DOCSLIB.ORG

Land and the Chesapeake Bay Land and the Chesapeake Bay

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Land and the Chesapeake Bay Land and the Chesapeake Bay Land and the Chesapeake Bay Land and the Chesapeake Bay The Chesapeake Bay by the Numbers The watershed includes parts of six states and the District of Columbia, with headwaters in Cooperstown, New York. The Susquehanna River is the source of 45 percent of the Bay’s fresh water. The Chesapeake Bay estuary is 195 miles long and from four to thirty miles wide, with a shallow average depth of only 22 feet. The Bay is home to more than 2,700 plant and animal species. Unless we change the way we use land, sprawling development patterns will overwhelm progress to improve the health of the Chesapeake and the quality of life throughout the watershed. An environmentally sound future for Chesapeake country is far from certain. 1 There is a profound relation - has marked and made the Bay • State and local economies and quality of life throughout ship between the water of the what it is today. The Bay’s are strengthened by new the watershed. We face diffi - Chesapeake Bay and the future, however, will be deter - development; cult but clear choices, and 64,000 square miles of land mined by how we respond to nothing less than the that comprise the Bay’s water - the changes now occurring • “Smart growth” centers Chesapeake Bay is at stake. shed. With only 4,000 square throughout the watershed. In are networked by miles of water in the tidal Bay, 25 years, assuming growth and telecommunications and land surface exceeds water 16 forest conversion in the water - efficient transit systems; times over. Some 50 rivers and shed continues at the same and thousands of streams reach up rate experienced from 1997- into the watershed from the 2006 (roughly 100 acres a • Natural lands are pre- Bay like the roots of a great day 1), the watershed will have served for the continued tree. These tributaries, each lost approximately one million productivity and livabili with their own watershed, acres of forests. Is this the ty of the Chesapeake Bay directly connect farms, forests, future we want for the watershed. and communities with the Bay. Chesapeake Bay? Unless we improve the way we From the quiet, constant shift - Fortunately, we have the use our land, sprawling devel - ing of the tides to the increas - capacity to create a different opment will overwhelm the ing roar of highways, change future, one in which: progress we make to improve the health of the Chesapeake The destruction of the Bay’s natural filters Approximately 400 years ago, million acres, and underwater These natural—but dwin - when Europeans first began to Bay grasses, damaged by nutri - dling—resources regulate the arrive, lands across the ent and sediment pollution, flow of runoff and filter con - Chesapeake region were largely cover only 13 percent of their taminants as water moves in a natural state. Forests cov - historical acreage. 6 across the land and through ered 95 percent of the land, 2 streams and rivers to the wetlands covered over 3.5 Chesapeake Bay. In fact, million acres, 3 and underwater streamside forests and wet - grasses are estimated to have lands can reduce the nutrient covered 400,000 acres. 4 Today, and sediment contamination wetlands cover only four per - in runoff by as much as 90 2 cent of the 64,000 square mile percent. 7 The maintenance of watershed: More than two mil - these filters—particularly those lion acres have been degraded adjacent to waterways—is crit - or destroyed. 5 Forest cover has ical to the Bay’s ability to sup - shrunk to approximately 23 port life, including commer - cially important species like crabs, oysters, and shad. The Bay’s great green filter becomes a dirty gray funnel. The maintenance of forest and wetland filters—particularly those adjacent to waterways—is critical to the Bay’s health. Streamside forest and wetlands can reduce the nutrient and sediment contamination in runoff by as much as 90 percent. As the watershed’s population The destruction of some of the has gradually increased since Bay’s most vital filters con - the early 1600s, forests and tributes significantly to daily grasslands were converted to pollution loads that reach the farm, town, or city use. 8 For Bay. Water quality is degraded 3 the better part of the past four and essential habitats for fish - centuries, the majority of this eries are reduced. In fact, development was concentrated many of the goals that conser - Conversion of natural lands increases the rate and vol - ume of runoff, which washes more sediment and pollu - around central urban areas. vationists consider essential to tion directly into the Bay. A pattern of low-density land assuring the Bay’s future— use for the past 30 to 40 years, such as 225,000 acres of however, has increased the underwater grass coverage or rate of conversion of natural the restoration of 125,000 lands. In late 2002, riparian acres of wetlands and thou - forests buffered only 59 per - sands of miles of forested cent of the watershed’s stream buffers—may not be streams and shorelines. 9 achieved unless we can staunch the loss of open land. Natural resource lands provide buffers that filter rainwa - ter before it runs into the Bay. Population trends and settlemen t patterns Uncontrolled In contrast to historic patterns, density development trend recent growth in the Bay region known as sprawl. sprawl has has moved away from the devastating towns and cities that have been This cultural shift away from the region’s social, cultural, and existing towns and cities and social, economic, economic centers for centuries. into previously rural areas The affluence of the last half- accelerates the negative impact and environmental century, and particularly the of population growth on the impacts on the last 30 to 40 years, along with Bay. The most dramatic shift ill-conceived zoning plans and has occurred close to the Bay Chesapeake Bay. other short-term, false-bottom- itself. 4 line policies, has spurred a spread-out, disconnected, low- Settlement Trends 1930-2020 1930s 1990s Vibrant central cities, growing steadily from the mid-1800s, Cities are eclipsed by surrounding counties as growth in the lat - meet residential and business needs throughout the region. ter is fed by abandonment of the former. 1950s 2020s Move to the suburbs is Continuation of current patterns will lead to degradation of underway as most cities previously rural areas and underutilization of central cities. begin to lose population and counties begin rapid growth. An Aging Community: Changing Household Needs in Maryland Significant demographic shifts will influence future 1,800,000 development patterns. First, the region’s population is 1,600,000 d aging; the past fifteen years showed a 20 percent n a l 14 y 1,400,000 increase in population aged 60 years and older. r a Secondly, household size is declining steadily. Taken M n 1,200,000 i d together, these trends translate to vastly different l o . 1,000,000 s housing needs in the future than in the past. Seniors r y 0 800,000 do not need (and many will not want) large homes on 6 r e large lots far removed from services and activities. In v o 600,000 n o 2030, households that average 2.5 persons will need i t a 400,000 l substantially less space than will households which u p o until recently averaged 3.5 persons. The seeds for P 200,000 more efficient, smarter growth are being sown right now. 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year U.S. Census and Transit Advisory Panel, 1999 For example, between 1990 Fortunately, the loss of popula - and 2005, the population of tion and jobs in cities is slow - Household Size Trends in Maryland Loudoun and Stafford Counties ing. In the first half of the new 4.0 in Virginia increased over 200 decade, Washington and Baltimore Region 3.8 percent and 96 percent, Baltimore lost an average of Southern Maryland Region 3.6 Upper Eastern Shore Region d l 10 o Lower Eastern Shore Region respectively. In the same peri - 4,000 and 2,500 residents per h 3.4 e s Western Maryland Region u od, however, the population of year, respectively. This is a o 3.2 Washington Suburban Region h r e Washington, D.C., and significant decrease from aver - p 3.0 e l p 2.8 o Richmond, Virginia, declined age losses of 10,000 residents e p 2.6 11 e by 15 and 11 percent. This each through the 1980s and g a r e 2.4 12 v urban/suburban growth imbal - 1990s. And in the case of the A 2.2 ance is also evident in metropolitan Washington area, 2.0 5 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 employment statistics. While the already dense inner sub - 2025 Maryland Department of Planning, 1999 Year Washington, D.C., saw a urbs will add the largest modest 0.19 percent employ - amount of new jobs (629,000) ment increase from 2000 –005, by 2030. 13 Population Growth in Virginia Counties, 1790 –2010 Maryland and Virginia suburbs each experienced 10 percent Nevertheless, the overall shift increases in numbers of jobs. of growth away from cities has Baltimore lost jobs at a rate of serious implications for their 10 percent from 2000 –2005, economic strength and capacity while its suburbs gained jobs at to support existing infrastruc - a rate of 13 percent. People are ture, such as public schools, overtaking the Bay’s remaining public safety, and transporta - natural lands. tion facilities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Upper Cenozoic Deposits of the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware
    Upper Ceoozoic Deposits GEOLOGICAL SXJEVilY FRQfEBSIONAL lAPEE Upper Cenozoic Deposits of the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware By JAMES P. OWENS and CHARLES S. DENNY SURFACE AND SHALLOW SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC STUDIES IN THE EMERGED COASTAL PLAIN OF THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1067-A Upper Tertiary deltaic and shallow-water marine deposits form the backbone of the peninsula. The oldest marine deposits of Pleistocene age reach a maximum altitude of 15 meters (50 feet) and have been dated radiometrically at about 100,000 years UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1979 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY H. William Menard, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Owens, James Patrick, 1924- Upper Cenozoic deposits of the central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware. (Surface and shallow subsurface geologic studies in the emerged coastal plain of the Middle Atlantic States) (Geological Survey professional paper ; 1067-A) Bibliography: p. Includes index. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.16:1067-A 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Cenozoic. 2. Geology Delmarva Peninsula. I. Denny, Charles Storrow, 1911- joint author. II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series: United States. Geological Survey. Professional paper ; 1067-A. QE690.093 551.7'8 77-608325 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 024-001-03191-4 CONTENTS Abstract._____________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • 2012-AG-Environmental-Audit.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE: YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AND DEEP CREEK LAKE .................. 4 I. Background .......................................................................................................... 4 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ........................................................... 9 III. The Youghiogheny River/Deep Creek Lake Audit, May 16, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned............................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL BAYS ............................................................................. 15 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 15 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ............................................. 17 III. The Coastal Bays Audit, July 12, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned .. 20 CHAPTER THREE: WYE RIVER ................................................................................. 24 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 24 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ......................................................... 26 III. The Wye River Audit, October 10, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned 27 CHAPTER FOUR: POTOMAC RIVER NORTH BRANCH AND SAVAGE RIVER 31 I. Background .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Management in Chesapeake Bay C
    Shoreline Management In Chesapeake Bay C. S. Hardaway, Jr. and R. J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary 1 Cover Photo: Drummond Field, Installed 1985, James River, James City County, Virginia. This publication is available for $10.00 from: Sea Grant Communications Virginia Institute of Marine Science P. O. Box 1346 Gloucester Point, VA 23062 Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 356 Virginia Sea Grant Publication VSG-99-11 October 1999 Funding and support for this report were provided by... Virginia Institute of Marine Science Virginia Sea Grant College Program Sea Grant Contract # NA56RG0141 Virginia Coastal Resource Management Program NA470Z0287 WILLIAM& MARY Shoreline Management In Chesapeake Bay By C. Scott Hardaway, Jr. and Robert J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1999 4 Table of Contents Preface......................................................................................7 Shoreline Evolution ................................................................8 Shoreline Processes ..............................................................16 Wave Climate .......................................................................16 Shoreline Erosion .................................................................20 Reach Assessment ................................................................23 Shoreline Management Strategies ......................................24 Bulkheads and Seawalls
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Chase, Maryland January 4, 1987
    PB88-916301 NATIONAL TRANSPORT SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594 RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT REAR-END COLLISION OF AMTRAK PASSENGER TRAIN 94, THE COLONIAL AND CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION FREIGHT TRAIN ENS-121, ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CHASE, MARYLAND JANUARY 4, 1987 NTSB/RAR-88/01 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. NTSB/RAR-88/01 . PB88-916301 Title and Subtitle Railroad Accident Report^ 5-Report Date Rear-end Collision of'*Amtrak Passenger Train 949 the January 25, 1988 Colonial and Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight -Performing Organization Train ENS-121, on the Northeast Corridor, Code Chase, Maryland, January 4, 1987 -Performing Organization 7. "Author(s) ~~ Report No. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.Work Unit No. National Transportation Safety Board Bureau of Accident Investigation .Contract or Grant No. Washington, D.C. 20594 k3-Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Iroad Accident Report lanuary 4, 1987 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20594 1*+.Sponsoring Agency Code 15-Supplementary Notes 16 Abstract About 1:16 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 4, 1987, northbound Conrail train ENS -121 departed Bay View yard at Baltimore, Mary1 and, on track 1. The train consisted of three diesel-electric freight locomotive units, all under power and manned by an engineer and a brakeman. Almost simultaneously, northbound Amtrak train 94 departed Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore. Train 94 consisted of two electric locomotive units, nine coaches, and three food service cars. In addition to an engineer, conductor, and three assistant conductors, there were seven Amtrak service employees and about 660 passengers on the train.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Ocean Backyard –– Santa Cruz Sentinel Columns by Gary Griggs, Director, Institute of Marine Sciences, UC Santa Cruz
    Our Ocean Backyard –– Santa Cruz Sentinel columns by Gary Griggs, Director, Institute of Marine Sciences, UC Santa Cruz. #45 January 2, 2010 Why Monterey Submarine Canyon? Monterey Submarine Canyon forms a deep gash beneath the waters of Monterey Bay. At the risk of beating submarine canyons to death, I’m going to try to wrap up this discussion with some final thoughts on why we have one of the world’s largest submarine canyons in our backyard. Monterey Submarine Canyon has been known for over a century, and as with other offshore drainage systems, there has been considerable speculation over the years as to why we have this huge chasm cutting across the seafloor. Most submarine canyons align with river systems, but Elkhorn Slough hardly provides an adequate onshore source for such a massive feature. We do know that prior to 1910 the Salinas River discharged six miles north of its present mouth into Elkhorn Slough, closer to the head of Monterey Submarine Canyons. But even the Salinas River is not of the scale we would expect for an offshore feature as large as the Grand Canyon. Over 50 years ago, two geologists discovered the presence of a deep buried inland canyon beneath the Santa Cruz Mountains from oil company drill holes. This combined with other geological and geophysical observations strongly suggested that this canyon was eroded by an ancient river drainage system that played a critical role in the initial formation of the Monterey Submarine Canyon. This buried canyon, named Pajaro Gorge by some, was the route that the drainage from California’s vast Central Valley followed to the ocean for million of years.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Loss in the Lower Galveston Bay Watershed
    Galveston Bay Wetland Permit and Mitigation Assessment Lisa Gonzalez Dr. Erin Kinney Dr. John Jacob Marissa Llosa Transportation Stream & Wetland Mitigation Peer Exchange – June 5-6, 2018 Galveston Bay Watershed ~24,000 square miles ~Half of Texas’ population of 28M TXDOT Districts Beaumont Houston Population Growth 213 % 59 % 65 % * 119 % * 54 % 239 % 106 % 89 % % Change in Population 1990 to 2017 Data Source: U.S. Census, *Texas Demographic Center Population Projection Regional Habitat H-GAC Eco-Logical Map; Wetland Mitigation Opportunities white paper, 2014 Regional Land Cover Change; 1996-2010 • Growth in impervious (107K acres) & developed (254K acres) areas • Wetland net change -54K acres NLDC, NOAA C-CAP Coastal Bottomlands and Blue Elbow Mitigation Banks Mitigation Bank Mitigation Bank HUC8 ORMII Permits ORMII Permits Galveston Bay Mitigation Banks TCWP Ground-truth Wetland Mitigation Assessment • 17 sites: 4 permit mitigation sites not accessible, leaving 13 permits for site review (8 PRM, 5 MB). • Assessment criteria based on three-fold definition of a wetland (Tiner, 1989): – Hydrophytic vegetation (partially or completely submerged in water), – Evidence of hydrology, – Soil indicators consistent with wetland hydrology. • Conservative assessment: – Success: “reasonably wet” with recognizable wetland plants and hydric soils. – Failure: substandard compensatory mitigation site with a lack of any evidence for wetland mitigation TCWP Ground-truth Wetland Mitigation Assessment • Minimum 5% of the total mitigation site inventoried. • Plots (10 m x 10 m) representatively within the tract. • Plant species presence and percent cover assessed. • Cover of various biotic and abiotic surface materials collected in each plot. • Comprehensive list of species compiled. • Pictures of the site and the sample plot taken along with any notable site features.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Early History of the Alexandria, Virginia Sewerage System
    Report on the Early History of the Alexandria, Virginia Sewerage System Jason Tercha January 16, 2017 In 1952, the Alexandria City Council created the first sanitation authority in Virginia. Four years later, the City of Alexandria Sewer Authority opened a water-treatment facility near the mouth of Hooff’s Run. Since 1956, the water treatment facility has treated the city’s sewerage discharge, purifying the sanitary water of the city and discharging clean water back into the environment. In response to more stringent environmental standards and renewed efforts to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay, the Alexandria Sewer Authority upgraded the facility during the late 1990s and through the 2000s. Now known as Alexandria Renew Enterprises after a 2012 rebrand, the sewerage facility remains a crucial component of the city of Alexandria’s efforts to maintain the health and prosperity of its citizens and environment. This brief overview of the city of Alexandria’s twentieth and twenty-first century efforts to manage and treat its sewerage is well documented in city records, newspapers, and the annual reports of the Alexandria Sewer Authority.1 However, as much as these recent efforts to manage waste- and stormwater are known, the city’s earlier struggles to accomplish these goals have largely remained a mystery. The obscurity of Alexandria’s early sewerage control efforts might mistakenly suggest a dearth of water management efforts in the nineteenth century. As this report demonstrates, since the city’s founding Alexandrians exerted immense efforts to manage the excess stormwater and to dispose of the human and animal wastes by incorporating new technologies and practices to respond to evolving knowledge of human health and the environment of a growing regional entrepôt.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Evolution Chesapeake Bay Shoreline City of Norfolk, Virginia
    Shoreline Evolution Chesapeake Bay Shoreline City of Norfolk, Virginia Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 2005 Shoreline Evolution Chesapeake Bay Shoreline City of Norfolk, VA C. Scott Hardaway, Jr. 1 Donna A. Milligan 1 Lyle M. Varnell 2 Christine Wilcox 1 George R. Thomas 1 Travis R. Comer 1 Shoreline Studies Program 1 Department of Physical Sciences and Wetlands Program 2 Center for Coastal Resources Management Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 2005 This project was funded by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s Coastal Resources Management Program through Grant #NA17OZ2355 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies or DEQ. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the City of Norfolk within the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system...................2 Figure 2. Location of localities in the Dune Act with jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional localities noted. ...2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3. Geological map of the City of Norfolk (from Mixon et al., 1989). ...........................3 Figure 4. Index of shoreline plates.............................................................4 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................. i Figure 5. Variability of dune and beach profiles within the City of Norfolk ............................7 Figure 6. Typical profile of a Chesapeake Bay dune system. ........................................7 LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................... i Figure 7. Photo of the Norfolk shoreline showing dune site NF3.. ...................................9 Figure 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2017-2021
    Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2017-2021 April 2016 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission (the Commission) to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from four freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. Contents Letter from the Chair 4 Executive Summary 6 Overview 8 Implementing the Plan: Goals 10 Spotlight on State-of-Good-Repair Backlog 12 Implementing the Plan: Challenges 14 Implementing the Plan: Opportunities 16 Programs and Projects 18 Washington, DC to Philadelphia, PA 20 Philadelphia, PA to New Rochelle, NY 22 New Rochelle, NY to New Haven, CT 24 New Haven, CT to Boston, MA 26 Connecting Corridors 28 Project List and Other Appendices 30 Letter from the Chair The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is a vital asset for businesses, workers, residents, and visitors in the Northeast and beyond. Its eight commuter rail operators deliver hundreds of thousands of workers to some of the most productive economic centers in the country each day.
    [Show full text]
  • Garrett County
    Appendix D- Recreation Inventory County Acres Private/ quasi-public State/Federal Acres Courts Fields Trails (Miles) Campsites Basketball Basketball Baseball Multi Swimming XC Golf Public Beach Public Boat Site Recreation Resource Recreation Resource Recreation Resource Classification Ownership Comments/Amenities Indoor Outdoor Tennis Other Gymnasium Softball Soccer Purpose Pools Skiing Hiking Biking ORV Snowmobile Total Public Pvt Courses (ft.) Launch Areas Accident Community Park East 4.1 Neighborhood Park Town of Accident Ball field, walking trail, horseshoe pits 1 1 1 0.25 0.25 Accident Community Park West 12.5 Neighborhood Park Town of Accident Pavilions, volleyball Accident Elementary School 9.6 School Recreation Park Board of Education Basketball court, playground 1 1 1 1 Accident Community Pond 2.4 Community Park Town of Accident Fishing pond Aquatic Center 1.0 Marine Private Private marina 1 ASCI -Adventure Sports Center Int'l. 17.0 Special Use Area ASCI Man-made whitewater course Avilton Community Center 2.0 Special Use Area Avilton Community Assoc. Playground, basketball court, pavilion 1 Bear Creek Hatchery Fish Mgmt. Area 113.0 Natural Resource Area State of MD Fish management area Big Run State Park 300.0 State Park State of MD Camping, fishing, Savage River Reservoir access 29 1 Bill's Outdoor Center 1.0 Marine Private Lake access, shoreline Bills Marine Service, Inc. 1.0 Marine Private Marina, boat rentals 1 Bloomington Fire Co. Town Park 3.0 Community Park Bloomington Fire Co. Basketball court, walking trail, pavilion
    [Show full text]
  • Gulf of California - Sea of Cortez Modern Sailing Expeditions
    Gulf of California - Sea of Cortez Modern Sailing Expeditions November 24 to December 4, 2019 Modern Sailing School & Club Cpt Blaine McClish (415) 331 – 8250 Trip Leader THE BOAT — Coho II, 44’ Spencer 1330 Coho II is MSC’s legendary offshore racer/cruiser. She has carried hundreds of MSC students and sailors under the Golden Gate Bridge and onto the Pacific Ocean. At 44.4 feet overall length and 24,000 pounds of displacement, Coho II is built for crossing oceans with speed, seakindly motion, and good performance in both big winds and light airs. • Fast and able bluewater cruiser • Fully equipped for the offshore sailing and cruising experience TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS You are responsible for booking your own airfare. Direct flights from SFO to La Paz, and Los Cabos to SFO are available but are limited. Flights with layovers in San Diego or Los Angeles will cost less than direct flights. If you would like to use a travel agent to book your flights, we suggest Bob Entwisle at E&E Travel at (415) 819-5665. WHAT TO BRING Luggage Travel light. Your gear should fit in a medium duffel bag and small carry-on bag. Your carry-on should be less than 15 pounds. We recommend using a dry bag or backpack. Both bags should be collapsible for easy storage on the boat in small space. Do not bring bags with hard frames as they are difficult to stow. Gear We have found that people often only use about half of what they bring. A great way to bring only what you use is to lay all your items out and reduce it by 50%.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Model of Groynes on Shingle Beaches
    HR Wallingford Mathematical Model of Groynes on Shingle Beaches A H Brampton BSc PhD D G Goldberg BA Report SR 276 November 1991 Address:Hydraulics Research Ltd, wallingford,oxfordshire oxl0 gBA,United Kingdom. Telephone:0491 35381 Intemarional + 44 49135381 relex: g4gsszHRSwALG. Facstunile:049132233Intemarional + M 49132233 Registeredin EngtandNo. 1622174 This report describes an investigation carried out by HR Wallingford under contract CSA 1437, 'rMathematical- Model of Groynes on Shingle Beaches", funded by the Ministry of Agri-culture, Fisheries and Food. The departmental nominated. officer for this contract was Mr A J Allison. The company's nominated. project officer was Dr S W Huntington. This report is published on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but the opinions e>rpressed are not necessarily those of the Ministry. @ Crown Copyright 1991 Published by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Mathematical model of groSmes on shingle beaches A H Brampton BSc PhD D G Goldberg BA Report SR 276 November 1991 ABSTRACT This report describes the development of a mathematical model of a shingle beach with gro5mes. The development of the beach plan shape is calculated given infornation on its initial position and information on wave conditions just offshore. Different groyne profiles and spacings can be specified, so that alternative gro5me systems can be investigated. Ttre model includes a method for dealing with varying water levels as the result of tidal rise and fall. CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION I 2. SCOPEOF THE UODEL 3 2.t Model resolution and input conditions 3 2.2 Sediment transport mechanisms 6 2.3 Vertical distribution of sediment transport q 2.4 Wave transformation modelling L0 3.
    [Show full text]