DOCSLIB.ORG

Inlet Hazard Area (IHA) Boundary Update & Rule Amendments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inlet Hazard Area (IHA) Boundary Update & Rule Amendments Inlet Hazard Area (IHA) Boundary Update & Rule Amendments: Ken Richardson – NC Division of Coastal Management January 9, 2020 Outline: 1. CRC’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards 2. What is an Inlet Hazard Area (IHA)? • Rule definition: CAMA & 15A NCAC 07H.0304(2) • Geomorphology definition: Ocean vs. Inlet influences 3. The Inlet Hazard Area Method (IHAM) 4. Rule Amendments 1. CRC’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards: • Mr. Steve Benton (DCM geologist - retired) • Mr. Bill Birkemeier (USACE Field Research Facility retired Science Panel Co-Chair) • Dr. Bill Cleary (UNC Wilmington emeritus) • Mr. Tom Jarrett, PE (USACE –retired & Coastal Planning and Engineering) • Dr. Margery Overton (Science Panel Co-chair, NC State University) • Dr. Charles “Pete” Peterson (UNC Chapel Hill Institute for Marine Sciences) • Mr. Spencer Rogers (NC Sea Grant) • Mr. Greg “Rudi” Rudolph (Carteret County Shore Protection Office) • Dr. Beth Sciaudone, PE (NC State University) • & NC DCM Staff Image source: Town of North Topsail Beach 2. What is an Inlet Hazard Area (IHA)? 1 of 3 Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) making up the Ocean Hazard Area, and defined in rule as: “…natural-hazard areas that are especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and other adverse affects of sand, wind, and water because of their proximity to dynamic ocean inlets.” (15A NCAC 07H.0304(2)) Image source: Town of North Topsail Beach 2. Ocean Hazard Area: (OEA & IHA) Ocean Erodible Area (OEA) • Dynamic boundary (not mapped) • Measured from vegetation line • 90 x Setback Factor (min.=180 ft. Vegetation Line Ocean Erodible Area Inlet Hazard Area (example) (current) Note: OEA example measured from 2016 vegetation line using current (2013) erosion rate setback factors. Image source: NC DCM GIS 2. Inlet vs. Ocean: Open Coast Sediment Transport Waves at an Angle: overwash • longshore & cross-shore cross-shore transport transport Since 1979, North Carolina has defined the Ocean Storms: Erodible Area (OEA) to longshore transport recognize the greater risk • cross-shore transport & associated with ocean overwash dynamics. Shoreline Response: • linear & shore parallel wind-blown • adjacent areas move the same (erosion or accretion) • Ocean Erodible Area (OEA) source: Bill Birkemeier 2. Inlet vs. Ocean: Inlet Sediment Transport New Topsail Inlet • Interrupt longshore transport • downdrift beaches cut off from sediment • Trap sediments Since 1979, North Carolina • flood shoal on the inside has defined the Inlet Hazard • ebb shoal outside Area (IHA) to recognize the • Have long-term influence greater risk associated with • New Topsail Inlet opened in 1726 tidal inlets dynamics. • still affecting coast ~300 years later • Since 2009, 0.7 mile of erosion at Shackleford Banks (Beaufort Inlet) Rich Inlet • Migrate • in the direction of net longshore current • New Topsail Inlet moved ~6 miles southwest • Oscillate • eroding one side, accreting on the other • then the pattern reverses source: Bill Birkemeier 2. Why Update Inlet Hazard Area Boundaries? Current (1978) Current (1978) Inlet Hazard Area Inlet Hazard Area 3. Inlet Hazard Area Method (IHAM): Extent of Inlet Influences Mapping & Spatial Inlet History Expert Knowledge Analysis Technology • Shorelines • Geology • GIS • Vegetation Lines • Hydrography • USGS’s Digital • Oscillating vs. Migratory • Topology Shoreline Analysis • Erosion Rates • Engineering System (DSAS) • Analyzing Moving Boundaries Using R (AMBUR) STANDARD DEVIATION 3. 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 50 0 1 Tubbs Inlet 11 Boundary Alongshore IHA IHAM: Definingthe 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 Standard Deviation Standard Deviation 121 131 141 151 Ocean Isle Ocean Standard Deviation (ft) Standard 161 TRANSECTS 171 Transect Transect 181 Ocean Atlantic – 191 IsleOcean 201 - 211 291 221 231 241 251 261 Transect 271 281 291 - 291 301 311 321 Shallotte 331 Inlet 341 351 361 3. IHAM: Defining the Landward IHA Boundary Transect - 291 shorelines Standard Deviation – Ocean Isle Inlet Hazard Area (IHA) • Static boundary (mapped) • Measured from hybrid-vegetation line • 90 x Erosion Rate (min.=180 ft.) Transect - 291 Landward boundary Transect - 291 Hybrid-Vegetation Line vegetation lines 3. Tubbs Inlet: 2019 Inlet Hazard Area Boundary Update Inlet Hazard Area (Current ~ 1979) Inlet Hazard Area (Update ~ 2019) 3. New River Inlet 3. Shallotte Inlet: 2019 Inlet Hazard Area Boundary Update Inlet Hazard Area (Current ~ 1979) Inlet Hazard Area (Update ~ 2019) 3. New River Inlet 4. Inlet Hazard Area Rule Amendments Current IHAs Updated IHAs • 1979 Boundaries • 2019 Boundaries • Setbacks - adjacent OEA rates • Setbacks – inlet erosion rates • New Construction • New Construction • Residential 4 units or less • Size: 5,000 sqft. or less • Commercial < 5,000 sqft. • Density: Only 1 unit per • Density: Only 1 commercial or 15,000 sqft. of land area residential unit per 15,000 sqft. • Existing grandfathering applies of land area (15A NCAC 07H.0306(a)(5)(L) • Existing grandfathering applies • IHA boundaries & Setbacks (15A NCAC 07H.0306(a)(5)(L) evaluated every 5 years 4. IHA Rule Amendments: 15A NCAC 07H.0304 Reference 2019 IHA Report 4. IHA Rule Amendments: 15A NCAC 07H.0304 Reference IHA Setback Factors Report - instead of Oceanfront (OEA) 4. IHA Rule Amendments: 15A NCAC 07H.0310 IHA Setback not adjacent OEA Density Size Tubbs Inlet Existing IHA (1979) Proposed IHA (2019) 1 Land Area ~ 124 acres ~ 84 acres 2 Structures 56 structures 31 structures SBFs based on inlet erosion rates Construction Applies adjacent OEA (oceanfront) SBF throughout IHA (not oceanfront/adjacent OEA) 3 (2) Setback (2) Structure Size Residential must be 4 units or less & New structures less than 5,000 sqft. 4 Limit Commercial less than 5,000 sqft. Development No more than 1 structure per 15,000 sqft (~1/3 acre) of No more than 1 structure per 15,000 sqft (~1/3 5 Density land area acre) of land area 15A NCAC 07H.0306(a)(5)(L) 15A NCAC 07H.0306(a)(5)(L) 6 Single-family or duplex > 5,000 sqft., or Single-family or duplex > 5,000 sqft., or commercial/multi-family < 10,000 sqft. commercial/multi-family < 10,000 sqft. Constructed prior to 08/11/2009 Constructed prior to 08/11/2009 Grandfathering Does not exceed original footprint Does not exceed original footprint (existing rules) Not possible to meet graduated setback Not possible to meet graduated setback requirements requirements Meets the minimum setback (30 x SBF) Meets the minimum setback Rebuilt as far landward as feasible Rebuilt as far landward as feasible 07H.0301 (lots platted after 06/01/1979) 07H.0301 (lots platted after 06/01/1979) Shallotte Inlet Existing IHA (1979) Proposed IHA (2019) 1 Land Area ~ 65 acres ~ 217 acres 2 Structures 0 structures 110 structures Construction Applies adjacent OEA (oceanfront) SBF throughout IHA SBFs based on inlet erosion rates 3 Setback (Ranges from 2 to 6.5) (Ranges from 2 to 14) Structure Size Residential must be 4 units or less & New structures less than 5,000 sqft. 4 Limit Commercial less than 5,000 sqft. Development No more than 1 structure per 15,000 sqft (~1/3 acre) of No more than 1 structure per 15,000 sqft (~1/3 5 Density land area acre) of land area 15A NCAC 07H.0306(a)(5)(L) 15A NCAC 07H.0306(a)(5)(L) 6 Single-family or duplex > 5,000 sqft., or Single-family or duplex > 5,000 sqft., or commercial/multi-family < 10,000 sqft. commercial/multi-family < 10,000 sqft. Constructed prior to 08/11/2009 Constructed prior to 08/11/2009 Grandfathering Does not exceed original footprint Does not exceed original footprint (existing rules) Not possible to meet graduated setback Not possible to meet graduated setback requirements requirements Meets the minimum setback (30 x SBF) Meets the minimum setback Rebuilt as far landward as feasible Rebuilt as far landward as feasible 07H.0301 (lots platted after 06/01/1979) 07H.0301 (lots platted after 06/01/1979) Inlet Hazard Area Boundary Update & Rule Amendments Frequently Asked Questions: 1. Is development prohibited? 2. Is my house now non-conforming? 3. Can I rebuild? 4. Will my flood insurance rates increase? 5. Will this effect my property value? 6. When will updates go into effect? [email protected].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Safe Boating Through the St. Lucie Inlet
    Information: Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission 850-488-4676 SAFE BOATING US Coast Guard - Ft. Pierce 772-461-7606 THROUGH THE ST. LUCIE INLET US Coast Guard Auxiliary 772-465-8128 US Army Corps of Engineers 772-221-3349 St. Lucie Inlet Coastal 772-225-2300 Weather Station HERE ARE SOME THINGS TO REMEMBER: • Listen to the most recent weather forecast for the times you plan to go out AND come back in the inlet. • Look in the Tide Tables or local newspapers for the times St. Lucie Inlet of predicted high and low tides for the day you plan to go out. Remember the outgoing (ebb) tital current at low Newcomers tide is the worst time to make a passage through the St. Lucie Inlet. If you are a boater new to this area, it is highly • Safe boating practices are even more important in inlets. recommended that you make your first passage of Check your boat before you head out. Life preservers the St. Lucie Inlet as an observer. An experienced should be worn when going through inlets. boater with local knowledge at the helm can point • Expect the unexpected. Watch the clouds to anticipate out various hazards and conditions to avoid. This is severe weather such as thunderstorms. Be on the lookout for shifting shoals and changing channels. especially important if you have no prior experience • Engine failure is common in small boats in rough seas. with any ocean inlets. The extra roughness agitates gasoline and settled dirt or water in the fuel system, which can cause engine failure Notes on Navigation at Night at a crtical time.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Influence of Groyne Fields and Other Hard Defences on the Shoreline Configuration
    1 The Influence of Groyne Fields and Other Hard Defences on the Shoreline Configuration 2 of Soft Cliff Coastlines 3 4 Sally Brown1*, Max Barton1, Robert J Nicholls1 5 6 1. Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, 7 University Road, Highfield, Southampton, UK. S017 1BJ. 8 9 * Sally Brown ([email protected], Telephone: +44(0)2380 594796). 10 11 Abstract: Building defences, such as groynes, on eroding soft cliff coastlines alters the 12 sediment budget, changing the shoreline configuration adjacent to defences. On the 13 down-drift side, the coastline is set-back. This is often believed to be caused by increased 14 erosion via the ‘terminal groyne effect’, resulting in rapid land loss. This paper examines 15 whether the terminal groyne effect always occurs down-drift post defence construction 16 (i.e. whether or not the retreat rate increases down-drift) through case study analysis. 17 18 Nine cases were analysed at Holderness and Christchurch Bay, England. Seven out of 19 nine sites experienced an increase in down-drift retreat rates. For the two remaining sites, 20 retreat rates remained constant after construction, probably as a sediment deficit already 21 existed prior to construction or as sediment movement was restricted further down-drift. 22 For these two sites, a set-back still evolved, leading to the erroneous perception that a 23 terminal groyne effect had developed. Additionally, seven of the nine sites developed a 24 set back up-drift of the initial groyne, leading to the defended sections of coast acting as 1 25 a hard headland, inhabiting long-shore drift.
    [Show full text]
  • A Nonlinear Relationship Between Marsh Size and Sediment Trapping Capacity Compromises Salt Marshes’ Stability Carmine Donatelli1*, Xiaohe Zhang2*, Neil K
    https://doi.org/10.1130/G47131.1 Manuscript received 22 October 2019 Revised manuscript received 9 March 2020 Manuscript accepted 26 April 2020 © 2020 The Authors. Gold Open Access: This paper is published under the terms of the CC-BY license. Published online 10 June 2020 A nonlinear relationship between marsh size and sediment trapping capacity compromises salt marshes’ stability Carmine Donatelli1*, Xiaohe Zhang2*, Neil K. Ganju3, Alfredo L. Aretxabaleta3, Sergio Fagherazzi2† and Nicoletta Leonardi1† 1 Department of Geography and Planning, School of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Liverpool, Roxby Building, Chatham Street, Liverpool L69 7ZT, UK 2 Department of Earth Sciences, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA 3 Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA ABSTRACT tidal flats to keep pace with sea-level rise (Mari- Global assessments predict the impact of sea-level rise on salt marshes with present-day otti and Fagherazzi, 2010). levels of sediment supply from rivers and the coastal ocean. However, these assessments do Regional effects are crucial when evaluating not consider that variations in marsh extent and the related reconfiguration of intertidal area coastal interventions under the management of affect local sediment dynamics, ultimately controlling the fate of the marshes themselves. multiple agencies. Though many studies have We conducted a meta-analysis of six bays along the United States East Coast to show that focused on local marsh dynamics, less atten- a reduction in the current salt marsh area decreases the sediment availability in estuarine tion has been paid to how changes in marsh systems through changes in regional-scale hydrodynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • Street Names - in Alphabetical Order
    Street Names - In Alphabetical Order District / MC-ID NO. Street Name Location County Area Aalto Place Sumter - Unit 692 (Villa San Antonio) 1 Sumter County Abaco Path Sumter - Unit 197 9 Sumter County Abana Path Sumter - Unit 206 9 Sumter County Abasco Court Sumter - Unit 821 (Mangrove Villas) 8 Sumter County Abbeville Loop Sumter - Unit 80 5 Sumter County Abbey Way Sumter - Unit 164 8 Sumter County Abdella Way Sumter - Unit 180 9 Sumter County Abdella Way Sumter - Unit 181 9 Sumter County Abel Place Sumter - Unit 195 10 Sumter County Aber Lane Sumter - Unit 967 (Ventura Villas) 10 Sumter County SE 84TH Abercorn Court Marion - Unit 45 4 Marion County Abercrombie Way Sumter - Unit 98 5 Sumter County Aberdeen Run Sumter - Unit 139 7 Sumter County Abernethy Place Sumter - Unit 99 5 Sumter County Abner Street Sumter - Unit 130 6 Sumter County Abney Avenue VOF - Unit 8 12 Sumter County Abordale Lane Sumter - Unit 158 8 Sumter County Acorn Court Sumter - Unit 146 7 Sumter County Acosta Court Sumter - Unit 601 (Villa De Leon) 2 Sumter County Adair Lane Sumter - Unit 818 (Jacaranda Villas) 8 Sumter County Adams Lane Sumter - Unit 105 6 Sumter County Adamsville Avenue VOF - Unit 13 12 Sumter County Addison Avenue Sumter - Unit 37 3 Sumter County Adeline Way Sumter - Unit 713 (Hillcrest Villas) 7 Sumter County Adelphi Avenue Sumter - Unit 151 8 Sumter County Adler Court Sumter - Unit 134 7 Sumter County Adriana Way Sumter - Unit 711 (Adriana Villas) 7 Sumter County Adrienne Way Sumter - Unit 176 9 Sumter County Adrienne Way Sumter - Unit 949 (Megan
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Intertidal, Mudflats and Beaches, and Eelgrass Beds
    Appendix 5.4, Page 1 Appendix 5.4 Marine and Coastline Habitats Featured Species-associated Intertidal Habitats: Rocky Intertidal, Mudflats and Beaches, and Eelgrass Beds A swath of intertidal habitat occurs wherever the ocean meets the shore. At 44,000 miles, Alaska’s shoreline is more than double the shoreline for the entire Lower 48 states (ACMP 2005). This extensive shoreline creates an impressive abundance and diversity of habitats. Five physical factors predominantly control the distribution and abundance of biota in the intertidal zone: wave energy, bottom type (substrate), tidal exposure, temperature, and most important, salinity (Dethier and Schoch 2000; Ricketts and Calvin 1968). The distribution of many commercially important fishes and crustaceans with particular salinity regimes has led to the description of “salinity zones,” which can be used as a basis for mapping these resources (Bulger et al. 1993; Christensen et al. 1997). A new methodology called SCALE (Shoreline Classification and Landscape Extrapolation) has the ability to separate the roles of sediment type, salinity, wave action, and other factors controlling estuarine community distribution and abundance. This section of Alaska’s CWCS focuses on 3 main types of intertidal habitat: rocky intertidal, mudflats and beaches, and eelgrass beds. Tidal marshes, which are also intertidal habitats, are discussed in the Wetlands section, Appendix 5.3, of the CWCS. Rocky intertidal habitats can be categorized into 3 main types: (1) exposed, rocky shores composed of steeply dipping, vertical bedrock that experience high-to- moderate wave energy; (2) exposed, wave-cut platforms consisting of wave-cut or low-lying bedrock that experience high-to-moderate wave energy; and (3) sheltered, rocky shores composed of vertical rock walls, bedrock outcrops, wide rock platforms, and boulder-strewn ledges and usually found along sheltered bays or along the inside of bays and coves.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Observations at the Base of the Alaska Peninsula
    242 SHORT COMMUNICATIONS RECENT OBSERVATIONS AT THE The only other record was of three in Iliuk Arm, BASE OF THE ALASKA PENINSULA Naknek Lake, Katmai NM, 11 August 1968. Two of the latter were in breeding plumage. DANIEL D. GIBSON Whimbrel. Numenius phueopus. Gabrielson and Lincoln (1959) cite four records of the Whimbrel P.O. Box I.551 for the Bristol Bay area, and Cahalane (1944) records Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 the species once on Naknek River. The following ob- servations of transients on the Monument coast are During May-September 1966, February-September included: eight at Kashvik Bay on 6 May 1967, 1967, and May-September 1968, I was employed 11 at Katmai Bay on 9 May 1967, and 29 at Katmai by the National Park Service (NPS ), U.S. Depart- Bay on 11 May 1967 (one flock of 27). ment of Interior, at Katmai National Monument Lesser Yellowlegs. Totanus fZuvipes. The only (NM), Alaska. A number of significant occurrences previous record of the Lesser Yellowlegs for this of avian species were recorded during this time, de- region is that of Cahalane (1944) for Naknek River. tails of which are given below. All observations are I watched one on 1 July 1968 at Brooks River being my own unless otherwise indicated; no specimens were chased repeatedly by resident Greater Yellowlegs collected. (T. melunoleucus) that were defending several large Red-faced Cormorant. PhuZucrocor~x u&e. On 28 young. The Lesser Yellowlegs called once, and the June 1967 I found 10 pairs of Red-faced Cormorants size difference was noted. breeding among 80 pairs of Pelagic Cormorants (P.
    [Show full text]
  • A Controlled Stable Tidal Inlet at Cartagena De Indias, Colombia Environment Ronald Moor, Marion Van Maren and Cees Van Laarhoven
    A Controlled Stable Tidal Inlet at Cartagena de Indias, Colombia Environment Ronald Moor, Marion van Maren and Cees van Laarhoven A Controlled Stable Tidal Inlet at Cartagena de Indias, Colombia Abstract fund the wars fought by the Spanish Crown. The Spanish conquistador’s selected Cartagena for its Since the inception of Cartagena de Indias, Colombia as strategic geographic position and for the natural a Spanish colony, its sewerage was dumped into the protection from raids by British, French and Dutch nearby bodies of water. Not so surprisingly, the growth pirates offered by the surrounding bodies of water of population was marked by growth in sewerage and (see Figure 1). by 1980 60% of the city’s sewerage was dumped on the Ciénaga de la Virgen, a shallow coastal lagoon of Since the city’s inception its sewerage was dumped some 22 km2, and 10 km canals surrounding and into these bodies of water. As the volume of sewerage traversing the city. Whilst the bodies of water could increased in tandem with the growth of the population, absorb the sewerage dumped in the early days, by the part of the city’s sewerage was collected and dumped 1980s the pollution level had become unbearable. by marine outfall into the bay of Cartagena. This began Continuous strong odors attracting mosquitoes, eutro- about 1960. By 1980 however 60% of the city’s phication, and fish death became recurrent events. sewerage was dumped on the Ciénaga de la Virgen, a shallow coastal lagoon of some 22 km2, and 10 km In 1988 the Colombian Planning Department requested canals surrounding and traversing the city.
    [Show full text]
  • Kristen Doulos Town Parks Director
    PERMIT FEES TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON TOWN RESIDENT $ 40 VEHICLE SOUTHAMPTON TOWN SENIOR RESIDENT (60+) $ 30 VEHICLE Parks & Recreation Department NON-RESIDENT FULL SEASON $400 VEHICLE 6 Newtown Road VILLAGE OF SAG HARBOR E. HAMPTON RESIDENT (LONG BEACH ONLY) $ 40 VEHICLE Hampton Bays, NY 11946 2 0 2 1 VILLAGE OF SAG HARBOR E. HAMPTON RESIDENT (FULL ACCESS) $360 VEHICLE (631) 728-8585 DAILY $ 30 PER DAY OLD PONQUOGUE BRIDGE MARINE PARK $100 VEHICLE Hours 8:30 am—4:00 pm Weekdays Kristen Doulos www.southamptontownny.gov/parksrec Town Parks Director Unless otherwise posted, lifeguards are on duty, 10:00am - 5:00pm, when beaches are open. Permits are required at all times, 9:00am - 9:00pm, at all Beach Facilities during beach season. SOUTHAMPTON ATTENDED TOWN BEACHES TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON BEACH PARKING INFORMATION TYPE OF PERMITS ACCEPTED AT EACH BEACH Beach Parking Permits are required at all Town Beach Recreation Facilities on weekends th th Pikes Beach Resident Non-resident Daily (7 days) beginning May 29 , and 7 days a week starting June 26 - Labor Day. They may be pur- Westhampton Dunes chased throughout the season at all attended Town beaches. Tiana Beach Resident Non-resident Daily (7 days) Starting March 3rd (ongoing): Permits may be purchased online at the following website Hampton Bays (http://southamptontownny.gov/355/Beach-Parking-Permit). Please DO NOT mail in Ponquogue Beach Resident Non-resident Daily (7 days) applications. If you have a 2020 permit it is valid through June 30, 2021. Hampton Bays Starting April 6th (ongoing): Permits are available at the Parks & Recreation Office walk- Flying Point Beach Resident Non-resident up window, located at 6 Newtown Road, Hampton Bays from 8:30am - 4:00pm, Week- Water Mill days.
    [Show full text]
  • Marsh Resilience Study
    5.5 national average 7.6 state MARSH RESILIENCE SCALE average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9.0 reserve average Exceedingly good current conditions at North-Inlet combine with reasonable vulnerability and MARSH RESILIENCE AT adaptation potential scores to give an overall resilience that is better than the state, Southeast THE LANDSCAPE SCALE region and national average. Management recommendations: Very good How does the North-Inlet Winyah marsh resilience is mitigated by small areas in Bay Research Reserve compare? which future migration may take place. High current condition marshes will naturally self- sustain into the future if barriers to inland migration can be removed or made more permeable. Current conditions Vulnerability Adaptive capacity Marsh resilience depends largely Marshes are more vulnerable to Marshes with more space and fewer on current composition and sea level rise when more of their barriers to migration have a greater exposure to stressors such as vegetation is lower in the tidal capacity to survive sea level rise. development and agriculture. frame and they have soils that are likely to erode. The capacity for tidal marshes in and The current condition of tidal marshes in around the North Inlet-Winyah Bay and around the North Inlet-Winyah Bay Tidal marshes in and around the North Reserve to adapt to future sea level rise Reserve are far better than the rest of the Inlet-Winyah Bay Reserve are slightly is slightly higher than marshes nation, and quite a bit better than South more vulnerable than marshes throughout the nation, but not quite as Carolina and the Southeast region.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphodynamics of Tidal Inlet Systems in Maine
    Maine Geological Survey Studies in Maine Geology: Volume 5 1989 Morphodynamics of Tidal Inlet Systems in Maine 1 2 Duncan M. FitzGeraui, Jonathan M. Lincoln • 3 1 L. Kenneth Fink, Jr. , and Dabney W. Caldwel/ 1Departm ent of Geology Boston University Boston, Massachusetts 02215 2Department of Geological Sciencies Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois 60201 3Department of Geology University of Maine Orono, Maine 04469 ABSTRACT The occurrence of tidal inlets along the coast of Maine is tied closely to the structural geology and glacial history of this region. Most of the inlets are found along the southern arcuate-embayment shoreline where sand sources, consisting of glaciomarine sediments and other glacial deposits, were sufficient to build swash-aligned barriers between pronounced bedrock headlands. Along the peninsula coast of Maine, tidal inlets also occur at the mouths of the Kennebec and Sheepscot Rivers where large quantities of glaciofluvial sands were deposited during deglacia­ tion. The remainder of the southeastward facing coast was stripped of its preglacial sediment cover by the southerly moving glaciers. The thin tills that were left behind yield little sand and, thus, barriers and inlets are generally absent. Small to large-sized inlets (width= 50-200 m) in Maine are anchored next to bedrock outcrops and are bordered on their opposite sides by sandy spits. Despite the ubiquitous name "river inlet," they normally have little fresh water discharge compared to their salt water tidal prisms. The backbarriers of these inlets are expansive and would produce relatively large tidal prisms if high Spartina marshes had not filled most of the region, leaving little open water area.
    [Show full text]
  • Rip Current Generation, Flow Characteristics and Implications for Beach Safety in South Florida
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 11-9-2018 Rip Current Generation, Flow Characteristics and Implications for Beach Safety in South Florida Stephen B. Leatherman Florida International University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the Geomorphology Commons, and the Other Earth Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Leatherman, Stephen B., "Rip Current Generation, Flow Characteristics and Implications for Beach Safety in South Florida" (2018). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3884. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/3884 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida RIP CURRENT GENERATION, FLOW CHARACTERISTICS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BEACH SAFETY IN SOUTH FLORIDA A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY in GEOSCIENCES by Stephen Beach Leatherman 2018 To: Dean Michael R. Heithaus College of Arts, Sciences and Education This dissertation, written by Stephen Beach Leatherman, and entitled Rip Current Generation, Flow Characteristics and Implications for Beach Safety in South Florida, having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgement. We have read this dissertation and recommended that it be approved. _______________________________________________ Michael Sukop _______________________________________________ Shu-Ching Chen _______________________________________________ Dean Whitman, Co-Major Professor _______________________________________________ Keqi Zhang, Co-Major Professor Date of Defense: November 9, 2018 The dissertation of Stephen Beach Leatherman is approved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jupiter Lighthouse Sand Dune
    The Jupiter Lighthouse Sand Dune There is something romantic about lighthouses and lighthouse keepers. Perhaps it’s the vision of foggy rainy night in total isolation facing the devouring action of the sea while performing their duties. Our own Jupiter Lighthouse, standing a bright red against a blue sky, is a monument and a symbol of our historic past. Although it doesn’t stand on a rocky cliff with large wave crashing on the rocks below, as some in northern climates, it does have the distinction of standing on a parabolic sand dune 18 feet high. Although the history of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse is a familiar one, the sand hill that supports it only recently was investigated during the lighthouse restoration in April 2000. At that time archaeologist, Robert S Carr (famous for his work on the Miami Circle), and his staff conducted an archaeological dig on the mound, which revealed important physical evidence. Artifacts uncovered on the hill indicated that an English Settlement by the name of “Grenville” may have included the area around the lighthouse mound. A piece from a tobacco pipe bowl known as Jackfield ware was discovered during the monitoring of trench excavations. This represents the first documented 16th century English artifact found in the Palm Beach area, suggesting English activity during the Revolutionary War. In addition to the Jackfield Ware, a pipe stem and a piece of “daub” from wattle and daub construction was also uncovered. This is consistent with English colonial construction, which would have occurred during the British Period (1763­1783) and after the Treaty of Paris in 1763, when England acquired Florida from Spain.
    [Show full text]