Vulnerability of the Coburg
Peninsula to Sea Level Rise
6/18/2012
Camosun College ENVR208 – Sustainability Project
Nadia Lebel, Jill Carruthers, Nitasha Hyde, Danielle New
Executive Summary
Sea level rise is a growing concern for coastal areas. It is difficult to forecast how different
locations will be affected. Weather patterns, post glacial rebound, tectonic forces and ocean salinity all
play a role in how an area will experience impacts from a rising sea. Coburg Peninsula, located on
southern Vancouver Island, is of special concern as the geomorphology of barrier spits is in constant flux
and the spit itself supports static infrastructure.
This project has three objectives:

Provide a magnitude frequency analysis of storm surge events through examination of historical
tide heights, both predicted and actual

Survey beach profile transects to provide a baseline for future studies
o
o
Relocate the ten old transects, establishing four new ones at points of concern, and
assessing short-term beach dynamics
Create transects at points of concern and asses beach dynamics over a five month study
period

Project sea level rise in the study site area, focusing on the influence of storm surge-related
‘king tides’

Deliver a map that displays elevation along the peninsula, areas of interest to this project as well
as future areas of vulnerability to sea level rise and increased storm surges
To meet these objectives four benchmarks were determined at key locations along Ocean Boulevard
and beach transects taken from each point. Transects were measured three times throughout our five
month study period. Benchmark #1 located on the south end of the bridge, Benchmark # 2 and #3 are
alongside dune grass habitat and Benchmark #4 is situated in front of the pump house. A survey of the
elevation along Ocean Boulevard was conducted to assign proper elevation to each of benchmark;
beach slope was surveyed from each benchmark down the beach until minimal slope was reached.
During the highest tide of each month the tidal run-up was measured for each transect. This data was
used in the construction of cross-sectional beach profiles. Each profile was overlaid with average
observed high tide run-up, maximum observed high tide run up ‘king tide’ as well as maximum sea level
rise estimates taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scenarios were
projected onto a GIS map to depict a more visual representation of potential sea level rise situations for
the entire length of the spit.
Analysis of the beach profiles showed that with moderate seal level rise, and continued storm events,
further erosion of the spit would most likely continue and could threaten existing infrastructure,
including the pump house, former military building, the bridge, focusing primarily on the abutments,
and Ocean Boulevard.
Transects taken from each point showed varied amounts of elevational differences from January to May,
with transects taken from benchmark#1 changing very little to transects taken from benchmark #4
which showed quite drastic changes over the study period. Average observed high tide measurements
consistently posed no threat to infrastructure along the peninsula, but maximum observed high tide
measurements, ‘king tides’, as well as IPCC projected Maximum SLR predictions are cause for serious
concern, as water levels reach heights which threaten to breach riprap, erode critical foreshore and
potentially flood sections of Ocean Boulevard.
Based on the study findings we suggest the following eight recommendations:

Complete a magnitude frequency analysis of storm surge height to determine which
magnitude of storm event will most severely impact the beach face.

Continual annual monitoring of the ten beach transects at the end of every storm
season; to show changes in beach profiles in order to monitor foreshore erosion.

Conduct a study on erosion on the spit; to visually document areas of active erosion;
to determine any sediment transport; to determine if changes in sediment size are
occurring.

Increase dune habitat to stabilize beach foreshore by continuing habitat restoration
and further restricting pedestrian traffic. Including mapping of dune habitat and
other ecological communities.

Research infrastructure reinforcement for bridge abutments and pump house.

Research scenarios that include other global-warming related changes including
changes in thermohaline circulation, storm frequency and intensity, temperature
changes, glacier melt rates, atmospheric pressure, etc.

Conduct further studies based on more extreme sea level rise predictions.

Conduct a study on the frequency of ‘king tide’ and high storm surge events.

If erosion and infrastructure failure occurs due to rising sea levels and/or storm
events, let nature take its course. Remove any immediate dangers to people and the
environment and consider converting the area into parkland.
Acknowledgements
The group would like to acknowledge the following people for their valuable contributions to this
project:
Chris Ayles – For his help in the shaping of the scope of the study and providing report direction and
resource materials
City of Colwood – For its support and providing access to historical information on the Coburg Peninsula
David Blundon – For putting us in contact with the Esquimalt Lagoon Stewardship Initiative and the City
of Colwood
The Esquimalt Lagoon Stewardship Initiative – For providing past studies on the peninsula and support
Gabriele Spaulding – For editing the final report
Canadian Hydrographic Services – specifically Keegan Sinnott, who provided all real and predicted high
tide data from 2000-2012
Jim Dodd (City of Colwood) – For providing recent and historical reports on the Esquimalt Lagoon
Jody Watson and Natalie Bandringa (ELSI) – For their help in narrowing our scope to a manageable size
Michael Baxter (City of Colwood) - For his support and valuable information on the infrastructure on the
Coburg Peninsula
Rowland Akins (Golder Associates) – For providing guidance on how to do an assessment of vulnerability
on a BC coastline
Steve Hann – For providing Arc GIS help at all hours of the week, including Sunday mornings
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures .............................................................................................................................. 0
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Study Site – Coburg Peninsula ...................................................................................................................... 4
Rationale and Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 6
Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 7
Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Discussion.................................................................................................................................................... 19
Storm Surge Frequency ....................................................................................................................... 19
Tidal Measurements ........................................................................................................................... 19
Maps of the Beach Transects .............................................................................................................. 21
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 22
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 23
References .................................................................................................................................................. 24
Page |0
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Study Area - Coburg Peninsula in Southern Vancouver Island ................................................................. 1
Table 1 IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES 2000) ..........................................................................2
Figure 2 Royal Bay Gravel Pit, in the top left of this photo, littoral drift (black arrow) shows wisps of sediment
being carried along the beach towards the Coburg Peninsula in the lower right corner. ........................... 6
Figure 3 Map of the Spit displaying the location and elevation of each of the four benchmarks. ......................... 8
Figure 4 Histogram showing the number of tidal height differences between Predicted and Actual tide level
(for example; 0m, 0.2m 0.5m, ect) that have occurred each day for the years 2000 to 2012. Data is from
station Canadian Hydrographic Station 7120 - Victoria.............................................................................. 11
Figure 5 Transect #1 beach profiles with maximum observed ‘king tide’ run up reaching 2.29 meters above sea
level (masl) during a storm event on March 12, 2012 and both the SRES and IPCC maximum sea level rise
(SLR) projections. ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 6 Transect #2 beach profiles with maximum observed ‘king tide’ run up reaching 1.7 meters above sea
level (masl) during a storm event on March 12, 2012 and both the SRES and IPCC maximum sea level rise
(SLR) projections. ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 7 Transect #3 beach profiles with maximum observed ‘king tide’ run up reaching 1.85 meters above sea
level (masl) during a storm event on March 12, 2012 and both the SRES and IPCC maximum sea level rise
(SLR) projections. ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 8 Transect #4 beach profiles with maximum observed ‘king tide’ run up reaching 2.41 meters above sea
level (masl) during a storm event on March 12, 2012 and both the SRES and IPCC maximum sea level rise
(SLR) projections. ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 9 represents transect 1 through 2 with maximum sea level rise based on the 2099 predictions from the
IPCC report added to the March 12, 2012 ‘king tide’ measurment. .......................................................... 16
Figure 10 represents transect 2 through 3 with maximum sea level rise based on the 2099 predictions from the
IPCC report added to the March 12, 2012 ‘king tide’ measurment. .......................................................... 17
Figure 11 represents transect 3 through 4 with maximum sea level rise based on the 2099 predictions from the
IPCC report added to the March 12, 2012 ‘king tide’ measurment. .......................................................... 18
Page |1
Introduction
Much of the world’s population is concentrated along coastlines and adjacent low lying agricultural
areas. As such, infrastructure and economies of these populations are highly vulnerable to predicted
rises in sea level. The concept of assessing the effects of sea level rise on coastal areas is relatively new,
but we believe it will become a necessity in the not so distant future. The notion that rising sea level is a
fallacy is becoming something of the past, and we must now look forward in preparation for a changing
climate and higher sea level. (Tina Neale, 2011)
British Columbia is a province that has a large coastline including low lying areas that will vulnerable to
sea level rise. The Coburg Peninsula located on southern Vancouver Island, seen below in Figure 1. is
one such area. This barrier spit has felt the impacts of intense storm events, resulting in erosion of
beach foreshore and putting infrastructure at risk. This report will include a detailed introduction to our
study area and why it is so vulnerable to sea level rise, and project rationale and objectives. We will also
describe the methods used to conduct this study, the results we found, a discussion of our findings, and
finally a short conclusion and recommendations for future studied conducted in this area.
Figure 1 Study Area - Coburg Peninsula in Southern Vancouver Island
www.elsi.ca
Drastic fluctuations in mean sea level have been occurring for thousands of years. At the peak of the last
ice age twenty thousand years ago oceans were approximately 120m lower than that of today. At the
end of the last ice age sea levels increased dramatically, but for the past two to three thousand years,
global sea level has been relatively stable. That being said, over the past hundred years researchers have
observed rapid increase in sea level rise; it is estimated that in that time global sea levels have risen by
20cm. (Bornhold, 2008)
Page |2
As the Earth’s temperatures increase there are three main contributors to this climactic change:
Thermal expansion, melting of land based glaciers and melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.
Studies conducted from 2006 to the present show that melt rates for the Greenland and Arctic icecaps
are higher than previous decades. The disappearance of these ice caps creates a positive feedback loop
where radiation which would once have been reflected back into space by the ice and snow is now being
absorbed by the oceans and lands, causing warmer temperatures. About 60% of global ice loss since
1993 is from smaller glaciers rather than the major ice sheets; the increased glacial melt could
contribute 0.1 to 0.25 meters of additional global SLR by 2100 beyond estimates made by the IPCC in
2007 (Meier et al., 2009).
Estimates used in this report, taken from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC, 2007),
are modest estimates in comparison to numerous studies conducted on sea level rise. The report
“Climate Change and Coastal Shores in British Columbia” issued by Green Shores, a program of the
Stewardship Centre for British Columbia (SCBC, 2009) gave much higher SLR results. Initially, their
numbers were based on IPCC results, but further research into glacial melting rates revealed that melt
rates were much higher than predicted, therefore global and local SLR estimates based on slower melt
rates were not as accurate. The resulting “extreme” sea level rise predictions, based on an accelerated
melt rate, stated SLR to be between 0.89 – 0.94m for Victoria (Bornhold, 2008).
The topic of climate change is an evolving science based on scenarios and projected models of future
world economic, technologic, social and environmental states. It is impossible to predict exact numbers
for SLR with certainty, but the IPCC’s three working groups have taken into account many of these
aspects in their research, which is why this report references only these numbers.
Table 1 IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES 2000)
Case
Temperature change (c at 2090 - 2099
a, d
relative to 1980 – 1999)
Best Estimate
Likely Range
Sea Level Rise (m at 2090 – 2099 relative to
1980 – 1999)
Model-based range excluding rapid
dynamical changes in ice flow
Not available
Constant Year 2000 0.6
0.3 – 0.9
b
Concentrations
B1
1.8
1.1 - 2.9
0.18 – 0.38
A1T
2.4
1.4 - 3.8
0.20 – 0.45
B2
2.4
1.4 – 3.8
0.20 – 0.43
A1B
2.8
1.7 – 4.4
0.21 – 0.48
A2
3.4
2.0 – 5.4
0.23 – 0.51
A1Fl
4.0
2.4 – 6.4
0.26 – 0.59
Notes:
a) These estimates are assessed from a hierarchy of models that encompass a simple climate model, several Earth
Models of Intermediate
Complexity, and a large number of Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) as well as
observational constraints.
b) Year 2000 constant composition is derived from AOGCMs only.
c) All scenarios above are six SRES marker scenarios. Approximate CO2-eq concentrations corresponding to the
computed radiative forcing due to
Page |3
anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols in 2100 (see p. 823 of the WGI TAR) for the SRES B1, AIT, B2, A1B, A2 and A1FI
illustrative marker scenarios
are about 600, 700, 800, 850, 1250 and 1550ppm, respectively.
d) Temperature changes are expressed as the difference from the period 1980-1999. To express the change
relative to the period 1850-1899 add
0.5°C.
The resulting estimates are based on assessments carried out by three Working Groups (WGI, WGII and
WGIII) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Scenarios are grouped into four sections
(A1, A2, B1 and B2). Each of the four sections examines various ways in which our environment, culture,
economy and technology may develop in the future, and the expected Green House Gas emissions that
may result from whichever path is taken. The following descriptions were taken from (IPCC, 2007) and
are summarized in table 2. The A1 scenario assumes a world of very rapid economic growth, a global
population that peaks in mid-century and rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies.
This scenario is divided into three groups that describe alternative directions of technological change:
fossil intensive (A1FI), non-fossil energy resources (A1T) and a balance across all sources (A1B). B1 describes a convergent world, with the same global population as A1, but with more rapid changes in
economic structures toward a service and information economy. B2 - describes a world with
intermediate population and economic growth, emphasizing local solutions to economic, social, and
environmental sustainability. A2 - describes a very heterogeneous world with high population growth,
slow economic development and slow technological change.
To understand the effects of climate change and sea level rise and what effects it may have on Esquimalt
Lagoon and much of the B.C. coast, we take a look at 4 local and regional contributing factors:
1. Post glacial rebound: Each year B.C.’s coastline increases in height at a rate of approximately 0.0
– 0.5mm per year. This continental rebound is the result of the loss of glacial weight from the
last ice age. This annual height increase along B.C.’s coastline will slightly moderate local SLR
predictions. (Thomson, 2008)
2. Tectonic Forces: Off the coastline of B.C. there exists a subduction zone where the Juan de Fuca
plate moves beneath the North American plate. This subduction results in an annual uplift of 2.0
– 3.0 mm off the coast Western Vancouver Island and continues to zero uplift towards
Vancouver. This uplift would be partially reversed if a large earthquake were to occur, as is
predicted to happen by 2050 with a probability of 5% - 10%. In such an event, there would be an
immediate drop of land giving the illusion of a SLR of 0.5 – 2.0m along Western Vancouver
Island, and 0.2 meter SLR predicted specifically for Victoria. (Thomson, 2008)
Page |4
3.
Water temperature and salinity: Increased amounts of freshwater runoff along the BC coast
may be impacting major hydrological regimes and watersheds. Warmer temperatures create
additional ice and snowmelt that in turn delivers more freshwater into the Pacific. This increase
in water temperature and decrease in salinity results in water which occupies more space.
(Bornhold, 2008.)
4. Atmospheric forces: There are consistent atmospheric conditions affecting Vancouver Island’s
coastline which play a large role in local SLR measurements. In winter months, southeasterly
winds can raise sea levels by as much as 0.5m when compared to sea levels during summer
months. (Ruggiero, 2005.) Short-term factors affecting local sea level are the 6 – 18 month
cycles of El Niño which cause an increase in temperature and precipitation and La Niña which
causes a decrease in temperature and precipitation. During an El Niño event, the B.C. coast line
can see an increase in sea level of 30 – 40cm due to temperature rise (thermal expansion). An El
Niño year, in combination with strong southeasterlies during a winter storm and high tide is
cause for concern. It could result in major coastal erosion, flooding of coastal areas and
wetlands, and immense damage to infrastructure close to the shoreline. Furthermore, many
studies suggest storm frequency and intensity will increase over the next century exacerbating
potential damage. (Green Shores, 2009)
Study Site – Coburg Peninsula
Barrier spits are highly dynamic geomorphological features that occur from the accumulation of sand or
gravel across the opening of a bay, estuary, or where there is an abrupt change in direction of the
coastline. Spits are connected to the mainland on one end (the proximal end) and are open on the other
end (the distal end) which often results in the enclosure of a lagoon. The simplest form of barrier spit is
called linear, such as the Coburg Peninsula, and is straight in nature, but they often have a curved body
of sand at their distal end that points landward creating a recurved spit (Masselink & Hughes, 2003).
Barrier spits grow in the direction of prominent sediment drift, known as littoral drift. In order for a spit
to develop, there must be a continual longshore supply of sediment. Changes in sediment supply and
water levels rapidly affect these features in either positive or negative ways. Without a continual source
of sediment a barrier spit may begin to thin through wave erosion. This can lead to over washing and
breaching of the spit, which increases erosion and leads to the disintegration of the spit complex. Sea
level also affects the position of barrier spits. With increased sea levels, these coastal geomorphological
features tend to migrate inland due to erosion or overstepping of the barrier. On low-gradient
substrates migration tends to dominate, while on high-gradient substrates erosion tends to occur.
“Barrier migration also appears the dominant mode of response to rising sea levels for gravel barriers”
(Masselink & Hughes, 2003). Bird (1993) argues that with future sea-level rises there will also be a
tendency for eroding shorelines to erode further while stable shorelines will begin to erode.
Page |5
Although weather is extremely complex and changes because of many variables, there are seasonal
patterns that can be distinguished. In coastal British Columbia the summer months (June to August),
“the winds are light, the temperatures are at their warmest, and the rainfall reaches its lowest point at
the end of July” (Lange, 2003). The year’s first storm events begin to occur around the autumn equinox.
At this time steady rains persist along BC’s coastlines, as ocean and air temperatures drop; during
October and early November, rainfall and wind strength peak. At the end of November and early
December, low pressure systems approach the coast more frequently, and there is a noticeable change
between the autumn and winter months (December to February). In late December, temperatures along
the coast and the interior of BC are at their lowest. Throughout December and January, the frequency
and strength of storm surges are the highest. A storm surges can be defined as “an abnormal rise in
water levels and can often accompany very intense winter storms, hurricanes, or high winds. The storm
surge itself is caused by the wind and pressure "pushing" the water into the continental shelf and onto
the coastline. On exposed coastlines, storm surges are often accompanied by high waves” (Government
of Canada, 2005). During the winter months is when ‘king tide’ events are most frequent. The term ‘king
tide’ has been used in Australia and other Pacific nations to describe spring tide events, but in the
community of the Coburg peninsula the term is defined as the combination of a high tide and storm
surge, the latter is used as the definition in this report.
In February, the frequency of storm events and offshore winds will have dropped significantly, and by
the beginning of March a true seasonal change is seen. Spring (March to May) sees rapid changes
between sun and rain patterns. Overall, spring is marked with a decrease in rainfall and wind strength.
The frequency of gale winds drops to almost zero by late spring, but the amount of precipitation doesn’t
significantly decrease until early summer, and this yearly cycle begins again (Lange, 2003).
The dominant wind direction of each season may not be prevalent each day but they do set the tone of
that season. The autumn and winter months are in a period of easterly winds, while the spring and
summer months are in a period of westerly winds. The wind directions also vary from north to south
directions to due to change in the pressure slope1 occurring at that time of the year. Autumn months are
in a period of regional southeast wind direction while winter months are in a period of northeast wind
direction. Spring experiences regional winds from the southwest while summer months experience
regional winds from the northwest (Lange, 2003). The Coburg Peninsula experiences the strongest
effects from easterly winds; this is because it travels across the longest fetch before shoaling on the
beach.
In addition to the natural forces such as tidal currents and weather patterns acting on the Coburg
Peninsula, human activities have also impacted the Peninsula since the arrival of the First Nations. Both
the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations used the area to harvest clams and mussels from the
extensive beds in the bay (Capital Regional District, 2012). In 1909, gravel mining efforts began at Royal
Bay, located south of the spit (City of Colwood, 2010). Before this time the sedimentary makeup of the
spit was coarser than the sandy beach that exists there today (Johansen, 2008). Operations at the
gravel mine included the discharge of sand onto the beach. Gravel was also conveyed onto barges which
resulted in sediment entering the water. Sediment dumped on the beach was then transported
1
A theory introduced by Environment Canada that simplifies and summarizes the changes of wind patterns that
occur in a topographic rich region. Wind blows down a pressure slope from high to low pressure (Lange, 2003)
Page |6
northward by littoral drift, eventually adding to the spit, see Figure 2. below (City of Colwood, 2010).
The practice of discharging sand stopped in the early 1970s, and the Royal Bay gravel mining operation
officially closed in 2007, ending the supplementary sediment supply to the spit (Zeeben, 2012).
In 1930, the Esquimalt Lagoon Bridge was built on the north end of the spit joining the southern section
of Ocean Boulevard with the northern shore to create a thoroughfare for traffic. Since its construction,
it has undergone four major inspections resulting in the replacement of the bridge deck in 2004. An
inspection by Graeme and Murray Consultants in 1998 noted that many of the bridge’s components
have been replaced at least once since its construction. The bridge is used extensively today and faces
increased problems from higher traffic flow and erosion due to winter storms. The bridge has been
closed twice in the last five years because of damage caused by continual erosion of the abutments as
water forces its way through the channel (City of Colwood, 2010).
In addition to the bridge and Ocean Boulevard, Coburg Peninsula also supports a former military
building constructed in the 1930s and a pump station that houses public washrooms (Johansen, 2008).
Figure 2 Royal Bay Gravel Pit, in the top left of this photo, littoral drift (black arrow) shows
wisps of sediment being carried along the beach towards the Coburg Peninsula in the lower
right corner.
Seabulk Systems Inc. Coburg Peninsula Foreshore Erosion Updated Study Report to City of Colwood. N.p.: n.p., 2008. N.
pag. Web. 15 June 2012
Rationale and Objectives
The dynamic nature of barrier spits such as the Coburg Peninsula is an intriguing issue, because it’s a
location that is in constant motion with infrastructure that is static. The stationary infrastructure
including Ocean Blvd, the bridge, pump house, and old military house are vulnerable to the effects of
sea level rise. ‘king tide’ and storm surge events along the road have caused wash outs, causing large
Page |7
woody debris to cover sections of the road. Wave action, eroding land from under the bridge
abutments, has also led to road closures. Sea level rise is a prominent issue in the public eye. Low-lying
areas are especially vulnerable to changes in sea level around the globe. For this project we wanted to
apply climate change and sea level rise predictions to a local area that has the potential to be greatly
affected both socially and environmentally.
This project aims to:

Provide a magnitude frequency analysis of storm surge events through examination of historical
tide heights, both predicted and actual

Survey beach profile transects to provide a baseline for future studies
o
o
Relocate the ten old transects, establishing four new ones at points of concern, and
assessing short-term beach dynamics
Create transects at points of concern and asses beach dynamics over a five month study
period

Project sea level rise in the study site area, focusing on the influence of storm surge-related
‘king tides’

Deliver a map that displays elevation along the peninsula, areas of interest to this project as well
as future areas of vulnerability to sea level rise and increased storm surges
Methodology
A histogram depicting the frequency of variations between predicted and actual tide levels can help
predict how often ‘king tides’ caused by large storm events may impact the peninsula. To create the
histogram data containing the predicted and actual tide heights was retrieved from Canadian
Hydrographic services through Keegan Sinnott. Station 7120- Victoria Harbour was used, this was
because there is insufficient historical data for the local station at the Coburg Peninsula and, when
compared to other stations in the local area it had the most similar tide heights and lowest amount of
interference. The twelve years of data for predicted high tides and actual tides were transferred to
excel, the highest tide of each day was determined and the difference between the actual and predicted
tide per each day was calculated. The data analysis tool pack was used to create the histogram you see
in the results (Figure 11), which allows for an estimation of the frequency of large storm surges and
potential ‘king tide’ events.
Page |8
In order asses areas of vulnerability on the Coburg Peninsula beach profiles or transects were used to
display elevational cross sections from the pump house, dune habitat areas, and the bridge. The
Esquimalt Lagoon Stewardship Imitative (ELSI) has previously surveyed ten beach profiles in the summer
months of 2005, as well as the winter months of 2006 and 2010. Due to limited persons available and
time allotted to conduct this study only four transects were regularly monitored. Group members did
profile nine of the ten transects previously monitored by ELSI to add to the historical data. These profiles
can be found in Appendix C of this report.
In order to create beach profiles (elevational cross-sections of the beach face) and collect data along
Ocean Boulevard, benchmarks were required. These sites, which were located on the foreshore allowed
us to ensure that our measurements were taken at the same location, and with the same azimuth down
the beach. This created uniformity in our data and allowed us to make comparisons at each site. We
determined that a total of four benchmarks were appropriate for our study area and the location can be
seen in Figure 3. below. Benchmark locations were determined by measuring the length of the study
area from the bridge to the pump station on Ocean Boulevard and spacing them evenly down the spit;
they were then labelled with numbers 1 through 4. Benchmark 1 was closest to the pump house and
Benchmark 4 closest to the bridge.
Figure 3 Map of the Spit displaying the location and elevation of each of the four benchmarks.
Page |9
The elevation of the benchmarks above was needed to provide beach profiles, or transects, with crucial
elevational data. The elevation of the benchmarks was found by completing an elevational survey along
Ocean Boulevard. Elevation information from a geodetic monument (GCM No: 255885) at the north end
of the spit across from the military building was used to calculate the elevation of the road and the four
beach transects. Equipment used included a surveying level, stadia rod, compass and measuring tape.
The surveying level was placed over the geodetic monument, then sightings were taken to benchmark 4
and to the edge of the road closest to the beach. The level was then moved across the road and shots
were taken at 100m intervals down the length of Ocean Boulevard--unless a benchmark was passed.
When a benchmark was passed a shot was taken to the edge of the road closest to the Benchmark, then
to the Benchmark itself before continuing along Ocean Boulevard. When a shot was read off of the level
the highest, middle and lowest elevation were recorded for quality control.
Once the elevation of the four benchmarks was determined, beach transects were conducted down the
beach face. Again, surveying equipment included a level, stadia rod, compass and measuring tape;
additional equipment included hip waders and Rite in the Rain notebooks. Profiles started at the
benchmarks and ran perpendicular to the beach-- the profile ended when there were no more drastic
slope changes. The elevation of each Benchmark was determined using data from the survey of Ocean
Boulevard. A leveling instrument was placed over the Benchmark and physically leveled to ensure a
horizontal line of sight. Azimuths were set by locating a landmark through the level and taking a bearing
on the landmark using a compass. The azimuth ring was then set to that bearing. Sightings were then
taken from the Benchmark to a stadia rod. The first reading of the stadia rod showed elevation relative
to the level position. All subsequent transect sightings followed the same azimuth down the transect
line. Sightings were taken at each notable change in elevation of the beach. If the slope of the beach
was too great where the stadia rod could not be seen from the level, the level was moved down the
transect and the steps were repeated as above. The first sighting after each movement of the level was
a back sighting to the last position of the level. This process was completed three times, once on
February 14th and again on, April 9th and 22nd and May 21st (See Appendix A for beach profile field data).
High tide run-up or how high the tide reaches on the beach face, was measured so it could be added to
the beach profiles to show where the tide meets the foreshore. High tide measurements were taken
along each of the beach transects 1 through 4 during the highest tide of each month during the study
period. Additional measurements were taken during significant storm events. Measurements began at
each benchmark with one group member holding the measuring tape and a second group member
walking the end of the tape measure to the edge of the water. The tape was run on an azimuth
perpendicular to the water’s edge. The high tide was monitored for five minutes and the highest and
lowest point that the water reached in that time was recorded. Materials needed for these
measurements included measuring tape and hip waders. All group members has access to a Google
document to numbers could be checked on days of data collection (See Appendix B for tide
measurement field notes).
P a g e | 10
After the completion of the beach surveys the elevational data was combined with distance measures
(distance of the stadia from the level) and the graph function was used to create scatter plots which
function as cross-sectional visuals of the beach and road. Each graph shows a benchmark and all three of
the profiles that were surveyed at that location.
Finally, the sea level rise estimates were added to the graphs to show at what elevation sea level
becomes a concern. The numbers used to predict SLR in this report are taken from the Assessment
Report #4 published in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results are
based on a variety of factors and predicted scenarios such as ice-melt rates, green house gas (GHG)
emission rates, political, social and economic development as well as technological advancements. We
will be extrapolating our sea level rise predictions for the Esquimalt Lagoon based on six cases given in
the report. Since the elevation of current high water levels were known, the minimum SLR and
maximum SLR values (0.18m and 0.59m) were added to the High Tide Run Up elevation and created
separate lines on the graph to show the range of beach face that rising sea levels could reach, not yet
considering wave heights.
To further illustrate the effect that sea level rise would have on the spit, the extreme scenario of a ‘king
tide’ event with the addition of 0.59 meters was shown on three separate maps. Each map in Figures 8
through 10 show two of the four transects measured and the beach face that spans between them. The
0.0 meter above sea level water line that was measured is illustrated in the maps to give a baseline
water level.
Using the geospatial orthography images from the Capital Regional District’s website (Capital Regional
District, 2012) the Coburg Peninsula study area was added to the maps in the ArcGIS10 program. GPS
locations for the four benchmarks were recorded on January 7, 2012 and uploaded into the maps which
allowed the four transects to be drawn. To draw water lines and symbolize features on the map a
personal geodatabase was created containing four line shape files and three point shape files. After the
shape files were added to the map the drawing and editing tools were used to display the four transects,
the current zero meter above sea level line, run up water values for March 12, 2012 ‘king tide’ event,
and the 0.59 m sea level rise prediction for 2099. The known road elevation values directly adjacent the
four benchmarks are symbolized on each map using the point shape files to illustrate the dangers of a
0.59 m addition to the March 12, 2012 ‘king tide’ event. Along the four transect lines the water height
above sea level values are also symbolized using point shape files. The value symbolized is the water run
up measurement from March 12, 2012 with the addition of the 0.59 meter sea level rise. Finally this
map was saved as a layer package and added to two other maps where two transect and beach area
between those transects were shown in a larger. All map elements were added to each map and saved
than finally exported as a PDF.
P a g e | 11
Results
Figure 4. Histogram showing the number of tidal height differences between Predicted and Actual tide level ( for example; 0m, 0.2m 0.5m, ect) that have occurred each day
for the years 2000 to 2012. Data is from station Canadian Hydrographic Station 7120 - Victoria
1600
1489
1400
Number of Occurances
1200
1000
800
852
721
600
470
400
276
200
249
40
154
149
62
0.3
0.4
0.5
18
7
18
0.6
0.7
More
0
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Height (meters above sea level)
P a g e | 12
Figures 5 – 9 depict beach profiles showing average observed high tide measurements, maximum observed high tide run-up, and predicted
maximum high tide levels as reported in the IPCC report for 2099 for each of the four transects surveyed. Beach profiles were measured three
times throughout our five month study period in order to determine if any notable changes in the cross-sections occurred which could ultimately
affect foreshore infrastructure.
Figure 5. Transect #1 beach profiles with maximum observed ‘king tide’ run up reaching 2.29 meters above sea level (masl) during a storm event on March 12, 2012 and both
the SRES and IPCC maximum sea level rise (SLR) projections.
P a g e | 13
Figure 6. Transect #2 beach profiles with maximum observed ‘king tide’ run up reaching 1.7 meters above sea level (masl) during a storm event on March 12, 2012 and both
the SRES and IPCC maximum sea level rise (SLR) projections.
P a g e | 14
Figure 7. Transect #3 beach profiles with maximum observed ‘king tide’ run up reaching 1.85 meters above sea level (masl) during a storm event on March 12, 2012 and both
the SRES and IPCC maximum sea level rise (SLR) projections.
P a g e | 15
Figure 8. Transect #4 beach profiles with maximum observed ‘king tide’ run up reaching 2.41 meters above sea level (masl) during a storm event on March 12, 2012 and both
the SRES and IPCC maximum sea level rise (SLR) projections.
P a g e | 16
Figure 9. represents transect 1 through 2 with maximum sea level rise based on the 2099 predictions from the IPCC report added
to the March 12, 2012 ‘king tide’ measurment.
P a g e | 17
Figure 10. represents transect 2 through 3 with maximum sea level rise based on the 2099 predictions from the IPCC report
added to the March 12, 2012 ‘king tide’ measurment.
P a g e | 18
Figure 11.represents transect 3 through 4 with maximum sea level rise based on the 2099 predictions from the IPCC report added
to the March 12, 2012 ‘king tide’ measurment.
P a g e | 19
Discussion
Storm Surge Frequency
The analysis of the histogram seen in Figure 4. shows the number of tidal height differences between
predicted and actual tide level that have occurred each day for the last twelve years. This includes days
were the predicted tide height had a difference of only 0.100 meters above sea level, as expected this was
the most frequently occurring difference in the chart. ‘King tide’ measurements during the study period
that were measured on January 22, 2012 and March 12, 2012 showed that those storm surges caused an
average difference of 0.400 meters above sea level. The histogram shows that this 0.400 meter height
difference has occurred one hundred and forty nine times over the last twelve years; if we consider 0.400
meters above sea level to be a ‘king tide’ event than we can see that two hundred and thirty six events of
this magnitude or greater have occurred in this time frame. This information may be useful in the future
when preparing for storm events and their impact. The column labeled “more” in Figure 4. represents
instances of temporary technical failure, periods of maintenance, or days with faulty readings.
Tidal Measurements
Benchmark 1, located at the south west end of Ocean Boulevard is significant because of its close proximity
to the washroom/pump station. At this site, cement cinderblocks and riprap have been placed in front of
the infrastructure to protect it against wave action. There were no significant changes in the slope of the
beach throughout the five month sampling period, although some elevation changes were evident as can
be seen in Figure 5. At the point located roughly 3.5 m from the benchmark shows a steep drop in
elevation which is the cinderblock/rip-rap area. This base area appeared to be adequate for managing
erosion and the average high tide measurement shown in Figure 5 indicates no threat of advancement of
waves over this barrier. The predicted SLR measurements for 2099 would give an average high tide
measurement of 1.59 masl. This tide measurement would still be cause for concern since this water level
would be encroaching on the base of the rip-rap and may lead to erosional issues under the pump station.
‘king tide’ measurements for Transect 1 reveal a very different scenario. Figure 5 shows a high tide reading
of 2.29 masl. At this height, waves are almost cresting the cinderblocks. Base materials underneath the
blocks, such as sand and gravel, are easily washed away and eroded. The predicted extreme SLR for 2099
for this scenario would place the high tide measurement at 2.89 masl. At this height the pump station
would be under serious threat as wave action would continue to erode the foundation from underneath,
exposing sewer and water lines and compromising the structure’s foundation. The above ground structure
would also be at risk from breaking waves and flooding.
The Transect 2 beach profile includes approximately 20 m of marine riparian vegetation including dune
grass, sedge, beach pea, yarrow and many other plants and grasses (both invasive and native) which
contribute to beach slope stability and support a sensitive ecosystem. This area also functions as an
P a g e | 20
important barrier against the ocean for both the road and the lagoon. This area was observed to degrade
from January to May due to erosion as shown in Figure 6. In the February 14, 2012 survey a ridge exists at
approximately 23 m from the benchmark that is not visible in the April 22 and May 21, 2012 surveys. This is
the transition site from dune grass habitat to eroded beach area with an obvious drop in elevation. Areas
most affected by erosion were sites where there was little to no vegetation. In reference to Figure 6, the
projected maximum SLR scenario would place high tide at approximately 1.59 masl. If high tide predictions
for 2099 are to occur, this would lead to accelerated depreciation of dune habitat and serious erosion of the
buffer area between the road and ocean. Transect 2’s ‘king tide’ measurement from March 12, 2012 is
shown at 1.7 masl which came very close to breaching the dune habitat, and wave action in both cases was
abrading the already eroded cliff face. The projected maximum SLR level of 2.29 masl shows the water level
surpassing the coastal dune habitat. This situation would be detrimental to coastal dune habitat and may
eventually threaten the integrity of the road.
Transect 3 shares many of the same aspects as Transect 2. It too includes marine riparian vegetation
including dune sedge, beach pea, yarrow and many other plants and grasses (both invasive and native)
which provide beach slope stability and support a sensitive ecosystem. However, the area only progresses
as far as 8.5 m before reaching an erosional area where dune grass habitat meets the beach. Changes due
to erosion and deposition were also observed at this site from January to May as can be seen in Figure 7.
The presence of driftwood close to the dune ridge, at approximately 8 m from the benchmark, caused more
sediment deposition at the top of the ridge in the April profile. This section of beach was the least affected
by high tides and ‘king tide’ events and poses the least threat to infrastructure in the case of SLR. Even in
the event of a ‘king tide’ where the highest tide measurement reached 1.85 masl, there was no breaching of
the bank where dune grass habitat begins. In the extreme SLR scenario predicted for 2099, the high tide
mark would reach 2.44 masl, at which point this area would be highly threatened, yet to a lesser extent
than other transects.
Transect 4, located roughly 2 m south of the bridge along Ocean Boulevard is a significant site. Using the
data provided by this transect we can better understand the processes occurring in this area and how the
bridge, bridge abutments, and road might be affected. This transect has been the most influenced by high
tide and storm events resulting in major erosion of the foreshore. Figure 8shows a plateau along the top
portion of the transect from approximately 7.5 m to 16 m. This portion of beach was once a parking lot for
the adjacent building and extended far beyond what exists today as seen in this aerial photo taken in 1935.
During this five month study, considerable erosion took place from January 21, 2012 to May 7, 2012. The
base of the eroded area exposed First Nation’s midden and supplementary gravel and rocks which were
presumably laid down to support the parking lot. Each month we returned to the area, more of this face
had eroded and moved closer to the road. Riprap and logs appeared to be doing little to lessen the effects
of erosion on the area. The changed profile and slope of the beach is clear in Figure 8. Although beaches are
dynamic in nature and often change form from winter to summer, the main concern in this case is the loss
of upper beach area (historically a parking lot) where sediment is not being replenished. As mentioned in
the Seabulk report on the Coburg Peninsula, “In the instance that the beach level drops one meter, the
foreshore recesses 10 meters. If the beach level drops the backshore recedes at a multiple roughly equal to
the slope of the beach expressed as run over rise (Johansen, 2008).” Over the five month period there are
P a g e | 21
fluctuations in height at approximately 16 m out from the benchmark due to deposition and erosion during
high tide and ‘king tide’ events. These changes (with a range of 0.30 m) in beach profile occur in a short
time period and are not consistent with seasonal trends. The average high tide measurements do not
indicate any immediate concern (Figure 8). Even in the extreme projected sea level rise scenario for 2099,
high tide would reach a safe distance from the road with the highest rise in sea level at a high tide of 2.16
masl. Again, the cause for concern is during ‘king tide’ events. Looking at Figure 8, the observed high tide
measurement reached 2.41 masl and maximum predicted sea level would reach 3.0 masl by 2099. At this
level the road, bridge, and bridge abutments could be severely compromised due to flooding and washouts.
In addition to our four transects, we also surveyed nine of ten transects provided by ELSI on June 2, 2012.
Previous transects were measured in the summer of 2005 as well as winter 2006 and 2010. Only nine
surveys were possible at the time of measurement as according to GPS coordinates given, transect #10 is
now under water, even during a low tide. These surveys provide historical beach profile data and could be
used in future studies conducted on the peninsula. We were unable to incorporate this data into our report
due to the locations of the transects; most of which would not show how infrastructure would be affected
by sea level rise on the spit.
Maps of the Beach Transects
Figure 9. shows the area of the beach between transect one and two. Areas of concern in this map are the
washrooms, and vulnerable ecosystems of Dune Grass and other plant species. During the March 12 ‘king
tide’, the water levels are encroaching on the parking lot above the rip rap and in dangerous proximity to
flooding the washrooms. The elevation above sea level in meters shows that the March 12, 2012 ‘king tide’
event with the addition of 0.59 meters sea level rise is actually reaching a water level 1.779 meters above
the road elevation at transect one. At transect two the most extreme scenario puts the water level 0.377
meters above the road elevation. The Dune Grass near transect two will be severely damaged by flooding
and higher wave erosion in this scenario. The vulnerable plant species on the Coburg Peninsula are not
visible on any of the maps unfortunately due to lack of data collected for them.
Figure 10. shows the areas between transect two and three. In this map areas of vulnerability are the Dune
Grass and other plant species ecosystems as well as the parking spots along the road and Ocean Boulevard
itself. The red line that represents the most extreme scenario shows how the Dune Grass area would be
flooded and eroded as well as how vulnerable the road would be to washing out. Transect two shows a
difference of 0.377 meters between the road elevation and the most extreme sea level rise and transect
three shows a difference of 0.066 meters. These values support that the vulnerable plant ecosystem will be
flooded in such a scenario.
Figure 11. shows the beach areas between transects three and four as well as the bridge access to Ocean
Boulevard, but not the old military building. The difference in the road elevation and the most extreme rise
in meters above sea level at transect four is 1.134 meters where the road is actually that much higher. This
tells that the road area directly behind transect four which is on a steep incline will not be washed out but
P a g e | 22
the bridge abutments could potentially suffer greater wave erosion due to increase water levels. Between
the letters “A and B” sit on this map is where the old military building which is already being eroded by
wave action in a ‘king tide’ event with the highest SLR added this building will be eroded more aggressively.
Conclusion
The Coburg Peninsula is a low lying coastal area and as a result has the potential to be vulnerable to sea
level rise (SLR). In the last hundred years researchers have observed an increase in mean sea level,
however, not all coastal areas experience this rise in the same way. There are many different factors that
could affect SLR locally including: continental post glacial rebound, subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate,
lower ocean salinity due to glacial melt and greater and more frequent storm events. How the spit will
react to this rise is difficult to predict since these geomorphologic features are dynamic. Infrastructure on
the Coburg is already threatened by erosion caused by regular wave action and storm events.
This study used four potential SLR estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to
simulate the potential impacts that rising sea level may have on the spit as it exists today. Analysis at the
four benchmarks indicated that with moderate sea level rise erosion would continue and eventually
become a problem for both the bridge and the pump house. The major cause for concern is the
combination of ‘king tides’ with increased sea level. This would endanger not only the existing
infrastructure, but also the surrounding dune habitat, as the high water would breach the embankment
that currently protects it. This effect is likely to be worsened by any storm event when increased wind
brings larger and more powerful waves as witnessed in this study on March 12th.
P a g e | 23
Recommendations
Based on the findings above, we suggest the following actions:

Complete a magnitude frequency analysis of storm surge height to determine which
magnitude of storm event will most severely impact the beach face.

Continual annual monitoring of the ten beach transects at the end of every storm
season; to show changes in beach profiles in order to monitor foreshore erosion.

Conduct a study on erosion on the spit; to visually document areas of active erosion; to
determine any sediment transport; to determine if change in sediment size is occurring.

Increase dune habitat to stabilize beach foreshore by continuing habitat restoration and
further restricting pedestrian traffic. Including mapping of dune habitat and other
ecological communities.

Research infrastructure reinforcement for bridge abutments and pump house.

Research scenarios that include other global-warming related changes including
changes in thermohaline circulation, storm frequency and intensity, temperature
changes, glacier melt rates, atmospheric pressure, etc.

Conduct further studies based on more extreme sea level rise predictions.

Conduct a study on the frequency of ‘king tide’ and high storm surge events.

If erosion and infrastructure failure occurs due to rising sea levels and/or storm events,
let nature take its course. Remove any immediate dangers to people and the
environment and consider converting the area into parkland.

Perform a Magnitude-Frequency analysis on the storm surges that affect this area to
determine any patterns of major erosion which could assist in future city planning
P a g e | 24
References
Bird, E. (1993). Submerging coasts: The Effects of a Rising Sea Level on Coastal Environments.
Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons.
Bornhold, B. (2008). Projected sea level changes for British Columbia in the 21st
century. 12 p
Capital Regional District. (2012, May 30). Esquimalt Lagoon - History. Retrieved from Capital Regional
District: http://www.crd.bc.ca/watersheds/protection/localareas.htm
Capital Regional District. (2012). Geospatial Data Download. Retrieved June 23, 2012, from CRD Atlas:
http://crdatlas.ca/geospatial-data.aspx
City of Colwood. (2010, June 22). Coburg Peninsula and Esquimalt Lagoon Bridge: Brief History of
Majoror Decisions. Retrieved from City of Colwood:
https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=35407
Environment Canada. (2012, May 03). Retrieved January 21, 2012, from Weather office:
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/bc-85_metric_e.html
Esquimalt Lagon Stewardship Initiative. (2006). Management Guidelines for the Coburg Peninsula.
Colwood: Esquimalt Lagoon Stewardship Initiative.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2012, June 6). CHS- Tides, Currents and Water Levels. Retrieved from
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Web site: http://www.waterlevels.gc.ca/english/Canada.shtml
Government of Canada. (2005). Storm Surges. Retrieved from Environment Canada:
http://www.sja.ca/Canada/External%20Documents/CS-G-0507-Get%20prep_stormsurge_eN.pdf
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Slomon, S., Qin, D.,
Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M. and Miller, H.L. (Eds). Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Summary for Policy Makers. In: Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I, II and III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S. et al (eds)].
IPCC, 2000: Summary for Policymakers, Emissions Scenarios, A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III
Johansen, C. (2008). Coburg Peninsula Foreshore Erosion Updated Study Repory. Richmond: Seabulk
Systems Inc.
P a g e | 25
Lange, O. S. (2003). Living with weather along the British Columbia coast. In The veil of chaos (pp. 23-30).
Environment Canada.
Masselink, G., & Hughes, M. G. (2003). Introduction to Coastal Processes & Geomorphology. London,
UK: Arnold Publishers.
Meier et al., 2009. Glaciers dominate eustatic sea‐level rise in the 21st Century. Science, 317 (5841):
1064 – 1067.
Natural Resources Canada. 2008. Canada in a Changing Climate – Chapter 8: British Columbia.
Ruggiero, P. et al 2005. Seasonal to interannual morphodynamics along a high‐energy dissipative cell.
Journal of Coastal Research, 21(3):553 – 578.
Thomson, R.E., Bornhold, B.D., and Mazzotti, S. 2008. An examination of the factors affecting relative
and absolute sea level in coastal British Columbia. Can. Tech.Rep. Hydrogr.Ocean Sci. 260: v + 49
p.; Bornhold, B. 2008. Projected sea level changes for British Columbia in the 21st century. 12 p
University of Washington Climate Impacts Group. 2005. Uncertain Future: Climate Change and its Effects
on Puget Sound. http://cses.washington.edu/db/pubs/author19.shtml#top
Weisstein, E. W. (2007). Autumn equinox. Retrieved June 02, 2012, from Eric Weisstein world of
astronomy: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/AutumnalEquinox.html
Zeeben, J. (2012, January 13). Fate of Esquimalt Lagoon in Voter Hands. Retrieved from
GoldstreamGazette.com: http://www.goldstreamgazette.com/news/137288523.html
P a g e | 26
Appendices
Appendix A. Elevation Survey Data used to Construct Beach Profiles
Table 1A. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #1 taken on Feb. 14, 2012
February-14-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide Time:
3:00:00 PM Start time:
Tide Height (m):
0.9
End time:
IP
Shot #
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
6
7
8
2
Instrument
Height (m)
1.09
3.14
Distance (m)
Midsite (m)
332
3:02:00 PM
3:40 PM
Conditions:
~5km wind, mostly sunny, some cloud, rained
night before, mild wave action
Relative
Elevation (m)
Notes
0
1.09
3.0817
2.14
3.72
7.61
12.05
16.83
21.47
26.57
3.671
28.371
35.181
37.211
1.295
2.353
2.965
3.292
3.6
3.57
3.725
0.463
3.455
3.775
3.925
2.8767
1.8187
1.2067
0.8797
0.5717
0.6017
0.4467
0.4047
0.0897
-0.2303
-0.3803
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument
Front shot from tie point #1 to top of rip-rap ledge
Front shot. Loggy debris
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Back shot from IP #2 to tie point #1
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Table 1B. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #1 taken on April 22, 2012
April-22-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide Time:
10:45:00 AM Start time:
Tide Height (m):
0.7
End time:
IP
Shot #
Instrument
Height (m)
Distance (m) Midsite (m)
-
-
-
0
1
-
1.42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2.4
4.12
7.1
10.094
15.93
19.238
25.671
28.544
37.691
48.932
54.12
-
332
10:42:00 AM
11:25:00 AM
Relative
Elevation (m)
3.0817
56.1
1.272
1.798
2.109
2.415
2.315
2.833
3.231
3.651
4.039
4.272
3.0256
1.8097
1.4317
1.1207
0.8147
0.9147
0.3967
-0.0013
-0.4213
-0.8093
-1.0423
Conditions:
18*, sunny, calm
Notes
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument
Manual reading
Manual reading
First front shot
front shot
front shot
front shot
front shot
front shot
front shot. In rocks
front shot
front shot
P a g e | 27
Table 1C. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #1 taken on May 21, 2012
May-21-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide Time:
10:19:00 AM Start time:
Tide Height (m):
0.4 m End time:
IP
Shot #
Instrument
Height (m)
Distance (m) Midsite (m)
-
-
-
0
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
2
1.67
1.7
-
2.4
4.1
14.83
19.74
29.5
34.1
19.74
49.74
67.79
332
10:25:00 AM
11:02:00 AM
Relative
Elevation (m)
3.0817
56.1
0.2
2.562
2.435
3.455
3.688
0.763
3.432
4.501
3.0256
1.6117
0.7197
0.8467
-0.1733
-0.4063
0.6747
-1.0573
-2.1263
Conditions:
~13*, foggy, slight rain
Notes
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument
Manual reading
back shot to Tie point #1
front shot to first elevation change=dipped down
front shot. hump in beach
front shot
front shot
back shot from hump to IP1.1
front shot
Front shot. In water
Table 2B. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #2 taken on April 22, 2012
April-22-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide Time:
10:45:00 AM Start time:
Tide Height (m):
0.7
End time:
IP
Shot #
Instrument
Height (m)
Distance (m) Midsite (m)
-
-
-
0
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1.37
1.3
1.64
1.61
2.965
6.46
13.21
19.36
19.36
22.88
26.43
26.43
34.585
37.68
37.68
54.72
67.29
-
316
10:02:00 AM
10:37:00 AM
Relative
Elevation (m)
1.913
2.1
1.693
1.431
1.163
1.505
1.795
2.098
0.838
2.54
2.932
0.31
3.65
3.995
1.183
1.59
1.852
2.12
2.118
1.623
1.32
1.316
0.416
0.024
0.016
-2.024
-2.369
Conditions:
18*, sunny, calm
Notes
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument
Front shot from tie point #2
front shot
front shot
front shot
Back shot from ridge to tie point #2
front shot
front shot
Back shot
front shot
front shot
Back shot
front shot
front shot
P a g e | 28
Table 2C. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #2 taken on May 12, 2012
May-21-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide Time:
10:19:00 AM Start time:
Tide Height (m):
0.4
End time:
IP
Shot #
Instrument
Height (m)
Distance (m) Midsite (m)
-
-
-
0
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
1.55
1.27
1.4
316
10:25:00 AM
11:05:00 AM
Relative
Elevation (m)
-
4.37
10.97
19.1
19.1
24.2
29.17
28.74
35.87
45.99
51.74
58.74
Conditions:
~13*, foggy, slight rain
Notes
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument
1.361front shot from Tie point #2 to first elevation change
1.888
front shot. In knoll still
2.143
front shot
2.028
back shot to Tie point #2 from IP1.3 to IP1.1
1.583
front shot
1.165
front shot
1.135
back shot to IP2.2
0.404
front shot
-0.885
fronst shot
-1.49
front shot. At water's edge
-2.155
front shot. Feel slope level off. In the water.
1.913
2.102
1.575
1.32
1.385
1.715
2.133
0.952
2.131
3.42
4.025
4.69
Table 3A. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #3 taken on Feb. 14, 2012
February-14-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide Time:
3:00:00 PM Start time:
Tide Height (m):
0.9
End time:
IP
Shot #
Instrument
Height (m)
-
-
-
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.3
Distance (m)
0
4.76
6.3
8.64
12.17
16.42
18.26
22.65
28.97
33.41
39.18
44.83
49.54
50.42
316
2:08:00 PM
2:26:00 PM
Midsite (m)
-
Relative
Elevation (m)
2.374
1.355
1.26
1.865
2.425
2.8
2.692
2.93
3.465
3.9
4.525
4.635
4.855
4.89
2.319
2.414
1.809
1.249
0.874
0.982
0.744
0.209
-0.226
-0.851
-0.961
-1.181
-1.216
Conditions:
~5km wind, mostly sunny, some cloud, rained
night before, mild wave action
Notes
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument
all frontshots from the tie point forward
P a g e | 29
Table 3B. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #3 taken on April 9, 2012
April-09-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide time:
11:53:00 AM Start time:
Tide height (m):
0.3
End time:
IP
Shot #
Instrument
Height (m)
Distance (m) Midsite (m)
-
-
-
0
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
3
4
1.035
1.088
1.738
1.26
-
6.712
6.948
12.26
5.31
19.392
7.424
29.974
40.762
49.818
61.392
69.392
316
1:16:00 PM
1:43:00 PM
Relative
Elevation (m)
2.374
0.725
1.253
2.195
0.583
2.2
0.798
2.158
2.81
3.2
3.403
3.965
2.684
2.539
1.432
1.384
0.922
0.922
0.024
-0.628
-1.018
-1.221
-1.783
Conditions:
18*, sunny, calm
Notes
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument
Front shot
Back shot to IP1.1
Front shot
Back shot from IP2.2 to IP2.1
Front shot
Back shot from IP3.2 to IP3.1
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Table 3C. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #3 taken on May 21, 2012
May-21-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide Time:
10:19 AM Start time:
Tide Height (m):
0.4
End time:
IP
Shot #
Instrument
Height (m)
Distance (m) Midsite (m)
-
-
-
0
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1.4
1.41
1.42
1.42
7.11
9.49
9.46
14.14
4.68
24.63
29.13
14.987
36.59
55.438
73.07
-
316
10:40:00 AM
11:30:00 AM
Relative
Elevation (m)
2.374
1.37
1.852
0.821
2.236
0.538
1.725
2.278
0.494
2.31
2.713
3.491
2.404
1.922
1.785
0.959
0.903
0.598
0.045
-0.023
-0.913
-1.316
-2.094
Conditions:
~13*, foggy, slight rain
Notes
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument
Front shot from tiepoint #3 to 1st elevation change
front shot
back shot from IP2.1 to IP1.2
front shot
back shot from IP3.1 to IP2.2
front shot
front shot
back shot from IP4.1 to IP3.3
front shot
front shot. In water. Sand bar
front shot. In water
P a g e | 30
Table 4A. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #4 taken on Feb. 14, 2012
February-14-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide Time:
3:00:00 PM Start time:
Tide Height (m):
0.9
End time:
IP
Shot #
Instrument
Height (m)
Distance (m) Midsite (m)
-
-
-
0
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
4
1.13
2
3
1.27
1.62
-
7.3
14.94
16.1
23.9
29.53
40.9
47.52
69.1
75.83
316
1:30:00 PM
2:00:00 PM
Conditions:
~5km wind, mostly sunny, some cloud, rained
night before, mild wave action
Relative
Elevation (m)
Notes
3.249
2.205
2.36
2.73
3.53
3.45
2.5
3.218
3.56
3.79
2.174
2.019
1.649
0.849
-0.161
-1.041
-1.759
-2.101
-2.331
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument. *Manual elevation comparisons.
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Table 4B. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #4 taken on April 9, 2012
April-09-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide time:
11:53:00 AM Start time:
Tide height (m):
0.3
End time:
IP
Shot #
Instrument
Height (m)
Distance (m) Midsite (m)
-
-
-
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
1.464
1.604
1.528
1.232
1.678
1.64
3.208
3.331
6.631
3.212
14.955
8.534
15.597
20.226
5.48
29.454
9.502
40.364
51.61
61.69
79.454
-
316
12:20:00 PM
1:00:00 AM
Relative
Elevation (m)
3.249
2.025
1.067
1.95
1.265
1.543
1.477
1.54
1.978
0.675
2.59
1.235
2.76
3.235
3.475
3.61
2.688
2.712
2.366
2.449
2.434
2.694
2.386
1.948
1.691
0.779
1.286
0.166
-0.309
-0.549
-0.684
Conditions:
18*, sunny, calm
Notes
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument
Front shot from tie point
Back shot to the tie point
Frontshot
Back shot from IP2.2 to IP2.1
Front shot
Back shot from IP3.2 to IP3.1
Front shot
Front shot
Back shot from IP4.3 to IP4.1
Front shot
Back shot from IP5.2 to IP5.1
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
Front shot
P a g e | 31
Table 4C. Surveying data for beach profiling and relative elevation calculations for Tie Point #4 taken on May 21, 2012
May-21-12 Azimuth (degrees):
Tide time:
10:19:00 AM Start time:
Tide height (m):
0.4
End time:
IP
Shot #
Instrument
Height (m)
Distance (m) Midsite (m)
-
-
-
0
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
1.51
3
4
1.49
1.49
1.57
3.17
3.17
15.47
12.3
20.704
5.234
30.624
40.924
65.274
70.704
-
316
11:40:00 AM
12:30:00 PM
Relative
Elevation (m)
Notes
Relative elevation calculated from surveying
monument
2.799 front shot from Tie point #4 to 1st elevation change
2.719
backshot from IP2.1 to IP1.1
2.21
front shot
2.149
Back shot from IP3.1 to IP2.2
1.109
front shot
1.059
Back shot from IP4.1 to IP3.2
0.249
front shot. After rip rap
-0.896
front shot
-1.716
front shot
-1.803
front shot
3.249
1.96
0.96
2.00
0.92
2.53
0.48
2.38
3.525
4.345
4.432
Conditions:
~13*, foggy, slight rain
P a g e | 32
Appendix B. Raw Data for High Tide Measurements.
Name: Jill
Date:
Tides:
Weather:
Temp:
Winds Speed:
Wave Activity:
Notes:
High Tide Runup
Jan. 21, 2012
High Tide Level
2.9
(m):
High Tide Time:
10:56:00
Overcast, drizzle
6 degrees
W/SW 26km
pretty calm, no white caps.
Name: Jill
Date:
Tides:
Weather:
Temp:
Winds Speed:
Wave Activity:
Wind picked up approx 11:00 with
strong gusts
Notes:
Site#1: Pump House: Nitasha/Danielle
Time Start:
10:56:00
Time Finish:
11:01:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m) horizontal distance
from tie point
8.42
18.4
13.41
12.56993712
Site #2: Road Side West: Nitasha/Danielle
Time Start:
11:11:00
Time Finish:
11:16:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
31.97
33.7
32.835
32.78934071
Site #3: Road Side East: Nadia/Jill
Time Start:
10:59:00
Time Finish:
11:04:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
14.03
19.61
16.82
16.68124887
Site #4: Bridge/Pub House: Nadia/Jill
Time Start:
11:12:00
Time Finish:
11:17:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
19.5
Observations:
23.15
21.325
Point 3: a few meters north a much
lower water run up was observed.
Point 4: took alot of pictures, notable
high tide under bridge and on lagoon
side.
21.18158785
King High Tide Runup
1/22/2012
High Tide Level
2.9m
(m):
High Tide Time:
11:55:00
Cloudy, windy,
4 degrees
ESE/SE 23km. 40-49km gusts
Large crashing waves, white caps,
large swells
Wind Warning: predicted 90km gusts.
no rain but lots of ocean spray
Site#1: Pump House:
Time Start:
11:26:00
Time Finish:
*no 5 min wait due to extreme waves
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m) horizontal distance from
tie point
9.69
9.69
8.489482853
Site #2: Road Side West
Time Start:
11:30:00
Time Finish:
*no 5 min wait due to extreme waves
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
10.82
10.82
10.68063851
Site #3: Road Side East
Time Start:
11:34:00
Time Finish:
*no 5 min wait due to extreme waves
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
21.32
21.32
21.21070635
Site #4: Bridge/Pub House
Time Start:
11:40:00
Time Finish:
*no 5 min wait due to extreme waves
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runpup
(m)
2.73
2.73
1.164877247
Observations:
logs washed up, waves carried debris
onto road. Waves flooded N.western
portion of road.
P a g e | 33
Name: Jill
Date:
Tides:
Weather:
Temp:
Winds Speed:
Wave Activity:
Notes:
High Tide Runup
2/15/2012
High Tide Level
2.8
(m):
High Tide Time:
7:18:00
Clear, no wind.
0 degrees
NE, 4km
calm
Name:
Date:
Tides:
Weather:
Temp:
Winds Speed:
Wave Activity:
nice sunrise. frosty. last rain approx
Feb 13
Notes:
Site#1: Pump House:
Time Start:
7:25:00
Time Finish:
7:30:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m) horizontal distance
from tie point
14.52
14.52
13.74793145
Site #2: Road Side West
Time Start:
7:34:00
Time Finish:
7:39:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
35.74
35.74
35.69805652
Site #3: Road Side East
Time Start:
7:29:00
Time Finish:
7:34:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
20.4
24.34
22.37
22.26586095
Site #4: Bridge/Pub House
Time Start:
7:42:00
Time Finish:
7:47:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
25.74
Observations:
27.38
26.56
Point 4: water pooling within rip rap
26.4449927
King High Tide Runup
3/12/2012
High Tide Level
2.7
(m):
High Tide Time:
4:48:00
Windy, clear skies
4
SE 16km, gusts of 45km
Large crashing waves, white caps,
large swells
Wind Warning in Effect. No rain, but
sea spray
Site#1: Pump House:
Time Start:
4:59:00
Time Finish:
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m) horizontal distance
from tie point
3.47
3.47
#NUM!
Site #2: Road Side West
Time Start:
5:05:00
Time Finish:
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
22.62
22.62
22.55367019
Site #3: Road Side East
Time Start:
5:09:00
Time Finish:
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
10.39
10.39
10.16384593
Site #4: Bridge/Pub House
Time Start:
5:12:00
Time Finish:
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
12.8
Observations:
12.8
12.55961938
P a g e | 34
Name:
Date:
Tides:
Weather:
Temp:
Winds Speed:
Wave Activity:
High tide
3/14/2012
High Tide Level
2.7
(m):
High Tide Time:
5:41:00
Windy, slightly overcast
4
SE 9km
relatively calm
Name:
Date:
Tides:
Weather:
Temp:
Winds Speed:
Wave Activity:
Notes:
Notes:
Site#1: Pump House:
Time Start:
5:50:00
Time Finish:
5:55:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m) horizontal distance
from tie point
10.4
10.4
9.29167472
Site #2: Road Side West
Time Start:
5:42:00
Time Finish:
5:47:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
27.18
27.18
27.1248233
Site #3: Road Side East
Time Start:
5:50:00
Time Finish:
5:55:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
13.14
13.14
12.96191591
Site #4: Bridge/Pub House
Time Start:
5:39:00
Time Finish:
5:44:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
23.22
Observations:
23.22
23.08836155
High tide
4/10/2012
High Tide Level
2.7
(m):
High Tide Time:
AM 4:49:00
very calm, no wind, clear skies
7
NE, 4km
none, calm
only did high marks b/c tide receding
Site#1: Pump House:
Time Start:
4:42:00
Time Finish:
4:47:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m) horizontal distance
from tie point
13.24
13.24
12.38841471
Site #2: Road Side West
Time Start:
4:55:00
Time Finish:
5:00:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
32.58
32.58
32.53398283
Site #3: Road Side East
Time Start:
5:02:00
Time Finish:
5:03:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
18.58
18.58
18.45448628
Site #4: Bridge/Pub House
Time Start:
5:05:00
Time Finish:
5:06:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
25.06
Observations:
25.06
24.93807609
P a g e | 35
Name:
Date:
Tides:
Weather:
Temp:
Winds Speed:
Wave Activity:
High tide
5/7/2012
High Tide Level
2.8
(m):
High Tide Time:
2:52 AM
Clear, no wind
7
NNE, 8
none, calm
Notes:
Site#1: Pump House:
Time Start:
2:01:00
Time Finish:
2:06:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m) horizontal distance
from tie point
17.97
22.16
20.065
19.51357077
Site #2: Road Side West
Time Start:
2:13:00
Time Finish:
2:18:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
33.74
35.94
34.84
34.79697169
Site #3: Road Side East
Time Start:
2:23:00
Time Finish:
2:25:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
21.34
21.34
21.23080931
Site #4: Bridge/Pub House
Time Start:
2:28:00
Time Finish:
2:30:00
Highest Point (m) Lowest Point (m) Average Runup (m)
25.43
Observations:
25.43
25.30985853
P a g e | 36
Appendix C. Coburg Peninsula 9 Beach Profiles and raw data taken in May 2012 to add to ELSI database.
02-Jun
*sunny, warm, wind 5-10km
Tides:
Location:
N5362783.222
E465067.881
Time Start:
12:23pm
Time End:
12:45pm
Location:
N5362783.222 E465067.881
Time Start: 12:23pm Time End:
12:45pm
IP
Shot #
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instrument
Height (m)
Azimuth Distance to
Relative
Midsite (m)
(degrees) Stadia (m)
Elevation
0
2
1.48
125
1.461
305
125
5.79
6.59
6.89
14.24
18.55
23.36
32.56
38.91
49.64
56.89
1.235
1.525
1.392
2.415
2.652
2.588
3.505
3.8
4.215
4.47
Notes
3.87
4.115 Front shot from Transect #1 roadside nail marker to point just before the ridge dropoff, in logs
3.825 front shot. Drop off after ridge
3.801 back shot from IP1.2 to IP1.1
2.847 front shot towards water, at beginning of dip in beach face
2.61 in dip
2.674 on beach face after dip
1.757 in cobble
1.462 on water's edge
1.047 in water, boot height
0.792 in water, thigh height
Transect #1 Coburg Peninsula Beach Profile
Elevation (masl)
5
4
3
2
Transect #1 Beach Profile
1
0
0
10
20
30
Distance (m)
40
50
60
P a g e | 37
02-Jun
*sunny, warm, wind 5-10km
Tides:
Location:
N5362906.809
Time Start:
IP
11:53
Time End:
12:15
Instrument
Height (m)
Shot #
E465147.108
Azimuth Distance to
Relative
Midsite (m)
(degrees) Stadia (m)
Elevation
0
1
1.34
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
4.31
120
1.405
8.95
13.11
14.32
14.53
23.23
28.3
40.03
46.75
59.73
64.53
300
120
Notes
1.27
1.182
1.538
1.192
2.505
2.255
3.665
3.895
4.255
4.31
4.38
4.468
4.112
4.097
2.997
3.247
1.837
1.607
1.247
1.192
front shot from Transect #2 roadside nail marker
through dunes, relatively flat
on top of ridge
drop off after ridge
back shot from IP1.3 to IP1.1
front shot. Dani in dip along beach face
on beach face after dip
dani in cobble, almost at water's edge
at water's edge
in water, boot height
in water, knee height
Transect #2 Coburg Peninsula Beach Profile
Elevation (masl)
5
4
3
2
Transect #2 Beach Profile
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
Distance (m)
50
60
70
P a g e | 38
02-Jun
*sunny, warm, wind 5-10km
Tides:
Location:
N5363078.372
Time Start:
11:15
IP
Shot #
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
1
2
3
4
E465252.651
Time End:
11:43
Instrument
Height (m)
Azimuth Distance to
Relative
Midsite (m)
(degrees) Stadia (m)
Elevation
0
2
3
1.31
125
1.53
305
125
305
125
1.33
3.63
8.36
15.14
19.56
22.05
22.17
34.22
12.04
47.42
52.47
55.58
1.438
1.762
1.438
1.22
1.695
1.04
2.455
0.388
3.025
3.635
3.812
4.31
4.182
3.858
4.182
4.4
3.925
3.82
2.895
2.878
1.183
0.573
0.396
Notes
Front shot from Transect #3 roadside nail marker
front shot. Dip in knoll, through dunes
on ridge before logs (in dunes)
top of ridge
over logs in dip after ridge
back shot from IP1.5 to IP1.1
front shot towards water
back shot from IP2.2 to IP2.1
front shot. Dani at water's edge
dani in water around knee height
dani in water around thigh height
Transect #3 Coburg Peninsula Beach Profile
Elevation (masl)
5
4
3
2
Transect #3 Beach Profile
1
0
0
10
20
30
Distance (m)
40
50
60
P a g e | 39
02-Jun
*sunny, warm, wind 5-10km
Tides:
Location:
N5363208.812
Time Start:
IP
10:45
Shot #
1
Time End:
11:04
Instrument
Height (m)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
2
E465344.105
Azimuth Distance to
Relative
Midsite (m)
(degrees) Stadia (m)
Elevation
1.04
125
1.4
305
125
0
5.75
18.67
22.23
23.03
23.44
31.55
40.04
49.52
55.02
1.47
0.922
0.643
1.285
1.098
2.105
3
4.215
4.852
Notes
4.41
3.98 Front shot from Transect #4 roadside nail marker
4.528 in knoll
4.807 top of ridge
4.165 drop off after ridge
4.108 back shot from IP1.4 to IP1.1
3.403 front shot down beach
2.508 front shot
1.293 at water's edge
0.656 in water, barely thigh high
Transect #4 Coburg Peninsula Beach Profile
Elevation (masl)
6
5
4
3
2
Transect #4 Beach Profile
1
0
0
10
20
30
Distance (m)
40
50
60
P a g e | 40
01-Jun
*Foggy, wind ~2km, minimal waves, overcast
Tides:
Location:
Time Start:
1:11pm
IP
Shot #
N5363432.703
E465516.943
Time End:
1:20pm
Instrument
Height (m)
Azimuth Distance to
Relative
Midsite (m)
(degrees) Stadia (m)
Elevation
0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.15
130
7.89
9.41
18.69
23.86
30.49
36.5
1.195
1.629
2.535
2.809
3.618
4.24
Notes
4.39
4.345 Front shot from Transect #5 roadside nail marker to top of ridge
3.911 drop off after knoll
3.005 other side of logs, no change in slope throughout logs
2.731 front shot
1.922 water's edge
1.3 further in water
Elevation (masl)
Transect #5 Coburg Peninsula Beach Profile
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Transect #5 Beach Profile
0
5
10
15
20
Distance (m)
25
30
35
40
P a g e | 41
01-Jun
*Foggy, wind ~2km, minimal waves, overcast
Tides:
Location:
N5363595.733
Time Start:
12:49
IP
E465645.274
Time End:
Shot #
1:03
Instrument
Height (m)
Azimuth Distance to
Relative
Midsite (m)
(degrees) Stadia (m)
Elevation
0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.23
126
5.34
6.94
12.42
17.83
21.28
25.76
34
37.5
0.8
1.758
2.512
2.725
2.653
3.151
4.095
4.39
Notes
4.37
4.8 Front shot from Transect #6 roadside nail marker
3.842
3.088 In a dip, then resumes upward for next shot
2.875
2.947 (cute guy with fluffy dog walked by)
2.449
1.505 in water
1.21 in water
Transect #6 Coburg Peninsula Beach Profile
Elevation (masl)
6
5
4
3
2
Transect #6 Beach Profile
1
0
0
5
10
15
20
Distance (m)
25
30
35
40
P a g e | 42
21-May
Beach Profiles
Low Tide Height
10:19 AM
Low Tide Time
Start: 10:40
0.4 m
Azimuth
124
End: 11:30
IP
Shot #
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
Instrument
Height (m)
1.4
1.41
1.42
1.42
Relative
Distance from
Midsite (m) Elevation (m)
Tripod (m)
?????
0
5.06
7.11
1.37
5.09
9.49
1.852
4.608
9.46
0.821
4.471
14.14
2.236
3.645
4.68
0.538
3.589
24.63
1.725
3.284
29.13
2.278
2.731
14.987
0.494
2.663
36.59
2.31
1.773
55.438
2.713
1.37
73.07
3.491
0.592
Notes
Front shot from tiepoint #3 to 1st elevation change
front shot
back shot from IP2.1 to IP1.2
front shot
back shot from IP3.1 to IP2.2
front shot
front shot
back shot from IP4.1 to IP3.3
front shot
front shot. In water. Sand bar
front shot. In water
Transect #7 Coburg Peninsula Beach Profile
Elevation (masl)
6
5
4
3
Transect #7 Beach Profile
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
Distance (m)
50
60
70
80
P a g e | 43
01-Jun
*Foggy, wind ~2km, minimal waves, overcast
Tides:
Location:
N5363930.219
Time Start:
12:09
IP
E465917.845
Time End:
12:32
Instrument
Height (m)
Shot #
Azimuth Distance to
Relative
Midsite (m)
(degrees) Stadia (m)
Elevation
0
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
1.39
130
1.565
310
130
1.92
7.33
11.95
15.18
15.43
21.32
25.36
29.91
37.98
40.32
1.475
1.141
0.972
1.535
1.477
2.065
2.732
3.355
4.221
4.446
4.44
4.355
4.689
4.858
4.295
4.352
3.852
3.185
2.562
1.696
1.471
Notes
Front shot from road side T#8 nail marker
going up knoll
top of knoll
drop after knoll
Back shot from IP1.4 to IP1.1
front shot down beach
front shot down beach
front shot down beach
Dani in water. Wavy bottom!
Dani further in water
Transect 8 Coburg Peninsula Beach Profile
Elevation (masl)
6
5
4
3
Transect 8 Beach Profile
2
1
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Distance (m)
30
35
40
45
P a g e | 44
01-Jun
*Foggy, wind ~2km, minimal waves, overcast
Tides:
Location:
N5364093.933
Time Start:
11:42am
IP
E466077.203
Time End:
12:00
Instrument
Height (m)
Shot #
Azimuth Distance to
Relative
Midsite (m)
(degrees) Stadia (m)
Elevation
0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.19
132
3.3
8.61
9.75
18.28
23.32
30.47
38.46
40.6
1.275
1.07
1.7
2.505
2.689
3.462
4.365
4.75
4.44
4.355
4.56
3.93
3.125
2.941
2.168
1.265
0.88
Notes
Front shot from roadside T#9 nail marker
top of knoll
other side of knoll, dip
change in elevation
front shot
front shot
Dani in water with stadia rod
Further in water
Elevation (masl)
Transect 9 Coburg Peninsula Beach Profile
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Transect 9 Beach Profile
0
5
10
15
20
25
Distance (m)
30
35
40
45