Table Of ContentUniversity of Connecticut
Modeling Site Suitability of Living Shoreline Design Options in
Connecticut
Jason Zylberman
B.A., University of Connecticut, 2014
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
at the
University of Connecticut
2016
i
Approval Page
Master of Science Thesis
Modeling Site Suitability of Living Shoreline Design Options in Connecticut
Presented by
Jason Zylberman, B.A.
Major Advisor
Daniel L. Civco
Associate Advisor
Juliana Barrett
Associate Advisor
Emily Wilson
University of Connecticut
2016
ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank everyone within the Department of Natural
Resources and the Environment at UConn. I would like to thank Dr. Glenn Warner and Dr.
John Volin for welcoming me into the graduate program in NRE. I would like to express my
deepest gratitude to my advisors, Dr. Juliana Barrett and Dr. Daniel Civco, for presenting me
with full funding to participate on a coastal resilience grant sponsored by NOAA. It has been
an opportunity of a lifetime – an opportunity which I have not taken for granted.
I would like to say thank you to Emily Wilson, Dr. Civco, and Dr. Barrett for their time
and mentorship provided during my graduate study. Your encouragement and support has
helped develop me into the student I am today. Dr. Civco, thank you for stimulating my
interest in GIS and Remote Sensing. Based on your recommendation, I had the chance to intern
for the NASA DEVELOP program at NOAA’s data center in Asheville, and for that, I am
forever grateful. Dr. Barrett, thank you for the constant support provided throughout the course
of my graduate study. Words cannot express how much you have done for me, and I have
greatly enjoyed working closely with you these past two years. Emily, thank you for providing
your support with the GIS aspect of my research, as well as offering professional mentorship. I
think your quality of work is very impressive, and I am thankful that you participated on my
research committee.
Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family for their support. Thank you to my
girlfriend for your encouragement and love. Thank you to my parents – you have always been
there for me and have encouraged me to do my absolute best in all aspects of life.
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 The Problem 1
1.2 Purpose and Approach 3
1.3 Objectives 5
Chapter 2: Literature Review 6
2.1 Shoreline Erosion 6
2.1.1 Erosion in Connecticut 8
2.1.2 Current Coastal Risk Management Strategies 11
2.2 Shoreline Armoring 11
2.2.1 Seawalls and Bulkheads 12
2.2.2 Revetments 16
2.2.3 Sills 17
2.2.4 Offshore Breakwaters 18
2.2.5 Groins 19
2.3 Living Shorelines 20
2.4 Living Shoreline Design Options 22
2.4.1 Marsh Enhancement 23
2.4.2 Beach Enhancement 24
2.4.3 Marsh with Structures 26
2.4.4 Offshore Breakwaters 27
2.5 Design Considerations for Living Shorelines 29
2.5.1 Erosion Rates 31
2.5.2 Fetch 31
2.5.3 Bathymetry 32
2.6 Site Suitability Models 33
2.6.1 Purpose 33
2.6.2 Limitations 33
2.6.3 Approach 34
2.7 Overlay Analysis 36
2.8 Role of This Study 37
iv
Chapter 3: Data and Methodologies 39
3.1 General Methodology 39
3.2 Study Area 40
3.3 Fetch 43
3.3.1 Data 45
3.3.2 Methods 46
3.4 Erosion History 48
3.4.1 Data and Methods 49
3.5 Bathymetry 51
3.6 Marsh 55
3.7 Beach 56
3.8 Reclassification 58
3.9 Site Suitability Analysis 59
3.10 Transect Intersect Method 61
3.10.1 Methods 62
3.11 Clip Method 66
Chapter 4: Results 69
4.1 Comparing Shoreline Length Calculation Methods 69
4.2 Reclassified Input Layer Results 70
4.2.1 Beach Results 71
4.2.2 Marsh Results 73
4.2.3 Bathymetry Results 75
4.2.4 Erosion Results 77
4.2.5 Fetch Results 79
4.3 Living Shoreline Results 81
4.3.1 Beach Enhancement Results 81
4.3.2 Marsh Enhancement Results 84
4.3.3 Marsh with Structures Results 86
4.3.4 Offshore Breakwaters Results 88
4.3.5 Overall Results 90
Chapter 5: Discussion 92
5.1 Living Shoreline Site Suitability Analysis 92
5.2 Caveats 94
5.3 Future Considerations 94
5.4 Challenges of Living Shoreline Implementation 96
5.4.1 Education and Outreach 96
v
5.4.2 Cost 97
5.4.3 Permitting 98
5.5 Solutions to Living Shoreline Implementation 99
Chapter 6: Conclusion 101
Literature Cited 103
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Erosion Control Structure Gradient 3
Figure 2-1. Connecticut Shoreline Change Analysis Time-Series at Fenwick Point, Old
Saybrook, CT 10
Figure 2-2. Seawall at Fenwick Point, Old Saybrook, CT 13
Figure 2-3. Wooden Bulkhead at Fenwick Point, Old Saybrook, CT 14
Figure 2-4. Scouring Action Seaward of Bulkhead 16
Figure 2-5. Cross-Section of Riprap Revetment 17
Figure 2-6. Stone Sill 18
Figure 2-7. Headlands Breakwater at Ocean Beach, New London, CT 19
Figure 2-8. Diagram of Sediment Transport Along Groin Field 20
Figure 2-9. The “Ideal” Living Shoreline 22
Figure 2-10. Planted Marsh at VIMS 24
Figure 2-11. Beach Nourishment and Dune Planting at Yorktown, VA 25
Figure 2-12. Cross-Section of Marsh Sill 27
Figure 2-13. Typical Cross Section of Living Breakwater System 28
Figure 2-14. Reef Balls at Stratford Point, CT 29
Figure 2-15. Carey’s (2013) Living Shoreline Site Suitability Methodology 35
Figure 2-16. Standardizing Each Criterion 37
Figure 2-17. Index Value Equation 37
Figure 3-1. Living Shoreline General Methodology 40
Figure 3-2. Coastal Towns Included in Living Shoreline Site Suitability Analysis 41
vii
Figure 3-3. Study Area, in Teal, along Fenwick Point, Old Saybrook, CT 43
Figure 3-4. Wind Fetch Model Shore Protection Manual (1984) Method 44
Figure 3-5. 10-Year Climatology for Central Long Island Sound Station 44039 46
Figure 3-6. Long Island Sound Fetch 47
Figure 3-7. Fetch Interpolation along Study Area 48
Figure 3-8. Short-Term (1983-2006) Shoreline Change Point Shapefile at Old Saybrook,
CT 50
Figure 3-9 Erosion Interpolation along Study Area 51
Figure 3-10. Long Island Sound Bathymetry Contours 52
Figure 3-11. Old Saybrook Nearshore Bathymetry Interpolated 53
Figure 3-12. Bathymetry Interpolated to 1 on 30 Gradient 54
Figure 3-13. Coastal Marsh Data at Old Saybrook, CT 55
Figure 3-14. Old Saybrook Wetlands within 25 ft of MHW Shore 56
Figure 3-15. Old Saybrook Beaches Digitized 57
Figure 3-16. Marsh Enhancement Raster Procedure 61
Figure 3-17. Extract by Mask Shoreline Length Complication 62
Figure 3-18. Perpendicular Transect Tool 63
Figure 3-19. Representing Shoreline Length via Transect Intersect Method 64
Figure 3-20. Overlapping Transects 65
Figure 3-21. Representing Shoreline Length via Clip Method 67
Figure 3-22. Overlap between Clipped Shoreline Lengths 68
Figure 4-1. Comparing Two Methods to Calculate Shoreline Distance 70
viii
Figure 4-2. Presence of Beach within Connecticut 71
Figure 4-3. Presence of Marsh within Connecticut 73
Figure 4-4. Nearshore Depth Suitable for Living Shorelines within Connecticut 75
Figure 4-5. Living Shoreline Erosion Classifications for Connecticut 77
Figure 4-6. Living Shoreline Fetch Classifications for Connecticut 79
Figure 4-7. Suitable Sites for Beach Enhancement Living Shoreline Techniques within
Connecticut 82
Figure 4-8. Suitable Sites for Marsh Enhancement Living Shoreline Techniques within
Connecticut 84
Figure 4-9. Suitable Sites for Marsh with Structures Living Shoreline Techniques within
Connecticut 86
Figure 4-10. Suitable Sites for Offshore Breakwaters Living Shoreline Techniques within
Connecticut 88
ix
