DOCSLIB.ORG

Land Area Change in Coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Land Area Change in Coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010 3 Land Area Change in Coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010 By Brady R. Couvillion, John A. Barras, Gregory D. Steyer, William Sleavin, Michelle Fischer, Holly Beck, Nadine Trahan, Brad Griffin, and David Heckman Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey i Land Area Change in Coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010 Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 This and other USGS information products are available at http://store.usgs.gov/ U.S. Geological Survey Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 To learn about the USGS and its information products visit http://www.usgs.gov/ 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Couvillion, B.R.; Barras, J.A.; Steyer, G.D.; Sleavin, William; Fischer, Michelle; Beck, Holly; Trahan, Nadine; Griffin, Brad; and Heckman, David, 2011, Land area change in coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3164, scale 1:265,000, 12 p. pamphlet. iii Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................1 Land Area Changes ......................................................................................................................................4 Land Change Trends .....................................................................................................................................5 Discussion and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................5 References ...................................................................................................................................................12 Figures 1. Map of the study area in coastal Louisiana ............................................................................3 2. Land area in coastal Louisiana, 1932 to 2010 ...........................................................................4 3. Persistent land loss and land gain in coastal Louisiana by period and by basin for 1932–2010 ..........................................................................................................8 4. Persistent land loss and land gain coastwide across Louisiana by period for 1932–2010 ....................................................................................................................9 5. Linear regressions of land area change trends coastwide across Louisiana, 1985–2010 .................................................................................................................10 6. Linear regressions of land area change trends in coastal Louisiana by hydrologic basin, 1985–2010 ...................................................................................................11 Tables 1. Land area in coastal Louisiana by basin, 1932–2010 ..............................................................2 2. Water levels at selected gages on the date of acquisition for imagery used in the land area estimates ................................................................................................5 3. Persistent land loss and land gain in coastal Louisiana by basin, 1932–2010 ...................6 EXPLANATION EXPLANATION 1932–56 land gain1 1932–561932–56 land landloss 2gain1 Background1932–56 imagery land loss 2 Background imagery EXPLANATION (inside modified Coastal Zone Boundary)(inside modified Coastal Zone Boundary) 1,4 2,4 1,4 EXPLANATION2,4 1932–56 land gain1 1932–561956–73 land land loss gain2 Background1956–731956–73 imagery land landloss gain 1956–73 land loss 5 1 5 2 Background imagery 1,4 (inside modified Coastal Zone2,4 Boundary)1,4 Developed 2,41932–56 land gainDeveloped 1932–56 land loss 1956–73 land gain1,4 1956–731973–75 land land loss gain2,4 1973–751973–75 land landloss gain 1973–75 land loss (inside modified Coastal Zone Boundary) 5 1,4 5 2,4 1,4 5 2,4 1,4 Uplands 2,41956–73 land gainUplands 1956–73 land loss 1,4 1975–77 land gain2,4 Developed1975–771975–77 land landloss gain 1975–77 land loss 1973–75 land gain 1973–75 land loss 5 5 1,4 5 2,4 Developed 1,4 5 2,4 1,4 Persistent forested wetland2,41973–75 land gainPersistent forested1973–75 wetland land loss 1,4 1977–85 land gain2,4 Uplands1977–851977–85 land landloss gain 1977–85 land loss 1975–77 land gain 1975–77 land loss 5 5 1,4 5 2,4 Uplands 1 2 1 5 Persistent wetland 21975–77 land gainPersistent wetland1975–77 land loss 1977–85 land gain1,4 1977–851985–88 land land loss gain2,4 Persistent1985–881985–88 forested land landloss wetland gain 1985–88 land loss 1,4 2,4 Persistent forested wetland5 1 5 2 1 Persistent water 21977–85 land gainPersistent water 1977–85 land loss 1 1988–90 land gain2 Persistent1988–901988–90 wetland land landloss gain 1988–90 land loss 1985–88 land gain 1985–88 land loss 5 1 2 Persistent wetland 1990–95 land gain1 1990–95 land 2gain1 21985–88 land gain 1985–88 land loss 1988–90 land gain1 1988–90 land loss2 Persistent1990–95 water land loss Background1990–95 imagery land loss Background imagery 1 2 Persistent water 1 2 1 21988–90 land gain 1988–90 land loss EXPLANATION 1 EXPLANATION1995–98 land gain 1995–98 land gain 1995–98 land loss (outside modified Coastal Zone Boundary) 1990–95 land gain 1990–95 land loss2 1995–98EXPLANATION land loss (outside modified Coastal Zone Boundary) Background imagery 1 5 2 1 2 1 1 Background imagery 2 2 1 Background imagery5 21990–95 land gain 1 1998–99 land gain 1998–99 land gain Developed Developed 1990–95 land loss 1995–981932–56 land land gain gain 1995–981932–561932–56 land land loss landloss2 gain (outside modified1998–991932–561932–56 landCoastal land loss land loss Zone gain Boundary1 ) 1998–991932–56 land land loss loss2 Background imagery Background imagery (inside modified Coastal Zone Boundary)(inside modified Coastal Zone Boundary) 1 2 1,4 2,4 1,41 2,42 1 5 1995–982 land(inside gain modified5 Coastal1995–98 Zone landBoundary) loss (outside modified Coastal Zone Boundary) 1 1999–2002 land gain 1999–20025 land gain Uplands Uplands 1998–991956–73 land land gain gain 1998–991956–731956–73 land land loss landloss2 gain Developed1999–20021956–731956–73 land land land loss loss gain1,4 1999–20021956–73 land land loss loss2,4 1 2 5 1 5 1 5 5 5 Developed 1,4 2,4 1,4 Developed5 2 2,4 Developed 2 1998–99 land gainPersistent forested5 1998–99 wetland land loss 1973–75 land gain 1 1973–752002–41973–75 land land landloss gain gain2 Uplands2002–41973–752002–4 land land landloss loss gain 1,4 Persistent2002–4 forested land loss wetland2,4 Developed 1999–2002 land gain 1999–2002 land loss 1973–75 land gain 1973–75 land loss 5 5 5 1 2 1,4 2,4 1 1,4 2 2,4 1 5 2 1999–2002 land gain 5 Uplands 1 2004–6 land gain Uplands2004–62004–6 land landloss gain 5 PersistentUplands2004–6 wetland land loss Persistent5 wetland1999–2002 land loss 2002–41975–77 land land gain gain 1975–771975–77 land landloss2 gain Persistent1975–77 forested land loss wetland1,4 2,4 Uplands 2002–4 land loss 1975–77 land gain 1975–77 land loss 1 5 1 2 1 5 2 5 2 Persistent forested wetland 1 1,4 2006–8 land gain2,4 1,4 Persistent2006–82006–8 land forested landloss5 gainwetland2,4 PersistentPersistent2006–8 water landforested loss wetland2002–4 land gainPersistent water 2002–4 land5 loss 2004–61977–85 land land gain gain 2004–61977–851977–85 land land loss landloss2 gain Persistent1977–85 wetland land loss 1,4 2,4 Persistent forested wetland 1977–85 land gain 1977–85 land loss 1 2 5 1,3 52,3 1,3 5 2,32004–6 land gain 2004–6 land loss Persistent wetland 1 1 2008–9 land gain2 2 1 Persistent2008–92008–9 landwetland landloss gain2 Persistent2008–9 wetlandland loss 5 2006–81985–88 land land gain gain 1985–881985–88 land landloss gain Persistent1985–88 water land loss 1 2 Persistent wetland 2006–8 land loss 1985–88 land gain 1985–88 land loss 1 1,3 2,3 1,3 2006–82,3 land gain 2006–8 land loss2 Persistent water 1,3 1 2009–10 new land2 1 Persistent2009–102009–10 water new newwater land2 BasinPersistent2009–10 boundary water new water Basin boundary 2008–91988–90 land land gain gain 2008–91988–901988–90 land land loss landloss2,3 gain 1988–90 land loss 1 2 Persistent water 1988–90 land gain 1988–90 land loss 1,3 2,3 1Gain is determined by the last date a particular pixel transitioned from water to land1Gain and is remained determined land by throughout the last date the a period particular of observation. pixel transitioned from water to land and remained land throughout the period2008–9 of observation. land gain 1,31 2 2,3 1 2 2008–9 land loss 2009–101990–95 new land land gain 2 2009–101990–951990–95 new land water landloss gain Basin2Loss1990–95 is boundary determined by
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Is the Gulf of Taranto an Historic Bay?*
    Ronzitti: Gulf of Taranto IS THE GULF OF TARANTO AN HISTORIC BAY?* Natalino Ronzitti** I. INTRODUCTION Italy's shores bordering the Ionian Sea, particularly the seg­ ment joining Cape Spartivento to Cape Santa Maria di Leuca, form a coastline which is deeply indented and cut into. The Gulf of Taranto is the major indentation along the Ionian coast. The line joining the two points of the entrance of the Gulf (Alice Point­ Cape Santa Maria di Leuca) is approximately sixty nautical miles in length. At its mid-point, the line joining Alice Point to Cape Santa Maria di Leuca is approximately sixty-three nautical miles from the innermost low-water line of the Gulf of Taranto coast. The Gulf of Taranto is a juridical bay because it meets the semi­ circular test set up by Article 7(2) of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. 1 Indeed, the waters embodied by the Gulf cover an area larger than that of the semi­ circle whose diameter is the line Alice Point-Cape Santa Maria di Leuca (the line joining the mouth of the Gulf). On April 26, 1977, Italy enacted a Decree causing straight baselines to be drawn along the coastline of the Italian Peninsula.2 A straight baseline, about sixty nautical miles long, was drawn along the entrance of the Gulf of Taranto between Cape Santa Maria di Leuca and Alice Point. The 1977 Decree justified the drawing of such a line by proclaiming the Gulf of Taranto an historic bay.3 The Decree, however, did not specify the grounds upon which the Gulf of Taranto was declared an historic bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of a Shallow Flood Shoal and Friction on Hydrodynamics of A
    PUBLICATIONS Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans RESEARCH ARTICLE Effects of a shallow flood shoal and friction on hydrodynamics 10.1002/2016JC012502 of a multiple-inlet system Key Points: Mara M. Orescanin1 , Steve Elgar2 , Britt Raubenheimer2 , and Levi Gorrell2 A flood shoal can act as a tidal reflector and limit the influence of an 1Oceanography Department, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, USA, 2Applied Ocean Physics and inlet in a multiple-inlet system Engineering, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA The effects of inertia, friction, and the flood shoal can be separated with a lumped element model As an inlet lengthens, narrows, and Abstract Prior studies have shown that frictional changes owing to evolving geometry of an inlet in a shoals, the lumped element model multiple inlet-bay system can affect tidally driven circulation. Here, a step between a relatively deep inlet shows the initial dominance of the and a shallow bay also is shown to affect tidal sea-level fluctuations in a bay connected to multiple inlets. shoal is replaced by friction To examine the relative importance of friction and a step, a lumped element (parameter) model is used that includes tidal reflection from the step. The model is applied to the two-inlet system of Katama Inlet (which Correspondence to: M. M. Orescanin, connects Katama Bay on Martha’s Vineyard, MA to the Atlantic Ocean) and Edgartown Channel (which con- [email protected] nects the bay to Vineyard Sound). Consistent with observations and previous numerical simulations, the lumped element model suggests that the presence of a shallow flood shoal limits the influence of an inlet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Makeshift Sandbag Groynes on Coastal Geomorphology: a Case Study at Columbus Bay, Trinidad
    Environment and Natural Resources Research; Vol. 4, No. 1; 2014 ISSN 1927-0488 E-ISSN 1927-0496 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Impact of Makeshift Sandbag Groynes on Coastal Geomorphology: A Case Study at Columbus Bay, Trinidad Junior Darsan1 & Christopher Alexis2 1 University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, Trinidad 2 Institute of Marine Affairs, Chaguaramas, Trinidad Correspondence: Junior Darsan, Department of Geography, University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad. E-mail: [email protected] Received: January 7, 2014 Accepted: February 7, 2014 Online Published: February 19, 2014 doi:10.5539/enrr.v4n1p94 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/enrr.v4n1p94 Abstract Coastal erosion threatens coastal land which is an invaluable limited resource to Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Columbus Bay, located on the south-western peninsula of Trinidad, experiences high rates of coastal erosion which has resulted in the loss of millions of dollars to coconut estate owners. Owing to this, three makeshift sandbag groynes were installed in the northern region of Columbus Bay to arrest the coastal erosion problem. Beach profiles were conducted at eight stations from October 2009 to April 2011 to determine the change in beach widths and beach volumes along the bay. Beach width and volume changes were determined from the baseline in October 2009. Additionally, a generalized shoreline response model (GENESIS) was applied to Columbus Bay and simulated a 4 year model run. Results indicate that there was an increase in beach width and volume at five stations located within or adjacent to the groyne field.
    [Show full text]
  • Concept Designs for a Groyne Field on the Far North Nsw Coast
    CONCEPT DESIGNS FOR A GROYNE FIELD ON THE FAR NORTH NSW COAST I Coghlan 1, J Carley 1, R Cox 1, E Davey 1, M Blacka 1, J Lofthouse 2 1 Water Research Laboratory (WRL), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Manly Vale, NSW 2Tweed Shire Council (TSC), Murwillumbah, NSW Introduction On the open coast of NSW, many options exist to adapt to the hazards of erosion and recession. Perhaps the most common historical approach to counter the erosion and recession hazard is to construct a seawall or revetment to protect the existing foreshore. Other alternatives include the construction of a submerged breakwater, assisted beach recovery and/or beach nourishment. For beaches with a littoral drift imbalance, the construction of one or more groyne structures is a further possibility. This paper presents two different concept designs for a long term groyne field at Kingscliff Beach. Background Information Case Study: Kingscliff Beach Kingscliff Beach, located at the southern end of Wommin Bay on the far north coast of NSW (Figure 1), is a section of the Tweed coastline with built assets at immediate risk from coastal hazards. Ongoing erosion in the last few years has resulted in substantial loss of beach amenity and community land. Storm erosion episodes between 2009 and 2012 severely impacted the Kingscliff Beach Holiday Park (KBHP). This section is also affected by moderate ongoing underlying shoreline recession (WBM, 2001). To manage the Kingscliff Beach foreshore (Figure 2) in the longer term, Tweed Shire
    [Show full text]
  • Bay-Sic Ratios
    BAY-SIC RATIOS INTRODUCTION: The land that surrounds the Chesapeake Bay spans 64,000 square miles and includes portions of six states – Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York – and the District of Columbia. Remember that a watershed is the area of land that drains into a specific body of water. The rainwater running off the land and going into nearby creeks, rivers, and streams from those six states, plus D.C., is going right into the Chesapeake Bay. Wow! That’s a lot of water going into the Bay! With such a big watershed area draining into the Chesapeake Bay, you would think the Bay is really deep, right? Wrong! Actually, the Bay averages a depth of only 21 feet, which means that it is surpris- ingly shallow considering the large amount of land that drains into it. Unfortunately, being shallow means that the Bay is extremely sensitive to pollu- tion. As pollution enters the Bay, it changes the Bay’s water quality, which can mean trouble for some of the Bay’s valuable resources. In this activity, you will use a scale model to illus- trate the shallowness of the Chesapeake Bay, and to compare the Bay watershed to other watersheds around the world. MATERIALS: • 1 envelope • 1 sugar cube • paper squares • Land-to-Water Ratios Around the World chart • Chesapeake Bay Watershed map • Watershed of the World map VOCABULARY: drainage basin, ratio, runoff, vulnerable, watershed Charles R. Hazard W. A .V.E. BAY-SIC Ratios 13 PROCEDURE: 1. Your teacher will give you an envelope that contains the name of a body of water, numerous squares, and one sugar cube.
    [Show full text]
  • Door County Fact Sheet Page 2
    DDoooorr CCoouunnttyy Media Contact: Jon Jarosh Director of Communications & PR (920) 818-1133 or [email protected] FFaacctt SShheeeett www.DoorCounty.com/media Cana Island Lighthouse • Door County, Wisconsin is approximately 70 miles long. It’s about 18 miles wide at its widest point in the southern part of the county and narrows to less than 2 miles across at the northern tip of the peninsula. • Door County has 300 miles of shoreline and is surrounded by water on three sides. Lake Michigan lies to the north and east, and the bay of Green Bay (part of Lake Michigan) lies to the west. • It takes more than an hour to drive from the county line in the southern part of the peninsula to the end of Hwy 42 at Northport, the northern tip of the peninsula. • Door County has 34 named outlying islands, the largest of which is Washington Island, which lies off the northern tip of the peninsula. Washington Island covers approximately 35 square miles and has a year round population of around 700 people. A vehicle/passenger ferry connects Washington Island (via the Death’s Door water passage) with the rest of the world 365 days a year, weather permitting. • Founded in 1851, Door County is named after Death’s Door, the aptly named water passage that lies off the tip of the peninsula where the waters of Lake Michigan and Green Bay converge. Death’s Door is the English translation of Porte Des Morts, the name given to this treacherous water passage by early French explorers based on Native American stories they heard and their own perilous experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Wetland Status and Trends in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Coastal Wetland Status and Trends in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Donna Marie Bilkovic and Jeff Horan Designing Sustainable Coastal Habitats 16-17 April 2013 Virginia Institute of Marine Science www.ccrm.vims.edu Coastal Wetlands Coastal wetlands: include saltwater and freshwater wetlands located within coastal watersheds — specifically USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit watersheds which drain into the Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf of Mexico (EPA definition) Figure source: EPA Presently, there are ~40 million acres of coastal wetlands (38% of the estimated total wetland acreage in the US) Outline Historic changes and evolving views on coastal wetlands Current status and projected trends – CB coastal wetlands Primary factors effecting wetlands development & functioning Conservation planning – importance of landscape perspective Coastal wetland vulnerability & resiliency Research needs and Recommendations Wetlands – historic conditions and losses 18 & 19th century- ditching, filling & land- clearing Image credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Dahl 1990 A. Wetland Exploitation (1700s – 1954) B. Moderate Conversion (1954 – 1974) Over half of US wetlands were lost from C. Wetlands Protection Regulations (1974-1982) the 1780s to the 1980s (Dahl 1990) -e.g. CWA 1977 slowed conversion/loss 221 million acres – ~ 104 million acres D. No Net Loss (1982 – present) (~ 89 million ha – 42 million ha) -offset loss with creation Historic changes to Chesapeake Bay sediment deposition patterns and rates Bay streams supported extensive non-tidal wetlands w. relatively organic-rich soils; Low rates of sediment deposition Extensive deforestation for agriculture – 70-80% of forest cover cleared th th 17 – 19 century Erosion rates increased and large amounts of sediments were transported to the bay and stored in upland areas and stream corridors.
    [Show full text]
  • Bookletchart™ Upper Green Bay NOAA Chart 14909
    BookletChart™ Upper Green Bay NOAA Chart 14909 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Included Area Published by the 1.5 miles offshore until the white sector is visible. A lighted bell buoy 3 miles south-southeast of the light, in the white sector, marks the harbor National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration entrance. National Ocean Service Baileys Harbor is sheltered and affords good anchorage, but is subject to Office of Coast Survey considerable surge during heavy seas. Vessels should not anchor nearer than 0.5 mile of the north shore of the harbor, as the water is shallow www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov and the sea that sets in during S gales is only partially broken by the 888-990-NOAA shoals outside. The best holding ground is on the east side of the harbor. A yacht club on the northeast side of Baileys Harbor provides transient What are Nautical Charts? berths, gasoline, diesel fuel, water, ice, electricity, and sewage pump- out. Emergency repairs are available. Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show Moonlight Bay opens on the northeast side of the point which forms the water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much east side of Baileys Harbor. The bay has deep water to just inside the more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and entrance and affords fairly good anchorage with protection from all but efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial E to S winds.
    [Show full text]