version) 



Figure 7.11 

Impacts of Lake Levels on Future Beach Visitation if Advanced Knowledge was Available (Sandbanks Results) 



Additional details of the beach survey are provided in the Baird memorandum dated 

April 7, 2004 (Baird, 2004c), including the full survey results and economic analysis for 

all six beaches using the lake levels for the legacy plans. 

In summary, the six beaches with visitation statistics analyzed by this performance 

indicator featured close to 2.0 million visitors per year. The expenditures associated with 

day and multi-day visitors are approximately 100 million dollars based on the available 

economic data. The survey results indicate that lake levels over 1.5 m above CD would 

have a significant negative impact on beach visitation. Similarly, levels lower than 0.5 m 

above CD would also have a negative impact on visitation, however, not as significant as 

the high levels. 

There are many other beaches used around Lake Ontario to access the waters edge. 

Unfortunately, visitor statistics were not available at these locations and thus it was not 

possible to include them in this performance indicator analysis. However, the potential 

impacts of lake levels on the physical characteristics of these beaches and on visitation 

are very important. For example, consider the public beach at Ontario Beach Park 

adjacent to the western jetty at the mouth of the Genesee River. A picture of the beach 

on August 17, 2004 is presented in Figure 7.12 

Figure 7.12 Waterline at Ontario Beach Park, August 17, 2004 

This is a popular destination for members of the Greece and Rochester community, and 

an important window to Lake Ontario. However, the beach is very low crested and a 

boardwalk provides the transition from the beach to manicured lawns of park. Refer to 

Figure 7.13. This edge is marked by a vertical wall at the base of the boardwalk. 

This beach cannot respond to higher lake levels by eroding the sand reservoir in the 

embryo dune, since there are no dunes at the back of the beach. Therefore, this site and 

other similar municipal beaches around the lake are very susceptible to erosion during 

high lake levels, which would significantly degrade the physical characteristics of the 



each. And by extension reduce the quality of the beach experience or even reduce the 

usage of the beach and adjacent park during the summer. These types of lake level 

impacts are not quantified with the Beach Access performance indicator however they 

are important for the stakeholders living around the lake. 

Figure 7.13 Boardwalk at Ontario Beach Park, August 17, 2004 



REFERENCES 

Baird & Associates, 1993. Future Avoided Costs of Shore Protection. International Joint 

Commission – Levels Reference Study, Working Committee 2 – Potential Damage 

Task Group. Final Report, March 1993. 

Baird & Associates, 1999. Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study – Development and 

Testing of the Flood & Erosion Prediction System – FY98 Progress, p.1-77. 

Baird, 2001. FEPS Development and Application to the LMPDS Prototype Counties. 

Prepared for the USACE Detroit District. p.1-140. 

Baird, 2002. Wind Waves on Lake St. Lawrence. Prepared for the USACE Buffalo 

District. 

Baird & Associates, 2003a. Lake Ontario WAVAD Hindcast for IJC Study. Prepared 

for the Buffalo District US Army Corps, p.51. 

Baird & Associates, 2003b. Flood and Erosion Prediction System (FEPS) Modeling for 

the Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study (LMPDS). Prepared for the US Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

Baird & Associates, February 2004a. Shore Protection Performance Indicator: 

Methodology and Shared Vision Model Application. Prepared for the IJC Plan 

Formulation and Evaluation Group, p.30. 

Baird & Associates, March 2004b. Erosion Performance Indicator: Methodology and 

Shared Vision Model Application. Prepared for the IJC Plan Formulation and 

Evaluation Group, p.27. 

Baird & Associates, April 2004c. Beach Access Performance Indicator: Methodology 

and Shared Vision Model Application. Prepared for the IJC Plan Formulation and 


Baird & Associates, Feb. 2005. Flooding Performance Indicator: Methodology and 

Shared Vision Model Application. Prepared for the IJC Plan Formulation and 


Christian J. Stewart Consulting, 2002. Confirmation of Geomorphic and Nearshore 

Classification. Prepared for Coastal Working Group, IJC Lake Ontario – St. 

Lawrence River Study. 



Croley, T., 2003. Great Lakes Climate Change Hydrological Impact Assessment, IJC 

Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River Regulation Study. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum GLERL-126. 

ETWG, 2004. Dune Water Level Regulation Impacts on Endangered Dune Species. 

Fagherazzi, L., Guay, R., Sparks, D, Salas, J., Sveinsson, O., 2005. Stochastic Modeling 

and Simulation of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River System. Prepared by Hydro 

Quebec for the Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River Study of the International Joint 

Commission, Ottawa and Washington. 

Fan, Y, and Fay, D, 2003. Progress Report: Evaluation of Lake Ontario Regulation Plan 

for Climate Change Scenarios. Prepared by the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River 

Regulation Office, Meteorological Services of Canada – Ontario Region, 

Environment Canada. 

Mortsch, L., Hengeveld, H., Lister, M., Lofgren, B., Quinn, F., Slivitzky, M., and 

Wenger, L., 2000. Climate Change Impacts on the Hydrology of the Great Lakes – 

St. Lawrence System. Canadian Water Resources Journal v.25, n.2. 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (1986). Foundations and Earth Structures – 

NAVFAC Design Manual 7.02, September 1986. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1977). Shore Protection Manual. Coastal Engineering 

Research Center. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1989). Retaining and Flood Walls – Engineering Manual 

1110-2-2502, September 1989. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1995). Design of Coastal Revetments, Seawalls, and 

Bulkheads – Engineering Manual 1110-2-1614, Jun 1995. 

Werick, W. and Leger, W., 2005. Plan Formulation and Evaluation Group Summary 

Report – Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River Study. Prepared for the International 

Joint Commission. 

Woodrow, D.L., McClennen, C.E., and Hobart, A., 2002. Eastern Lake Ontario Sand 

Transport Study (ELOSTS): Final Report on Sediment Transport Patterns and 

Management Implications for Eastern Lake Ontario. Prepared for The Nature 

Conservancy.

Baird, W.F. and Associates Coastal Engineering Ltd. Detailed Study ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?