Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared for:
July 2014
Prepared by:
15 July 2014
Halifax Harbour Wave Agitation Risk Study at Maughers Beach Breakwater Final
Report
We are pleased to submit our final report assessing wave agitation risks in Halifax Harbour
related to sea level rise and the condition of the breakwater at Maughers Beach on McNabs
Island. Should you have any questions or require clarification of any matter raised in this
submission, please contact me at your convenience.
We appreciate your consideration of our services for this very interesting project, and we
look forward to working with you again.
www.cbcl.ca
CBCL Limited
ISO 9001
Registered Company
FINAL.DOCX/VL
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................i
CHAPTER 1
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.3
CHAPTER 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
CHAPTER 3
Wave Climate Changes Due to Isthmus Erosion and Sea Level Rise ........................... 17
3.1
3.2
CBCL Limited
CHAPTER 4
4.1
Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 26
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
CHAPTER 5
Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 33
CHAPTER 6
References............................................................................................................... 35
Appendices
A
B
Statistics on Offshore Wind and Wave Climate (44.5N-63.4W) and Water Levels
Map of McNabs Island
CBCL Limited
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) maintains a lighthouse at the entrance of Halifax
Harbour, Nova Scotia. The lighthouse is located on an islet at the end of a cobble isthmus on the West
side of McNabs Island, extending from the end of Maughers Beach. The isthmus, which has previously
been used to access the lighthouse, is lined with an armour stone breakwater that is deteriorating due
to wave attack and overtopping. The lighthouse is now serviced by helicopter; therefore land access
along the isthmus is no longer required for operations. Before finalizing any decision on repair or
replacement of the breakwater, DFO would like to determine the impact of continued breakwater
deterioration on the surrounding geography, including the impact on operations for all stakeholders.
A numerical wave model was used to quantify the wave climate changes in Halifax Harbour that would
be caused by further breakwater deterioration and subsequent isthmus erosion, along with Sea Level
Rise (SLR) impacts. Existing and future wave agitation was investigated at key sites including Garrison
Pier in McNabs Cove (the Islands main access point), Outer Halifax Harbour, Point Pleasant Shoal and
Halifaxs Container Terminals. Three scenarios were examined:
(1) Partial loss of Maughers Beach breakwater with overtopping
(2) Breakwater deterioration and breach through isthmus
(3) Full breakwater deterioration and isthmus eroded down to a submerged bar
The modeling exercise indicated that SLR alone will cause a generalized increase in wave heights over
time around McNabs Island and in Halifax Harbour. It also indicated that further breakwater
deterioration causing subsequent isthmus erosion would add to the SLR impact on wave climate in
McNabs Cove but not elsewhere in the Harbour. While it is not possible to give accurate predictions on
time frames, the modeling used provides qualitative conclusions with associated order-of-magnitude
timelines based on a hypothetically assumed isthmus damage evolution.
If the breakwater is repaired and regularly maintained (Scenario 1), the extreme wave height increase by
year 2100 is estimated at 0.2 m at Garrison Pier (SLR only, assumed at 1.0 m by 2100). The increase in
extreme wave heights at other sites examined (Outer Harbour, Point Pleasant Shoal and Halterm
Terminals) due to SLR was estimated at 0.06 to 0.1 m by year 2100.
CBCL Limited
If the breakwater and isthmus fully deteriorate (Scenario 3), modeling indicates that extreme wave
heights will be further increased by less than 0.02 m by 2100 in the Outer Harbour, Point Pleasant Shoal
and Halterm Terminals. At Garrison Pier, this increase in wave heights by 2100 for Scenario 3 is 0.2 m.
For perspective, replacing and maintaining the breakwater would delay the inevitable increase in wave
impacts due to SLR by approximately 30 years at Garrison Pier (2100 versus 2070, under the modeling
assumptions).
The frequency of smaller wave events was also examined, which is relevant for visitor boat traffic and
berthing at Garrison Pier. The acceptable wave climate for berthing typically used for DFO Small Craft
Harbours is defined by a 0.4 m significant wave height upper limit for 10 to 20 m-long vessels, which
would apply to summer island visitor vessels. Modeling indicated that the acceptable wave height
threshold for berthing (0.4 m) at Garrison Pier is presently exceeded approximately 4 days per year, and
would be exceeded on average:
11 days/year assuming 1.0 m SLR and regular breakwater maintenance (potentially in year
2100)
11 days/year assuming 0.6 m SLR and breakwater left to deteriorate (potentially in year 2070)
18 days/year assuming 1.0 m SLR and breakwater left to deteriorate (potentially in year 2100).
The downtime periods typically occur during the winter off-season, therefore not affecting summer
visitor traffic.
Pros and Cons of Maintaining the Isthmus Breakwater
because:
because:
and
The public could safely access the lighthouse
islet.
CBCL Limited
CHAPTER 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) maintains a lighthouse at the entrance of Halifax
Harbour, Nova Scotia. The lighthouse is located on an islet at the end of a cobble isthmus on the West
side of McNabs Island, extending from the end of Maughers Beach (Figure 1). The isthmus extends from
the converging ends of both Maughers Beach to the Northeast of the lighthouse, and Hangmans Beach
to the Southeast. The isthmus, which has previously been used to access the lighthouse, is lined with an
armour stone breakwater that is deteriorating due to wave attack and overtopping. Significant damage
was caused to the breakwater by Hurricane Juan in September 2003.
The lighthouse is now serviced by helicopter; therefore land access along the isthmus is no longer
required for operations. Before finalizing any decision on repair or replacement of the breakwater, DFO
would like to determine the impact of continued breakwater deterioration on the surrounding
geography, including the impact on operations for all stakeholders.
1.2
Objectives
CBCL Limited
CBCL Limited
1.3
Work Scope
CBCL Limited
CHAPTER 2
2.1
Regional soundings from the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) Navigation Charts 4202 and 4203
(Halifax Harbour) were obtained in electronic format from DFO. High-resolution multibeam soundings
from 2009 were provided by PWGSC for the Maughers Beach and McNabs Cove area. Soundings and
GPS cross-section survey points in Chart Datum (CD) are displayed on Figure 2.1. The Maughers Beach
Isthmus Breakwater and lighthouse presently shelters McNabs Cove. The detailed topography of the
isthmus and lighthouse area is shown on Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.1
CBCL Limited
Figure 2.2
2.2
The geomorphology and coastal processes of the island were studied in detail by Dr. Gavin Manson
(1999, 2008). McNabs Island is comprised of a series of connected glacial till drumlins derived from
shale, sandstone and mudstone from the Carboniferous age. Beaches are formed by deposition of
material from eroding drumlin bluffs. The highest rates of erosion occur on the exposed southwestern
side of the Island, which supplies sediment to the beaches to the North. Hangmans Beach to the
southeast of the Maughers Beach isthmus is an exposed and steep cobble beach footing an eroding cliff.
Eroded material feeds the beach and is transported by breaking waves towards the isthmus to the
Northwest. The large natural cobble berm crest is typically 5 to 6 m CD, sloping down as the peninsula
narrows toward the isthmus until it meets the armourstone crest at 4.0 m CD or less. On the Northeast
side of the isthmus, Maughers Beach is protected from the large southerly waves, and therefore
supports a gentler beach of finer sediment, including from wind-blown transport.
The following recent observations were provided by Cathy McCarthy of the Friends of McNabs Island
Society. In 2003 Hurricane Juan opened a tidal inlet into McNabs Pond, cutting Maughers Beach in two
sections and destroying the boardwalk and cribwork to the lighthouse along the isthmus. Garrison Pier
suffered minor damage. An oil pipeline along Garrison Road was exposed and leaking. It was capped and
remained capped until the pipeline, the pump house and storage tanks were removed in 2010. During
this remediation work, the vegetation along Garrison Road was removed. Erosion along the road has
been an issue since then. Anecdotal observations would also indicate that recent erosion along
Garrison Road is more likely related to the destabilization of the road bed during remediation works in
2010 than to the deterioration of the isthmus breakwater since 2003.
CBCL Limited
2.3
Site Observations
A visual assessment of the site and surrounding shorelines was conducted on the morning of March 7th,
2013. Photos are shown on Figure 2.3. The predicted tide was 0.3 m CD (low) at 10:29 am. Offshore
wave buoy records (see section 2.5.1) indicate heavy seas, with wave heights ranging from 3.4 m
(significant wave height) to 5.6 m (maximum wave height) with a 9 s peak period. Heavy swells were
observed along the cobble beach and isthmus.
Cribwork behind the armour protection was destroyed by Hurricane Juan over a distance of 100 m, with
only ruins now visible. A 60 m-long western section remains standing, with various degrees of
settlement and localized damage from amour stone pushed onto the deck. The armour stone section in
front of the remains of the crib exhibits the most damage and the smaller stones have been washed
onto the North side of the isthmus. Even at low tide, some overtopping was visibly occurring across the
damaged section of the armour stone. The site can be accessed by the public from Maughers Beach and
safety hazards include unstable rocks and crib ruins combined with overwash during heavy seas.
A limited armour stone sampling exercise was conducted during the field visit. Eight stones deemed
representative were sized within a safe and stable area at the eastern end of the breakwater. Based on
measurements along three axes and assuming a rock density of 2,650 kg/m3, the median weight of the
sample was approximately 4 tonnes, which is in the lower range of the 4-6 t range specified on the
historical drawings provided by PWGSC. The median stone weight over the whole structure would be
difficult to determine with certainty due to difficult access and potentially unstable conditions.
2.4
Water Levels
Water levels are a critical factor for coastal wave damage assessments because they determine the
maximum wave breaking height at near-shore locations in shallow waters. Extreme water levels, being a
combination of tide, storm surge and relative sea level rise (SLR), allow larger waves to travel further in
the near-shore region. A tide gauge is in operation at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (BIO). The
continuous tide gauge record for Halifax Harbour is available from 1919 to present, which was analysed
in detail for historical SLR trend and extreme value analyses of storm peaks.
2.4.1 Tides
Local astronomical tides are semi-diurnal, with two high waters and two low waters occurring during
each 25-hour lunar day. The tidal range is 2.1m for a large tide and 1.5m for a mean tide, and the mean
water level is at 1.0m above Chart Datum (source: Canadian Hydrographic Service 2013 Tide and Current
Tables). Tidal levels are listed in Table 2.1.
CBCL Limited
Overtopping at low
tide.
Figure 2.3
CBCL Limited
Table 2.1
2013 Water Levels in Halifax Harbour (metres above existing Chart Datum)
Metres CGVD28
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.6
2.2
1.8
1.0
0.3
0.0
-0.8
1.4
1.0
0.2
-0.5
-0.8
-1.6
1.15
1.1
Annual means
92-year trend
10-year trends
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
1920
1930
Figure 2.4
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Storm surge is due to meteorological effects on sea level, such as wind set-up1 and low atmospheric
pressure, and can be defined as the difference between the observed water level during a storm and the
predicted astronomical tide. Extreme total water levels (including tide, storm surge and historical SLR)
Wind set-up refers to the increase in mean water level along the coast due to shoreward wind stresses on the water surface.
CBCL Limited
were derived from statistics on the Halifax tide gauge data (1919-2013). An extreme value distribution
(Weibull) was optimally fitted to a series of statistically independent peaks greater than 2.4 m,
following the so-called Peak-Over-Threshold extreme value analysis technique (Appendix A Figure A.5).
The method is based on the premise that the process investigated is stationary2. To satisfy this
requirement, the tide gauge time-series was de-trended, and its mean was set to the 2013 mean sea
level (i.e. the past SLR trend was taken out). Extreme water levels are listed in Table 2.1.
2.4.3 Sea Level Rise Projections
The rate of global mean sea level is accelerating in the 21st century due to global warming impacts,
notably the melting of polar ice caps. Projections for Halifax Harbour were developed by Forbes et al in
2009, based on scenarios by IPCC AR4 (2007) and Rahmstorf (2007). Since then, SLR projections have
been updated based on climate research and recent trends, including the melting of arctic sea ice and
ice caps. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5, 2013) recently indicated that the
current consensus is as follows:
The likely range of global mean sea level rise for 2081-2100 relative to 1986-2005 was estimated
from 0.26 m (lower bound value for low emission scenario) to 0.98 m (higher bound estimate for
high emission scenario);
There is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the probability of specific levels above the
assessed likely range; and
There will be regional differences, with the northeastern coast of North America potentially
experiencing a sea level rise rate higher than the global average (Sallenger et al., 2012).
Time-dependent mathematical projections of global mean SLR for use in infrastructure projects were
developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (2011). Projections were classified into a low, medium
and high category. Numerical projections starting in 2012 were computed from the equations
recommended by USACE, and are presented on Figure 2.5. A crustal subsidence factor of 0.16 m/century
for Halifax (Forbes 2009) was added to the projection. The calculation resulted in a year 2100 value of
1.06 m 0.48 m, which was used for the present study. It matches the estimates by Daigle and Richards
for coastal municipalities in NS and PEI including Halifax (2011). Projections should be revisited at least
every decade based on up-to-date scientific observations and climate model projections.
2.4.4 Impact of Sea Level Rise on Extreme Event Frequency
In terms of extreme water levels, the difference between a 10-year storm (currently 2.7 m CD) and a
100-year storm (3.0 m CD) is only 0.3 m. Given the SLR projections, extreme water levels with a low
return period today will be very common in a few decades (Figure 2.6). This needs to be considered in
coastal structure design and future damage predictions (section 3.1).
The Peak-Over-Threshold procedure selects statistically independent storm peaks occurring more than 48 hours apart. An
extreme value distribution is then fitted to the population of storm peaks for extrapolating extreme events and their associated
return periods. The procedure is statistically valid for stationary processes, i.e. processes with a probability distribution that
does not change when shifted in time. Statistical properties such as mean and variance must remain constant in time and not
follow trends.
CBCL Limited
Estimated sea level rise range for Halifax - Based on USACE 2011
High
1.8
Low
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2010
Figure 2.5
2030
2050
2070
2110
100
WL = 3.1 m CD
1
2010
Figure 2.6
2.5
2090
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
Influence of Sea Level Rise on Return Periods of Extreme Water Levels in Halifax
CBCL Limited
Detailed comparisons revealed that the MSC50 wave heights are on average 0.09 m greater than buoy
observations, with a standard deviation of 0.34 m. To compensate for any potential inaccuracies in the
MSC50 model, the hourly dataset used for the study was assembled by merging the above two, using
the buoy observations when available and complementing with MSC50 data outside of the buoy
observation period. We note that for the purposes of this study, once the offshore wave information is
transformed to the depth-limited nearshore sites of interest, the differences in offshore data sources
are not consequential due to wave breaking.
2.5.2 Wind and Wave Height Statistics
Complete statistics are presented in graphical and tabular format in Appendix A. Wind and wave
climates are typically represented as roses, i.e., plots of frequency of given wind speed or wave height
by direction. The roses show that prevailing winds are from the northwest, west and southwest
directions with seasonal variations. Summer winds are generally below 30 km/h and from the
southwest. Winter winds are much stronger and predominantly from the northwest. Waves offshore
Halifax of significant height3 over 3 m typically come from the south, southeast and southwest
quadrants, with higher occurrences in the late fall and winter.
2.5.3 Extreme Value Analyses
Return periods for extreme significant wave heights (1, 10, 50, 100-year) 4 were estimated based on an
analysis of 67 storm peaks of significant wave height over 6 m, using the Peak-Over-Threshold
method. The best fitting Weibull statistical distribution was used to derive extreme values. A most
probable peak period (Tp) and wind speed were derived from extreme wave heights based on the joint
frequency distributions from the storm peaks. Results are listed in Table 2.2. In the near-shore wave
transformation modeling presented in the next section, these extreme values were used as offshore
boundary conditions for the wave model.
Table 2.2
Extreme Return Values for Offshore Significant Wave Heights, Associated Peak Period
and Wind Speed
Associated
Significant Wave
Return Period
Height
Peak Period
Wind Speed
Years
Metres
Seconds
m/s
km/hour
1
6.1
10.6
18.1
65
5
7.9
11.6
20.4
73
10
8.7
12.0
22.2
80
50
10.4
12.8
27.8
100
100
11.2
13.1
31.2
112
The significant wave height (Hsig) is the common parameter for characterizing the energy in a wave field. Hsig represents the
average of the third highest waves over a given time period, and is a good approximation of the typical wave height that
would be reported from visual observations. The maximum wave height within a wave field is greater than the significant wave
height by a factor of 1 to 2 typically, depending mainly on water depth, wave field parameters, and duration of observations.
4
The N-year return value represents the value that is exceeded on average once every N years.
CBCL Limited
2.6
CBCL Limited
Halterm
Container Terminal
Point
Pleasant
Shoal
Outer
Harbour
Garrison
Pier
Maughers Beach
breakwater
Model output
locations
Figure 2.7
CBCL Limited
1-year storm
Figure 2.8
100-year storm
CBCL Limited
1-year return
storm
Figure 2.9
100-year return
storm
CBCL Limited
CBCL Limited
CHAPTER 3
3.1
This section predicts the evolution of damage to the armoured isthmus using the shallow water
breakwater design and damage formulations by Van Der Meer (CIRIA 2007). The damage formulation is
applied using the long-term trends of extreme events based on the most likely (intermediate) sea level
rise (SLR) scenario presented in section 2.3.3.
3.1.1 Damage Caused by Individual Storms
Joint statistics on water level and offshore wave heights show that storm surges and large offshore
waves generally peak at the same time (Appendix A, Table A.4). In addition, the wave model shows that
breaking wave heights at the toe of the breakwater in 2m CD water depth are controlled by the water
level. This is due to the effect of shoals along the western shores of McNabs Island where large offshore
waves break before reaching the isthmus. Therefore breakwater damage levels, typically a function of
wave parameters, can be correlated to the storm water levels.
The Van Der Meer equation predicts the amount of damage of a given storm to the face (S,
dimensionless) of a breakwater as related to the median rock size, i.e., S=Aeroded / Dn502, where Aeroded (m2)
is the area of the armour stone face that is damaged and Dn50 is the median diameter of the armour
stone.
The equation results for breakwater damage level after one storm are shown on Figure 3.1. Historical
design drawings provided by PWGSC indicate the present armour stone weight range is 4-6 tonnes.
Limited site observations indicate that in some areas, placed armour stone weight may be on the lower
end of the specified range (i.e. 4 tonne see section 2.3). However this local observation cannot be
generalized to the whole structure.
CBCL Limited
12
11
10
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
Figure 3.1
Maughers Beach Breakwater Damage vs. Extreme Water Level during One Event
CBCL Limited
10
6
4-tonne armour stone, with SLR
4
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
Cumulative Damage
10
8
4-tonne armour stone, with SLR
6
4
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
Figure 3.2
CBCL Limited
Scenario 2 Breach
Assumed crest elevation = -0.5 m along 60
m distance
Potential time-scale = 50-100 years
Assumed sea level rise within potential
damage time-scale = 0.6 m
Figure 3.3
CBCL Limited
3.2
The numerical wave model was used to quantify the wave climate changes in Halifax Harbour that
would be caused by further breakwater deterioration and subsequent isthmus erosion, along SLR
impacts. Existing and future wave agitation were investigated at the key sites including Garrison Pier in
McNabs Cove (the Islands main access point), Outer Halifax Harbour, Point Pleasant Shoal and Halifaxs
Container Terminals. Both extreme events and operational conditions were investigated.
3.2.1 Extreme Events
Modeled 50-year return wave fields for each of the scenarios are shown on Figure 3.4. Extreme
significant wave heights vs. return period at sites of interest are shown on Figure 3.5. The modeling
exercise indicated that SLR alone will cause a generalized increase in wave heights over time around
McNabs Island and in Halifax Harbour. It also indicated that further breakwater deterioration causing
subsequent isthmus erosion would add to the SLR impact on wave climate in McNabs Cove but not
elsewhere in the Harbour. While it is not possible to give accurate predictions on time frames, the
modeling results provide qualitative conclusions with associated order-of-magnitude timelines based on
a hypothetically assumed isthmus damage evolution.
If the breakwater is repaired and regularly maintained (Scenario 1), the extreme wave height increase by
year 2100 is estimated at 0.2 m at Garrison Pier (SLR only, assumed at 1.0 m by 2100). The increase in
extreme wave heights at other sites examined (Outer Harbour, Point Pleasant Shoal and Halterm
Terminals) due to SLR was estimated at 0.06 to 0.1 m by year 2100.
If the breakwater and isthmus fully deteriorate (Scenario 3), modeling indicates that extreme wave
heights will be further increased by less than 0.02 m by 2100 in the Outer Harbour, Point Pleasant Shoal
and Halterm Terminals. At Garrison Pier, this increase in wave heights by 2100 for Scenario 3 is 0.2 m.
For perspective, replacing and maintaining the breakwater would delay the inevitable increase in wave
impacts due to SLR by approximately 30 years at Garrison Pier (2100 versus 2070, under the modeling
assumptions).
3.2.2 Operational Conditions
The frequency of smaller wave events was also examined, which is relevant for visitor boat traffic and
berthing at Garrison Pier. Wave height occurrence percentages were computed for each site of interest
based on MIKE21 SW model results and offshore statistics. A series of 986 model runs was conducted to
include all combinations of input parameters (wind speed, offshore Hsig, Tp, direction and tidal water
level). Each input condition was assigned a probability based on the offshore wave climate. Results are
shown on Figure 3.6. Each graph presents the frequency of exceedance of wave height thresholds, in
percentage of the time (1% is 3.6 days/year, and 0.01 % is 1 hour per year).
The acceptable wave climate for berthing typically used for DFO Small Craft Harbours (Table 3.1) is
defined by a 0.4 m significant wave height upper limit for 10 to 20 m-long vessels, which would apply to
summer island visitor vessels. Murphys on the Water is the main passenger boat operator using
Garrison Pier, with vessel sizes ranging from 24 to 65 feet doing approximately 20 trips per year (pers.
comm. Peter Murphy, Murphys on the water). Larger boats (Harbour Queen or Haligonian) taking big
groups are used 2 to 3 times a season, during good weather.
CBCL Limited
Modeling indicated that the acceptable wave height threshold for berthing (0.4 m) at Garrison Pier is
presently exceeded approximately 4 days per year, and would be exceeded on average:
11 days/year assuming 1.0 m SLR and regular breakwater maintenance (potentially in year
2100)
11 days/year assuming 0.6 m SLR and breakwater left to deteriorate (potentially in year 2070)
18 days/year assuming 1.0 m SLR and breakwater left to deteriorate (potentially in year 2100).
The downtime periods typically occur during the winter off-season, therefore not affecting summer
visitor traffic. However impacts on winter shoreline erosion in McNabs Cove would be relevant yearround.
The increase in wave agitation at other sites in Halifax Harbour will be due almost entirely to SLR. At the
Outer Harbour, Point Pleasant Shoal and Halterm Terminals, the impact of isthmus erosion would be
negligible in the context of SLR.
Finally, it is noted that the Navy once used the McNabs Cove area in the lee of the lighthouse for
mooring purposes5. Local wave agitation conditions will become worse than they were previously, which
would compromise the viability of this site if it becomes contemplated again for use in the future.
Table 3.1
UTM Coordinates 457500 E - 4939500 N (Figure 2.1), or 500 m to the Southwest of Garrison Pier. The mooring sites Navy A
and Navy B were indicated on the 1989 edition of CHS Chart #4203, however the current version of the chart (dated year
2000) does not show them.
CBCL Limited
Existing
conditions
Breach,
0.6 m SLR
Loss of shore
protection,
0.3 m SLR
Gravel Bar,
1.0 m SLR
Repaired
breakwater
1.0 m SLR
Figure 3.4
Modeled 50-Year Return Wave Heights for Future Scenarios of SLR and Isthmus
Damage
CBCL Limited
Garrison Pier
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
Existing
0.9
0.8
0.7
Erosion to Gravel Bar - 1.0 m SLR
0.6
0.5
0.4
1
10
100
Outer Harbour
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
10
Storm Return Period [years]
100
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1
10
Storm Return Period [years]
100
Halterm Terminals
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1
Figure 3.5
10
Storm Return Period [years]
100
Projected Increases in Extreme Wave Heights from Sea Level Rise and Isthmus Erosion
CBCL Limited
Outer Harbour
Garrison Pier
100.00
100.00
Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
Exceedence [%]
Exceedence [%]
10.00
1.00
1.00
0.10
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
Halterm Terminals
100.00
100.00
Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
Exceedence [%]
Exceedence [%]
1.1
1.00
0.10
1.00
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
0.1
0.3
0.5
Figure 3.6
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
Projected Increases in Wave Agitation from Sea Level Rise and Isthmus Erosion
CBCL Limited
CHAPTER 4
4.1
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Objectives
As demonstrated, sea level rise (SLR) will cause increased storm wave heights in Halifax Harbour,
particularly in exposed nearshore areas. Further breakwater damage and isthmus erosion at Maughers
Beach would add to the SLR impact in McNabs Cove but not elsewhere in the Outer Harbour where the
impact would be minimal. Sites impacted in McNabs Cove include Garrison Pier, the landing wharf to
McNabs Island Park. Maughers Beach is also one of the most popular day-use areas on McNabs Island
and is a natural attraction for visitors.
This section provides commentary on the socio-economic and cultural value at stake if tourism and
recreational activities in the area were to be affected by SLR and the continuous erosion of the isthmus
at Maughers Beach.
4.2
4.2.1 Location
McNabs and Lawlor Islands are located at the mouth of the Halifax Harbour. Designated in 2002,
McNabs and Lawlor Islands Provincial Park encompasses 430 hectares of land, 28 of which are owned by
the federal government as part of Parks Canadas Fort McNabs National Historic Site. The Islands are
home to a multitude of important natural and cultural heritage resources and offer opportunities for
outdoor recreation and interpretation.
4.2.2 Future of the Park
In 2005, the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources released a Park Management Plan for the
McNabs and Lawlor Islands Provincial Park, which defines a vision and management plan that is
intended to guide park management decisions until 2030. Five principal management objectives for
McNabs and Lawlor Islands Provincial Park have been adopted. The objectives are:
1. To preserve and protect the Islands significant natural and cultural heritage elements and values.
2. To provide opportunities for a variety of high-quality outdoor recreation activities.
3. To provide opportunities for exploration, education, and appreciation of the Islands heritage values
through interpretation, information, and outdoor education programs.
4. To have the park play an important role in supporting local, regional, and provincial tourism efforts.
CBCL Limited
5. To provide basic services and facilities to enhance visitor enjoyment of the park.
Park development plans are limited to McNabs Island and are primarily focused on providing facilities
and services that support day-use activities, wherever possible, using already existing facilities. New
facilities ought to be placed in locations with minimal impact on heritage resources, natural landscapes
and views corridors.
Interpretation and education for park visitors will be largely self-directed, facilitated by brochures, onsite interpretive panels, and publications. Special-event programming will complement individual
interpretation activities. The majority of cultural heritage sites will not be actively managed.
To be implemented in four phases, the Park Management Plan stipulated that the park was going to be
operational three years after the adoption of the plan in 2005, with the Parks and Recreation Division of
the Department of Natural Resources playing the lead role in facilitating the implementation of the plan.
According to the Friends of McNabs Island Society, funding from the Department has been slow in the
first years after implementation6 . However, the society has been successful with fundraising efforts to
fill some of the void, and has started implementing trails, shelters and interpretation panels.
4.3
The Park Management Plan lays out the number of park amenities and facilities which, as a whole will
define the parks visitor experience. Figure 4.1 depicts the amenities that could potentially be impacted
directly or indirectly by the erosion of Maughers Beach.
Garrison Pier in McNabs Cove is one of two main public access points to the Island, the second being
Range Pier at Wreck Cove. In 2002, major repairs to Garrison Pier were completed and further
enhancements are planned. Garrison Pier is serviced by a number of ferry and charter boat operators
offering drop-off and pick-up as well as group charters.
McNabs cove is a key piece on the development road map for the park and is a dedicated recreation
development zone that is expected to become one of the most used areas on McNabs Island. The main
day-use area will be situated close to Garrison Pier. A visitor services centre providing information,
change rooms, toilets, food and a picnic area will be located to the east of the ferry access point.
Loosing Garrison Pier as the main ferry access and potentially relocating it to a more sheltered location
will shift the centre for visitors day use activities as most facilities and services envisioned in the 2005
Management Plan are concentrated in the west central portion of the Island.
CBCL Limited
Figure 4.1
4.4
McNabs Island Provincial Park is part of Nova Scotias Provincial Parks system that includes over 300
individual park properties throughout the province. Like its sister parks, McNabs Island Park will, when
fully in operation, be an invaluable tourism resource and its visitors will generate economic benefits
through spending in nearby communities.
The five principal park management objectives for the park all revolve around the protection and
preservation of significant natural and cultural resources for the purpose of making them accessible and
appreciated by visitors. One of the principal objectives particularly emphasizes the Parks role in
supporting local, regional and provincial tourism efforts 7.
7
CBCL Limited
As a tourism product, McNabs Island Provincial Park needs to offer a satisfying visitor experience. In
order to be successful, the park has to balance several parts of the supply side and match them with the
tourism market demand. While the park has been modestly successful in operating as a local tourism
product, removing critical infrastructure such as access points, beaches or interpretive facilities might
sway the demand-supply equation in a direction where the park loses its attraction as a destination.
4.4.1 Tourism Demand-Supply Balance
Critical to all tourism development and its planning are the many characteristics of visitors tourism
demands. All physical development and programs offered in McNabs Island Provincial Park must meet
the interests and needs of travellers. If not, economic rewards may not be obtained and the cultural
landscape of the park may be eroded. Whenever demand and supply are out of balance, planning and
development should be directed toward improving the supply-demand match.
4.4.2 Travel Market
People in the travel market are those who have the interest and ability to travel to McNabs Island
Provincial Park. McNabs Island development is mainly geared towards visitors interested in natural and
cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and nature-based tourism. Even though the 2005 Management
Plan anticipates that visitors will be largely drawn from the local area, it is plausible that available
tourism infrastructure on the Island coupled with targeted marketing strategies could increase the
number of other Nova Scotians and out-of-province park users. Conversely, a lack of attractions for
those interested in natural and cultural heritage as well as outdoor recreation will result in lower
visitation.
A 2001 McNabs Island Visitor Survey found that 82% of visitors resided in the Halifax Regional
Municipality. 12% of visitors came from other parts of Nova Scotia, and the remainder from other
Canadian provinces and international origins. By far the most popular activity in which these visitors
were looking to engage was walking and hiking on trails, followed by nature study, camping and
picnicking.
The 2010 Nova Scotia Visitor Exit Survey prepared for the Nova Scotia Department of Economic and
Rural Development and Tourism provides useful information on a tourism market segment currently
underrepresented among McNabs Island visitors. Visitors to Nova Scotia are vital contributors to the
provincial economy where tourism is a $1.8 billion industry that accounts for roughly 32,000 jobs. In
2010, visitors to Nova Scotia spent approximately $98 per person per day during their visit. Total
expenditures were highest among overseas visitors followed by those from Western Canada, and lowest
among visitors from Atlantic Canada.
Like visitors to McNabs Island, many tourists travelling to Nova Scotia (40%) do so to participate in
outdoor activities, most commonly coastal sightseeing, hiking and beach exploring.
4.4.3 Supply Side
As outlined in Section 4.3, several elements of the supply side of McNabs Island tourism equation are
going to be impacted by SLR and the potential erosion of Maughers Beach. The supply side includes all
those programs and land uses that are designed and managed to provide for receiving visitors. In the
CBCL Limited
literature, the supply side is typically described as including the five major interdependent components
shown in Figure 4.2.
Attractions
Transporation
Services
Promotion
Figure 4.2
Information
Table 4.1 lists all categorized components of the supply side of McNabs Island tourism with those
elements highlighted that are potentially affected by SLR and the Maughers Beach erosion.
CBCL Limited
Table 4.1
Attractions
Trail network
Transportation
Garrison Pier
Maughers
Beach
Recreation Area
Maughers
Beach
lighthouse
Fort Ives
Range Pier
Ives Cove
Private moorage
Information
Promotion
Garrison Pier
Park brochure
Interpretation/Information
Kiosk
Fort Ives Interpretation
General tourism
literature
Services
Garrison Pier
Visitor
Services Centre
Pit toilets
Garbage
collection
Wreck Cove
Beach
Fort McNab
National
Historic Site
Strawberry
Battery
Fort Hugonin
Conrad and
Matthew Lynch
Homes
Hugonin-Perrin
Estate
Fauna and Flora
4.5
Discover
McNabs Island
guidebook
Link with
regional
marketing
efforts
Potable water
Picnic areas
Military Road
Campground
Special events
camping
As summarized in previous sections, likely impacts from SLR compounded by isthmus erosion in McNabs
Cove include:
Increased wave agitation in McNabs Cove, and
Increased shoreline erosion. Manson (2008) notes that while the breach in the isthmus may
allow increased delivery of sediment to Maughers Beach, in the long term the increase in wave
energy in the area is more likely to cause shoreline erosion than deposition.
Without mitigation, SLR and further deterioration of the shore protection of Maughers Beach isthmus
will impact a relatively well functioning McNabs Island tourism system. Short of influence to alter
market trends, the outlined losses on the supply side of the Islands tourism equation may need to be
compensated by alternate infrastructure.
CBCL Limited
Most supply components would be affected by SLR and the shore protection deterioration. The reduced
availability of Garrison Pier as the main access point to the Island would be primarily felt in the winter
off-season, and its impact would therefore be limited. Also in question would be the viability of tourism
infrastructure located near Garrison Pier along McNabs Cove. The 2005 Management Plan envisions the
cove as the key piece of Island infrastructure development.
4.6
Potential Mitigation
There are several potential mitigation measures to address risks from SLR and from the possibility that
the breakwater may be left to deteriorate. Most important would be the investigation into other
potential landing sites for incoming boats from Halifax. A recent study by Dalhousie University
Community Design students presented at the 23rd Annual General Meeting of the Friends of McNabs
Island Society (May 2013), recommended Ives Cove as a short-term, and Timmonds Cove as a long term
alternative landing site to Garrison Pier, regardless of the maintenance strategy for the breakwater.
Both areas were described as accessible by all vessel types. Compounded by the present erosion of
Garrison Road along Maughers Beach, the aforementioned alternative landing sites present more
sustainable and attractive long-term alternatives to Garrison Pier, notwithstanding the future condition
of the breakwater.
Moving the main visitor landing site from the west of the Island to the east, would result in shifting the
centre of overall Island tourism development. The planned McNabs Cove interpretation kiosk and
visitor service centre could be moved and located adjacent to the new access facility. Trail routes would
also have to be realigned to connect a new pier to the Islands main attractions. The Park could then
promote Maughers Beach and the isthmus as a natural area to educate the public about dynamic
coastal processes.
All of these changes should be well communicated and planned in close collaboration with the Friends
of McNabs Island Society, as many of the Islands long-term devotees have a strong sentiment for
McNabs Cove as the gateway to the Island.
The impact from SLR on the development of the McNabs Island tourism product was not taken into
consideration in the 2005 Management Plan. SLR and more severe storm events will require the
integration of effective adaptation strategies into an updated Management Plan. A cost-benefit analysis
studying all expenditures and advantages of either a relocation of McNabs Cove tourism infrastructure
or the continuous maintenance of shore protection at the isthmus are recommended to ultimately make
an informed decision on a route forward. Regardless of the option chosen, the shorelines of McNabs
Island Provincial Park will continue to naturally reshape, and the Parks important role as a local,
regional and provincial tourism asset will remain.
CBCL Limited
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Maintaining land access along the armoured isthmus to the Maughers Beach lighthouse (now serviced
by helicopter) is no longer required for operations. Three wave modeling scenarios were examined to
quantify the wave climate changes in Halifax Harbour that would be caused by further breakwater
deterioration and subsequent isthmus erosion, along with Sea Level Rise (SLR) impacts:
(1) Partial loss of Maughers Beach breakwater with overtopping
(2) Breakwater deterioration and breach through isthmus
(3) Full breakwater deterioration and isthmus eroded down to a submerged bar
The modeling exercise indicated that SLR alone will cause a generalized increase in wave heights over
time around McNabs Island and in Halifax Harbour. It also indicated that further breakwater
deterioration causing subsequent isthmus erosion would add to the SLR impact on wave climate in
McNabs Cove but not elsewhere in the Harbour. While it is not possible to give accurate predictions on
time frames, the modeling used provides qualitative conclusions with associated order-of-magnitude
timelines based on a hypothetically assumed isthmus damage evolution.
If the breakwater is repaired and regularly maintained (Scenario 1), the extreme wave height increase by
year 2100 is estimated at 0.2 m at Garrison Pier (SLR only, assumed at 1.0 m by 2100). The increase in
extreme wave heights at other sites examined (Outer Harbour, Point Pleasant Shoal and Halterm
Terminals) due to SLR was estimated at 0.06 to 0.1 m by year 2100.
If the breakwater and isthmus fully deteriorate (Scenario 3), modeling indicates that extreme wave
heights will be further increased by less than 0.02 m by 2100 in the Outer Harbour, Point Pleasant Shoal
and Halterm Terminals. At Garrison Pier, this increase in wave heights by 2100 for Scenario 3 is 0.2 m.
For perspective, replacing and maintaining the breakwater would delay the inevitable increase in wave
impacts due to SLR by approximately 30 years at Garrison Pier (2100 versus 2070, under the modeling
assumptions).
The frequency of smaller wave events was also examined, which is relevant for visitor boat traffic and
berthing at Garrison Pier. The acceptable wave climate for berthing typically used for DFO Small Craft
Harbours is defined by a 0.4 m significant wave height upper limit for 10 to 20 m-long vessels, which
would apply to summer island visitor vessels. Modeling indicated that the acceptable wave height
CBCL Limited
threshold for berthing (0.4 m) at Garrison Pier is presently exceeded approximately 4 days per year, and
would be exceeded on average:
11 days/year assuming 1.0 m SLR and regular breakwater maintenance (potentially in year
2100)
11 days/year assuming 0.6 m SLR and breakwater left to deteriorate (potentially in year 2070)
18 days/year assuming 1.0 m SLR and breakwater left to deteriorate (potentially in year 2100).
The downtime periods typically occur during the winter off-season, therefore not affecting summer
visitor traffic.
Pros and Cons of Maintaining the Isthmus Breakwater
because:
because:
and
Prepared by:
Vincent Leys
Coastal Engineer
Reviewed by:
Alexander Wilson
Water Resources Engineer
This document was prepared for the party indicated herein. The material and information in the document reflects CBCL
Limiteds opinion and best judgment based on the information available at the time of preparation. Any use of this document
or reliance on its content by third parties is the responsibility of the third party. CBCL Limited accepts no responsibility for any
damages suffered as a result of third party use of this document.
CBCL Limited
CHAPTER 6
REFERENCES
CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF 2007. The Rock Manual. The use of rock in hydraulic engineering (2nd edition). C683,
CIRIA, London.
Daigle R., Richards W. 2011. Scenarios and guidance for adaptation to climate change and sea level rise
NS and PEI municipalities. Report commissioned by the Atlantic Climate Solutions Association.
www.atlanticadaptation.ca
DHI Software 2012. MIKE, Coastal Hydraulics and Oceanography User Guide. Danish Hydraulic
Institute.
Forbes D., Manson G., Charles J., Thompson K., Taylor R. 2009. Halifax Harbour Extreme Water Levels in
the Context of Climate Change: Scenarios for a 100-year Planning Horizon. Geological Survey of
Canada Open File 6346.
Gunn C. and Var T. 2002. Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. Routledge. ISBN-10: 0415932688.
IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Manson G. 1999. Recent and Historical Coastal Change Under Rising Sea Level, McNabs Island Area,
Halifax NS. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science, Dalhousie
University.
Manson G. 2008. McNabs Island Geology and Coastal Processes. In: Discover McNabs Island, Second
Edition. ISBN 978-0-9699518-2-7.
McCarthy, C. 2001. McNabs Island Visitor Survey Final Report. Information Series PKS 2005-1.
McCarthy, C. 2009. Trail Rebuilding on McNabs Island Continues. The Rucksack, volume seventeen, Issue
4, Fall/Winter 2009 2010, page 10.
Nova Scotia Department of Economic and Rural Development and Tourism. 2011. 2010 Nova Scotia
Visitor Exit Survey.
CBCL Limited
Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Park Management Plan Mcnabs And Lawlor Islands
Provincial Park. Information Series PKS 2005-1.
Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2007. Preliminary Design Report-Capital Restoration
and Repair of Maughers Beach Protection Works, McNabs Island, Halifax Regional Municiplaity.
P/N 325016. Prepared for DFO Waterways Program
Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science, 315(5810),
368-370.
Sallenger, A. H., K. S. Doran, and P. A. Howd, 2012: Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic
coast of North America. Nature Climate Change, Advanced on line publication.
Swail V.R, Cardone V.J., Ferguson M., Gummer D.J., Harris E.L., Orelup E.A. and Cox A.T. 2006. The
MSC50 Wind And Wave Reanalysis. 9th International Workshop On Wave Hindcasting and
Forecasting September 25-29, 2006 Victoria, B.C. Canada. Available from
www.oceanweather.com (accessed 30 October 2007).
Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia. 2011. Tourism Plan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Coastal Engineering Manual. Engineer Manual 1110-21100.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011. Sea Level Changes Considerations for Civil Works Programs.
Circular No. 1165-2-212, 1 Oct 2011. Washington, DC 20314-1000.
CBCL Limited
APPENDIX A
Figure A.1
Annual Directional Frequencies of Wind Speed
Note: Calm represents all occurrences of wind speed < 1 m/s
Figure A.2
Annual Directional Frequencies of Significant Wave Heights
Note: Calm represents all occurrences of Hsig < 0.5 m
CBCL Limited
Figure A.2
Monthly Directional Frequencies of Wind Speed
Note: Calm represents all occurrences of wind speed < 1 m/s
CBCL Limited
Figure A.3
Monthly Directional Frequencies of Significant Wave Heights
Note: Calm represents all occurrences of Hsig < 0.5 m
CBCL Limited
Table A.1
Wind speed
m/s
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Direction from
km/hr
108
90
72
54
36
18
0
0
0
0
0.0015
0.1323
0.9839
3.5618
4.9821
Table A.2
22.5
0
0.0002
0.0077
0.1000
0.8091
2.9691
4.2709
45
0
0
0.0112
0.0913
0.6358
2.5022
3.6985
67.5
0
0
0.0042
0.1152
0.5381
2.1574
3.3767
90
0
0
0.0029
0.0726
0.4965
1.8121
3.0476
112.5
0
0.0002
0.0018
0.0634
0.4504
1.8619
3.3730
135
0
0.0002
0.0020
0.0665
0.5065
2.1017
3.6625
202.5
0
0.0004
0.0031
0.0559
0.8400
5.3020
8.4825
225
0
0
0.0035
0.0783
1.1044
6.8571
10.6438
247.5
0
0
0.0064
0.1531
1.3128
6.2683
9.5581
270
292.5
0
0
0
0
0.0035 0.0037
0.3027 0.4037
2.1986 3.3670
6.6149 8.3235
9.2986 10.5982
315
0
0
0.0061
0.2207
2.3436
6.6893
8.5854
Total
337.5 exceedence %
0
0
0
0.0018
0.0018
0.0630
0.1533
2.1479
1.3299
18.1464
4.6414
67.5367
6.3227
100
Direction from
ft
36.1
34.4
32.8
31.2
29.5
27.9
26.2
24.6
23.0
21.3
19.7
18.0
16.4
14.8
13.1
11.5
9.8
8.2
6.6
4.9
3.3
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.001
0.003
0.018
0.124
0.768
1.363
1.377
Table A.3
22.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.001
0.009
0.034
0.153
0.706
1.317
1.334
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.001
0.014
0.068
0.278
0.950
1.574
1.601
67.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.006
0.026
0.091
0.227
0.668
1.587
2.195
2.243
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.017
0.038
0.072
0.158
0.394
0.900
1.679
2.707
3.628
3.725
112.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.002
0.007
0.014
0.032
0.059
0.124
0.222
0.386
0.668
1.110
1.900
3.133
4.889
6.737
7.112
135
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.001
0.006
0.011
0.021
0.039
0.081
0.144
0.227
0.398
0.693
1.220
2.214
4.025
7.158
10.188
10.722
157.5
0
0.0002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.010
0.020
0.035
0.076
0.154
0.295
0.506
0.831
1.357
2.382
4.224
7.577
12.062
12.584
180
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.003
0.005
0.007
0.010
0.016
0.033
0.070
0.140
0.283
0.526
0.948
1.685
2.972
5.378
10.456
17.575
18.244
202.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.006
0.013
0.025
0.052
0.089
0.192
0.393
0.822
1.552
3.087
6.138
13.248
21.757
22.323
225
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.002
0.019
0.078
0.223
0.551
1.431
3.466
7.102
9.676
9.815
247.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.013
0.102
0.342
0.933
1.915
2.689
2.744
270
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.016
0.126
0.480
1.115
1.577
1.601
292.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.006
0.069
0.387
1.065
1.446
1.461
315
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.002
0.033
0.302
1.102
1.489
1.501
Total
337.5 exceedence %
0
0
0
0.0002
0
0.001
0
0.001
0
0.001
0
0.001
0
0.005
0
0.012
0
0.023
0
0.043
0
0.087
0
0.169
0
0.347
0
0.672
0
1.277
0
2.366
0
4.386
0.003
8.116
0.025
15.828
0.234
31.602
0.991
63.337
1.452
96.725
1.465
99.853
Hsig
m
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
180
0
0.0002
0.0018
0.0746
0.7119
3.5879
6.0511
Hsig
m
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
157.5
0
0.0004
0.0020
0.0643
0.5180
2.2861
4.0482
ft
36.1
34.4
32.8
31.2
29.5
27.9
26.2
24.6
23.0
21.3
19.7
18.0
16.4
14.8
13.1
11.5
9.8
8.2
6.6
4.9
3.3
1.6
0
Total occurence %
CBCL Limited
0-2
2-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1474
0.1474
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0156
1.2671
3.8104
0.2534
5.3465
4-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0002
0.0408
0.3754
2.7679
8.5536
4.7904
0.2565
16.7847
10-12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0007
0.0029
0.0081
0.0200
0.0432
0.1132
0.1753
0.2973
0.4769
0.8143
1.3770
2.2260
3.0257
3.1457
2.1126
0.3060
14.1449
12-14
0
0
0.0002
0
0
0.0004
0.0013
0.0053
0.0079
0.0092
0.0213
0.0340
0.0467
0.0630
0.0992
0.1487
0.2192
0.2442
0.3027
0.4094
0.5094
0.7204
0.1174
2.9599
14-16
0
0.0002
0.0002
0
0
0
0.0029
0
0.0007
0.0026
0.0018
0.0020
0.0011
0.0079
0.0070
0.0180
0.0303
0.0522
0.0700
0.1150
0.2034
0.3475
0.0759
0.9385
16-18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0
0
0
0.0011
0.0011
0.0004
0.0031
0.0066
0.0110
0.0204
0.0107
0.0557
Total
occurence
0
0.0002
0.0004
0
0
0.0004
0.0042
0.0064
0.0116
0.0202
0.0432
0.0823
0.1786
0.3256
0.6064
1.0881
2.0236
3.7369
7.7195
15.7975
31.7685
33.3458
3.2407
100.0000
Table A.4
Offshore Hsig
m
ft
11
36.1
10.5
34.4
10
32.8
9.5
31.2
9
29.5
8.5
27.9
8
26.2
7.5
24.6
7
23.0
6.5
21.3
6
19.7
5.5
18.0
5
16.4
4.5
14.8
4
13.1
3.5
11.5
3
9.8
2.5
8.2
2
6.6
1.5
4.9
1
3.3
0.5
1.6
0
0
Total occurence %
Table A.5
Significant Wave Height and Tide Gauge Water Level Joint Probability of
Occurrence
Values given in % of time, 1% = 3.6 days / year
< 0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.015
0.033
0.073
0.142
0.327
0.816
1.771
2.136
0.2048
5.5337
> 2.75
0
0
0
0
0.0003
0
0
0
0.0003
0
0
0
0
0
0.0003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0009
Offshore Hsig
m
ft
11
36.1
10.5
34.4
10
32.8
9.5
31.2
9
29.5
8.5
27.9
8
26.2
7.5
24.6
7
23.0
6.5
21.3
6
19.7
5.5
18.0
5
16.4
4.5
14.8
4
13.1
3.5
11.5
3
9.8
2.5
8.2
2
6.6
1.5
4.9
1
3.3
0.5
1.6
0
0
Total occurence %
CBCL Limited
0-5
0
0
0.0002
0
0.0002
0.0006
0.0002
0.0004
0.0014
0.001
0.004
0.009
0.011
0.023
0.050
0.096
0.182
0.385
0.921
2.595
8.571
18.774
2.5900
34.2157
5-10
0
0
0
0
0
0.0004
0.0004
0.001
0
0.003
0.004
0.010
0.023
0.054
0.129
0.278
0.631
1.386
3.496
8.7509
19.1310
14.0660
0.4500
48.4157
20-25
0
0
0
0
0
0.0004
0.0016
0.001
0.002
0.008
0.008
0.0063
0.0059
0.0053
0.0028
0.0047
0.0037
0.0071
0.0016
0.0016
0.0002
0.0010
0
0.0608
25-30
0
0.0002
0
0
0
0.0004
0
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0
0.0002
0.0002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0016
Total
occurence
0
0.0002
0.0004
0.0002
0.0006
0.0022
0.0051
0.0081
0.0124
0.0250
0.0446
0.0948
0.1810
0.3348
0.6209
1.1139
2.0656
3.7894
7.7631
15.8115
31.3869
33.5078
3.0994
99.8678
Total
occurence
0
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0006
0.0027
0.0049
0.0082
0.0134
0.0273
0.0416
0.0954
0.1875
0.3394
0.6253
1.1208
2.1027
3.8293
7.8223
15.9202
31.3222
33.3116
3.0877
99.8639
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
67 Storm peaks over 6 m
Weibull distribution
5
4
1
10
Figure A.4
10
-1
10
Probability of exceedence
of 1 event in Tr years
(Q = 1/(1.1552 Tr))
10
-2
10
-3
z (m CD)
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
10
Figure A.5
-1
10
Probability of exceedence
of 1 event in Tr years
(Q = 1/(1.3814 Tr))
10
-2
Extreme Value Analysis on Water Level Storm Peaks From De-trended Halifax Tide
Gauge Data
Correlation coefficient using best-fitting Weibull distribution R = 0.9881
CBCL Limited
APPENDIX B
CBCL Limited
McNabs Island
The Friends of McNabs Island Society
ia
Ind
P Woolnough's
oad
hR
nc
Ly
St.
Findlay
ve
Co
Farm & Pop
ins
Bottle Site Timm Trail
Anchorage
McLean's
Farm Site
Bog
Jenkins
Hill
us
ho
Te
a
Toilet
Private Property
Information Kiosk
12
(closed)
Teahouse
Cholera Victims
Gravesite - 1866
Navigation Aid
Hill
ins
Jenk rail
T
Hugonin
Point
Point Of Interest
Timmins Hill
Site of Hugonin-Perrin
House and
14Gardens
Carriage
Lane
Findlays
Cove
20
40
60
14
ant
Farroad
R
eL
an
oad
Trail
0
80 10 120
d
oa
Hugonin
Battery
Track
s
Timmin
rail
Cove T
ail
Tr
rm
Fa
80
Findlay's
Picnic
Grounds
on R
20
Gar
ris
ser
Fra
60
yR
tar
500
rmi
40
ili
40
500 Metres
Timmins
Cove
rail
ts T
He
Former
Lighthouse
Site
10
250
Road
20
d
Ol
et
Stre
ythe
Fors
60
Pleasure
Grounds
Ho
we
DavisConrad
House
Jack Lynch
House
Yards 500
60 80
20
Wharf &
Floating Dock
(DNR Wharf)
20 40
d.
tR
in
Po
Fort
Ives
mcnabsisland.ca
Metres 250
l
rai
mT
Far
ser
Fra
es
Iv
20
40
60
40
Fraser
Farm
Ives Cove
Searchlight
Emplacement
Trainer
Farm
20
Ives
Point
Indian Point
ail
t Tr
oin
nP
Detention
Barracks Site
Garrison Pier
Detentio
riso
80
ish
st F
ck Road
oad
nR
McNabs Cove
Fro
n Barra
Gar
100
Bro
ok
60
mp
Water Pu
Road
House
rsh
40
wart Tr a
il
40
20
Wreck
Cove
lt
bo
am l
W Trai
rri
40
ad
Ro
Brow Hill
Trail
McNabs
Cemetery
60
80
T
0
ton
lli
Concrete
Rangefinder
Platforms
Cu
Range
Hill
10
10
Fort
McNab
20
son
McNabs
House Site
McNeil/Farrel
Point
Ga
Trail
ond
abs P
McN
Strawberry
Battery
McNabs
Pond
Colin St
e
20
Marsh
Hangmans
Marsh
gmans Beach
Han
Maugers Beach
Lighthouse
rs B
uge
Ma
Ma
ach
Marsh
ll
Hi
een rail
Gr ve T
Co
20
40
60
80
Green
Hill
r
ou
rb
Ha
Thrumcap
Hook
Doyles
Point
ste
Th
r
Co umc
ve ap
rn
Pa
20
Ea
Green Hill
Cove
rail
eT
ng
Ra
40
20
Culliton
Point
ax
lif
Ha
HALIFAX
ht
lig 60
rch ad
o
R
a
Se
le
Rif
Kilometres
Searchlight
Emplacement
DARTMOUTH
ai
Tr
ail
ht Tr
chlig
Bedford
Basin
rm
Fa
Sear
80
ssa
Big
Thrumcap
Lawlor Island
McNabs
Island
Devils Island
40
ge
Source of Maps:
Friends of McNabs
LRIS
Natural Resources Canada
Copyright 2000