Ontario Great Lakes Erosion Monitoring Programme Final Report 1973-1980 - DocsLib

sign in sign up

<<

Home , Baymouth bar

Governrnent of Ca anernd. i.Cana' Ocej REPORT SERIES No.12 1* Fisheries and au ANUSCRIPT 11111111 IIIII III 111111 12058371 - CANADA/ ONTARIO GREAT LAKES EROSION MONITORING PROGRAMME FINAL REPORT 1973-1980

G. L. BOYD

AND OCEANS

ET OCÉANS

o

LJ jj OCEANOGRAPHIC

GB 651 OCEAN SCIENCE AND SURVEYS M36I LILAYFIELD LABORATORY FOR c.1 MARINE SCIENCE AND SURVEYS BURLINGTON, ONTARIO CANADA/ONTARIO

GREAT LAKES EROSION MONITORING PROGRAMME CANADA/ONTARIO GREAT LAKES EROSION MONITORING PROGRAMME 1973-1980

FINAL REPORT

This is an internal technical report which has received only limited circulation. On citing this report, the reference should be followed by the words "UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT."

The text of this report is, with minor editorial corrections, similar to a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an M.A. at the Department of Geography, University of Waterloo.

Gary Lee Boyd Bayfield Laboratory for Marine Science and Surveys Ocean Science and Surveys Department of Fisheries and Oceans P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

DECEMBER 1981 OVERVIEW

This report documents the results of a joint study undertaken by the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario to monitor and

assess erosion on the Great Lakes Canadian shoreline. At 162 sites, intended to represent the entire erodible shore from Port Severn on Georgian Bay to Kingston on Lake Ontario, onshore and offshore measure-

ments were taken annually for the period 1973 to 1980. The investigation was initiated due to extensive shore damage previously documented (Canada/Ontario Great Lakes Shore Damage Survey, 1975), which indicated that a broader understanding of shore processes was necessary to miti- gate future damage and to assist shore management and planning. The report tends toward a scientific document since it deals

with the elements involved in the geomorphology of the shore. In this vein the relevant glacial history and a great deal of the specialized

literature concerning the Great Lakes are examined. In addition, a new classification of the beach zone is presented and incorporated into a

regional analysis of shore patterns and process. For more straightforward uses, rates of shoreline retreat are tabulated and the major

reasons for this erosion discussed. To aid those concerned with only certain sectors of the shore the various reaches are discussed separately, and to aid those concerned with only bluff or beach change, these too are presented separately (although they are intimately related) until the final chapter where all elements are brought together to show the regional perspective.

The results should be of interest to specialists working in the coastal zone and to avid laymen concerned about shore erosion of their property or in their jurisdiction.

(ii) SOMMAIRE

Ce rapport présente les résultats d'une étude conjointe entreprise par le gouvernement du Canada et le gouvernement de la province de l'Ontario pour surveiller et mesurer l'érosion du littoral des Grands lacs canadiens. A 162 sites représentatifs du littoral pouvant s'éroder, de Port Severn sur la Baie Géorgienne àKingston sur le Lac Ontario, des mesures ont été relevées àterre et au large annuellement pour la période commençant en 1973 et se terminant en 1980. Cette enquête a été entreprise àla suite des importants dégâts survenus au littoral et ayant déjàfait l'objet d'un rapport (Canada/Ontario Great Lakes Shore Damage Survey, 1975). Ce rapport indiquait qu'il était nécessaire de mieux comprendre les transformations du littoral afin de limiter les dommages ultérieurs et d'aider la planification et la gestion du littoral. Ce rapport présente une explication scientifique puisqu'il traite des éléments de la géomorphologie du littoral. C'est pourquoi l'histoire des glaciers correspondante et le besoin de littérature spé- cialisée sur les Grands lacs y sont examinés. De plus, une nouvelle classification des plages est présentée et incorporée dans une analyse régionale des tendances de transformation du littoral. Pour permettre un emploi plus direct du rapport, les taux de retrait du littoral y sont calculés et les principales raisons de cette érosion mentionées. Les personnes intéressées par certains secteurs du littoral seulement trou- veront des explications distinctes sur diverses bordées; il en va de même pour les promontoires ou changements de plage, qui sont aussi pré- sentés séparément (bien qu'ils sont liés de près) jusqu'au dernier cha- pitre oùtous les éléments sont regroupés pour donner une perspective régionale. Les résultats devraient intéresser les spécialistes qui tra- vaillent dans les régions c8tières et les profanes soucieux de l'érosion du littoral de leur propriété et dans leur juridiction.

(iii) ACKNOWI7EDGEMENTS

The Great Lakes, a special ecosystem containing one-fifth of the world's freshwater, is an international treasure and to visit or live on its shores is a meaningful, personal experience for millions of Canadians. However, with increasing population pressure and shore development and with man's ability to precipitate large scale change to the lake system in the last century, conflicts between users have resulted and shore damages have increased. The value of the Great Lakes as an inland navigational corridor and as a hydroelectric resource encouraged expansion of the St. Lawrence Seaway in the 1950s resulting in a need for an International Great Lakes Levels Study in the 1960s. The shoreline data collected by this study was updated by the federal government so that when severe phore damage and high lake level occurred in the early 1970s it was possible to assess and report on the extent of the damages sustained. Subsequently the Canada/Ontario Great Lakes Shore Damage Survey Technical Report and the Coastal Zone Atlas were published which are still considered the most extensive evaluation of erosion and shore damage on the Canadian shores of the Great Lakes. Due to the value and time period of the information available and with history as a guide, the Shore Damage Survey report recommended that "shoreline processes continue to be monitored and the Great Lakes shoreline inventory continue to be updated to ensure maintenance of current information on shoreline characteristics." This Shore Erosion Monitoring study responds to that part of the recommendation which requires monitoring of shoreline processes. It is under the umbrella of a federal-provincial task force which includes other programmes such as public awareness and shoreland planning and management aspects. Membership on the Canada/Ontario Great Lakes Shore Damage Survey Follow-up Programmes Task Force has included T.D.W. McCulloch and N.G. Freeman of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; D.R. Cuthbert,

(iv) R. Beauchemin, D.M. Foulds of Environment Canada; and R..B. Chang, T.M.

Kurtz, S.B. Panting of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The working group committee included W.S. Haras, J.R. Shaw of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; R.J. Moulton, D.W. Brown of Environment Canada; and D.L. Strelchuk, T.M. Kurtz of the Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources. The Canada/Ontario Shore Monitoring Programme Survey team included R.K. Weaver, D.P. Sosnoski, E.A. Boyd, D. Canning and S.

Hanville. Analysis of the soil samples was completed by G. Duncan; and helpful discussions were held with N.A. Rukavina, A. Zeman, J. Coakley

and D. St. Jacques of Environment Canada; and also with C.H. Carter of

the Ohio Geological Survey, J.S. Gardner and A.B. Kesik at the University

of Waterloo. The author wishes to acknowledge the dedication and contribution of these individuals while of course retaining responsibility

for the accuracy of this report. Personally, I would like to thank Mr. T.D.W. McCulloch, Director General, Bayfield Laboratory for Marine Science and Surveys, Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Mr. N.G. Freeman, Chief, Oceanographic Division; and Mr. W.S. Haras, Head, Shore Properties Studies Section, for allowing me to conduct this research as part of my work at the Bayfield

Lab. I would also like to extend my appreciation to fellow staff of the Oceanographic Division, including Mr. J.R. Shaw for his valuable suggestions during innumerable discussions; Dr. S.J. Prinsenberg, Dr. L.R. Muir, Dr. W.P. Budgell and Dr. E.B. Bennett for their assistance; and Mrs. J. Fiddes for the proofreading of the manuscript. Finally, thanks Bill, John, Dave, Keith, Rick and Don for the

encouragement, comradeship and shared enjoyment of studying and working

on the shore.

G.L. Boyd

(v) TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page OVERVIEW ...... ii SOMMAIRE ...... i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv LIST OF PHOTOS ...... ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...... x LIST OF TABLES ...... xi LIST OF APPENDICES ...... xii

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of the Problem ...... 1 1.2 Objectives of this Study ...... 1 1.3 Format of this Report ...... 2 1.4 Previous Related Works ...... 3

2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Formulation of the Programme ...... 4 2.2 Field Surveys ...... 4 2.2.1 Type of Survey ...... 4 2.2.2 Location of Survey Sites ...... 4 2.2.3 Dates of Surveys ...... 5 2.3 Supplementary Information ...... 5 2.3.1 Soil Samples ...... 5 2.3.2 Photography ...... 6 2.3.2.a High Altitude Photography .... 6 2.3.2.b Oblique Aerial Photography ... 6 2.3.2.c Station Photographs ...... 6 2.3.3 Water Levels ...... 7 2.3.4 Vegetation at the Sites ...... 8 2.4 Data Compilation ...... 9 2.4.1 Data Reduction and Methodology ...... 9 2.4.2 Products ...... 9 2.4.3 Checks of Accuracy ...... 10 2.5 Method of Regional Analysis ...... 11

3. ANALYSIS OF BLUFF EROSION 3.1 Bluff Erosion Processes ...... 12 3.2 Reaches ...... 14 3.3 Erosion Assessment at the Survey Sites ...... 15 3.3.1 Top of Bank Change ...... 15 3.3.2 Volume Change for Bluff ...... 16 3.3.3 Comparison of Top of Bank Recession and Volumetric Erosion ...... 17 3.4 Erosion of the Lake Huron Bluffs ...... 19 3.4.1 Clark Point to Grand Bend ...... 21 3.4.2 Gustin Grove to Errol ...... 22 3.4.3 Errol to Sarnia ...... 23

(vi)

Page 3.5 Erosion of the Lake Erie Bluffs 25 3.5.1 Western Basin Bluffs 28 3.5.2 Central Basin Bluffs 29 3.5.3 Eastern Basin Bluffs 32 3.6 Erosion of the Lake Ontario Bluffs 34 3.6.1 Niagara-on-the-Lake to Stoney Creek 37 3.6.2 Burlington to Toronto 39 3.6.3 Scarborough Bluffs 40 3.6.4 Scarborough to Raby Head 41 3.6.5 Raby Head to Port Hope 43 3.6.6 Port Hope to Prince Edward County 44 3.7 Total Sediment Supply from Bluff Erosion 46 3.7.1 Potential Volume of Littoral Sand and Gravel 46 3.7.2 Effects of Shore Protection 48

4. ANALYSIS OF BEACH EROSION/ACCRETION 4.1 Beach Erosion/Accretion Processes 51 4.2 Beach Assessment at Survey Sites 54 4.2.1 Water's Edge Change 54 4.2.2 Volumetric Beach Change 56 4.2.3 Lakeward Beach Zone Intercept 56 4.3 Introduction to Nearshore Slopes 57 4.3.1 Croup One Beach Profiles 58 4.3.2 Group Two Beach Profiles 61 4.3.3 Group Three Beach Profiles 64 4.3.4 Group Four Beach Profiles 68 4.3.5 Beach Zone-Annual Change 70

5. REGIONAL PATTERN OF LANDFORMS AND PROCESSES: A SYNTHESIS 5.1 Lake Huron 71 5.1.1 Georgian Bay 72 5.1.2 Western Bruce Peninsula 73 5.1.3 Sauble Beach to Clark Point 74 5.1.4 Clark Point to Kettle Point 77 5.1.5 Kettle Point to Sarnia 82 5.2 Lake Erie 85 5.2.1 Western Basin 86 5.2.2 Point Pelee 90 5.2.3 Central Basin - Pelee to Rondeau 92 5.2.4 Central Basin - Rondeau 94 5.2.5 Central Basin - Rondeau to Long Point . . • 96 5.2.6 Long Point 102 5.2.7 Eastern Basin 105

(vii) Page 5.3 Lake Ontario ...... 109 5.3.1 Niagara-on-the-Lake to Toronto...... 110 5.3.2 Toronto and Scarborough Bluffs ...... 114 5.3.3 Scarborough to Raby Head ...... 115 5.3.4 Raby Head to Port Hope ...... 116 5.3.5 Port Hope to Prince Edward County ...... 118

6. SUMMARY 6.1 Conclusions ...... 120 6.2 Relevance ...... 123 6.3 Applications ...... 124 6.4 Limitations ...... 128 6.5 Future Work ...... 129

REFERENCES ...... 131 APPENDICES A, B, C, D, E ...... 151 APPENDICES F, G, H ...... Bound Separately

(viii)

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo Page 3.4.1 Clark Point to Grand Bend 21 3.4.2 Gustin Grove to Errol 22 3.4.3 Errol to Sarnia 23 3.5.1 Western Basin Bluffs 28 3.5.2 Central Basin Bluffs 29 3.5.3 Eastern Basin Bluffs 32 3.6.1 Niagara-on-the-Lake to Stoney Creek . . . 37 3.6.1a Niagara-on-the-Lake to Stoney Creek . . . 38 3.6.3 Scarborough Bluffs 40 3.6.4 Scarborough to Raby Head 41 3.6.4a Scarborough to Raby Head 42 3.6.5 Raby Head to Port Hope 43 3.6.6 Port Hope to Prince Edward County 44 5.1.1 Georgian Bay 72 5.1.2 Western Bruce Peninsula 73 5.1.3 Sauble Beach to Clark Point 74 5.1.4 Clark Point to Kettle Point 77 5.1.5 Kettle Point to Sarnia 82 5.2.1 Western Basin 86 5.2.2 Point Pelee 90 5.2.3 Central Basin - Pelee to Rondeau 92 5.2.4 Central Basin - Rondeau 94 5.2.5 Central Basin - Rondeau to Long Point . . 96 5.2.5a Central Basin - Rondeau to Long Point . . . 100 5.2.6 Long Point 102 5.2.7 Eastern Basin 105 5.2.7a Eastern Basin 108 5.3.1 Niagara-on-the-Lake to Toronto 110 5.3.2 Toronto and Scarborough Bluffs 114 5.3.3 Scarborough to Raby Head 115 5.3.4 Raby Head to Port Hope 116 5.3.5 Port Hope to Prince Edward County 118

(ix) ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Oblique Aerial Photographic and Video Coverage...... • 7 2. Monthly Mean Water Levels ...... 8 3. Lake Huron - Location of Erosion Stations and Reaches •• lia 4. Lake Erie - Location of Erosion Stations and Reaches lib 5. Lake Ontario- Location of Erosion Stations and Reaches llc 6. Lake Huron Short Term Representative Bluff Erosion Rates. 19 7. Beach Profiles Fronting Eroding vs Non-eroding Bluffs ..• 22 8. Lake Erie Short Term Representative Bluff Erosion Rates 25 9. Lake Ontario Short Term Representative Bluff Erosion Rates ...... 34 10. Available Littoral Drift from Bluff Erosion ...... 49 11. Shore Protection - Huron ...... 50 12. Shore Protection - St. Clair ...... 50 13. Shore Protection - Erie ...... 50 14. Shore Protection - Ontario ...... 50 15. Percentage of Shore Protection ...... 50 16. Beach Zone Profile Types ...... 57 17. Location of Group One Profiles ...... 58 18. Group One Profile ...... 59 19. Location of Group Two Profiles ...... 61 20. Group Two Profile ...... 61 21. Location of Group Three Profiles ...... 64 22. Group Three Profile ...... • • . . 64 23. Water's Edge vs. Bluff Recession ...... 66 24. Location of Group Four Profiles ...... 68 25. Group Four Profile ...... • 68 26. Annual Beach Volume Change ...... 70 27. Lake Huron Sites ...... 71 28. Lake Erie Sites ...... 85 29. Lake Ontario Sites ...... 109 30. Lake Huron Summary Map ...... 120a 31. Lake Erie Summary Map ...... 120b 32. Lake Ontario Summary Mal) ...... 120c

(x) LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Short-Term Top of Bluff Recession Rates - Huron ..... 20 2. Short-Term Bluff Volumetric Erosion Rates - Huron .... 20 3. Representative Erosion Rates - Huron ...... 20 4. Short-Term Top of Bluff Recession Rates - Erie ..... 26 5. Short-Term Bluff Volumetric Erosion Rates - Erie .... 26 6. Representative Erosion Rates - Erie ...... 27 7. Short-Term Top of Bank Recession Rates - Ontario .... 35 8. Short-Term Bluff Volumetric Erosion Rates - Ontario ... 35 9. Representative Erosion Rates - Ontario ...... 36 10. Types of Protection ...... 50 11. Group One-Volume, Water's Edge and Intercept Changes 60 12. Group Two-Volume, Water's Edge and Intercept Changes 62 13. Group Three-Volume, Water's Edge and Intercept Changes. 65 14. Group Four-Volume, Water's Edge and Tntercept Changes . 69

(xi) LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix A A Review of Literature Concerning Erosion and Accretion of the Canadian Shoreline of the Great Lakes 152

Appendix B Table B-1 Information Regarding Erosion Station Geographic Co-ordinates, Orientation and Variance from Perpendicular 167 Table B-2 Information Regarding Reaches - Lake Huron . . . 172 Table B-3 Information Regarding Reaches - Lake St. Clair . 174 Table B-4 Information Regarding Reaches - Lake Erie. 175 Table B-5 Information Regarding Reaches - Lake Ontario . . 179

Appendix C Information Regarding Vegetation at the Survey Sites . . . 184 Table C-1 Species Present Above Top of Bank - Lake Huron • Table C-2 Species Present Above Top of Bank - Lake Erie . Table C-3 Species Present Above Top of Bank - Lake Ontario Table C-4 Species Present on Bluff Face - Lake Huron . . . Table C-5 Species Present on Bluff Face - Lake Erie . . . Table C-6 Species Present on Bluff Face - Lake Ontario . .

Appendix D Table D-1 Volume of Material Lost from Lake Huron Bluff Reaches 194 Table D-2 Volume of Material Lost from Lake Erie Bluff Reaches 195 Table D-3 Volume of Material Lost from Lake Ontario Bluff Reaches 197

Appendix E List of Survey Equipment and Specifications • • 200

Appendix F (bound separately) Lake Huron Master Plans, Log Sheets, and Plots

Appendix G (bound separately) Lake Erie Master Plans, Log Sheets, and Plots .

Appendix H (bound separately) Lake Ontario Master Plans, Log Sheets, and Plots

(xii) 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of the Problem Simply stated, much of the Great Lakes Canadian shoreline erodes and some of it erodes quickly. This fact was of little con- sequence to the Indians inhabiting the area a thousand years ago with their hunting and gathering society but to modern man it causes economic losses of millions of dollars, personal heartache and, in many ways, loss of valuable natural resources. To understand and document the mechanisms and rates of erosion, to understand the effects of our use of the shoreline, and to use this information for effective personal and governmental planning and the attendant policy implementation could serve to lessen the magnitude of the problem. It is evident that we must co-exist in the shoreline ecosystem whether it be at harbours for transportation needs, industrial development or at cities and parkland While it may be true that for water resources and recreation. structural shoreline protection is necessary for many of these types of non-structural developments, it is also likely that long-term The need is to understand the preventative solutions are desirable. shoreline system in order to do both of these effectively.

1.2 Objectives of this Study An erosion measurement programme was undertaken from 1973 to 1980 to measure and monitor bluff and beach change at 162 selected sites intended to represent the erodible portion of the Great Lakes from Port Lake Ontario. Although Severn on Georgian Bay to Kingston on intertwined, two somewhat distinct aspects of shoreline change include1) the relatively straightforward one-way processes of lakeshore bluff erosion and 2) the dynamic two-way processes of beach erosion and accretion. From this arises the dual objective of providing the specific data concerning the results of measurements but directed 1) to present the results, rates, mode, and vital statistics of lakeshore bluff erosion, as well as 2) to present the beach change statistics,

1 2

patterns and overall classification of beach zone types on the Great Lakes. This objective serves to document the direct information and measurements from the survey. The final objective was to incorporate these results with other available information to provide a geomorphological synthesis of the coastal landforms and patterns present on the Great Lakes shore, both in a local and regional setting.

1.3 Format of this Report This first chapter contains the preliminary material concerning the nature of the problem, the objectives of the study, format, and previous related work; whereas the second chapter outlines the methods used to collect the data and complete the survey. The third chapter is directed solely to erosion of lakeshore bluffs and includes a brief discussion of erosion processes, the methods used to assess bluff change, then presents information regarding the composition, rate and mode of erosion, as well as a typical photograph and profile for each contiguous reach of bluff shore on Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario. Also included is a calculation of total sediment supply available from bluff erosion for all these lakes. The fourth chapter concerns only beach erosion and accretion and includes a brief discussion of processes, the methods used to assess beach change then focusses on a classification of four beach zone types identified on the Great Lakes. In total these chapters meet the objective of documenting the direct information and measurements from the survey. The fifth chapter deals with the objective of providing a geomorphological synthesis of the coastal landforms and patterns on the Great Lakes shore. It contains a detailed reach by reach discussion of the physical nature of each reach, the relevant glacial history, a discussion of the predominate patterns and processes as indicated by this and other studies, and a brief comment regarding the attendant management consideration for each area. The concluding sixth chapter summarizes the report and indicates the relevance, applications, limitations and possible future work. 3

The appendices contain 1) a review of literature concerning erosion of the Canadian Great Lakes shoreline, 2) information regarding erosion sites and reach co-ordinates, 3) information regarding vegetation at the survey sites, 4) the calculation of material lost from bluff reaches, and 5) a list of specifications and equipment used for the survey. Bound separately are three appendices containing a master plan, log data sheet, and the profile plots for all measurement stations for Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario.

1.4 Previous Related Works There are no directly comparable works which deal with the entire erodible portion of the Canadian Great Lakes shore nor for a seven-year high water level period. However there are a great number of reports which deal with specific areas along the shore and others that concern specific aspects of shore erosion. Appendix A provides a detailed review of this literature. Basically, knowledge of shoreline erosion and accretion was developed from observations of ocean coasts with tides, long-term water level change, abundant sediment or rocky coasts. Thus classic texts by Steers (1946), Shepard (1948), Guilcher (1954), King (1959), Komar (1976) and Stanley & Swift (1976) reflect these considerations. However, large lakes such as the Great Lakes have a different wave climate, virtually no tides (but short - and long-term water level variations), and the shore is more often composed of easily eroded glacial drift. Consequently, Zenkovich's "Processes of Coastal Development" (1962), which deals with open coasts and enclosed seas as well as tidal and virtually non-tidal bodies of water in Asia, is most directly related to studies of the Great Lakes. 2. METHODOLOGY This chapter briefly describes the methods used to conduct the survey. 2.1 Formulation of Programme Conceptually, this study represents measurements of erosion and accretion through time and space. Spatially, the study area encom- passes all shoreline types from beaches to high bluff areas for the 2000 km of erodible shoreline as well as nearshore and offshore zones. Temporally, it measures short-term annual rates aiming for a complete high-water to low-water lake level period. Interactive elements include meteorological, hydrodynamic, and geomorphic factors combined to provide Outputs include various modes and rates of erosion and accretion. linear recession values onshore; volumetric erosion and accretion rates for onshore and offshore areas; and morphological interpretations to indicate processes.

2.2 Field Surveys 2.2.1 Type of Survey The basis of the survey is the measurement of a profile or cross-section down a bluff, across the beach and offshore along the lake bottom. The onshore survey extends into the water to waist level; there- upon the measurements are continued by acoustic sounding offshore to an The comparison of annual pro- 18-metre depth or 3000 metres offshore. files taken at the same site shows the net change that occurred between surveys. There are 162 of these profile sites, or erosion stations, For the which are used to represent reaches of similar shoreline. purpose of this study, the shore has been divided into about 275 reaches of similar shoreline.

2.2.2 Location of Survey Sites Preliminary analysis identified historical and general locations for the erosion stations based on previous investigations. In the

4 5

field, the specific site was chosen as a compromise between the ade_ quacy of the location for representing typical erosion, the permanency of tie-ins and the feasibility of surveying the location on a continuing basis. Over the years some sites lost applicability due to shore protection (people tend to protect eroding areas - exactly the sites that were being examined), some were lost due to erosion or large scale

industrial development, and additional erosion stations were added to either replace lost stations or extend coverage if shown necessary by the first few surveys.

The locations of the erosion stations are shown on Figures 3, 4 and 5, a list of geographic coordinates is presented in Appendix B, Table B-1, and a plan drawing of each site is on the master plan of each station in Appendices F, G and H (bound separately).

2.2.3 Dates of Surveys Generally, each erosion station was surveyed annually since 1973 during the calm summer months. Additional surveys were done for special areas, such as Point Pelee, or following special events, such as after a major storm, to allow a correlation between annual rates and shorter episodes of erosion. The exact date and time of survey for each site is listed on the appropriate log sheet in Appendices F, G and H.

2.3 Supplementary Information 2.3.1 Soil Samples To ascertain the composition of the bluffs and beaches, surficial soil samples were taken in 1973 at each station. After scraping away loose debris, a sample of in situ material was bagged for each visually representative stratigraphic unit of the bluff and the beach. The elevation and location of each sample and the limits of each representative unit were logged. Particle size analyses were carried out and the results listed on the master plan for each station (Appendices F, G and H; bound separately). 6

2.3.2 Photography 2.3.2.a High Altitude Photography Vertical high altitude sequential photographs of the different shore lines are commonly available, some since the early 1940s, from the National Air Photo Library, the Ontario Provincial Archives and most recently from the Ministry of Natural Resources. For this study two sets, one flown in 1955, the other in 1973 at a scale of 1:20000, were used. Both represent high water lake level periods and extend over a sufficient period of time to show significant shoreline change. Originally used to develop erosion rate information for the Coastal Zone Atlas, they are now used to examine the shoreline for details of gully development, changes in vegetation patterns, changes in shoreland development that may affect erosion, and for factors impacting on the rates of erosion such as width of beach, slumps, forest removal, shore protection and littoral drift obstructions.

2.3.2.b Oblique Aerial Photography Sequential 35 mm colour slides of the shoreline were taken obliquely from about 170 metres above lake level. These provide a close continuous view of the shoreline to allow interpretation between the survey sites. They are also used to document and examine width of beach, gully development, ground water seepage, slumping, piping, block falls, vegetation, toe erosion, development, damages, shore protection, littoral drift directions, and flooded areas. In 1978, a colour video system was used to supplement the colour slide format. The date and coverage for these slides and video tape are indicated on Figure 1.

2.3.2.c Station Photographs At each station for each survey, a 35 mm colour photograph was taken to visually record the profile site. Additional slides were taken 7

during the field season of special features to build a library of photographs depicting shore processes occurring along the shoreline.

Lakes Superior & luron ♦vA - Oct. 78 wA - Oct. 78, Nov. 71 •ev- Oct. 78, Dec. 71 9@40- May 78, Nov. 73 n ws- May 78, May 77, Mar. 71, June 73, Apr. 80

Lake St. Clair

n vOv-June 67, Apr. 68, Mar. 72, e 0- Mar.72,Mar.,Apr.73,May 76,May 77, Mar. 73, Apr. 73, Nov. 74, Oct.78,Apr.80 May 76, May 78, Nov. 79, Apr. 80 Lake Erie •O0-Mav 67, Apr. 73, Nov. 74, May 77, May 78. Nov. 79, Apr. 80 qoo - Apr.72,Mar.73,Oct.76,May 77,May 78,80 Apr.72,Nov.72,Mar.73,Mav 73, n OB- 000-May 67, Nov. 74, May 77, Oct.76,May 77,May 78,Apr.80 May 78, Nov. 79, Apr. 80 •ow- Apr.72,Oct.76,May 77,May 78,Apr.80 vev - Apr.72,Oct.76,May 77,May 78,Nov.79 e vo-May 67, Mar. 68, Feb. 69, Apr.80 Nov. 74, May 77, May 78,Nov. 79 Apr. 80 nOe-May 67, Mar. 68, Feb. 69, Nov. 74, May 79, May 78, Apr. 80

Figure 1: Oblique Aerial Photographic and Video Coverage (Video 1978)

2.3.3 Water Levels

There are 17 water level gauges on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes (see Figures 3, 4 and 5). Data from these gauges are used

to establish the original onshore bench marks, and annually to establish

the elevation of the water so that the soundings can be interpreted. Weighted averages from two gauges are used if the profile line is 8

between gauge locations, and weighted hourly readings are used if the time of survey is between hourly readings. In addition, monthly mean water levels are plotted (Figure 2)

to indicate water level variation and trends throughout the survey period.

WL (m) 178 177 WL

176 LAKE HURON-GODERICH V

175 WL 174

173 LAKE ERIE - PORT COLBORNE

T

76 75 WL

74 LAKE ONTARIO-KINGSTON 77 78 79 80 72 73 74 75 76 YEAR

Mean Water Levels Figure 2: Monthly

2.3.4 Vegetation at the Sites An inventory of vegetation at each site was conducted in conjunction with the 1978 survey which began early in June and concluded Each plant species was identified and its predominance in September. estimated and recorded as a percent groundcover of the total area extended 10 metres on both sides of the profile line. Charts indicating 9 the species found at representative erosion stations are included in Appendix C.

2.4 Data Compilation 2.4.1 Data Reduction and Methodology The onshore field notes are reduced using the original bench mark elevation so that all profiles are directly comparable. The offshore sounding rolls are digitized and the information is corrected for water level elevation and scale but the final plot has some vertical exaggeration. The selection of survey points is based on the premise that a straight line joining two survey points represents the land surface profile. The assumption is that the variation above and below this straight line should tend toward the mean for each survey and for all years.

2.4.2 Products The basic outputs from data compilation include: - a master plan showing a plan view of the site and the measurements used to establish the profile line; the original onshore profile with soil stratigraphy and composition indicated; and an offshore profile to a depth of 9 m and 18 m at different scales - plots of all onshore surveys - plots of all onshore/offshore surveys - log sheets numerically indicating date and time of survey; linear top of bank recession; volumetric change and water level/water's edge information - histograms graphically showing volumetric change for the survey period, water level variation, the change at water's edge, and the top of bank change 10

2.4.3 Checks of Accuracy A list of specifications for the equipment used during the survey is provided in Appendix E; however, accuracy cannot be fully assessed by simply computing instrument specifications. Additional inaccuracies creep into the data base because of different operators as well as those changes inherent in surveying a location over a seven-year time span, and the errors introduced during reduction and plotting of the field data. To circumvent many of these incalculable parameters, an alternative method is to test repeatability by surveying the same location a number of times (5) on the same day, both onshore and offshore, then run this data through the reduction procedures and ultimately test the variability. Each year repeatability tests were run by different operators It was at various locations for the bluff, beach and offshore zones. found that surveying of the bluffs was quite accurate, with a standard deviation on the order of a few cubic metres. For example, the results indicate that on one of the longer profiles of a high bluff (a "worst- was of the 299.3 m3 mean case" example) the standard deviation 1.82 m3. The representative erosion rate at this site (E-2-13) is Since the volume of material lost is divided by the 1.2 m3/m/m/yr. height of bluff to establish the erosion rate, the standard deviation of the volume can also be divided by the bluff height (1.82 = 21.2 = 0.09) which means that for general purposes the rate of 1.2 could vary from Even greater accuracy is probable on the 1.1 to 1.3 m3/m/m/yr. simpler, smaller bluffs. However, this example is valid only for a same day repeatability test since it does not account for all possible errors involved in the methodology and encountered when measuring dynamic natural systems through time. The repeatability technique may not be as valid for the offshore survey since it does not account for the various wave conditions which affect the accuracy of sounding and the ability to run a straight Although the tests vary, it is suggested that the typical profile line. 1 1 standard deviation of 95 m3 for a mean of 12000 m3 is reasonable. This means that the changes recorded in the far offshore are often not significant; while for the beach zone, changes on the order of 10 m3 less may not be conclusive. or

2.5 Method of Regional Analysis The primary tools available for the analysis of regional patterns of landforms and processes included quaternary geology maps and publications, topographic maps, the Coastal Zone Atlas (1975) photo- mosaics, hydrographie charts and field sheets, offshore sediment mapping, low altitude oblique photography, low altitude videotape, satellite imagery, profiles and data from this survey, and ground truthed observations of the shore features. This was incorporated with the available literature concerning the various sites along the Great Lakes shore. lla

^^^------j------=c_ t - . .i

.1 ti

.a

£ a sr

.S

1

1 Ii llb

11 c

711, er

Q, ‘te o o • g of,,1 % eip " --;p4.0.4e; „v.:. • ceP ,c) •.: ■, : 0-

Figure 5 Lake Ontario

0 Water Level Gauge Stations

--- 1> Erosion Measurement Stations I I Reach of Similar Shoreline

SCALE OF KILOMETRES 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 36 10

7Ter aaa•at 71ra era asa lara. 3. ANALYSIS OF BLUFF EROSION This chapter describes the general bluff erosion processes, the methods used to measure this erosion, and documents the results of this survey.

3.1 Bluff Erosion Processes Even if all the water in the Great Lakes were drained, erosion of the shoreline bluffs would still continue. Many of the forces that act to chemically and mechanically weather the bluff face would continue to loosen soil particles so that flowing water, wind, and gravity could transport them. Chemically, such processes as oxidation, reduction, hydration, solution, and carbonation disintegrate or cement Similarly, the the material, depending on its inherent properties. actions of organisms or the root systems of organic material can either bind or separate the soil mass. However, the mechanical forces tend to do more damage. Strong winds can pluck loosened particles and transport them, or even use them to 'sandblast' other sections of the bluff face.

Depending on intensity and duration of a storm, and the size and velocity of the raindrops, rain can loosen and splash particles down an unprotected slope or so saturate the materials as to cause mudflows.

The infiltration capacity of bluff materials dictate the ratio of how much of this water infiltrates into the ground or becomes surface run- off. The surface water flows as sheetwash or coalesces to form rills, rivulets or small channels which cut into the bluff and move soil These too come together material by solution, traction, or saltation. In to form larger channels, mini-drainage basins and larger gullies. addition, water infiltrating down through upper porous materials meets a less porous clay or bedrock layer so flow more laterally and thus re- appears at the bluff face springline to aid or instigate sheetwash, channelization and gully development. The subsurface water also affects the properties of internal stability of the bluff, a stability basically due to the cohesive force among soil particles and the frictional

12 13 resistance to movement between particles. Generally the water increases pore or interstitial pressure making it easier for gravity or other forces to cause mass movements, sometimes huge slumps along a failure plane deep inside the bluff. Technically this is considered a more complex chemical and physical interaction depending on the soil cohesion and angle of internal friction, soil weight, slope geometry, and pore pressures inside the slope. In addition, during the colder months, the water in the voids between particles will freeze and therefore expand by nine percent, then melt, providing a new void to be filled by more water which freezes and expands by nine percent as a continuing cycle of frost heaving and ice wedging, especially on a south facing slope. Of course, the proportional severity of all these erosional forces depends not only on the season but on the type of material on which they are acting, that is, the inherent erodibility of each material to the various and combined forces of erosion. But as the slope becomes gentler, these processes would slow down in tandem with the establishment of vegetation; slow down but not stop since gravity, wind and flowing water would still be present. It is not conceivable, however, that the Great Lakes will be drained, nor that the shoreline be perfectly protected from lake forces. So, along with all other reasons, bluffs erode due to the ability of waves to loosen and remove material, albeit a major reason since waves contain a great deal of power to do this work, especially when directed at the base of the bluff. Since wave energies may act more significantly at the base of the bluff than all other forces acting on the face of the total slope, the toe may retreat faster than the top of the bluff so that it oversteepens, causing internal instability soon to be followed by massive slumping or block falls. The bluff is attempting to regain a more stable form and slope, not unlike the slumping of materia when one removes shovelfuls of dirt from the bottom of a pile of to soil until the upper portion collapses. The ability of waves to loose and remove debris from the toe of the bluff is the prime motivator o 14

erosion for many shoreline reaches. The frequency and severity of wave attack depends on the frequency, over the water distance (fetch), direction, duration and strength of the wind forming these waves, the nearshore bathymetry which refracts and diffracts the wave, and the beach shape and height as related to water level which causes the waves to break and therefore dissipate energy before reaching the bluff. Even if all erosive forces acted equally throughout the Great Lakes shoreline, erosion rates would vary due to the different resist- ibility of the shore types (bedrock vs sand dunes). Conversely, if all the shoreline was made of exactly the same materials, erosion would vary due to the physical setting controlling the erosional forces. Thus each shoreline location can be, and should be for practical applications, considered as a unique circumstance exhibiting an interplay of different and varying forces acting within a specific dynamic physical setting. This report documents 81 of these bluff sites.

3.2 Reaches To extend the direct information gathered from erosion station sites to a more general base encompassing the entire lakeshore, 275 reaches of shoreline were established. Each reach varies in length and consists of a specific type of shoreline based on physiographic characteristics such as bluff height, composition, stratigraphy, vegetation, width of beach, aspect, orientation and fetch length, and erosional traits. These reaches were established from previous general knowledge of the shoreline, shoreline maps, preliminary erosion information from the erosion measurement stations, and by viewing the sequential low altitude colour (slide) oblique photography of the entire shoreline. The geographical coordinates for the reaches are listed in Appendix B, and shown visually on Figures 3, 4 and 5. 15

3.3 Erosion Assessment at the Survey Sites

This section discusses the means used to assess erosion of the bluffs at the survey sites.

3.3.1 Top of Bank Change The top of bank is the point where the flatter tableland abruptly changes slope and drops to lake level. For eroding bluffs, it is usually quite evident but the exact measurement to this point is subject to some minor surveyor discretion when overhanging matted vegetation obscures the area. The measurement of the retreat of the top of bank over time provides information solely on the linear recession rate of the top of bluff. Its utility lies in the fact that it is a simple, straightforward measurement and concept that directly relates to the loss of the flatter, usable land surface important to local land owners. Since the top of bank is generally visible on aerial photographs and available from some past regional and property surveys, it can provide information about long-term historical recession not otherwise available. The top of bank recession rate, however, tends to be highly variable in the short term. Although a great deal of material may be eroded at mid-slope or at the toe of bluff, the corresponding changes at top of bank may be temporarily slow or, indeed, non-existent, especially in high bluff areas. After awhile the bluff oversteepens and the upper portion ultimately fails, returning the bluff to its previous shape either by increased yearly increments or by one or more major failures. Since this measurement is therefore highly dependent on the time of survey, care is taken not to reflect the quiescent period nor the cata- strophic period but rather the entire cycle when the bluff has the same form. However, for bluffs exhibiting parallel retreat whereby the toe and top of bank are receding at much the same rate, these problems are not as great. 16

3.3.2 Volume Change for Bluff To avoid the problems inherent in viewing erosion solely as the recession of top of bank, a complementary alternative volumetric method is available. A comparison of two profiles provides the area of change (m2) and, if viewed as a metre wide strip running down the bluff, then the volume (m3/m ) of material lost can be calculated. The parameters can be changed to provide the loss from the upper or lower slope, or for the entire bluff and provides data on the actual erosional losses between survey periods that may not be reflected by the top of bank measurement. However, a caveat is necessary for this method as well. If the nature of erosion is cyclical at the site then successive losses at the toe are simply setting the stage for similar losses for the entire bluff, until the bluff regains its previous shape. If, for instance, a three-year cycle includes two years of toe erosion followed by a third year of massive failure to equalize the slope, then the first two years are only part of the cycle and, when viewed separately, would prove deceptive. Therefore, as with the top of bank measurement, for some comparative purposes it is necessary to use the measurements representing a cycle when the bluff shape is the same, rather than yearly intervals. Although not originally anticipated, another difficulty is It is analogous to digging a presented by the volumetric methodology. hole in compacted ground, then refilling it, but ending up with extra material due to the change in volume from the compacted to the loose state. Similarly, compacted material from the upper slope ends up as loose material at the lower slope or at toe, and since the surveying measures the surface of the bluff, the calculations may indicate a gain in volume of material for the bluff, or at least not accurately represent the loss of compacted materials. Again, a comparison made when the bluff exhibits the same form would presumably lessen the magnitude of the problem. 17

Knowledge of the actual volumetric loss of material from a bluff is vital for estimating tonnages and sediment budgets but does not represent the severity of the problem with regard to loss of usable tableland. For instance, the loss of 10 m3 from a 2 m high bluff could mean the top retreated 5 m, yet a like loss of 10 m3 on a 50 m high bluff may mean a temporarily insignificant retreat at the top of bank. Both may have contributed an equal volume of material to the sediment budget, but exhibit greatly different damages in terms of loss of land use, or structures atop the bluff. However, a technique has been devised to ameliorate this problem for comparative purposes (Environment Canada/OMNR, 1975). It simply involves deriving a neutral parameter (m3/m /m ) by dividing the value for the volume of material lost by the actual height of bluff. This serves to conceptually spread the localized loss of material from say, at the toe, over the entire bluff face viewed as a one metre square grid, based on the assumption that ultimately the loss would have been spread anyway as the bluff strives for equilibrium. It theoretically provides a recession (linear) rate for erosion derived from volumetric calculations, and serves as a standard so that comparisons of bluffs of different heights are possible.

3.3.3 Comparison of Top of Bank Recession and Volumetric Erosion The bluff histograms show volume of material lost with top of

bank recession superimposed. Although no statistical correlation has yet been attempted, visually there appears to be no apparent relationship when the data is presented in this manner. However, the interpreted annual short-term erosion rates (Tables 3, 6, 9) do indicate a relationship when the bluff returns to its original form, such that the top of bank recession rate closely resembles the recession rate

derived from the volume calculations (m3/m /m ), except when the sample period is insufficient to represent a complete bluff cycle. Other than this, there is no correlation between recession at top of 18

bank and volume of material eroded downslope for some bluff types. This should be kept in mind when one reviews research that relates top of bank change with water level variation. 3.4 Erosion of the Lake Huron Bluffs .11 Three major shore bluff types on Lake Huron from (1) Clark Point to GEORGIAN Grand Bend, (2) Gustin Grove to BAY =tà Errol and (3) Brights Grove to Ô° Sarnia have been monitored. The top Bauble Beach of bank recession rates, which show LAKE annual variability for the bluff HURON measurement stations are shown on Table 1 while the corresponding Clark Point volumetric erosion statistics are shown on Table 2. Using this data, and supplementary knowledge of the -0.7 kmwmdm site, representative short-term Scab km rates were calculated and listed in Grand Bend depicted in Figure 6. ..ettle Point Table 3, and Gustin Grove rrol Bright(' Grove Sarnia

Figure 6: Lake Huron Short-Term Representative Bluff Erosion Rates (m 3 /m/m/yr)

19 20

TABLE 1 Short-Term Top of Bluff Recession Rates ( m) - Huron - Change between summer surveys

SITE 1972 to 73 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Mean

H-9-10 -0.3 -0.8 -0.1 -0.3 -0.5 0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.8 -1.2 0.2 -2.3 0.2 -0.2 -0.8 H-9-30 -1.5 -1.1 H-9-40 -6.1 -0.9 -0.9 0.1 -0.2 0.3 0.0 -0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 -0.2 0.0 H-10-35 -0.1 0.0 H-10-38 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.2 0.2 -1.4 -2.9 H-10-45 -12.6 0.1 -3.3 -0.1 0.3 -3.2 3.3 -0.4 H-10-55 .-6.9 4.5 -7.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.1 H-10-75 .-4.8 2.9 -0.4 -2.6 -2.3 5.5 -0.7 7.1 2.4 -16.0 -1.7 0.6 H-10-85 .-3.9 -1.2 -0.5 0.9 -1.3 0.8 H-10-95 .-4.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.7 H-10-115 .-4.4 -0.4 -1.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1

. Indtcates from 1971

TABLE 2 Short-Term Bluff Volumetric Erosion Rates ( m3) - Huron - Change between summer surveys 1989 Mean SITE 1972 to 73 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 -10.4 5.6 -14.0 -15.2 H-9-10 -1.3 -26.7 -36.8 -22.5 -11.3 -19.5 11.7 -8.2 H-9-30 -27.4 -28.3 -10.8 3.7 -5.6 11.0 2.6 -13.8 H-9-40 -14.5 -9.7 -12.4 -2.4 -4.0 2.3 -10.2 -8.7 7.4 H-10-35 -8.6 -6.9 -17.1 -8.7 -9.7 -4.7 -21.3 7.8 -13.3 H-10-38 -3.0 -11.8 1.5 -19.1 H-10-45 -30.0 -51.1 -39.5 -0.7 -2.4 -4.2 -12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 H-10-55 .-10.7 -1.8 -4.6 -2.4 -1.6 0.2 -1.4 H-10-75 .-19.5 15.4 -2.1 -0.7 -0.9 0.9 2.8 -1.8 H-10-85 .-21.3 13.9 -0.3 -0.1 -2.7 0.8 -2.1 H-10-95 .-19.4 7.7 -2.9 0.6 -1.8 H-10-115 .-10.6 -0.5 -2.3 -0.5 0.0 0.9

TABLE 3 Representative Erosion Rates - Huron Volume Representative Base Annual Annual Bluff Er3sion Rate Vol me Loss Height ^e ght Site Period Recession /m/m/yr) ( m /m/m/Yr) (m/yr) (m /yr) (m) (m -0.8 -0.6* H-9-10 73-80 -0.3 - 15.2 18.7 0.0 19.0 0.0 H-9-15 73-80 0.0 0.0 -0.6 -0.7 -11.3 17.8 H-9-30 73-80 -0.8 -0.4 -0.8** -5.6 13.0 H-9-40 73-80 - 1.1 -0.2 -0.2* -3.5 17.6 H-10-35 73-80 0.0 -0.5 -0.3* H-10-38 73-80 0.0 -8.8 15.8 -2.9 -24.7 9.1 -2.7 H-10-45 73-78 -3.1 -1.4 protected H-10-55 71-73 -3.5 -5.4 3.9 protected 3.2 -3.0 H-10-75 71-73 -2.4 -9.8 protected 3 2 -3.3 H-10-85 71-73 -2.0 -10•7 protected -9.7 5.0 -1.9 H-10-95 71-73 -2.1 -0.60^6 -0.6 H-10-115 71-80 -0.7 -1.4 2.3 * Period Insufficient to represent a complete cycle. Future slumps probable. ** Period insufficlent to regain profile shape after slumping

22

— RUŒ 20. 1980 V.E. X 50

()) (a) Fivure 7: (a) Profiles Front of Eroding vs (b) Non-eroding Bluffs

3.4.2 Gustin Grove to Errol

The bluffs from Gustin ol (16 km) also exhibit spacially variable erosion rates. from no recent erosion, minor erosion at rates of 0.2, at some sites (H-10- ='r.)nlPrit, n t'

t1}_,Ln

n>tab i 1, i? vand na I ro ta t iorlal. sl.ilm;> ;

7or h;;; Fte r 1)] 1

( tleyond the t ïme ,><.,,. ïo^i

({I l^) C+5) thé cyc t ic'a.1

(lY0d F'_S ( {'ll:)LU ,

frE)ilto d by a ^;i1wr. r , i ,

1(,v!>? > an<3 wavc' in-ipin

24

The bluffs between Errol and Sarnia (19 km) appear to erode slowly, legs than 0.4 m3 /m/m/yr, exceptAhigbe.1 ; magnitude incidents when rate can drastically increase to 3.3 /m/m/yr -85) Che

, erlying till (or tills at H-10-55) layer with a tic r , ,tribution of about 21% sand, 31% silt and 48% clay decre,i ,vation southward while the lacustrine overburden thickens. us erbedded overburden is much less cohesive and less -sistant .sion exhibiting a general characteristic 86% sand, /; Alt and 7% composition. Much of this stretch is protected by a str.fq sheeo- pile field tied to a steel pile seawall. Indeed th , ' irea ce: , pre- Ly protected by pile groynes which proved ineircti durir major incidents in the early 1970s and many were ,,-;ï.royed. Heeman ras, 1971). It was at this time erosion occ , Jrred ssive lei retreat caused by waves. Since then, many of were protected and backfilled, leaving only one station (H• unprotected yet influenced by the nearby structures. It sh- typical early excessive bluff retreat with sign tes during later years. A further consideratiou Hke is the water level setup is O. 'Asher the north (Can/Ont. 100-year Flood & Erobluu relates directly to the effects of high and ability to temporarily overrun the beach a ctiy aLL- ack the materials. 3.5 Erosion of the Lake Erie Bluffs The major shore bluff types for the western, central and eastern basins of Lake Erie have been monitored. For the erosion

monitoring stations representing these shores, tables are included which indicate the top of bank recession (Table 4) and the volumetric erosion

rates (Table 5). Using this data and supplementary knowledge of the sites, representative short-term rates were calculated and listed in Table 6, and depicted in Figure 8.

LAKE ST. CLAIR

Figure 8: Lake Erie Short-Term Representative Bluff Erosion Rates (M_1%nnJrn Jtp1

25 26

TABLE 4 Short-Term Top of Bluff Recession Rates ( m) - Erie Change between summer surveys

SITE 1972 to 73 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Mean

E-1-09 -0.5 0.0 -0.4 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 0.2 -0.2 E-1 -10 -2.5 -3.3 -1.3 -2.4 -0.6 -2.3 -0.6 -0.5 -1.7 E-1-12 -0.7 0.1 -0.2 -0.3 0.0 -0.2 E-1-13 0.5 -1.5 1.5 -0.3 0.0 0.0 -0.0 E-1-14 -1.3 -0.2 -0.3 -0.7 0.9 -0.4 0.0 -0.3 E-1-19 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -3.9 -0.6 E-1-20 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -2.5 -3.0 5.6 6.0 FILL E-1-21 0.3 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 E-2-02 -1.8 -0.5 0.2 -0.7 -0.1 -1.3 -0.5 -0.7 0.3 E-2-10 -0.1 -1.3 -1.7 -1.2 3.2 1.8 -0.3 -1.4 E-2-13 -0.3 -0.1 -0.9 -2.6 -5.2 -0.7 -0.2 E-2-24 0.0 0.1 -0.8 0.0 0.5 -0.7 -0.1 -1.0 E-3-04 -2.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.1 -0.4 E-3-07 0.0 -1.4 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.5 -0.1 E-3-10 -0.1 -0.8 0.5 -0 .1 0.4 -0.7 -1.2 -1.6 E-3-17 -0.8 -0.8 -5.9 -1.1 -1.0 -8.5 -4.5 -3.2 E-3-20 -3.9 -2.3 -1.2 -1.4 0.2 -3.9 -1.9 -0.3 -2.6 E-3-25 0.0 0.3 -5.4 -6.2 -4.5 -5.8 -7.5 -3.5 E-3-31 -0.6 -1.2 -1.6 -1.0 -8.2 -3.2 -4.9 -6.3 E-3-40 -15.6 -2.0 -1.0 -1.2 -5.0 -17.4 1.1 13.2 -2.9 E-4-08 -5.7 -4.4 -6.6 -3.8 6.6 -0.9 0.4 -1.8 E-4-30 -13.1 -1.5 0.6 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 E-4-35 0.9 -2.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.4 0.1 -0.5 E-4-40 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2 0.0 -2.6 -0.2 0.1 -0.5 E-5-02 0.0 0.2 -0.3 -0.8 -0.3 -0.3 -1.0 E-5-10 -0.1 -5.6 -0.2 -0 .7 0.0

TABLE 5 Short-Term Bluff Volumetric Erosion Rates (m3) - Erie Change between Summer Surveys 1979 1980 Mean SITE 1972 to 73 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 -0.3 0.2 -0.8 0.1 -0.3 E-1 -09 -1.2 -0.3 0.2 -8.0 -14.0 -22.1 3.0 -1.8 -7.2 E-1-10 -49.2 -24.2 -2.3 0.2 -0.2 -1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 E-1-12 0.2 -1.0 -0.5 E-1-13 1.4 -1.9 1.6 0.2 -3.3 -0.9 -1.0 -5.9 0.0 -3.0 -1.0 7.9 E-1-14 2.3 -10.0 -3.1 2.3 -2.2 -6.5 E-1-19 -3.1 -4.7 0.3 0.2 1.5 -3.7 5.3 E-1-21 -0.3 -1.7 -1.5 -0.8 -2.8 0.5 E-2-02 -4.6 -1.5 -0.7 -0.8 10.9 -7.4 -11.1 -9.1 E-2-10 -24.2 -19.0 0.1 -20.4 -19.7 -11.3 -11.9 10.0 E-2-13 -17.5 ^6.0 -82.8 -18.4 -16.6 -12.5 6.2 -10.3 E-2-24 -6.0 -33.3 0.3 -52.5 -12.0 -19.8 -28.1 E-3-04 -11.1 0.6 -13.4 -1.3 -29.2 E-3-07 2.1 -25.4 -3.1 -1.1 -20.6 14.1 13.4 9.0 E-3-10 -16.4 -3.7 19.0 -324.1 -86.5 E-3-17 -66.1 -113.6 -117.2 8.0 -46.6 -132.3 -74.2 -81.7 E-3-20 -193.2 -75.1 -162.3 29.8 -104.1 -84.4 -61.1 -175.8 -72.4 -97.1 E-3-25 -102.1 -135.8 -86.5 -66.9 -60.2 -46.2 -2.5 -120.6 -63.0 E-3-31 -26.8 -47.3 -92.6 -95.5 -107.6 -45.7 -57.9 -26.0 E-3-40 -241.3 -145.3 -1.0 13.2 -21.3 E-4-08 -64.0 -45.5 -47.6 -13.6 9.6 -4.2 3.1 -0.1 -19.1 E-4-30 -107.6 -18.4 -14.6 -4.0 -6.6 -1.0 -4.3 -1.7 -1.6 -2.8 E-4-35 2.1 -10.0 -3.1 -3.8 2.0 -1.5 -7.1 2.2 E-4-40 -7.2 -6.0 0.6 -1.3 -0.8 -2.5 -0.4 -1.3 -3.2 E-5-02 -13.0 -10.5 -40.5 -4.7 0.4 -4.6 -3.5 E-5-10 -7.9 -4.7 -2.6 -4.2 E-5-11 -1.6 -10.0 -4.7 -1.6

27

IABLE ¶r'çj tes - Erie

n'uff Volume Representt Holght ljelght Ergsion Cm) (W/m/m/yr) (re/mim[yr

-0.1 -0. 1 -1.7 1.1 - 0.2

5.1 -0.5 9.6 -0.2 -0.2* 9.6 -0.2

10.7 0.0 3.1 -0.5 18.2 -0.5 21.2 - 0.9 16.8 -0.5 24.4 -0.7 25.8 -0.4 -0.1 - 2.3 -2.1 - 3.2 -3.6 - 4.8 i -5.2 -5.4 -1.0 -1 - 0.3 -0 .2 -0.2 - 0.4 -O.' -0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -0.5

Future slump ,, fter slumping. 28

3.5.1 Western Basin Bluffs

The bluffs from 6 km east of Colchester to Leamington (26 km) vary in height from a low shore to bluffs up to 20 m and vary from sites

that show little or no erosion (E-1-21, 23) to the more predominant

sites eroding at 0.2 - 0.5 m3/m/m/yr (E-1-12-14), with a few areas

eroding at 1.7 m3/m/m/yr (E-1-10). They are mostly composed of a clayey silt till and/or sandy silt till oftentimes overlain by glaciolacustrine sands or gravels (Vagners, 1972). The clayey silt till

was found to contain 24.7% sand, 33.8% silt and 41.4% clay while the

sandier tills contained 40% sand, 40% silt and 20% clay (Vagners, 1971).

However, in detail the stratigraphy is quite complex with interbedding and varying thickness and extent of the deposits locally. In the low bluff areas, when eroding, the mode of failure tends toward parallel retreat of the bluff face due to wave erosion (E-1-9, 12, 13). In the higher bluff areas toe failures causing large rotational circular slumps intersecting at the toe or even nearby deep failures with rotational slumps intersecting below lake level may occur (E-1-19, 20, 21). Oftentimes the till is capped by thick loose to dense sands and silt which are eroded subaerially and undermined by toe 29

erosion (E-1-10, 14). However, there are sites that exhibit stability for the study period in the area (E-1-23), while residents reported, after a major rotational slump, that a similar failure occurred 30 years previously (near E-1-21). The unusually complex stratigraphy necessi- tates detailed geotechnical information for precise determination of the varied modes and rates of erosion for this shore.

3.5.2 Central Basin Bluffs

E-03-031 PUO 3. 1873

JULY 28. 1178

JULY 18. 1978

- - JULY 2. 1850

L1182.0

L 184.0

MA

.178.0

208.0 224.0 240.0

The bluffs from Point Pelee to Long Point (154 km) rise to form high bluffs interrupted only by creeks and the low area at Rondeau. For the most part, severe erosion is occurring especially to the east. West of Rondeau the rate of erosion varies at 0.6, 0.3, 1.2 m3 /m/m/yr (E-2-02, 10, 13) but to the east of Rondeau the rate increases from less than 1.0 m3 /m/m/yr before Port Stanley to 2.0 m3 /m/m/yr (E-3-17, 20), then 3.1, 3.7, 4.9, 5.4 m3 /m/m/yr (E-3-25, 31, 40, 4-8) progressing eastward to Long Point. In general these bluffs are composed of clay tills interbedded with glaciolacustrine deposits and covered with sandy lacustrine material deposited in post-glacial lakes, but with an increasing percentage of the bluffs composed of silts and

Y"V t ^?T1Ci i) i 11Y;î Po i nt-s _. I1^ s4' .T,.r

t 1 i1). .,! r; r t +`f.in <.r:era3_ I''r visible i?; the .`_t

c:xnPu 81HOiï.. ,i!Ch(71agh sY'O<:l!:)n of tus C)}É su t(it, t,-j.i

t0 1?p ,t ^`)âi1 9_y c,Ÿ M }ltlri=n t bu vtC?it7'>rrS

i t i+ )und.; a i r'r , sur t f t" , and set) 1 i,'rt >rt`e_,

ir;f 1 ut+r)r^^• on t(!r., mare crv<'_ lhi n c-lay , , si_ i t, rand tir

_ . . 1`,, 31, 40 ) and c_1^^< <>^I,>r a rr ,[cpe t;> io-_'sr

I =1 rtr^" l-sr; ^^r>itesive a 'ïirer-e ran l)- we ftiii'tur

ope angle wi t:l; k?(,',,t vel

.?i)pe<3r„n<'.e wtàer2 'ayr'ra, r>E tï il are L tuCt:ufït3ed with 9-1-ar_'zC}lg_

ositï> ;° c,s,uitiny; in more c lasr,i^al rotat-zir f a 11 urn s ( E-1-20)

_,Ett'irs rif '; nt4^ r^Irr•lar , ; 3.zrni)t< <^;:'r^t.t` on t_t^cr ;7^>;^e (E-3 - 24) ;

YE'fq-em of itd('1!i;T7rtE ti{It^ wtri r',:&;"fS J-4 - A .t('Yk;c_ amphi-

and gii! 1ins when the ,;n?un

of rnrifI and r, :i Y<, at fi ü«, S,>r i rr,>( W e on toi> W the .rictO-.t t nper--

lrty t111 hw.,a' rir3it `t;-'i-_a(J); or rvFan a n o!nbir?,rttOlt o f tt7="qc

, ..,.. a . ., .. ,i^ 'i! „C)tir i 1J OKPr,_;t=

r)i xi?i wtt'tl sf >f , tt

r c r d a. . : .t ,1Ib

Mo! 32

3.5.3 Eastern Basin Bluffs

E-04-030 ----- JUL , 28. 12/2

JUNE 27. 19 7 7

500 I. 971

- - - JUNE 26. 1980

.198.0

198.0

181.0

1110.0

176.0

172.0

UA lue MA

The high (20 m) . shore bluffs of the eastern basin occur mostly from Turkey Point to Peacock Point (24 km) while for the most part only low backshore clay bluffs exist eastward, except for a short reach of bluffs at Mohawk Bay (5 km). However, east of Mohawk Bay the low bedrock shore often has backshore sand dunes which can be quite extensive, especially in the Point Abino area, and can erode forming a sand cliff at the shoreline. The high shore bluffs west of Peacock Point show variable but not excessive erosion from 0.2 m3 /m/m/yr (E-4-35, E-5-2) and 0.3 m3 /m/m/yr (E-4-30) to 0.5 3 /m/rn /yr (E-4-40). They are mostly composed of glaciolacustrine sand and silts underlying glaciolacustrine silts and clays which are capped by sand and gravel. In places, between these deposits and the bedrock there may be a thin layer of sandy silt to silty Wentworth Till but quite texturally variable, containing 6% sand and 35% clay along a portion of the lakeshore (Barnett, 1978). The till moraine at Mohawk Bay is of Halton till, a clayey silt till (with 12% sand, 65% silt 23% clay?) (Feenstra, 1972) capped by glaciolacustrine fine sand and silts. No erosion 33

measurements are available for the low clay backshore bluffs nor the

sand dunes to the east. Erosion of the bluffs east of Peacock Point occurs with toe

erosion and slumping of the glaciolacustrine sediment in the upper

bluff, including major internal circular failures (E-4-30) in the higher

areas. These slumps tend to distort the erosion rate unless profiles of a similar shape are compared, the recurrence of which may be beyond the

period of this survey (E-4-30). In contrast to this erosion of the glaciolacustrine sediments, erosion of the till at Mohawk Bay is by erosion at the toe by waves causing shallow instability upslope and a

steeper overall slope but with a flatter slope on the upper portions of For this the bluff where there is less resistant fine sand and silt. basin, especially to the east, frequent water level rise due to storms consideration for erosion, as is the effect of is an important groundwater in the springtime. 3.6 Erosion of the Lake Ontario Bluffs The major bluff shoreline reaches of Lake Ontario have been

identified. These include (1) the south shore, (2) the north west end of the lake to Toronto, (3) the Scarborough bluffs, (4) Scarborough to Raby Head, (5) Raby Head to Port Hope, and (6) the north wéât shore of the lake to and including Prince Edward County. For the erosion monitoring stations representing these types of shore bluff, tables are included which indicate the top of bank recession (Table 7) and volumetric erosion rates (Table 8). Using this data and supplementary knowledge of the sites, representative short-term rates were calculated and listed in Table 9, and depicted in Figure 9.

^rnl^m^m%) Figure 9: Lake Ontario Short-Term Representative Erosion Rates

34 35

TABLE 7 Short-Term Top of Bluff Recession Rates (m) - Ontario Change between summer surveys

SITE 1972 to 73 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Moan

0-1-09 -3.3 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 0.1 -1.0 0-1-20 -2.3 -0.8 -0.9 0.4 -0.5 -0.1 -0.5 0.2 -0.2 -0.6 0-1-40 -4.7 -1.1 -0.2 -1.0 0.3 -0.3 -0.5 0.2 -0.9 0-1-60A 0.0 -4.3 -2.6 0.1 -0.7 -0.1 -0.9 -1.2 0-1-60B 0.0 -5.2 -0.8 -0.8 -1.3 -0.8 -0.8 -0.7 -1.5 0-1-80 -1.5 -3.7 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.6 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 -0.8 0-1-90 -0.4 0.1 -0.5 0.1 -0.4 -0.5 -0.4 -0.2 -0.6 -0.3 0-1-110 -4.4 -3.1 -1.5 -0.3 -0.7 -1.0 -1.2 -1.5 0-1-130 0.7 -2.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0-1-140 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0-1-150 0.0 -1.1 -0.1 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 0-1-161 -0.8 0.0 -0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 -0.2 0-1-170 -0.1 -0.2 0.2 -1.3 -0.1 -1.8 0.4 -1.9 -0.6 0-2-20 -1.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 0-2-30 -2.9 -1.7 -0.6 -1.4 -0.7 -0.4 -1.2 -1.3 0-3-10 -0.4 0.2 -0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 0-6-10 -0.1 -0.3 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-6-20 -0.8 -0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0-6-29 -0.9 0.1 0.0 -0.2 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.2 0-6-30 -1.2 -0.7 -0.3 --0.5 -0.4 -0.1 -0.5 0-6-33 -1.2 -0.1 -0.6 -0.4 -0.9 0.0 -1.0 -0.6 0-7-10 -0.5 0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0-7-18 -0.7 0.2 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.2 0-7-22 -1.6 -0.3 -1.4 -0.8 0.0 0.1 -0.2 -0.6 0-7-25 0.0 -0.7 0.6 0.0 0.3 -0.6 -0.1 0-7-30 0.0 -0.5 0.1 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.1 0-7-35 -0.2 -1.6 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.1 0-7-40 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0-7-45 0.4 -0.2 0.2 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-8-20 -0.3 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.3 0.1 -0.8 -0.1 0-8-25 0.0 0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.1

TABLE 8 Short-Term Bluff Volumetric Erosion Rates (m3 ) - Ontario Change between Summer Surveys

SITE 1972 to 73 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Mean 0-1-09 -19.0 3.9 -2.7 0.1 1.3 -3.3 0-1-20 -3.2 -9.5 -0.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 -1.6 0-1-40 -17.1 -5.2 -0.5 -1.0 0.1 2.2 -3.5 0.8 -3.0 0-1-60A -1.5 -19.4 -17.0 2.7 1.9 -2.2 6.1 -3.7 0-1-80 -16.0 -46.0 0.9 -0.5 -4.1 -3.9 -6.0 2.3 -5.7 -8.8 0-1-90 -6.6 -18.1 -6.9 -8.2 -2.7 -4.1 -10.0 2.0 -10.1 -7.2 0-1-110 -31.3 3.6 -4.2 -0.1 -5.1 -2.2 -1.4 -5.1 0-1-140 0.0 -2.8 1.4 -0.3 -0.9 2.5 -3.1 -0.5 0-1-150 -3.5 -4.2 0.0 -2.2 -3.1 2.2 -1.3 -0.4 -1.6 0-1-161 -4.1 -3.8 -2.0 0.4 -1.0 0.5 -1.7 0-1-170 -10.7 -1.8 -3.9 -4.3 -0.8 0.3 -3.2 -5.6 -3.7 0-2-20 -1.9 -0.7 -2.7 2.1 -1.9 -1.2 -1.0 0-2-30 -8.7 -3.5 -2.4 1.9 -6.3 1.9 -0.5 -2.5 0-3-10 -0.3 0.4 -0.3 0.7 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0-3-20 5.8 2.0 4.3 6.0 -5.5 5.0 2.9 0-6-10 -0.6 -1.9 -0.4 0.3 -1.0 -0.4 -0.1 -0.6 0-6-20 -0.6 0.0 -1.3 0.2 -0.8 0.9 -0.3 0-6-29 -4.7 -4.9 7.9 -7.0 -0.9 3.5 -5.2 -1.7 0-6-30 -1.8 -4.0 3.1 0.8 -3.9 -1.8 -1.3 0-6-33 -13.3 -1.5 -5.7 -5.1 -19.0 -11.4 8.4 -6.8 0-7-10 -9.3 2.1 -4.4 -3.9 0-7-18 -4.5 -1.9 -9.9 -6.5 -1.2 -0.3 -2.7 0-7-22 -8.6 -2.5 -1.5 -3.0 -5.9 4.3 -3.5 -2.9 0-7-25 -12.9 9.7 -11.0 -15.9 32.8 -53.5 -8.4 0-7-30 -4.5 -10.3 -0.6 -16.5 -2.2 14.3 -11.2 -4.4 0-7-35 -0.6 1.6 -4.2 1.5 -3.7 -1.8 0.6 -0.9 0-7-40 19.4 -18.2 0.3 12.2 -2.3 -7.8 -5.6 -0.1 0-7-45 -9.7 2.0 3.2 -3.8 -6.3 0.8 -2.3 0-8-20 -1.3 -0.5 -0.6 0.9 -0.4 0.1 -0.5 -0.3 0-8-45 0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 0.1 -0.4 -0.1 -0.1 36

TABLE 9

Representative Erosion Rates - Ontario Representative Base Annual Annual Bluff Volume ght Er3sion Rate Site Period Recession Vol me Loss Height m /m/m/yr) (m/yr) (m /yr) (m) (m /m/m/yr) ( -0.8 0-1-09 75-80 -1.0 03.4 5.1 -0.7 -1.6 2.5 -0.6 -0.6 0-1-20 72-80 -0.6 -0.6 -3.0 4.2 -0.7 0-1-30 72-80 -0.5 -0.7 0-1-40 72-80 -0.9 -3.0 5.0 -0.6 -1.3 -1.4 0-1-60 72-79 -1.5 -8.5 6.6 -0.9 -0.9 0-1-80 72-80 -0.8 -9.9 11.0 12.4 -0.7 -0.5 0-1-90 72-80 -0.4 -8.1 -1.3 72-80 -1.5 -5.1 4.3 -1.2 0-1-110 -0.7 -0.8 0-1-130 72-74 -0.9 -7.5 10.6 -0.1 -0.1 73-80 0.0 -0.5 6.1 0-1-140 -0.3 -0.3 72-80 -0.3 -1.6 5.1 0-1-150 -0.3 -0.3 0-1-161 74-80 -0.2 -1.7 5.6 -0.8 -0.7 0-1-170 72-80 -0.6 -3.8 4.2 -0.3 -0.3 73-79 -0.4 -1.2 4.1 0-2-20 -1.4 -1.4 73-78 -1.5 -3.8 2.8 0-2-30 -0.1 -0.1 0-3-10 73-80 -0.1 -0.1 1.8 N/A Use 0-3-10 0-3-20 -0.1 -0.1 73-80 -0.1 -0.6 5.5 0-6-10 -0.1 -0.1 0-6-20 73-80 -0.1 -0.2 2.5 -0.2 -0.2 -1.6 10.7 -0.2 0-6-29 73-80 -0.2 -0.2 0-6-30 73-80 -0.3 -1.1 5.0 -0.5 -6.8 14.2 -0.5 0-6-33 73-80 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -3.9 19.1 0-7-10 73-76 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -3.5 15.4 0-7-18 73-80 -0.4 -0.5 73-80 -0.6 -2.5 5.9 0-7-22 -0.3 -0.3* -0.1 -8.4 26.5 0-7-25 73-79 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -4.4 17.4 0-7-30 73-80 -0.2 -0.2* 0-7-35 73-80 -0.1 -1.1 5.2 -0.1 -2.0 17.5 -0.1 0-7-40 73-80 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 0-7-45 73-80 -0.1 -2.0 11.3 -0.1 2.1 -0.2 0-8-20 73-80 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0-8-45 73-80 -0.1 -0.1 1.6 Future slumps probable. * Period insufficlent to represent a complete cycle.

38

3.6.1a Niagara-on-the-Lake to Stoney Creek

The bluffs with basal shale do erode but at a slow rate of

about 0.1 to 0.3 m/year. Since a small underwater shelf often occurs at the sites (0-1-150, 161), it appears the major cause of erosion of the

shale is the wetting/drying and freezing/thawing processes that fissure the rock, flaking it off and allowing the waves to force into the cracks

and remove the material. Since the shale has high internal cohesion, it can stand with a near vertical slope often with a stepped appearance.

The overburden may take a lesser slope and is eroded as the shale is

slowly removed, by regular subaerial processes and especially by wave

splash as the waves pound the vertical shale. For the other sites, the

rate of erosion of the till varies from 0.5 to 1.0 m/year. Apparently

the rate of erosion is not particularly dependant on the height of bluff

nor its composition, but rather depending on the depth and composition

of the nearshore zone. The mode of erosion does, however, vary with bluff height so that the low bluffs exhibit parallel retreat due to wave erosion, while with higher bluffs this occurs but supplemented by some upper slope failures due to springline groundwater undermining the associated thicker lacustrine overburden. Since some erosion occurs, some small amounts of sand are available but the beaches in front of the bluffs are minor or non-existent (especially in front of the shale 39

bluffs) and thus the wave induced erosion is understandable when considering lake setup and the large fetch distances. It is notable that, except for the shales, the greatest loss of shorebluff at the profile sites occurred between 1972-1973, a period of high water levels. All of the shoreline is affected by shore protection, with 53% temporarily protected by some form of structure.

3.6.2 Burlington to Toronto The shore from Burlington to Toronto (38 km) is 'eroding slowly. Reliable rates are difficult to obtain since the shore is mostly composed of concrete and rubble. Over 66% of the shore has some form of temporary protection. Behind the protection, or in unprotected areas, the shore is generally bedrock often covered by till or lacustrine deposits. The exposed Queenston and Dundas shale bluffs are responding like the shale bluffs near Grimsby. 40

3.6.3 Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough bluffs (14 km) are treated as a special case

for this study due both to their spectacular height, which makes ground

surveying most difficult, and the fact that they are already well

documented. Although some sites were established for various reasons the nearshore sounding is the most valuable component since the bluff

survey is inconsistent. However, an alternate method was completed

using contour maps derived from aerial photographs, which were then digitized, and the volumetric erosion was calculated (Weaver, 1979).

From this, a rate of 0.3 m3/m/m/yr was established and is utilized for

this study. The bluffs are composed of various units of till and glacial

lake deposits (Sharpe, 1980). The mode of erosion is undercutting due 41

to toe erosion, supplemented to a large degree by subsurface water

movement upslope and by the regular surficial erosional processes.

3.6.4 Scarborough to Raby Head

From Scarborough to Raby Head (27 km), the bluffs are eroding

but at the moderately slow rates of 0.1 m/yr to 0.2 m/yr (Figure 9).

The backshore consists of rolling terrain, a drumlimized till plain

(Chapman and Putnam, 1966), with slight transverse ridging oblique to the shore resulting in a shoreline that undulates up and down in a regular pattern. In the low areas a barrier beach may have formed, or simply a low shore exists. The higher sloping hills, truncated at the shoreline, generally consist of till(s) capped by lacustrine clay and sand. Although the stratigraphic units frequently diminish laterally, it is likely the Leaside till since this till exists to the east

(Sharpe, 1980) and to the west (Singer, 1974) of the area, with a representative particle size distribution of about 12% clay, 38% clay,

50% sand (Singer, 1974). Boulders can be observed in the till. 42

3.6.4a Scarborough to Raby Head

The mode of failure for the lower bluffs (0-6-20, 25) is parallel retreat due to wave erosion. This similarly occurs at the high bluff sites (0-6-10, 29, 30), but in addition, there are some upper surficial failures due to groundwater, but nowhere massive nor deep- seated. The rate of erosion does, however, differ between the high and lower bluffs since the higher bluffs form promontories while the lower sections are indented. This difference is apparently due to the large boulders on the beach zone fronting the bluff. Aerial investigation indicates these boulders are more plentiful in front of the higher headlands and thus retard wave erosion, while their frequency is probably due to the thicker bouldery till deposit shedding more boulders when eroded than the thinner deposit. 43

3.6.5 Raby Head to Port Hope

0_07_022 SEPT 14. 1973

-----• MRY 23. 1974

---- MAY 25. 1977

•-••••-•••• JUNE 17- 1980

From Raby Head to Port Hope (32 km), erosion is occurring, yet it is proceeding at moderately low rates of 0.1 m/yr to 0.3 m/yr but up to 0.5 m/yr at one site (Figure 9). The bluffs now become higher and more extensive, and may exhibit deep seated and more massive failures. They are composed of, at times, a base of silt to clay-silt till, 31.67% clay, 51.6% silt, 16.8% sand, probably Sunnybrook Till; stratified clay silt and sand proglacial lake Clarke Deposits, like the Thorncliffe

Formation; a middle till like the Meadowcliffe Till; capped by the

Leaside Till then clay deposits of Lake Iroquois (Singer, 1974). The

Leaside Till has two similar tills, separated by very fine compact silt deposits, with roughly a 12% clay, 38% silt and 50% sand composition The (Singer, 1974). Large boulders are evident in the Leaside Till. stratigraphy is, however, highly variable and site dependant, so that at different locations the thickness of the units vary considerably and may differ from the general description above. The complex stratigraphy results in a spectacular but complex picture of erosion. When there is sand between the tills, groundwater seeps out removing material, undercutting the upper slope, and leading 44

to two slopes so that toe erosion rules the overall rate and the lower slope, while groundwater induced upper failures modify the upper slope (0-7-10). When sand or clay overlie the two tills (0-7-18), fairly uniform slopes occur induced by wave erosion and ruled by the cohesion of the till. In low areas where clay and silt overlie the till, parallel retreat due to wave erosion occurs, with the till exhibiting a greater resistance (0-7-22, 35). When there is a thick sand deposit, groundwater seepage, undercutting, and piping occurs creating huge amphitheatres and major rotational failures (0-7-25). As well, this occurs when clayey silt and till are at the bluff base, but the more prominent lower unit then exhibits a steep slope eroded by waves (0-7-40). This mosaic of modes of erosion is mainly due to the composition of the bluff materials yet the rates are uniformly low, but erosion is continuously occurring. Only in areas of massive failure would these rates be deceptive. Again, boulders in the beach zone must retard toe erosion, while subaerial processes continue.

3.6.6 . Port Hope to Prince Edward County

0-08-020 SEPT 25: 1973 JUNE 3. 1975

JULY 5. 1978 LM80 .0 JUNE 18. 1980

L_76.0

------..... .

352.0 368.0 45

The bluff shore between Port Hope and Prince Edward County (46 km), is generally eroding slowly at rates of 0.1 m/yr or lower. For the most part, the shore is low lying with bedrock at or near the lake level, which retards erosion. The drift overlying bedrock is composed of glacial Lake Iroquois sands and silts, at times thick, as near Chub Point and some till, as near McClennon Point. The limestone shore may also form small bluffs near Outlet Park. The shore erodes either by slow erosion of the bedrock or by the washing away of its lacustrine overburden. However, this occurs slowly and is highly dependant on lake levels and storm setup allowing the waves to progress further inland. 3.7 Total Sediment Supply from Bluff Erosion The shore zone is a system where the input of gravel and sand is transported along the beach and can accumulate to create a shore feature. These features, whether they are the wide beaches of Lake Huron or the spits of Point Pelee, Rondeau, Long Point, or Toronto Island are significant recreational sites on the Great Lakes and are special ecological areas. For management purposes, knowledge of the sediment balance is needed for these sites and, indeed, needed for most places on the lakes for proper shore protection planning and design. This section provides a first approximation of the volume of material supplied by bluff erosion.

3.7.1 Potential Volume of Littoral Sand and Gravel The three components for the calculation of potential volume of littoral sand and gravel are (1) the amount of sand and gravel in the bluffs, (2) the rate at which the bluff erodes, and (3) the direction along the shore the eroded materials travel. To determine bluff composition some samples from the various units at each site were analyzed for particle size distribution (Duncan, 1973) using the F.A.S.T. method (Rukavina and Duncan, 1970) which divides the sand to silt class at the 4phi boundary (0.063 mm). The rate of erosion used was the representative bluff erosion rate (Tables 3, 6 and 9). The for the total resultant volume eroded at each site was then extrapolated reach distance represented by that site, while the net littoral drift direction was assessed from sequential oblique photography. There are some obvious limitations to each of the three com- for ponents individually and the overall method. The major concerns bluff composition are that there was not a full geotechnical or stratigraphic analysis but rather a limited sampling programme; the 4 phi (0.063 mm) class boundary is smaller than sand normally found on a Great Lakes beach ( 2 phi, 0.25 mm) but perhaps not in the underwater beach zone; the size analysis reports weight percentages whereas erosion is

46 47

calculated volumetrically but no conversion was attempted; the bulking

factor, that is the increase in volume due to change in bulk density

during sediment transport, was not calculated; and that the stratigraphy

at a site may not accurately represent the complex stratigraphy of an

entire reach. Similarly, the rate of erosion along the entire reach may differ from the sample site. Finally, littoral drift moves in both directions along the shore but has a net movement with time so that the

determination of net movement, especially in areas of drift reversal, is

most difficult. If attempting to extend the results for a longer time period for historical perspective, it is prudent to recognize the

variables may differ, especially the composition of the bluff being eroded. As well, other sources of drift such as from rivers and offshore areas should be considered. Despite these limitations, the calculation of volume of material supplied to the littoral system from bluff erosion provides a gross estimate. The results (Figure 10) seem reasonable, on a relative basis, in terms of making geomorphological sense. That is, the volume of material available to the system roughly corresponds to the relative size of the depositional feature or the incidence of sand along the shore. For instance, the size of Toronto Island and Rondeau are similar, as is the supply of sand associated with them, while the size and sand available for Long Point is significantly larger. In contrast, the large size of Pelee with relation to the small sediment supply may confirm the hypothesis that it is a relict feature, unless the bluff composition differed in the past. It may be that the composition was different in the past in the Pelee to Rondeau area, since the volume of material available does not conform to the size of Erieau. For instance, shore erosion today is acting on the sands left from a past glacial lake beach, while years ago when the shore was many kilometres lakeward, erosion would have been occurring on the less sandy deep water deposits. 48

3.7.2 Effects of Shore Protection The calculation of potential volume of littoral sand and gravel assumes little shore development. In fact over 400 kilometres of the shore is protected in some manner to varying degrees of effective- ness which decreases the available sediment, and the littoral drift can be trapped, diverted or delayed at structures perpendicular to the shoreline, or even mined by man. The method used to assess shore protection was to view sequential oblique colour slides and videotape of the entire shoreline, identify and scale the sizes of shore protection to maps, surrounding objects, lot sizes, and also from engineering plans, when available. The resultant tabulation of type and extent of shore protective structures reveals what type and how much protection was in existence circa 1976 (Figures 11-15, Table 10). To assess the effect of this protection on the sediment balance, the areas protected by these structures were subtracted from the available sediment calculation, resulting in reduced values of source material (Figure 10). This reduced value more accurately represents the sediment available due to bluff erosion to the littoral system in recent times. The most notable reductions occur near Sarnia where there is a large groyne field and from Burlington to Niagara where 50% of the shore is protected. 49

Legend 70,475 m3Potential sand and gravel (70,089) m3Available sand and gravel

from unprotected bluffs

Figure 10: Available Littoral Drift (m3) from Bluff Erosion 50

I LAKE ST. CLAIR n AND RIVERS 0 PROTECTED Ys% P0

Fig. 11: Shore Protection-Huron Fig. 12: Shore Protection-St. Clair

n

I , n 100 LAKE ONTARIO SHORE PROTECTED 309'e 0

Shore Protection-Ontario Fig. 13: Shore Protection-Erie Fig. 14:

PERCENTAGE OF MAJOR TYPES OF PROTECTION SHORE PROTECTED ONTARIO ERIE ST. CLAIR HURON 30% 7% ST. ARMOURSTONE 34% 40% ALL HURON CLAIR ERIE ONTARIO CONCRETE 24% 16% SEAWALL 24% n - - - 83% HEADLAND 14% LANDFILL - 56% STEEL GROYNES - 6% 18% STEEL SEAWALL - - 27% 31% DYKE - 7% °' ROCK GROYNE - - 21% 9 I Table 10: Types of Protection Fig. 15: Percentage of Shore Protected 4. ANALYSIS OF BEACH EROSION/ACCRETION This chapter discusses the general beach processes, the methods used to measure beach change, and documents the results of this survey, and provides a classification of four beach types observed.

4.1 Beach Erosion/Accretion Processes Whereas bluff erosion is a one-way process causing retreat,

beach processes can oscillate to accommodate loss or gain. Beach ero-

sion is the carrying away of beach materials while accretion is the

deposition of these materials. Thus, while one section of a beach pro-

file can be eroding, another section may be accreting; or the profile

may have a net loss in the winter season but a gain in the summer. Also

the materials deposited may be fine sands or, after a high energy event,

be mostly composed of coarser grains or pebbles. Indeed, at times there

may be a narrow beach in front of a bluff or at other times no sand

beach at all. For the purposes of this report, the beach zone (littoral zone) is defined as the margin of the lake where the particles are affected by annual normal wave action. Landward, the beach zone begins at the contact between sloped, dense bluff materials and the flatter loose beach materials, extending across the dry beach into the water to a depth where the particles are generally unaffected by normal wave action, or the lakeward base of the outer sandbar or nearshore slope. If no bluff is present, the zone begins at a point landward where there is little change. Thus the beach zone is the highly dynamic area where the particles, berms and sandbars are almost constantly being shifted to and fro, creating a situation of dynamic equilibrium (through time). The characteristics of most beaches are a result of past and present wave forces acting on them. Eroding bluffs generally provide the sand size or larger particles composing the beach, although rivers and streams contribute some material, especially during the spring freshet, and offshore sources may also add to the drift but to an

51 52

unknown degree. Opposite to this source, the loss of beach material is accomplished in four ways. The material is transported alongshore until it is deposited in a deep portion of the lake, exemplified by the sediments moving off the tip of Long Point and into the deep eastern basin; or the wind may pluck the material from a beach and shift it landward temporarily out of the reach of waves; or particles are broken down and moved offshore; or it may be mined by man to clear navigation channels or for other uses. The beaches as we know them are simply the transportation stage between these inputs and outputs constantly tending toward a dynamic equilibrium in response to the forces acting on them. The surface waves approaching the shore are a function of the wind forming them, including such factors as the wind direction, over- the-water distance (fetch), duration, and velocity. These waves vary from a gentle, long period swell to the more common choppy, short period waves in the Great Lakes characterized by a multidirectional mix of shorter period (6-8 seconds) mixed frequency wave trains, due to the variability in the direction of propagation and irregularity of wave shape (U.S. Army CERC, 1977). As these deep water waves approach shore they begin to feel bottom at a water depth of about one half the wavelength, causing drag, and refracting the waves so they approach more normal to the shore. As they continue shoreward, the waves steepen, curl, and collapse. As waves feel bottom, wave-induced movement of the bottom sediments occurs and, when the waves break, a great deal of turbulence results. Since most waves approach shore at a slight angle, there is a longshore current and thus transport of suspended bottom sediment parallel to the shoreline in the littoral zone. Simply stated, a large portion of the energy creating the waves is dissipated at the shore. This is the energy that transports the littoral materials. The beach form, however, responds to a considerable number of interactions among processes. Similar waves will feel bottom and thus affect beach shape at different locations due to varying water levels. These levels vary in the long term, seasonally, and in the short term 53

due to setups and seiches. Obviously the wave climate varies with the wind climate and this provides periods of calm as well as high magnitude events both seasonally and in the long term. These major storms may completely mobilize the beach area during peak intensity, but the beach form after the storm may only reflect the weaker processes acting as the storm waned. This beach shape is then influenced by subsequent wave activity which may be another major storm acting to further deteriorate the beach form, or may be gentle long period waves that rebuild the beach profile to a form more capable of dissipating wave energy. Since major storms generally occur in the fall and spring season, while the summer tends to be calmer, there is a difference between seasonal beach profiles. It follows then that the fall and spring are more destructive periods due to higher wave energy levels, and when superimposed with rising lake levels in the spring, the potential for damages can be high, although often moderated by the protective nature of shorefast ice and the inhibiting effect of lake ice on wave propagation. The effects of fall storms are moderated, on a relative basis, by seasonal lowering of lake levels. The size of beach particles transported and deposited at various sections of the beach profile also differ with the wave climate and season, such that a storm may leave behind a blanket of cobbles, or a berm of coarser materials depending on its characteristics. Also, offshore bars may form, shift, dissipate, or split under various conditions. These bars may move shoreward and weld to the dry beach, may change to a discontinuous bar, change orientation, and may develop rip channels. The visible dry beach can change elevation, dominant composition and slope, and have relic berms or mineral concentrations. The water's edge may appear straight or have a cuspate form while, in a direction parallel to shore, the beach surface may be gently undulating. Littoral material may shift the outlet of a stream downdrift or even block the outlet completely, depending on the season. As well, structures can trap littoral drift and refract, diffract, and reflect waves creating a local influence. The littoral drift may move in either 54

direction depending on the conditions, but since our weather has predominate wind trends, there is a net littoral drift direction over the year. On the Great lakes, however, the beach zone may contain very little sand and gravel. In places where there are eroding bluffs composed of consolidated glacial material, coarse material is removed by wave action and littoral processes, leaving only minor deposits in front of the bluff during calm weather, or at times no sand beach at all. Waves then act directly on the bluffs and the glacial material composing the nearshore zone, winnowing out the fine particles, leaving a coarse lag deposit, and possibly using the sand as an abrasive agent. If many boulders are present they may form a pavement temporarily protecting the underlying material; if not protected then the bottom materials erode in relation to their composition and the energy of the wave forces acting on them. Obviously there are a great number of changing factors that influence a specific dynamic beach area in space and time. These influences, however, leave their mark which can then be interpreted to reveal pertinent information about the specific area.

4.2 Beach Assessment at the Survey Sites There are a few ways in which beach change can be interpreted

from the profiles. These include qualitative interpretation of beach forms such as bars and slopes, the change in distance to water's edge, the change in volume of material in the beach zone, and the change in distance to the lakeward end of the beach zone.

4.2.1 Water's Edge Change surface of the Water's edge is the junction line between the water's edge lake and the land. A rise in water level will move the a drop in shoreward, lessening the width of the dry beach. Conversely, water level leads to a lakeward movement of water's edge, with a 55

corresponding widening of the dry beach, with the degree of change depending on the slope of the beach and the amount of change in water level. If the water level remains constant but nevertheless there is a change in water's edge position, then it is assumed that a measurable loss or gain of dry beach area occurred. Although this is simply a linear expression of recession or accession, as opposed to an actual volumetric loss or gain of beach material in the zone, it has a high visual impact and is commonly associated with erosion or accretion. With the proper correction for change in water level with regard to beach slope, its utility lies in the ease of measurement and the comparison to historical surveys and aerial photographs since the position of water's edge was often recorded and is generally visible on photographs.

The water's edge location is noted during the field survey but also calculated mathematically as the intersection of lake level, derived from nearby water level gauge data, with the profile line.

Experience has shown that the calculated water's edge gives more consistent results, probably because it avoids surveyor's interpretations under adverse lake conditions, and is thus used in the analysis. In addition, procedures have been adapted to nullify the effects of different water levels, so that the analytical results indicate change exceeding what normally should occur simply due to lake level variation.

This is accomplished by subtracting the actual water's edge distance in the second survey from the expected water's edge distance for the new water level intersecting the first survey. available. At present, this is one of the procedures Refinements are still necessary, however, since it fails to account for significant changes in beach form due to storms or seasonal change; it gives no indication of volumetric loss or gain of material nor lateral variation along the shoreline; and is very dependent on the time and date of survey. For instance, at the time of survey, a beach may be recuperating from recent events and although the survey will accurately 56 represent the beach form, this beach form may not accurately represent the typical situation for that season or be directly comparable to the preceding year. • These are significant fundamental problems inherent in the change in distance to water's edge methodology that can only be partially overcome by grouping the data to mask individual variations. Equally, they highlight the need to discount conclusive statements regarding an individual site based on the sparse data and procedures available.

4.2.2 Volumetric Beach Change Another method used for beach change evaluation is the comparison of profiles to derive net loss or gain in terms of volume of beach zone materials. The collection of this data is considerably more difficult since it involves combining both topographic and hydrographie survey methods but the results are more useful since they describe the entire beach zone. Unlike the water's edge change method this technique can indicate whether the entire zone is eroding or accreting or whether there is simply a shifting of materials with no significant net change.

4.2.3 Lakeward Beach Zone Intercept When examining the profiles, it was noted that a change in slope characteristics generally occurs below the lake surface above which most waves act on the beach zone forming bars and beach slopes. This has been identified as the lakeward end of the beach zone, and although some change occurs beyond it, most beach change is concentrated landward of this point. Since its location at a site is defined by elevation, in recognition of the processes acting on it, then landward movement of this point through time signifies erosion while lakeward change in distance to this beach zone intercept signifies accretion. 57

4.3 Introduction to Nearshore Slopes When waves approach shore they begin to "feel" and are modified by the lake bottom causing them to refract and eventually break. The corollary is that they in turn influence the lake bottom, beach, and nearshore zone. It is an intimate relationship fundamental to beach equilibrium and to bluff erosion on the Great Lakes. It follows then that the beach and nearshore composition, morphology, and parent material directly pertain to the erosion rate and, in some ways, the difference in erosion rates along the shore. This is a key factor in shoreline dynamics that is often not adequately addressed in coastal studies. Significantly, the nearshore profiles noted in this study can be grouped into as few as four classes by using morphological and com- positional criteria, and subsequently correlating this to beach and onshore observations. These range from those profiles dominated by sand to those that are dominated by bedrock and glacial material, with the other two groups exhibiting 176i ... VL-W-P-- ,r sand various combinations of these and 1741 other factors. They are numbered 17 generally with sand Group 1 and discussed 174 regard to the amount of loose granular material present. The method used to assign each profile to a group of similar profiles was done using a number of criteria. Groups based 176-^ on shape were simply sorted by 174^ overlaying the plots at equal scale; the composition of the DISTANCE OFFSHORE 800 (m) bottom material was estimated by Fig. 16: Beach Zone Profile Types transferring the observations of others (Lewis, 1966; Rukavina, 1978b) regarding Atlas echo sounder 58 bottom type traces to the sounding rolls produced by a Raytheon DE 719; by published and unpublished material on Great Lakes nearshore sediments (Lewis, 1966; Rukavina 1978b, 1980; Coakley, 1972); and by observation of shoreline types from air photographs. In summary, four basic types of beach profiles have been delineated based on parent material, composition, and morphology. The grouping of these profiles is significant since the ability to classify the various offshore types allows an uncommon perspective not available from previous shoreline investigations because they generally viewed the situation from an onshore perspective. The results of this grouping are used in the next section to describe specific regional lakeshore processes.

4 .3.1. Group One Beach Profiles

eS 4a 8-100-+ 6 ao 0 8-130 30 60 LAKE HURON Scale km 8-145-*

v cs,eL.CS

W-4-20 LAKE ONTARIO ••.;4 1-50

Yr e -21 n5 03 `; e?5.? 4-20 4 44

LAKE ERIE 1 ■4_8A1

Figure 17: Location of Group One Profiles 59

Of the various types of shore along the Great Lakes, this

group is most traditionally viewed as "the beach" for swimming opportunities and most closely related to traditional dynamic beach

studies. Although not an ocean coast with tides and abundant sedimént, so that it is not directly related to these ocean beach studies, it does have fluctuating water levels and extensive sand deposition. The profiles are characterized by a general slope of 1:135 with a number of active large sand bars in the first 500 m offshore, followed by a smooth nearshore ramp exhibiting a 1:285 slope and mostly composed of sand and o m v L W p silt (and clay?). Geometrically, in the first 500 m, discounting the 1:135 2 sand bars, they have a relatively sand consistent slope, but a breakpoint W 1:28 5 occurs at roughly m below lake WJ VE=50x 100 DISTANCE 500 111 datum. It is suggested that these

Figure 18: Group One Profile attributes indicate a depositional environment and fine grain size. For this study, the data describing this type of beach includes the change in volume of material in the beach zone, the change in distance to water's edge corrected for expected change simply due to water level differences, and the change in distance to the underwater

limit of the beach zone. This data (Table 11) must be used cautiously due to specific peculiarities, such as nearby structures, at some

sites. Overall, these sites have generally gained material in the beach zone varying from negligible amounts to up to 36 m3 (average Many 12 m3), and have grown lakeward at the base of the beach zone. of the sites have sandbars, the innermost of which move toward and weld with the shore, which is likely the reason that the water's edge is Indeed, this group has the variable and not regularly representative. highest yearly magnitude of variability at water's edge, but the net change is only from 0-3 metres. 60

Due to the presence of movable sand, these beaches respond to change in water level. Since this survey began the lake water levels have gone down and the size and volume of material in the beach zone has increased. However, on an annual basis, the relationship is much more variable, less direct, and specific to individual sites. There is a morphological readjustment to the new conditions shown by the relationship between volume change and water's edge change and a general gain at the lakeward end of the beach zone. Visually, it appears the Innermost sand bars migrate due to the influence of changing water levels, the more dominant bars persist or migrate moderately, while the outer bars degrade with time. 1çn ed-4#^,-^+*^-a--^E-^r

TABLE 11 Group One - Volume, Water's Edge and Intercept Change

STATION NET WATER'S EDGE NET VOLU^E NET ZONE CHANGE (m/yr) CHANGE (m /yr) INTERCEPT CHANGE (m/yr)

H-6-80 -2 23 2 6-100 -1 14 10 8-100 1 5 3 8-110 2 2 - 4 8-130 1 18 4 8-145 -1 7 15 10-10 -1 16 5 10-15 1 3 3 10-18 1 3 5

E-1-04 2 5 4 1-06 0 0 -1 3-15 2 -3 3 3-23 1 11 18 3-30 1 10 5 3-40 -3 7 5 4-08 -2 30 2 4-10 0 36 17 4-13 -3 19 15 4-20 1 9 - 2 4-21 -2 -3 - 3 4-26 1 17 12

0-1-50 3 20 4 4-20 0 3 4 8-42 -10 13 1 9-30 -1 1 -14 9-40 -1 16 12

ME AN 0 12 5

61

4.3.2 Croup Two Beach Profiles

0 30 60 LAKE irmus=bm==m1 HURON Scale km

e-f-t ft LAKE ONTARIO

Figure 19: Location of Group Two Profiles

This group is indicative of profiles that also exhibit extensive amounts of sand nearshore but are more steeply sloped. They have active sand bars nearshore but are sloped between 1:115 to 1:70 for the first 400 m offshore, followed not by a smooth ramp but rather a general 1:190 slope Ill dominated by the parent materials, 0 - LWD y '..r. silts, and clays. This flattening ' 1:115 2- 1:70‘ ..._____ depends on the tills or basin depth, 0mr sand t \ and at times forms a geometric concave slope. It seems for this group siC \ Do, ■ 1:190 the beach can be depositional but Ill ■ ---- g...à ■-- a V E50= x _ — with a high degree of littoral T 1 1 160DIS TANCE 560 m transport. Figure 20: Group Two Profile 62

Oftentimes the sites are at natural sand collection areas such as Sarnia, Point Pelee, Rondeau, Burlington Bar, Frenchman and McClaughlin Bays, or at artificially created collection sites behind major jetties such as at Wheatley, Post 12-w^a, Port Dover, Port Weller, Bowmanville and Port Hope. The data for representative locations of this group is shown in Table 12.

TABLE 12 Group Two - Volume, Water's Edge and Intercept Change *

NET NET NET NET WATER'S VOLUME NET ZONE WATER'S VOLUME NET ZONE EDGE CHA^GE INTERCEPT EDGE QHANGE INTERCEPT STATION CHANGE(m/yr) (m /yr) CHANGE(m/yr) STATION CHANGE(m/yr) ( m3/yr) CHANGE m/yr) H-10-45 -2 5 1 H-10-105 0 5 - 3 H-10-115 0 -4 - I E-1-12 2 11 2 H-10-125 -1 -2 - 2 E-1-13 0 14 2 E-1-14 1 28 3 E-I-10 0 14 - 2 E-1-23 0 2 7 E- 1-28 -2 2 - 1 E-1-25 1 8 4 E-1-30 -7 -2 - 4 E-1-27 0 -5 I E-2-16 -2 15 - 3 E-2-02 0 -5 1 E-2-16A -1 -39 -19 E-2-17 14 14 6 E-2-18 1 7 5 E-2-19 2 9 3 0-I-90 0 -3 - 2 E-2-20 1 -19 4 0-2-40 1 -7 - I E-4-32 -1 9 6 0-3-04 -3 -3 - 2 E-6-04 1 3 I 0-7-I5 0 -10 -12

0-1-70 -5 -3 0 MEAN 0 -3 - 4 0-2-50 1 -7 4 0-2-60 0 8 4 0-2-70 1 4 1 0-3-02 -2 4 2 0-6-14 1 3 1 0-6-15 -1 -3 0 0-6-20 0 1 2 0-6-35 1 1 2 0-7-42 1 17 0 0-7-45 0 15 2 MEAN 0 5 3

* Table subdivided by recession/accession of the beach zone Intercept.

These sites are not, at present, areas where sand is being deposited to build a large beach in the long-term, but rather the sand collected is in response to the supply and the forces acting on it. straight They tend to be highly mobile, exhibiting a relatively shoreline with a large degree of annual change, yet only a very small net loss or gain of material in the beach zone for the survey period. 63

Of course water's edge is equally variable, so the most revealing measurement of beach erosion for the group is the landward movement of the underwater base of the beach zone. Areas that are generally conceded to be migrating landward, such as eastern Point Pelee and at southern Rondeau, reflect this measurement and even though there may be a temporary loss or gain in beach volume, there is also a retreat of water's edge. If not actively eroding this group shows a trend to gain lakeward at the base of the zone for the survey period as lake levels dropped, not unlike the first group. There is sand present which responds to average forces enough to protect the backshore, except during major storm surges. Although the groups of beach type are herein discussed separately, it is noted that in nature they are a continuum. Thus sites classified as group two, such as at the Burlington Bar, are nearly like those of group one, such as Sauble Beach. 64

4.3.3 Group Three Beach Profiles

0 30 60 LAKE LIC=1 HURON Scale km

LAKE ONTARIO

Figure 21: Location of Group Three Profiles

This group is indicative of profiles that have less or little sand 3z_LWD nearshore. It marks a change from 1:50 thoughts of 'the beach' to more a minor collection of simply 1:115 till granular and very mobile material

TION 1:285 insufficient to maintain an 1:80 - - VA dry beach. It generally

E appreciable

EL VE=50x represents the zone in front of 100 DISTANCE 500 eroding glacial bluffs. Their profiles are characterized by a steep Figure 22: Croup Three Profiles slope of 1:50 in the first 100m, then a slope of 1:115 to 1:80 from 100-500 65

in, followed by a flatter 1:285 to 1:145 slope. Although they have some sand and possibly a sand bar, they appear to be dominated by glacial tills or lag deposits and tend toward a concave geometric shape suggesting an erosion form due to incremental increasing wave influence with decreasing water depth. Oftentimes there are boulders offshore derived from the till. This group represents a type of shore not well understood and is special to the Great Lakes. Previous understanding of beach dynamics is based on ocean coasts and the importance of abundant sediment, but for this type of Great Lakes shore, coarse sediments at the lake margin are not as important since they are insufficient and, indeed, at times non-existent. Although some sand may be present at the foot of a bluff or slightly offshore, it is likely only a thin veneer resting on top of the dominant material, the glacial tills or bedrock. The data for representative sites for this group is shown on Table 13. TABLE 13 GrouD Three - Volume. Water's Edge and Intercept Change

NET NET NET NET WATER'S VOLUME NET ZONE WATER'S VOLUME NET ZONE INTERCEPT EDGE CHAN^ INTERCEPT EDGE CyANGE S TAT I ON CHANGE(m/yr) ( m3/yr) CHANGE(rt3 yr) STATION CHANGE(m3/yr)(m3/4yr) CHANGE (2/yr) H-9-10 -1 -11 -I 0-1-09 1 3 0-1-20 -1 1 - 3 H-9-15 0 20 -2 0 H-9-20 1 5 0 0-1-30 0 - 2 0-1-40 0 5 4 H-9-30 -1 -3 1 -I H-9-40 -1 6 3 0-1-80 0 -1 2 3 H-10-35 0 2 5 0-1-170 -2 0 0-2-20 0 2 I E-1-09 I 0-7-30 0 1 14 5 E-1-19 0 3 0-7-35 3 3 3 E-1-20 2 3 0-8-15 -8 -21 - 2 E-1-21 - 4 0-1-110 -2 0 -7 -4 E-2-10 0 -12 3 0-1-120 0 1 -4 E-2-13 0 7 6 0-1-130 1 -5 E-2-24 -1 -5 - 2 0-1-140 E-3-04 -1 18 - I 0-1-150 0 7 E-3-07 1 1 2 0-1-160 -1 3 E-3-10 I 0-1-161 0 -3 1 5 -10 E-3-17 -3 -23 -15 0-2-13 -1 12 0-2-30 0 -1 E-3-20 -1 12 0 -10 E-5-08 1 -1 1 0-7-10 0 -1 E-5-09 0 -3 -I 0-7-18 0-7-40 -1 11 0-8-10 2 17 0-8-30 -1 -2 0-8-35 -1 5 0-8-45 0 -5 66

The volume of material in the beach zone has remained about the same since the start of the survey, shown by their smaller net losses or gains. Those with larger values, when checked, simply show a special circumstance such as a major slumping of material from the bluff into the beach zone, or the subsequent removal of this material. However, even though the volume of material is about the same, this zone is retreating in tandem with the -7 retreat of water's edge and directly retreat of -6 related to the the bluffs, especially when actively -5 eroding (Figure 23). When the -4 erosion is relatively slow the natural and methodological -3 variability makes the relationship somewhat chaotic and it i s logical to assume this variability occurs all the time but is masked by the 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 - rapid rates. This gives a first BEACH RECESSION (m) approximation for the variability Figure 23: Water's Edge vs encountered when reviewing the data Bluff Recession representing this natural system. Offshore, the profiles of this group exhibit a concave erosional form caused by increasing wave activity with decreased depth. When there i s some sand (silt and clay?) these will react somewhat like the previous groups, thus for some of the stations the beach zone limit is gaining. With less sand (silt and clay?) the analysis focuses on erosion of the till with three options: (1) if the till is very hard and stoney, then a lag deposit protects it from severe erosion forming an offshore shelf as the bluff erodes (H-9-15, 20, 0-2-13), which in turn limits the erosion of the bluff, (2) if the bluff erodes faster than the offshore beach zone, since it is responding to a more erosive process than just lake factors, then only a temporary shelf may fora 67

(E -3-40), or (3) perhaps the offshore may erode at generally the same rate as the bluff if these rates are moderate. When one considers that some bluffs have been eroding for many decades but an extensive shelf has not formed, it is necessary to postulate that the offshore beach zone has retreated in tandem with the bluff. The data showing retreat of water's edge and the relatively constant volume of material in the beach zone confirm this hypothesis. However, the offshore beach zone limit is inconclusive since it was set at an elevation where erosive wave influence is less. 4.3.4 Group Four Beach Profiles

0 30 60 LAKE Scale km HURON

Figure 24: Location of Group Four Profiles

This group i s indicative of profiles that are mostly devoid of sand and are dominated by till or lag deposits and bedrock. They are characterized by extreme shallowness since the waves are unable to significantly alter the profile shape. m In the first 500 m offshore they 0i• y L W D ^^-^- 1:285 tend toward a slope of 1:285 to hard 2 surtace 1:145 immediately, then vary depending on the characteristics of the W =50X 1:145 J V- offshore bedrock or lag deposits. W 100 m DISTANCE W0 In sheltered areas a marsh may fora Figure 25: Group Four Profile at the lake margin.

This group represents areas where the bedrock i s at, or very near, the surface of the water. The rock is more resistant to erosion,

68 69

thus its inherent slope dominates the profile. There i s some variation of the profile since some locations do have sand at the lake's margin, while others have cobbles. Representative data for this group i s shown on Table 14.

TABLE 14 Group Four - Volume, Waters' Edge and Intercept Change

STATION NET WATER'S EDGE NET VOLPE NET ZONE CHANGE (m/yr) CHANGE (m /yr) INTERCEPT CHANGE (m/yr)

H-8-120 0 8 2 H-8-150 1 3 1 H-8-160 0 18 - 2 H-8-170 0 0 0 H-10-22 2 21 6 H-10-25 1 10 2 H-10-30 0 -15 0 H-10-38 -1 9 - 2

E-1-17 0 4 - 3 E-4-35 0 10 3 E-4-40 0 16 5 E-5-2 0 10 - 2 E-5-10 0 -1 0 E-5-11 0 3 0 E-6-10 2 7 26 E-6-15 -4 6 3

0-3-10 0 3 4 0-3-20 0 9 3 0-6-10 -1 5 3 0-6-25 0 -1 - 1 0-6-29 0 5 - 2 0-6-30 0 6 5 0-6-33 0 5 2 0-7-22 1 4 0 0-7-25 0 5 3 0-8-20 -1 27 2 0-8-25 0 10 4 0-8-40 -1 0 - 2 MEAN 0 7

These areas are stable, thus water's edge shows negligible change after considering water level differences. Since some sand is present at some sites, there is some moderate change in beach volume, but, due to their composition, generally these sites do not erode. The data on lakeward beach zone intercept is not representative, since the rugged nature of the offshore creates too many inconsistencies in relation to the methods used for this survey.

70

4.3.5 Beach Zone --Annual Change Much of the previous discussion was possible since it was based on a net change over a seven-year period, but the yearly variability is greater and less definitive on a per station basis. It is quite difficult to ascribe confidently any change at a single location on a yearly basis due to the complexity and variability of the beach zone, as well as special circumstances at a site. Grouping of the data partially overcomes or masks this variability and may show that yearly trends exist. One of the more significant trends noted is that the volume of material in the beach zone has followed a regular pattern for all three lakes. Figure 26 shows this pattern although the magnitude differs since each lake has a different percentage of beach types. Lake water levels also followed a similar pattern for all three lakes (Figure 2). When the water level trends differ, such as for Lake Ontario, the volume trends also diverge. Also the volume change tendency diverged the year a significant drop in water level occurred, while this was followed by a peak in 1978 volume change. The reasons for this occurrence are yet to be resolved. The most that can be stated at this time is that the beach volumes seem to be related to changing water levels, and that there may be a lag between water level changes and beach volume response.

pea A E 2

E 2 / / 1 1 X

cê 1 15 ----- 7 03 ma.

C.) 0 % - ...... •• ,•• --- e- e **•••••••••• E -1 Lake Ontario 11-3 Lake Ontario > -2 —Huron – – –Erie co —Huron ---Erie 1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 Figure 26: Beach Volume Change and Monthly Mean Water Levels 5. Regional Pattern of Landforms and Processes: A Synthesis Even though the bluff, beach and offshore zones were discussed separately they have an intimate relationship with the past and present that represents the physical shore ecosystem. This chapter brings together these elements in order to summarize this system on the

Canadian shores of the Great Lakes. Although not all factors can be mentioned, the factors as shown by this and other studies are discussed. Much of the glacial geomorphology is based on a review of the "Physiography of Southern Ontario" (Chapman and Putnam, 1966) while other studies are more specifically referenced.

5.1 Lake Huron The northern half of Lake Huron's beaches shore is rock-bound with Bruce Peninsula between the headlands, while the

GEORGIAN southern half is a mix of 10-20 m BAY high glacial drift bluffs, sometimes

Stokes Bay eroding, and sand beach and dune Chiefs Point Sauble^ r complexes receiving the eroded sedi- Beach V LAKE Frenchmans Bay Miramlchi Bay ment. However, much of the coarse Port Elgin HURON material in the shore zone owes its (.Douglas Point Inverhuron existence to erosion during previous Clark Point glacial lakes. These higher lake levels left shore bluffs and beaches still visible today and, in places, Goderich successive terraced ridges as lake o 10 20 30 40 so ScNN km levels subsided and the land reboun-

Grand Bond ded from the weight of the ice. Pinery Prov. Park Harris Point This rebounding continues especially Oustln Grove Errol maintenance riphts Grove to the north, while Sarnia the dredging has substituted for downcutting of the St. Clair River, Figure 27: Lake Huron Sites

71 72

and the inflow from Lake Superior regulated by the control work in the

St. Marys river. These have tended to modify the extremes in Lake Huron water levels and decrease shore erosion damage.

5.1.1 Georgian Bay

The shore of Georgian Bay is dominated both by its bedrock characteristics and glacial deposits. The very deep basin has the spectacular cliffs of the escarpment to the west due to undercutting of

the Clinton Cataract group of sandstone, shale and dolomite; to the southeast the shaley limestones of the Trenton Black River Group; and the Precambrian rocks to the northeast. Its glacial history is also key to its present condition, especially i n Nottawasaga Bay where an extensive barrier i sland complex was developed i n the glacial past ( Martini 1974, 1975). Thus the present Wasaga spit is backed by successive terraced ridges and dune complexes from glacial Lake Nipissing. These generally provide the sand source, with additional i nputs from local rivers, especially the Nottawasaga. Studies ( Davidson - Arnott and Pollard, 1980) have shown the northwesterly winds dominate the littoral drift 73

pattern forcing the granular sediments to collect in Nottawasaga Bay. The Wasaga site (H-6-100) reflects this accumulation by exhibiting a group one profile, while the Bluewater Beach site (H-6-80) shows less sand accumulation, a steeper slope with larger grain size material. Due to shoreward inner sandbar migration and their shallow profile, they visually appear to be quite dynamic areas and in this respect they are, since group one profiles have the greatest distance to water's edge change values for the entire lake. However, the volume of material in the beach zone changes only slightly for these sites which indicates that although they are dynamic in the short-term, in the long-term they are relatively stable landforms. For shore management this means that if the short-term changes are respected and not tampered with by jetties, shore protection and residences, they are a reasonably hazard free area. Nature has already adequately constructed shore protection.

5.1.2 Western Bruce Peninsula

The west side of the Bruce Peninsula, in contrast to the cliffs on the east side, gently slope westward due to the dip of the 74

rock strata of the Michigan Basin. This limestone shore has a highly indented configuration with only minor concentrations of coarse sediments in some embayments. The bedrock was scoured during ice advance and submerged under the glacial lakes so little drift exists near the shore. However, south of Stokes Bay more sand is present with crescentic beaches at bayheads which are often backed by beach and dune complexes. Generally these are relic sands from the beach and nearshore of glacial Lakes Algonquin and Nipissing, with the terracing due to the combined effect of lowering lake levels and the rebounding land surface. Although erosion is not significant at the resistant rock shorelines, lake water level variations do affect change at the embayed beaches, and inconveniences to riparian landowners. With wise management of the bayhead beaches, and proper siting of houses and boathouses, happy interaction with the shore system in this area is not an impossible task.

5.1.3 Sauble Beach to Clark Point

South of Sauble Beach, for the rest of Lake Huron, the shore area exhibits a distinct pattern. Inland, the rolling hills of the 75

Wyoming moraine give way to the bluffs, beaches, and bars of glacial Lake Warren. Lakeward are the nearshore sand deposits resting on Warren's gently sloped offshore ramp with a thin layer of clay. Further lakeward are the bluffs and beaches of Lake Algonquin, separated from the Nipissing terraces because of rebound, except where these deposits have been undercut by the modern lakeshore. For the area north of Douglas Point coarse glaciolacustrine deposits are extensive and are the likely primary source of the sand present at the modern Lake Huron shore, whether in situ or transported by local rivers and streams. Even though the shore from Clark Point northward is mainly resistant rock, the presence of these sediments has allowed the formation of group one sand depositional profiles between headlands. Although in past times these headlands would have been more deeply submerged, they still influenced the earlier shores as the land emerged and water levels dropped and hence led to the formation of large crescentic heach and dune complexes behind the modern embayed beaches. Behind Sauble Beach, the Algonquin shore cliffs turned eastward and extensive littoral deposits accumulated, so with lowering water levels the Chiefs Point headland has increased its influence up to the present by acting as a natural groyne trapping northward moving littoral sands. The availability of these granular deposits and the large natural groyne combine to force a great accumulation of sand onshore and offshore at the Sauble site (H-8-100) and thus mask the nearshore expression of the bedrock, and form a group one profile. Just south at Frenchman Bay (H-8-110) lesser sand deposits do not extend as far offshore and do not cover the rugged nearshore bathymetry and boulders. This profile represents the subgroup with steeply sloped sand and bars nearshore, but not enough sediment to cover the bedrock, boulders or lag deposits further offshore. With larger headlands and more abundant sand supply it is not hard to envisage that this profile (H-8-110) could emulate the Sauble Beach profile (H-8-100). It appears to be a matter of scale. This holds true for the entire dipping and indented limestone 76

shore (H-8-150) from Sauble Beach to Point Clark. When coarse sediment

supply is available, such as Port Elgin (H-8-130) and Inverhuron (H-8- 145), due to glaciolacustrine outwash from streams, large crescentic bayhead beaches form between smaller headlands. Miramichi Bay is a good example of large headlands causing broadly curved bluffs and terraces in the backshore during higher glacial lake water levels, but as the water level and elevation relationship changed the smaller headlands, such as McNab Point, increased in importance by splitting the broadly curved terrace into two more sharply curved modern bayhead beaches.

Point Clark, like Chiefs Point, is a major rock shelf historically acting as a natural groyne and is covered by Nipissing terraces. Its profiles (H-8-160, 170) display a group four shallow rock profile, but with some sand nearshore. Like all group four profiles there is almost no change in nearshore volume, nor change in corrected distance to water's edge, and there are no bluffs close enough to be affected by lake waves.

This review of the history of the present shore highlights why shore erosion is not a major problem for this stretch of Lake Huron. The rebounding resistant rock shoreline is not prone to erosion, and its indented configuration precludes large scale littoral drift movement.

The source of the drift that is available is mainly from glacial lake shorelines or from streams carrying this material, not generally from modern sources. Relative to other shores of the Great Lakes, it is a shore area safe from the lake's forces and where man can have little impact on the physical shore system regionally. Only major structures in the embayed beaches could cause problems by initiating a revision in the configuration of the crescentic bayhead beach. 77

5.1.4 Clark Point to Kettle Point

Much of the shore from Point Clark to Kettle Point is erosion prone, but much less so for the shore south of Grand Bend. For this area Kettle Point and the • pperwash Escarpment (Karrow, 1973) acted as an offshore groyne to Nipissing and Algonquin shorecliffs. These glacial lake bluffs are not separated as they are to the north since they are south of the Nipissing and Algonquin zero rebound isobath hinge lines (Lewis, 1966). With the cutting down of the St. Clair River base level, decreasing water levels left the bars and terraces evident from Kettle Point to Grand Bend. However, waves during this period of decreasing water levels eroded the bluff north of Grand Bend and the recession was severe enough to undercut the glacial beach sand and shorecliffs, ald consequently provide a great deal of coarse material to be trapped by the Kettle outcrop. Since there was an ample supply of littoral drift moving southward, it slowly deflected the outlet of the Ausable River from Grand Bend to just north of Stoney Point. As water levels lowered further the increasing groyne effect of the rock at Ipperwash allowed a large accumulation of sand that clogged the outlet, leaving oxbows and lagoons and the present outlet at Port Franks. 78

Interestingly, the abundant sand also made the Stoney Point outcrop less important than the larger shale outcrop at Kettle Point, relative to its historical effect in causing curved backshore terraces. Due to the abundance of sand and the bedrock groynes, the group one depositional sand profiles are prominent from Grand Bend to Ipperwash and are represented by a number of profile sites (H-10-10, 15, 18), while the group four shallow bedrock profiles are represented at Kettle Point (H-10-22, 25) but do have some sands nearshore. Since the bluffs to the north are eroding and have been supplying some littoral drift, it follows that some component of the beaches must be considered modern. The beaches are quite dynamic responding to present water levels, wave climate and littoral drift supply, but their group one profile indicates abundant sands. Thus, construction of the jetties at Grand Bend should, and did, collect sand updrift originally destined to be trapped or deflected offshore at Kettle Point. The jetties therefore create a temporary imbalance in the sand supply downdrift of the structure leading to a realignment of the shore. These factors are reflected at the present shore where the natural processes of beach and dune formations are ongoing. The most severe erosion occurs just south of Grand Bend, but other than that, the beaches simply reflect dynamic beach and dune processes such as: wind blown foredunes with double rooted trees; local temporary erosion due to lake level setup and storm surges; and beach reformation processes. If the shore was uninhabited these processes would be of little concern. When construction occurs on these dynamic foredune and beach areas the normal changes are construed as a problem. The trampling of vegetation accelerates wind erosion and shore structures further modify the processes. However, since most of the shore outside of Pinery Park is inhabited the foredunes have been disturbed and some shore protection built. In the early 1970s severe weather proved them to be inadequate and shore damage resulted. Subsequently some structures were wisely moved back, but in other cases structures were rebuilt. Unfortunately 79

inexpensive shore hardening methods are mostly futile, especially in dynamic shore zone regions. Fortunately, experiments on dune revegetation are taking place at Pinery Provincial Park which will have application in retaining nature's shore protection, the sand dune. A different situation occurs for the bluffs between Grand Bend and Clark Point. As was stated, this shore had receded and undercut the previous glacial lake shore cliffs. It is suggested that the previous rates of erosion were quite high but are presently less. Two reasons are given for this suggestion; firstly, the present rates based on historical data for the last fifty years (100-year Flood and Erosion Prone Mapping, 1978) do not appear sufficient to explain the large accumulation updrift of Kettle Point, and secondly, although the bluffs must have previously eroded to undercut the glacial shorecliffs, some of these bluffs are not recently eroding as evidenced by their stable slopes and mature tree growth. It appears then that with higher lake levels erosion was occurring but as the levels decreased to their present elevation the underlying surface became increasingly able to affect the wave climate nearshore. Recent extreme lake water levels can reactivate erosion of seemingly stable slopes as evidenced by old failure scars vegetated by mature tree growth dating in age to the last high water level period. The modern shore is therefore crenulated since non-eroding headlands match elevated offshore hardpoints, while in- between, large waves are refracted and can approach closer to shore leading to recession of the shore bluffs. An analogous situation occurs for parts of the eastern basin of Lake Erie, but since the Erie shores are older they exhibit a more mature development with larger curved This also suggests more discrete littoral scallops between headlands. cells for Erie, while the Huron shore is still comparatively straight and thereby allows more regional littoral drift movement. The amount of this drift is not excessive since the sources are the bluffs which are eroding only relatively slowly, and rivers and streams which often have There is a local accumulation of coarse sediments at their outlets. 80 longshore movement of this material. However, this drift is important as evidenced by the collection of sand updrift and erosion downdrift of protruding structures. The profile sites, although sparse, represent the differences along this stretch of shore. Where offshore material diminishes the wave power near the shore, the bluff is not presently eroding (H-9-15, 20), with one station (H-9-15) exhibiting an extensive shelf offshore about 1.5 metres below lake datum. These sites have a wide high sand beach along the margin of the lake, resting against the toe of the bluff. The profile data indicates the volume of sand at these sites changes only slightly for the survey period, while the water's edge, after correcting for the expected change due to a different water level, only has minor net change in the order of 1 metre. The profiles at the eroding sites are quite different. Since the beaches are more responsive to the wave climate the water's edge change has larger fluctuations, up to 9 metres, and the beach volume can change in the range of 100 m3 . The littoral sand is very near the lake margin and is steeply sloped at these sites (H-9-10, 30, 40) with a deep convex nearshore ramp typical of a group three profile. Littoral drift is apparently sparse but quite mobile. These factors allow the waves to approach and at times contact the bluff, removing debris, undercutting the bluff and thereby causing erosion. These bluffs are composed of a surface layer of sand and clay from the Warren nearshore, underlain by a layer or layers of silty clay till, dense sand, and clayey silt till over bedrock. They are eroding in the short-term at rates of 0.6, 0.7 and 0.8 m3 /m/m/yr, which, as compared to other eroding bluffs on the Great lakes, is not considered excessive but of course is important locally. The mode of erosion rests mainly with tabs erosion causing oversteepening of the bluff, shallow rotational failure» upslope due to groundwater, and general bluff face degradation due to weathering of the unvegetated slope. 81

Of more general concern however, even if the bluff face is not eroding, is the development of gullies. These are quite large and numerous and are related to altered watershed drainage due to urban and agricultural land use practices (Lake Huron Waterfront Study, 1979), and the lakeward sloping of the Warren nearshore. Since gully erosion appears to be equally significant to shcire recession as overall bluff recession, it is unfortunate that this study does not monitor gully development; however, reference is made to the Lake Huron Waterfront Study (MVCA, 1979) which included a detailed investigation of gullies near Goderich and to the work done by E.N. Bannister (1980), on the western Lake Huron coastal fringe. In shore management terms, the ongoing shore processes indicate a delicate balance. Generally areas that are now eroding should continue to erode, but attempts to protect them may influence the littoral balance since there is not an overabundance of coarse material. Additionally, the questions of gully stabilization and the importance of sands supplied by gully erosion to the littoral sediment balance remain unresolved. 82

5.1.5 Kettle Point to Sarnia

Just south of Gustin Grove, the glacial shorecliffs again

intersect the modern shore bluffs. North of this point the aforemen-

tioned Nipissing terraces and bedrock occur. This area shows a group four profile at the measurement sites (H-10-25, 30) with a very shallow

offshore containing bedrock, lag deposits, and boulders. No major natural change is occurring at water's edge and the beach volume remains

essentially the same. Since this area is in the lee of Kettle Point, relative to the largest fetch, accumulation of silt and clay occur

especially at the most protected site (H-10-25). In the transition zone, in the Gustin Grove area, surges causing short-term water level

increases and storm waves necessitate moderate structural protective measures to limit minor erosion of the low plain shore.

From Gustin Grove to Brights Grove, the situation is similar to the bluffs north of Grand Bend. That is, the modern bluff has undercut the glacial lake bluffs, but as lake levels lowered the increasing influence of hardpoints near the shore provides some protection, but their absence in other areas allows erosion. The area slightly north, and most of the unprotected area south of Harris Point, is almost in-

83

°ding. Lake setup and storm surges are of the lake so even though the si - shallow bedrock group four offsh allows waves to attack the north 'presentative study period erosion from the headland the nearby sites ates of 0.2 and 2.9 display toe erosion and oversteepening, especial' 'ely deep failurc This is these active, deeper internal :hey are dwarfed by the deep rotati- With higher water levels, erosion

, ficant enough 3 sup' part of the sediment I Large birds-foot delta the mouth of the St. CJ rosion supplies drif the littoral zone. The renulated appearar. , and exhibits a broadly curve al of .›rosional or rr site (H-10-45) the o Lhe lake margin and show sand ations progressively more sand av ability into then yet the steepness th vex shape of the nearshore eroding bluf 45 the water's edge of ding about dr1 about same order sand •r. L d slightl , oes the - bedrock our) shore ss than deposi

•ove differs from the rest of dom In coarse grained

C low plain )111 i; I a C 1 Tr- anted by an extensive Pi e groyne field. 84

Significant erosion has occurred recently but only during major storm surges (Freeman & Haras, 1971) partly due to the protective structures but also due to the physical characteristics of the shore. Its granular composition is much less resistant to erosive forces than the tills and quickly disintegrate under the attack of waves, showing no propensity to deeper failures due to its lack of cohesiveness. However, the littoral sand and gravel, although not enough to produce a group one depositional profile, are sufficient to provide a group two profile (H-10-55 to 115) and some natural protection, except during high magnitude incidents. Indeed, they are abundant enough to partially fill the groyne field and provide additional protection. In contrast, during times of lake setup and storm surges, the littoral sand is apparently insufficient protection in relation to the extreme wave climate, allowing bluff recession up to 9 metres during one incident in 1972 (Freeman & Haras, 1971). 85

5.2 Lake Erie Lake Erie's shores display rock at the eastern quarter while to the west eroding bluffs composed of glacial material erode, feeding pand to the spits at Pelee, Rondeau, and Long Point. The initial development of these spits is related to cross-lake moraines (Lewis, 1966) during lower Lake Erie water levels. Since then rebound of the lake outlet, differentially in relation to the rest of the basin, has resulted in increasing water levels relative to the shoreland causing continuing erosion of the shore bluff. Further, due to the shallowness of the lake and its southwest-northeast orientation in relation to the predominant southwest wind direction, frequent lake level setups allow large waves from long fetch distances to attack and erode the shore and to transport littoral material.

Figure 28: Lake Erie Sites 86

5.2.1 Western Basin

The western basin once was a series of sub-basins when early

Lake Erie water levels were below the present elevation, and these had

an outlet across the cross-lake Pelee-Lorain moraine (Lewis, 1966).

With isostatic rebound of the lake's Buffalo outlet, the relative water

level has risen drowning these features causing erosion and leaving lag

deposits on the Pelee shoal (St. Jacques et al., 1976; Coakley, 1971),

and a sedimentary basin covered by a thick accumulation of clayey silty mud. This has resulted in a shallow basin with topographic smoothing on all but the bedrock highs that form a chain of islands and shoals, and is well shown by the flat sounding profile offshore of the beach zone slope. The beach zone above this contact is responding to a complicated wave climate due to the basin's shallowness, due to the islands and shoals affecting wave generation and refraction, due to its end lake position predisposing it to lake level setdowns during predominate southwesterly winds and setups from less frequent but high magnitude northeasterlies, and due to the various and changing shoreline orientation affecting littoral drift direction and wave power. In addition to these lake factors, the situation is further complicated by 87

fluvial factors including the sediment , lamic influences of the Detroit River. The complexity of the area suggest zone types. Bedrock shallow pt f- he bedrock highs, such as Pelee roup one types exist at the west er, ,J '4 Hi r ;ii i H i ; t, possibly due to the fluvial -4, 6). Group two steeper sau :'rLHH-• (E-1-23, 25) along Point Pelee near Colchester (E-1-10), and -12, 13, 14). Interestingly, Eshore sandbar is displaced level, so that its prof

the group two characteristics when aL Croup three concave profiles exist and in the Pigeon Bay area (E-1-19, 20, 21)- :iriihor(- been published for some of this area (7,pmJ, areas with sand already mentioned, Ely only a small sand wedge near tee lag deposits, and boulders lakel, Id accumulation. The land surface behind these ow surface relief since it was led by gla- To the extreme west between in the re boggy , ke Rouge outlet (Vagners, 197 2 . Es fronted by a recent sand barrH - present forces at work, but River and the legacy of post-gl,, so I5t ment sites (E-1-4, 6) seem to vary somewl , the group Lakes. Else- - :eristics displayed at other sites on the Great Creek to Colchester and from near Oxley to Kingsville, a 2-5 m high were steep and eroding during the early survey 88

years with high water levels. Later, with lower water levels this erosion has decreased and the slope angles lessened, resulting in average erosion rates of 0.2, 0.2, 0.5 m3/m/m/yr (E-1-9, 12, 14). The higher bluffs 10-20 in, at Littles Point and east of Kingsville result from thicker glacial drift deposits. In the case of Littles Point this relief resulted in the formation of glacial lake sandbars, sand, silt, and a Lake Lundy shoreline (Vagners, 1972), which are all being truncated by erosion at the present shore. At the measurement site (E-1-10) the basal tills were eroded by waves during high water levels, since the local controls that allow Littles Point to be a headland were overridden, but with lower water levels this process has slowed in recent years. Here the sand and silt sand overburden is affected by the collapse of its foundation tills, but exhibits a lesser slope due to its less cohesive nature, in total showing an erosion rate of 1.7 m3/m/m/yr. However, the high bluffs east of Kingsville to Lea- mington are more prone to circular toe failures due to their composition both above and below lake level. The erosion rate varies from 0.0 to 0.2 m3/m/m/yr (E-1-19, 21). The beach zone lacks significant sand deposits displaying concave erosional glacial drift group three characteristics which allows the waves to attack the bluff especially during lake level setup conditions. These bluffs consisting of upper glaciolacustrine sand and silts, perched water tables, underlain by tills and fronted by this beach type are calculated (Zeman, 1979) to be geotechni- cally unsafe and in some areas likely to fail. Indeed, not only was it calculated and predicted but it occurred adjacent to one of the measurement sites (E-1-21). In 1973 cracks were noticed landward of the bluffs' edge while toe erosion continued so that in the spring of 1979 there was a major circular failure. Residents reported a similar occurrence about 30 years ago. The variability of erosion has resulted in frequently changing shoreline configurations and orientations, but not so severely indented as to preclude regional littoral movement. There is some 89

westerly movement of littoral drift in the western reach of the basin,

but mostly easterly movement predominates. The irregularly oriented shore exists until Pigeon Bay where a more mature curved shore tied to hardpoints, such as Belle Point, have formed, and sediment availability due to littoral drift has allowed large offshore bar formation so that This the measurement site (E-1-23) exhibits little erosional change. area is in the crux of the large scale shoreline curve from Cedar Creek to Point Pelee,necessitating recognition of the regional scale of shore

features such as littoral drift and offshore bar accumulation, in addition to local headland and embayment responses. Knowledge about the interrelationships of the shore processes Variability of the shore in the western basin is as yet incomplete. composition, orientation, beach zone type, nearshore sediment, mode of failure and the effects of basin topography, lake level setups and setdowns, local fluvial processes, and shore protection so complicate the For shore environment that simple analyses tend to be inadequate.

instance, the erosion rates recorded by this survey tend to be lower than historical rates, while shore protection is presently more abun-

dant. Also, limited tests of the correlation between recession rate and total wave power at breaking result in a poor correlation (Zeman, 1979) while in contrast, in the central basin, this correlation is stronger (Gelinas et al., 1973). Since nearshore sands are apparently not over- abundant, the shore is sensitive to change and thus some changes have Yet occurred due to the prevalence of shore protective structures. study has shown these structures to be generally inadequate due to lack of co-ordinated design, lack of height, absence of aprons, closeness to buildings, poor transition to adjacent structures, and lack of common In addition, alignment (Canada/Ontario Site Specific Study, 1980). placement of any structure at the toe in the aforementioned areas of

large circular toe failures is inadvisable. 90

5.2.2 Point Pelee

Point Pelee, a notable sand spit, extends into Lake Erie dividing the western and central basins by a spit and shoal complex. It is suggested to be either an accretional feature (Wilson, 1907) or an eroding relict feature (Coakley, 1977) but there is agreement that it formed originally due to the influence of the cross-lake Pelee-Lorain moraine during preceding water levels. Past records show the dynamic nature of the Pelee shore zone, so it is not surprising that recent monitoring for this study confirmed its variability. Rising from the flatter offshore lake bottom, the Pelee beach zone conforms to the group two steep mobile sand shape, but due to the different basin characteristics, such as depth and fetch, the profiles differ on either side of the spit. On the west side due to westward migration of the shore, a smooth steep slope of repose has formed with, to the north, moderate sand bar development near water level. In contrast, the receding east side has a lesser slope displaying a less smooth non-accretionary form with larger and deeper offshore bars, in response to the more robust wave climate.

92

5.2.3 Central Basin - Pelee to Rondeau

The shore from Pelee to Rondeau is a relatively straight

shore tied to, and supplying material for the broad curves of the spits.

Near Wheatley, the gently sloping backshore, on a plane oblique to the

present shore and with the creeks running down the south slope, marks

the beginning of this reach and interestingly the last of the major

creeks encountered until Rondeau, where a similarly oblique backshore

rises from the Rondeau lowlands. At this east end, inland the sand shore deposits and ridges of glacial lakes most evident near Blenheim

extend to the Erie shore, so that 8 km east from Ouvry the present shore

is composed of wave cut till overlain by thicker deposits of shallow

water sand and gravel lacustrine deposits. The height of land near Ouvry slopes very gently downward to the west, the shore being fairly uniform. The surface of the lower bluff unit, likely Port Stanley till

since it is present to the east and west, is the bevelled glacial Lake

Warren nearshore zone topped by a flat 5m layer of sands and gravels, with the old shore ridge sometimes slightly inland. It is only this glacial nearshore area that drains to Lake Erie, because on the other side of this ridge water flows twenty-five times as far to drain into 93

A few man-made drainage cuts counter this treu , 1 iins the lack of drainage streams in this reach and sugg water influence on the present shore bluffs. Given its history, erosion of the present short , . rward: water percolates through the upper aHd exits at the springline on the till suri io ours due to surface degradation, 5,hallow nundwer, and removal of the supporting till; while

ands nt a 3teep angle dominated by ridge and shallow gully dey- tn rtnInt - C, Only when farm tile or cut channel drainage is 1 , these gullies of any major proportion. Toe er( causing block falls, dominates thc eror

,.-hibiting a 0.6 m3 /m/m/yr eror( -,Hrn e ( prïn:,(n, reult generally only in shallow iltire; nArring only infrequently and perhaps intigted i)y priu tank discharges supplyir rtddi

lei e (1*2-08).

ch zone hae the Herjel

wavf , to dirucly irp er on h rone, exct at eiLhur

-2-02, 16) !h!.■ scrd mnrd-

Litc the adjacent thickness and compo- rial previously eroded is different from that being 94

eroded today (and also will be different in the future). Speculation could range from a higher or lower landform with more or less sand

content, but in either case it suggests management considerations for

Rondeau and Pelee that would be different than if one assumes constant

sediment supply.

Considerations for present shore management include a respect

for littoral drift balance and for groundwater influence. It has been noted that septic tanks and farm drainage can severely impact on these

relatively dry bluffs. Also, the previous removal of littoral sand at Port Crewe and the present extensive surface mining of the sand and gravel on top of the bluffs removes tons of available coarse material.

Since the reach is fronted by the group three beach zone this may not be

important locally but this source of sand may be important to the

Rondeau spit, or more specifically to Erieau, depending on the

post-glacial sediment supply and lake levels.

5.2.4 Central Basin - Rondeau

Rondeau, a sand spit, was formed originally due to the shoreline changes induced by the local moraine or ridge extending into the central htsi;7 ( l..rrwi5^ , J9{ ? I .. .su?

Y t kttr,w., r rlu t ?1^

;?rd s, rn(1 i n; 1.->,ii l t J'rin; ,i;n

t:[tcr les ;c-e' meanbct, oÉ fe.attire, is -,hc?wt "n ld Mr3Ps (I

„iise, 786 1t<, be more be< V o l

t;?" arc . f i ha q h(P C' I î

rmed Q and

devc.'1LSpvd.

Wt" r: The rE w lZ34'e ffJ`-t'f'& _.

src.rr+c om S(;. %jïl the x;f .4h- ;t or; in uhat the shore crr e ! lai

hernts and windhlown i b i 3 i. zed b y ^i

t# o n - Th f- t7 c= ar, h z c> n c> is 'tlln {>ÿi)^'^} t:b7r

sPupe and with isT: '.r» base of

Indjcative of abuadartt mobile srind

toward Point Aux Pins, t :ndpaa!, a rImi }tr-e* 51 t.^ < the bars are nm

. t nt1t r rr ii lof' ^ ;:^ +: r t hi,, si

tnnrr l s ;stt l. ^^ts t - ,, , .r!rtl 96

zone is receding but the volume of material in the zone has increased for the period of survey. The concern regarding shore erosion seems limited to the south shore since the east shore is still accreting. However, alternative solutions for the eroding shore of Rondeau and Erieau demand knowledge of the past and present sediment supply and the effect of man's development of this shore that is not yet available.

5.2.5 Central Basin - Rondeau to Long Point

Almost all of the bluff shore from Rondeau to Long Point is eroding, in places at the highest rates found on the Great Lakes, often in a most spectacular fashion. It is a special area representing a broadly curved shpre exhibiting rapid erosion of high glacial bluffs and attendant littoral drift which feeds the Rondeau and especially Long Point spits. The conditions existing for the area highlight the varied processes and importance of different factors of erosion of glacial material for large non-tidal lakes and thus have been subject to a great deal of investigation and documentation.

sand and sand bar profile and a wider beach (E-2-20). In the same manner, eastward drift toward Long Point builds a similar profile but containing more sand at the east end of the reach (E-4-08) and thus tending toward a group one profile. Oftentimes, the material is collected updrift of major structures forming a similar profile and protecting the backshore bluffs (E-3-15, 23) but due to the large amount of drift available and the attendant size of structure needed to contain it, they may form an accumulational type one beach zone profile (E-3-30). Indeed, at Port Burwell, with the extension of the jetty the pffshore bar became the prominent shore, like at Kingsville, with later infilling behind due to stormwaves and aeolian processes. All these profiles show a lakeward gain at the underwater beach zone limit, little net change at water's edge, and generally a gain in beach volume updrift of the major structures. Beyond the depositional areas, many of the profiles take the concave glacial eroding group three form but with some differences. To the west the profiles are typical of the group three type with only, minor coarse material inshore of seemingly little importance to the slope and with the beach zone intercept receding (E-2-24). The basis of this group is that onshore and offshore erosion occur at a rate in tandem to allow a concave form, with little permanent sediment inshore due to the openness of the shore system and subsequent rapid littoral movement. To the east, south of Port Stanley and Port Burwell, there is a wave-cut terrace (Rukavina et al, 1978) with lag deposits. The measurement sites, although like group three, have the additional feature of a platform or ramp, with larger ramps in front of more quickly eroding bluffs (E-3-17,20,25,31,40). Apparently for these areas the material above 2m water depth and the bluffs are eroding faster than the beach zone below, possibly due to abundant littoral drift and lag deposits. The largest platform or ramp measured was in the lee of Port Burwell sheltered from direct predominant wave attack, yet at this and the other sites above 2m depth the concave group three configuration remains and 99

severe erosion of the bluff continues at rates of 2.0, 2.1, 3.1, 3.7, 4.9 m3 /m/m/yr (E-3-17,202531 ) 40). At the same time the water's edge retreats along with the bluff while the beach underwater limit data is not conclusive. The beach volume may indicate gains solely on the basis of measuring a larger area due to bluff retreat. The only major change from the broadly curved shore from Rondeau to Long Point are the headlands at Plum Point and Patrick Point. They break the total reach into a southeastward facing reach evolving to a south and southwest orientation to the east. These headlands are underlain by the oldest exposed glacial till deposits found in the area (Qpigley and Dreimanis, 1972), their location influenced by a local high of bedrock (Gelinas, 1974). A moraine of Catfish Creek till rests here in places above water level and since it is of bouldery coarse material it influences the waves allowing headland development. The area is anomalous for other reasons as well as containing this moraine, for it has shoulder gravel deposits; it is in an area of clay plain with sand plains on either side (Chapman and Putnam, 1966); the presence of an old spillway cut into lacustrine deposits now inhabited by the misfit Talbot Creek; a different visual expression of erosion on either side of the creek due to bluff composition; the continued presence of a mixed sand and cobble beach; and the mapping of creeks on the 'wrong' side of the headland in the early 1800s. The latter is an unlikely mistake due to lts importance in an era of water transportation. These complications extend offshore too since the nearby profile (E-3-10) is shallow, smooth and has a ramp but not a high erosion rate, while the site between the headlands (E-3-7) shows a group three form but with sands offshore and lacks concavity after 2m depth. The next site westward (E-3-04) also has some unusual characteristics. 100 5.2.5a Central Basin - Rondeau to Long Point

The mode of bluff failure for the total reach from Rondeau to Long Point changes due to the varied importance of erosional forces at

work on the different bluff materials. Large deep seated total slope failures occur which have been related to softening along an internal

failure plane when given a sufficient period of time to develop (Quigley

et al, 1977) and may be shown by the 1972-73 failure east of Port

Burwell (E-3-40). Recently large but shallow rotational total slope

failures are frequent occurrences. Even though the bluffs have some internal cohesion and can stand at a steep angle, rapid toe erosion

makes them unstable eventually and the resultant stresses force the

bluff to fail along a weakened internal plane. Often then the arc shaped landmass will rotate downward leaving a steep drop from top of

bank and extruding toe materials lakeward. These often break along smaller failures which progress downslope, giving the bluff a stepped appearance (E-3-31) until the debris is removed and the cycle continues.

Alternatively, conditions exist where along the failure plane the landmass doesn't rotate with time but rather, at the moment of failure, landslides with high velocity completely downslope, shooting well into the lake, leaving a clean bluff face and an amphitheatre-like scar

102

eroding due to toe erosion, shallow failures, and surficial processes during high water levels were studied, structural toe protection could seem warranted. However, if or when a large internal failure occurred the protection would be totally destroyed. It has been shown that when the rate of toe erosion is slowed, then this longterm softening along an internal failure plane has a chance to develop (Quigley et al, 1977), or alternately the bluff geometry changes,predisposing the bluff to exactly this management problem. Another shore management dilemma for this reach is that erosion of the bluffs supplies coarse material to the spits at either end, so that halting erosion of the bluffs would nega- tively impact elsewhere in the shore system.

5.2.6 Long Point

Long Point, like Rondeau and Pelee, is a sand spit, has a low backshore area, and was likely initiated by the influence of a cross- lake moraine, but is unlike the other spits with regard to its relationship with water levels. Rebound from the weight of the ice has raised the Erie outlet at Buffalo and thus water levels about 40m (Lewis, 1966), but this differential uplift decreases toward the central basin,meaning the lake water level was rising faster than the land was

104

the smaller built spit into Long Po .le with less active sand bars. The accumulational group one bea ssion at water's edge an( ue. to its less exposed locati silo -te activity at Long Poini difficult task due to its naturH available sand plus the wind thwesterly winds )11 the shor , u:ln the net long—t( volume on the order ,Ily 89 m3 after 8 year'; thus difficult -term change, or even hp recnp,nized, tins, 105

5.2.7 Eastern Basin

The shore from Turkey Point to Fort Erie is mostly a shore

dominated by limestone bedrock with only a thin overburden. At Mohawk Bay thicker morainic deposits overlie the bedrock while near Port

Colborne and Point Abino,there are sand dunes. To the west of the Port Dover area there are higher eroding bluffs.

The bedrock in the eastern basin was scraped by glacial ice advance from the northeast transporting this material to form the thick

drift deposits to the southwest. Thus only a thin deposit of Wentworth glacial till is present on the shore near Port Dover (Barnett, 1978), while east of Evans Point, a younger thin deposit of Halton till is present along the shore and forming the recessional moraine near Port

Maitland (Feenstra, 1974) evident both onshore and offshore (Rukavina et al., 1971). Otherwise the eastern basin shores are covered by glaciolacustrine clay and silt deposited deep in glacial lakes or glaciolacustrine sand and silt deposited in shallower areas of these lakes, especially east of Port Dover. The Port Dover area also marks the start of bedrock outcrops occurring eastward to Fort Erie. Being more resistant to erosion the bedrock forms headlands resulting in a highly indented shoreline, while 106

between headlands in the bay areas, crescentic sand and gravel beaches form due to the refraction of incoming waves. Where bedrock is prevalent shingle beaches form, whereas when sand is available sand beaches form on the west side of the headlands due to predominant littoral drift,direction (Rukavina et al., 1971). In some areas local availability of coarse material has allowed the formation of group two steep sand profiles. The collection of littoral material from the eroding bluffs updrift of the Port Dover pier (E-4-32) and the site east of Mohawk Point (E-6-04) are two such areas. The local availability of sand in the latter case i s due to erosion of the Port Maitland moraine onshore (E-5-10, 11), as well as offshore as indicated by lag deposits covering the moraine surface lakeward south of the area (Rukavina et al., 1971). The beach zone sand in these profiles is sufficient to protect the backshore, leaving a wide beach and appearing as relatively stable features, with even a lakeward gain of the beach zone limit at Port Dover (E-4-32). Even during major storm incidents, although the profile may adjust its shape (E-6-04), there is little net loss in volume of material comprising the beach zone. Often, in concert with a wide beach, wind is able to transport the sand landward forming backshore dunes especially in the Morgan Point, Port Colborne, and Point Abino areas due to local availability of coarse material. Other significant landward movement of sand is caused by storm waves durinp, lake setup conditions (Boyd, 1975). More commonly east of Port Dover there is not an abundance of sand since there is no major source of material from bluffs or streams. Minor beaches form at the lake margin between headlands, perhaps forming an offshore bar (E-6-10) giving the impression of a sand beach profile, but within a short distance offshore changes to the group four shallow resistant bedrock or boulder form. These show only a slight gain in beach volume and a lakeward trend for the offshore beach zone limit (E-6-10, 15). Seemingly they are relatively stable features fluctuating inside the headlands but with some minor regional littoral drift move- 107

ment to the east as indicated by the deposits filling the eastern end of the lake (Rukavina et al., 1971). Other areas lacking significant sand accumulation and with the offshore dominated by the group four shallow bedrock or boulder profile do not have a low backshore but rather a small eroding bluff. The shallow beach limits erosion of the shore except that storm surges can partially override this influence, resulting in erosion rates of 0.2 m3/m/m/yr (E-4-35, 5-2) to 0.5 m3 /m/m/yr (E-4-40, 5-10, 11). For these areas the water's edge is retreating modestly in tandem with the bluff but the volume of beach material and lakeward beach zone limit indicate minor gains. West of Port Dover the shore differs from the indented bedrock nature of the eastern basin in that it has an eroding high bluff shore. It is more related to the character of the central basin since it marks, the thickening of glacial overburden. These bluffs are of glaciolacustrine clay and silt, capped by glaciolacustrine sand, underlain by bedrock or till, while west of Port Dover a lower lens of sand thought to be a distal deltaic feature (Barnett, 1978) is exposed. Erosion of the bluffs due to wave attack at the toe and shallow upper slope failures aided by groundwater are common but deeper failures can also occur. At the measurement site (E-4-30) there was a major failure in 1972 but since then, other than the removal of the sloughed material, little erosion has occurred, thus providing an erosion rate of 1.4 m3 /m/m/yr for the period 1972-80 but only a rate of 0.3 m3 /m/m/yr for the period 1973-80. The latter rate is more representative of the area than the rate which included the year of major failure. Only in the future when the bluff regains its original form can a representative rate be accurately calculated. For this bluff reach the shoreline is curvilinear punctuated only by headlands which have developed where resistant till or bedrock is exposed at the base of the bluff (Barnett, 1978). Erosion of these bluffs provides littoral drift which moves 108

westward to form Turkey Point, although east of the Dover area the predominant direction is eastward, as shown by shore formations.

Generally for the low shore of the eastern basin erosion problems are not as severe as elsewhere on Lake Erie due to the presence

of bedrock. However, higher lake water levels in the long-term and

large water level setup in the short term can significantly raise the

destructive wave energy zone and thereby cause shore damage. One storm can cause nearly half the damage occurring in one year (Boyd, 1975), so

awareness and planning for the possible storm surge elevations is fundamental to shore construction and design. For the high bluff to the

west dewatering the bluffs and reducing toe erosion would counter the

primary causes of shore retreat, but a regional perspective needs to be

adopted since these bluffs supply material which feeds Turkey Point.

5.2.7a Eastern Basin

110

5.3.1 Niagara-on-the-Lake to Toronto

For the Niagara River to Toronto area, bedrock plays a key role in retarding shore erosion. This is especially true for the stretch from Burlington to Toronto. Here the shale often outcrops above lake level, and bedrock is extensive offshore (Rukavina, 1969). Above water the shale is removed by the waves after flaking and fissuring due to freezing/thawing and wetting/drying processes. The overburden retreats with the shale but also due to wave splash and surficial erosion processes. This supplies most of the coarse material for the beach. However, generally only very coarse sediments (cobble) remain on the beach since it is a high wave energy zone. Although the sites (0-3-10, 20) have a group four shallow bedrock profile they differ from other rock profiles in that the shale does erode relatively more easily. This leads to higher erosion rates and a profile that drops off sharply at the lake margin. It is suggested this is caused by increasing wave influence on the shale in this zone in tandem with fluctuating lake levels, especially when low levels expose the scarp. This results in a fluctuating beach margin and, with lower lake levels, a small shelf above water (Coleman, 1936).

112

material remains after the fine material is winnowed out and deposited elsewhere, resulting in a shallow bedrock-type group four offshore profile (0-2-13) which limits erosion. At sites where the boulder pavement is not as extensive, erosion of the lakebed occurs resulting in a steeper group three profile (i.e. 0-1-170, 174, 0-2-20). It is in these areas that erosion proceeds at higher rates producing embayments between the headlands. Indeed, west of Port Weller it is the sites (0- 1-80, 90, 170, 0-2-30) in these embayment areas that represent the highest erosion rates. Also, due to their location and wave refraction around the headland, these sites often exhibit more sand nearshore resulting in a group two offshore profile. However, nowhere is the collection of sand and silt extensive except at the Niagara River mouth and at Jordan Harbour, but these two sites most likely represent past rather than present river mouth deposition. East of Port Weller the erosion rates are also relatively high, excluding the Four Mile Point headland which has the till above water level. On either side of the Point, however, the waves are acting on the sandier stratified silt and clays of the glacial Lake Iroquois lakebed (Feenstra, 1972) which is more susceptible to erosion, resulting in these higher erosion rates. The differing nature of the present shoreline suggests different approaches are necessary for shore management. The prediction of erosion rates tends to be quite site specific and the means of protecting the shore must vary in light of the circumstances. Further complications arise because the value of the land is high, both i n terms of economics and the preservation of the Niagara Fruitbelt farmland, and so a great deal of the shore is already protected. However, with respect to this protection, a recent study (Keizer, 1980) shows that historically the likely lifespan of any type of privately constructed shore protection in the Stoney Creek area is quite short and requires continual maintenance. 113

Erosion of the local till and lacustrine overburden provides coarse sediment for beach building, but along the shore the beaches are not large and major accumulations occur only at Jordan Harbour and the Niagara River mouth, and most significantly at the Burlington Bar. The Burlington Bar mimics its predecessor, the old Lake Iroquois bayhead bar which is westward at a higher elevation. Today's bar collects the littoral material driven to the end of the lake, but ite major modern source is the south shore since the north shore with its shale is eroding less quickly and, due to its composition, is supplying less coaree material. In fact, the natural bay outlet shown on old maps is at the northern end of the bar indicating net northern littoral movement. It is, therefore, paradoxical that the Burlington jetties appear to have collected more sand to the north rather than the south; and that the nearshore profiles, rather than being group one, exhibit the steeper group two sand configuration. In addition, although the shape of the profile (0-3-4) at the northern end of the bar is similar to the other Burlington Bar sites, it exhibits cobbles at water's edge and is apparently eroding. Indeed, the measurement sites have a group two offshore profile which indicate they are not accumulating material like the large group one beach types, they show more of a propensity to erode, and in turn, require more thoughtful management and investigation into the long-term effect of increasing water levels and changing littoral Supplies. The profiles near the jetties at Port Dalhousie (0-1-170) and Port Weller (0-1-50) do show sand accumulation resulting in a group one profile. However, this tendency is limited by the short length of the Port Dalhousie structure but not limited in this way by the large jetties at the Welland Canal. 114

5.3.2 Toronto and Scarborough Bluffs

This area is already quite well documented, quite complex,and the natural processes have been significantly altered by man's shore

activities for more than a century. For additional information the

reader is referred to other reports. These include discussion of the stratigraphy (Sharpe, 1980), the history (Williams, 1977; Coleman,

1932); vegetation (Fowle et al., 1978), erosion (Bird and Armstrong,

1970; Weaver, 1979; Langford, 1952) offshore sediments and geology

(Lewis and Sly, 1971; Rukavina, 1969), and littoral currents and waves

(McGillivray, 1976; Fricsberg, 1965).

This study uses Weaver's erosion rate of 0.3 m3/m/yr for

onshore erosion. The offshore profiles indicate a group three sand deficient convex eroding glacial sediment nearshore zone.

Present management practices include draining of groundwater, sundry individual protective measures, acquisition, construction of headlands and spits, and consideration of further work to stabilize the bluffs (Geocon, 1980). 115

5.3.3 Scarborough to Raby Head

From Scarborough to Raby Head, the old glacial Lake Iroquois shoreline quickly recedes inland so that for most of the reach it is well back from the present shore. The lacustrine overburden now at the shore is more clayey since it was situated in a deeper, more offshore portion of the Iroquois lakebed. Underneath are the drumlinized till plains and sand modified by lake processes. The present backshore is a series of gently rolling and undulating hills, but at the shore some of these hills have been partly eroded resulting • in an undulating shoreline. This erosion has caused the material composing the hills to shed boulders which have visibly collected at the shore, slowing erosion by affecting the waves and causing the hills to become promontories (headlands). Between these headlands the shore elevation decreases to a low plain or barrier beach. Thus, near the headlands the bluff is eroding but limited by the group four bedrock-like shallow bouldery beach zone (0-6-10, 25, 29, 30, 33). In the embayment, sand has collected resulting in a group two sandy beach zone. These may represent a barrier beach system as at Frenchmans Bay (0-6-14, 15), a barrier system incorporating a drumlin as at McLaughlin Bay (0-6-35), or a low shore (0-6-20, 25). These sites exhibit little erosion as shown 116

by the little beach volume change, water's edge, and intersect change.

Near the headlands some erosion, on the order of 0.1 to 0.3 m3/m/m/yr,

has been experienced during the period of survey, while the beach zone

at these sites seems to lack sand and shows little change in beach volume.

For this reach of shore, as for much of the north shore of Lake Ontario, the beach zone cobbles and boulders seem to be of some

importance. Interestingly, a government investigation (Select Committee of the Ontario Legislature on Lake Levels) reported in 1952 that a wit-

ness in the Scarborough area indicated the foot of the wooded bluffs

was once littered with glacial boulders helping to protect the bluff

from erosion. However, for over 60 years these boulders were removed by man, partially explaining the change in equilibrium and, thus, erosion

of the bluffs. It appears from the data now available, that it is an important observation to be heeded in future shoreline management.

5.3.4 Raby Head to Port Hope

The area of Raby Head to Port Hope has a greater and higher deposit of glacial drift with the Iroquois shoreline more dissected,

118

5.3.5 Port Hope to Prince Edward County

The shore from Port Hope to Prince Edward County is characterized by bedrock near or above lake level, topped by some till, but mostly by the clay, silt, and sand of Lake Iroquois. Some moderately high (5-10 m) eroding bluffs occur to the west and near Loughbreeze but mostly it is a shore of low glaciolacustrine bluffs, marshes, and bedrock outcrops. The site (0-8-20) at a low bluff is eroding slowly, as is the site at the low bedrock bluff at Presqu'ile (0-8-45), both at a rate of 0.1 m 3 /m/m/yr. To the east the backshore is covered by Lake Iroquois clay, but westward as this old shore comes closer to the present shoreline, the area is covered more by the re/ic nearshore sand. The presence of this sand helps explain the source of material for Prince Edward County's barrier bars, as well as the extensive offshore sands reported (Rukavina, 1969) in the area. However, other than at shore structures and embayments, the beach of the north shore is still mostly cobbles, the sand being moved by littoral processes toward Prince Edward County. Mining operations exist at Ogden Point and a respectable assortment of different types of stones can be collected from the beaches in the area.

6. SUMMARY 6.1 Conclusion Annual measurements of shoreline erosion and accretion were undertaken along the erodible portion of the Canadian shoreline of the Great Lakes for the period 1973-80, both onshore and offshore at 162 sites. Not surprisingly, they indicate that the shore was generally eroding during the survey period. Indeed, some beach zones showed modest accretion while erosion of the shoreline bluffs varied from areas of very little change to others receding at 5.4 m per year. The data documenting these rates of change during above average lake water levels, and additionally, some observations of the physical shore system, are depicted on the summary maps (Figures 30, 31, 32). These show 1) the general shore type, 2) the representative short-term bluff erosion rate, 3) the beach zone type and erosional tendency, 4) the general littoral drift direction, 5) the volume of littoral material available, including and excluding protection, and 6) the percentage of shore protection: in total displaying some of the specific information available from this report. These summary maps indicate "where" and "how much" but leave the question "how" unanswered. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to explain why different areas are eroding at different rates due to the varied nature of the shore and of shore processes. The forces acting on the shore today are of obvious importance, but they are tempered by two historical factors: (1) the drift (soil) deposited during and after the glaciers and (2) the lake water level history. Present day shore processes are acting in the setting established by this glacial legacy. Historical Factors: Glacial Drift and Lake Levels - Near the beginning of the late Wisconsin era there was a coordinated glacial advance extending over Southern Ontario, which, since it originated from the rocky northwest, left stoney sand tills that influence today's shore forms and erosion rates.

120 I 2Ocl

SHORE TYPE rock,cobbies sand glacial bluffs EROSION RATE --^ 0.3 m3/m/m/yr LAKE ^i: HURON >>

10 20 30 40 P Scale km

I q e I a10 •

:e ^.,:k,•:.^r

1 rC

BEACH TYPE Group 1,2,3,or4 1 3 F-60.6

0.0

42.456 LITTORAL DRIFT (38,265) 1 Net Direction *0.7 42,000 m3 Potential sand & gravel from bluff erosion 0.8 (32,000)m3 Available 6,153 44 sand & gravel (4,664) / 4j7 considering protection 2 't 0.2 0.3 ^ 6 2.9 SARNIA

Figure 30 Lake Huron Summary Map EROSION RATE -^ 5.4 m3/m/m/yr

LITTORAL DRIFT 4 Net Direction 70,475 m3Potential sand and gravel from bluff erosion (70,089) m3Available sand and gravel considering protection I

Figure 31 Lake Erie Summary Map EROSION RATE BEACH TYPE -+0.1 m3/m/m/yr Group 1,2,3,or4

KINGSTON

_-- 61,983

W24 ` (57,673) TORONTO 6,747 (5,376) ab 61,152 LAKE ONTARIO (31,088)

53,550 Scale km (24,704)

LITTORAL DRIFT 1 Net Direction 6,747 m3Potential sand & gravel from bluff erosion (5.376)m3Avaiiabie sand & gravel considering protection

Figure 32 Lake Ontario Summary Map 121

- Sometimes these tills are not visible, but when they are at the base of the bluff or near lake water level they tend to reduce .44,4ma,on locally due to their stoney composition. This causes headlands to form, such as at Plum Point; cause a crenulate immature form for the central Lake Huron shore near Goderich; and help explain the boulders and lower erosion rates at Lake Ontario's north shore. - Later lesser glacier advances originating more locally out of the lake basins resulted in the deposition of finer textured tills, since they flowed over the earlier tills. These finer tills, such as the St. Joseph till for Huron and Port Stanley Drift for Erie, can exhibit faster erosion rates. - Glacial lakes during and after glacial episodes deposited materials but the effect of Lake Warren is most evident. For Lake Huron, Lake Warren's bevelled nearshore zone directs streams to flow straight to and to dissect the shore, while its nearshore sands provide material for modern beach development. For Lake Erie, the great meltwater rivers draining into Lake Warren carried significant sand and silt to the area near the central basin of Lake Erie which erode at high rates and provide material for the development of the spits; while further lakeward of the Warren shore, clay and silt were left to influence extreme southwestern Ontario. For example, between Rondeau and Pelee erosion of Lake Warren's beach sand supplies sediment to the spits, while north of this, on the other side of the ridge, surface water flows to Lake St. Clair leading to a relatively dry modern lakeshore bluff and attendant lower erosion rates. - Later, smaller lakes such as Algonquin and Nipissing preceding Lake Huron, and Iroquois preceding Lake Ontario, similarly supplied sediment and this directly influences the nature of the present shore. Features, including the raised beaches and terraces of Georgian Bay and upper Lake Huron; the bars at Burlington and 122

Presqu'ile;and spits such as at Toronto and Rondeau are related to and in places mimic similar features in the glacial lakes. - The effect of changing lake levels from the time of the Early Great Lakes is an elemental consideration for present shore characteristics, yet there are distinct and important differences among the Great Lakes. Due to isostatic rebound of the outlets for Lakes Ontario and Erie, the lake water level has risen relative to the shoreland which leads to and helps maintain bluff erosion. In direct contrast, most of the Lake Huron's shores are rising faster than the southern outlet so water level is relatively lower on the shore, which limits erosion. Superimposed on these long-term changes are the more drastic short-term changes in lake levels, and the modification of levels by locks and dredging. Present Forces - Present forces are acting on the glacial legacy and provide a myriad of intermingling processes and factors for shoreline change. Many are detailed in the preceding discussion of specific sites and reaches. They include the changing dominance of erosional factors such as lake level and setups, wave forces and fetch, composition and stratigraphy, shore morphology, groundwater, and other subaerial forces. - The beach zone responds to the present forces at work where the lake forces and land meet. A classification of the beach zone on the Great Lakes provides four types trending from 1) an accumulational sand beach zone, 2) to a smaller, more mobile sand type, 3) to an eroding concave glacial form, and 4) to a shallow rock-controlled shore. Each represents a shore type reacting differently to shore situations, which in turn helps explain the differing processes and rates along the lake shore. These historical considerations and present processes combine to produce the modern Great Lakes shore system. An understanding of this systes can assist in promulgating better shore management and design. 6.2 Relevance Although it may have only been tacitly stated, the Great Lakes

shore differs from ocean coasts, on which some previous studies are

based, so this study serves to describe the nature of shoreline change

on virtually non-tidal soft shores of large lakes. In doing so, a great

number of works concerning specific sites, their glacial history,

composition, and the erosional processes have been brought together in

one place to provide a comprehensive regional perspective of the

shoreline patterns and relationships for the erodible portion of Lakes

Huron, Erie, and Ontario. In addition, two aspects concerning the

information collected for this survey deserve comment. Firstly, the data set includes measurements taken annually at 162 sites for an eight year period commenced during (record) high lake water levels. Secondly, these measurements were taken not only onshore or offshore but also traversed the shallow beach zone and therefore contribute data for a classification of four types of Great Lakes beach zone.

123 6.3 Applications There are specific applications of this information. For instance, headland controlled crescentic embayed beaches, like those north of Point Clark on Lake Huron, tend to be accumulational with time. Although short-term changes occur, their group one form is related to the glacial past and if not severely tampered with, living along these shores tends to present few problems. In comparison the immature crenulate shore caused by the early stages of headland formation for mid-Lake Huron north of Grand Bend suggests different considerations. Here one may wish to build a cottage closer to the relatively stable headland, stable because the offshore shelf breaks the waves, rather than in the curved mid-point between the headlands where erosion is occurring. At this mid-point houses should be built well back from the

shore in recognition of the natural development of the shore form. If a home i s already poorly situated then consider moving i t back, or at least design temporary protection in concert with the natural shore form given the long-term commitment of the natural processes and the focussing of erosive energy at this site. Obviously, for specific sites, survey of the beach zone i s vital to identify these areas as well as their extent and influence. The group two types, those steeper profiles with less sand are not in a sense accumulational in the long-term but rather they reflect a temporary collection of sand in a form responsive to lake forces, such as at Sarnia, Point Pelee and other similar areas. They are mobile and severely affected by high magnitude incidents. Groynes may not be effective i n the long-term at these sites since they work on the principle of accumulating a beach and thus counter the forces at work. They try to make an accumulational beach form out of a mobile collection form, an attempt that generally fails during high magnitude incidents when the lake's power is greatest. The other consideration i s that the group two form results from a balance of the coarse material supplied to and removed from the area. Cutting off or limiting that supply has

124 125

obvious detrimental effects. The beach zone must then take a new form responsive to the lessened supply, but this new form is often not desired by people living there, or those wishing for static shore features. However, with ample sand supply the beach zone may progress to a group one form, indicated by a shallower profile with more sand bars, presumably caused by a 'clogging' of the shore transport system in relation to the available energy. Therefore the relevance of the estimation of volume of sand and gravel to the littoral drift system, and the effects of protection, lies in its first approximation of the volumes of material needed for the associated depositional feature. Although one may wish to limit erosion in an area, it must be recognized that this erosion often provides the source of littoral drift which feeds a feature, such as spits, further along the system. Thus there is an action- reaction component in the management of the shore regionally. In the same context, there is a historical aspect to this supply equation. For instance, between Rondeau and Pelee it appears that different shore features in the past, and in the future, supply different sand volumes to the shore system even under natural conditions. If the volumes prove to be significantly different then shore management must recognize that the scale and scope of the problem transcends small scale structures.

This may indicate a review of present sand mining practices is required. The form of the concave eroding group three profile is much less dependant on the beach zone sand, indeed there is often only a thin veneer of sand present. Although coarse material is locally available from erosion, it appears not to stay but rather be moved away to collect elsewhere. Although the sand may abrade the shore, its value as a factor in shore protection seems to be minimal and overshadowed by the form and composition of the parent glacial material. Even if the toe of the bluff was protected by a structure, erosion of the offshore would continue ultimately undermining the wall or allowing larger waves to attack 126

it, or alternatively long-term softening of the bluff could occur resulting in a major slump that would engulf the structure. In nature, however, it seems that if the parent material is coarse and bouldery a boulder pavement can form protecting the lake bottom which results in a shallower beach zone to break the waves and allow formation of a headland, such as at Fifty Point. This partly explains why, even though composed of glacial drift and subject to large waves from great fetch distances, the north central shore of Lake Ontario is eroding only slowly as compared to similar sites on Lake Erie. The higher,coarse material and bouldery content of the Lake Ontario bluffs hardens the beach zone and limits direct wave activity at the toe of the bluff. It follows that removal of the boulders would have a negative impact and that changing water levels only change the zone of activity. Erosion of the shore bluffs,although instigated by wave action at the toe eroding the drift and removing the sloughed debris, is also accomplished by subaerial processes. The balance of importance for these factors varies however so that in areas, such as near Raby Head Lake Ontario, shore management could fruitfully focus on groundwater control and associated slope stability together with revegetation,. while i n areas of dominant toe erosion these efforts would be less effective. Groundwater does play an important role in the mass slumping of many bluff areas. This is clearly shown by the antithesis, the lack of groundwater due to drainage away from the bluffs in the Pelee to Rondeau shore reach resulting in very few deeper failures. The slumps that do occur there are generally related to the addition of water to the bluffs by septic tanks and thus something that should be avoided. Overland flow also dissects the bluffs, most obvious at the central Lake Huron shores but in tandem with shore recession since shore retreat tends to perch the gully or stream mouth forcing continual readjustment of the bed slopes. It is not a simple matter, though, since it is suggested that these gullies balance the internal bluff stresses in the area near 127

Port Talbot, which limits massive failures. Reduction of subaerial erosion could shift the scales and allow these massive failures, verifying the axiom that natural forces will prevail in this case. In addition to discussions of shoreline types, data on the rates and modes of erosion, and volume of material eroded is presented for a seven-year time frame during above average lake levels. When the rate is based on profiles of the saine shape, they are reliable estimates of erosion for the period. Future calculation of the rates when water levels are below average will allow a valuable comparison. Since few Great Lakes studies have been able to measure erosion in this time frame, this study fills a void needed for understanding the shore system. Further, in addition to the time frame, the study encompassed most of the erodible shore allowing a regional perspective not generally available from site specific studies. This look at the whole system, and its components, allows regional comparisons and interrelationships sustained over a reasonable period of time which may be important to effective shore management. 6.4 Limitations By necessity there are certain limitations to the data and methods used in this study beyond the limitations of survey accuracy. For one, although it was hoped water levels would significantly decline they generally did not, so the data only represents an above average lake level situation and therefore, perhaps, above average erosion rates. Measurements during a low level stage could confirm this. Secondly, the degree to which a site represents a reach varies, especially in areas where the stratigraphy is highly variable. Therefore, detailed stratigraphic and gedtechnical work is required for determinations at individual sites. Finally, although there was an estimation of the bluff erosion rate at all sites, a few sites failed to complete even one cycle of erosion, since the time needed for the cycle extended beyond the period of this survey. Continued measurement at these sites is required to assess the temporal aspect of these failures for the estimation of a representative erosion rate.

128 6.5 Future Work Given the unique time frame and regional scale of the study to date, it would seem a tragedy not to continue modest monitoring of the erosion sites as (if?) lake water levels decline. In this way comparable measurements would be available for both high and low lake levels and for the intervening transition period providing information about the shores' response for a complete stage of Great Lakes levels. Secondly, consideration of the beach zone is fruitful but

left many questions unanswered. Research focussed on this zone should examine its composition, its effective depth at which modification of shore erosion occurs, its erosion rate, the importance of the sand veneer or prism for the concave glacial form, and its morphological

response to changing lake levels and sediment supply. Thirdly, the methodology used neglected gully erosion which is For an important aspect of shore recession and as a sediment source. some shore reaches, especially Lake Huron, gullies are quite important and should be examined not individually as a separate process but rather as intimately related and fueled by shore erosion. Fourthly, the questions of volume of littoral drift and its If the association to shore features could further be defined. historical supply was significantly greater than present for group two beach profile types then shore management considerations must extend to As well, future supply a regional scale rather than local problems. could change. These areas should be identified and would assist in the administration of sand mining permits. form of the shore whether broadly curved, Fifthly, the cuspate, log spiral, crenulate, straight or indented often gives a clue to the future form. Research to establish this predicted form and the effects of major structures would assist in the estimation of future erosion rates. This would allow better local set-back considerations than simply a fixed distance back from the bluff for an entire reach of shore.

129 130

Finally, for different stretches of shore different methods for reducing shore erosion are better than others, given the shore type and dominant processes. These could be identified and tested to establish suggestions for shore management and shore protection design. REFERENCES

ABBE, C., 1898a, Temperature of lake water: U.S. Weather Bureau Monthly Rev., v.26, 5, p.167.

, 1898b, Periodic fluctuation of the Great Lakes: U.S. Weather Bureau Monthly Rev., v.26, 6, p.261.

ACRES CONSULTING LTD., 1976, Vegetation cover of the Great Lakes shoreline: Its role in controlling rates of erosion: Environment Canada, N.W.R.I., 78p.

ANON, 1817, Plan of the principle settlements of Upper Canada 1817: Public Archives Canada, v.1/4000.

, 1869, North America - Lake Erie: Public Archives Canada, v.1/English Charts, Series 2, #30.

ATKINS, J.H., 1978, Comment at public meeting: Haldimand-Norfolk shoreline meeting, November 25, Simcoe.

BALL, J.R., 1978, The geomorphology and sedimentary characteristics of M.Sc. the lake shelf off Wasaga Beach, Ontario: unpub. Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

BANNISTER, E.N., 1980, Hypsometries of Michigan's southeastern. lake Assoc. of Great plain: J. of Gréat Lakes Res., Internat. Lakes Res., 6(2):154-163.

BARNETT, P.J., 1978, Quat. geol. of the Simcoe area, southern Ont; Ont. Div. Mines, GR162, 74p. Accompanied by Maps 2369, 2370 and 2371, scale 1:50,000.

BATTIN, J.C., 1975, Land use history and landscape change, Point Pelee National Park, Ontario: unpub. M.A. Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 386p.

BAYFIELD, H.W., 1828, A survey of Lake Erie in the years 1817 and 1818: Public Archives Canada, v.1/English Charts, Series 2, 30.

BARTLETT, G.A., 1976, Queen's University coastal research activities; In: N.A. Rukavina, (ed.), Proc. Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedimentation, p.49-50.

BELANGER, A.D., 1976, An investigation of Sandbanks beach through sta- parameters; Sandbanks tistical analysis of grain size

131 132

Provincial Park, Ontario: unpub. B.Sc. Thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, 53p.

BIRD, S.J.G. and ARMSTRONG, J.L., 1970, Scarborough bluffs - A recessional study: Proc. 13th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Int. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 187-197.

BISHOP, A.W., 1955, The use of slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes: Geotechnique, v.5 p.7-17.

BOU, W., 1975, Instability of the bluff slopes at the Elgin area pumping station north shore Lake Erie: unpub. M.E.S. Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 115p.

BOUCHETTE, J., 1790s, Plan of Toronto Harbour: Public Archives Canada, v.1/440.

, 1792, Plan of Toronto Harbour with the rocks, shoals and soundings thereof: Public Archives Canada, v.1/440.

BOURNE, L.S., 1961, A study of port geography; Port Burwell, Ontario: unpub. B.A. Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 123p.

BOYD, G.L., 1974, Shoreline erosion problems with reference to the western end of Lake Ontario: unpub. B.E.S. Thesis, Geog., University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, 71p.

,1978a, Great Lakes Shoreline Erosion Monitoring Programme: Poster Session, C.C.R.E.M. Shore Management Symposium, Victoria, British Columbia.

1978b, The Siltation Problem at the Maitland River mouth, Goderich, Ontario: preliminary review; In: Rukavina (ed.), Proc. 2nd Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedi- mentation, p.83-87.

_, 1976, A Study of the Lake Erie Storm Surge of November 10, 1976: unpub. Report, Ocean and Aquatic Sciences, Central Region, 31p.

BRADFORD, J.D., 1968, Lambton County shorelines; recreational access and ownership: unpub. M.A. Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 171p.

BUKATA, R.P., HARAS, W.S. and BRUTON, J.E., 1975, The Application of ERTS-1 Digital Data to Water Transport Phenomena in the Point 133

Pelee/Rondeau Area: Verh. Internat. Verin. Limnol., Bol 19, p.168-178.

BURWASSER, G.J., 1974, Quat. geol. of the Collingwood-Nottawasaga area, southern Ont.: Ont. Div. Mines, Prelim. Map P919 Geol. Ser., scale 1:50,000. Geol. 1973.

, and BOYD, S.T., 1974, Quaternary geology of the Orr Lake area (western half) Nottawasaga area (eastern half), southern Ontario: Ont. Division of Mines, prelim. map P975, Geol. Series.

and BOYD, S.T., 1974, Quat. geol. of the Orr Lake area (Western Half) Nottawasaga area (eastern half), S. Ont; Ont. Div. Mines Prelim. Map P975, Geol. ser. scale 1:50,000, Geol. 1974.

BURWELL, M., 1816, A plan of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th concessions of the Township of Walsingham: Queen's Printer, Survey and Mapping Branch, Toronto.

CANADA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, 1879, Plan of Toronto Harbour: Public Archives Canada, 21B HE 554-T 75.

CANADA TASK FORCE ON AVAILABLE SHORE EROSION, 1973, Information on the Great Lakes - St.Lawrence System, Shore erosion on the Great Lakes - St.Lawrence System, Part 2: Shore erosion on the Great Lakes System, 102 p.

CHAPMAN, L.J. and PUTNAM, D.F., 1951, The physiography of southern Ontario: 2nd ed.,1966, University of Toronto Press, 385 p.

CHARLESWORTH, L.J., METRESS, J.F. and HERDENDORF, C.E., 1975, The Lake Erie Environment; A comprehensive chronologic bibliography (1797- 1973): E.S.I. Research Report 6, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, 436 p.

CHEWITT, W.C., 1793, Plan of a sketch from Fort Erie along the north shore of Lake Erie round Long Point to where it joins the mainland with the surroundings: Public Archives Canada, v.2/410 - Erie Section 1.

, 1790's, Map of Long Point: Ontario Archives, Simcoe collection, Folder 10, 446695.

CHIERUZZI, R., 1957, Engineering analysis of Lake Erie bluff erosion phenomenon: unpub. M.Sc. Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 134

, and BAKER, R.F., 1958, A study of Lake Erie bluff recession: Ohio State University Eng.Exps. Station, Bull.172, 100 p.

CLARK, R.H. and PERSOAGE, N.P. 1970, Some implications of crustal movement in engineering planning: Can. J. of Earth Sci., 628-633.

COAKLEY, J.P., 1972, Nearshore sediment studies in western Lake Erie. Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.330-343.

, and CHO, H.K., 1972, Shore erosion in western Lake Erie: Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.344-360.

, 1973, Beach stability investigations at Van Wagner's Beach, western Lake Ontario: Proc. 16th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.357-376.

, HARAS, W.S. and FREEMAN, N.G., 1973, The effect of storm surge on beach erosion. Point Pelee: Proc. 16th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. p.377-389.

, and NELSON, D.E., 1974, Techniques for tracing sediment movement: Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada, Scientific Series No.32.

, 1976, The formation and evolution of Point Pelee, western Lake Erie: Can. Jour. Earth Sciences, v.13, 1, p.136-144.

, 1977, Processes in sediment deposition and shoreline changes in the Point Pelee area, Ontario: Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada, Scientific Series No.79, 76 p.

, 1978, Study of littoral drift in suspension: The SOLIDS Project; In: Rukavina, (ed.), Proc. 2nd Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedimentation, p.17-20.

, and BOYD, G.L,, 1979, Fifty-Mile Point case history Part 1; Long term recession and sediment sources: unpub. report, Hydraulics Research Division, N.W.R.I., 10p.

, 1981, Investigation of the evolution of Long Point: N.W.R.I. Seminar, Burlington, Ontario.

COLEMAN, A.P., 1904, Lake Iroquois: Ontario Bureau of Mines, 15th Annual Report v.X111, Part 1, p.225-244. 135

, 1932, The pleistocene of the Toronto region: Ontario Dept. of Mines, v.XL1, Part 7.

, 1936a, Lake Iroquois: Ontario Dept. of Mines, 45th Annual Report v.XLV, Part V11, p.1-37.

, 1936b, Geology of north shore of Lake Ontario: Ontario Dept. of Mines, 45th Annual Report, v.XLV, Part V11, p.37-74.

COOPER, A.J., 1976, Quaternary geology of the Grand Bend-Parkhill area, southern Ontario: Ont. Division of Mines OFR 5215.

, and FITZGERALD, W.D., 1977, Quat. geol. of the Goderich area, Southern Ont: Ont. Geol. Survey Prelim. Map P1232, Geol. Ser., scale 1:50,000. Geology 1975, 1976.

, and BAKER, C., 1978, Quat. Geol. of the Bothwell-Ridgetown area, southern Ont: Ont. Geol. Survey Prelim. Map P1973, Geol. Ser., Scale 1:50,000. Geology 1977.

COOPER, A.J., 1979, Quat. Geol. of the Grand Bend area: Ont. Geol. Survey Report 188, 70p. Accompanied by Maps 2400, 2401, 2402 and 2403, scale 1:50,000.

DAVIDSON-ARNOTT, R.G.D., MOSS. M.R. and NICKLING, W., 1978, Slope stability, vegetation and coastal processes along the Niagara escarpment, Bruce Peninsula; An evaluation of environmental resources as a basis for development planning: Contract Report, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 40 p.

, and PEMBER, G.F., 1978, Morphology and sedimentology of multiple parallel bar systems; southern Georgian Bay: Abstract, The Coastlines of Canada Conference, Halifax, N.S.

and POLLARD, W.H., 1980, Wave climate and potential longshore sediment transport patterns, Nottawasaga Bay, Ontario: J. Çreat Lakes Res., Int. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 6(1):54-67.

, 1981, Personal Communication re: diving offshore of Fifty Mile Point.

DAY, J.C., FRASER, D.A. and KREUTZWISER, R.D., 1977, Assessment of flood and erosion assistance programs; The Rondeau coastal zone experience, Lake Erie: Jour. of Great Lakes Research, Oct. 1977, p.38-45. 136

DICKIE, G.J. and CAPE, D.F., 1974, The effect of winter processes on the shoreline of Point Pelee National Park: Industrial Research Instit., Univ. of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, IRI, Project 7-44, 56p.

DREIMANIS, A., 1958, Wisconsin stratigraphy at Port Talbot on the north shore of Lake Erie, Ontario: Ohio Jour. of Sci.58,2.

, and REAVELY, G.H., 1953, Differentiation of the lower and upper till along the north shore of Lake Erie: Jour. of Sed. Petro., 23, p.238-259.

, 1969, Late Pleistocene lakes in the Ontario and Erie basins: Proc.. 12th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Int. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 170-180.

DREIMANIS, A. and KARROW, P.F., 1972, Glacial history of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region, the classification of the Wisconsin(an) stage, and to correlatives: Int. Geol. Congress 24th Session, Section 12, Quaternary Geology, Montreal, 15p.

DUMFRIE, COL., 1823, A general plan of the Danadies (Burlington Bay): Map, Public Archives Canada, H3/440.

DUNCAN, G.A., 1973, Report on 1973 Shore Property Studies soil samples: Unpub. Report, N.W.R.I., Environment Canada.

ENERGY MINES AND RESOURCES, 1975, GREAT LAKES, Map EMG-1303 from Landsat-1 Band 8 during 1972-74 Scale 1:1,500,000.

, 1975, CANADA, Map N.T.S. Sheets 30-31-40-41 from Landsat-1 Band 6 during 1972-74 Scale 1:1,000,000.

ENVIRONMENT CANADA-ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 1975, Canada/ Ontario Great Lakes Shore Damage Survey; Technical Report: Boulden, R.S., (ed), 97p.

, 1975, Coastal Zone Atlas: HARAS, W.S., and TSUI, K.K. (ed).

, 1978, The 100-year flood and erosion prone area maps and guide: 108 maps and guide 19p.

ERNSTING, J., 1976, Reconstruction of the development of Presqu'ile tombolo through statistical analysis of sediment-size distributions: unpub. B.Sc. Thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario. 137

ETMANSKI, A. and SCHROTCH, R., 1980, An inventory of gully erosion problems along the Lake Huron shoreline: Report to the M.V.C.A., Wroxeter, Ontario, 77p.

EVANS, D.B., 1969, Local perception of shoreline erosion between Port Stanley and Port Bruce, Ontario: unpub. B.A. Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 38p.

FEENSTRA, B.H., 1972, Quaternary geology of the Niagara area, southern Ontario: Ontario Division of Mines, Prelim. Map 764, Geol. Series.

▪ 1972a, Quat. Geol. of the Niagara area, southern Ont: Ont. Div. Mines, Prelim. Map P764, Geol. Ser., Scale 1:50,000 Geology 1969,70,71.

• 1972b, Quat. geol. of the Welland area, southern Ont: Ont. Div. Mines, Prelim. Map P796, Geai. Ser., scale 1:50,000, Geology 1972.

Ont: Ont. ▪ 1974, Quat. geai. of the Dunnville area, southern Div. Mines Prelim. Map P981, Geol. Ser., scale 1:50,000 Geai. 1973.

• 1975, Quat. geol. of the Grimsby area, southern Ontario: Ont. Div. Mines, Prelim. Map P993, Geol Ser., Scale 1:50,000, Geology 1974.

FIELD, A.M., 1906, Toronto harbour map, Admiralty Charts: Public Archives Canada, v.12, English charts, Series 2, 42.

FITZGERALD, W.D., SANICKI, E., and STORRISON, D.J., 1979, Quat. geol. of the Sarnia-Brights Grove area, southern Ontario: Ont. Geai. Survey Prelim. Map P2222, Quat. Geol. Series. Scale 1:50,000, Geol. 1977.

FLEMING, (Sir) S., 1861, Can. Jour. new series Vol.VI, p.247-253.

FREEMAN, N.G. and HARAS, W.S., 1971, A study of the Lake Huron storm surge of August 22, 1971: Unpub. Report, C.H.S. Marine Science Branch, Environment Canada, 26p.

, and MURTY, T.S., 1972, A Study of a Storm Surge on Lake Huron: 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.565-582. 138

FRICBERGS, K.S., 1965. Beach Stabilization in the Toronto Area: unpub. Thesis for Assoc. of Professional Engineers, Toronto, Ontario, 63 p.

, 1970, Erosion control in Toronto area: Proc. 13th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.751-755.

GELINAS, P.J., 1974. Contribution to the Study of Erosion along the North Shore of Lake Erie: unpub. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 266 p.

, and QUIGLEY, R.M., 1973, The influence of geology on erosion rates along the north shore of Lake Erie: Proc. 16th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. for Great Lakes Res., p.421-430.

GEOCON LTD., 1980, Erosion control study, Scarborough bluffs, stage 1: M.T.R.C.A. Contract Report, Wroxeter, Ontario.

GILLIE, R., 1974, The nearshore morphology of sand beaches in the Great Lakes: unpub. M.Sc. Thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 140p.

GRAVENOR, C.P., 1957, Surficial Geology of the Lindsay-Peterborough area, Ontario: G.S.C. Memoir 288, Dept. of Mines and Technical Surveys, 60 p. 1- maps.

GREENWOOD, B. and McGILLIVRAY, D.G., 1978, Theoretical model of the littoral drift system in the Toronto waterfront area, Lake Ontario: Jour. Great Lakes Research, Mar. 1978, Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. 4(1) p.84-102.

GUILCHER, A., 1954. Morpholgie Littorale et Sous-marine, Presses Universitaires de France. Coastal and Submarine Morphology, 1958. (trans) B.W. Sparks and Rev. R.H.W. Kneese, London: Methun & Co. Ltd., 274 p.

HADFIELD, C.D., 1967, The effect of bodies of water in legal surveying: Ontario Dept. of Attorney General, 26p.

HALL, J., 1843, Geology of New York: Report 4th Geological District, p.348-351.

HARAS, W.S., 1974, Recession rate measurement techniques - a critique: Proc. Recession Rate Workshop, Great Lakes Basin Commission, p. 169-179. 139

, 1976, Shore Properties Studies Research Programs; In: Rukavina, (ed.), Proc. Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedimentation, p.23-25.

_, BUKATA, R.P. and TSUI, K.K., 1976, Methods for Recording Great Lakes Shoreline Change: Geoscience Canada, Vol. 3, 3, p.174- 184.

HARRIS, J., 1839, Long Point Bay map: Hydrographic Office Admiralty Charts, Public Archives Canada, v.12, Series 2, 30.

HARTLEY, R.P., 1960, Sand dredging areas in Lake Erie: Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. Shore Erosion, Tech.Reports 5, 79p.

1964, Effects of large structures on the Ohio shore of Lake Erie: Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. Geol. Service, Report Invest.53, 30p.

HEFFERNAN, S., 1978, Long Point Ontario; Land use, landscape change and planning: unpub. M.A. Thesis, School Urban and Regional Planning, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, 165p.

HEGLER, D.P., 1974, Lake Ontario shoreline erosion in the Regional Municipality of Niagara: unpub. M.Sc. Thesis, Civil Eng., Univ.of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, 346p.

HILL, P.L., 1964, The northeast shore of Lake Erie; Physical features McMaster University, and recreation: unpub. M.A. Thesis, Hamilton, Ontario, 265p.

HOUGH, J.L., 1958, Geology of the Great Lakes, Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 313p.

HUDEC, P.P., 1975, Composition and grain size of Lake Erie nearshore Industrial Research sediments at Point Pelee, Ontario: Instit., Univ. of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, IRI Report 7-61, 34p.

INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES LEVELS BOARD, 1973, Regulation of Great Lakes water levels, Appendix C: Shore property report to Interna- tional Joint Commission under Reference Oct.7,1964.

, 1973, Regulation of Great Lakes water levels: Report to International Joint Commission under Reference, Oct. 7,1964.

JACKSON, J.N., 1967, Recreational development and the Lake Erie shore: A study of contrasts and conflicts along the shoreline of Lake 140

Erie in the Niagara Region: The Niagara Regional Development Council, 241p.

JACKSON, T., 1853, Variations in the level of the Great Lakes: Can. Jour., v.2, 2, p.25-29.

JEREMIN, P., WEINBERG, D., FRIEDMAN, J. and SWEENEY, R., 1974, Annota- ted bibliography of limnological and related studies concerning Lake Erie and influent tributaries - v.IV Physical: New York Corp. of Engineers, Buffalo Dist. Great Lakes Labora- tory, State University of Buffalo, 373p.

JESSEN, S., 1979, An evaluation of the Haldimand-Norfolk Lakeshore Recreation Policy: unpub. B.E.S. Thesis, Geog., University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, 128p.

JOHNSON, D.W., 1919, Shore Processes and Shoreline Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 584 p.

KAMPHUIS, J.W., 1976, Queen's University coastal research activities; In: Rukavina (ed), Proc. Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Ero- sion and Sedimentation, N.W.R.I., p.51-52.

KARROW, P.F., 1959, Pleistocene Geology of the Hamilton map-area: 1959. Geol. Circular #8, Ontario Dept. of Mines, 6p + maps.

, CLARK, J.R. and TERASMAE, J., 1961, The age of Lake Iroquois and Lake Ontario: Jour. Geol., v.69,6: p.659-667.

__, 1967, Pleistocene Geol. of the Scarborough area: Ontario Dept. of Mines, Geol. Report 46, 108p. Accompanied by maps 2076, 2077.

, 1967, Pleistocene Geology of the Scarborough area: Ont. Dept. Mines, Geological Report 46, 108p. + maps.

, 1973, Bedrock topography in southwestern Ontario. A progress report: Proc. Geol. Assoc. of Cda, Vol. 25, 67-77.

, 1980, The Nipissing transgression around southern Lake Huron: Can. J. Earth Sci. Vol. 17, 1980, pp. 1271-1274.

KEIZER, H., 1981, The history and durability of shore protection structures in the town of Stoney Creek; unpub. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Guelph, Ontario, 166 p.

KINDLE, E.M., 1933, Erosion and sedimentation at Point Pelee: Ontario Dept. of Mines, v.42, Part 2. 141

KING, C.A.M., 1959. Beaches and Coasts, 2nd Edition, 1972. London: Edward Arnold Ltd., 570 p.

KOMAR, P.D., 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 429 p.

KREUTZWISER, R.D., 1977, An evaluation of Lake Erie shoreline flood and erosion hazard policy: unpub. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 355p.

LANGFORD, G.B., 1952, Report on lakeshore erosion; Part 1, Lake Ontario from Niagara to Cobourg: Ontario Dept. of Planning and Devel- opment, 36p.

LaVALLE, P.D., RUDAKAS, P. and KHAN, B., 1979, Shoreline variations at the Northeast Beach, Point Pelee: unpub. Report to Parks Canada, 68p.

LE MEHAUTE, B. and BREBNER, A., 1961, An introduction to coastal morphology and littoral processes: Coastal Engineering Report #14, Queens Univ., Kingston, Ontario, 46p.

LEMIRE, F., 1961, Winds on the Great Lakes: Dept. of Transport, Met.Branch, Cir.3560 Tec380, 5 fig. and 11p. 81r raised beaches LEVERETT, F., 1892, On the correlation of moraines with 301 . of Lake Erie: Amer. Jour. Sci. 3rd Ser.43, p.281 - U.S. Geol. Survey v 1899, The Illinois glacial lobe: Monog.38. Erie , 1902, Glacial formations and drainage features of and Ohio basins: U.S. Geol. Survey Monog.41, p•

LEWIS, C.F.M., 1966, Sedimentation studies of unconsolidated deposits in the Lake Erie basin: unpub. Ph.D.Thesis, Univ.of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 80p.

1969, Late Quaternary history of lake levels in the Huron and Proc. 12th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Erie basins: Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.250-270.

and SLY, P.G., 1971, Seismic profiling and geology of the , Proc. 14th Conf. Toronto waterfront area of Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Res. Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. P. 303-354. 142

LIBERTY, B.A., and BOLTON, T.E., 1966, Paleozoic geology of the Bruce Peninsula area, Ont: Geol Surv. Can. Memoir 360, 1966, 163 p. I- maps.

L0, K.Y., 1977, Investigation of the possible relationship between the rate of softening and the recurrence of instability in bluff slopes, Phase A: Report to C.C.I.W. (N.W.R.I.), 23p.

LYELL, ( Sir) C., 1845, Travels in North America: New York, v.2, p.102- 106.

MacLAREN LTD., 1979, Lake Huron waterfront study: Report to M.V.C.A., Wroxeter, Ontario, 113p.

MANN, D., 1977, The changing Rondeau landscape: unpub. M.A. Thesis, Geog., Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, 29p.

MARTINI, I.P., 1974, Wasaga Beach; A quaternary classic landscape -Its geological history and biological carrying capacity of the sand dunes: University of Toronto Press, York University Geographical Mono., v.5, p.61-77.

, 1975, Sedimentology of a lacustrine barrier system at Wasa,ga Beach, Ontario, Canada: Sedimentary Geology, v.14, p.169-190.

and HOFFMAN, D.W., 1976, Geology land use and conservation of the quaternary barrier system of Wasaga Beach, Ontario: Geo- science Canada, v.3, p.45-53.

McGILLIVRAY, D.G., 1976, Computer modelling of a littoral drift system; An investigation of the potential effects of existing and pro- posed large man-made structures in the Toronto waterfront area,.Lake Ontario: unpub. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ.of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 202p.

MITCHELL, E., 1976, The Outlet intrabay bar, Prince Edward County, Ontario; A statistical analysis of grain size distribution of an active intrabay bar and offshore sediments: unpub. B.Sc.Thesis, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, 84p.

MITTLER, P.R., 1975, A pale oenvironmental reconstruction of Grand Bend Bay, Lake Algonquin: unpub. M.A.Thesis, Univ.of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 186p.

MOTHERSILL, J.S., 1976, Lakehead University coastal research activities; In: Rukavina, (ed.), Proc. Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedimentation, N.W.R.I., Nov.1976, p.41-42. 143

, 1978, Post-glacial sedimentation rates and correlation, Thunder Bay; In: Rukavina, (ed.), Proc. 2nd Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedimentation , N.W.R.I., p .69-71.

MUNRO, T., 1869, Plan of the head of Inner Bay, Long Point, Lake Erie: map, Public Archives Canada, H11/440.

MURPHY, D.K., 1963, Littoral drift studies at Scarborough, Ontario: unpub. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 109p.

NAKASHIMA, L.D., 1974, Examination of a pleistocene shoreline; A study of Lake Algonquin and associated surficial deposits, Simcoe County, Ontario: unpub. B.A.Thesis, Univ. of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 85p.

NEEDHAM, R.D., 1976, Newspapers and natural hazards; A case study: unpub. M.A. Thesis, Geog., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 442p.

, and NELSON, J.C., 1977, Newspaper response to flood and erosion hazards on the north Lake Erie shore: Environmental Management, v.1 #6, p.521-540.

NELSON, J.G., BATTIN, J.G., BEATTY, R.A. and KREUTZWISER, R.D., 1975, The fall 1972 Lake Erie floods and their significance to resource management: Canadian Geographer, v.19(1), p.37-38.

NEWBERRY, J.S., 1874a, On the structure and origin of the Great Lakes: New York Lyceum Nat. Hist., Proc. v.2, p.136-138.

, 1874b, Geology of Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey Report, v.2, PT 1, p.1-80.

ONTARIO SELECT COMMITTEE ON LAKE LEVELS, 1952, Extract from the Report of the Select Committee of the Ontario Legislature on Lake Levels of the Great Lakes: 146p.

OWEN, W., 1855, Map of County of Haldimand: Public Archives Canada, v.2/420 - Haldimand.

, 1861, Plan of Toronto Harbour, Lake Ontario: Public Archives Canada, v.1/English charts, Ser.2, 42.

OWENS, E.H., 1979, The Canadian Great Lakes; Coastal environments and the clean up of oil spills: Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service, 252p. 144

PACKER, R.W., 1969, Winter mass wasting on the Erie north shore: Paper to Can. Assoc. of Geographers, Southern Ontario Division, Windsor.

, 1971, Quantitative assessment of the role of gullying in lakeshore bluff retreat: Paper to Can. Assoc. of Geographers, St. John's, Nfld.

PAGE, J., 1869, Sketch of Inner Bay of Long Point: Public Archives Canada, H3/440-1869.

PEAT, E., 1973, Reconstruction of the geological history of the Welling- ton baymouth bar (Sandbanks Prov. Park), Prince Edward County, through a statistical analysis of sediment size distributions: unpub. B.Sc. Thesis, Queen's Univ., Kingston, Ontario, 151p.

PHILLIPS, B.A.M., 1978, Coastal erosion, north and east shores of Lake Superior; In: Rukavina, (ed.), Proc. 2nd Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedimentation , N.W.R.I., p .37-40.

PINCUS, H.J., 1953, 1951 Investigations of Lake Erie shore erosion: Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. Geol. Survey, Report Invest. 18, 138p.

, 1959, Recession of Great Lakes shorelines: Geol. Soc. Am.. Bull., v.70, 12, p.1809-1810.

PLATZMAN, G.W., 1963, The dynamic prediction of wind, tides of Lake Erie: Meteorological Mono., v.4, 26, 44p.

QUIGLEY, R.M. and TUTT, D.B., 1968, Stability - Lake Erie north shore bluffs: Proc. 11th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.230-238.

, and GILINAS, P.J., 1976, Soil mechanics aspects of shoreline erosion: Geoscience Canada, 3, p.169-173.

, andDREIMANIS, A.,1972, Weathered interstadial green clay at Port Talbot, Ontario: Can. J. of Earth Sci. 9, p-991-

, 1975, Weathering and changes in strength of glacial till: Troc. 4th Guelph Symp. on Geomorphology, Mass Wasting, E. Yatsu, A.J. Ward, F. Adams (eds); Geo Abstracts Ltd., England, 202p.

_, GILINAS, P.J., BOW, W.T. and PACKER, R.W., 1976, Cyclic erosion - instability relationships; Lake Erie north shore: Proc. 29th Can. Geotech. Conf., Session II, p.10-27. 145

_, and ZEMAN, A., 1978b, Strategy for hydraulic, geologic and geotechnical assessment of Great Lakes shoreline bluffs. Paper 80-10, Conference on the Coastlines of Canada, Littoral Processes and Shore Morphology, Halifax. p. 397-406.

RICHARDS, T.L. and PHILLIPS, D.W., 1970, Synthesized winds and wave heights for the Great Lakes: Dept. of Transport, Met. Branch, Climatological Studies 17, 42 pp. and 11 fig.

RUKAVINA, N.A., 1969, Nearshore sediment survey of western Lake Ontario; Methods and preliminary results: Proc. 12th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p. 317- 324.

, and DUNCAN, G.A., 1970, F.A.S.T. - Fast Analysis of Sediment Texture: Proc. 13th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Int. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 274-281.

, 1970, Lake Ontario nearshore sediments, Whitby to Welling- ton, Ontario: Proc. 13th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.266-273.

, and ST. JACQUES, D.A., 1971, Lake Erie nearshore sediments, Fort Erie to Mohawk Point, Ontario: Proc. 14th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.387-393.

1975, Nearshore sediments of Lakes Ontario and Erie: Unpub. Report, N.W.R.I., Environment Canada, 8p.

, 1976, Nearshore sediments of Lakes Ontario and Erie: Proc. Great Lakes Basin Symposium, G.A.C. Annual Meeting, May 1975, Geoscience Canada, v.3, 3, p.185-190.

, 1976, Proceedings; Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedimentation, 137p.

_, 1978, Time-lapse studies of nearshore sediment transport; In: Rukavina (ed.), Proc. 2nd Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedimentation, N.W.R.I., p.21-24.

_,and ST. JACQUES, D.A., 1978b, Lake Erie nearshore sediments Report, Point Pelee to Port Burwell, Ontario: Unpub. N.W.R.I., Environment Canada, 17p.

, 1981, Personal communication of prelim. Lake Huron nearshore survey 1976. 146

RUTKA, R.N., 1975, Bluff recession on western Lake Ontario: unpub. M.Sc. Thesis, Civil Engineering, University of Water- loo, Waterloo, Ontario, 210pp. plus appendices.

SHARPE, D.R. and EDWARDS, W.A.D., 1979, Quaternary geol. of the Chesley- Tiverton area, southern Ont: Ont. Geol. Survey Prelim. Map P2314, Geol. Series. Scale 1:50,000 Geology 1976, 1977; stratigraphic drilling, 1978.

, 1980 Quaternary geol. of Toronto and surrounding area: Ont.

>Geol. Survey Preliminary Map P2204, Geol. Ser., scale 1:100,000 Compiled 1980.

SHAW, J.R., 1978, Coastal Response at Point Pelee, Lake Erie: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ocean and Aquatic Sciences Manu. Report Series 4, 81p.

, BROWN, D.W. and MOULTON, R.J., 1978, Evaluating Great Lakes Flood and Erosion Damage: Proc. Coastal '78 Symposium, p.1476- 1488.

SHEPARD, F.P., 1948, Submarine Geology. 3rd Edition, 1973. New York: Harper & Row, 517 p.

SINGER, S.N., 1974, A Hydrogeological Study along the north shore of Lake Ontario in the Bowmanville-Newcastle area. Ont. Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Report 5d, 72p f- maps.

SKAFEL, M.G., 1973, Near shore wave energy: unpub. Report, Hydraulics Research Division, N.W.R.I.

, 1975a, Longshore sediment transport at Point Pelee: unpub. Report, Hydraulics Research Division, N.W.R.I.

, 1975b, Computation of wave refraction and longshore sediment transport rates: unpub. Report, Hydraulics Research Division, N.W.R.I.

_., 1977, Wheatley harbour model study: Report for Small Craft Harbours Branch, Fisheries and Environment Canada, 16p.

, SZCZVCINSKI, P.W. and BAIRD, W.F., 1978, Wiarton marina; In- vestigation of wave agitation and breakwater protection for marina operation: unpub. Report, Hydraulics Research Division, N.W.R.I., 15p.

SMITH, D.W., 1795, Map of Turkey Point: Surveyor General's Office, Upper Canada, Public Archives Canada, H3/440-1795. 147

SMITH, L., 1978, Baymouth bars and related dune fields, Prince Edward Cty., northern Lake Ontario; In: Rukavina, (ed.), Proc. 2nd Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedimentation, N.W.R.I., p.77-80.

SOWERS, G., 1949, Shore erosion: What Ohio is doing along Lake Erie: Great Lakes Conf. on Shore Erosion Control, Toledo, Ohio, Ohio Dept. Pub. Works, Open File Report, 12p.

SPENCER, J.W., 1882, Discovery of the pre-glacial outlet of basin of Lake Erie into that of Lake Ontario: Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 19, p.300- 337.

, 1890, The deformation of Iroquois beach and birth of Lake 0ntario: Am. Jour. Sci., 3rd Ser., v.40, p.443-451.

_, 1891a, Origin of the basins of the Great Lakes of America: Am. Geologist, v.7, p.86-97.

, 1891b, Deformation of the Algonquin beach and birth of Lake Huron: Am. Jour. Sci., 3rd Ser, v.41, p.12-21.

, 1894, The duration of Niagara Falls: Am. Jour. Sci., 3rd Ser., v.48, p.455-472.

_, 1899, The Iroquois beach; A chapter in the geological history of Lake Ontario: Roy. Soc. Can. Proc. and Trans., Sect.IV p.121-134.

, 1907, The falls of Niagara: Geol. Survey Can., Pub.970, p.277-391.

STANLEY, D.J. and SWIFT, D.J.P. (eds.), 1976. Marine Sediment Transport and Environmental Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 602 p.

STEERS, J.A., 1946. The Coastline of England and Wales. 2nd Edition 1964. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 227 p.

STIRRETT, G.M., 1968, An annotated bibliography; Point Pelee National Park and the Point Pelee region of Ontario: Dept. Indian Affairs and Northern Dev., Ottawa, 76p.

ST.JACQUES, D.A. and RUKAVINA, N.A., 1972, Lake Ontario nearshore sediments, Wellington to Main Duck Island, Ontario: Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.394-400. 148

, and RUKAVINA, N.A., 1973, Lake Erie nearshore sediments, Mohawk Point to Port Burwell, Ontario: Proc. 16th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p.454-467.

, and RUKAVINA, N.A., 1976, Lake Erie nearshore sediments, Port Burwell to Point Pelee, Ontario: unpub. Report, N.W.R.I., 33p.

TAYLOR, F.B., 1896, Correlation of Warren beaches with moraines and outlets in southeastern Michigan: Am. Geol.,18(4), p.233-234.

, 1897, Correlation of Erie-Huron beaches with outlets and moraines in southeastern Michigan: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.8, p.31-58.

1899, The great ice dams of Lakes Whittlesey and Warren: Am. Geol.24, p.6-38. TELFORD, P.G. and TARRANT, G.A., 1975a, Paleozoic geol. of the Dunnville area, southern Ont: Ont. Div. Mines Prelim. Map P988, Geol. Ser., Scale 1:50,000, Geol. 1974.

, and TARRANT, G.A., 1975b, Paleozoic geol. of the Welland-Fort Erie area, southern Ont: Ontario Div. Mines, Prelim. Map P989, Geol. Ser. Scale 1:50,000, Geology, 1974.

TERASMAE, J., 1960, A palynological study of Pleistocene interglacial beds at Toronto, Ont: Geol. Survey Can. Bull. 56 pp.24-60.

, 1965, Surficial geology of the Cornwall and St. Lawrence Seaway Project area: Ont. Geol. Survey Can. Bull. 121.

, KARROW, P.F. and DREIMANIS, A., 1972, Field excursion A42 Quaternary stratigraphy and geomorphology of the eastern Great Lakes region of southern Ontario: Int. Geol. Congress 24th Session, Montreal, Canada, 75p.

, KARROW P.F. and DREIMANIS, A., 1972, Quaternary stratigraphy and geomorphologyof the easternGreat Lakes region of southern Ontario guidebook: A42 24th Int. Geol. Congress, Montreal, 75pp.

TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 1971, Wave action at the foot of Brimley Road, Scarborough: M.T.R.C.A. Waterfront Project #4, 9p. * maps.

TREMAINE, G.C., 1856, Map of the County of Norfolk: Public Archives Canada, H2/420 Norfolk 1856. 149

TYRELL, J.B., 1894, Notes on the pleistocene of the Northwest Territor- ies of Canada: Geol. Mag., 4th Ser., v.1, p.394-399.

, 1895, A second expedition through the barren grounds of northern Canada: Geol. Jour.,v.6, p.438-448.

, 1896, The genesis of Lake Agassiz: Jour. Geology, v.4, p.811- 815.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 1947, Inspection of shorelines, Lake Erie and Ontario: U.S. Corps Eng. Buffalo Dist., 42p.

, 1966, Shore protection, planning and design: U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Tech. Report #4, 3rd Ed. 1966. Third Edition, 1977.

U.S. BUREAU ENGINEERS, 1849, Map of Lake Erie, Survey of northern and northwestern lakes: U.S. Bur. Eng., Washington: 1 map.

U.S. BUREAU OF TOPOGRAPHICAL ENGINEERS, 1853, Lake Erie: Washington, War Dept., Public Archives Canada, V1/420-1853.

leAGNERS, U.J., 1972: Quat. geol. of the Windsor-Essex area (eastern part), southern Ont: Ont. Dept. of Mines and Northern Affairs, Prelim. Map P750, Geol. Ser., scale 1:50,000, Geol. 1970, 1971.

1972 Quaternary geol. of the Windsor-Essex area s.Ont: Ont. Dept. Mines and Northern Affairs, Prelim. Map P749. Geol. Ser., scale 1:50,000. Geol. 1970, 71.

WALLING, H.F., 1877, Map of Essex County: Public Archives Canada, V1/420 Essex-1877.

WELCH, D.M., 1972, Slope analysis and evolution on protected lacustrine bluffs: Ph.D. Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. 145 p.

WILSON, A.W.G., 1907, Shoreline studies on Lakes Ontario and Erie: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., v.19, p.471-500.

WISE, A., 1861, Entrance to Rondeau Harbour, on Lake Erie from surveys of H.W. Bayfield & U.S. Surveys: VI/English Charts, Series 2, Public Archives Canada No. 30, 1869. 150

WHILLANS, T.H., 1977, Fish community transformation in three bays within the lower Great Lakes: unpub. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 328p.

WHITTLESEY, C., 1838, Report on the geology and topography of a portion of Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey Ann. Report 2, p.41-71.

, 1850, On the natural terraces and ridges of the country bor- dering Lake Erie: Am. Jour. Sci., 2nd Ser.10, p.31-39.

, 1860, On fluctuations of level in the North American lakes: Smithsonian Contrib. to Knowledge, v.12, 3, 25p.

, 1875, On fluctuations of level in Lake Erie: Can. Water Jour. Sci., v.7, 7, p.407-414.

, 1879, Ancient glacial action on Kelley's Island, Lake Erie: Proc. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., p.239-245.

WOOD, H.A.H., 1951, Erosion on the shore of Lake Erie, Point Aux Pins to Long Point: unpub. M.A. Thesis, McMaster Univ., Hamilton, Ontario, 209p.

WOODS, J.K., 1955, The harbours of the north shore of Lake Erie from Port Dover to Leamington: unpub. M.A. Thesis, Univ.of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 114p.

ZEMAN, A.J., 1976, Failure mechanisms in rapidly eroding Lake Erie bluffs near Port Burwell, Ont; In: (Abst.) 19th Annual Meeting, Assoc. Engineering Geologists, p.37.

1978, Natural and man-made erosion problems along the Port Burwell to Long Point shoreline; In: Rukavina, ( ed.), Proc. 2nd Workshop on Great Lakes Coastal Erosion and Sedimentation, p.49-52.

, 1979, Results of geotechnical investigation for the Colchester south/Gosfield south shoreline, western Lake Erie: unpub. report, N.W.R.I., Environment Canada, 39p.

ZENKOVICH, V.P.11962. Processes of Coastal Development. (ed.) J.A. Steers, ( trans.) D.G. Fry 1967. London: Oliver & Boyd, 738 p.

ZIMMER, B.E., 1965, A study of bluff erosion as investigated at a geomorphological field station near Port Bruce, Ontario: unpub. M.A. Thesis, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, 109p. APPENDIX A

A Review of Literature Concerning Erosion and Accretion of the Canadian Shoreline of the Great Lakes

151 Appendix A: A Review of Literature

A perfunctory distinction can be made between the broad literature concerning coastal processes based on ocean coasts and the works related to the Great Lakes shoreline. Although the principles for both are intimately related, a difference exists mainly in the wave climate, tidal range, sea level rise, and sediment supply. This suggests that caution should be used when transferring the conclusions derived for one regime to the other, and thus a distinction i s made in this report concerning the source of related research.

A.1. Coastal Geomorphological Literature When one considers that most of the world's significant shoreline is ocean coast or seashore it is not surprising that most of the books about the coasts deal with this type of shore. The first complete theoretical study was D.W. Johnson's "Shore Processes and Shoreline Development" (1919). This was followed by works dealing with coastal features including Shepard's "Submarine Geology" (1948), Steer's "Coastlines of England and Wales" (1946) and Guilcher's "Coastal and Submarine Morphology" (1954). Taking a different tack King's "Beaches and Coasts" (1959) attempted to assess the character and forces of the beach. This book was later edited and the second edition published in 1972. More recent significant books include Komar's "Beach Processes and Sedimentation" (1976) and "Marine Sediment Transport and Environmental Management" (1976) which was edited by Stanley and Swift. In contrast to these books generally written about the form and dynamics of ocean coasts, there is a scarcity of books specifically written about shore processes on large lakes. Of course, only North America and Asia contain major inland bodies of water to study. Although there is no publication similar to those previously described concerning the North American lakes, Zenkovich was able to report on open coasts and enclosed seas as well as tidal and virtually non-tidal bodies of water in Asia.

152 153

His "Processes of Coastal Development" (1962) is the most comprehensive work, regional in size, directly related to studies of the Great Lakes. There are literally thousands of articles published in the journals that deal with a specific aspect of coastal concerns. Some that concern the Great Lakes are noted in the following section.

A.2. Great Lakes Shoreline Literature A.2.a The Early Years Much of the early work was directed at identifying the glacial history of North America and the Great Lakes Basin. The seeds of the research were planted by C. Whittlesey (1838) followed by J.S. Newberry (1874a, 1874b), J.W. Spencer (1882, 1890, 1891a, 1891b, 1894) and F. Leverett (1892, 1899, 1902). They outlined the geology and quaternary geomorphology for the Great Lakes region which, although later modified, has provided a basis for understanding the history of the basin. Other studies in the 18th and 19th century were aimed at col- lecting baseline data, almost in an exploratory manner. The Great Lakes were a new region and data gathering involved examination of this new

frontier. Thus most of the studies involved charting of the lakes and boundaries (Chewitt 1793, 1790s; Bouchette, 1790, 1792; Smith, 1795; Anon, 1817; Dumfrie, 1823; Bayfield, 1828), investigations of lake levels and oscillations due to barometric pressure and winds, currents and temperature (U.S. Bureau Engineers 1849, 1853; Jackson, 1853, Whittlesey, 1860, 1875; Anon, 1869; Abbe 1898a, 1898b) and lake bottom

analysis. By the mid to late 1800s the number of studies of harbours and other man-made aspects had increased (Harris, 1839; Munro, 1869; This is not surprising Page, 1869; Canada DPW, 1879; Field, 1906). since these types of studies directly relate to the use of the lakes as a transportation corridor. Although much of the information collected during this period is now of some use as baseline data and supplementary information, little of it is directly related to shoreline erosion. However, there 154

are some examples where the data has been useful. These include harbour charts which help reconstruct a history of the effects and siltation of harbour developments (Whillans, 1977); early records and diaries that describe features such as wooded slopes that are now bare (Atkins, 1978); changing outlet patterns of rivers such as Big Creek at Long Point (Wood, 1951); and breaching of spits and barrier beaches at Long Point, Point Pelee (Battin, 1975; Whillans, 1977) and Rondeau (Mann, 1977). Other work of value generally consisted of cadastral surveys and land surveys used to establish municipal and township boundaries. If repeatable, these surveys (Burwell, 1816; Owen, 1855; Tremaine, 1856; Walling, 1877) can be used to establish erosion rates but many times they do not indicate if the measurements were taken to the strandline, water's edge or top of the bluff (Hadfield, 1967; Bradford, 1968).

A.2.b The Turn of the Century In the first quarter of the 20th century, many of the preceding studies were continued but in a more sophisticated manner. There were reports about tides, water levels, wind, storms and waves, ice, and hydrology, streamflow and flooding. The number of investigations concerning breakwaters and harbours increased as man attempted to increase his impact on the natural features and processes (Charlesworth et al, 1975). The first major study of the Canadian Great Lakes shoreline was a report to the Geological Society, "Shoreline Studies on Lakes Ontario and Erie" by A.W.G. Wilson (1907). It was a description of the general geological topography and glacial geomorphology with a comparison of the shores of both Lakes Ontario and Erie and with the glacial Lake Iroquois shoreline. Although it concentrated on the depositional spits and bars of the lakes, it included a description of process by discussing factors such as sieches, currents, water levels, longshore sediment movement, longshore current, storms, and ice. Since it was a

-3 155

reconnaissance study by nature, it provided little quantitative information but does indicate that a sound understanding of Great Lakes processes existed as much as 70 years ago. Interestingly, the old glacial Lake Iroquois shoreline received more attention than its modern Lake Ontario counterpart, probably due to its economic (sand and gravel) and academic value. As early as 1845 (Sir) Charles Lyell, an eminent geologist, examined the old Iroquois beaches in Ontario; in 1843 James Hall described the ridges in New York; and in 1861 (Sir) Sandford Fleming, an engineer, mapped the Toronto portion. In 1899 J.W. Spencer published "The Iroquois Beach: A Chapter in the Geological History of Lake Ontario" and in 1907 he published a report on "The Falls of Niagara" with his views on differential uplift and tilting of the beach. In 1904 Coleman presented a detailed account and more complete map but using rough maps and hand levels or aneroid barometers. As more topographic information became available and better access "made it desirable to cover the ground once more", (Coleman, 1936a, p.2) he published "Lake Iroquois" (1936a).

A.2.c The War Years From the early 1900's until after the 2nd World War, there was a great number of reports categorized as biological, geological or geomorphological and physical (that is, physical factors such as lake levels, lake level oscillations, weather, and others) (Stirrett, 1968; Jeremin et al, 1974; Charlesworth et al, 1975). Yet there was a paucity of reports concerning the present shorelines. Other than studies of special areas such as the spits of Pelee (Kindle, 1933) Long Point and Toronto (Coleman, 1932) and of the Scarborough Bluffs, only one report stands out, but it is certainly most noteworthy. In 1936, A.P. Coleman published "Geology of the North Shore of Lake Ontario" (1936b), probably the first report containing quantitative data that extended over a number of physiographic regions for the shoreline of the lake. Going from Niagara to Brighton he described the geology and geomorphology of 156

the shoreline as well as listing erosion rates for various locations gleaned from survey records and personal communications. This could be considered a second generation report, A.W. Wilson's in 1907 being the first, which brought together about thirty years of the author's investigations and those of others into a comprehensive report about the entire shore of one lake.

A.2.d Post World War 2 The post-WW2 stage marks the beginning of widespread concern for the shoreline. Due to earlier and more extensive development along the shoreline, the concern for the impacts of shore erosion on man's belongings surfaced in the United States, especially the ocean states but also on the Great Lakes. It follows then that extensive research on the United States shorelines preceded that of Canadian shores, so that in the 1940s there was an outpouring of reports from the U.S. Corps of Engineers (U.S. Corps Engineers, 1947), and those of the Public Works agencies for the Great Lakes states (Sowers, 1949). Many of these studies reported not only the physical factors of shore erosion but also focussed on the damage aspects. In Canada, the first public recognition of the problem surfaced in 1945 (Ontario Select Committee on Lake Levels, 1952) with the formation of the Niagara-Toronto Lakeshore Protection Association (later the Ontario Shore and Beach Preservation Association) which marshalled significant political pressure to have Ontario's Ministry of Planning and Development initiate a report on lakeshore erosion, to be headed by G.B. Langford. He completed a report for the shores of Lake Ontario from Niagara to Cobourg in 1949 (revised 1952) and, in 1951, H.A.H. Wood reported on the lakeshore erosion from Long Point to Point aux Pins,

Lake Erie. Both reports indicated geomorphic process and rates of erosion. Langford discussed the geological character of the shoreline and indicated some rates of erosion gleaned from survey records and personal communications; the lake water level changes and its effects; 157

currents; and delved into possible protective measures (structural and non-structural). Wood, in a tightly-knit thesis, presented a physiographic description, discussion of the factors of erosion, and worked out some rates of erosion. This was done by field inspection at about 50 locations to gather information on beach width, bluff slope and to collect soil samples. Office work involved the study of aerial photographs. These photos were used to establish the shoreline and then compared to a reconstruction of the early 19th century shoreline established from surveys done at that time, and thereby calculate rates of erosion. In 1952 the Select Committee on Lake Levels of the Great Lakes reported to the Ontario Legislature about lakeshore erosion. Based on the reports by Langford and Wood, as well as site visits by committee members, it examined erosion on all the Great Lakes (albeit Lakes Superior and Huron only briefly due to the predominantly rocky nature and unavailability of data respectively). However, it is significant that this committee reported not only on the physical rates and processes but also focussed on erosion damage, protection, and policy. It represents a marked change in theme from the study of erosion of the shoreline in the early years to the study of damages due to erosion and Investigation of structural and non-structural mitigating measures. While this was the major thrust of shoreline research in Can- ada, a great deal of the work being done in the United States carried over into the 1950s and 1960s. Detailed examination of the geology, sedimentology, hydrology, meteorology and limnology of the lakes continued, notably, as related to shore erosion: engineering analysis of bluff erosion by Chieruzzi (1957), and Chieruzzi and Baker (1958); on bluff erosion and sedimentation by Pincus (1953, 1959); on structures and sedimentation (Hartley, 1960, 1964); on surges and seiches (Platzman, 1963); on shore protection (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1966); and on the geology of the Great Lakes (Hough, 1958). 158

Of course, similar work was being done in Canada. It involved the physiography of Southern Ontario (Chapman & Putnam, 1951); geology and Quaternary geology (Dreimanis and Reavely, 1953; Dreimanis, 1958; Karrow, Clark and Terasmae, 1961); sedimentation studies (Lewis, 1966); the geomorphic processes (Zimmer, 1965) and stability of bluffs (Quigley and Tutt, 1968); studies of littoral processes (Le Mahaute and Brebner, 1961; Fricbergs, 1965), and over the lake winds (Lemire, 1961; Richards and Phillips, 1970). Certainly there were others who were interested in different aspects of the shoreline that were related to physiography, erosion, and accretion. One such theme was recreation and coastal zone management. For Lake Huron, Bradford (1968) submitted a thesis on recreational access and ownership from a geographical and legal perspective. For Lake Erie, port geography and harbours were studied by Woods (1955) and Bourne (1961), while Hill (1964) examined the physical features and recreational aspects of the northeast shore of Lake Erie. In addition, the Niagara Regional Development Council commissioned J.W. Jackson to report on land use and to provide an evaluation of recreation potential for their portion of Lake Erie. In an extensive review (1967) he outlined the historical and physiographic data, lake hydrology, the recreational situation as well as the legal and administrative aspects of the shore. Nevertheless, a study of local perception of erosion for mid-Lake Erie by Evans (1969) indicated a lack of knowledge and concern about shoreline erosion. It is noteworthy that major government studies of shoreline damage and erosion were preceded by periods of extreme high or low lake levels on the Great Lakes. The high water levels in the late 1920s were followed by A.P. .Coleman's (1936) review. Similarly, high lake levels in the 1943-1948 period preceded the major government inquiry in the early 1950s. A drop in levels in the mid-1950s may have cooled things down a bit but with the completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 and a spot of high water in the early 1960s (but with severe lows in the 159

mid-1960s), the hue and cry for lake level regulation increased. These fluctuating conditions again prompted a government response, this time a reference to the International Joint Commission in October 1964 request- ing a comprehensive study of potential water level regulation on the lakes. One aspect of this Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels Study (International Great Lakes Levels Board, 1973) was an extensive shoreline inventory. In Canada, each lake was examined by a separate task force which, with minor variations, collected similar data pertaining to the shoreline. Using existing topographic sheets as the onshore base maps, and hydrographie charts for the offshore base data, the shore features were mapped and updated by various field surveys. The precise length of shoreline was calculated, as was the length of shoreline for various physiographic shore types, such as beach, bluff, bluff with beach, and marsh. The hinterland land use information was updated as was the vegetative features of the shore. Field surveys were established to ascertain onshore cross-sections and offshore profiles for selected locations. Soil samples were taken and analyzed. Pertinent man-made features were identified, especially water intake and sewer outfall locations and engineering aspects of piers and harbours. In addition, survey records from local surveyors and land registry offices were searched for historical measurements and, where possible, these were re- xneasured to derive erosion rates. In this respect, the Lake Erie shore could be considered as a special case since a traverse survey of the shoreline in 1937 provided the task force with an excellent data base to calculate a 30-year erosion rate, and these rates were transcribed onto the appropriate shoreline strip maps. All this data plus wave climate calculations, recreational eoating surveys, property value assessments, and land use projections were used to develop the final product requested by the International Joint Commission. This product was a stage damage curve relating the omonetary cost of various water levels with respect to shore properties. 160

These estimates of losses concurrent with various water levels were used as an input for developing the lake level regulation plan.

A.2.e Here Come the Seventies Many historians point to the past as an indication of the future. In this case, the past included shore damage due to substantial shoreline development and high water levels in the early 1950s followed by the government Select Committee report previously mentioned. By the early 1970s further shore development had occurred, and water levels rose to set some new high water records similarly leading to extensive shore damage and government inquiry. Major storms in November 1972 and March 1973, which caused extensive flooding and erosion damage, piqued interest, led to cabinet submissions and were followed by a Federal/ Provincial agreement to survey the nature and extent of these damages, subsequently called the Canada/Ontario Great Lakes Shore Damage Survey. In addition, a multi-agency federal task force was established in the spring of 1973 to assemble and assess the information available on erosion of the Canadian shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence System. The Canada Task Force on Available Shore Erosion Information on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence System (1973) quickly assembled the available data but found that a complete assessment of the problem required additional information. Part II of the report provided a detailed description of shore erosion by reviewing many of the studies and surveys associated with the topic and from them established a description of the shorelines and the associated flood and erosion damages, followed by a discussion of preventative measures. It, therefore, only summarized available information, adding little new information to the shoreline data base. However, the Canada/Ontario Shore Damage Survey (Environment Canada/Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1975) was established to supply new information concerning erosion and flooding damages. This 161

s urvey was restricted to the erodible portion of the Great Lakes from ]Port Severn on Georgian Bay to Gananoque on Lake Ontario and reported on t he damages occurring from November 1972 to November 1973. It included data pertaining to land use, land value, land ownership, shoreline physical characteristics, shore damage, existing shore protection in d amaged areas and recession-accession rates for the shoreline. In addition, black and white infra-red aerial photographs were taken in 1973 at a scale of 1:20000 and were used for the Coastal Zone Atlas (Environment Canada/Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1975). This atlas was produced to cartographically display the information c_-ollected by the Shore Damage Survey, and to serve as a data base for future planning and management of the shoreland. Shore damage values were collected by field parties which t raversed the shoreline interviewing owners, sketching, photographing

and calculating damages. The shore property inventory of riparian 0wnership (approximately 50,000 properties) was collected from Regional As sessment offices to ascertain property location, size, ownership, land u se and land value. Erosion rates were established using three methods:

f 3.rstly, photogrammetrically extracted rates based on comparison of 8 e rial photography from 1952-1954 to those flown in 1973; secondly, historical rates based on land survey data since 1900; and thirdly, from recent ground survey sites measured annually from 1971 to 1973. The Shore Damage Survey was the most extensive evaluation of course erosion and shore damage available on the Great Lakes. Of pertinent smaller scale studies were initiated and are discussed below.

-2.f Recent University Studies At the University of Western Ontario much of the work has c entred on the high bluffs of Lake Erie. Since the establishment o f their geography research site near Port Bruce in 1964, research has and gullying, and has fp cused on factors of erosion such as mass wasting I.e en concerned with soil mechanics aspects of bluff erosion (Packer, 162

1969, 1971; Welch, 1972; Gelinas and Quigley, 1973; Gelinas, 1974; Bou, 1975; Quigley and Gelinas, 1976; Quigley et al, 1976; Lo, 1977), in addition to the previous focus on Quaternary geology (Dreimanis and Reavely, 1953; Dreimanis, 1969; Quigley and Dreimanis, 1972; Dreimanis and Karrow, 1972). At the University of Guelph, Kreutzwiser (1977) has examined the costs of shore management while geomorphological research on the Pleistocene slopes and nearshore morphology for the Wasaga Beach and Georgian Bay areas continued (Martini, 1974, 1975; Martini and Hoffman, 1976; Davidson-Arnott et al, 1978, 1980; Davidson-Arnott and Pember, 1978; Ball, 1978). Similarly, at the University of Toronto analysis of nearshore change and sediment movement has been done (McGillivray, 1976; Greenwood and McGillivray, 1978) while examination of the Pleistocene shorelines of Lake Algonquin were completed (Nakashima, 1974; Mittler, 1975), and the Scarborough Bluffs (Murphy, 1963; Bird and Armstrong, 1970) were completed. At Queen's University research has been concentrated on applied and the fundamental aspects of coastal engineering and especially experimental laboratory work (Kamphuis, 1976) as well as nearshore and onshore beach processes (Peat, 1973; Bartlett, 1976; Smith, 1978; Belanger, 1976; Ernsting, 1976; Mitchell, 1976). At the University of Windsor, coastal work has been done for Point Pelee (Dickie and Cape, 1974; Hudec, 1975; LaValle et al, 1979) and Quaternary geology (Terasmae, 1960, 1965; Terasmae et al, 1972) while at Lakehead studies of onshore erosion and longshore bar and trough systems in bays (Mothersill, 1976; Phillips, 1978) as well as Lake Superior sedimentation rates (Mothersill, 1978) have been completed. Similarly, nearshore beach morphology for Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron was studied at McMaster University (Gillie, 1974). At the University of Waterloo, the resources management aspects of shoreline flooding and erosion have been investigated (Nelson et al, 1975; Batton, 1975; Day et al, 1977; Mann, 1978; Needham, 1976, 163

1977; Heffernan, 1978; Jessen, 1979) in addition to the physical aspects of erosion on Lake Ontario (Boyd, 1974; Hegler, 1974; Rutka, 1975, and geology (Karrow, 1959, 1967, 1973, 1980).

A.2.g Recent Government Studies Of course, the government is the major supplier of primary data and a great number of reports. The primary data available includes historical information and charts from the Public Archives of Canada, the Provincial Archives and Surveyor General's office; air photos from the National Air Photo Library and the Provincial Archives and Ministry of Natural Resources; Great Lakes water levels supplied through the Ma- rine Environment Data Service and the Canadian Hydrographic Service; meteorological information from the Atmospheric Environment Service; lake bathymetry via the Canada Hydrographic Service Charts; geological information from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Ontario Geological Survey; as well as harbour dredging data and coastal engineering aspects of harbour structures from the Department of Public Works. Many other government studies have a dual role of providing

primary data as well as analytical results. The Hydraulics Research Division at the National Water Resources Institute undertook a programme

to document the nearshore sediments of the Great Lakes (Rukavina 1969,

1970, 1976; Rukavina and St. Jacques, 1971; St. Jacques and Rukavina,

1972, 1973, 1976) and a time lapse camera study of nearshore sediment

transport (Rukavina, 1978). This Division also studied the geotechnical aspects of high bluff erosion near Port Burwell (Zeman, 1976, 1978,

1978, 1980a, 1980b; Quigley and Zeman, 1978); wave energy, longshore

sediment transport and harbour model studies (Skafel, 1973, 1975a,

1975b, 1977; Skafel et al, 1978); as well as shore erosion studies for western Lake Erie and Point Pelee, western Lake Ontario and littoral drift investigations (Coakley, 1972, 1976, 1977, 1978; Coakley and Cho, 164

1972, 1973; Coakley et al, 1973; Coakley and Nelson, 1974; Coakley and Boyd, 1979). The Research and Development Division, Shore Properties Studies Section, of Ocean and Aquatic Sciences, Central Region is pri- marily interested in shore problems and is charged with monitoring shoreline erosion and accretion. In addition to the joint Canada- Ontario Shore Damage Survey Technical Report (1975), Coastal Zone Atlas (1975), and 100-year Flood and Erosion Prone Area Maps (1978), this Division has reported on methods for recording shoreline change (Haras et al, 1976; Haras, 1978; Boyd, 1978a), shore processes at specific locations (Shaw, 1978; Boyd, 1978b; Bukata et al, 1975), storm surges (Freeman et al, 1971, 1972; Boyd, 1976), and shore management aspects (Shaw et al, 1978) of the Great Lakes. Occasionally, certain government reports, not directly aimed at shoreline phenomenon, do relate to the subject. These would include geological surveys for instance (Barnett, 1978, Burwasser, 1974; Cooper, 1977, 1978, 1979; Feenstra, 1972a, 1972b, 1974, 1975; Fitzgerald et al, 1979; Gravenor, 1957; Karrow, 1959, 1967; Liberty et al, 1966; Sharpe, 1979, 1980; Telford and Terrant, 1975a, 1975b; Vagners, 1972) or special studies like Owens' (1979) "Coastal Environments and the Cleanup of Oil Spills" which focussed on contingency planning for oil spills yet classified and discussed the physical aspects of the Great Lakes shoreline. Special International Field Year for the Great Lakes (IFYGL) studies, such as hydrogeological investigations (Singer, 1974), also relate directly to shoreline problems. Other contracted reports such as Acres' (1976) shoreline vegetation study, Conservation Authorities reports, or pre-project studies for major hydro, industrial, or recreational sites may deal with specific areas of concern.

A.2.h Summary A great deal of research has been done on the various aspects and factors of shore erosion and accretion. Originally, simple 165

reconnaissance studies of the physical nature of the shoreline and studies reconstructing the glacial history of the Great Lakes basin dominated the research. As man began to increase his impact on the natural shoreline processes, he also increased the number of studies relating to the coastal engineering aspects of shore development. By the end of the Second World War widespread shoreline development was in place and, subsequently, extensive shore property damage occurred. This sparked large scale studies concerning the extent of damage and the alternatives available for mitigating flood and erosion damages, generally in response to extreme lake water level conditions. Recently there has been an increased number of studies relating to different facets of shoreline processes and problems. APPENDIX B Information Regarding Erosion Sites and Reach Co-ordinates and Statistics

Table B-1 Information Regarding Erosion Station Geographic Coordinates, Profile Line Orientation and its Variance from Perpendicular

Table B-2 Information Regarding the Reaches Established for Lake Huron

Table B-3 Information Regarding the Reaches Established for Lake St. Clair

Table B-4 Information Regarding the Reaches Established for Lake Erie

Table B-5 Information Regarding the Reaches Established for Lake Ontario

Notes for Appendix B:

Table B-1: The azimuth is the bearing of the profile line from north in degrees, while the degrees from perpendicular indicates the variance of the profile line from a line perpendicular of the general shoreline aspect.

Table B-2 The azimuth is the orientation of the shoreline in to B-5: degrees from north.

Note * denotes erosion station not in the reach.

166 TABLE B-1

Information Regarding Erosion Station Geographic Co-ordinates, Profile Line Orientation, and Variance from Perpendicular LAKE HURON (Zone 17)

Station No. Northing/Easting Azimuth Degrees from (degrees) Perpendicular H-6-80 4941430/579820 287 5 H-6-100 4930810/578180 301 1 H-8-100 4941600/478450 277 1 H-8-110 4936380/476620 286 6 H-8-120 4927900/470540 301 3 H-8-130 4920150/467650 303 7 H-8-145 4904550/452690 244 1 H-8-150 4893710/451670 301 12 H-8-160 4886930/445150 300 11 H-8-170 4878900/439670 240 4 H-9-10 4869740/441080 268 1 H-9-15 4847200/442020 273 9 H-9-20 4832430/442030 273 11 H-9-30 4823310/442940 270 0 H-9-40 4802360/441840 275 13 H-10-10 4790950/432560 328 4 H-10-15 4788210/428600 328 0 H-10-18 4784460/420640 345 1 H-10-22 4 784640/41 7840 50 20 H-10-25 4 782 460/4 17 180 243 3 H-10-30 4 778400/414 990 312 8 H-10-35 4772570/409400 328 3 H-10-38 4771510/406550 351 7 H-10-45 4766650/402650 336 3 H-10-55 4765280/398860 01 21 H-10-65 4765050/397830 04 18 H-10-75 4764930/397370 357 8 H-10-85 4764880/397110 350 1 H-10-95 4764730/396130 01 9 H-10-105 4764320/393600 352 0 H-10-115 4763850/390750 352 8 H-10-125 4763320/388080 02 10

LAKE ST. CLAIR (Zone 17) C-3-10 4685270/373610 00 8 C-3-20 4687220/346790 15 11

167 168

Station No. Northing/Easting Azimuth Degrees from (degrees) Perpendicular

LAKE ERIE (Zone 17) E-1-4 4656280/327030 193 E-1-6 4654940/331030 184 E-1-9 4650530/338120 188 E-1-10 4649350/341620 166 E-1-12 4650820/348525 183 E-1-13 4650820/348730 186 E-1-14 4653580/355060 177 E-1-17 4627000/364480 91 E-1-19 4654530/357780 185 E-1-20 4654530/359670 180 E-1-21 4654900/361500 171 E-1-23 4654360/366250 180 E-1-25 4650030/371100 239 E-1-26 4647040/372850 276 E-1-26D 4645275/373580 257 E-1-27 4643020/374280 257 E-1-27A 4641560/374640 277 E-1-27B 4640600/374860 262 SPOKE 1 4640600/374860 225 SPOKE 2 4640600/374860 207 SPOKE 3 4640600/374860 183 SPOKE 4 4640600/374860 164 SPOKE 5 4640600/374860 158 SPOKE 6 4640600/374860 144 E-1-27C 4640600/374860 82 E-1-27D 4641300/374980 98 E-1-28 4643180/375160 83 E-1-28D 4644700/375250 89 E-1-28H 4647080/375430 100 E-1-29A 4649720/375550 98 E-1-29B 4649950/375600 100 E-1-29C 4648160/375620 95 E-1-29D 4648560/375680 99 E-1-29E 4648840/375700 98 E-1-30 4649150/375800 92 E-2-2 4660350/381030 139 E-2-10 4670260/397410 139 E-2-13 4677650/409800 137 E-2-16 4678870/423540 181 E-2-16A 4678050/428800 193 E-2-17 4678410/429900 134 E-2-18 4681340/430630 90 E-2-19 4686940/430820 105 E-2-20 4689550/431470 137 169

Station No. Northing/Easting Azimuth Degrees from (degrees) Perpendicular

LAKE ERIE (Zone 17) cont'd.) E-2-24 4694540/435260 138 E-3-2 4706650/450225 138 E-3-4 4609880/453340 143 E-3-7 4616760/464240 166 E-3-10 4720330/470650 151 E-3-15 4722880/481840 197 E-3-17 4723150/487050 181 E-3-20 4722830/494500 180 E-3-23 4722260/498850 196 E-3-25 4722910/505240 183 E-3-30 4720300/515700 253 E-3-31 4720870/517060 196 E-3-40 4718380/522845 181 E-4-8 4713440/537000 150 E-4-10 4714050/548550 173 E-4-13 4713750/551180 203 E-4-20 4710840/578470 173 353 E-4-21 4710900/578460 84 E-4-26 4725540/554860 161 E-4-30 4735760/562600 187 E-4-32 4736830/565160 164 E-4-35 4737200/568710 163 E-4-40 4737550/572470 163 E-5-2 4739070/581200 162 E-5-5 4739790/584550 187 E-5-8 4745660/615870 231 E-5-9 4745180/617200 179 E-5-10 4744910/621500 179 E-5-11 4744660/621850 212 E-6-4 4748360/631000 173 E-6-10 4746650/656000 177 F-6-15 4749170/664180

LAKE ONTARIO (Zone 17) 335 3 0-1-9 4791320/654640 335 5 0-1-10 4791270/654530 330 2 0-1-20 4790330/650630 13 48 0-1-30 4789100/648950 354 24 0-1-40 4787730/646740 15 18 0-1-50 4787380/645150 357 41 0-1-60B 4785870/642910 356 12 0-1-60A 4785770/642840 341 3 0-1-70 4784770/640940 357 21 0-1-80 4782420/636890 170

Station No. Northing/Easting Azimuth Degrees from (degrees) Perpendicular

LAKE ONTARIO (Zone 17) cont'd.) 0-1-90 4782030/635740 0-1-100 4783610/629130 0-1-110 4783480/623500 0-1-120 4783310/620200 0-1-130 4783310/619530 0-1-140 4783790/618360 0-1-150 4784530/616830 0-1-160 4784420/615990 0-1-161 4784390/615890 0-1-170 4785200/613590 0-1-174 4786300/612240 0-2-11 4786825/611510 0-2-13 4786425/610110 0-2-20 4786620/608220 0-2-30 478755b/605140 0-2-40 4788670/601800 0-2-50 4790230/600130 0-2-60 4792920/598470 0-2-70 4794270/597850 0-3-2 4794810/597580 0-3-4 4796160/597250 0-3-10 4802320/603130 0-3-20 4804500/604300 0-4-20 4819450/612900 0-5-20 4838600/640050 0-5-23 4839930/641430 0-5-25 4840450/641960 0-5-28 4842800/643740 0-5-30 4843880/643580 0-6-10 4848890/650500 0-6-14 4852560/653500 0-6-15 4852760/654310 0-6-20 4853060/657710 0-6-25 4855150/663140 0-6-29 4857690/672250 0-6-30 4857700/672340 0-6-33 4858150/674270 0-6-35 4859400/676650 0-7-10 4859600/682620 0-7-15 4861460/686600 0-7-18 4862400/689530 0-7-22 4863020/692400 0-7-25 4862920/695960 0-7-30 4863270/701750

171

Station No. Northing/Easting Azimuth Degrees from (degrees) Perpendicular

LAKE ONTARIO (Zone 17) cont'd. 0-7-35 4865250/707490 160 11 CY-7-40 4868500/715620 180 11 0-7-42 4868820/716950 178 1 0-7-45 4869450/718140 150 3 0-8-10 4870500/726730 162 18 (3-8-15 4871110/729050 160 20 () -8 -20 4872350/735800 160 22 0-8-25 4871950/739780 160 27

LAKE ONTARIO (Zone 18) 0-8-30 4873590/267470 167 21 0-8-35 4875760/275410 180 4 0-8-40 4876350/277030 168 7 0-8-42 4875100/280860 239 3 0-8-45 4874400/284120 166 29 0-9-30 4863460/316440 246 6 0-0-40 4862430/321350 256 22 TABLE B-2

Information Regarding the Reaches Established for Lake Huron

Reach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data # Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) (m)

1 4949160/579300 4938750/578730 97 11.4 H-06-80 GAP 4938750/578730 4937470/579800 - 1.3 2 4937470/579800 4924270/570020 217 17.9 H-06-100 GAP 4924270/570020 4937580/537320 3 4937580/537320 4937730/535590 95 1.9 N/A GAP 4937730/535590 4951070/526610 4 4951070/526610 4951700/522650 97 3.8 N/A GAP 4951700/522650 4945140/477820 5 4945140/477820 4937480/476860 184 26.9 H-08-100 GAP 4937480/476860 4937130/476690 - 0.6 6 4937130/476690 4935730/476230 199 1.5 H-08-110 GAP 4935730/476230 4933750/474760 - 2.5 7 4933750/474760 4927440/470320 212 7.7 H-08-120 GAP 4927440/470320 4926960/470040 - 0.6 8 4926960/470040 4926140/469180 51 1.1 - H-08-110* 9 4926140/469180 4924940/469320 348 1.3 - H-08-110* GAP 4924940/469320 4921020/467790 - 9.2 10 4921020/467790 4918630/464420 244 4.8 H-08-130 GAP 4918630/464420 4906060/452200 - 23.0 11 4906060/452200 4905750/452440 144 0.4 H-08-145* GAP 4905750/452440 4904810/452490 - 3.3 12 4904810/452490 4930780/452820 173 1.3 H-08-145 GAP 4903780/452820 4899710/451670 - 4.7 13 4899710/451670 4891520/448730 199 8.9 - H-08-150 14 4891520/448730 4880230/439300 222 14.7 - H-08-160 GAP 4880140/439300 4880140/439250 - 0.1 15 4880140/439250 4878000/440260 156 2.3 - H-08-170 16 4878000/440260 4871710/441120 172 6.4 - H-08-170* 17 4871710/441290 4868190/441290 178 3.5 18.7 H-09-10 18 4868190/441290 4844950/441790 181 23.1 18.3 H-09-15 19 4844950/441790 4843980/441590 162 1.0 - H-10-22* GAP 4843980/441590 4842890/441470 - 1.2 20 4842890/441470 4840360/441750 177 2.5 17.8 H-09-30* 21 4840360/441750 4839240/441770 178 1.1 17.8 H-09-30* 22 4839240/441770 4837250/441510 22 2.1 18.3 H-09-15* 23 4837250/441510 4834920/441720 178 2.3 - H-09-20* 24 4834920/441720 4834480/441850 179 0.5 18.3 H-09-15* 25 4834480/441850 4832130/442160 176 2.7 21.0 H-09-20 26 4832130/442160 4829160/442450 174 2.9 21.0 H-09-20* 27 4829160/442450 4828040/442550 176 1.1 21.0 H-09-20*

172 173

Reach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) W

28 4828040/442550 4826120/442760 174 1.9 13.0 H-09-40* 29 4826120/442760 4824150/442720 01 1.9 21.0 H-09-20* GAP 4824150/442720 4823840/442970 - 0.4 30 4823840/442970 4823350/442980 179 0.5 17.8 H-09-30 31 4823350/442980 4812550/442040 179 10.4 18.3 H-09-15* 32 4812550/442040 4811630/441990 03 0.9 13.0 H-09-40* 33 4811630/441990 4807940/442030 00 4.0 18.3 H-09-15* 34 4807940/442030 4802130/441770 183 5.7 13.0 H-09-40 35 4802130/441770 4799500/440550 23 2.8 13.0 H-09-40* 36 4799500/440550 4798380/440000 31 1.4 13.0 H-09-40* 37 4798380/440000 4795810/437850 38 3.5 - H-10-22* GAP 4795810/437850 4795640/437800 - 0.2 -- 38 4795640/437800 4792360/434350 48 4.7 - H-10-15* 39 4792360/434350 4790800/432400 233 2.4 - H-10-10 40 4790800/432400 4785260/422650 240 11.3 - H-10-15 GAP 4785260/422650 4785140/422370 0.4 41 4785140/422370 4784240/419380 255 3.1 H-10-18 GAP 4784240/419380 4784230/419070 0.3 42 4784230/419070 4785080/417480 118 1.6 - H-10-22 43 4785080/417480 4784820/416910 48 0.6 - H-10-30* 44 4784720/416910 4781080/417110 172 3.7 - H-10-25 GAP 4781080/417110 4778940/415660 - 2.8 45 4778940/415660 4778090/414650 230 1.3 - H-10-30 46 4778090/414650 4777460/414110 40 0.8 - H-10-30* 47 4777460/414110 4775340/412510 35 2.6 16.7 H-10-35* GAP 4775340/412510 4774700/411900 0.9 - - 48 4774700/411900 4774150/411340 45 0.8 15.0 H-10-38* GAP 4774150/411340 4773570/410790 - 0.6 49 4773570/410790 4772170/408620 237 2.7 16.7 H-10-35 50 4772170/408620 4771470/406440 250 2.3 15.0 H-10-38 51 4771470/406440 4768430/405400 12 3.5 15.0 H-10-38* 52 4768430/405400 4766520/402380 238 3.6 9.1 H-10-45 53 4766520/402380 4765300/398910 71 3.6 9.1 H-10-45* 54 4765300/398910 4765260/398780 67 0.1 3.9 H-10-55 55 4765260/398780 4764800/396580 78 2.4 3.2 H-10-75,85 56 4764800/396580 4763840/391030 80 5.8 5.0 H-10-95,105 57 4763840/391030 4762060/384940 71 6.7 2.3 H-10-115,125 TABLE B-3

Information Regarding the Reaches Established • for Lake St. Clair Reach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data # Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) (m)

1 4688350/343930 4683910/358940 84 19.6 C-03-10 2 4683970/359050 4684790/378220 107 15.9 C-03-20

174 TABLE B-4

Information Regarding the Reaches Established for Lake Erie

Reach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data # Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) (m)

1 4657280/325170 4656300/327040 97 2.0 - E-01-04 2 4656300/327040 4654820/331380 121 4.9 - E-01-06 3 4654820/331380 4650980/337620 122 7.3 - E-01-04* 4 4650980/337620 4650480/338180 132 0.7 2.9 E-01-09 GAP 4650480/338180 4649420/340160 - 2.3 5 4649420/340160 4650260/344140 70 4.2 8.2 E-01-10 6 4650260/344140 4651140/350260 82 6.2 1.1 E-01-12,1- GAP 4651140/350260 4653420/354680 6.7 - 7 4653420/354680 4653860/355660 66 1.0 4.8 E-01-14 GAP 4653860/355660 4654740/357760 2.2 8 4654740/357760 4654200/365700 88 8.3 9.6 E-01-19,20,21 9 4654200/365700 4653840/367700 91 1.9 18.5 E-01-23 GAP 4653840/367700 4651840/369740 2.9 - - 10 4652840/369740 4649260/371600 144 3.2 - E-01-25 11 4659260/371600 4640420/374900 159 9.8 - E-01-27 12 4640420/374900 4649120/375800 05 9.0 - E-01-28 13 4649120/375800 4651320/376240 12 2.2 - E-01-30 14 4651320/376240 4656020/378020 16 1.1 - E-01-28* GAP 4656020/378020 4656660/378360 - 0.7 - - 15 4656600/378360 4659480/380400 34 2.6 3.1 E-02-02* 16 4659480/380400 4662820/383400 44 4.6 3.1 E-02-02 17 4662820/383400 4676400/407460 59 27.7 18.2 E-02-10 18 4676400/407460 4679280/414900 69 8.5 21.8 E-02-13 19 4679280/414900 4679100/422500 92 7.4 - E-02-16 20A 4679100/422500 4678380/425060 106 2.7 - E-02-16 GAP 4678380/425060 4678510/425200 - 0.2 20B 4678510/425200 4679000/430320 97 5.2 - E-02-16A,17 21 4679000/430320 4688800/431200 04 10.6 - E-02-18,19 22 4688800/431200 4693000/433480 30 4.7 - E-02-20 23 4693000/433480 4705600/449320 53 20.8 16.8 E-02-24 GAP 4705600/449320 4706880/450420 - 1.7 24 4706880/450420 4714300/461360 55 13.3 24.4 E-03-04 GAP 4714300/461360 4714620/461680 0.5 25 4714620/461680 4717020/467420 85 6.8 25.8 E-03-07 26 4717020/467420 4720360/470700 48 5.2 30.9 E-03-10 GAP 4720360/470700 4720760/471160 0.7 27 4720760/471160 4723220/480480 77 10.3 34.8 E-03-20* 28 4723220/480480 4722720/482360 105 0.6 - E-03-15 GAP 4722720/482360 4723400/484060 - 4.1 29 4723400/484060 4722500/498080 92 14.5 37.2 E-03-17,20

175 176

Reach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data # Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) (ID)

30 4722500/498080 4722080/499300 111 1.2 E-03-23 GAP 4722080/499300 4722420/499560 - 0.5 31 4722420/499560 4721740/513560 93 14.4 29.9 E-03-25 32 4721740/513560 4720240/515740 124 2.8 - E-03-30 GAP 4720240/515740 4721040/516180 - 1.1 - - 33 4721040/516180 4720440/518480 111 2.4 16.2 E-03-31 34 4720440/518480 4718380/522860 115 4.8 24.8 E-03-40* 35 4718380/522860 4713860/533320 118 11.8 24.8 E-03-40 GAP 4713860/533320 4713800/533840 - -- 36 4713800/533840 4713340/537810 96 4.2 10.0 E-04-08 GAP 4713340/537810 4713340/538080 - - 37 4713340/538080 4713400/540490 90 2.2 E-04-10* GAP 4713400/540490 4713440/541570 38 4713440/541570 4714020/549470 86 8.2 - E-04-10 39 4714020/549470 4711840/559070 101 9.7 - E-04-13 40 4711840/559070 4709790/570660 100 11.8 - E-04-20* 41 4709790/570660 4710200/574620 84 3.9 - E-04-13* 42 4710200/574620 4710860/578540 80 3.9 - E-04-20 GAP 4710860/578540 4710880/578540 - 43 4710880/578540 4711340/574640 95 4.0 - E-04-21 GAP 4711340/574640 4721380/447010 - 85.0 - 44 4721380/447010 4721680/447390 50 0.3 - E-04-26* GAP 4721680/447390 4723660/554800 - 16.0 - - 45 4723660/554800 4726860/555220 07 3.3 - E-04-26 GAP 4726860/555220 4727310/555550 - 0.6 - - 46 4727310/555550 4734950/562200 48 9.7 19.7 E-04-30* 47 Unused Number 48 4734950/562200 4736770/563900 41 2.5 19.7 E-04-30 49 4736770/563900 4736890/564760 83 0.9 10.0 E-04-08* 50 4736890/564760 4736700/565330 101 0.7 - E-04-32 GAP 4736700/565330 4736980/565870 - 0.7 - - 51 4736980/565870 4737160/569140 86 3.4 11.3 E-04-35 GAP 4737160/569140 4737550/572480 3.4 52 4737550/572480 4737680/573160 94 0.9 8.4 E-04-40 GAP 4737680/573160 4737880/575070 0.2 53 4737880/575070 4737850/575660 93 0.6 E-05-08* GAP 4737850/575660 4738580/576380 1.2 54 4738580/576380 4738500/577100 91 0.8 8.1 8-05-02* GAP 4738500/577100 4739460/578640 2.6 55 4739460/578640 4738150/582760 123 4.8 8.1 E-05-02 GAP 4738150/582760 4739440/583790 - 2.4 56 4739440/583790 4739850/585470 71 1.8 E-05-05 GAP 4739850/585470 4740420/586920 1.9 57 4740420/586920 4740540/587400 75 0.4 E-05-05*

177

fUeach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) (m)

GAP 4740540/587400 4741070/588170 - 1.1 58 4741070/588170 4741110/588440 81 0.3 E-05-05* GAP 4741110/588440 4742320/595030 - 7.2 59 4742320/595030 4742920/596670 66 2.0 E-06-15* GAP 4742920/596670 4743970/599630 - 3.5 60 4743970/599630 4743750/601940 96 2.6 E-06-15* GAP 4743750/602940 4745280/603380 - 2.5 61 4745280/603380 4745120/604530 97 1.2 E-06-15* GAP 4 74 5120/604530 4745420/607090 - 3.1 62 4745420/607090 4743350/611060 120 4.7 E-05-09* GAP 4743350/611060 4745670/614940 - 5.3 63 474 5670/6 14940 4745660/616100 91 1.2 E-05-08 GAP 4745660/616100 4745600/616360 0.3 64 474 5600/6 16360 4744160/618400 125 2.5 E-05-09 GAP 4744160/618400 4745120/619330 2.0 65 4 74 5120/6193 30 4744340/623240 112 4.2 14.2 E-05-10,11 66 4744340/623240 4744050/623840 115 0.6 14.2 E-05-10,11* GAP 4744050/623840 4749020/626960 5.5 67 4749020/626960 4748980 /62 7620 94 0.8 4748980/627620 4 74 7240/631870 105 4.6 GAP 4747240/631870 4748110/632930 1.5 69 4748110/632930 4747160/634880 76 2.7 E-06:04* GAY 4747160/634880 4748700/635980 2.5 70 4 748700/63 5980 4749070/637440 81 1.8 E-06:15* GAY 4749070/637440 4749340/638280 1.1 71 4749340/638280 4748660/640640 115 2.6 E-06:04* GAP 4748660/640640 4748500/641300 2.2 72 4748500/641300 4748500/642500 83 1.2 E-06:10* GAY 4748500/642500 4748280/643650 1.2 73 4748280/643650 4747670/645180 74 1.7 E-06:15* GAY 4747670/645180 4747730/645600 0.8 74 4747730/645600 4747620/647200 94 2.0 E-06-15* GAY 4747620/647200 4748080/648540 1.7 75 4748080/648540 4 74 7530/65 1820 119 3.7 - E-06-15* GAY 4747530/651820 4747130/653200 1.7 76 4747130/653200 4744720/655390 139 3.2 GAY 4744720/655390 4746400/655740 3.3 77 4746400/655740 4747080/658200 78 2.6 GAY 4747080/658200 4748510/660500 3.3 4 7485 10/6 60500 474 7900/6 62 590 104 2.2 - E -06 -15* GAY 4747900/662590 4748880/663480 1.5 79 4748880/663480 4749170/664560 77 1.2 - E -06 -15 GAY 4749170/664560 4749700/665920 1.8 90 4749700/665920 4749460/667040 103 1.2 - E -06 -15* 178

Reach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data # Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) (m)

GAP 4749460/667040 4749540/667500 - 0.6 -- 81 4749540/667500 4749670/667950 75 0.6 - E-06-15*

TABLE B-5

Information Regarding the Reaches Established for Lake Ontario

R ach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data 1/ Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) (m)

1 4791380/654730 4790780/652640 253 2.2 5.1 0-01-09,10 2 4790780/652640 4790880/652100 81 0.5 0-01-50* GAF' 4790880/652100 4790900/651660 0.5 4790900/651660 4789330/649220 236 2.8 2.5 0-01-20 4 4789330/649220 4788180/647470 238 1.9 4.2 0-01-30 5 4788180/647470 4787560/646420 237 1.3 5.0 0-01-40 6 4787560/646420 4787400/645950 69 0.6 2.5 0-01-20* GAP 4787400/645950 4787270/645460 0.5 - - 7 4787270/645460 4787460/645090 116 0.5 - 0-01-50 GA-P 4787460/645090 4787230/644500 0.6 8 4787230/644500 4786890/644240 41 0.5 - 0-01-70* GAP 4786890/644240 4786500/643760 0.6 9 4786500/643760 4684990/641240 233 2.8 7.8 0-01-60A,B 10 4784990/641240 4785020/641060 107 0.2 0-01-50* GAP 4785020/641060 4784810/641000 0.2 11 4784810/641000 4784650/640610 248 0.8 - 0-01-70 12 4784650/640610 4782390/636790 59 3.9 11.0 0-01-80 13 4782390/636790 4782070/635800 71 1.0 - 0-01-70* 1 4 4782070/635800 4782000/635250 263 0.5 12.4 0-01-90 15 4782000/635250 4782000/634910 89 0.4 - 0-01-70* 4782000/634910 7482180/632950 93 2.0 12.4 0-01-90* GA P 4782180/632950 4782650/631700 1.3 - - 17 4782650/631700 4782820/631430 118 0.3 4.3 0-01-110* 4782820/631430 4782980/631170 0.4 - - GA P 4782980/631170 4783390/630500 121 0.8 4.3 0-01-110* 18 4783390/630500 4783770/625920 270 4.8 1.7 0-01-100 19 4783770/625920 4783670/625360 78 0.6 4.3 0-01-110* 4783670/625360 4783570/625100 0.3 GAF 4783570/625100 4783320/622600 85 2.6 4.3 0-01-110 21- 4783320/622600 4783320/620700 90 1.8 10.6 0-01-130* 22 4783320/620700 4783330/619710 89 0.9 - 0-01-120 23 4783330/619710 4783450/619000 100 0.8 10.6 0-01-130 2 4 4783450/619000 4784170/617860 120 1.4 6.1 0-01-140 25 4784170/617860 4784380/617420 0.3 GA F 4784380/617420 4784570/616620 105 0.6 5.1 0-01-150 26 4784570/616620 4784310/615350 78 1.6 5.7 0-01-160,161 27 4784310/615350 4786300/612240 125 3.7 3.2 0-01-170,174 20 4786300/612240 4786820/611510 0.9 GA F 4786820/611510 4786480/610260 70 0.8 0-02-11 29 4786480/610260 4787400/606820 120 3.9 4.1 0-02-13,20 30

179 180

Reach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data # Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) (m)

31 4787400/606820 4788640/602710 118 4.5 2.8 0-02-30 GAP 4788640/602710 4688640/602570 0.1 32 4788640/602570 4789090/601170 118 1.5 - 0-02-40 33 4789090/601170 4790760/599710 138 2.1 - 0-02-50 34 4790760/599710 4794270/597850 152 4.4 - 0-02-60 35 4794270/597850 4794500/597800 160 0.2 - 0-02-70 GAP 4794500/597800 4794700/597770 0.1 36 4794700/597770 4794830/597570 121 0.3 - 0-03-02 37 4794830/597570 4796700/597280 170 2.3 - 0-03-04 GAP 4796700/597280 4797270/597630 - 0.7 38 4797270/597630 4803010/603720 134 8.6 1.8 0-03-10 GAP 4803010/603720 7803260/603930 0.3 - - 39 4803260/603930 4804970/604430 18 2.0 5.8 0-03-20 GAP 4804970/604430 4805240/604710 - 0.5 - - 40 4805240/604710 4806510/605950 49 1.8 5.8 0-03-20* 41 4806510/605950 4807640/606040 01 1.0 - 0-04-20* 42 4807460/606040 4808610/606560 07 1.5 5.8 0-03-20* GAP 4808610/606560 4808930/606880 - 0.5 - - 43 4808930/606880 4809890/607400 35 1.1 5.8 0-03-20* GAP 4809890/607400 4810120/607604 0.4 - - 44 4810120/607604 4810230/607760 45 0.2 0-04-20* GAP 4810230/607760 4810460/607940 0.3 45 Included in 46 46 4810460/607940 4814580/611030 35 5.5 5.8 0-03-20* 47 4814580/611030 4814950/611190 22 0.4 5.8 0-03-20* 48 4814950/611190 4815030/611240 22 0.2 5.8 0-03-20* 49 4815030/611240 4815200/611350 36 0.2 - 0-04-20* 50 4815200/611350 4815700/611920 44 0.7 5.8 0-03-20* GAP 4815700/611920 4817500/612870 - 2.1 - - 51 4817500/612870 4819580/612910 355 1.9 1.8 0-03-10* 52 4819580/612910 4821380/613460 12 1.8 - 0-04-20 GAP 4821380/613460 4821480/613680 - 0.3 53 4821480/613680 4821460/613880 96 0.2 5.8 0-03-20* GAP 4821460/613880 4822920/614570 - 2.0 - 54 4822920/614570 4824700/616250 19 2.1 1.8 0-03-10* GAP 4824700/616250 4825440/617350 - 1.3 - 55 4825440/617350 4826170/617570 35 0.8 1.8 0-03-10* 56 4826170/617570 4826550/617740 22 0.5 - 0-04-20* 57 4826550/617740 4826730/617860 28 0.2 - 0-04-20* GAP 4826730/617860 -4826890/618020 - 0.2 58 4826890/618020 4830400/622320 26 6.8 1.8 0-03-10* GAP 4830400/622320 4831460/628940 - 7.0 - 59 4831460/628940 4830040/629780 55 1.6 - 0-09-30* 60 4830040/629780 4837840/639520 67 14.8 - 0-06-14*

181

Reach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data df Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) (m)

61 4837840/639520 4846600/648740 41 13.2 52.0 0-5-20,23 25,28,30 62 4846600/648740 4848340/650100 38 2.3 5.5 0-06-10* 63 4848340/650100 4850060/651180 32 2.4 5.5 0-06-10 64 4850060/651180 4850480/651370 27 0.5 - 0-06-14* 65 4850480/651370 4852040/652830 38 2.1 5.5 0-06-10* 66 4852040 /652 830 4852450/655030 89 2.4 - 0-06-14,15 GAP 4852450/655030 4852200/655030 0.9 - - 67 4852200 /6 557 50 4852770/656940 44 0.8 5.5 0-06-10* 68 4852770/656940 4853110/657980 68 1.0 2.5 0-06-20 69 4853110 /657 980 4853120/658590 89 1.1 - 0-06-15* 70 4853120/658590 4853150/659000 101 0.5 5.5 0-06-10* 71 4853150/659000 4853520/659680 60 0.8 2.5 0-06-20* 72 4853520/659680 4853550/659960 88 0.5 5.5 0-06-20* 73 4853550/659960 4854200/660840 53 1.2 2.5 0-06-20* 74 4854200/660840 4854520/662340 86 1.8 - 0-06-15* 75 4854520/662340 4855060/663060 53 1.3 - 0-06-25* 76 485 5060/6 63060 4855590/663440 35 0.8 - 0-06-25 77 4855590/663440 4856070/663820 39 0.5 - 0-06-25* 78 4856070/663820 4856610/665030 65 1.3 - 0-06-15* 79 4856610/665030 4856910/665610 49 0.6 5.5 0-06-10* 100 1.1 - 0-06-15* 80 4856910/665610 485 7090/6 67050 81 4857090/667050 4857480/669230 107 2.7 5.5 0-06-10* 82 4857480/669230 485 74 60/6 702 10 87 1.1 - 0-06-35* 4857460/670210 4857190/671200 104 0.8 9.5 0-06-29* 83 0-06-29,30 84 4857190/671200 4857470/671660 65 0.5 9.5 4857470/671660 4857810/672870 74 1.1 9.5 0-06-29,30 85 1.0 - 0-06-35* 86 4857810/672870 4858200/674160 73 0.3 14.2 0-06-33 87 4858200 /6 74160 4858420/674320 12 45 1.0 - 0-07-15* 88 4858420/674320 4858980/674890 4858980 /6 74890 4959290/675070 0.3 GAP 89 2.1 - 0-06-35 89 4859290 /6 75070 4859400/677240 4859400/677240 4859500/678410 89 1.1 - 0-06-35* 90 4859500/678410 4859520/683900 90 5.3 19.1 0-07-10 91 4859520/683900 48601 90/6848 10 55 1.5 26.5 0-07-25* 92 4860190/684810 4860720/685750 61 1.0 - 0-07-15* 93 4860720 /685 750 4861040/686310 67 0.6 15.4 0-07-18* 94 4861040/686310 4862080/687870 57 1.9 - 0-07-15 95 4862080/687870 4862360/688550 66 0.8 5.9 0-07-22* 96 4862360/688550 4862390/688970 85 0.3 2.1 0-08-20* 97 4862390/688970 4862930/690780 89 1.9 15.4 0-07-18 98 4862930/690780 4862890/692910 98 2.3 5.9 0-07-22 99 4862890/692910 4862930/693230 81 0.5 - 0-08-25* 1 00 4862930/693230 4862860/6 94 150 95 1.1 5.9 0-07-22* 10 1 182

Reach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data # Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) (m)

102 4862860/694150 4863040/695290 82 1.1 - 0-08-25* 103 4863040/695290 4863090/697650 89 2.6 26.5 0-07-25 104 4863090/697650 4863520/701180 80 3.7 19.1 0-07-10* 105 4863520/701180 4863990/703870 66 2.7 17.4 0-07-30 106 4863990/703870 4865190/706370 68 2.7 4.8 0-07-35* 107 4865190/706370 4865210/707180 87 1.0 4.8 0-07-35* 108 4865210/707180 4866200/709300 65 3.1 4.8 0-07-35 109 4866200/709300 4866870/710110 50 1.3 17.5 0-07-40* 110 4866870/710110 4867330/711780 81 1.5 - 0-08-25* 111 4867330/711780 4868010/713820 81 2.3 17.5 0-07-40* 112 4868010/713820 4868270/714440 66 0.8 - 0-08-25* 113 4868270/714440 4868560/716390 82 2.1 17.5 0-07-40 114 4868560/716390 4868670/717290 78 0.8 - 0-07-42 GAP 4868670/717290 4869290/717720 - 0.8 115 4869290/717720 4869610/718700 70 0.5 11.3 0-07-45 GAP 4869610/718700 4869950/719820 1.2 116 4869950/719820 4870550/725420 89 6.1 0-08-25* 117 4870550/725420 4870430/726260 100 1.0 4.8 0-07-35* GAP 4870430/726260 4870420/726540 - 0.3 118 4870420/726540 4870870/727900 90 1.2 0-08-10 GAP 4870870/727900 4870730/728640 - 0.8 119 4870730/728640 4870870/728960 70 0.3 11.3 0-07-45* 120 4870870/728960 4870890/729040 80 0.2 - 0-08-15 121 4870890/729040 4871000/731480 88 2.1 11.3 0-07-45* 122 4871000/731480 4871460/732170 61 1.4 - 0-08-25* 123 4871460/732170 4872140/733180 56 1.2 4.8 0-07-35* 124 4872140/733180 4872380/736490 96 4.0 2.1 0-08-20 125 4872380/736490 4872400/738230 89 0.6 11.3 0-07-45* 126 4872400/738230 4872530/259510 105 3.5 - 0-08-25 127 4872530/259510 4873180/260620 60 1.3 4.8 0-07-35* GAP 4873180/260620 4873460/261540 1.0 - - 128 4873460/261540 4872950/265580 72 5.0 2.1 0-08-20* 129 4872950/265580 4873280/268510 72 3.1 - 0-08-30 GAP 4873280/268510 4873220/269120 130 4873220/269120 4873860/270020 59 0.8 0-08-30* GAP 4873860/270020 4874410/270250 0.6 131 4874410/270250 4974880/271350 67 1.5 11.3 0-07-45* CAP 4874880/271350 4875340/272330 1.1 - 132 4875340/272330 4875490/272870 73 0.6 11.3 0-07-45* 133 4875490/272870 4876520/279460 82 8.1 - 0-08-35,40 134 4876520/279460 4874240/281090 144 2.6 - 0-08-42 135 4874240/281090 4874860/285440 68 4.6 1.6 0-08-45 GAP 4874860/285440 4875690/290900 24.5 136 4875690/290900 4872650/293480 48 3.9 0-09-30* 183

Reach Starts Ends Azimuth Reach Bluff Data # Northing/Easting Northing/Easting (Deg.) Length Height Station(s) (km) M

GAP 4872650/293480 4870690/296900 137 4870690/296900 4869490/297530 0-09-30* GAP 4869490/297530 4869140/279660 138 4869140/279660 4868360/297960 0-09-30* GAP 4868360/297960 4868420/298520 139 4868420/298520 4866870/299860 55 2.1 - 0-09-30* GAP 4866870/299860 4868870/311980 - 13.5 140 4868870/311980 4862900/316850 55 8.0 0-09-30 GAP 4862900/316850 4863480/319790 - 4.2 141 4863480/319790 4861040/322100 141 3.2 0-09-40 APPENDIX C

Information Regarding Vegetation at the Survey Sites

Table C-1 Species Present Above Top of Bank - Lake Huron Table C-2 Species Present Above Top of Bank - Lake Erie Table C-3 Species Present Above Top of Bank - Lake Ontario Table C-4 Species Present on Bluff Face - Lake Huron Table C-5 Species Present on Bluff Face - Lake Erie Table C-6 Species Present on Bluff Face - Lake Ontario

184 Methodology for Sampling Vegetation at Survey Sites

The vegetation inventory was undertaken to complement the Shore Properties Studies ongoing Shoreline Monitoring Programme by identifying the vegetation at 102 of the programme's research stations and was conducted in conjunction with the 1978 survey which began early in June and concluded in September. The erosion station profile line was used as a transect line for the sampling of species at each site. Following establishment of the transect each plant species found on line was cursorily identified and its predominance visually estimated and recorded as a percent groundcover of the total sample area which extended 10 m on both sides of the transect line. Plant species forming a major component of the vegetation in the area that were not on the transect line, but were in the 20 m wide sample, were also identified, visually assessed, and recorded in the same manner. In this way, all major forms of vegetation within a 20 m wide strip at each site were included in the inventory. Due to extreme differences in the physical characteristics of each sample area, two major physical categories were defined for each site. The first was from the top of bluff (TOB) extending 20 m inland from the edge of the bluff. The second was the area from top of bluff to toe of bluff (TOE). Where no top of bluff was apparent, all vegetation was recorded as a percentage of the whole area from the start of the transect line to the water's edge.

185 186

In many cases tree and shrub vegetation was of a clumped nature and could not be recorded as a percent groundcover figure and still be indicative of the vegetation groundcover in the sample area. To show this type of vegetation as accurately as possible, an average distance between trees was determined. An expansion of the sample area was necessary to allow for this density calculation. The height and slope of bluff for each site was determined using onshore profile plots as recorded for the 1978 shore erosion monitoring survey. The slope of bluff was calculated using the longest straight stretch of bluff profile or, where the bluff profile had two or more Slope areas, from a line visually determined to be the average slope. For plant species identification, the following reference texts were consulted: 1) An Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and Canada; Vols. 1, 2 and 3, Britton and Brown. 2) The Peterson Field Guide Manual: A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs, G. A. Petrides. 3) The Peterson Field Guide Manual: A Field Guide to Wildflowers, R. T. Peterson and M. McKenny. The following charts indicate the plants identified at each site, the percentage of'sample area they cover as well asslope determined from the 1978 survey. 187

LAKE HURON Table C-I Erosion Monitoring Station F Speclee Present Above Top of Bluff indicate x groundcover) (Ftgurea 0 o u n aD ^n ^n ^n W P Ô .Ni N uq â M m ^ ^ n O o O ^ ommon Name Generic Name i i m d â d°, d b ô ô ô é ô ô ô b d s mA :6 s s â s s^ x s^ m m s ^m â ..â â

HERBS

Grass Gnnminene 6 45, 45 10, 60 90 951 951 LO 95 95 90 , Note: these 100 20 50 14 100 Dandelion Tanaxacum o ic,i.nake 1 2 14 Pfanta o majon Common Plantain man-made shore - -31 Goldenrod SoP.i.da o Iaanaden6iAl linee metal Red Clover TA.i uGium wutten6e seewa1l metal 0 Alalke Clover Tai6oti.um hydA.i.dum and eodded 0 Sweet it. Clover MeBiRotue a.fba 1 2 areae _ 2 14 Quaen Ann'a Lace Oaucue calota 3 1 1 1 5 6 43 Pur le Vetch Vicia amen-icana 5 1 7 Cow Vatch Vicia cJtacca 0 Hawkweed Hi.enacium 6 0 Tri111um Tn.i.LY.wm 6 0 Cin uefofl Puten.ti.LYa e 0 Wild Strawberr Fna an.ia 6 1 _ 7 Co®on Mullein VPJtbabCUm thap6ue 0 Damea Rocket He6pe/t-i.e ma.tnona.Li.6 _ 0 Pur le eter Plant T)ta o on nxi ot.iu6 0 Milkweed Aectepiadaceae e 3 1 1 5 1 5 36 Thiatle CUtbium 6p 0

Common Buttercuo Ranuncufue aclub 0 Wh1te Bsneberr Actaea ch da 0 Falae Solomon'e Seal Smitacina nacemoea 0

Oxeye Delay Chnyeanfhemum teucan.theim/m 0 Silverweed Poten.Lti£a anbenina 0 Poison Iv Rhue nadicane 5 0 7 Horeetail EQu.Ceetum 6p 5 1 7 Squawroot Cl/nopltot45 am'U1.lcana Wild Pareniv Pa6twnaca-eativa - 0 0 Tweble Muatard Sib ymbn.ium a2t.ibeimum BLck-eved Suean _ Rudbechia h.ilta 7 Wild Bergamot Munandi i6tu.Caea 0 Chickory Ch.ichoaiiun int4bue 1 EverlastEnR Per _ _ Lathqau4 fati^Ciue 0 _ 2 14 Agricultural ( corn* orchard• eo abean TREES AND SHRUBS _ _ - 2 14 Willow Saltix ep X 1 7 Silver Maple AceA 6acchaninwn x - X - _ 1 7 Sugar Meple Acen 6acehartwn Lilac Syn.insa 6 0 7 Wild Grape Norway Spruce__ 0 0 Red Aeh FnaxinuA penn6NCvanica 2 14 Steghorn Sumac Rhue 6^phina 2 l4 BcüaCa ^_^I t¢1a % __ X White Birch - - }^ ------36 X - _ - X 5 Puplar --- ,--_ Po nful 1!r X % % -- _ _- - -__-_------' _ X 2 14 Trembling Aepen PoFxilw ttGnuYvideb X _. - 1 7 Froated Hawthurn C1atnag^w ep % -- X 1 7 Elm ------NÇmu6 S^l.------0 Bnech Farue^ landi(^ otia 7 Amerlcan Bueevnud __..__.--_7^Yia amCqicana .._ 0

- Mulberry-___-____.-__ MvAU1_ 1nbYa ..__- _ _ _0 7 P1 ne -_-___.- ' U .- oek - 3 21 Cedar Thua occide^ltaXie _ PCatanue occldental.ie 0 Dlatee 2 5 1 5 5 LO No.e eclea at each etatton 4 6 5 6 5 6 B 9 6 4 I 1 2 5 X Groundcaver b ve etetlon 50 60 1 7 6 2 99 100 6 100 9 6 100 NA INA MA 0 2 5 57 188

L01[. Yft AMO .S. I.Sf. YYa.1an NonllarlM aalan 6pvrl..^axft Table Illwrw IMlr.tr i / rxuMrm.rl C-2 h f

ryyron w.. c.Wrle M... xu A A A A S S S A S d^ ^ -^ T u SS S

T I T 5 N 5 93 N e3 ,yfV/ _ _---_ _ Ow.xwe ._._ Q f 45 N 1 10 it 91 1 t1 V1 _I IO f0 1 10 N V0 t0 I 90 N 5 I S t Y 1 1 I 10 » pYyYly^ - . ItYWtWi x^(lCU4(i .__ .__ . .__- 1. . .__ 1 le » i .Y _. ? 1 ... _ ^1 .. ^. Y 1 1 1 1 . . 1 . ... xo ^ s • ._.^(y^Y. s _ 1 L _ _ _ S t 1 1 Clev.r . ( S 3 1 1 -

-- 1 » 1 'i lin.-.. _.. OIYYIIi GNYfL.-. V ew e.

Ill^r llr(fwx , 11•trxfl[fa1^ -- _ _^ - 1:1 lall _ __ _ ...... _ _ .. _ .. .. _ .._ . _.. .. ._ .. Ylld trr.N.rr f 1ra , • M1run IY11.1. Pr1hY11w fqal^ul, I - Orw MrMI WI A 11Wf.r.xnl., -_.. - Pop lvOwl.rrlwl f+nhqu^lx'Irr^nfiul l ^ S - -- S - - -1 ^^5 1

adieap^ , ---__ -- ' - ^ - I _ eWwrnul fnunJx•f„ ear YIIJ Prr.n1P Mlfrrura ,afl,n TuNI. xuxl.rJ YrlyMl^W n(fil,lnw, /I.rY-.Yrd /W.n W.dheekia lIIIfn Ylld trrtrul 14•ua1d1 k.,tufn,n cnlrYnrv fqrrlu•r^w+ rufuWl YwrlMllnt Pw Y Y Atrl•nllxr.l f,nrnl nn^nxral wr.w.n, _ _ _ - _ _ __ YYYYx AYO YxxOp -- - - - Y - . .. Y • u Yul^w Mlrl, 1 - 1 - .- --- ..--'- Y - Y e 71 Yllv.r IYpI• Mrl la.•rlwllixin K Y Y Y y Y Y xx»r IYPIV M'vl ,arrknlun Y 1 1 Lll.r WIIiuKa ,l. Y 1 Ylld Cr.Pv Vrfl, ,1' y Y I MofWY YPrur• n ,1^ _ _ _ _ e MM Ail, flnvilxl. Ivuulnf.,iullrn _t^^ Y - Tr YI.YMrrn Yurr 1 fUl 1 Y X Y Ylilrr YIrrA rfufn Iwtlxll^vru X - _ ^

y _...... __. _. ^_I _ . .. - _ __. ..._ __ . _ _ ro uM xwlM^rn rn nrau, ,1' __. . .. _ _ _ _ ._. _. ... • Y _ _ _ .!._ a.xl! ,Irax^ r n

x rlr. „xxa ^, ' r.. - - ' ------x. ------

11' X Ÿ ^ . 1

yrw^rv ' a nIM^1 n ^ ^ Nei. 1 11 1 1 IS I5 fo 70 ]o fo lo l0 11 A 1 ] I 1 1 ] t > 7 . :-n• .Prr .. 1 wr. l i 1 6 4 If! 1 e Y 1 1 / 1 _ . A 1 1A _ _ S i GrwMrnWf YY ...... lon 1 0 00 100 A 100 100 A N N SS 100 +'- -4

189

'cordon monitoring e $$$$$$ Ide 9!,12■!W? Table C-3 •... •• Pr•••nt Appre top or 111.11 ... ' ' r' ri 11 ''' R ! ° r ? - r. 0 -.:,' .....• - . 1 '-; 1 é, d d d d d e didddétdddAdddd a a a a a ddddA NixliM 10111 10 3 0., 17, 20 90 50 10 90 95 40 10 15 . 15 15 15 90 20 60 5 0 II5 90 0 0 00 0 0 10 11teeolcae be, •12_11 le 145 !7 .0 92 90 100 90 1 9 5 1 larullOCAPI Pie:Weft __..A.1.-O 6- Ill Ill UM . C.1■00111 Élneinin l'Copfa. , ..,,, I- Mr 1111111113.11 . ----, Sof icanacint ■ ■ , 1 • I 1,10 WEI 111 111•••••11•••• tiolOter94 rda0p ....__) 8 I ' i Mil Cionat !trial.» WIMP.. 5 1 1 men J1 warmummmur .. /urrüllclu.. 1 1111111111111MIMMIMMUMIlle 61•111a new, 211 AP1 rule IIIIMMIIIIIIIIIIIBIMII.MnnrrnEl Stre.A .21.. Clue, Or2. , 2, or. Queen Ann't Lai, Ma. ..., to 111111M1111111.111111 1.111.1111 Purple Vote., 1, ‘ . .., r1.1.1‘,... .11.11111111111111111.111111 111111.1111 MI 1.11.1111111•1111111.111111 . ...ear•.d é I u.nar uoe 4 e, 1. .1—

111111.01 114,20or lp 1 .. — Clerk...del 1 n•,,,(di...• 7 Ill BBB @MHIIIMMULa ■ I 1111,1 Pl. , l 2 .91, rl 1, PoP0.41 Mullein ' -. 1 Eli laillin I il .11 M • %rel. 01•1•r PIANO Ild.p ,,,, ,I.I.Lie£O11__ ' BM ' Ell. In Ein ME _ . ill I 1 .,,,rt u 12.010■ 9 At, AO...I.11_ Ma PAll• Ilapel_m_ Ow Peg airlirrovilii — . - .. ..._ - 1 : Ulm. M,Itmion . . Swirl tinr(ttrrrPr i7Li.L.n.,r -. - . ' II I À i 0A.N.• 141.2 lio,.lorleoften rrotoortirmro - -- - - .__,—

N119, Yeerl --Lati-JtAkell•M ■ 144 1.1rilcap 1 - -1..- I ...1kualuall IIIIIT 1 ' I 1

.41.21./..61111116.122. - 6_16-tri,L6. ll''' l1.l.l. 34...1+ ' -- - - I 1-eeed l _Iirmikgnixii-Lingt , ,,,,,,, ,...,,,,, IIorotth...11.1111P_ML xt. Xt. x II 111166 AAP 911111016 111 I 7- 1.2!. ILI X É X 7 x I .. --- • • MD Xliver Mamie x X It _ L.- - -I-- I _ _. il•11111 ,,.. . 1111,1 v,,,, ,j, a _a_ Prole., I I 1 iir . - . rw.t..v S 9 I • I 1•_.. 119.1 Arélt 'gar., N, --6-11. L_ a RIp.12,Le1J19. ■ --- . . .11 . -...-- W111U._ILIL5.11 11.`11.1:2. 6 - -6 -- . - - _ ..--..- - ■ ., . 1- 1,41611.rn r , rul r ...... 1,1__ 1- — ------I

6 ■ 06.1t..10,1 -- ------— - 1163.11 _I /1,, - I I -LIMIlltt11.7 motor tottra • I - _no, r.r 4 11.. .6.6 - .. - firre.la/r,', l,Olr,11 I.1- . . ...,- .. _ Y. .. . .. . _. . _ .11e.L4nui_e..4...a.4.J.0 a _ 10 10 11 10 1 0 11 1 1 11 , In . , 10 10 2o. 1, 10 11 10 2

■ Ile Vt. .4, 4lo / 9 0 1 . 0 0 6 I 9, 4, 9/ 90 10C 20 51 91 l/N 16 Orr / 9, Net A ■ , 91 92 14 100 PO NU nu , . . 1 I, II MO I 190

N Speclea Prenant on Bluff F. Table C-4 Eroeion Monitoring Station Pigura indicate % groundcover) ô w 1. 1. r "a g 8 Congn Mao* Generlc Mass n H â $ o ^.^ o m A m ; a d d b d b b b b d b b b b ' ^ , é: :é ô^ :â râ ^ ^é ri ^:é m â: ô: âa m m s ô: ^ w HBRBS

90 20 Graee Oue:ineae 6 p B S B B 2 40 40 B 40 5 2 90 90 90 A. B 11 100 Goldanrod Solida o a L 1 5 i E Note: E L 4 76 Sveet Whita Clover MeLi.(otua afba A A A A Theee stations A A 0 0 aen Anne Lace Qwcua mnota C C C C 2 S C 30 2 had man-,made CC S 46 Horeetail E u.ia¢,Lum a p g H H H H 5 ahorelinae eetal H H 1 9 MSlkveed Aact¢ iqdaceae e eeavell and aoddad ► 9 Plantain P(anta o m brt areae. 0 0 Burdock M,ti¢.wn e Red Clovar Trt.i o[iwe ¢n4¢ Tall WSld Nectla U4.tica 4aci.Lia 0 Thletle Cinaium a 1 S 2 1B Cov veech Vicia c4acca 0 Black-a ed Suun Rudbe¢.k.ia h.inta 0 Chlekory Ch.ichortiwe LKubue 0 Coenon Mullein V A6aecum t 0 Dandallon T rauna 0 Ground (v 01¢choMa hedeAggea 0 Dames Rockat H ns rntno 0 Oaeye oaiey Chxueanth n 0 Field BSndweed Conuotutue aev¢naie Silverweed Potentilta aneenina Poison iv Rhue 4adicane 0 Mint Mentha a e uewroot Cuno hotia amenicana Wild Ber amot MunaMi tetueoea 0 TREES AND SHRUBS Sumac Rhue 6 p 0 x 1 9 Wild Cra a Vilie e x 2 IB W111" SaGit en x 0 Trenblin Ae en Pu ue .U,tpmu(oidea x 1 Su as Ma le AM eacchaAUm 1 Oak QueACUa ev 0 Mulberry Mo1:u3 nubaa - -- - x x 2 te Cedar Thuia ucidg"fiA_,__ - - -' -'- 0 SSlvar Menle __ Am aacchartiruue RaeRbarry R4ubue ao x 1 9 Pine Pinlw eu _ _ B I.11ac Sen-l"44 en Red Aeh Fnakimw pemWNtvanica 7 S 7 7 1 3 1 1 1 1 7 No. • eciee at each station 4 S1 SO 60 5 S 90 90 90 90 21 % Groundcover by va et• n 70 21 77 29 17 21 16 25 28 Bluff f i u elo • 29 70 1g 4 1g 6 1 0 3 6 5 1 Change in el vat o 20

191

LARES ERIE AND ST. CLAIR troll n Monito ing Station Specie...... nt on Sluff Pace Table C-5 ] (Figure. indicate X groundcover) ell 4, • .. , n n, . • o 2 a r '''' r2g2eig2 ' ''' 5 1 ! 1 llotoloololi'lll g Common Name Generic Hue 5". - 5' 5"5 '.55.. '4 '54 'di À5 Â5 71 .I.' 1.. ' S. .r' .45 1 :ii. 1 I5 1 ." ;C:1, :j5‘

8a888

Ordelle Otamineae ep Ill 1 8 578 75 90 5 84031185 5 120 II 0 60 70/00 t 508 17 Co eeeee od Eilidadoep E E 1 A 10 15 10 1 4084A5AA 8 10 E 8 E 8 K 118 K 11 44 Swe•t White Clover lielitotu4 abil AA 31810 5 5 2 5A 01885 2420AAA 3 51AA A A 11 52 _Queen Ann.., La. Vaucuà canota C C II 20 5 C185118 CICCCII CC1 I C C 9 36 Ho eeeee 11 Equiestweep 8 H 8 30 10 40H 8308E5 H HHH H H H H 6 24 Millwood Aecitpiddadear ep 1 N SINN I 1 4 Plantain Pfilntago Olapt 1 8 2 8 Murdock Asticom ep 1 8 bd Clover Puidotitan pnatenne 1 1 2 I Tall Wild Nettle Ultica 94aci2ie 15 I 2 Thlstle Cum ap 1 I 2 8 Co.. Vetch Vicia caeca 5 2 2 - 8 Rudbeckia hinta 3 , Solon I Slack-eyed Chicliory Chichonium intybue 1 I 4 Comecon Mullein Ve4betedum thfflon 0 Dandelion Tauracum o4disinole 0 Ground Ivy Otechoma hedenacea 0 Alamo. Rocket Hedellià matnonalie 0 Oxeye Daisy Chnyeanthetoun teucanthente 0 Field Bindweed POnvotafe4 anuenein Silverweed POtenrina aneenina 0 Poidon Ivy Rhue nadicans 0 Mint Wed., op 0 Squall/root Conopholin amenicana 0 Id lier mot Monandi intutona 1 TERRI AND MRCSS Sumac Rh., Op x x x X x x 6 24 X 12 Wild Crape Vitieep X X 3 x 4 Willow Satix op • 1 Trembling Aopen Poputua tnemotoidee 0 X 1 4 Sugar Maple Aces nacchanunè 1 4 Oak Queacise ep X 4 Mulberry Monue nubna X 1 1 4 Cedar Thuja occidentatie x 0 Silver Maple Acen eacchaninum 0 a...0,4,y Rhubue ep 0 Pine Piektd 491 0 Lilac Syninan op Red Ash 84drinue 9100X64 0.103 0 3 1 4 8 5 2 4 6 Mo. specie. at 01101 atation 2 2 2 0 4 5 8 R 4 2 3 5 0 9 0 0 53 0 0 15 5 51 66 77 2 4 10 X Croundcover by vegetation 2 4 2 0 40 05 92 91 10C 7 85 10 49 60 18 31 25 33 29 23 29 21 28 14 30 Bluff face elope 40 32 60 27 45 18 22 27 25 37 27 16 24 20 30 30 33 10 20 8 8 1 27 10 phenlie In •levation 1 14 2 3 6 8 16 101 17 422 192

wieum ....“.. h..... h.. •- • Table C - 6 tri..- '. Ind... I ordww.l...nowt I Ernst. Mattel.% £.992719-11.2 tweixAm

à 4 iàâ àà,. ,ttffifa. Mt» à à A àddà4

, ‘...•. Os word .. inommammumenumpuoggcnimpannumnsiumourcliticritromou t ■ .. sp 111111111MILIMMIICIICUUMMIIMIDIMEIBMIIIIIIKIMUMIE110,211111111111 MIMICIIIIEZIME11111111111M ...... Whit. Glover Mc( .f oluà aim 1886111ISEISISISSEntmenmarsmiserumummmirimernririrs ■ ...et.« .114 IA. AINC. feiért 13111111EMIIIIIMEIIIIMIIIIIÉIMIIIIII••••11MMIZZIEINIIIIIIIMI ..., 11111121311:111M1111111:11CICIMEMIMICICIIIIIIIIIIUMMIIIIWIIIMBRIIIMEIC1111111111111111111111MERIMMEIMICIFIrli . Innanammarimmounnariarmatan. numanamreummemumatuliammularurs , _PI.ffl■■■It ______11±dayo ..pot, -ilildita. As (IcwaLif 1.4Clowdl. Ic i datum putt.se RIIIIIII11111111111111111111:411:111B111111011 1,11Wild Nett lw IlIf tea dsdeali «1.1 et,!Itar• ! IMM111:11111:11111111:11:::::::::::::::::::::::::::n1 Cew1 0 ch 00 ,0 MIMI 1...... 1.11111111.111.11111111111111111.11.11.....111111MUMMIMEM...111.11111111111.111...1.1» _ii.a.uhme ho4bgoh . hotu •1.1.11.1.1111.111111111111.111.••...11••...•• •.1•...... 1111...111••111.111 ChIcItorv Mule., we id UllIMIBBIIIIIIIIIIIMUMIIIIBillialliiM1111111111MIlmanimmulimazmuszimuni Cdowdo N...1.10 Yesbasduw /Walnut Ihthell Ion lautsdrial ...limo...1'e Ground IVY Oreellom hedoncea 111EHERREFEHEÎII : D■www least Wespesià enrufflis Pm. Of Iwy Clagiant4 !Want 1111111111r 11111111ii1 iiril II•11111ndwud C.....Culus «Wm" I II Milaill:11:111111111.1111111111111.1111.1111111111111111111111111111 ..111.11ra Poteilt ilea -.WM* dust-tow 111111111.1111 Milleall..».111.11.11.1n.1.1111111.111111L.MMINIIIMIIIMB. Moon Uwe mdtoa . M11111•111111111111111M1»•1111111•111111111111•1111MMIIIIIIIIIIIIIM•azzammumwmanummura MAI dahl ap IIMMI11111111111111111111MMUMMIIIIMOIIMIIIIM•1111113.11•311111•1111111111111111».1111MIMIIIM _le.... r.,.. , ■ ..., 111.111101.1111M.111.....111.1.1111111.11.1.11111.111.1.11111101111.1...... 11.111111.1.1.111Iniallani Wild Rem.. »alit. b....loin illimonanammuninimumluilIMMIIIIIIMMUMIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111•11111111IMMI .11.1111141101.101.118 IIIIIIIIIIIIBMI11.111111111111111.110111111111111111.1.11111.111111111.11111.1.1111111111111111111.1.1. mu., gluts is. wild G iellierillirlirarg ,,,, Vats W. 11.1111111111::: tanill::::::q9iiiiiiiiiiirl _XIII. 4 is sp 11111MUMMUMENIMMEMUMMUMMIIIMUMMIUM mu mummmfflimummmun Tr..tt • 11,0aw. 110Mg...ow/vs 111•111111111111111111MIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIMIIIIMMIE1111111131111MIMMIMMIUM111111M11111311•11IMIll _4.18.0 , 1.01.11/1 ..1.1.111.11111111111.13£11.111.1111111.1.1.11.111.11.....111.1.111.1111111.11111111..1.1111111111.1.11111111.1.1.1 .111111.11.111111111111..111.11.1.11.111111111111111111.1.111.111111111111111.11111111111.11.111111111.11....IMMIMILIMMM , elt.21u 141! Illtel 1111•1111111111111811•1111111111111111•11111111111111M111111•11111111111111111111111111M111111111•1111min fed.. heim .1: 1de tar It IIIMMINIMIM111111111111111•1111111111•11111111111111111•111111111•111111111111111111111111111•1111111111111111111111IIIIIMIl•ara itilon kO, idenImou 1.111111.111.11111111111.1111111111.11111111111111.111111.1111111.1.11.11111(101.11111111...... 1111111.11.1.111.11111 hub« i ip IIIIIIMINIIIII1111111111111111•311111111111•10•111111111111•11111M1r11111niiiiiiirlumini•••••••••m Plw. Kola. I Ileill...... 11.1.11111 ningillill••••••••••••1111.1M111.111.111111.1.1101.1111.11.11 Sol owl. III Mid Awls Idiot. e.....41..... 111111111:11111.::::::::::::::::111:111:11:11:11::MI

es ."'s1".... '.. "s'...... l... "*""' EICIIIIIMICIEWIEI É'ELIEZEICFEEFLIMIMMU:MICI:r"'"'"'"Mil El lot I la. •IwPw Mill111C111111:11111111COCIIIICEIC15121111:1111 11EMMEMEMIMMEE1111•MMIMIIIMMIZIVIIE91111 Change In ea.. I. ummusummomizemucunimmanuromemumminmumnmonnum APPENDIX D Volume of Material Lost from Bluff Reaches

Table D-1 Volume of Material Lost from Lake Huron Bluff Reaches Table D-2 Volume of Material Lost from Lake Erie Bluff Reaches Table D-3 Volume of Material Lost from Lake Ontario Bluff Reaches

Explanatory Equations for Tables D-1 through D-3

Reach Length x Bluff Height x Erosion Rate = Volume of Material Loss Volume Loss x Sand & Gravel y- Potential Sand & Gravel Loss for Reach Potential Loss x % of Reach Unprotected - Net Sand & Gravel Table Sub-divided for Littoral Supply Cells

193

TABLE D-1

Volume of Material Lost from Lake Huron Bluff Reaches

Net Gravel Annual Annual % Sand Potential & Sand from Bluff Reach Bluff Erosion Volume & Sand & Unprotected Reach Length Height Rate Loss Gravel Gravel Reach

(km) (m) (m3 /m/m) (m3x10 3 ) (%) (1113 ) (%) ( 1113 ) 17 3.5 18.7 0.6 39.27 18% 7,069 98% 6,928 18 23.1 18.3 0.0 0.00 0 0 97.5% 0 22 2.1 18.3 0.0 0.00 0 0 100% 0 24 0.5 18.3 0.0 0.00 0 0 100% 0 28 1.9 13.0 0.8 19.76 25% 4,940 91.7% 4,530 30 0.5 17.8 0.7 6.23 38% 2,367 53.4% 1,264 31 10.4 18.3 0.0 0.00 0 0 75.5% 0 32 0.9 13.0 0.8 9.36 25% 2,340 100% 2,340 33 4.0 18.3 0.0 0.00 0 0 86.9% 0 34 5.7 13.0 0.8 59.28 25% 14,820 100% 14,820 35 2.8 13.0 0.8 29.12 25% 7,280 73.2% 5,329 36 1.4 13.0 0.8 14.56 25% 3,640 83.9% 3.054 Total 177.58 42,456 38,265

47 2.6 16.7 0.2 8.68 19% 1,650 88.5% 1,460 48 0.8 15.0 0.3 3.60 20% 720 75.4% 543 49 2.7 16.7 0.2 9.02 19% 1,713 41.5% 711 50 2.3 15.0 0.3 10.35 20% 2,070 94.5% 1 950 Total 31.65 6,153 4,664

51 3.5 15.0 0.3 15.75 20% 3,150 93.6% 2,948 52 3.6 9.1 2.9 95.00 19% 18,051 10.9% 1,968 53 3.6 9.1 2.9 95.00 19% 18,051 0 0 54 0.1 3.9 0.6 0.23 46% 108 0 0 55 2.4 3.2 0.6 4.61 41% 1,889 0 0 56 5.8 5.0 0.6 17.40 88% 15,312 0 0 57 6.7 2.3 0.6 9.25 99% 9,154 0 0

Total 237.24 65,715 4,916

194 TABLE D-2

Volume of Material Lost from Lake Erie Bluff Reaches

Net Gravel Annual Annual % Sand Potential & Sand from Bluff Reach Bluff Erosion Volume & Sand & Unprotected Reach Length Height Rate Loss Gravel Gravel Reach 4l (km) (m) (m3/m/m) (m3x103) (%) (m3) (%) (m3)

4 0.72 2.9 0.1 0.21 54% 113 6.1% 7 5 4.2 8.2 1.7 58.55 73% 42,740 66.4% 28,379 6 6.2 1.1 0.2 1.36 28% 382 24.5% 94 7 1.0 5.1 0.5 2.55 40% 1,020 54.1% 776 8 8.3 9.6 0.2 15.94 49% 7,809 76.1% 2,874 9 1.9 18.5 0.0 - - - 36.8% -

Total 78.61 52,064 32,130

15 2.6 3.1 0.6 4.84 18% 870 33.0% 287 16 4.6 3.1 0.6 8.56 18% 1,540 93.4% 1,438 99% 38,930 17 27.7 18.2 0.3 151.24 26% 39,323 40,655 Total 164.64 41,733

18 8.5 21.8 1.2 222.36 42% 93,391 93.6%* 73,414 93,391 73,414 Total 222.36 17,821 100% 17,821 23 20.8 16.8 0.3 104.83 17% 38,618 99% 38,232 24 13.3 24.4 0.7 227.16 17% 14,036 100% 14,036 25 6.8 25.8 0.4 70.18 20% 70,475 70,089 Total 402.17 7% 1,125 100% 1,125 26 5.2 30.9 0.1 16.07 105,381 100% 105,381 27 10.3 34.8 2.1 752.72 14% 485,460 97.2% 471,867 29 14.5 37.2 2.0 1,078.80 45% 11% 146,820 100% 146,820 31 14.4 29.9 3.1 1,334.74 26% 37,402 86.7% 32,428 33 2.4 16.2 3.7 143.86 361,644 100% 361,644 34 4.8 24.8 4.9 583.30 62% 889,040 100% 889,040 35 11.8 24.8 4.9 1,433.94 62% 10% 22,680 99% 22,453 36 4.2 10.0 5.4 226.80 2,049,552 2,030,758 Total 5,570.23

195 196

Net Gravel Annual Annual % Sand Potential & Sand from Bluff Reach Bluff Erosion Volume & Sand & Unprotected Reach Length Height Rate Loss Gravel Gravel Reach (km) (m ) (mite m) (m3x103 ) (%) (mi ) (%) (ms ) 46 9.7 19.7 1.4 267.53 18% 48 , 155 92.2% 44,399

Total 267.53 48,155 44,399

48 2.5 19.7 1.4 68.95 18% 12,411 88.4% 10,971 49 0.9 10.0 5.4 48.60 10% 4,860 0 0 51 3.4 11.3 0.2 7.68 39% 2,997 94.9% 2,844 52 0.9 3.4 0.5 3.78 39% 1,474 100% 1,474 54 0.8 8.1 0.2 1.30 39% 505 55% 278 55 4.8 8.1 0.2 7.78 39% 3,033 60.4% 1,832 65 4.2 14.2 0.5 29.82 23% 6,859 95.7% 6,564 66 0.61 9.2 0.6 3.37 23% 775 95.9% 743

To ta l 171.28 32.914 m3 24,706

* Minus 14,000 m3 unavailable to sand mining TABLE D-3

Volume of Material Lost from Lake Ontario Bluff Reaches

Net Gravel Annual Annual X Sand Potential & Sand from Bluff Reach Bluff Erosion Volume & Sand & Unprotected Reach Length Height Rate Loss Gravel Gravel Reach # (km) (m) (m3/m/m) (m3x103) (%) (m3) (X) (m3)

1 2.2 5.1 0.8 8.98 7% 628 42.6% 268.0 3 2.8 2.5 0.6 4.20 41% 1,722 29.5% 508.0 4 1.9 4.2 0.6 4.79 20% 958 1.6% 15.0 5 1.3 5.0 0.7 4.55 38% 1,729 75.1% 1,299.0 6 0.6 2.5 0.6 0.90 41% 369 22.4% 83.0 9 2.8 7.8 1.4 30.58 17% 5,198 9.1% 473.0 12 3.9 11.0 0.9 38.61 21% 8,108 35.4% 2,870.0 14 0.5 12.4 0.5 3.10 32% 992 53.4% 530.0 16 2.0 12.4 0.5 12.40 32% 3,968 82.4% 3,270.0 17 0.3 4.3 1.3 1.68 42% 704 62.7% 441.0 18 0.8 4.3 1.3 4.47 42% 1,878 98.8% 1,856.0 19 4.8 1,7 1.3 10.61 42% 4,455 4.5% 201.0 34.0 20 0.6 4.3 1.3 3.35 42% 1,409 2.4% 6,104 58.2% 3,553.0 21 2.6 4.3 1.3 14.53 42% 4,732 83.8% 3,965.0 22 1.8 10.6 0.8 15.26 31% 2,103 35.9% 755.0 24 0.8 10.6 0.8 6.78 31% 264 95.7% 253.0 25 1.4 6.1 0.1 0.85 31% 174 11.8% 21.0 26 0.6 5.1 0.3 0.92 19% 430 93.5% 402.0 27 1.6 5.6 0.3 2.69 16% 28% 2,321 80.7% 1,873.0 28 3.7 3.2 0.7 8.29 1,247 45% 561.0 30 3.9 4.1 0.3 4.80 26% 23% 4,057 36.3% 1,473.0 31 4.5 2.8 4.1 17.64 53,550 24,704.0 Total 1.99.98 14%+ 32,323 20.9% 6,756.0 60 14.8 52.0 0.3 230.88 14%+ 28,829 84.4% 24,332.0 61 13.2 52.0 0.3 205.92 61,152 31,088.0 Total 436.80

50% 633 52.9% 335.0 62 2.3 5.5 0.1 1.27 50% 660 14.5% 96.0 63 2.4 5.5 0.1 1.32 50% 578 99% 572.0 65 2.1 5.5 0.1 1.16 50% 220 100% 220.0 67 0.8 5.5 0.1 0.44 70% 175 67.4% 118.0 68 1.0 2.5 0.1 0.25 138 100% 138.0 70 0.5 5.5 0.1 0.28 50% 140 100% 140.0 71 0.8 2.5 0.1 0.20 70%

197 198

Net Gravel Annual Annual % Sand Potential & Sand from Bluff Reach Bluff Erosion Volume & Sand & Unprotected Reach Length Hqight Rate Loss Gravel Gravel Reach # (km) (m) (m3/m/m) (m3x103) (%) (m3) (%) (m3)

72 0.5 5.5 0.1 0.28 50% 138 100% 138.0 73 1.2 2.5 0.1 0.30 70% 210 78.7% 150.0 79 0.6 5.5 0.1 0.33 50% 330 0 0 81 2.7 5.5 0.1 1649 50% 743 99% 736.0 83 0.8 9.5 0.2 1.52 61% 921 98.1% 909.0 84 0.5 9.5 0.2 0.95 61% 580 100% 580.0 85 1.1 9.5 0.2 2.09 61% 1,275 96.4% 1,229.0 87 0.3 14.2 0.6 2.56 - - 98.4% 0

Total 14.44 6,747 15,376.0

91 5.3 19.1 0.2 20.25 67% 13,565 78.3% 10,621.0 92 1.5 26.5 0.3 11.93 60% 7,155 100%% 7,155.0 94 0.6 15.4 0.2 1.85 43% 795 61.2% 487.0 96 0.8 5.9 0.5 2.36 34% 802 97.5% 782.0 97 0.3 2.1 0.1 0.06 99% 62 81.4% 51.0 98 1.9 15.4 0.2 5.85 43% 2,516 100% 2,516.0 99 2.3 5.9 0.5 6.79 34% 2,307 100% 2,307.0 101 1.1 5.9 0.5 3.25 34% 1,103 100% 1,103.0 103 2.6 26.5 0.3 20.67 60% 12,402 100% 12,402.0 104 3.7 19.1 0.2 14.13 67% 9,470 100% 9,470.0 105 2.7 17.4 0.2 9.40 58% 5,450 99% 5,396.0 106 2.7 4.8 0.2 2.59 15% 389 99% 385.0 107 1.0 4.8 0.2 0.96 15% 144 100% 144.0 108 3.1 4.8 0.2 2.98 15% 446 100% 446.0 109 1.3 17.5 0.1 2.28 47% 1,069 72% 770.0 111 2.3 17.5 0.1 4.03 47% 1,892 100% 1,892.0 113 2.1 17.5 0.1 3.68 47% 1,727 100% 1,727.0 115 0.5 11.5 0.2 1.13 61% 689 2.7% 19.0

Total 114.19 61,983 m3 57,673.0

+ Derived from THC Report, 1971 using 4 Phi sand limit APPENDIX E

List of Survey Equipaent and Specifications

199