Harper 1

The Impact of Bulkheading on Sediment Composition

Lauren Harper
Abstract
The composition of the sediments within the Barnegat Bay effects the ecosystem at large.
Sediment can directly and indirectly effect the biological diversity, productivity and ecological
functioning of [waterbodies] (Donohue and Molinos 2008). Suspended sediments reflect
sunlight, rerouting it away from the bottom of the water body. This reduces the possible number
of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), which are photosynthetic organisms; thus, without
plentiful access to light, the SAVs will die. Sediment that is smaller in grain size is more easily
suspended into the water and can thus make the water more turbid than sediment of a larger grain
size. Furthermore, shoreline armoring through the use of bulkheading could potentially change
the sediment composition, which could allow for more suspended particles leading to fewer
SAVs. This experiment produced no significant data to support the aforementioned possibility.
Introduction
Sediment composition is a dynamic variable that can be influenced by changes in beach
morphology or human implemented structures. A similar study completed in 2005 found that
Armored shorelines segments were found to have lower beach profile than unarmored shoreline
segments (Carrasquero-Verde, Abbe, and Morrison). A beach profile is the relative elevation of
a beach with regards to the waterline, it is a graph of the general slope of the beach. Therefore, a
lower beach profile means that the armored shorelines assisted in the transport of sediment away
from the bulkhead and towards the nearby beaches. Thus, the sediment composition at each of
these sights will have different values, even if only slightly. In addition, the study found that the
beach width was significantly shorter in front of bulkheads and other armored structures, and the
highest point of the beaches armored and unarmored was significantly lower in armored beaches
(Carrasquero-Verde, Abbe, and Morrison). The bulkheads prohibit landslides and erosion, which
starves the beaches of sediment, and they prohibit beaches from absorbing wave energy through
wave swash, which changes the dynamic of the water and possibly the dynamic of the sediment
beneath. Carrasquero-Verde, Abbe, and Morrisons study also delineated the typical dissipation
of wave energy through diagrams (Figure 1) wave swash erodes and replenishes in a cycle, while
incident flow hits the bulk head pushes water down then out along the bottom pushing sediment
away from the bulk head, or up and out.

Harper 2

Figure 1: A depiction of wave energy collected from Carrasquero-Verde, Abbe, and Morrisons
2005 study.
Thirty-six percent of the New Jersey shoreline is bound by bulkheading, which reduces
the number of refuge areas for juvenile fishes that a salt marsh is supposed to supply (Effects of
Artificial Shorelines 2007). Bulkheads extend out from the original shoreline, altering the flow
of water and the deposition of sediments, especially fine sand and silt (Effects of Artificial
Shorelines 2007). The study completed in 2007 found that submerged sediment collected before
a bulkhead was larger in size than that of nearby beaches and marsh areas, the water was
significantly deeper in front of bulkheads, and of the fewer species found in front of bulkheading
the individuals were larger than those of the marshes. (Effects of Artificial Shorelines).
Sediment composition is the fingerprint of the sample site that reflects the percentage of
the varying grain sizes of the sediment. The sediment composition in front of bulkheading has
previously been found as finer than that of a natural beach. The finer sediments are more easily
suspended into the water column and more difficult to settle out. Their presence in the water

Harper 3
column makes the water more turbid which allows less light to pass through the water to the
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs). The lack of sunlight to the SAVs limits their life and their
production of oxygen. SAVs provide habitat, food, and oxygen for all life within the waterbody
and are rooted in the sediments. In conclusion, the null hypothesis is that the sediment
composition before a bulkhead is significantly different from the sediment before a beach or
marsh.
Methodology
Study Site: Two study sites were selected at the end of Tuscarora Avenue, Waretown New Jersey.
This area was selected for the close proximity between the bulkhead and the shoreline. The study
was conducted on September 25, 2015, the air temperature was approximately 72 degrees
Fahrenheit, and the wind speed was on average 18mph from the northeast. The weather was
moderate, it was cloudy with white stratus clouds, blue skies, and partly sunny.

Figure 2: Sample sites one and two otherwise referred to as Shoreline and Bulkhead. September
25, 2015.

Harper 4

Figure 3: Raster data of the sampling location (shoreline). The white and red area is from 0-5
meters from the waterline, the yellow and blue are is from 5-10 meters from the waterline, and
the blue and green area is from 10-15 meters from the waterline. September 25, 2015.

Harper 5
Figure 4: Raster data of the sampling location (bulkhead). The white and red area is from 0-5
meters from the waterline, the yellow and blue are is from 5-10 meters from the waterline, and
the blue and green area is from 10-15 meters from the waterline. September 25, 2015.
Procedure: All sites were sampled between 9:25 and 9:45 on September 25, 2015 by the 2015
MATES Oceanography Class Block 2. At each site (and each of the 4 distances from the shore),
three readings were taken for temperature, salinity, conductivity, pH, and turbidity. One of the
three of each of the reading was removed from the data set due to inaccuracy in the YSI meter.
Most parameters were measured using the YSI-85, but pH was taken with the Oakton pH Meter,
and turbidity was measured with the turbidimeter. Finally at each site and distance (in increments
of five) from the shoreline a sample of sediment was taken and sealed away in plastic bags.
Sediment samples were taken with the van veen grab sampler.
1. A tape measure was used to measure 5 meters into the bay from the shoreline.
2. Another student walked out into the water with a sample bottle, which was used to
measure the water quality parameters other than temperature, and reached below with the
grab sampler to retrieve a sediment sample.
3. The samples were brought to shore and properly stored or measured.
4. The water quality samples were measured on site and returned to the bay.
5. The sediment samples were collected and brought back to the school with the students for
further analysis.
6. The sediment was laid out on large trays to dry completely or nearly completely out.
7. 15 mL of sediment from each of the 8 samples (3 trials of the 8).
8. 1 mL of dispersing reagent was added on top of the 15 mL of sediment
9. 30 mL of tap water was added to the 15 mL of sediment and 1mL of dispersing reagent.
10. The samples were mixed wholly then left to sit for 45 seconds until the sand was entirely
settled out. Then a number in mL was read (out of 15) which could be used to calculate
the percent of sand within each sample.
11. Put approximately 200g of each sample into a pie tin and let sit out for 1-2 days to dry.
12. Weigh 100 grams of each of the dried samples and place them in weigh boats.
13. Take sediment sieves and record their Phi values, prepare reciprocals of sediment.

Harper 6
14. Place the 100 grams of sediment in the top of the sieve then place it on the shaker for
three minutes.
15. Separate each tray and place the sediment collected in that tray in an individual weigh
boat.
16. Weigh each sample and record.
Statistical Analysis: An ANOVA test was used to analyze all data. ANOVA stands for analysis of
variance. The type of ANOVA used in this analysis was the single-factor to determine if there
was any statistical significant difference among either the columns or rows of the following
tables of data collected.
Table 1: The weight of the sediment found out of 100g in its respective size category.
Site 1: Beach
Phi
Wentworth Near Shore

5m

10m

15m

()
-1.25
-0.5

4.397
3.972

16.657
7.881

14.937
4.6

0.594
1.213

Size Class
Granule
Very
Coarse

0.25

Sand
Coarse

13.974

7.581

12.274

3.354

0.5

Sand
Coarse

12.51

4.662

7.001

2.506

Sand
Coarse

35.848

14.614

15.907

18.215

1.25

Sand
Medium

13.453

6.254

7.952

15.707

2.5
3.75

Sand
Fine Sand
Very Fine

16.345
0.075

35.619
6.451

32.225
4.818

49.895
7.93

0
100.574

0.365
100.08

0.588
100.30

1.088
100.50

CT
Totals

Sand
Silts

Table 2: The weight of the sediment found out of 100g in its respective size category.
Site 2: Bulkhead
Near Shore

5m

10m

15m

Harper 7
Phi

Wentworth

()
-2
-1
-0.25

Class
Pebble
Granule
Very

12.437
2.283
1.663

11.222
3.056
3.905

0.43
2.195
1.876

1.289
1.235
2.39

0.75

Sand
Coarse

10.998

17.892

11.556

1.873

1.5

Sand
Medium

27.587

25.985

31.48

11.991

2.25
3.5

Sand
Fine Sand
Very Fine

27.406
15.898

20.908
11.914

29.425
19.504

11.914
58.666

2.015
100.287

1.496
96.378

3.957
100.42

9.41
99.768

Coarse

Sand
CT
Silts
Totals

3
No row was statistically different from any of the other rows, however, the columns
compared to each other were statistically different. An alpha of 0.05 or less was used to
determine significance. T-tests were also used to compare the two sites (shoreline and bulkhead)
to determine if there was any statistically significant data between the percent sand in the
sediment and the samples collected as well as sediment that was found (nearshore, 5m away,
10m, or 15m). None of the t-test values returned statistically significant data other than the 10m
from shore percent sand and 15m from shore percent sand.
Results
The shoreline samples showed a typical increase in silts the farther from the shore that
the samples were taken, while the bulkhead shows no standard trend. Figures 5 and 6 show the
gradient that a shoreline has in composition as opposed to a bulkhead (which shows much more
randomized groupings). In the nearshore graph interpretation, the bulkhead had more fine
sediments than did the shoreline. However, the opposite is true for the 5m and 10m samples. The
15m samples show that the bulkhead again had more fine sediments than did the shoreline.
Finally, the significant t-tests reveal that the shoreline samples had significantly higher % sand
values than did the bulkhead at distances of 10 and 15 meters from the shoreline.

Harper 8

Figure 5: The changing of the sediment composition relative to each of the varying distance
samples at the shoreline. September 25, 2015.

Figure 6: The changing of the sediment composition relative to each of the varying distance
samples at the bulkhead. September 25, 2015.

Harper 9

Figure 7: The percent of the sediment samples that corresponded to the phi values listed on the xaxis of the graph for the near shore samples. September 25, 2015.

Figure 8: The percent of the sediment samples that corresponded to the phi values listed on the xaxis of the graph for the 5m from shore sediment samples. September 25, 2015.

Harper 10

Figure 9: The percent of the sediment samples that corresponded to the phi values listed on the xaxis of the graph for the 10m from shore sediment samples. September 25, 2015.

Figure 10: The percent of the sediment samples that corresponded to the phi values listed on the
x-axis of the graph for 15m from the shore sediment samples. September 25, 2015.
Table 3: The t-tests used in this analysis and their corresponding p-values, a p-value of less than
0.05 is considered significant.
T-test Results
Variable
Bulkhead average percent sand vs. Shoreline

p-value
0.12551

Harper 11

near shore percent sand (compared between shoreline and

6
0.20786

bulkhead)
5m percent sand (compared between shoreline and

5
0.20645

bulkhead)
10m percent sand (compared between shoreline and

9
0.03991

bulkhead)
15m percent sand (compared between shoreline and

4
0.03530

bulkhead)
near shore sediment composition

1
0.80065

5m sediment composition

4
0.84662

10m sediment composition

3
0.80125

15m sediment composition

1
0.89347
8

Discussion
The data did not produce as many significant results as was expected, however, some of
this may be explained by the weather and human error in sampling. On the day of the sampling
the winds were at 18.9 mph from the northeast, which churned up the bay water near our sample
locations. There were thick mats of flotsam covering much of the shoreline area that had been
placed there by the strong winds and waves. Furthermore, the students walking out into the bay
before collecting their samples could have led to some error because they were stirring up some
of the sediment surrounding their sample collection area.
Figures 5 and 6 show the weights of sediment collected from each phi group as a percent
of the total which was the total of that sediment collected. Therefore, all of the values are relative
to the total amount of that phi group collected at that sample site, which means the graph does
not accurately depict the amount of sediment from each of the phi groups. So effectively figure 5
shows that there was more fine sediment collected at 15m out than at 0m out. At the bulkhead as
compared to the shoreline, there is physically more grams of fine sediment about 9 times that of
the shoreline. These graphs also show that the nearshore bulkhead sediment composition
contained less coarse sand than did the shoreline. Figure 7 depicts that there are more coarse

Harper 12
sands in the composition of the shoreline nearshore samples than the bulkhead nearshore
samples. Figures 8 and 9 show that the bulkhead has a more uniform composition and that the
shoreline samples seem to have a large amount of fine sediments at these depths. Figure 10
shows a rather uniform composition for the first time between the bulkhead and the shoreline,
but the bulkhead actually has significantly more fine sediments at this depth than the shoreline.
The fact that the sediment composition is averaging out the further from the bulkhead and
shoreline the samples are taken from, shows that the bulkhead must play some role in the reason
for the sediment disturbance. Carrasquero-Verde, Abbe, and Morrison found similar results
which concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between beach substrate
type between the unarmored and armored shorelines, but there was a slight shift from sand to
gravel/cobble in armored areas (2005). The gravel/cobble might not have been accurately
assessed in this sample due to the fact that the students removed the gravel/cobble from the
sample before drying the sample.
Finally, bulkheads either absorb the shock of waves directly or route them towards nearby
shorelines; thus increasing the intensity (through narrowing) and frequency of the waves that
attack the shoreline (Carrasquero-Verde, Abbe, and Morrison 2005). This might explain why the
shorelines in this study seemed to have more sand and coarser materials than did the bulkheaded
areas. No row was statistically different from any of the other rows in the completed t-tests,
however, the columns compared to each other were statistically different. This shows that there
was no significant difference among the distances from the shoreline/bulkhead, but there is a
statistical significance across the board of the percent presence of one sediment size as opposed
to another.
The sediment collected from the shoreline sample area was overall coarser than that
collected from the bulkhead area. This could be due to the presence of the bulk head and its
ability to absorb the wave energy and then distribute the weakened forces more generally, and
the pressure of the waves pushed towards the beaches rather than the bulkhead.
Conclusion
The sediment collected from the shoreline sample area was overall coarser than that
collected from the bulkhead area. There were significantly higher amounts of sand composition
at 10-15 meters from the shoreline than 10-15 meters from the bulkhead. The composition graphs
at 15 meters from the shoreline finally seem to average out between the two sample sites. This

Harper 13
indicates that the change in sediment composition near the shore is due to something else near
the shore, perhaps the bulkhead, but further research should be conducted to suggest this idea
further.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the MATES Oceanography class Block 2 for collecting this data, the OCVTS
bus for transporting the students to the study sites, and Dr. Wnek for assisting the students in all
completed methods.

References
Analysis of the relationship between sediment composition and benthic community structure in
coastal deposits: Implications for marine aggregate dredging. (1999, May 12). Retrieved
October 27, 2015.
Carrasquero-Verde, J., Abbe, T., & Morrison, S. (2005). Bulkheading in Thurston County:

Harper 14
Impacts of Forage Fish Spawning Habitat. Retrieved October 27, 2015.
Effects of Artificial Shorelines. (2007). Retrieved October 27, 2015.
Donohue, I., & Molinos, J. (2008, March 24). Impacts of increased sediment loads on the
ecology of lakes. Retrieved October 26, 2015.