DOCSLIB.ORG

Living Shorelines in the Southeast: Research and Data Gaps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Living Shorelines in the Southeast: Research and Data Gaps Living Shorelines in the Southeast: Research and Data Gaps Prepared for the Governors South Atlantic Alliance Margaret Myszewski and Merryl Alber Georgia Coastal Research Council August 2016 Suggested Citation: Myszewski, Margaret A. and Merryl Alber, 2016. Living Shorelines in the Southeast: Research and data gaps. Report prepared for the Governor's South Atlantic Alliance by the Georgia Coastal Research Council, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 35 pp. Photos clockwise from left: Carteret Community College, N.C.; http://www.coastalreview.org/2015/07/report-cites-benefits-of-living- shorelines Oak Point, Wadmalaw Island, S.C; The Nature Conservancy; http://projects.tnc.org/coastal/ Canaveral National Seashore, FL; http://patimes.org/sustainable-coastal-restoration-stabilization-living-shoreline- project-floridas-east-coast/ The Little St. Simons Island, GA; http://marex.uga.edu/living-shorelines/?hc_location=ufi About the Georgia Coastal Research Council: The Georgia Coastal Research Council (GCRC) was established to provide mechanisms for improved scientific exchange between coastal scientists and decision makers, and to promote the incorporation of best-available scientific information into State and local resource management. The Council is not a policy organization, but rather seeks to provide unbiased, objective information about scientific issues. Baseline support for the program is shared by the Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (through the Coastal Management Program) and Georgia Sea Grant, with project-specific support from the National Science Foundation and other agencies. For more information, please contact us at [email protected] or see our website at: http://www.gcrc.uga.edu. This publication was supported in part by an Institutional Grant (NA14OAR4170084) to the Georgia Sea Grant College Program from the National Sea Grant Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce as well as a grant award (#NA13NO54190114) to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. All views, opinions, statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of DNR, OCRM, the Georgia Sea Grant College Program, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. i Table of Contents Introduction . 1 Part One: Living Shoreline Approaches in the Southeast . 4 Vegetation Only . 4 Edging . 6 Sills and Breakwaters . 7 Marsh Bulkheads . 8 Part Two: Physical Effects of Living Shorelines in Salt Marshes . 8 Habitat Distribution . 8 Erosion Control . 9 Part Three: Biological Effects of Living Shorelines in Salt Marshes . 12 Vegetation . 12 Organisms . 13 Part Four: Chemical Effects of Living Shorelines in Salt Marshes . 14 Particle Removal . 15 Nitrogen Removal . 15 Part Five: Living Shorelines in Mangroves . 16 Physical Effects . 17 Biological Effects . 19 Chemical Effects . 20 Part Six: Conclusions and Data Gaps . 21 References Cited. 24 Appendix A: Compendium of Living Shoreline Projects in the Southeast . 34 Appendix B: Annotated Bibliography . 67 ii Introduction The edge of the shore is a dynamic area that is constantly gaining and losing land due to the forces of waves, wind, and tides. Natural events (e.g., storms and longshore transport) and human activities (e.g., the presence of coastal structures and boat traffic) influence the rate of coastal erosion, as do Living Shorelines the effects of rising sea level. Sea level rise changes the location of the shoreline, moving it landward and exposing “Living shoreline” is a broad term that new areas to erosion. The coast is also experiencing encompasses a range of shoreline development pressure from the increasing number of people stabilization techniques along estuarine coasts, bays, sheltered living on and moving to coastal areas. From 2000 to 2010, coastlines, and tributaries. A living most of the coastal counties in the Southeast experienced shoreline has a footprint that is made growth at or above 10 percent, and this is expected to up mostly of native material. It continue (Mackun and Wilson 2011). As populations increase, incorporates vegetation or other demands for housing, commercial development, and living, natural ‘soft’ elements alone or associated infrastructure also increase. in combination with some type of harder shoreline structure (e.g., The traditional approach to protecting coastal infrastructure oyster reefs or rock sills) for added and shorelines from erosion has been the installation of stability. Living shorelines maintain engineered barrier structures such as bulkheads, seawalls, continuity of the natural land-water revetments, groins, and breakwaters, referred to collectively interface and reduce erosion while as hard armoring. These hard barriers between the land and providing habitat value and water are designed to protect the coastline and associated enhancing coastal resilience” (NOAA structures from wave energy. However, hard armoring can 2015). have environmental drawbacks such as reducing sediment sources along the shore, starving nearshore beaches, and preventing the landward progression of fringing beaches, marshes, and mudflats. On an eroding shoreline, hard structures tend to increase wave reflection and cause scouring at the edges of the structure creating further erosion, narrowing the width of the nearshore environment, and increasing the water depth. They can also negatively Living Shoreline at the NOAA Lab, affect water quality in the adjacent subaqueous land, Beaufort, NC eliminate the connections between upland, intertidal, and subtidal areas, and result in losses of ecosystem productivity (Credit Carolyn Currin) (NRC 2007). Source: NOAA 2015 1 Table 1: Common Construction Materials for Living Shorelines Material type Description Function Native grasses planted within the intertidal or mid-intertidal area or at the mean Dissipate wave energy high tide mark. Plantings may be more successful when performed in Spring in Filter upland runoff Marsh grasses areas of existing marsh where there is < 3 miles of open water, and where the Improve habitat for fish prevailing winds will not destroy the newly established vegetation. and wildlife Base of food web Mangroves are woody plant communities that are found in estuarine tropical and Stabilize shoreline subtropical environments including central and southern Florida, and portions of Trap sediments and south Louisiana. nutrients Mangroves Dissipate wave energy Provide habitat for fish and wildlife Vegetation colonized naturally or planted. Common riparian vegetation used at Stabilize the riparian zone specific sites differ depending on the species native to that area, but typically above high tide Tree and grass roots includes a combination of native woody trees, shrubs, and grasses. Minimize bank erosion Filter upland runoff Provide habitat SAV is vegetation rooted in the substrate of a body of water (usually no deeper Dissipate wave energy than 10 feet) that does not characteristically extend above the water surface and Stabilize sediments, Submerged aquatic usually grows in beds. Creates a natural shoreline buffer when used with other Improve water quality vegetation living shoreline components such as marsh grasses, reduces coastal erosion via Provide habitat Green Materials root growth. Base of food web Made of biodegradable coconut fiber and netting. Logs are placed at the foot of Stabilize slopes and Natural fiber logs bank slopes or in the water, molded to fit the bank line, and then anchored in minimize bank erosion (bio-logs) place. Trap and retain sediment Retain moisture A porous layer of geotextile material placed beneath rock sills and breakwaters, or Trap sediments Filter fabric under oyster bags to prevent sand movement into or through the rock, concrete structure, or oyster shell bags. Made of coir fiber, wood, straw, jute, or a combination of organic, biodegradable Prevent sediment loss Natural fiber materials. Trap sediment matting Stabilize shoreline Oyster reefs can be enhanced or created at living shoreline sites as protective Dissipate wave energy Oyster reefs structures. Oyster shell bars use natural shell material (e.g., oyster shell bags, Decrease erosion (natural) oyster encrusted mats), and appear and function similarly to a natural shoreline Provide fish habitat oyster reef when mature. Improve water quality Freestanding rock structures placed in the water parallel to shore. Sills are Dissipate wave energy Low-crested generally segmented and stand no more than 6 to 12 inches above mean high Protect eroding marshes segmented rock sills water so that boats- and wind- induced waves can pass over the sill and wildlife and shorelines has access to the water and the shoreline habitat. Structures constructed from rock, rubble, or recycled concrete that are placed Dissipate wave energy parallel to the shore in medium- to high-energy open-water environments. Can be Provide habitat Breakwaters seeded with oyster spat to create a “living” breakwater where conditions are Stabilize shorelines suitable for oyster growth. Improve water quality Sediment-filled Placed parallel to shore in high-energy environments. The tubes serve as a hard Dissipate wave energy geotextile material surface on which oysters can construct reefs. Provide habitat Gray Materials tubes Oyster Oyster castles or reef balls are
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Living Shorelines Along the Georgia Coast
    Living Shorelines along the Georgia Coast A summary report of the first Living Shoreline projects in Georgia September 2013 Living Shoreline Summary Report Georgia Department of Natural Resources One Conservation Way Brunswick, GA 31520 Project Manager: Jan Mackinnon Biologist GA-DNR Coastal Resources Division Prepared By: Greenworks Enterprises, LLC 7617 Laroche Ave Savannah GA 31406 September 2013 This report should be cited as: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Living Shorelines along the Georgia Coast: A Summary Report of the First Living Shoreline projects in Georgia. Coastal Resources Division, Brunswick, GA. 43 pp. plus appendix. -2- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by Greenworks Enterprises under Cooperative Agreement # CD-96456206-0 to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Project Team responsible for the guidance, direction, and implementation of the living shorelines projects described in this document consisted of: Jan Mackinnon, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, Biologist; Christi Lambert, The Nature Conservancy, Georgia Marine and Freshwater Conservation Director; Dorset Hurley, Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve. Research Coordinator, Senior Marine Biologist; Fred Hay, GADNR: Wildlife Resources Division, Sapelo Island Manager; Sco Coleman, Ecological Manager, Lile St. Simons Island; Tom Bliss, University of Georgia Marine Extension Service;Conservancy; Alan Power, PhD, University of Georgia; These projects and this report have been made possible by their significant contributions and energies. The Project Team would like to thank all volunteers that made these Living Shoreline projects possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Desk Concierge Book Table of Contents
    FRONT DESK CONCIERGE BOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I II III HISTORY MUSEUMS DESTINATION 1.1 Miami Beach 2.1 Bass Museum of Art ENTERTAINMENT 1.2 Founding Fathers 2.2 The Wolfsonian 3.1 Miami Metro Zoo 1.3 The Leslie Hotels 2.3 World Erotic Art Museum (WEAM) 3.2 Miami Children’s Museum 1.4 The Nassau Suite Hotel 2.4 Pérez Art Museum Miami (PAMM) 3.3 Jungle Island 1.5 The Shepley Hotel 2.5 Miami Science Museum 3.4 Rapids Water Park 2.6 Vizcaya Museum & Gardens 3.5 Miami Sea Aquarium 2.7 Frost Art Museum 3.6 Lion Country Safari 2.8 Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) 3.7 Seminole Tribe of Florida 2.9 Lowe Art Museum 3.8 Monkey Jungle 2.10 Flagler Museum 3.9 Venetian Pool 3.10 Everglades Alligator Farm TABLE OF CONTENTS IV V VI VII VIII IX SHOPPING MALLS MOVIE THEATERS PERFORMING CASINO & GAMING SPORTS ACTIVITIES SPORTING EVENTS 4.1 The Shops at Fifth & Alton 5.1 Regal South Beach VENUES 7.1 Magic City Casino 8.1 Tennis 4.2 Lincoln Road Mall 5.2 Miami Beach Cinematheque (Indep.) 7.2 Seminole Hard Rock Casino 8.2 Lap/Swimming Pool 6.1 New World Symphony 9.1 Sunlife Stadium 5.3 O Cinema Miami Beach (Indep.) 7.3 Gulfstream Park Casino 8.3 Basketball 4.3 Bal Harbour Shops 9.2 American Airlines Arena 6.2 The Fillmore Miami Beach 7.4 Hialeah Park Race Track 8.4 Golf 9.3 Marlins Park 6.3 Adrienne Arscht Center 8.5 Biking 9.4 Ice Hockey 6.4 American Airlines Arena 8.6 Rowing 9.5 Crandon Park Tennis Center 6.5 Gusman Center 8.7 Sailing 6.6 Broward Center 8.8 Kayaking 6.7 Hard Rock Live 8.9 Paddleboarding 6.8 BB&T Center 8.10 Snorkeling 8.11 Scuba Diving 8.12
    [Show full text]
  • FLORIDA STATE PARKS FEE SCHEDULE (Fees Are Per Day Unless Otherwise Noted) 1. Statewide Fees Admission Range $1.00**
    FLORIDA STATE PARKS FEE SCHEDULE (Fees are per day unless otherwise noted) 1. Statewide Fees Admission Range $1.00** - $10.00** (Does not include buses or admission to Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park or Weeki Wachee Springs State Park) Single-Occupant Vehicle or Motorcycle Admission $4.00 - $6.00** (Includes motorcycles with one or more riders and vehicles with one occupant) Per Vehicle Admission $5.00 - $10.00** (Allows admission for 2 to 8 people per vehicle; over 8 people requires additional per person fees) Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Per Passenger Exceeding 8 Per Vehicle; Per $2.00 - $5.00** Passenger In Vehicles With Holder of Annual Individual Entrance Pass Admission Economically Disadvantaged Admission One-half of base (Must be Florida resident admission fee** and currently participating in Food Stamp Program) Bus Tour Admission $2.00** per person (Does not include Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park, or $60.00 Skyway Fishing Pier State Park, or Weeki Wachee Springs State Park) whichever is less Honor Park Admission Per Vehicle $2.00 - $10.00** Pedestrians and Bicyclists $2.00 - $5.00** Sunset Admission $4.00 - $10.00** (Per vehicle, one hour before closing) Florida National Guard Admission One-half of base (Active members, spouses, and minor children; validation required) admission fee** Children, under 6 years of age Free (All parks) Annual Entrance Pass Fee Range $20.00 - $500.00 Individual Annual Entrance Pass $60.00 (Retired U. S. military, honorably discharged veterans, active-duty $45.00 U. S. military and reservists; validation required) Family Annual Entrance Pass $120.00 (maximum of 8 people in a group; only allows up to 2 people at Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park and Weeki Wachee Springs State Park) (Retired U.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida State Parks Data by 2021 House District
    30, Florida State Parks FY 2019-20 Data by 2021 House Districts This compilation was produced by the Florida State Parks Foundation . FloridaStateParksFoundation.org Statewide Totals • 175 Florida State Parks and Trails (164 Parks / 11 Trails) comprising nearly 800,000 Acres • $2.2 billion direct impact to Florida’s economy • $150 million in sales tax revenue • 31,810 jobs supported • 25 million visitors served # of Economic Jobs Park House Districts Parks Impact Supported Visitors 1 Salzman, Michelle 0 2 Andrade, Robert Alexander “Alex” 3 31,073,188 436 349,462 Big Lagoon State Park 10,336,536 145 110,254 Perdido Key State Park 17,191,206 241 198,276 Tarklin Bayou Preserve State Park 3,545,446 50 40,932 3 Williamson, Jayer 3 26,651,285 416 362,492 Blackwater Heritage State Trail 18,971,114 266 218,287 Blackwater River State Park 7,101,563 99 78,680 Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park 578,608 51 65,525 4 Maney, Thomas Patterson “Patt” 2 41,626,278 583 469,477 Fred Gannon Rocky Bayou State Park 7,558,966 106 83,636 Henderson Beach State Park 34,067,312 477 385,841 5 Drake, Brad 9 64,140,859 897 696,022 Camp Helen State Park 3,133,710 44 32,773 Deer Lake State Park 1,738,073 24 19,557 Eden Gardens State Park 3,235,182 45 36,128 Falling Waters State Park 5,510,029 77 58,866 Florida Caverns State Park 4,090,576 57 39,405 Grayton Beach State Park 17,072,108 239 186,686 Ponce de Leon Springs State Park 6,911,495 97 78,277 Three Rivers State Park 2,916,005 41 30,637 Topsail Hill Preserve State Park 19,533,681 273 213,693 6 Trumbull, Jay 2 45,103,015 632 504,860 Camp Helen State Park 3,133,710 44 32,773 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecologically Engineering Living Shorelines for High Energy Coastlines
    Ecologically engineering living shorelines for high energy coastlines Christine Angelini1, Ada Bersoza Hernandez1, Deidre Herbert1, Emily Astrom1, Patrick Norby1, Greg Kusel1, Scott Wasman1, Raymond Grizzle2, Nikki Dix Pangle3, Alex Sheremet1 1Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure & Environment, University of Florida; 2Jackson Lab, University of New Hampshire, 3Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve [email protected] Ocean ship traffic up 300% worldwide since 1990 Tournadre 2014, Geophysical Research Letters Large container ships & fishing vessels Boats Boats Boats Boats Boats Small boat traffic rarely monitored, but on the rise Ecological effects unknown Studies examining the effects of wakes on turbidity & wetland erosion Sorenson 1973; Zabawa & Ostrom 1980; Nanson et al. 1994; Osborne & Boak 1999;Castillo et al. 2000; Parnell & Kofoed- Hanson 2001; Bauer et al. 2002; Grizzle et al. 2002; McConchie & Toleman 2003; Glamore 2008; Houser 2010; Tonelli et al. 2010; Bilkovic et al. 2017 *Black text= primary literature/ Grey text = grey literature* Number of responses Experts in SE US indicate boat traffic in estuaries is high is estuaries in traffic boat US indicate in SE Experts Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) 3,000 miles of natural waterways & dredged channels Ponte Artery for commerce & recreation Vedra, FL Boat highway through low-energy coastal wetlands Mulberry Island, LA Little River, SC ICW ICW Palm Valley, Florida Wilmington, NC ICW ICW Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
    [Show full text]
  • Castillo De San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument Climate Action Plan
    National Park Be m ce U.S. Department of the Interior Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument Climate Action Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS The Challenge Of Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 1 Context for Action ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Castillo De San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument Become Climate Friendly Parks ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Castillo De San Marcos NM and Fort Matanzas NM Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory..................... 7 STRATEGY 1: Identify and implement mitigation actions that the park can take to reduce GHG emissions resulting from park activities ..................................................................................................... 9 Energy Use Management ........................................................................................................................ 9 Transportation Management ................................................................................................................... 9 Waste Management ............................................................................................................................... 10 STRATEGY 2: Increase Climate Change Education And Outreach.......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Coastal Resilience 2019 Grant Slate - Updated October 2020
    National Coastal Resilience 2019 Grant Slate - updated October 2020 NFWF CONTACTS Erika Feller Director, Marine and Coastal Conservation [email protected] 202-595-3911 Kaity Goldsmith Manager, Marine Conservation National Coastal Resilience Fund [email protected] 202-595-2494 PARTNERS Brown pelican ABOUT NFWF The National Fish and Wildlife OVERVIEW Foundation (NFWF) protects and On Nov. 18, 2019, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), NOAA, Shell and restores our nation’s fish and wild- TransRe announced the 2019 grants from the National Coastal Resilience Fund. life and their habitats. Created by Forty-four new grants totaling $29,806,904 were awarded. The 44 awards announced Congress in 1984, NFWF directs generated $59,668,874 in match from the grantees, providing a total conservation impact public conservation dollars to of $89,475,778. the most pressing environmental needs and matches those invest- The National Coastal Resilience Fund restores, increases and strengthens natural ments with private funds. Learn more at www.nfwf.org wildlife. Established in 2018, the National Coastal Resilience Fund invests in conservation projectsinfrastructure that restore to protect or expand coastal natural communities features while such also as coastal enhancing marshes habitats and forwetlands, fish and NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1133 15th Street NW and barrier islands that minimize the impacts of storms and other naturally occurring Suite 1000 eventsdune and on beachnearby systems, communities. oyster and coral reefs, forests, coastal rivers and floodplains, Washington, DC 20005 202-857-0166 (continued) National Coastal Resilience 2019 Grant Slate Identifying Priority Restoration Sites for Resilience in Point Hope, Alaska Grantee: City of Point Hope Grant Amount: ...................................$215,137 Matching Funds: .................................$216,076 Total Amount .
    [Show full text]
  • Living Shorelines: a Review of Literature Relevant to New England Coasts Jennifer E.D
    Journal of Coastal Research 00 0 000–000 Coconut Creek, Florida Month 0000 REVIEW ARTICLES www:cerf-jcr:org Living Shorelines: A Review of Literature Relevant to New England Coasts Jennifer E.D. O’Donnell Department of Marine Sciences University of Connecticut Groton, CT 06340, U.S.A. jennifer.o’[email protected] ABSTRACT O’Donnell, J.E.D., 0000. Living shorelines: A review of literature relevant to New England coasts. Journal of Coastal Research, 00(0), 000–000. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Over the last few decades, increasing awareness of the potential adverse impacts of traditional hardened coastal protection structures on coastal processes and nearshore habitats has prompted interest in the development of shoreline stabilization approaches that preserve intertidal habitats or at least minimize the destructive effects of traditional shoreline protection approaches. Although many terms are used to describe shoreline stabilization approaches that protect or enhance the natural shoreline habitat, these approaches are frequently referred to as living shorelines. A review of the literature on living shorelines is provided to determine which insights from locations where living shorelines have proved successful are applicable to the New England shorelines for mitigating shoreline erosion while maintaining coastal ecosystem services. The benefits of living shorelines in comparison with traditional hardened shoreline protection structures are discussed. Nonstructural and hybrid approaches (that is, approaches that include natural or manmade hard structures) to coastal protection are described, and the effectiveness of these approaches in response to waves, storms, and sea-level rise is evaluated. ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Coastal protection, soft stabilization, natural and nature-based features.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Preservation Element Data & Analysis
    Historic Preservation Element Data & Analysis Prepared by: Planning and Building Department City of St. Augustine 75 King Street St. Augustine, Fl 32084 March, 2019 With reference to: City of St. Augustine Historic Preservation Master Plan Preservation Design Partnership, LLC (PDP) 10 Shurs Lane, Suite 104 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19127 October, 2018 The Comprehensive Plan – Update Historic Preservation Element Historic Property Associates, Inc. and the Planning and Building Department City of St. Augustine September, 1986 1 Historic Preservation Element Draft March 14, 2019 Historic Preservation Element Introduction The Historic Preservation Element is an optional comprehensive plan element under Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Chapter 163, Florida Statutes). The City is recognized as the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the United States. Its colonial roots to Spain, and England are unique. The desire to protect, preserve, understand, and promote the unique cultural crossroads that St. Augustine represents prompted the City to include a Historic Preservation Element as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. To this end, the Historic Preservation Element contains a historical outline, analysis of resources both built and archaeological, and a set of Goals, Objectives and Policies to establish preservation needs. Purpose The Historic Preservation Element helps to serve as a guide for the development and use of land within the City of St. Augustine. This includes recognizing all the aspects of preservation of the city, and the very real threats to the remaining historic built environment, archaeological record, and its unique characteristics. The historic colonial Town Plan, and the surrounding historic residential neighborhoods, and commercial corridors need to be considered from a preservation perspective as time moves forward.
    [Show full text]
  • Living Shorelines Brochure
    Living Shorelines Benefit You By: Remember: • Reducing bank erosion and property loss to Living Shorelines you or your neighbor Any action on a single shoreline has the • Providing an attractive natural appearance potential to impact adjacent shorelines. An approach to shoreline • Creating recreational use areas management and erosion issues that Shoreline alterations • Improving marine habitat & spawning areas should be avoided is better for the environment and where they are not property owners • Allowing affordable construction costs really necessary. Offset (above) and straight gaps When erosion along • Improving water quality and clarity (below) maintain connections to a shoreline has the shoreline habitat and open water. potential to result in significant loss of property and upland improvement, then the consideration of shoreline erosion pro- tection activities may be appropriate. Preserving, creating or enhancing natural systems such as marshes, beaches and dunes is always the preferred approach Medium energy eroding marsh before (above) to shoreline erosion and after living shoreline treatment (below). protection. “Preserving one shoreline at a time” our coasts Photos of Hermitage Site by Walt Priest Project funded by the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program of the Department of Environmental Quality through Grant #NA07NOS4190178 Task #94.02 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration For more information: www.vims.edu/ccrm/ outreach/living_shorelines Visit our Website: Center for Coastal Resources Management vims.edu/ Virginia Institute of Marine Science Have a question about www. ccrm/outreach/ P.O. Box 1346 your living shoreline? living_shorelines Gloucester Pt., VA 23061-1346 Email: [email protected] 804-684-7380 Living Shorelines Overview Concern Services Design Site Specs Virginia has nearly 5,000 Living shorelines provide Several design options Several site characteristics miles of shoreline, marsh- valuable ecological servic- (see below) exist for living can be used to evaluate es, beaches, and tidal mud- es.
    [Show full text]
  • National Park System M Ap and G U Ide National Park
    San Juan Abbreviations for National Park System Areas Where the Parks Are Island IHS International Historic Site NL National Lakeshore N PRES National Preserve NS National Seashore NHP Alaska: 23 parks North NB National Battlefield NM National Monument NR National River NSR National Scenic River/Riverway Arctic Circle Cascades Ross Lake NRA NBP National Battlefield Park NM & PRES NRA National Recreation Area NST National Scenic Trail NP NBS National Battlefield Site National Monument and Preserve NRR National Recreational River PKWY Parkway Ebey’s Landing Olympic NP Lake Chelan NRA NMP National Military Park l NH RES NHP National Historical Park NRRA SRR Scenic and Recreational River a n N MEM National Memorial National River and Recreation Area e Contiguous US: 357 parks Wild River o NHP & PRES WR n i i t L SEATTLE National Historical Park and Preserve NP National Park N RES National Reserve WSR Wild and Scenic River a e n t NH RES National Historical Reserve NP & PRES r Puerto Rico and a Klondike Gold Rush NHP Guam: 1 park e Hawaii: 7 parks t National Park and Preserve D Virgin Islands: 6 parks NHS National Historic Site n I OLYMPIA Lake Roosevelt NRA Glacier NP Equator Lake of the Woods Mount Rainier NP American Samoa: 1 park Lewis and WASHINGTON Clark NHP 11 time zones ouri R Appalachian iss ive NST M r Fort Vancouver NHS Fort Union Trading Post NHS Voyageurs NP Whitman PORTLAND Col Nez Perce NHP Isle Royale NP umbia River Mission NHS Grand Portage NM Saint Croix Island MONTANA IHS NORTH DAKOTA KE SUPERIO SALEM LA R HELENA Knife River Indian Villages NHS MAINE Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS Theodore Apostle Keweenaw NHP Roosevelt NP Islands Acadia NP BISMARCK NL AUGUSTA National Park Service U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2007 Arrowhead NL
    Arrowhead • Summer 2007 1 Arrowhead Summer 2007 • Vol. 14 • No. 3 The Newsletter of the Employees & Alumni Association of the National Park Service Published By Eastern National FROM THE DIRECTOR Secretary Kempthorne Presents a Vision s the end of for the Future of Our National Parks Asummer draws another peak visi- tor season to a The National Park Service will: close, I thank each • lead America in preserving and restor- and every one of ing treasured resources; the National Park • demonstrate environmental leadership; Service team for • offer superior recreational experiences; your service to our • foster exceptional learning opportuni- visitors and the resources entrusted to us. It is not always easy—fires, ties that connect people to parks; and storms and other challenges keep • be managed with excellence. us all busy—but we are truly privi- Performance goals will guide our achieve- leged to work in such special ment. By 2016, the National Park Service places! plans to: This summer was not all joyful as • improve priority facilities to acceptable I spent a weekend in Texas attend- condition; ing the memorial service and • restore native habitats by controlling funeral of Lady Bird Johnson. With invasive species, and reintroducing key her passing, we lost a great cham- plant and animal species; pion who loved the parks and the • improve natural resources in parks as Park Service. measured by scientific vital signs mon- NPS photo by Rick Lewis I was so proud of the park staff, itoring; partners and volunteers. With quiet SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE unveils details of “The Future of • reduce environmental impacts of park efficiency and professionalism, America’s National Parks,” a report to President Bush, at a rooftop press conference at the operations; they created a meaningful tribute Interior building on May 31, while NPS Director Mary Bomar looks on.
    [Show full text]