Fig 1.
Study area and location of the Grand Bay estuary (b) and Weeks Bay estuary (c) in the NGOM as well as two synthetic storm tracks (a).
The basemaps in this figure are screen captures of World Imagery map in ArcGIS [64].
Fig 2.
Grand Bay estuary topography for the current condition and under different SLR scenarios.
The adjusted topography for current condition (c. 2000) is shown in (a). The unadjusted topography used for all scenarios is shown in (b). The maps from c-f shows the updated adjusted landscape (dynamic landscape—topographic change based on salt marsh platform accretion and bathymetric change for the expanded bay were applied) in the year 2100 under the low (c), intermediate-low (d), intermediate-high (e), and high (f) SLR scenarios, respectively. The blue and green (shallow water) colors show wet area, yellow is low land and brown demonstrates higher lands and the black line shows the transect used for assessment.
Fig 3.
MHW and marsh productivity maps in Grand Bay and Weeks Bay for current condition (c. 2000).
The top row shows MHW for the current sea level in Grand Bay (a) and Weeks Bay (b) where warmer colors represent higher water levels. The bottom row demonstrates salt marsh productivity for the Grand Bay (c) and Weeks Bay (d) estuary and blue, red, yellow, and green colors represent water, and low, medium, and high productivity marsh, respectively. The basemaps in this figure are screen captures of National Geographic World map in ArcGIS [95].
Fig 4.
Comparison of the Hydro-MEM results for the year 2020 under the int-low SLR scenario in Grand Bay with high-resolution land cover source of Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve [88] (a) and National Wetlands Inventory [89] (b).
The comparison maps are classified as Green (where the model results agree with the land cover map), yellow (where the model does not show marsh but the land cover map shows marsh), and red (where the model shows marsh and land cover map does not show marsh). The basemaps in this figure are screen captures of World Imagery map in ArcGIS [64].
Fig 5.
Biomass density results for the low and intermediate-low SLR scenarios categorized into low, medium, and high productivity regions represented by red, yellow, and green, respectively for the Grand Bay and Weeks Bay estuaries.
The columns from left to right represent the low and intermediate-low SLR scenarios and each column includes two attached maps demonstrate the Grand Bay and Weeks Bay estuaries, respectively. The rows from top to bottom show the biomass density projections for the year 2040, 2060, and 2100. The basemaps in this figure are screen captures of National Geographic World map in ArcGIS [95].
Fig 6.
Biomass density results categorized into low, medium, and high productivity regions represented by red, yellow, and green, respectively for the Grand Bay and Weeks Bay estuaries.
The columns from left to right represent the intermediate-high and high SLR scenarios and each column includes two attached maps demonstrate the Grand Bay and Weeks Bay estuaries, respectively. The rows from top to bottom show the biomass density projections for the year 2020, 2040, 2060, 2080 and 2100. The basemaps in this figure are screen captures of National Geographic World map in ArcGIS [95].
Fig 7.
Marsh productivity coverage change graphs.
The graphs categorized in low, medium, and high represented by red, yellow, and green lines from 2000 to 2100 for the Grand Bay (left column) and Weeks Bay (right column) estuaries under the low, intermediate-low, intermediate-high, and high SLR scenarios listed from bottom to top row, respectively.
Fig 8.
Marsh migration potential maps for the low and intermediate-low SLR scenarios categorized into the water, migration-impossible, migration-possible in agricultural land, and migration-possible regions represented by blue, red, orange, and green, respectively for the Grand Bay and Weeks Bay estuaries.
The columns from left to right represent the low and intermediate-low SLR scenarios and each column includes two attached maps demonstrate the Grand Bay and Weeks Bay estuaries, respectively. The rows from top to bottom show the biomass density projections for the year 2040, 2060, and 2100. The basemaps in this figure are screen captures of National Geographic World map in ArcGIS [95].
Fig 9.
Marsh migration potential maps for the intermediate-high and high SLR scenarios categorized into the water, migration-impossible, migration-possible in agricultural land, and migration-possible regions represented by blue, red, orange, and green, respectively for the Grand Bay and Weeks Bay estuaries.
The columns from left to right represent the intermediate-high and high SLR scenarios and each column includes two attached maps demonstrate the Grand Bay and Weeks Bay estuaries, respectively. The rows from top to bottom show the biomass density projections for the year 2020, 2040, 2060, 2080 and 2100. The basemaps in this figure are screen captures of National Geographic World map in ArcGIS [95].
Fig 10.
Simulated peak storm surge water surface elevation profile across the Grand Bay marsh (Fig 2 for transect location).
Transect distance start from the present day shoreline (0 km) and extent north into the marsh up to 9.5 km. The maximum surge attenuation, δS / δX, are shown for each SLR scenario and for the static and dynamic landscape.
Fig 11.
Storm surge attenuation as a function of bottom roughness (via Manning’s n) in Grand Bay for two hurricane events (circles and diamonds) using A) static landscape and B) dynamic landscape (altered bottom roughness and topography/bathymetry).
Negative values indicate storm surge amplification (water level values increasing along the transect–see Fig 2 for location) and positive values indicate storm surge attenuation (water levels reducing along the transect).