A Salt Marsh Advancement Zone Assessment of Greenwich, Connecticut

Similar documents
APPENDIX VMT Evaluation

Topic Paper. Peri-Urban Open Space. how multi-functional land use can bring multiple benefits

The Preferred Alternative: a Vision for Growth on the Northeast Corridor

Comparison of Parcel Allocations by Alternative KENTUCKY RESERVOIR

Car Sharing at a. with great results.

Taylor s Falls Business Park

GIBRALTAR ERDF OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME POST ADOPTION STATEMENT

Corporate Engagement in Wetlands Restoration

Green Line LRT: Beltline Segment Update April 19, 2017

Recommended Vision for the Downtown Rapid Transit Network

City of Minnetonka Maximum Parking Regulations Urban GIS. Group Members Brad Johnston Mark Kelley Jonathan Winge

Parking Management Element

Save-the-date: Workshop on batteries for electric mobility

Green Line LRT: Beltline Recommendation Frequently Asked Questions

How to Create Exponential Decline in Car Use in Australian Cities. By Peter Newman, Jeff Kenworthy and Gary Glazebrook.

Sales and Use Transportation Tax Implementation Plan

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016

RE: Comments on Proposed Mitigation Plan for the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust

Labelling Smart Roads DISCUSSION PAPER 4/2015

SOCIO-ECONOMIC and LAND USE DATA

Study Report. McCredie-Overton Transmission Line Right-of-Way Analysis. City of Columbia, Missouri. prepared for the (S49)

Sunnyside Yard Master Plan. RFQ Information Session September 13, 2017

Public Information Workshop

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

IDA 54th Annual Conference, September 11-14, 2008 Calgary, Alberta. Salima Ebrahim, City of Calgary Maggie Schofield, Calgary Downtown Association

Lower River Floodplain Restoration and Levee/Towne Road Re-Alignment Noise Analysis

Executive Summary October 2013

Funding Scenario Descriptions & Performance

Transitioning to Integrated Sustainable Multi-mobility. A Model Climate Action Strategy

Minimum parking requirements create more parking than is needed.

Transportation Electrification: Reducing Emissions, Driving Innovation. August 2017

WOLVERINE TO BHP JANSEN NEW TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT FALL 2017

REGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY: TRANSPORTATION AND STATIONARY ENERGY

Metro Reimagined. Project Overview October 2017

City of Lake Oswego Transportation System Plan Update PLAN AND POLICY REVIEW, PART 1

2013/2014 Strategic Priorities Fund Application Overview

Yukon Resource Gateway Project

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study Project Kick-Off Meeting SR 94/Kendall Drive/SW 88 Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

Minimization 36 CFR (b)

NEW HAVEN HARTFORD SPRINGFIELD RAIL PROGRAM

Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project. Chino Hills Proposed Alternative. for Segment 8A of the. Chino Hills - September 11, 2007

Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire NH Route 28 Western Segment Traffic Impact Fee Methodology

THE CORNERSTONE APARTMENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY R&M PROJECT NO

Welcome to: PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES MARCH 22 AND 25, 2004 GENERAL LAND USE PLAN. Please take some time to read through this presentation.

We Want Your Input! Review the design alternatives and tell us what s important to you in the design of these areas of the approved BRT Network:

Environmental Assessment Derry Road and Argentia Road Intersection

Appendix C. Parking Strategies

Appendix A. Community Workshop Results PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

BIRMINGHAM CONNECTED Anne Shaw Tuesday 20 January 2015

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD, OREGON EAST WEST PILOT BRT LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT

Focused acceleration: a strategic approach to climate action in cities FEBEG ENERGY EVENT, BRUSSELS, JUNE 27, 2018

Chapter 7: Corridor Visions

CITY OF OMAHA OMAHA, NEBRASKA

Proposed Dounreay - Mybster 275 kv / 132 kv

The purpose of this report is to respond to the Notice of Motion CS-16-51, Generators for Fire Halls and Recreation Facilities, including:

We recommend you keep a copy of this ordinance with you while you are off-roading.

City of Holland Summary of Sustainability Activities. Western Michigan Regional Green Communities Workshop February 17, 2012

/ Planning and Zoning Staff Report Lonestar Land, LLC. - Rezone, RZ

Plattsburgh Downtown Parking Study

Stakeholder Meeting #3. August 22, 2018

Forecast Allocation Methodology. Kitsap 10-Year Update Kitsap County August 2006; Updated November 2006

BROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY

Technological Viability Evaluation. Results from the SWOT Analysis Diego Salzillo Arriaga, Siemens

Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 1 RAILYARD ALTERNATIVES & I-280 BOULEVARD (RAB) FEASIBILITY STUDY

A CO2-fund for the transport industry: The case of Norway

New Haven Hartford Springfield Rail

How to make urban mobility clean and green

Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Parking Issues Trenton Downtown Parking Policy and Sidewalk Design Standards E.S. Page 1 Final Report 2008

Climate Change. November 29, 2018 Growth Management Policy Board

Downtown Lee s Summit Parking Study

Alternative Fuels Corridor Implementation. MARAMA Workshop Mark Hand, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection March 20, 2019

ENERGY STRATEGY FOR YUKON. Independent Power Production Policy

Southern California Edison s Preferred Resources Pilot (PRP) Solar Siting Survey. Summary Document

US 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting

To Our Business Partners

L. A. Metro s Parking Management Program Principles Applied. October 17, 2011 Rail-Volution, Washington D.C.

DRAFT Evaluation Scores. Transit

Public and Fleet Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Strategy

Agenda. Industry Rate Trends Summary of Financial Targets Cost of Service Information. Valuation of Solar

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Project Gateway to New England. Public Hearing June

Table Existing Traffic Conditions for Arterial Segments along Construction Access Route. Daily

MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PROCESS 1

Electric Vehicle Cost-Benefit Analyses

Purpose: General Provisions:

actsheet Car-Sharing

Mercer Island Center for the Arts Parking Management Plan

17.8 acres site 4.6 acres in floodplain & wetlands 3.5 acres of surface parking 9 acres of open space

GTA West Corridor Planning and EA Study Stage 1

Brainstormed Solutions - Passenger

Electric Vehicle Adoption in the South African Context

Study Results Review For BPU EV Working Group January 21, 2018

Subarea Study. Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) Corridor Management and Safety Improvement Project. Final Version 1. Washington County.

TIMBERVINE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO JANUARY Prepared for:

PEACHTREE CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP. Current Status & Next Steps

2 MAJOR MACKENZIE DRIVE WEST JOG ELIMINATION AT HUNTINGTON ROAD CITY OF VAUGHAN

Re: Amend Sections and File No ZA Marcus Lotson, Development Services Planner

Community Advisory Committee. October 5, 2015

AN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF EASTERN CANADIAN CRUDE OIL IMPORTS

5 RAPID TRANSIT NETWORK PLAN PRINCIPLES, METROLINX BUSINESS CASE, AND ALTERNATIVE FINANCE AND PROCUREMENT ANALYSIS UPDATE

Transcription:

A Salt Marsh Advancement Zone Assessment of Greenwich, Connecticut

Front cover image: Open space and unprotected parcels critical to the conservation of marsh advancement corridors in Greenwich; from the accompanying Comprehensive Map Book of Greenwich, Connecticut.

Table of Contents Introduction... 2 Suitable vs. Unsuitable Advancement... 3 Marsh Advancement vs. Wetland Extent... 3 Planning for the Future... 3 Total Marsh Advancement... 4 Marsh Advancement in Open Space Parcels... 4 Total Advancement in Open Space Parcels... 4 Suitable Open Space Advancement by Owner... 5 Suitable Advancement by Open Space Parcel... 6 Marsh Advancement in All Parcels... 7 Total Advancement in All Parcels (OS vs. Non-OS)... 7 Suitable Advancement by All Parcels... 8 Appendix Map Book... 9 RECOMMENDED CITATION: Ryan, A. and A. W. Whelchel. 2014. A Salt Marsh Advancement Zone Assessment of Greenwich, Connecticut. The Nature Conservancy, Coastal Resilience Program. Publication Series #1-J, New Haven, Connecticut. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This effort was made possible through partial funding by the Horizon Foundation, Vervane Foundation, and the McCance Foundation Trust. Page 1

Introduction In 2006, The Nature Conservancy established the Coastal Resilience Program (www.coastalresilience.org) that provides tools and a solution framework to reduce the ecological and socio-economic risk of hazards and comprehensively improve community resilience. The Program focuses on helping decision-makers explore locally relevant, downscaled, flooding scenarios from sealevel rise and/or storm surge, analyze the potential ecological, social and economic impacts of each scenario at a local, regional, and state scale, and facilitate solutions to address these issues. Since 2006, The Nature Conservancy has assisted many coastal and inland communities in Connecticut by providing this critical information and a comprehensive, community-based process that improves overall resilience and sustainability. There is a universal recognition by coastal and inland communities in Connecticut and elsewhere that natural infrastructure wetlands and forests - is a cost effective, long-term part of the solution to help protect people, infrastructure and natural systems from extreme weather and climatic change. Fortunately, our state has a remarkable diversity and abundance of natural resources that provide habitat for wildlife and fisheries, enhance the aesthetics and quality of life for residents, and, of course, defend the shoreline and rivers against storm surge, inland flooding, and sea level rise. The presence of natural resources across the state in particular salt marsh, beaches/dunes, forested headwaters, and river floodplains is the result of previous recognition and commitment to long-term conservation and the requisite balance with socio-economic growth. In order to maintain these natural resources it will require 1) routine and on-going management activities as well as the restoration of degraded areas, 2) forward-looking planning to accommodate changes in habitat composition and location due to climatic change and 3) enforcement, modification and/or development of new land use policies and growth strategies. Opportunities also exist to account for and integrate the services or co-benefits provided by natural infrastructure via new development, redevelopment, or realignment activities. Economically important services/co-benefits from natural infrastructure include wave attenuation, improved water storage and filtering of pollutants from surface runoff, erosion control, and improved aesthetics and desirable public amenities. Taken in total, the immediate and longer-term management of natural infrastructure by the state, towns, private property owners, non-profit organizations, and others will help to reduce hazard risk and improve resilience across Connecticut. While longer-term changes in temperature and precipitation patterns will alter the species composition and type of habitats in a given location, the more immediate implication is the upslope advancement of habitats such as salt marsh in response to continued sea level rise. Sea level rise and the impacts of flooding have and will continue to alter the presence and abundance of natural resources in Connecticut. One of the most noticeable changes is occurring at the shoreline s edge where salt marsh is in the process of advancing upslope into areas now considered uplands. In order to clearly identify where this will occur along Greenwich s shoreline, The Nature Conservancy presents the following report to assist with future planning for natural resources in the context of overall risk reduction and resiliency improvement for the community. Ultimately, it is our hope that this report will serve to inform the community about Page 2

future marsh advancement locations, current land use of those locations and which parcels are critical to ensure the persistence of natural resources in Greenwich longer term. The Salt Marsh Advancement Model used in this analysis was co-developed by The Nature Conservancy and the University of Connecticut s Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering. A full discussion of the Model and underlying methodology is beyond the scope of this report, but a few important details are needed to put the following analysis into context and define how to use the results for planning and implementation. Suitable vs. Unsuitable Advancement In the following figures and tables suitable advancement areas are abbreviated as Yes and unsuitable areas are abbreviated as No. Suitable areas are classified based on the current land cover type - forest or agrigrass - and as such are expected to convert to salt marsh as hydrologic conditions change due to sea level rise, in the absence of further land use conversion. Land cover types classified as urban (i.e. roads, buildings, runways, parking lots, etc ) are considered to be unsuitable for salt marsh advancement at this time. Though much of our analysis is grouped by parcel ID and associated characteristics, these classifications suitable and unsuitable exist independent of the parcel boundaries. In other words, a given residential parcel can have both suitable (lawn) and unsuitable (building footprint) advancement areas. Marsh Advancement vs. Wetland Extent There is a key distinction in this report between the current wetland extent in a municipality and the marsh advancement areas analyzed herein. Marsh advancement areas include only the future projected wetland extent clipped to current upland land cover. Therefore, no assumption should be made about net gain or loss of current wetland extent based on this advancement area analysis. Another key consideration is that in some cases the identified advancement area will include land that converts to wetlands and subsequently to open-water over time. This further demonstrates that net change in both existing and future wetland extent should not be inferred from our analysis. Planning for the Future The advancement and eventual establishment of coastal marshes will occur over the course of several decades and as such our analysis extends out to the 2080s. The rate of change is slow and decadal, yet inevitable. There is an abundance of existing property, infrastructure and natural infrastructure assets clustered along the Connecticut coast and communities will need to formulate growth and realignment plans well in advance of the 2080s scenario presented here. The following data analysis and associated map book (Appendix) can assist with a resilient transition through the presentation of marsh advancement areas and an accounting of the projected changes to coastal property. Page 3

Total Marsh Advancement The full extent of marsh advancement in Greenwich by the 2080s is projected to be 876.0 acres, with 681.0 acres (77.7%) having suitable (Yes) land cover for wetland advancement. The other 195.0 acres (22.3%) are occupied by built structures and associated infrastructure and are unsuitable for marsh advancement (No), currently. Total Marsh Advancement by 2080s Percent Marsh Adv Acres (%) Yes 681.0 77.7 No 195.0 22.3 Total 876.0 100.0 Marsh Advancement in Open Space Parcels Open space (OS) properties are a critical component of long-term community resilience because they currently have little to no development and are the most likely areas to remain undeveloped through the 2080s. The recognition of the role of these parcels in future wetland extent and improved resilience in Greenwich is vital for strategic land management, economic development, and planning. Total Advancement in Open Space Parcels The following three categories are considered in this section: Yes OS: Areas of open space suitable for marsh advancement No OS: Areas of open space unsuitable for marsh advancement Non-OS: Unprotected areas both suitable and unsuitable for marsh advancement Greenwich s open space parcels contain 323.1 acres of total marsh advancement area with 248.1 acres (28.3% of total) having a land cover suitable for future wetlands (Yes OS). Further analysis of the 552.9 acres of unprotected parcels (Non-OS) can be found in the following Marsh Advancement in All Parcels section. Open Space Marsh Advancement Open Space Marsh Advancement 63.1% 28.3% 8.6% Yes OS No OS Non-OS OS type Acres Yes OS 248.1 No OS 75.0 Non-OS 552.9 Total 876.0 Page 4

Suitable Open Space Advancement by Owner A closer look at Greenwich s protected open space properties reveals that the largest share are municipally-owned, accounting for 183.8 acres (74.1%) of suitable open space. Private owners hold the next largest portion of open space advancement area, providing 61.2 acres (24.7%) of suitable marsh advancement area. A non-profit organization owns the remaining 3.1 acres of suitable marsh advancement area. Suitable Open Space Advancement Total "yes" OS Acres (%) Total "yes" adv (%) Owner type Municipal 183.8 74.1 27.0 Private 61.2 24.7 9.0 Non-Profit 3.1 1.2 0.5 Total 248.1 100.0 36.4 Suitable Open Space Advancement 24.7% Municipal 1.2% 74.1% Non-Profit Private Page 5

Suitable Advancement by Open Space Parcel Greenwich has 77 open space parcels that intersect the full extent of marsh advancement by the 2080s. There are 18 open space parcels that each provides more than 3 acres of suitable advancement area with a total aggregate of 219.1 acres (88.3% of total). Greenwich Point Park provides the greatest area of marsh advancement zone with 71.0 acres, followed by Binney Park with 27.7 acres, which together represents 39.8% of total suitable open space advancement. 100 Open Space parcels with > 3 acres of Suitable Marsh Advancement (n = 18) Acres (log) 10 1 Parcel ID Open Space parcels with > 3 acres Suitable Marsh Advancement Parcel ID Acres Total "yes" OS (%) Owner Map Book Page # 697624-061318.INT 71.0 28.6 Municipal 7 733744-367491 27.7 11.2 Municipal 7 769720-716261 16.7 6.7 Private 7 565672-734773 10.4 4.2 Municipal 6 613696-184020 9.9 4.0 Municipal 6 625696-269003 9.8 3.9 Municipal 6 613656-180604 9.7 3.9 Private 6 649744-504457 9.1 3.7 Municipal 6 541584-423883 9.0 3.6 Private 6 529640-305449 8.0 3.2 Municipal 6 733720-408266 7.0 2.8 Municipal 7 517632-240352 5.4 2.2 Municipal 6 637696-432973 5.2 2.1 Private 6 745752-487583 5.0 2.0 Municipal 7 577552-852602 4.6 1.9 Municipal 6 613672-206746 4.5 1.8 Private 6 601696-119003 3.1 1.3 Municipal 6 577680-833854 3.0 1.2 Municipal 6 Total 219.1 88.3 Page 6

Marsh Advancement in All Parcels This section incorporates all parcels into the analysis of suitable marsh advancement. These results help put the open space analysis into perspective, as well as identify important unprotected parcels in Greenwich s marsh advancement landscape. Total Advancement in All Parcels (OS vs. Non-OS) Greenwich s existing open space parcels are made up of municipal parks and athletic fields, private recreation areas, private and municipal open space areas, residential properties greater than 10 acres, land trust properties, properties under conservation easement, Public Act 490 properties, schools, water company land, church properties, cemeteries, and golf courses. This section provides an analysis of suitable areas for marsh advancement on these open space parcels versus all other parcels. These two types of parcels are designated as: OS for open space parcels Non-OS for all other parcels Open space parcels contain 248.1 acres of suitable marsh advancement (36.4% of total). The remaining 432.9 acres of land suitable for marsh advancement (63.6% of total) are unprotected and generally occur on residential, commercial, or industrial properties. The unprotected suitable areas will receive nearly two-fold the marsh advancement by 2080s. This information has two important implications for future planning: 1) today s unprotected properties will play a vital role in maintaining Greenwich s wetland resources in the future, and 2) a large amount of current development (120.1 acres) will be in direct conflict with rising sea levels and advancing marshes. 600 Total Marsh Advancement in All Parcels 500 Total Marsh Advancement 400 Parcel type Yes No Total Acres 300 200 No Yes OS 248.1 75.0 323.1 Non-OS 432.9 120.1 552.9 Total 681.0 195.0 876.0 100 0 OS Non-OS Page 7

Suitable Advancement by All Parcels There are 1,462 parcels in Greenwich that provide areas of suitable marsh advancement, but only 21 parcels offer suitable areas greater than 3 acres. This small subset provides 232.8 acres of marsh advancement; 34.2% of Greenwich s overall total. The specific parcels can be viewed via the corresponding Map Book pages (Appendix) indicated in the table below. 100 All Parcels with > 3 acres of Suitable Marsh Advancement (n=21) Acres (log) 10 1 Parcel ID Open Space parcels in dark green All Parcels with > 3 acres of Suitable Marsh Advancement Page 8 Total yes adv (%) Map Book Page # Parcel ID Acres 697624-061318.INT 71.0 10.4 7 733744-367491 28.1 4.1 7 769720-716261 16.6 2.4 7 565672-734773 10.4 1.5 6 613696-184020 9.9 1.4 6 625696-269003 9.8 1.4 6 613656-180604 9.8 1.4 6 649744-504457 9.1 1.3 6 541584-423883 9.0 1.3 6 529640-305449 8.0 1.2 6 733720-408266 7.0 1.0 7 709688-151905 6.3 0.9 5,7,14,26 517632-240352 5.3 0.8 6 637696-432973 5.2 0.8 6 745752-487583 5.0 0.7 7 577552-852602 4.6 0.7 6 613672-206746 4.4 0.7 6 685672-888762 3.9 0.6 5,7,14,26 541624-507306 3.3 0.5 4,6,16,28 601696-119003 3.1 0.5 6 577680-833854 3.0 0.4 6 Total 232.8 34.2

Appendix Map Book Please consult your Salt Marsh Advancement Resource Disc for the complete dataset of suitable and unsuitable advancement per parcel. Page 9

Comprehensive Map Book of Greenwich, Connecticut

This pag e intentionally left blank

-- Table of Contents -- Overview Maps Marsh Advancement...................... 2 Unprotected Parcels.............................. 4 Critical Parcels.................................................. 6 Inset Maps Unprotected Parcels.................................................................. 9 Advancement per Parcel........................................................... 20 Page 1

Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Marsh Advancement - West 0 0.5 1 Mile ± Marsh Advancement by 2080s Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover West East Page 2

Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Marsh Advancement - East 0 0.5 1 Mile ± Marsh Advancement by 2080s Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover West East Page 3

Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - West 0 0.5 1 Mile ± Parcels Marsh Advancement by 2080s Unprotected Non-OS Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable advancement are shown. West East 541624-507306 Page 4

Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - East 0 0.5 1 Mile ± Parcels Marsh Advancement by 2080s Unprotected Non-OS Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable advancement are shown. West East 709688-151905 685672-888762 Page 5

Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Critical Parcels - West 0 0.5 1 Mile ± Note: Only Non-OS parcels and OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable advancement are shown. Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Protected OS West East 649744-504457 613696-184020 637696-432973 601696-119003 577680-833854 625696-269003 565672-734773 613672-206746 613656-180604 529640-305449 541624-507306 517632-240352 541584-423883 577552-852602 Page 6

Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Critical Parcels - East 0 0.5 1 Mile ± Note: Only Non-OS parcels and OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable advancement are shown. Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Protected OS 745752-487583 733744-367491 West East 769720-716261 733720-408266 709688-151905 685672-888762 697624-061318.INT Page 7

This pag e intentionally left blank Page 8

Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Map Index - Unprotected Parcels A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 Page 9

see page 11 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 14 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - Map A2 A2 A3 A4 µ B1 B2 B3 B4 Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Marsh Advancement Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. C1 C2 C3 Page 10

see page 10 see page 12 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 15 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - Map A3 A2 A3 A4 µ B1 B2 B3 B4 Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Marsh Advancement Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. C1 C2 C3 Page 11

see page 11 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 16 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - Map A4 A2 A3 A4 µ B1 B2 B3 B4 Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Marsh Advancement Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. C1 C2 C3 Page 12

see page 14 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 17 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - Map B1 A2 A3 A4 µ B1 B2 B3 B4 Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Marsh Advancement Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. C1 C2 C3 Page 13

see page 10 see page 13 see page 15 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 18 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - Map B2 A2 A3 A4 µ B1 B2 B3 B4 Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Marsh Advancement Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. C1 C2 C3 Page 14

see page 11 709688-151905 see page 14 685672-888762 see page 16 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 19 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - Map B3 A2 A3 A4 µ B1 B2 B3 B4 Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Marsh Advancement Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. C1 C2 C3 Page 15

see page 12 see page 15 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - Map B4 A2 A3 A4 µ B1 B2 B3 B4 Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Marsh Advancement Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. C1 C2 C3 Page 16

see page 13 541624-507306 see page 18 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - Map C1 A2 A3 A4 µ B1 B2 B3 B4 Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Marsh Advancement Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. C1 C2 C3 Page 17

see page 14 see page 17 see page 19 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - Map C2 A2 A3 A4 µ B1 B2 B3 B4 Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Marsh Advancement Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. C1 C2 C3 Page 18

see page 15 see page 18 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Unprotected Parcels - Map C3 A2 A3 A4 µ B1 B2 B3 B4 Parcels Unprotected Non-OS Marsh Advancement Developed Land Cover Forest, Grass, Ag Land Cover Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. C1 C2 C3 Page 19

This pag e intentionally left blank Page 19

Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Map Index - Advancement per Parcel A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 Page 20

see page 22 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 25 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Advancement per Parcel - Map A2 A2 A3 A4 Area of Suitable Advancement < 0.5 acres 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-20 > 20 acres µ Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. B1 C1 B2 C2 B3 C3 B4 Page 21

see page 21 see page 23 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 26 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Advancement per Parcel - Map A3 A2 A3 A4 Area of Suitable Advancement < 0.5 acres 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-20 > 20 acres µ Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. B1 C1 B2 C2 B3 C3 B4 Page 22

see page 22 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 27 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Advancement per Parcel - Map A4 A2 A3 A4 Area of Suitable Advancement < 0.5 acres 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-20 > 20 acres µ Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. B1 C1 B2 C2 B3 C3 B4 Page 23

see page 25 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 28 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Advancement per Parcel - Map B1 A2 A3 A4 Area of Suitable Advancement < 0.5 acres 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-20 > 20 acres µ Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. B1 C1 B2 C2 B3 C3 B4 Page 24

see page 21 see page 24 see page 26 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 29 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Advancement per Parcel - Map B2 A2 A3 A4 Area of Suitable Advancement < 0.5 acres 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-20 > 20 acres µ Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. B1 C1 B2 C2 B3 C3 B4 Page 25

see page 22 709688-151905 685672-888762 see page 25 see page 27 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 see page 30 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Advancement per Parcel - Map B3 A2 A3 A4 Area of Suitable Advancement < 0.5 acres 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-20 > 20 acres µ Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. B1 C1 B2 C2 B3 C3 B4 Page 26

see page 23 see page 26 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Advancement per Parcel - Map B4 A2 A3 A4 Area of Suitable Advancement < 0.5 acres 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-20 > 20 acres µ Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. B1 C1 B2 C2 B3 C3 B4 Page 27

see page 24 541624-507306 see page 29 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Advancement per Parcel - Map C1 A2 A3 A4 Area of Suitable Advancement < 0.5 acres 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-20 > 20 acres µ Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. B1 C1 B2 C2 B3 C3 B4 Page 28

see page 25 see page 28 see page 30 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Advancement per Parcel - Map C2 A2 A3 A4 Area of Suitable Advancement < 0.5 acres 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-20 > 20 acres µ Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. B1 C1 B2 C2 B3 C3 B4 Page 29

see page 26 see page 29 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Marsh Advancement by the 2080s Advancement per Parcel - Map C3 A2 A3 A4 Area of Suitable Advancement < 0.5 acres 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-20 > 20 acres µ Note: Only Non-OS parcels with > 3 acres of suitable marsh advancement are shown. B1 C1 B2 C2 B3 C3 B4 Page 30