[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
ORNL/CDIAC-45 NDP-043A !OAI(-RIIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY A Coastal Hazards Data Base for the U.S. East Coast Vivien M. Gornitz Tammy W. White Environmental Sciences Division Publication No. 3913 .4 GB459 BY 0M1 .G67 1 1992 METTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC., 11TEO-STATES 4 A; T OF ENERGY This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Techni@ call Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401. Available to the public from the Naflonal Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com- pleteness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process dis- closed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily cons* tute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ORNL/CDIAC-45 NDP-043A ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION A COASTAL HAZARDS DATA BASE FOR THE U.S. EAST COAST Contributed by Vivien M. Gornitz National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies New York, New York Tammy W. White Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge, Tennessee Prepared by Richard C. Daniels' Environmental Sciences Division Publication No. 3913 Date Published: August 1992 Prepared for the Global Change Research Program Environmental Sciences Division Office of Health and Environmental Research U.S. Department of Energy Budget Activity Number KP 05 00 00 0 Prepared by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center T, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6335 managed by MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 13- t D C-05 - jQV ,Lj@@ manwomW nd-.captr6 'Energy, Environment and Resources Center, The University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee. Q0 Cn 0r) us zwWartment of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center 14bruy 2234 South Hobson Av*nu* C-) Charleston, SC 29405-2413 LLJ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES .................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ................................... ix ABSTRACT ....................................... xi PART 1: INFORMATION ABOUT THE DATA PACKAGE ........ i 1. NAME OF THE NUMERIC DATA PACKAGE ........... : 3 2. CONTRIBUTORS ................................... 3 3. KEYWORDS ..................................... 3 4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................... 3 5. APPLICATIONS OF THE DATA ....................... 5 6. DEFINITION OF STANDARD TERMS AND CONCEPTS USED IN THE DATA PACKAGE .................... 5 7. ORIGINAL DATA VARIABLES ....................... 11 7.1 Elevation .................................. 11 7.2 Geology .................................... 12 7.3 Geomorphology ............. ............. I ... 15 7.4 Sea-Level Trends ............................. 19 7.5 Horizontal Shoreline Displacement (Erosion) ...... 23 7.6 Tidal Ranges . .................... ..... 25 7.7 Wave Heights ............................... 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 8. RELATIVE RISK FACTORS ......................... 31 9. THE COASTAL VULNERABILITY INDEX ................ 33 10. LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF THE DATA ....... o . 37 11. DATA CHECKS PERFORMED BY CDIAC ................ 38 12. HOW TO OBTAIN THE PACKAGE ..................... 39 13. REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES .................. 40 13.1 Digital Elevation Data .......................... 43 13.2 Geologic Maps .............................. 43 13.3 Topographic Maps ............................ 44 PART 2: INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPUTERIZED DATA FILES ................................... 47 14. CONTENTS OF THE COMPUTERIZED DATA FILES ........ 49 15. DESCRIPTIVE FILE ON THE TAPE .................... 53 16. LISTING OF THE FORTRAN 77 DATA RETRIEVAL PROGRAMS ......................... 67 17. LISTING OF THE SAS'm DATA RETRIEVAL PROGRAMS ......................... 73 18. PARTIAL LISTINGS OF THE FLAT ASCII DATA FILES ............................. ..... 77 19. VERIFICATION OF DATA TRANSPORT: FLAT ASCII DATA FILES ........................ 80 20. VERIFICATION OF DATA TRANSPORT: ARC/INFOTm EXPORT FILES ...................... 83 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDICES ...................................... 85 APPENDIX A: THE DATA GROUPS: A QUICK REFERENCE ..... A-1 APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................... B-1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE GEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION ..................... B-3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE GEOMORPHOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION .............. B-6 APPENDIX C: DATA LISTING OF GEOLOGIC AND GEOMORPHIC DATA ........................... C-1 DATA LISTING OF THE GEOLOGIC DATA FOR LINE SEGMENTS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN A COASTAL GRID CELL .................. C-3 DATA LISTING OF THE GEOMORPHIC DATA FOR LINE SEGMENTS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN A COASTAL GRID CELL .................. C-16 APPENDIX D: REPRINTS OF PERTINENT LITERATURE ....... D-1 Assessment of global coastal hazards from sea level rise, by Gornitz, V. and P. Kanciruk. 1989 ........... D-3 Vulnerability of the U.S. to future sea-level rise, by Gornitz, V., White, T.W., and R.M. Cushman. 1991 ...... D-19 ARC/INFO' is a registered trademark of the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc., Redlands, CA 92372. SAS' is a registered trademark of the SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC 27511-8000. V LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I Grid cells (0.25' by 0.250) and identification numbers used in the raster (ASCII) and vector (ARC/INFO) files. The value shown within each cell is the grid cell identification number .............. 7 2 Example of how geologic data codes were transferred to the 0.25' grid cells used in this NDP ........ 14 3 Example of how geomorphic data codes were transferred to the 0.250 grid cells used in this NDP . . . . . . . . 18 4a Location of the 36 tide-gauge stations and 11C paleosealevel regions used in the calculation of the sea-level-trend data variables ................. 20 4b Example of how the sea-level trend data were averaged for areas without data on a fictional coastline and transferred to the 0.25' grid cells used in this NDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5 Example of how the shoreline displacement data were transferred to the 0.25' grid cells used in this NDP . . . . . . . . 24 6 Example of how tide-gauge data were transferred to the 0.250 grid cells for the maximum tide-range variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 27 7 Example of how the wave-height data were transferred to the 0.25' grid cells used in this NDP . . . . . . . . 30 8 Example of how the Coastal Vulnerability Index may be used to identify high-risk coastlines in South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 36 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page I Coastal geologic classification codes assigned to the coastal geology variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2 Coastal geomorphology classification codes assigned, to the coastal geomorphology variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3 Mean, maximum, andmini-mum mean tide-range data by U.S. coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4 Statistical summary of maximum significant wave heights for the three U.S coasts ................ 29 5 Assignment of relative risk factors for elevation, local subsidence trend, shoreline displacement, tidal range, and wave height . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6 Assignment of relative risk factors for geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7 Assignment of relative risk factors for geomorphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8 Sensitivity of different Coastal Vulnerability Indices to changes in risk class from high to low assignments for one to three variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9 Variable formats for ECGRID.ASC (File 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 10 Variable formats for ECPOINT.ASC (File 9) . . . . . . . . . . . 61 11 Variable formats for ECRISK.ASC (File 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 12 Sample of the vector format used for ECOAST.ASC (File 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 13 Statistical characteristics of the numeric variables in ECGRID.ASC (File 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 14 Statistical characteristics of the numeric variables in ECPOINT.ASC (File 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 ix LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page 15 Statistical characteristics of the numeric variables in ECRISKASC (File 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 16 Characteristics and size, in bytes and 512- byte blocks, of ECOAST.ASC (File 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 17 File size, in bytes and 512-byte blocks, and the number of INFO data records in each ARC/INFO" export file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 ABSTRACT GORNITZ, V.M. and T.W. WHITE. 1992. A Coastal Hazards Data Base for the U.S. East Coast, ORNL/CDIAC-45, NDP-043A, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 184 pp. This document describes the contents of a digital data base that may be used by raster or vector geographic information systems (GIS) and non-GIS data bases to assess the risk of coastlines to erosion or sea level rise. The data base integrates point, line, and polygon data for the U.S. East Coast into 0.25' latitude x 0.25' longitude grid cells. Each coastal grid cell contains data on geology, geomorphology, elevation, wave heights, tidal ranges, shoreline displacement (erosion), and sea-level trends. To allow for the identification of coastlines at risk from coastal erosion or sea level rise, 7 of the 22 original data variables in this data base were classified and used to create 7 relative risk variables. These relative risk variables may be used to calculate a coastal vulnerability index for each grid cell. The data for the 22 original variables and 7 risk variables, for a total of 29 data variables, have been placed into the following data groups: (1) Gridded polygon data for the 22 original data variables. Data include elevations, geology, geomorphology, sea-level trends, shoreline displacement (erosion), tidal ranges, and wave heights. (2) Supplemental data for the stations used in calculating the sea-level trend and tidal range data sets. (3) Gridded polygon data for the seven classified risk variables. The risk variables are classified versions of the following data variables: mean coastal elevation, geology, geomorphology, local subsidence trends, mean shoreline displacement, maximum tide range, and the maximum significant wave height. These data are available as a Numeric Data Package (NDP), from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, consisting of this document and a set of computerized data files. The documentation contains information on the methods used in calculating each variable, detailed descriptions of file contents and formats, and a discussion of the sources, restrictions, and limitations of the data. The data files are available on magnetic tape, on floppy diskettes, or through INTERNET. This data base consists of several ARC/INFO" export files and flat ASCII data files (provided to extend the use of the data to non- ARC/INF6" users) with the data placed into 0.25' x 0.25' grid cells of latitude and longitude. A 1:2,000,000 digitized coastline of the U.S. East Coast, FORTRAN and SASTI retrieval files, and a descriptive file have also been provided. ARC/INFO' is a registered trademark of the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc., Redlands, CA 92372. SAS' is a registered trademark of the SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC 27511-8000. Xi PART 1 INFORMATION ABOUT THE DATA PACKAGE 1. NAME OF THE NUMERIC DATA PACKAGE A COASTAL HAZARDS DATA BASE FOR THE U.S. EAST COAST 2. CONTRIBUTORS Vivien M. Gornitz National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies 2880 Broadway New York, NY 10025 Tammy W. White Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6335 3. KEYWORDS Coastal hazards; risk assessment; sea level rise; elevation; geology; geomorphology; coastal landforms; subsidence; erosion; accretion; tide range; wave height; geographic information system. 4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Effective coastal management requires the ability to project the response of coastal zones to short- and long-term climate variations, since any change in climatic processes will ultimately affect the coastal zone in some way. For example, 10,500 years ago during the Wisconsin glaciation, the mean global surface air temperature was 5 to 10C cooler than at present. This reduced global temperature resulted in the growth of continental and alpine glaciers. These glaciers fixed large amounts of water in place (as ice or snow) and resulted in a reduction, from current levels, in the eustatic sea level of 110 to 120 m. Variations in sea levels and air temperatures of this magnitude can profoundly affect the maximum intensity and frequency of storms and, as a result, increase or decrease erosion rates in coastal areas (Emanuel, 1998). The effects of coastal storms range from accelerated shoreline erosion (Dolan et al., 1988) to loss of life and property (Case and Mayfield, 1990). Added to these concerns is a fear that climatic change, especially that caused by an increase in the world's mean global surface air temperatures (i.e., the greenhouse effect), may cause the world's current rate of sea level rise to increase (Houghton et al., 1990). The prediction of the future response of coastal zones to changes in sea level or storm intensity requires information on the past and current state of the coast (Smith and Piggott, 1987). In 1987 the U.S. Department of Energy, Atmospheric and Climate Research Division, 3 funded Dr. Vivien M. Gornitz (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Research Program: Resource Analysis Project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to develop a Coastal Hazards Data Base to provide information on the past and current state of the coast. As envisioned, the data base would contain information on relative 'sea level trends, elevation, vertical land movements, horizontal displacement (erosion/accretion), coastal geomorphology, and geology. When complete, the data base would be used within a Geographic Information System (GIS) to identify coastal areas of the United States (and possibly Europe, Australia, Mexico, and Canada) that are currently at risk to inundation and erosion, and whose risk would increase if the world's eustatic sea level increased (Department of. Energy, 1987; 1988; 1989; 1990; 1991). The research- and data-acquisition phase of this project ended in 1991. The data gathered over the lifetime of the project are archived at the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAQ at ORNL. From this data CDIAC plans to produce a set of Numeric Data Packages (NDPs) for the continental United States. The following NDPs are available, in progress, or planned: U.S. East Coast (NDP-043A, available), U.S. Gulf Coast (NDP-043B, in progress), and U.S. West Coast (NDP-043C, planned) - NDPs for Hawaii, Alaska, and portions of Mexico and Canada may follow. The data for the Gulf and West Coast are still in the process of being statistically analyzed and integrated into the GIS, and need to be documented and quality assured before they are distributed. These data sets will be released through CDIAC as they are completed. The data contained within this data base, for the U.S. East Coast, is the first of these regional data sets to be made available. The information presented here may be used for calculating the relative vulnerabilities- of different areas on the East Coast to projected increases in air and sea temperatures, and sea level. This information will be useful to researchers, government planning agencies, the private sector, oreducational institutions which are trying to determine the present and future vulnerability of coastal zones to erosion and sea-level rise. The data base described here comprises data extracted from a variety of sources, including publications of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), universities, and other federal and state agencies. Because of the wide variety of data sources@ used, the scale and form in which data was received varied. To facilitate data analysis, the information was referenced to a grid of 0.250 latitude by 0.25' longitude cells that cover the East Coast (i.e., one grid cell contains four USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangles). For the purposes of this NDP the East Coast has been defined as extending from the Maine - Canadian border to Key West, Florida. 4 5. APPLICATIONS OF THE DATA This coastal hazards data base contains information on elevation (relief), bedrock geology, geomorphology (coastal landforms), sea-level trends, horizontal shoreline displacement (erosion or accretion), tide ranges, and wave heights. These data variables weri selected for inclusion in this data base on the bases of the roles they play in determining the vulnerability of coastal areas to variations in sea level and long-term erosion. When the information in this data base is used in conjunction- with appropriate climatological data (e.g., Birdwell and Daniels, 1991), it may be used to identify coastal grid cells that are at greater risk of temporary inundation from coastal storms relative to other aIreas on the East Coast (Gornitz@ 1990). This data base may also be used@ to identify coastal zones that are at risk from coastal erosion or possible changes in relative sea level in response to predicted global warming and local subsidence (Houghton e't al., 1990). This predictive capability will allow the planning process for coastal areas to begin before the effects of climate change are actually felt. The 29 data variables in this data base effectively measure two basic risk factors, erosion and inundation. The inundation risk of a given grid cell may be estimated based on the sea level trends and elevation data; while the erosion risk may be determined on the basis of historical shoreline displacement trends, resistance to erosion (geomorphology, geology), and ocean forcing factors (tide ranges and wave heights). 6. DEFINITION OF STANDARD TERMS AND CONCEPTS USED IN THE DATA PACKAGE The large number of data variables within this data base may cause confusion. To help alleviate this problem, the following standard definitions have been adopted: Data variable - A single, discrete, data item within a data group or set (e.g., data set=elevation, data variable=mean elevation). System variable - A variable that references or identifies data variables with respect to their geographic location or the physical dimensions of the grid cells or points they represent. Data set - A collection of data variables that have been derived from a single data source, such as the mean and maximum elevation variables. Data group - A collection of data variables that have been placed into a single ARC/INFO" export file and a comparable flat ASCII file. Data base - All data groups within this NDP. 5 All 29 data variables within this data base have been placed into two primary data groups and one supplemental data group (i.e., the supplemental data group contains the point data used for calculating the sea level trend and, tide-range variables). The primary data groups are stored in a grid of 0.25' latitude by 0.25' longitude cells. All three of the data groups are available as ARC/INFCP ex 'port files or flat ASCII files. The data values in the ARC/INFOTm files are point or polygon based. This implies that each grid cell that describes the U.S. East Coast has a total of 29 attribute values. (An auxiliary data file containing a 1:2,000,000 digitized coastline of the East Coast has been included. The data in this file were extracted from a-map originally digitized by the USGS.) To allow these data to be used by a raster GIS, or a non-GIS data base, the data were transformed into a raster format and stored in the flat ASCII data files. The storage format for these flat files uses the same 0.25' latitude by 0.25' longitude grid used in the vector (ARC/INFOTM) files. The 0.250 grid covers the East Coast and is defined by the following coordinates: 85W, 24N; 85*W, 46N; 650W, 460N; and 65W, 241N. The origin of the grid is at 85'W, 24'N and grid identifiers increase from left to right, bottom to top (Figure 1). The data contained within each grid cell is valid for the entire grid cell. The data for a grid cell should not be construed as being representative of a "point" in the cell -be it the lower- left corner, upper-left corner, center, etc. . Of the 29 data variables contained within this data set., 9 contain information originally derived from point data. For these variables the actual, point data have been provided in the supplemental data group. The supplemental data group includes the following items: station name/number, latitude/longitude location, period-of-record, and the actual values used to derive the relative sea level trend, long-term geologic-trend, corrected sea level trend, local subsidence trend, mean tide range, maximum tide range, and mean tide level variables. Upon special request a line/are version of the data used in the creation of this data base is available from CDIAC. If requested, this data will be provided as an exported ARC/INFOT1 coverage. This special coverage contains data for line segments, each approximately 4.5 km long, that when plotted are equivalent to those found within the auxiliary file (i.e., a 1:2,000,000 scale coastline map) provided with this database. 6 Figure 1. Grid cells (0.250 by 0.25) and identification numbers used in the raster (ASCII) and vector (ARCANFO) files. The value shown within each D cell is the grid cell identification number. M MM MjMMjSWI =16M 697416mlem Wn emlem@ffimlfflal - 6-1-IMIMM ew Mal WM 8=1=1 MWjM0jMW NO SM MWIMMIMM17M Sew Sam M" MB5JM BE)" Sam SM; mmism, magi-M OMS ma MW AIM elm M& me, sm MM M&41MMMM MM MIS &%L I M1 _QL1A _09al we W17 ems 0919 mm M02 SM WN MM IM MW MM SEW 10 Sm 1 8812 OMS13 MIS We M17 6918 681989M EE21 sM MM 8324 !!E SM BM9 MW sm$ MW MM WN 68M 6M M37 MW MW T2 Mae SM' sm SM W24 SM IMiS ffW HZ28 SM) MI I= 9MMM Imla SM, sm sm am s;llil @ Sm @ TAs VAs EM-E 6748 am Wee V511, am sr9, SM Wo OW SM 97M VW MAI 0012 55421 0SAA, DBAES WAS 8347 BOAS SBAI? SIM effil MR e5M SM,I SMS effil 0%, Sees Sex) 0551 SeS2 SWI SOM WM 0555 SOP SMS MW @ UPI OEM eMZ1 W4 SM @ W" ee7S SeUll SMS am Sam Sees sm', Sam sees MMW7 Sam I Sees, @ .0571 8@2 SIM ffi@l 85IS MM BP7 STIS 85-70 MM Sm, MMI.S. . BESSIMM, MV Sees eem sese esN effis sm ser ems Sam Sew SAS, sm Nee @j eAml SAM SAW M, Nmj SW 45,NING5 Nm smI aer Sew MWIMIDISSI, MIZ 86,31 ffil" MIS MIS ffil? as's MIG OEM &QI elm SIM 8424 elm am SW BOW 64M 8410 8411 8412 8413 S4t4jNjS 8418 807 6418 6419 6420 BQI SAM SIM 804 8AGS SCS 8427 SQ8 SAM SM MI SM SAM 804 64M 64M 807 am 840 6321 M3? BM M24 BXS eM MV M2B MM 03M SMI SM MM MW MMM MMM MW 03M MQ M41 OW 8W OW 63,15 MAS OW Me SM MM M51 03P MM e3N 13355 6358 BY.7 6333 0339 MM IWe WAS " MA`5 I WAS 0247 WAS MAD eme M51 MM S255 MM Wee a2m mm Sm, MW MM M"_ -am Mee MW Sees Well M70 SVI SM) SPA @ WIII ez's ez,I) Wes fte, site ales els" W85 I elm MW elm elm SIM .11, .1 .1. .. elm Ble, elm elm SIN MEWS elm SIM &m SIM Ise elm elm elm SIN elm elm elm SIM -1 W am-== MLAM-M ammmamuma-M&M Blot &K&M-M 1 8195 107 6108 (Meg &R 8111 = 8113 6114 ellS 8116 B117 MAAU9 Jilm ent em SM OM4 M. am @.n! -LaR Mle W 1 W21 W3 M14 MIS 130151021171M81001918M BX!I IMM M23 M24MSW MV @! MW MMn!L MM =3 W34 WE MM =7 8M DOM MQ M2I WU SM M24 WF. MM SQU SMI Sme SM Mel SM MAI m4? SN3 MA4 MIS 5NO M47 M40 ENO MISS M51 5R2 MM M54 ME M 51157 Wes 58M MM 8941 MQ sm M" WG sm sw WAS I sm Well, M51 M62 MMI ON I ME Ems MV sew mW me Well MW MW sm MW SMS Sep as sees sm W71 am SM W4 WM WX SM SM MM MM @M, VM MM SIN WM V011 SWIS"Bill MM sm @1@ VM - -'s _3,1@ Vmlwml@ .G wm Ve@ mus Val wal vw mm VN l;lm Mm W1 .2!E sm MN sms M sw I so I aw saw gar. EW sm? sm 59WISM SMI sm SMI .1 .1 .1. .111 P12 5713 .111 5715 S11. .17 1 S.71.1 6.711.1 MUM mm MD_. =a AM &= om _W_ -M. ME- SM 7-1 SM UMB EM7 SEW SEW sma EMI SM, MW 'sm. am Sm? sme sma me MAI mv me ED" SNG me 00 we ffila MM 6ZI SEE21 SEM UFA ME 59M M5.7 SEES MM S", 5-6 EA4S SAM @, @1 S@m SAM NV @ SlW 1;4M 54s, rAW Nen Nals, Nee @ SAM Nm 5@ sm WEI MBI MM MM MS* MUS SM MW SM 53M 53M W71 SM I MM I MIA SM sm. On I SM MM MBI MW SM 5384 MM 53M MW MM MW MM SM 53M MW MN M95 WEIS SM7 SM 5399 SIM EPBI SM MRS @ SM 5280152117 MM1 MM SM WDI MWI SJ weA sm Sea 1 SM71 sm sm MW Oil, M32 1 53M W34 Mes M00 I MW I MISS MW MIS Mll IM12 W13 MIAIMIS Is Mi .7MIS M19 @M WW!E!t SM IM 5207 WB 5209521t WI E2121 S?131 MIA 5215 MIS E217 !2161 52le S2W 5221 = S2M S2 24 SM SMIM2, IMM m2l) mW M:l, 1@ MM152N @ @Wsmimm .1 SIx2x=_5M SIM SIW SIX S13B SIW _@M S139 St4a S141 S142 M& SIM SW@ SIM S147 S148 51V 5193 5151 5M _5= _5154 Ma 1 _51R 3M SIM SIM RjI M2 I SM I 930A MG SM S047 SM MQ 9250 SO 9&2 WM SEA SHi 92M 9&7 RES 9M SM SM' 92M SM MN MUS mm %W MRS MM SM EWI SP2 SM SPA W5 SM E077 SM W9 SM Aml @j Ase@ AseA Am@ Ame AlIM AM AM AVA AM AaIq AW7 -Aws Aum Asm Aml, 'em Asp AQ!A AM @ Asm, Aule Asm Ama AM, @ Asm AMA AM. ASS2 46M @ AMS AMS 4SV Affis@ Asm -1 ASW ASM AMA AMi AMS ASW AMS A31911 AW, ADM 4WI AmA AmM@ AMD - AGM 40W 4910 Am- 4912 AS13 IR0.,f0 .11 ADI 10\711 421 AM2 4EM3 404 49M 49M ARM 481M ARM ARIAL11 4812 A813 M14 ABIG 15 A817 4818 ASIQ @ 4821 40M 48ZI ABN 411E 4mS AGO AMB AIM) 4831 AM, AM2 8M 483U& ARM 4MS ABAP) @M 41M 4127 4728 473D 4731 @Mj 4MI 1",IA. A7. 4F. I A. Al. .1 1. 41. . 47. A.J@ -11. 11. 47. 11@1 1-1521 @. 1 44@ @1 A. I&W 4041 A5Q ASO 45,15 1W AW AM 4051 10@1 As. .1. . . . 1. . .1 AS. Ae. . A., @n 41157 AIMS `eM @ `VI) @92 1 .1 4IM AVII ,A". AM, - Asm - Ame Aswl -1 @, A@ As-nl @1_ VS - --m AsM Am, 45MIASM AUDI AeM 5M AM, AMS AMD - 4 4",a W Asa, - :d AASI 44m 4AIKII@ AASS AAW AAW 1 44991 A43I 440 AAm 4Q3 44mIj 4Alm AAIP 4AIX 4499 AMi) Am, A@ AM3 AMA ;m AMl3 AMB ARM A518 ASII 1@612 A613 1 1 AlsQ, 5; L Awe@ AAm @AAl 44M .10 -11 .12 .13 AAIA .15 .16 .17 .18 -19 @ 4@ 4,Q4 44M AAm 4@ AM A<II 4@ I A44 41.; 4<% 4 4= AM 4 4M I t 1UR 4= A3M - -1 - -1 - - - AN, - - - - I lees _@M _X_l AM 4M Ar@4 AME _ 15_ __ _M_ _lm_ MI 212 @@j A@ QAS @ 42M AMI 4@ USA 42M li@l A2W 42% @ @l I. I. A. I. AZ?2 AT3 4Zltl; 4181 41CP 4183 AMA 4165 4108 4167 AIM 410914170 4171 4172 4173 AIN 41r. 41`75 41@ 41M 41@0 AIM 4181 41M 41M j AIN 41M AIM IV 41M 41W 410 4191 41M AIM 41 AIM 1 41. 41. Qm AM 1 4003 "am 4M6 4NO 4087 40M AM 420 42M AM 43M AMA QW 4097 43M AM 4100 4101 AIM AIM 4104 4105 4105 4107 4108 AIM 4110 4111 4112 4113 41, E4, AIIB 117 4118 4119 41221 AM1 422 4W!% AMA Am AMI 4W Am 4&0 .10 401, .12 -W3 A2IIIIA015 4015 Q17 Q18 AW9 A0W 4WI 4V2 493 4324 AM AM5 40V Aam 40a) 40ffli@l AW 40M Ae3I 42M 1031 AM AM AIM5 3921 XM @ SEA 2WO 3M713M 21M ZWO 3@31 @ 3K0 XCA @ @1@ MM 13" 2lNI 3W 2WA @ 3WO 3WO MAGIZEM 3WI 3952 Zrpl Mr. W was 3em _204L.J!@k SW 3M :0Q IAR -IM _zre_ @ @1@138M 3GM1mM _X51 MW I= 3ES. 39% "M 3W :lem alm1wo W. _3%2 39. 3BAB 3781 TOM MW 3M 3M 3M7 37M 37M @ @l YM13M VM137M aIm mm meA wos :vea WIP 3MI3=1. 2866 3eStl 210V 31588 MW 3" 3em 3" MI 25'M S'N mm @ 3M -l) W10 I I 3@Z @.3 9" ff@S @16 @18 IQ 3905 3M 3827 3wimm- wit 361A 3515 3821 3%Q 3W amqi=;mm - iE@ - MIS 7 I@D MIS All- Am' Figure 1. (Continued) D 1-1 lad --I laa - -1 -1 1.,. - .11 1-1 .. 1 .1. -7 1- .1. 7a. la. - - la. W21 5=1 00231 N241 - -1 - 1- -1 1- -.1 -.7 1- M. - - - I., - -. - - - .. 1- -11 -2 .. - I - al- alla -.1 ---1 a- -1 --a - a- -1 - I . - - - .- .-a all. alla --I ---I all -1 all III 3 alla -6M all alla Illa 8171 1772 Ill Ill 11" a- .1. -all a .1 a- all all a- .7a, ..1 .1.1 .1. all. a- all. a- a- III. a- -l - a- all. al. l. - .1. Ill a- - . -1.1 .1 .111 .... I- I all, ...I - I -L-- ... .1. ..2 -2 a- .1. .11 a- Is. a- a- -, as. - -.1 all. I- a- -1 -2 - a- all. a- a- -1 a- -1 a- -I - - - - - f4 @& - - .. .17al .71 .1. a- -11 ..1 62.7 .1 1., 1.7 all. .0 a- I.'- a- -1 ..1 a- -1 .1. 1212 .11 .1. .11 .2@9-'.".j ..1 .211 1- - 1-1 -7 IMB 62201 BM =I 0232 0232 0234 .... .... .... 'm als, a- avall av@ I- all. .11 1- a- -11 .7$ a- a- Oll 1.7 -.1 -1 -1 M2 .. .-I .-1 -.7 GO . . . . I -9 ..2 .19 -.1 l... .1. .11 .1. a- a- -,I al. .12 .1. .1. -11 .1. Z-,!" .2. a- a- - all, a- 5721 57221 -1 -1 1- -1 .1-1 -1 -1 5- !p3a av. 573l Q - Vb @741 5742 5743 - 5- 5717 3740 al. I- - 1 -2 1- -5 al. .11 Ill ala. -41 --1 --1 --1 lea, - .7, .7. 7'l --., -@ 11@ I Lar .4 -gffw .. .., - -1 .. -1 l. -1 -2 J @P. -aj a.. a- I., l., -11 .12 .11 Ill. - 1 -1. .-, 1 .1. 1'. all. -w -2 .11 1414 .11 .1. - 1- a.,. 1421 5- - -1 -.1 1.11 "1.1 .17 54301 5.- .1. .31 1- -3 - l 2 l a-- - all 5256 UM S271 -1 - WlS 6214 E-1 62761 62" -a a-- -1-1 -ki .111 .17al .174 .11 all. I 1 .1" 111. .1. .1.1 .1.. .1. .1. al. .1.1 .'.. I'. I'. .- .1- .1. al. .1.. .1. ". - 5463@ - 1- -1 alla - - , ..I - - - - I- - al. III I 1'. .1.1 11- .1. al. 11.1 1-1 al. 1-1 111. .112, 1111 1- 1111 a- 1.!'. 111. 1, 1. 1- .- GOOD - .12 .1. -4, ... l .1. .11 1.1. .1. .21, -1 - .027 1 -2 ..1 -21 -41 -1 ...1 -71 -1 4 .1 4- - - -2 4- . ... ... -7 .41 -1 - - al - 4- .11 Ill. -1 -.1 -1 .7. .1 .1. -1 - -1 477a - - 4- - 47l 1 47771 4770 -91 4711 1702 - - Ill 700 .7al Ill 476P - 4- -2 - - - - 4797 170a - -7 4.00 4-1 @ -1 - - - -1 -71 4506@ -.1 41. 4- - - .7. -71 -9 - 4710 - 1 4712 4713 4- -l 4716 -1 4711 171Q -0 .- -1 ... - 451D -2 -31 -4 .1. -ll -1.1 - 4a.1 - - - - 4.2a ...I - 1 - .. 4 - ." ..I - - -1 1=3 l- 4.1 l. ----1 -2 -7 - -1 .- -11 .2 .0 -5 @B l., l. -1 .12 -.1 -.1 .11 - - -al - -1 -a - -al - Ill -1 .12 .711 -7S .11 .17 4- .17 -l -1. 43. .1 4- 4- .2. .2.1 1.1 Q. .2.1 43 4361 - 1303 -1 1306 -1 -8 -1 1311 -2 -3 -1 131S 1310 1317 4- 43l - - -1 .11. - 1 -2 - -. -1 - .- 1- - 4-1 -.1 - 12- .- -.. .2.2 -1 -1. -. - l4. 41- 41. -1 41. -�Lm -3 4137 1138 4139 4- 4111 41QI 4143 41-1 41.1 .1. .1471 4- 11. 41al 4111 - 4- .111 .1$. - .1. 411. ..., F- -!Sil- - ... .., J - - - ... - - -6 -71 IIM - 4071 '-2 1- 1- 107l Q71 - -1 4- - -11 ..1 30.1 3- -1 .-11 ll 3.1. .1. .1. .1 1.7. - .. - -3- - --,I -a .. - -1 - .. - - -.1 -1 ..1 1-1 - -a .. -.1 -1 all, I--- all, ala all, IM - alla =11 -2 - -7 -al 1.,. -1 1 -- .11 - I 1.1a .1 .1 .171 '.1.1 - aa@ lal" 3al' 3- -1.1 -.1.1 -, lal. -11 3.1. - -..l I., ... .- .., -1. - - 1 .1.1 aall@ .- - .7.1 .-1 -.1 3- @1 3112 3713 3741 3- 3- 31-11 1741 a- _377. a- .2 _@4@ _@L. _L- _2___ _ _n!l _@. __7 3- Ill .71 .7a 1--- %11 7-7 -1 MI aal aaa. all all all @ -a 4' . -a -a -a -a `7 "a I". _7 7 7 411. .11. a -al 7. 4.7. 41- 4-. 41 41 41. .7. A Figure 1. (Continued) D -1 -7 -11 1 3- 3.1 1- -1 1IMB 1-1 .11 .73 .1. .11 -1-1 1 3 -1 -7 .'1 .1. .1. .1. .11 -7 V. j .-1 -1 31. 11. 3L23 31251 3- 3127 31M 3- 3- 3131 -3- 3- 3135 3138 1137 3- 3139 31" 3141 31Q 3143 3- 311 @-Z 3117 31-8 1.. 1111 11.1 31.1 1-1 1-- - I-1 . . . . . . 1 -1 3- -1 - - - - I - I -II - -I-..I .., -- -- -j / - - .- .11 -1 - ..74 .1 -1 1-1 -3 Ml -1 2.7. -1 .7. .-1 -1 1- [email protected] 2.7 - -1 - 2 1. .13 111. .1. .11 I- - -.112- -1 ..'. ... .'I- 2.1. .11 .1. .11 2.1. .1. 2- -1 2.7 -.1 j - I I - j 2- 2.. -.11 . I- ,'I. I- - 2- 272S- 27271 2- 2731 2- 27= 2- - -S 2- M, -t;. 2- 2743J - -1 2747 2- 274D - - -2 2763 - -6 -0- - - 2- -- j @--.l - 2-1 J -1 2-7 - MM 2-1 1 111. 2- -1 _L- -7 2- -1 1- 1., - 2.7 2- 1 -2 2- ..1 .. .-I - I 2 -1 11 11 - - - - - - - - - - -7 2-- I- I.1 - 1'.7 .1. .11 @12 .13 2111 .1. .17 .11 Ill. - 1- -1 2- IC. -2 2113 2411 2@ P. N17 241.1 2412-N21 2- 2Q3 2- 2420 2427 2428 2.. -1 -1 N. I..- .'M. .11 - 2- 2416 .11 2- - -1 - - - -- -1-A =1 - -1-9-- - -3 1- -- -7 1- 1 - - -5 MB- 2- - - -1 - - 2-1 2. .11 2--- 2- 2.1 2-1 1 111. 2- - -.1 2- I,., ". 1163 21 @j 2105 12-1 21- 21- 21-1 211. 1.- 111 1751 2170 2177 2- 2179 2- 21811, 1 @2103 2- 2105 21 @ 2167 2168 2.. 21.1 2- 11.11 1. Il- I... I@ .7 21. 11 I- - -.1 .. 1 -11 .. - 2- 1 1- - 2--21. IlDl 2- 21031 2- 21-1 1'- 21.7 2'.. 2.. .11.1 2.11 Il 12 1' 1. 1 1- -.1 .11. 21.1 1' 1. Ill. 112. - -.112- -7 1... .1. 2.111 1. 1. .11 2.1. . IT- 2.1 - 1 2-1- --7 1- . . I . II- .., - - - - 1.17 --- - I , -I - '..- - -1 4-1 1 -,- - - - - III ..- ---1 11 -1 1.71 1.72 1-1 - - -1.1 1111 I - - - 1-1 - - -11 1777 1-1701 1111 -3 17K 1111 1. - -2 1703 1 -I - 170. 11.1 11. 1-1 -1 1-1 1-1 -11 1.7 1 1@ 11.7 111. ".. I - 1 -1 .1. 1 1.7 1-1 1 - .11. I'll ".I I'll 1- 17tS 17151 1717 171.1 111. 1 - 1- -3 1-' @.ll 1.1. 1.1.-1.2. '.. .,I ...I - , ., - '.. .-I - -2 - - ...I --1 -1 -1 -j I - - ". - 11 , @ - 1.. 1- 1- 1 -1 -31 -51 - -11 - 1141 -1 - I @ 1- 1 1=4 1 -1 -15" ISWI -1 -1 1- 1-1 1.31 -1 14.11 1 - -I- - I . I@@ %.J 1-1 1 1.1 - 14.1 -1 1.11 1472 - 1 .1. 141.- 14.1 1 - -.1 1-1 1-11 --1 11.1 1 wIM7 13" 1 1 - - 1371 137S 1376 1377 4372 1381 1 XI 1 1 1307 - I. I - 1.2 1 'J -13.1 1 - J 1315 .311 1317 1281. 1 -3 1- 11. 1.1 ...1 1 1.1 .1 '111 'Ill ... 1- 12. 1 1.1 12. 1-1 1111 ",1 1,, 1'. 1- -7 1" 1, 1 1.. 1 - I 1121 1 12.1 -.-i 111. 1.3. 1131 11 @. 11-1 ".1 .1. -7 111. 11. 1-1 -2 11. 11. 1111 1-1 11. H. I 1.14 1- 1.1. 1., 112 111 111 111 WI III -111 112 111 174 111 111 111 111 .1 1. 1. 1. - 1. .2 .1 1. .7 1. - 1. .7 1. 1. .1 .2 1. - I. .. I. 1. .7 ..1 .1. .1 .11 .17 .1. .1. 721 72. 1. 111 1. 1. 732 71 734 7Z 735 737 735 7@j -1 7.1 7. 1.1 1.. 1. 751 753 1. - - 1. - - -- -I I-- I --- - -j-1 - .- -7 .12 .1. .14- .1. .11 .1. - S., -7 W. - .71 -- - .- .1... . .. - .1 .2 .. - - .., .1 - - 4. - 4N - -- - 1 4: 1.- 1. - " I. - -1 - -1 516 511 512 513 5141 515 5,6 5,7 5,a 519 W. .4 .. 4. .1 .1. - 412 .1. .1. 41. .1. 121 .. 4. - - 427 428 -Q - .31 .32 433 4M - -431 - - - 121 111 - -III W? =6 - "1 332 331 - 1- ..2 3- .1 .2 .3 - - .. .1 1. 2.1 - 2.. 2. .1 - 2.. 2. - 152- - .1 2. 2- 111 111 111 21. 111 211 - 275 271 111 - 1.1 1.4 1. - III I - 177 111 1. 1. 111 ... 1. 1. - 1.2 - 1. .. I.. 111 1. 1. .7 1. 1 11 12 .1 - 1. 1., 1.7 ... 1. ''. .., 112 .11 ". .11 11, 117 .1. 11. 1 1 1. 11 1 1. 1@ 1. 17 1 @3 34 - -@7 3. NO 3 411 7 1.1 9 I I I I I I I I 3 I 3" 3. 3 3_ 7 $-3 212 7 V2 " 2' '1- 21 @2 A A@ Figure 1. (Continued) 1-1 1 11 3- .-1 .1.1 .11 .1. 1- -3 ..1 -2 -3 34141 -51 -11 .17 .1. .1 1 !.L, 1.17 1. U. .-I Ill 3- -.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .111 111l 111. .111 3- 11 11 -3 1, 3155 31.7 318B 31 SO 3- 3191 $192 3103 3195 $106 IIW 31 N - I - -.., .- .1 .1.1 n," l, .-I I .. .1. 1 .. .11 1$1, 11, 1.- 11 .. 1. .1 .11. 11. 1. 112. 1 -71 1-1 -11 1 -11 - .111 .-1 Ij--11 - - 1-1 -1 --1- -3 -1 1128 -71 -.1 -- --1 -1 1-331 .37 1 =31 -41 1 -1 -1 1- 1 -1 -12 2- -1 -..' 2- -.1 --1 2.. -... ---.1 2- -1 -2 .. 12.. - ...I II- - - 2-1 - I .. 2lIl - - - 2053 IlCII ISISS 2IMD5 -7 IllI 2- Ill 1-2 N n2-1 2071 2070 - 27 2706 2- - 2- InQ - 1 2712 2- 2 2177 2- 2772 2760 2781 2782 2783 -- InO -7- -- 1n2 2---S Intl 21.7 Il. I- -7 In I .. .. .- _n.1 _I- 12111- 2- InI 2-1 ---8 V. 21n 2711 2111 I'll 211 @2111 I'll- I I I I Inl _ _.ML _E_ _n_ -1 --1 2- -71 1.'. .11 .1. .111 2.1. - I 1-7 2611- - 1- 2.31 -1- -I.1- ..1 2-1 -1--1-1 -11 -- .21 -1 -1 2= M7 - - - 1 -1 2l. -.1 ..1 ..1 21. -3 -1- 2545 -7 .25401 2= -1 =2--2-1 =1- -I 1- 2- 1-1 2.. 1 1.. - I..- I.. 1..' 2- .3-- 2..-2- 1!-- 2- Z.71-. l3 2174 2-1 2.n .1 n --1 2- -7 2- 1 - 2373 2374 .7.- 21n .7 - - - - - - - - - - - 2-1-2-2- 2- -1 - -1 22- 2-1 1 - - - -2211 -- 21ft -I- 2=1 2ll'I- 2lll 2- Ill. 21111-2 2313 211@ 1,- -1 -11 1- 11 In, I 111. .12 - 1114 .1 ll -.17 216 nIG -U21 - 2-1 -- I--i - 1 2- 2.1 --7 2- 12.. I' 1' -1 21. 21. I'M 2127 21 N 2- 2- 213. 21111 2- 2- 213G 21" 2137 131 2111 11" 21-1 2- 2- 21.1 1' .1 1. 1-1 11.121 @ 2- IISI 9162 21 @2- 2166 2IGl 11 @ 2- 2- 21.6 -7 - 2- - I - .. .- - --7 2-- ..I ..I I- --..1 1.7 ...1 .711 -2 2.7. 1.. .1 1.12 Ill. I.I. I.I.- I -I-,- -I- - --- - 1-1 1.11 1., 1 -- $661 1 lIR -3 16041 1 - 1-7 1-1 1- 1 - -2 .... I - -la.1 I -1.2 1.. 1-1 1 - I.. I -- - -. 1.111 1.12 1.11 1.1. 1.11 1.1. 1.11 1.1. II., - I I - 1.7 1 - 1.1. 161, 1612 11131 11141 111 @j -1.17 1.11 1.1. -11 11 1.2 '.1-1.. 1.7 1.. 1., 1.12 ... 1-1 -.1 ..1 1.17 -- 1". -71 1732 11-1 1-1 1 -1 13. 1737 1711 -1 1- 17.1 1112 1743-1715 11 .1 In. 1- 1 -1.7. 1 -I..j -.1 1 - 11.1 In. I- Il. -7 Iln 1571 1571 1575 Ill I ln -.1 l. Ill, 1-1 1-- 1-1 11.2 l.- 1- .4. 11. 1.1 14. - - - - -I.. - IW. 11.1 .-1 1.11 IIIIJ -1 11.1 1- 1117 111. 111. 1- 1 - IIN 1 .121 1 - 1411 111 1 1412 -1 1111 -6 1- -7 1--- -I - 1122 1 -"121 1 -1121 - 1-1 'Il I.I I..II -, -1- 1446 1- 11. Ill I.. I - I m 1 .1 1111 1 Ill I In -1141 1 ... 1-11 -.1 -114. .1 Il. I 1246 1242 -3 -1 1215 1 2ft -7 - - 1 ISO - I - .2. 1 - -1 -12S7 I Ill -9 -1261- 1.1 1 -12.1 1 -11251 IN8 I Ill 1270 1271 1272 1273 -1 127S 1218 1277 12n 12n -6 11.1 .1. 11.. 1. 11., 11. 1 1. 1 In 1111 - I'll 1 174 1175 1171. 1111 1 -117. 11 SO 11.1 1 1. 1 .1 11. ". 11 .11.1 1 -11 . 11.1.1 11 .1 1. 1 1.. 111.1 1.. 1.1 - I I - I 1 .1 - I - IN8 I13D7 I @-9 11.1 11 .1 11.2 -11. 11. -11.7 1 - 11. 111.1 -1 1- 11 Il 1 11. 1--- --1 1 1 -1 11 1- I - I.. I - 1- 1. 1.11 1.1. 11. .1 1.. 1.21 1 .- II I -1.7 1..1 .,1 1 - 11-11 l.I .2. .3 .4 -7 .. In . 1 .1. .7 .1 - I- .41 1- .7 1. 1 1 - W .1 .4 ..1 In .11 Ill .1.- In .1 - 7. 1. Ill 112 773 778 777 In nQ- -7%1 7861767 ne lnI -n1712-- - n.- 1.- .7 11 -MLL15 - n. n, .I -705 Ill-- -nQ -711 112 713 1. 71. 11.- 11. 11. 71. a .12 .1. .1. 1 ... - I.,-I -.. -1, .2. 1 - .- -1-.1 l21 523 5M - l. l. .1 - 5. 53. S1, .1 511 Ill - 5.1 Ill 5511-- lla- .17 - 1. 4. 4. 4. 1. ll 4. .72 413 - - - - - - - In 311 .,1 111, l1l -7 - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .12 .1 2- 1. .1 ..1 2. 2- - .. 2.1 1- In -1 - M3 -4 1. .. -- - ll.-..Il- Ill ..I 11. 2.1 2- -7 1- 21. Ill 212 213- Ill 21.- "1 11. 111 224 22l -221 1. 2111233 Ill .1 2. 1. 2-. 127 1. 11 1 Ill 131 11 Ill 11 111 1. 1. .41 41 .1 4. 1. 7. 711 n @7 I 10 @ 21 2-7 @27 7l 7. ORIGINAL DATA VARIABLES The data sets that make up this data base include the following: elevation geology, geomorphology, sea level trends, shoreline displacement, tide ranges, and wave heights. These data sets were obtained in a variety of scales and formats (e.g., as point, line,, or polygon data). Therefore, the methods used to enter the data into the 0.25' grid cells vary by data set. The variable descriptions used in this data base were derived from annual reports delivered on April 30, 1988, November 30, 1988, April 29, 1991; and personal correspondence with the contributors (Gornitz, 198.8a; 1988b; 1991). The following subsections provide a brief description of the data sources and the units/classification methods used in compiling each data set. 7.1 Elevation The elevation data for this data set were obtained from the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC), Boulder, Colorado, as digitized land elevations (to the nearest meter) for 5' latitude by 5' longitude grid cells. The NGDC grid cells. were then grouped into the 0.25' x 0.25' grid cells used in this data base. Minimum, mean, and maximum elevation data for each coastal grid cell are provided. The 0.250 cells used may contain up to nine 5' grid cells, where only the 5' grid cells with nonnegative elevation values (i.e., with land within their borders) have been used in calculating the data variables in this data set (all 5' cells without data contained a value of -1). If only one 5' grid cell within a given 0.25" cell contains a nonnegative data value, then the minimum, mean, and maximum elevation variables will be the same. To calculate and transfer these data to the 0.250 grid used in this data base, the variables were calculated as follows; 1. The number of 5' NGDC grid cells with nonnegative elevation values within each 0.250 grid cell was determined. 2. The minimum elevation for each 0.25' grid cell was assigned by taking the minimum elevation of all the nonnegat.ive 5' grid cells (i.e., from the original data source) within the grid cell. 3. The mean elevation for each 0.25' grid cell was assigned by taking the average of the elevations from all nonnegative 5' grid cells (i.e., from the original data source) within the grid cell. 4. The maximum elevation for each 0.25' grid cell was assigned by taking the maximum elevation of all nonnegative 5' grid cells (i.e., from the original data source) within the grid cell. Because of the low resolution of the original elevation data files, peninsulas and small islands often were not represented in the NGDC data. Because of this, the 0.250 elevation data were overlaid onto a 1:2,000,000 map of the East Coast. Then, through examination of the overlay, any 0.25' grid cells with land within their boundaries that had a negative elevation value (i.e., indicating that the grid cell contained no land) were assigned an elevation value of 0 m. In this case, the 0 value -indicates that the land within the given 0.250 grid cell is less than I. m above mean sea level. A limitation of this method is produced by cell boundary conditions. For example, Ian entire 0.250 grid cell is counted as coastal land even when all of the component 5' data cells originally had negative elevation values. This condition appears within the data files as a zero number of 5' cells used in calculating the elevation variables and 0 m minimum, mean, and maximum elevations. These zero values indicate that a 0.25' grid cell had no land above mean sea level within its boundaries, based on the 5' grid cells in the original data source. This situation typically occurred when there was a parallel alignment of the coastline with the source grid system (i.e., the coastline is oriented East-West or North-South). The distribution of the elevation values within the elevation data revealed important differences among the U.S coasts, primarily because of differences in- the geologic history of each coastal region. For example, the East and Gulf coasts are located on the tectonically stable Atlantic Coastal Plain (Graf, 1987). This stability has resulted in relatively small local relief along the East Coast (e.g., 28.3% of the East Coast is.:s; 3.0 in above sea level) , This is in marked contrast to the West Coast, where tectonic instability, caused by the collision of the Pacific and American plates, results in only 3.4% of the grid cells having elevation values less than 3 in. 7.2 Geology The geologic/lithologic variable is present for all coastal grid cells in the data base. By its nature, geological data are a form of nominal data. In this data set the data were classified in terms of an ordinal scale based on the hardness of each mineral. For the East Coast a simplified classification of coastal lithology was derived from state geologic maps ranging in scale from 1:125,000 to 1:2,500,000 with publication dates from 1929 to 1986 (maps used are listed in section 13.2). The coastal geology classification system used 'Was adapted in part from one used by Dolan et al. (1975). The system contains 5 major groups with 20 subgroups (Table 1). Appendix B contains a glossary of the terms used in the classification system, and Figure 2 shows an example of how the codes derived for the coastline were transferred to the grid cells used in this data base. (Appendix C gives a breakdown of the geology codes that occurred with each grid cell.) The key discriminant between the individual classes identified below is the relative resistance of each rock type to physical and chemical weathering. 12 Table 1. Coastal geologic classification codes assigned to the coastal geology variable. Material description Code I. Old Erosion Resistant Rocks (crystallines) 100 1. Igneous, volcanic (basalt, rhyolite, andesite, etc.) 110 2. Igneous, plutonic: (granite, granodiorite, etc.) 130 3. Metamorphic: (schists, gneisses, quartzite, serpentinite, etc.) 150, II. Sedimentary Rocks 200 1. Shale 210 2. Siltstone 220 3. Sandstone .230 4. Conglomerate 240 5. Limestone 250 6. Eolianite (calcite-sand) 260 7. Mixed or varied lithology 270 III. Unconsolidated Sediments 300 1. Mud, Clay 310 2. Silt 320 3. Sand 330 4. Gravel, conglomerates 340 5. Glacial till 345 6. Glacial drift (fluvial-glacial) 350 7. Calcareous sediment 360 8. Mixed or varied lithology 370 IV. Recent Volcanic Materials 400 1. Lava 410 2. Ash, Tephra 420 3. Composite 430 V. Coral Reef (living) 500 13 . This ranking scheme is generalized; consequently, a wide range of erodibilities exist for each rock type listed. The erodibility of each rock is dependent on the mineral content, cementation (especially for sedimentary rocks), grain size (for unconsolidated sediments), and presence of planar elements (i.e., bedding, schistosity, cleavage, and fractures) within the rock. These risk characteristics cannot be deduced from the geologic maps alone, and field checking would be required to obtain a more detailed classification than that used in this data set. Based on Table 1 all grid cells that fall on the East Coast have been assigned a data value. The value assigned to each grid cell is the code with the maximum shore length within each cell. For example, if the bedrock geology of a given, 0.250 grid cell contained sand (330), gravel (340), and limestone (250) in the percentages 35%:40%:25%, respectively, then the geologic code assigned to the grid cell would be 340, -gravel. In general the bedrock geology of the East Coast is relatively uncomplicated. The East Coast may be divided into three regions. The Northern region, covering approximately 15 % of the coast, extends from Providence, Rhode Island, to the, Maine-Canadian border. This region is primarily made up of igneous and metamorphic rocks that are relatively resistant to erosion. TheMid-Atlantic region covers 74 % of the East Coast and extends north from Cape Canaveral, Florida, to Cape Cod, Massachusetts. This region is predominantly made up of unconsolidated sediments consisting of sand and other materials with mixed lithologies. The Southern region covers 11 % of the East Coast and extends from the Florida Keys to Cape Canaveral'. The lithology of this region is made up of limestones and sandstones overlain with recently deposited unconsolidated sediments. Figure 2. Example of how geologic data codes were transferred to the 0.25' grid cells used in this NDP. 313 350 330 330 3SO (b 350 330 5 The grid cell v e is the 'b geology co with the moximum (b shor ength within the cell. 3 3 Koko Z 3 @@5 Th grid cel I v e 's the O'y with t ox, geol he lb shor eco w , th "tm ce @3 ng th he 14 7.3 Geomorphology The geomorphology variable contains data for all coastal grid cells in the data base.. The data values were interpreted and classified from USGS 1:250,000 topographic maps (maps used are listed in section 13.3) and other published sources, such as Shepard and Wanless (1971) and Bird and Schwartz (1985). The landforms identified from the 1:250,000 maps may omit landforms with small spacial extent. The maps used for the East Coast were compiled from 1913 (for Long Island, New York) to 1972, with some revisions as recent as 1987. Most of the maps used,' however, were dated 1950 or later. . - The classification system used divides the East Coast into two major groups, those formed by erosion and those formed by deposition (Table 2). These two groups are further subdivided into several categories (e.g., marine, non-marine, glacial, non-glacial, and volcanic). Appendix B contains a glossary of the terms used to describe each landform type and Appendix C gives a breakdown of the geomorphic codes that occurred -within each cell. Table 2. Coastal geomorphology classification codes assigned to the coastal geomorphology variable. Man, Landform description Code Beach modified 1. Erosional Coasts (Scoured, beaches poorly developed) 1000 A. Marine with wave erosion and cliffs 1100 1. Low 5- 30 in 1110 1111 1119 2. Medium 30-100 m 1120 1121 1129 3. High > 100 M 1130 1131 1139 B. Non-Marine (Land erosion) 1200-1500 1. Glaciated coast 1210 1211 1219 a. Fjord(drowned valley) 1220 1221 1229 b. Indented Fiard (low-lying inlet) 1230 1231 1239 -mud flats 1234 salt marsh 1235 c. Rocky glacial coast 1240 1241 1249 Salt Marsh 1245 15 Table 2. (Continued) Man Landform description Code Beach modified 2. Non-glacial irregular coast 1300 a. Strongly embayed, non-rocky coast 1310 1311 1319 b. Strongly embayed, rocky coast 1320 1321 1329 c. Estuaries 1330 1331 1339 mud flats 1334 salt marsh 1335 mixed types 1338 3. Ice coasts 1400 4. Drowned karst topography 1500 II. Depositional Coasts (Sediment accumulations and well-developed beaches) 2000 A. Marine Deposits 2100 1. Coastal plain beach 2110 2111 2119 salt marsh 2H5 2. Beach rock (beach sediment cemented by carbonates) 2112 3. Barrier Coast 2120 2121 2129 a. barrier island 2122 b. bay barrier 2123 c. mud flats 2124 d. salt marsh 2125 e. cuspate foreland 2126 f. spit 2127 g. mixed 2128 16 Table 2. (Continued) Man Landform description Code Beach modified B. River Deposits 2200 1. Alluvial plain 2210 2211 2219 2. Delta environment 2220 2221 2229 a. mud flats 2224 b. salt marsh 2225 c. mixed 2228 C. Marine/Fluvial Deposits (Lagoonal coast) 2250 2251 2259 1. Mud flats 2254 2. Marsh/Mangrove 2255 3. Mixed 2258 D. Glacial Deposits 2300 1. Outwa.sh plain 2310 2311 2319 2. Moraine 2320 2321 2329 3. Drumlin 2330 2331 2339 salt marsh 2315 4. Drift 2340 2341 2349 salt marsh 2345 5. Composite 2350 2351 2359 E. Biogenic 2400 1. Reefs (Coral, oysters, algal) a. fringing 2410 2411 2419 b. barrier 2420 2421 2429 2. Barrier reef with an associated mangrove swamp 2425 I Swamp/Mangrove 2450 2451 2459 F. Volcanic Coasts 2500 1. Lava flows 2510 2511 2519 2. Tephra, ash 2520 2521 2529 I Composite/caldera 2530 2531 2539 17 A few geomorphic features occurred in more than one coastal environment. When this happened, a special digit was added after the three-digit code that identified the feature. The special digit is used'to identify areas that are made up primarily of beach or in areas that have been significantly modified by human activities. Thus each geomorphological setting is identified by a four-digit code. An example of how these codes were transferred from a classified coastline to the 0.250 grid used in this data base is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Example of how geomorphic data codes were transferred to the 0.25' grid cells used in this NDP. 22 1330 1330 2 1330 2122 1 3 I The grid ce Iis the geomorphic co with the moximum shoreIewithin the cell. 22 0@2 @I 3 I is the 18 7.4 Slea-Uvel Trends The sea level trend data set was derived for the U.S. East Coast from 36 long-term tide-gauge stations (Pugh et al., 1987; see Figure 4a) and Holocene paleosealevel indicators (Gornitz and Seeber, 1990). The tide-gauge stations used in this data base have a minimum of 20 years of record (records'may contdin'discohtinuitie@)'ahdl were. measured in mm/year. The 20 year cutoff was selected to minimize the effects, 'of the 18.6- year lunar nodal cycle and to reduce effors, due to high interannual variability, on the regression line slope. The following variables were derived from the tide-gauge records and Holocene data: a relative sea-level-trend variable, a long-term geological-trend variable, a corrected sea-level-trend variable, a local subsidence variable, and a variable conuaning the number of years of record used in estimating these values. The relative sea-level-trend variable for any given tide-gauge station represents a composite of several components, among these are the global rate of dustatic sea level rise and regional and local subsidence/uplift trends. Along the U.S. East Coast, these land movements are largely caused by glacio-isostatic adjustments in the Earth's crust, in particular, from glacial rebound and bulge collapse, with minor contributions from subsidence due to local groundwater withdrawal, sediment compaction, and possible neotectonism. The relative sea level trend is calculated by a linear least-squares. regression fitted to the time-series of mean annual sea level elevations for each of the 36 long-term tide gauge stations (Lyles, et al. 11987; Emery and Aubrey, 1991). To allow for the correction of the relative sea-level-trend variable for vertical land movements, for each grid cell and tide station, Holocene paleosealevel indicators were used to derive a long-term geological-trend variable for each region on the East Coast. The indicators consisted of coral, shell, wood, and peat materials that lived or formed within � 0.5 m of mean sea level within the last 6,000 years (Pardi and Newman,'1987). The paleosealevel data were grouped into regions (Figure'4a) small enough to have undergone a fairly uniform change in sea level but large enough to enclose several data points. Based on the "C measurements available for the data points within each coastal region the geologic variable was derived by fitting a least-squares regression line, or higher order polynomial, to the I'C indicators as a function of time. The long-term geological- trend variable was subtracted from the relative sea-level- trend variable to obtain the corrected sea7level-trend variable for each gauge station (Gornitz and Seeber, 1990). The average of the corrected sea level trends for each of the 36 tide stations was then calculated and determined to be 1.25 mm/year. This value, 1.25 mm/year, is the regional eustatic sea level trend for the East Coast. To determine the relative vulnerability of each station (and by extension the entire coast) a local subsidence variable was calculated by subtracting the regional eustatic sea-level trend (1.25 mm/year) from the relative sea level trend. for each station. This variable gives an indication of the relative vulnerability of each 0.250 grid cell, and station, on the East Coast to sea-level rise (i.e., may be used to identify areas that are subsiding faster or slower than the regional average). 19 Figure 4a. Location of the 36 tide-gauge stations and 14C paleosealevel regions used in the calculation of the sea-level-trend data variables. Stations Regions 4 The methods discussed above were used to obtain the data variables for each grid cell in which one of the 36 tide-gauge stations fell. To derive a prediction of the relative and corrected sea-level-trend variables and the local subsidence variable for cells without tide- gauge stations, the following steps were taken: 1. The tide-gauge stations and their relative sea level trends were plotted on the coast (Figure 4a), along with the 0.25' grid used in data base. 2. For each coastal grid cell without data, the difference in relative sea levels between the two nearest gauge stations (i.e., occurring north and south of the given grid cell) was calculated. 20 3. The difference between the relative sea levels was then divided by the number of grid rows, plus one, occurring between. the grid cells,,into which the stations fell. This value was called the slope factor. 4. The slope factor was then multiplied by the number of grid rows from the grid cell being calculated to the southernmost station and added to the southern stations' relative sea level trend. This produced the relative sea- level-trend variable for the coastal grid cell of interest (Figure 4b). The long-term geological-trend variable (from the 14 C regions previously described) were subtracted from the relative sea-level trends to obtain the corrected sea-level-trend variable. The regional eustatic sea-level trend (1.25 mm/year) was then subtracted from the relative sea-level-trend variable to obtain the local subsidence variable for 'each grid cell. . On the basis of the differences between the relative and corrected sea level trend variables, it was determined that from Eastport, Maine, to Key West, Florida, ia mean subsidence on the order of 1.46 mm/year. was occurring. The maximum rates of subsidence are concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic region surrounding Chesapeake Bay (Gornitz and Lebedeff, 1987), and the minimum is occurring in upper New England and in the@ Florida Keys. 21 Figure 4b. Example of how the sea-level-trend data were averaged for areas without data on a fictional coastline and transferred to the 0.25' grid cells used in this NDP. Data Source Grid Data Grid in this NDP 1.50 no data no data no data 1.50 ---------------r------ ------- no data no data: no 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 - ------------ r------ I-------- 1.20 1.20 no data no data no data L *C no data no data no data Data values for relative sea level (SLR) were calculated by row for grid cells without data. To calculate the value a slope factor (SF) was obtained as follows: SF = (Station2 - Station'l) / (Rows between stations +1) SF = (1.50 - 1.20) / (1 + 1) = 0.15 = Long-term tide-gouge station 22 7.5 Horizontal Shoreline Displacement (Erosion) The erosion/accretion data used in the development of the horizontal shoreline displacement data set was. extracted and modified from the Coastal Erosion Information System (CEIS) developed by May et al. (1982, 1983) and Dolan. et al. (1975, 1983,, 1989)'. The CEIS data is limited in extent to coastlines that open onto the ocean or large bays (e.g., Chesapeake Bay) and lacks data for the Florida Keys. The displacement data within the CEIS data base was originally obtained from over 500 individuals or organizations with lengths of records from as little as 20 years to as long as 465 years. The.,majority of the shoreline displacement measurements, however, were made from historic maps and aerial photographs that cover the U.S. East Coast for a minimum of 40-50 years. Most of the information was originally obtained from published reports or from regionally available high resolution data sets (e.g., Dolan et al., 1980). Of the data within CEIS 25% was obtained in raw form and was converted into point measurements of. erosion. or accretion. In conducting the measurement and data compilation steps of the raw data, May et al. (1982) used the landward limit of wetted sand as the criteria for identifying the shoreline. This definition was selected because it produced the most consistent results in the photo- interpretation process. By comparing present and past shorelines from maps, aerial photographs, and data from regional studies, May et al. (1982) were able to obtain rates of change, expressed in m/year, for coastal points @on the East Coast. May et al. (1982) then averaged and extrapolated the point data into 3' latitude x 3' longitude grid cells (in locations with sparse data 7.5' and 15' grid cells were used) to, minimize the problems associated with mapping errors, imprecise shoreline definitions, and poor temporal resolution within the original erosion/accretion data sources. These 3', 7.5', or 15' grid cells were then overlaid onto the 0.250 grid cells used in this data base to derive the following data variables (values in m/year): minimum erosion trend, mean erosion trend, maximum erosion trend, and the number of 3', 7.5', or 15' cells used in deriving the data for each 0.25' grid cell. To'transfer this information to the 0.250 grid cells used in this data set,' the erosion variables were recalculated as follows:, 1. The number of 3', 7.5', or 15' grid cells that occur in a given 0.25' grid cell was determined. These 3', 7.5', or 15' cells were used to calculate the minimum, mean, or maximum erosion rate variables. 2. The minimum erosion rate for a 0.25' grid cell is the minimum erosion rate found in the 3', 7.5', or 15'. grid cells within a 0.250 grid cell. Portions of the CEIS data base used in this NDP are currently being updated by Dolan and others for the U.S. Geological Survey. Partial documentation of these changes may be found in Dolan et al. (1990) and Dolan et al. (1991). 23 3. The mean erosion rate for a 0.25' grid cell is the average of the erosion rates of all T, 7.5', or 15' grid within a 0.250 grid cell. 4. The maximum erosion fate for a 0.25' grid cell is the maximum erosion rate found in the 3', 7.5', or 15' grid cells within a 0.25' grid cell. Figure 5 gives an,example of how the overlay process was used to transfer the data values from the T, 7.5', or 15' grid cells to the 0.250 grid. Figure 5. Example of how the shoreline displacement data were transferred to the 0.250 grid cells used in this NDP. Data Source Grid Data Grid in this NDP no data no date no data ERNUM-10 ERNUM-1 ERNUM-4 ERNUM-3 ERNUM-14 L 3' cell :151 cell :7.5' cell ERNUM-1 no data no data no data I-Oreej ---------- no data no data no data no data ERNUM the number of "source" grid cells used to obtain the minimum (ERMIN), mean (ERAVG), and maximum (ERMAX) data variables, The mean is the average of the erosion rates that fall in a given grid cell. The minimum is the minimum of all the source grid cells, and the maximum is the maximum of all source grid cells that fall in a given output gri@ cell @ Datc ato no 7d 24 Based on the length of record, from 20 to 165 years depending on location, and the errors inherent in the data, the reported shoreline displacement trends must be seen as average values that are highly variable over time; as such, rates of change less than � 0.6 m/year are not considered significant. The CEIS data base, however, does indicate that the general pattern of shoreline displacement on the U.S. East Coast is one of erosion. Areas experiencing significant erosion, with rates > 1.5 m/year, occur in Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket in Massachusetts and within Fire Island National SeaShore, New. York. 7.6 Tidal Ranges The tidal range data set was. obtained from tide tables published by NOAA.'s National Ocean Service (NOS) for 1,447 stations located on the East Coast .(NOS, 1988). These station data were entered into the ARC/INFO" GIS as point data and are available in the supplemental data group. The supplemental data group contains the name, identification number, longitude/latitude, mean tide range, maximum tide range, mean tide level for each tide-range station. The data for each station were overlaid onto the 0.25' grid cells used in this data set. The data were then spatially averaged to derive the mean tide range, maximum tide range, mean tide levels, and the number of stations used to -calculate each data variable (values expressed in meters) for each coastal grid cell. . @ . The mean tide range at a given tide station in this data set is defined as the difference in height between mean high water and mean low water in 1988 (tide heights vary annually, but their differences are relatively constant in relation to each other). The maximum tide range variable contains either the "spring tide range" or "diurnal tide range". The "spring tide range" is defined as the maximum range occurring semimonthly when the Moon is in the full or new phase (in 1988). It is larger than the mean range when the type of tide is either semidiumal or mixed and is of no practical significance when the dominant tide is diurnal. If the tide in a given area is chiefly of the diurnal type the maximum range variable contains the "diurnal tide range". The, diurnal range is defined as the difference in height between mean higher high water and mean lower low water (NOS, 1988). The mean tide level variable is defined as a plane midway between mean low water and mean high water in 1988. This value is reckoned from chart datums. The chart datums used in the tide tables for the mean tide level variable are. the Gulf Coast Low Water Datum (GCLWD) and the Atlantic Coast Low Water Datum (ACLWD). The ACLWD is used for most of the East Coast, with the GCLWD being used only in the Florida Keys. The boundary between these two datums is defined more precisely as extending [definition taken directly from Tide Tables 1988 -High and Low Water Predictions (NOS, 1988)1: 1. From the intersection of the most westerly segment of the southern boundary of the Key Biscayne National Monument, Florida, and the land just south of Mangrove Point; 25 2. then @ along the southwest segments of the southern boundary of the Monument to Old Rhodes Point on the southeast comer of Old Rhodes Key; 3. then from Old Rhodes Point to the northwest comer of the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park; 4. and along the land of the northwestem boundary of the park (with the exception of the coastal indentations of Largo Sound) to the southwest comer Oust southwest of Rock Harbor); and 5. then from the southwest corner of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park along its southwestern boundary and continuing straight out to sea just south of, and beyond, Molasses Reef. The boundary described above is graphically represented on the affected nautical charts published by NOS. The mean-tide-range, maxim um-tide-range, and mean-tide-level variables are available for 1,447 tide gauge stations in the supplemental data group. To transfer this information to the 0.25' grid cells used in compiling this coastal hazards data set, the station tide data wert overlaid onto the grid and the variables calculated, based on the stations that fell within each grid cell, as'follows: 1. The number of tide stations that fell within each:0.25" grid cell was calculated. The stations within each cell were then used to derive the mean tide level, and the mean and maximum tide range for each 0.25' grid cell. 2. The mean tide range for each grid cell is the average of the mean tide ranges of all the stations within a given cell. 3. The maximum tide range for each grid cell is the largest value found within the maximum tide ranges (i.e., spring/diurnal tide range) of all the stations within a given cell. 4. The mean tide level for each grid cell is the average of the mean tide levels of all the stations within a given cell. Figure 6 gives an example of how this conversion from point data to area data was conducted for the maximum tide-range variable. 26 Figure 6. Example of how tide-gauge data were transferred to the 0.250 grid cells for the maximum tide-range, variablev Tide Gauge Stations Data Grid in this NDP no data no data no data TRNUM=2 --------------- ------------ TRNUM-2 TRNUM-3 TRNUM-2 'TRNUM-4 -------------- TRNUM=l no data no dato.no data ------------- no data no data no data no data TGNUM The number of tide-gauge stations used to calculate the mean tide range (TRAVG) and mean tide level (TRLVL). The maximum tide range (TRMAX) contains the maximum of the maximum tide ranges obtained from the gauge stations located within the given grid cell. Station location The magnitude of the tidal range variables defined above has been linked to both inundation and erosion hazards. Although a large tidal range dissipates wave energy, it also delineates a broad zone of low-lying intertidal wetlands susceptible to inundation. Furthermore, the velocity of tidal currents in estuaries depends on the tide range, as well as the asymmetry of the tidal cycle and channel morphology. Therefore, when holding these other factors constant, high-tide ranges are associated with stronger tidal currents capable of eroding and transporting sediment offshore. Table 3 provides a statistical summary of the mean tidal ranges along the U.S. East Coast and compares them with tides experienced on the Gulf and West coasts. The table shows that the more sheltered Gulf Coast experiences a lower tidal range than either the East or West Coast. On the East Coast the highest tidal range occurs in New England, near 42N, and between South Carolina and Georgia. Areas with very low tide ranges include the Chesapeake Bay region and parts of southern Florida. Do to Grid at 0 at no 4do n d -------------- 27 Table 3. Mean, maximum, and minimum Imean tide-range data by U.S. coast. Region: East Gulf West Mean tide range (m) 1.37 0.72 1.55 Standard deviation (m) 0.91 0.21 0.57 Maximum (m) 6.10 1.19 3.35 Minimum (m) 0.06 0.15 0.12 Number of stations 1,447 35 373 28 7.7 Wave Heights Wave heights and tidal ranges affect the development of coastal landforms; however, these parameters can vary independently of each other. For example, along the U.S. East Coast these variables vary inversely, whereas along the West Coast they vary directly. Thus these two parameters should be treated as independent but complementary variables. This wave-height data set contains three data variables: the maximum significant wave height, the 20-year mean wave height, and the standard deviation of the mean (all variables expressed in meters). This data set was originally obtained from published.documents of the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC),, U.S. Army -Corps of Engineers, Wave Infonnation Study (Jensen 1983). In the study CERC calculated wind speeds from,station histories, National Weather Service surface charts, surface pressure data, ships-at-sea observations, and monthly air-sea temperature gradients. The estimated wave heights were derived using a three phase process. The first phase hindca@ted. wind sPeeds/directibns for each 120 nauiical-mile-long segment along the East Coast, the second hindcasted wind speeds for a 30 nautical-mile-spacing, and in the third phase, the wind -data were input, into a transformation model that hindcasted nearshore wave heights for each 10 nautical-mile- segment (18.5 krn) of the East Coast (Jensen 1983; Corson et al. 1987). The wave heights forecast within the Wave Information Study are for the open coastand large bays (i.e., Chesapeake Bay). As such, most intracoastal. areas (i.e., lagoons) within the data source were missing data. These 10. nautical-mile- segments were then overlaid onto the 0.250 grid cells used within this data base,(Figure 7). The, data variables (i.e., maximum significant wave height, 20 year mean wave height, andthe standard deviation. of the mean) were then derived for each cell by averagingthe data values associated with the line segments that fell on or within each grid cell (on average Ia minimum of 2 segments are located within each grid cell). Table 4 provides a summary of the East Coast wave statistics (using the original data segments) and compares them with similar data available for the Gulf and West coasts. In general, Table 4 indicates that the West Coast has higher maximum wave heights than the East and Gulf coasts. On the East Coast the highest waves are found around Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and the lowest are found south of Miami, Florida. Table 4. Statistical summary of maximum significant wave heights for the three U.S. coasts. Region: East Gulf West Average maximum wave (m) 4.27 3.67 7.10 Standard deviation (m) 0.63 0.81 0.64 Maximum (m) 5.90 5.80 8.10 Minimum (m) 2.40 2.30 5.00 Number of segments 166 50 143 29 Figure 7. Example of how the wave-height data were transferred to the 0.251 grid cells used in this NDP. Wave Height Data Data,'Grid in this NDP no data no data no data 4.0 m 310 3.1 @n 4.1 2..6 m 2.9 m 3.0 m 3.6 m 2. -------- 2.5 2.5 m no data no data no data 2.3 r----- no data no data no data no data Data values for 20 year mean wave height (WHAVG), wave standard deviation (WHSD), and the maximum significant wave (WHMAX) were derived from 18.5 km reaches along the coast. The data values for WHAVG and WHMAX were obtained by averaging the data for each reach that fell within a given grid cell. .. ....... L Do G rid 0 at to 236 @nd -------- .......... r 30 .8. RELATIVE RISK- FACTORS, The previous section discussed how the original 22 data -variables within this -data base were obtained and entered into the GIS (i.e., as point data -sea level trends and tidal ranges; line data -wave heights; or as polygons -elevation, geology, geomorphology,' and shoreline displacement. These data were directly digitized from maps or copied from computer tapes and'imported into the ARC/INFO" GIS, where the I inform.ation. was analyzed and the data values were incorporated into the 0.250 grid cells. The entry of these data into a common format (i.e., the grid cell) has made it possible to relate and manipulate the data to identify relationships among the different variables. To simplify the manipulation process,.seven of the original data variables,(mean elevation, local subsidence trend, mean shoreline displacement, mean tide range, maximum significant wave height, geology, and geomorphology) were classified into seven new relative risk variables. These original variables were classified into "risk" variables based on Table 5 (which depicts the categories used. for assigning risk values for the five'numeric data variables) and Tables 6 and 7 (used for geology and geomorphology). The value assigned to each grid cell, for each risk variable, may be seen as an indicator of the cell's relative risk to erosion or inundation. The rationale for the value assignments used for each relative risk variable has been described in greater detail by Gornitz and Kanciruk (1989) and Gornitz et al. (1991). Reprints of these papers are contained in Appendix D. 31 Table 5. Assignment of relative risk factors for elevation, local subsidence trend, shoreline displacement, tidal range, and wave height. Variable: Very low Low Moderate High very High 1 2 3 4 5 Mean shoreline > 2.0 1.1 -1.0 -1.1 < -2.0 displacement (m/year) Accretion to to to Erosion 2.0 +1.0 -2.0 local subsidence < -1.0 -1.0 1.0 2.1 > 4.0 trend (mm/year) Land Rising to to to Land Sinking 1.0 2.0 4.0 Maximum significant 0.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 > 6.9 wave height (m) to to to to 2.9 4.9 5.9 6.9 Mean elevation (m) > 30.0 20.1 10.1 5. 1 0.0 to to to to 30.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 Mean tidal < 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.1 > 6.0 range (m) Microtidal to to to Macrotidal 1.9 4.0 6.0 Table 6. Assignment of relative risk factors for geology. Rank Geology values' 1 100, 110, 130, 410 2 150 3 200, 210, 220, 230, 240, 250, 260, 270, 4001 430, 500 4 300, 340, 345, 370 5 310, 320, 330, 360, 350, 420 See Table 1 for description of geology values. 32 Table 7. Assignment of relative risk factors for geomorphology. Rank Geomorphology values a 113.0, 1139, 1210, 1219, 1220, 1229, 1230, 1239, 124.0, 1249, 1320, 1329,2510,2519 2 1120, 1129, 1131@ 12111 1221) 1231, 1234, 1235, 1241, 1245, 1310, 1319, 2511 3 1110, 1119, 1121, 1311,4321, 1335, 1338, 2112, 2115, 2125, 2225, 2255, 2300, 2315, 2320, 2329, 2330, 2339, 2340, 2345, 2349, 2350, 2359, 2400,.2410, 2419,2420, 2425, 2429, 2450, 2459, 2500, 2530, 2539 4 1111, 1330, 1339 2200,2210) M9, 2228, 2250: 2258, 2259, 2310, 2319, 2321, 2331, 2341, 2351, 2411, 2421, 2451,2520, 2529 5 1331, 1334, 2110, 2111, 2119, 2120, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2126,2127, 2128, 2129, 2211, 2220, 2221, 2224, 2229, 2251, 2254, 2311, 2521, 2531 See Table 2 for a description of geomorphology values. 9. THE COASTAL VULNERABILITY MEX The seven relative risk variables contained within this data base, may be combined to obtain an index of coastal vulnerability, where the grid cells with- high index values will tend to have low reliefs, erodible substrates, histories of subsidence and shoreline retreat, and high wave and tide energies. (Gornitz et al., 1991). Thus an index may,be designed, using 33 the risk variables, to identify areas that are at risk of erosion and permanent or temporary inundation. However, when several risk factors for a given area are missing data, then any calculated index will underestimate the risk faced by the area in question. The methods shown below for deriving such an index have been tested on a sample of 93 randomly selected coastal segments and seem to be adequate for the task when the number of risk factors that are missing data, for a given location, is less than three. The addition of new variables to this data base in the future or the use of a different classification system for the risk variables may result in index values that differ significantly from those that would be produced using the formulas shown. The following six formulas were proposed and tested for the derivation of the Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI). Of the CVI formulas shown CV15 was used in Gornitz et al. (1991). Product mean: CVII a, * a2-@a * 94 n Modified product mean: CV12 = I al * a2-!-L/-2(a3 + a4) * 5 '/2(96 + n - 2 Average sum of squares: 2 * a42 CV13 = -C-412 a2-2-*-a3 n Modified product mean (2): CV14 = A-a, a2--*-a3 * -aA 5 (n4) Square root of product mean: CV15 = I CVII V Sum of products: CV16 = 4a, + 4a2 + 2(a3 + a4) + 4a5 + 2(a6 + a7) Where: n =variables present, a,= mean elevation, a2=local subsidence trend, a3=geology, a4 = geomorphology, a,=mean shoreline displacement, a6=maximum wave height, a7=mean tidal range. 34 The relative risk variables were assigned to one of five classes on the basis. of Tables 5, 6, and 7. Errors in the classification of any of the Yariables could result in a misclassification of up to one risk class for each risk variable. The sensitivity of each of the six CVI formulas to misclassification errors was tested by changing the relative risk,factor of I to 3 risk variables from high to low (i.e., 5 to 1) while holding the others fixed at a value of 5. The calculated sensitivity is the percentage change from the original CVI (with all variables set to five), such that the greater the value the greater the percent change. For some CVIs a change in two or more variables may result in more than one score; when,,this occurs only the maximum value is shown (Table 8; Gornitz, 1991). Table 8. 'Sensitivity of diMrent Coastal Vulnerability Indices to changes in risk class from high to low assignments for one to three variables. Number of Variables Changed CV1 1 2 3 CV11 80 96 99 CV12 80 96 9.9 CV13 14 27 41 CV14 80 96 99 CV15 56 80 '81 CV16 16 32 48 CV16 was developed after the East Coast was initially analyzed. This table indicates that CVII, CV12, and CV14 are highly sensitive to variations in the classification of the risk variables, while CV13 is insensitive to classification variations. CV15 seems to be relatively insensitive to variations in one risk factor, ,while still being able to produce usable results when differences occur within several factors. CV16 minimized the effects of variations in one variable (in the relative risk classification system) while still being sensitive to significant differences in risk factor values. Thus, in future studies CVI6 may be preferable to CV15. An example of how the CVI, in this case CV15, may be used to identify high-risk coastlines is shown in Figure 8. A histogram of the data values from CVI, was constructed and three classes were developed (i.e., low-, moderate-, and high-risk), with grid cells at 35 "high-risk" to coastal erosion or sea level rise being defined as having an index greater than 33, moderate-risk, 33 to 20, and low-risk, > 20. Other high-risk coastal grid cells identified using CVI5 are located in Cape Cod, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, and on the Delmarva Peninsula (i.e., Delaware, Maryland, Virginia). Figure 8. Example of how the Coastal Vulnerability Index may be used to identify high-risk coastlines in South Carolina. El L ow RI s It Madorate Risk H1 9 h 111 s It 0 a 0 0 0 C 36 10. MUTATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF THE DATA The 29 data variables in this data base contain no known calculation or data entry errors. Because of the spatial extent of this data base the period of record, sampling frequency, and scale of the source documents varied. The use of long-term averages and the choice of the 0.250 grid cell as the spatial scale for these data has,minimized the error that may have been introduced into this data base when these data sources. were integrated into a single data base with uniform formats and scales. Of the 29 data variables contained in this data base, only the slea-level-trend variables (derived from long-term tide-gauge records) may have significant error. The tide-gauge records used for calculating the sea level trends on the East Coast were obtained from the records of the Pennanent. Service for Mean Sea Level (Pugh et, al., 1,987). These records have been examined and contain no identifiable errors, are of very high quality, and have been used in several sea-level-rise studies (Douglas, 1991). The sparse station network, however, has made it necessary to calculate the sea level trend variables for. intervening grid cells by calculating a slope line between the two closest adjacent stations. Confidence in the accuracy, of the local subsidence variable and the relative and @ corrected sea-level-trend variables estimated with this method decreases as the, distance from grid Pells who are missing data and adjacent tide-gauge stations increases. If the distance from a g rid cell with no-data to the nearest two long-term gauge stations (i.e., that are North, and South of the no- data grid cell)- exceeds - 350 km (i.e., at that distance the r' of adjacent stations is 0. 717), then the sea-level-trend variable derived for the no-data grid cell may be erroneous. The coastal hazards data base presented here for the U.S. East Coast omits several factors that may be important when determining the risk of a. given area to inundation or erosion. Other variables that may be useful in the risk assessment process are storm surge, storm frequencies, storm intensities, presence of exposed infrastructure, coastal population density", the role of sediment, transport,. and the risk of saltwater intrusion (Titus et al., 1991; Snedaker and Sylva, 1987). Pilot studies are currently in progress that consider several of these factors in combination with the variables in this data base (i.e., Daniels et al., 1992). These pilot studies use an expanded CVI that is based on the seven relative risk variables in this NDP and six climatic factors derived from Birdwell and Daniels (1991). 37 11. DATA CHECKS PERFORMED BY CDIAC An important part of the data packaging process at the CDIAC is the quality assurance (QA) of the data before its distribution. Data received at CDIAC are rarely in perfect condition for immediate distribution, regardless of source. Reviews conducted involve the examination of the data for completeness, reasonableness, and accuracy. The QA process is an important component in the value-added concept of assuring accurate, usable information for researchers. The following summarizes the QA checks performed on the various data groups presented in this document. I . Data variables obtained from primary data sources were double-entered from data sheets into a VAX mainframe computer. The generated machine readable data files were then printed and compared with the original data sheets by two individuals. All identified discrepancies were corrected. 2. Data variables obtained from maps (e.g., geology) were classified and transferred to coastal segments on working maps of the coastline. The working maps were then digitized, replotted, and compared with the original working maps and data sources. All identified discrepancies were then corrected. 3. Maximum, minimum, and mean values were generated for all data variables and checked for reasonableness. 4. The data values for each data variable were mapped to check for outliers and identify discrepancies. The identified data items were then recalculated, and corrected if necessary. 38 12. HOW TO OBTAIN THE PACKAGE This document describes the contents of a coastal hazards data base intended for use by vector or raster GISs or non-GIS data bases. The computerized data are available on 9-track magnetic tapes or IBM DOS-compatible floppy diskettes (high density, 3.5- or 5.25-inch diskettes), and through an anonymous File Transfer Protocol service from CDIAC. Requests for the magnetic tape should include any specific instructions for transmitting the data, as required by the user and/or the user's local computer system. Requests not accompanied by specific instructions will be filled on 9-track, 6250 BPI, standard-labeled tapes with characters written in Extended Binary Codes Decimal Interchange Code and formatted as given in Part 2, Section L. Requests for this data package should be. addressed to: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center OakRidge National Laboratory Post Office Box 2008 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6335 U.S.A. Telephone: (&1-5) 574-0390 FAX: (615) 574-2232 BITNET: CDP@ORNLSTC INTERNET: [email protected] OMNET: CDIAC 39 13. REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES Bird, E.C.F. and M.L. Schwartz. 1985. The World .'s Coastlines. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc., New York, New York. Birdwell, K.R. and R.C. Daniels. 1991. A Global Geographic Information System Data Base of Storm Occurrences and Other Climatic Phenomena Affecting Coastal Zones. ORNL/CDIAC-40, NDP-35. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Case, R.A. andM. Mayfield. 1990. Atlantic hurricane season of 1989. Monthly Weather Review, 118:1165-1177. Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1971. National Shoreline Study, Volume 2, Regional Inventory Report, North Atlantic Region. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Corson, W.D., Abel, C.E., Brooks, R.M., Farrar, P.D., Groves ` B.J., Payne, J.B., McAreny, D.S., and B.A. Tracy. 1987. Pacific Coast Hindcast Phase 11 Wave Information. WIS Report 16, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Daniels, R.C., Gornitz, V.M., Mehta, A.J., Lee, S.C., and R.M. Cushman. 1992. Adapting to Sea-Level Rise in the U. S. Southeast: the Influence of Built Infrastructure and Biophysical Factors on the Inundation of Coastal Areas. ORNL/CDIAC-54, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Department of Energy. 1987. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Summaries of Research in FY 1987. DOE/ER-0347, Dist. Category UC-11, Washington, D.C. Department of Energy. 1988. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Summaries of Research in FY 1988. DOE/ER-0385, Dist. Category UC-11, Washington, D.C. Department of Energy. 1989. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Summaries of Research in FY 1989. DOE/ER-0425, Dist. Category UC-402, Washington, D.C. Department of Energy. 1990. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Summaries of Research in FY 19-90. DOE/ER-0470T, Dist. Category UC-402, Washington, D.C. Department of Energy. 1991. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Summaries of Research in FY 1991. DOE/ER-0508T, Dist. Category UC-402, Washington, D.C. Dolan, R., Hayden, B., and M. Vincent. 1975. Classification of coastal landforms of the Americas. Zeitschriftj'uer Geomorphologic, Supplemental Bulletin, 22:72-88. 40 Dolan, R., Hayden, B., May, P., and S. May. 1980. The Reliability of Shoreline Change Measurements from Aerial Photographs. Shore and Beach, 48:22-29. Dolan, R., Hayden, B., and S. May. 1983. Erosion.of the U.S. Shorelines, In: Komar, P.D. (ed.). CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes. and Erosion. CRC Press, Inc.-, Boca Raton, Florida. Dolan,.R., Lins, H., and B. Ha den. 1988. Mid-Atlantic coastal storms. Journal of Coastal y Research, 4:417-433. Dolan, R., Trossbach, S.J., and M.K. Buckley. 1989. Patterns of erosion along the Atlantic Coast. Coastal Zone'89, ASCE, pp. 17-22. Dolan, R., Trossbach, S.J., and M.K. Buckley. 1990. New. shoreline data for the.Mid- Atlantic Coast. Journal of Coastal Research, 6:471-477. Dolan, R., Peatross, J. and S. Robinson. 1991. Data Supplement and statistical summaries of shoreline erosion and accretion, Gulf of Mexico. Shoreline change map -series 1:2,000,000, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Douglas, B.C. 1991. Global Sea-level rise. Journal of Geophysical Research, 96C:.6981- 6992. Emanuel, K.A. 1988. The maximum intensity of hurricanes. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 45:1143-1155. Emery, K.O. and D.G. Aubrey. 1991. SeaLevels, LandLevels, and Tide Gauges. Springer- Verlag, New York, New York. Gornitz, V. and S. Lebedeff. 1987. Global sea-level changes during the past century. Sea- Level Change and Coastal Evolution. SEPM special publication, No. 41. Gornitz, V. 1988a. Development of a global coastal hazards data base:.annual technical report. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Gornitz, V. 1988b. Development of a global coastal hazards data base: annual. technical report (2). Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Gornitz V. and P. Kanciruk. 1989. Assessment of global coastal hazards from sea-level rise. Coastal Zone'89, Proceedings of Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, ASCE, Charleston, South Carolina, pp. 1345-1359. Gornitz, V. 1990. Vulnerability of the East Coast, U.S.A. to future sea-level rise. Proceedings of the Skagen Symposium, Journal of Coastal Research special issue, No. 9. 41 Gornitz, V. and L. Seeber. 1990. Vertical crustal movements along the East Coast, North America, from historic and late holocene sea level data. Tectonophysics, 178:127-150. Gornitz, V. 1991. Development of a global coastal hazards data base: annual technical report. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Gornitz, V., White, T.W., and R.M. Cushman. 1991. Vulnerability of the U.S. to future sea-level rise. Coastal Zone'91, Proceedings of Seventh Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, ASCE, pp. 2354-2368. Graf, W.L. 1987. Geomorphic Systems of North America. Centennial Special Volume 2, Geologic Society of America, Boulder Colorado. Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J., and J.J. Ephraums. 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. Jensen, R.E. 1983. Atlantic Coast Hindcast, shallow water significant wave information. WIS Report 9, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Lyles, S.D., Hickman, L.E., and H.A. Debaugh. 1987. Sea-level variationsfor the United States, 1855-1986. National Ocean Service, NOAA, Rockville, Maryland. May, S.K., Kimball, W.H., Grady, N., and R. Dolan. 1982. CEIS: The coastal erosion information system. Shore and Beach, 50,19-25. May, S.K., Dolan, R., and B.P. Hayden. 1983. Erosion of U.S. shorelines. EOS, 65:521- 523. National Ocean Service. 1988. Tide Tables 1988 -High and Low Water Predictions. NOAA, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Pardi, R.R. and W.S. Newman. 1987. Late quaternary sea levels along the Atlantic coast of North America. Journal of Coastal Research, 3:325-330. Pugh, D.T., Spencer, N.E., and P.L. Woodworth. 1987. Data Holdings of the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. Bidston Observatory, England. Shepard, F.P. and H.R. Wanless. 1971. Our Changing Coastlines. McGraw Hill, New York, New York. Smith, A.W. and T.L. Piggott. 1987. In search of a coastal management data base. Shore and Beach, 55:13-20. 42 Snedaker, S.C. and D.P. Sylva. 1987. Impacts of climate change on coastal resources: Implications for property values, commerce, estuarine environments, and fisheries, with special reference to South Florida, In: Meo, M. (ed.). Proceedings of the Symposium on Climate Change in the Southern United States: Future Impacts and Present Policy Issues. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Titus, J.G., Park, R.A., Leatherman S.P., Weggel, J.R., Greene, M.S., Mausel, P.W., Brown, S., and C. Gaunt. 1991. Greenhouse effect and sea level rise: The cost of holding back the sea. Coastal Management, 19:171-204. 13..1 Digital Elevation Data Defense Mapping Agency. ]-Degree DEM Data. ESIC, Reston, Virginia. National Geophysical Data Center. ETOP05 Gridded World Elevations. Boulder, Colorado. 13.2 Geologic Maps Cook, C.W. 1936. Cretaceous and.Tertiary Formations ofSouth Carolina. 1:500,000. Cook, C.W. and Vernon. 1951. Surface Occurrences of Geologic Formations in Florida. Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey. 1982. Preliminary Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut. 1:250,000. Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey. 1985. Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut. 1: 125,000. Delaware Geologic Survey. 1966. Generalized Geologic Map of Delaware. 1:316,800. Florida State Geological Survey. 1929. Geologic Map Florida. 1: 1,000,000. Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the Georgia Geological Survey. 1976. Geologic Map of Georgia. 1:500,0 00. Maine Department of Conservation. 1985. Bedrock Geologic Map of Maine.. 1:500,000. Maine Department of Conservation. 1985. Sutficial Geologic Map of,Maine. 1:500,000. Maryland Geological Survey. 1933. Map of Maryland showing Geological, Formations. 1:380,160 (Also shows Delaware). 43 Maryland Geological Survey. 1968. Geologic Map of Maryland. 1:250,000. Massachusetts Department of Public Works. 1983. Bedrock Geologic Map of Massachusetts. 1:250,000, 3 sheets. New Hampshire Planning and Development Commission. 1955. Geologic Map of New Hampshire. 1:250,000. New Hampshire State Planning and Development Commission. 1950. Surficial Geology of New Hampshire. 1:250,000. New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development. 1950. Geologic Map of New Jersey. 1:250,000, Atlas Sheet, No. 48. New York State Museum and Science Service. 1970. Geologic Map of New York, Lower Hudson Sheet. 1:250,000, Map and Chart Series, No. 18. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. 1:500,000. U.S. Geological Survey. 1986. Geologic Map of Cape Cod and the Islands, Massachusetts. 1:100,000, Investigation Map 1-1763. U.S. Geological Survey. 1965. Bedrock Geologic Map of Rhode Island. 1: 125,000. U.S. Geological Survey and the South Carolina Research Planning Board. 1936. Geologic Map of South Carolina. 1:950,400. Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development. 1963. Geologic Map of Virginia. 1:500,000. 13.3 Topographic Maps U.S. Geological Survey. 1978. Baltimore. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1965. Bangor. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1972. Bath. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1972. Beaufort. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. 44 U.S. Geological Survey. 1970. Boston. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1977. Brunswick. 1:250,000 series. -(topographic), Reston,,, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1984. Chincoteague. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1980. Currituck Sound. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1972. Daytona Beach. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1956. Eastport. 1: 250, 000, series. (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 19.88. Fort Pierce. 1:250,000. series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1957. Fredericton. 1:250,000 series, (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1978. Georgetown., 1:250,000 series (topographic),. Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1975. Hartford. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston,. Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1988. Jacksonville. 1:250,000 series (topographic),. Reston, Virginia. U. S. Geological Survey. 1975. James Island. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1973. Manteo. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1979. New York. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1971. Miami. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1969. Newark. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston Virginia. 45 U.S. Geological Survey. 1969. Norfolk. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1972. Orlando. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1972. Portland. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1969. Providence. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1973. Richmond. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1982. Rock Moun. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1969. Salisbury. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1978. Savannah. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1979. Washington. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1987. West Palm Beach. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1972. Key West. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1972. Wilmington. 1:250,000 series (topographic), Reston, Virginia. 46 I PART 2 INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPUTERIZED DATA FILES 14. CONTENTS OF THE CONTUTERIZED DATA FUES The following lists the files distributed on the 9-track magnetic tape by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) along with this documentation. These files are also available on IBM-formatted floppy diskettes as DOS ASCII text files and through CDIAC's anonymous File Transfer Protocol -service. File number and Logical Block Record description records size length 1. General description information file 557 8000 80 2. FORTRAN IV retrieval program to read and print File 5 51 8000 80 3. SAST' code to read and print File 5 10 8000 80 4. Gridded data for the 22 original data variables, all 7 data sets (ARC/INFO' export file) 120,300 8000 80 5. Gridded data for the 22 original data variables, all 7 data sets (flat ASCII file) 141080 10000 100 6. FORTRAN IV retrieval program to read and print File 9 51 8000 ..80 7. SAS' code to read and print File 9 8 8000 80 8. Supplementary point data for the sea-level and tide range data. sets (ARCJINFO TM export file) 10,429 8000 80 49 File number and Logical Block Record description records size length 9. Supplementary point data for the sea-level and tide range data sets (flat ASCII file) 2,962 10000 100 10. FORTRAN IV retrieval program to read and print File 13 36 8000 80 11. SASTm code to read and print File 13 6 8000 80 12. Gridded data for the 7 relative risk variables: elevation, geology, geomorphology, sea-level trends, erosion/accretion rates, tidal ranges, and wave heights (ARC/INFO' export file) 85,086 8000 80 13. Gridded data for the 7 relative risk variables: elevation, geology, geomorphology, sea-level trends, erosion/accretion rates, tidal ranges, and wave heights (flat ASCII file) . 7,040 8000 80 14. FORTRAN IV retrieval program to read and print File 17 52 8000 80 15. SAS' code to read and print File 17 16 8000 80 16. 1:2,000,000 digitized coverage of the U.S. East Coast (ARC/INFO' export file) 25,180 8000 80 50 File number and Logical Block Record description records size length 17. 1:2,000,000 digitized coverage of the U.S. East Coast (flat ASCII file) 44?464 2000 20 Totalrecords 310,328 1. Tapes are 9-track, 6250 BPI, standard-labeled, with all characters written in EBCDIC unless otherwise specified by the requester. 2. All records are stored in a fixed-block record format. 3. ARC/INFO' export files (Version 6.0.1) are coverages converted to flat ASCII, fixed-block, files for data transfer purposes. The IMPORT command in ARC/INFOTm must be used to enter these files into your system. 4. SAS' is a registered trademark of the SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC 27511-8000. 5. ARQINFO@' is a registered trademark of the Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA 92372. 51 15. DESCRIPTIVE FILE ON THE TAPE The following is a listing of the first file provided on the magnetic tape distributed by CDIAC. This file provides variable descriptions, formats, units, and other pertinent information about each file associated with this coastal hazards data base. TITLE OF THE DATA BASE A@Coastal Hazards Data Base for the U.S. East Coast CONTRIBUTORS Vivien M. Gornitz National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies- 2880 Broadway New York, NY 10025 Tammy W. White Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6335 SCOPE OF THE DATA The 29 data variables within A Coastal Hazards Data Base for the U.S. East Coast are designed for use by coastal planning, research, and management agencies in combination with appropriate climatological data (e.g., Birdwell and Daniels, 1991). The data base may be used to identify coastal zones that are vulnerable to coastal -erosion and inundation from sea level rise or storm surge. This data base is comprised of the following data sets: elevation, bedrock geology, geomorphology, sea level trends, horizontal shoreline movements (erosion/accret 'ion), tidal ranges, and wave heights. For several of these data sets minimum, mean, and maximum data values are available. These data variables may be divided into two basic classes, one that measures erosion potential and one that is related to inundation risk. The inundation risk of a given coastal grid cell may be estimated based on sea level trends and elevations; whereas the erosion risk may be determined based on geology, geomorphology, shoreline displacement, tidal ranges, and wave heights. Seven of the 29 data variables in this data base are classified versions of other variables within this data base. The seven classified risk variables contain "risk values" of 53 one to five for each coastal grid'cell in the data base. These risk variables may be used to calculate a Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) that may be used to identify areas on the East Coast that are vulnerable to sea level rise or coastal erosion. DATA FORMATS For ease of use, this data base has been divided into four data groups or coverages. The 22 original data variables have been provided in data group ECGRID (Files 4 and 5), the 7 relative risk variables have been provided in data group ECRISK (Files 12 and 13), and the source information for the tide and sea-level-trend data variables have been provided in the supplemental data group ECPOINT (Files 8 and 9). In addition, an auxiliary file with a 1:2,000,000 digitized coastline of the U.S. East Coast has been provided in ECOAST (Files 16 and 17). For the data groups identified above, two different data formats were used. Each format provides the data registered to a 0.25' latitude by 0.25' longitude grid [or in longitude/latitude coordinates in the case of ECPOINT (Files 8 and 9) and ECOAST (Files 16 and 17)]. The first format is designed for use by the ARC/INFCF' Geographic Information System (GIS). This format stores the data as points, arcs, or polygons (based on the coverage in question). The second format contains comparable data that has been converted into flat ASCII data files for use by raster GISs or non-GIS data base systems. For the data sets that were originally obtained as point data (i.e., sea level trends and tide ranges) the actual data variables, station names/numbers, record lengths, and latitude/longitude locations have been provided in data group ECPOINT. Within data group ECPOINT, data are provided on the basis of the data point, thus allowing the precise location of each station used in calculating the data for the 0.250 grid cells contained in ECGRID to be determined. A description of the contents of each of the data groups and files included with this data base follows: (1) ECGRID: Gridded polygon data for the 22 original data variables. Data sets contained in this file include elevation, geology, geomorphology, sea level trend, shoreline displacement, tide range, and wave heights. (2) ECPOINT: Point data for the stations used in calculating the sea-level-trend and tide-range data sets. Data include station names/numbers, record length, latitude/longitude location, and mean and maximum data values (when available). (3) ECRISK: Gridded polygon data for the seven classified risk variables. The risk variables are classified versions of the following original variables: mean coastal elevation, geology, geomorphology, local subsidence trend, mean shoreline displacement, mean tidal range, and the maximum significant wave height. 54 (4) ECOAST: 1:2,000,000 digitized coastline of the U.S. East, Coast. The coastline was extracted from a digitized map of the United States compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey. To improve the portability of the information in the data files, FORTRAN IV input/output routines and SAS' input/output routines have been included with this data base for each of the flat ASCII data files. These input/output routines are intended to be used to read/write the data values contained in the flat ASCII data files [containing the'gridded data base, the original point data (for, the sea level trend and tide range variables), and the digitized coastline]. The data groups in this data base are available as exported ARC/INFO" coverages (Version 6.0. 1). The export files must be read into an ARC/INFO' GIS using the E@MRT command with the COVER option after uploading the files onto a computer. These files are in a GEOGRAPHIC projection, which means the coverages are projected in a spherical reference grid using latitude and longitude coordinates that are stored in decimal degrees (DD). The flat ASCII files contain an identical version of this data base. The gridding method used in this data base consists of 7,040 0.25' latitude by 0.250 longitude grid cells. These cells cover the area defined by the following coordinates: 851W, 240N; 850W, 46N; 65W, 46'N; and 650W, 24'N. The origin of the grid is at.85W, 24'N, and grid identifiers increase from left to right, bottom to top. The data contained within each grid cell is valid for the entire grid cell. The data for a grid cell should not be construed as,being representative of a "point" in the cell -be it the lower-left corner, upper-leftcomer, center, etc. The flat ASCII versions of the files have been provided to allow use of these data by users who do not have access to ARC/INFO". The format and contents of each of the flat ASCII files are described in the following section (the ARC/INFO" coverages have the same variables and general format as described herein for the ASCII files). Upon special request a line/arc, version of the data in ECGRID and ECRISK is available from CDIAC. If requested, this data will be provided as an ARC/INFCF' coverage (i.e., ECLINE.EOO). Coverage ECLINE contains 29 variables for each line segment in the coverage; these line segments average 4.5 km length, and when plotted, are equivalent to those found within the auxiliary file ECOAST. 55 DATA GROUP ECGRID: This data group contains gridded polygon data for the 22 original data variables. These data variables are from the seven data sets and are as follows: minimum, mean, and maximum elevation, and the number of 5' grid cells used in deriving the data values; geology; geomorphology; relative sea level trend, long-term geologic-trend, corrected sea level trend, local subsidence trend, and the years of record of the gauge stations used in calculating these values; mean, minimum, and maximum shoreline displacement, and the number of 3', 7.5', or 15' grid cells used in deriving the data values; mean tide level, mean and maximum tidal range, and the number of tidal stations used in calculating these values; maximum significant wave height and the 20 year mean wave height and its standard deviation. Thenames, of the ARC/INFOTI coverage and flat ASCII file in which these data variables reside are ECGRID.EOO (File 4) and ECGRID.ASC (File 5), respectively. File 5 is formatted as follows: 10 READ (5,100,END=999) ID, WHAVG, WHMAX, WHSD, ERAVG, 1 ERMAX, ERMIN, ERNUM, ELAVG, ELMAX, ELMIN, ELNUM READ (5,110) GM, GL, TRMAX, TRAVG, TRLVL, TRNUM, 1 SLR, SLG, SLC, SLS, SLYR 100 F0RMAT(15,6F8.2,I4,3F8.2,I4) 110 FORMAT(2I5,3F8.2,I4,4F8.2,I4) The variables in data group ECGRID (File 5) are shown in Table 9 and are listed as they appear in the file. Table 9. Variable formats for ECGRID.ASC (File 5). Variable Column Variable Variable name start end type description ID 1 5 Integer System variable - grid cell identifier WHAVG 6 13 Real Data variable - 20-year mean wave height experienced within each 0.25' grid cell; values in meters 56 Table 9. Variable formats for ECGRID.ASC (Qontinued). Variable Column Variable Variable name start end type description WHMAX 14 21 Real Data variable - maximum significant wave height for each 0.25' grid cell; values in meters VMSD 22 29 Real Data variable - standard deviation of the 20-year mean wave height experienced within each 0.251 grid cell; values in meters ERAVG 30 37 Real Data variable - mean long-term erosion trend for given 0.251?,grid cell; values in meters ERMAX 38, 45 Real Data variable - maximum long-term erosion trend for a given 0.250 grid cell; values in meters ERMIN 46 53 Real Data variable - minimum long-term erosion trend for a given 0.25" grid cell; values in meters ERNUM 54 57 Integer Data variable - number of 3', 7.5% or 15' grid cells used in calculating ERAVG, ERMIN, and ERMAX for a given 0.25' grid cell ELAVG 58 65 Real Data variable - mean elevation of all nonnegative 5' by 5' grid cells within a given 0.250 grid cell; values in meters ELMAX 66 73 Real Data variable - maximum elevation of all nonnegative 5' by 5' grid cells within a given 0.25' grid cell; values in meters 57 Table 9. Variable formats for ECGRID.ASC (Continued). Variable Column Variable Variable name start end type description ELMIN 74 81 Real Data variable - minimum elevation of all nonnegative 5' by 5' grid cells within a given 0.250 grid cell; values in meters ELNUM 82 85 Integer Data variable - number of 5' by 5' grid cells used in calculating ELAVG, ELMIN, and ELMAX for a given 0.25' grid cell --------------- SECOND LINE READS AS FOLLOWS ----------------- GM 1 5 Integer Data variable - ordinal value indicative of the type and susceptibility of the landforms within a given 0.25' grid cell to inundation and erosion GL 6 to Integer Data variable - ordinal value indicative of the type and resistance of the rocks within a given 0.25' grid cell to erosion TRMAX 11 18 Real Data variable - maximum tide range measured for all gauge stations that occurred within a given 0.25' grid cell in 1988 (this value may be the "spring" or "diurnal" tide range, depending on geographic location); values in meters TRAVG 19 26 Real Data variable - average of the mean tide range for all the gauge stations that occur within a given 0.250 grid cell ,(mean tide range is the difference in height between mean high water and mean low water in 1988); values in meters 58 Table 9. Variable formats for ECGRID.ASC (Continued). Variable Column Variable Variable name start end type description TRLVL 27 34 Real Data variable - the a -verage of the mean tide levels of all the gauge stations that occur within a given 0.25' grid, cell (mean tide level, is,a plane midway between mean low water and mean high water in 1988). Values were reckoned from chart datums (i.e., Gulf Coast Mean. Low Water Datum was used for the Florida Keys; the Atlantic, Co Iast Mean Low. Water Datum was used, for the rest of the East Coast) TRNUM 35 38 Integer Data variable - number of tide gauge stations used in calculating TRAVG, TRMAX, and TRLVL for a given 0.250 grid cell SLR 39 46 Real Data variable - relative sea level trend within a given 0.25' grid cell; values in mm/year SLG 47 54 Real Data variable - long-term geologic- trend derived from 14 C data for each 0.250 grid cell; values in mm/year SLC 55 62 Real Data variable - corrected sea level trend. Tide-gauge data (i.e., SLR) corrected for geologic trends (i.e., SLG) for each 0.250 grid cell SLS 63 70 Real Data variable - the local subsidence trend. Tide-gauge data (i.e., SLR) corrected for the regional eustatic rate of sea level rise (i.e., 1.25 mm/year) SLYR 71 74 Integer Data variable - years of record used in estimating the sea level trend for each 0.25' grid cell 59 Within ECGRID missing data values are indicated as follows: 9999.99 - A grid cell with real data values that is missing data for a given data variable. 9999 - A grid cell with integer data values that is missing data for a given data variable. A value of 0.0 is a valid value for all variables. For the elevation variables 0.0 m indicates that land occurs within the given grid cell, but the maximum elevation of this land is < 1.0 m. If the data variables in a given data set, such as elevation, contain data and the "number" variable is set to zero (i.e., ELNUM, ERNUM, TRNUM, or SLYR), then the data variables for the given 0.250 grid cell have been estimated based on the methods discussed in Part I of this document. 60 DATA GROUP ECPOINT: This data group contains the point data for the stations used in, calculating the relative sea level trend, long-term geologic-trend, corrected sea level trend, local subsidence trend, mean tide range, maximum tide range,. and mean tide level variables contained within data group ECGRID. Data include station names, station number, record length, latitude/longitude location, and data variable values. The names of the ARC/INFCF' coverage and flat ASCII file are ECPOINT.EOO (File 8) and ECPOINT.ASC (File 9), respectively. A summary of the format used for File 9 follows: 10 READ (5,100,END=9.99) ID, SLLONG, SLLAT, SLR, SLG, I SLC, SLS, SLYR, SLNAME READ (5,110) TRLONG, TRLAT, TRAVG, TRMAX, TRLVL, 1 TRID, TRNAME 100 FORMAT(I5,6F8.2,I4,A38) 110 FORMAT(5F8.2,I5,A45) The variables listed in Table 10 are listed as they appear in data group ECPOINT (File 9). Table 10. Variable formats for ECPOINT.ASC (File 9). Variable Column Variable Variable name start end type description ID 1 5 Integer System variable - Point identification number SLLONG 6 13 Real Data variable - longitude of the tide- gauge station used in determining the sea level trends SLLAT 14 21 Real Data variable - latitude of the tide- gauge station used in determining the sea level trends 61 Table 10. Variable formats for ECPOINT.ASC (Continued). Variable Column Variable Variable name start end type description SLR 22 29 Real. Data variable - relative sea level trend measured for each tide-gauge station; values are expressed in mm/year SLG 30 37 Real Data variable - long-term geologic- trend derived from C" data; values are expressed in mm/year SLC 38 45 Real Data variable - corrected sea level trend. Tide-gauge data (i.e., SLR) corrected for long-term geologic-trends (i.e., SLG); values are expressed in mm/year SLS 46 53 Real Data variable - local subsidence trend. Relative sea level trend corrected for the regional eustatic rate of sea level rise (i.e., 1.25 mm/year) SLYR 54 57 Integer Data variable - years of record of the tide-gauge station used in determining the sea level trends SLNAME 58 95 Char Data variable - name of the tide gauge used for determining the sea level trends ----------------- SECOND LINE READS AS FOLLOWS -------------------- TRLONG 1 8 Real Data variable - longitude of a tide- gauge station used for determining the tide range variables TRLAT 9 16 Real Data variable - latitude of a tide-gauge station used for determining the tide range variables 62 Table 10. Variable formats for ECPOINT.ASC (Continued). Variable Column Variable Variable." name start end type description TRAVG 17 24 Real Data'variable - difference, between mean high water and- mean low water for 1988; values in meters, TRMAX 25 32 Real Data variable - maximum tide range, maximum- meas ured range for the gauge station in 1988 (this value may be the "spring." or "diurnal" tide range, depending on geographic location); values in meters TRLVL 33 40 Real Data variable - mean tide level, a plane midway between mean low water and mean high water in 1988. Values are reckoned,from chart datums (ie., Gulf Coast Mean Low Water Datum is used for the Florida Keys; the Atlantic'Coast Mean Low Water Datum is used for the rest of the East Coast) TRID 41 45 Integer Data variable - station number (used in the 1988 Tide Tables) of a tide-gauge TRNAME 46 90 Char Data variable - name of a tide-gauge station (from the 1988 Tide Tables) Within this data file, missing data values are indicated with one of the following values: 0.0 or 0- A tide range or sea-level station that has not been assigned data for the variable in question. In this data group the sea level variables and tide range variables are mutually exclusive (i.e., if tide-range data are present, then the sea-level data are missing or vice versa). 63 DATA GROUP ECRISK: This data group contains gridded polygon data for the seven classified risk variables. The risk variables are classified versions of the following original variables: mean coastal elevation, geology, geomorphology, local subsidence trend, mean shoreline displacement, mean tidal range, and maximum significant wave height. The names of the ARC/INFOTI coverage and fiat ASCII file are ECRISKE00 (File 12) and ECRISKASC (File 13), respectively. A summary of the format used in File 13 follows: 10 READ(5,100,END=999) ID, 1 ERR, LSR, WHR, ELR, GMR, GLR, TRR 100 FORMAT(I5,7N) The variables in data group ECRISK, listed in Table 11, are shown as they appear in File 13. Table 11. Variable formats for ECIZISKASC (File 13). Variable Column Variable Variable name start end type description ID 1 5 Integer System variable - grid cell identifier ERR 6 9 Integer Data variable - classified version of the mean erosion/accretion variable (i.e., ERAVG) LSR 10 13 Integer Data variable - classified version of the local subsidence trend variable (i.e., SLS) WHR 14 17 Integer Data variable - classified version of the maxii-nurn significant wave-height variable (i.e., WHMAX) 64 Table 11. Variable formats for.ECRISK.ASC (Continued). Variable Column Variable Variable name start end type description ELR 18 21 Integer Data variable - classifiM version of the mean elevation variable (i.e., ELAVG) GMR 22 25 Integer Data variable - classified version of the geomorphology variable (i.e., GM) GLR 26 29 Integer Data variable - classified. version of the geology variable (i.e., GL) TRR 30 33 Integer Data variable - classified version of the mean tide range variable (i.e., TRAVG) q Values of Zero are used in risk variables to identify grid cells that are missing data for a given data variable. If several "no data", values occur within the same grid cell, then any calculated coastal vulnerability index that uses these relative risk factors may not accurately represent the risk of the given coastal area to sea level rise or coastal erosion (unless some type of corrective action is taken). Grid cells that are not in the coastal zone, or are totally ocean bound, have.values of zero for all seven derived risk variables. AUXILIARY DATA GROUP, ECOAST: Auxiliary data group ECOAST (Files 16 and 17) contains a 1:2,000,000 digitized coastline of the U.S. East Coast. Data in this coverage were extracted from a digitized map of the United States (originally compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey). This coastline may be overlaid onto any of the three data groups previously discussed to provide locational information when plotting any or all of the data variables. Unlike the other data groups within this data base, this coverage contains line segments (or arcs) that describe the U.S. East Coast. The coastline provided has no attribute values associated with the line segments. However, such overlay commands as UNION, INTERSECT, and IDENTITY in ARC/INFO` (or other GISs) may be used to transfer the gridded data values to the coastal segments, thus simplifying the interpretation of any derived indices. 65 The name of the ARC/INFO' coverage where the coastline resides is ECOAST.EOO (File 16), and the flat ASCII data file with this same information is in ECOASTASC (File 17). Since this file is line based, the data values in ECOASTASC contain the line segment name, and a listing of the points that describe each line, for all 934 line segments that define the East Coast. The flat ASCII version of this file contains a listing of the line segments (or arcs) that describe the coast. An example of the format for this file is shown in Table 12. Table 12- Sample of the vector format used for ECOAST.ASC (File 17). Name, Number of points 111",-5 -Vector 1 uses 5 points to describe the line -71.0812,45.1245 -Start at 71.08'W Longitude, 45.30'N Latitude -70.6414,45.4167 -70.9824,45.5545 -71.0035,45.6234 -71.0334145.7834 -End of arc 11211,43 -Vector 2 uses 13 points to describe the line -71.0334,45.7834 -Start of next line -71.2267,45.7734 -71.2946,45.7948 ... -Continued 66 16. LISTING OF THE FORTRAN 77 DATA RETRIEVAL PROGRAMS What follows is a listing of the four FORTRAN 77 data retrieval.programs provided by CDIAC on magnetic tape, floppy diskette, or through CDIAC's anonymous FTP service with this data base. Each program is designed to read and write the contents of one of the -four flat ASCII data files., The first program (File 2 on the magnetic tape) is designed to read and print the file ECGRID.ASC (File 5). C* FORTRAN PROGRAM TO READ AND PRINT ECGRID.ASC (FILE 5) INTEGER NLIN INTEGER ID, ERNUM, ELNUM, GM, GL, TRNUM, SLYR REAL WHAVG, WHMAX, WHSD, ERAVG, ERMAX, ERMIN REAL ELAVG, ELMAX, ELMIN, TRMAX, TRAVG, TRLVL REAL SLR, SLG, SLC, SLS C* INITIALIZE A COUNTER AND OPEN FILES FOR INPUT/OUTPUT NLIN=O OPEN(UNIT=5,FILE=IECGRID.ASCI,READONLY,STATUS=IOLDI) OPEN(UNIT=6,FILE=SYS$OUTPUT,STATUS=INEWI) C* READ AND PRINT GRID CELL ID AND 22 DATA VARIABLES 10 READ (5,100,END=999) ID, WHAVG, WHMAX, WHSD, ERAVG, I ERMAX, ERMIN, ERNUM, ELAVGf ELMAX, ELMIN, ELNUM READ (5,110) GM, GL, TRMAX, TRAVG, TRLVL, TRNUM, 1 SLR, SLG, SLC, SLS, SLYR IF (NLIN.GT.32) NLIN=O IF (NLIN.EQ.0) WRITE(6f120) IF (NLIN.EQ.0) WRITE(6,130) NLIN=NLIN+l WRITE(6,105) ID, WHAVG, WHMAX, WHSD, ERAVG, I ERMAX, ERMIN, ERNUM, ELAVG, ELMAX, ELMIN, ELNUM WRITE(6,115) GM, GL, TRMAX, TRAVG, TRLVL, TRNUM, 1 SLR, SLG, SLCf SLS, SLYR 20 CONTINUE GO TO 10 C 100 FORMAT(I5,6F8.2,I4,3F8-2,I4) 105 FORMAT(1X,I5,6F8.2,I4,3F8.2,I4) 110 FORMAT(2I5,3F8.2,I4,4F8.2,I4) 115 FORMAT(lX,2I5,3F8.2,I4,4F8.2,I4) 67 120 FOR14AT(lX,3X,'IDI,3X,IWHAVGI,3X,'WHMAXI,4X,IWHSDI, 1 3X,'ERAVG',3X,'ERMAXlt2Xj'ERMIN 111ERNUM1,2X, I 'EIAVGI,3X,'ELMAXI,2X,'ELMIN ','ELNUM') 130 FORMAT(lX,2X,IGMI,3X,IGL',3X,ITRMAXI,3X,ITRAVGI, 1 2X,'TRLVL ','TRNUMI,4X,'SLRI,5X,'SLG',5X,'SLC', I 5X,'SLS 1,1SLYRI) C* CLOSE FILES AND EXIT GRACEFULLY 999 CLOSE(UNIT=5) CLOSE(UNIT=6) STOP END 68 The second FORTRAN 77 program (File 6 on the magnetic tape) is designed to' read and print the file ECPOINT.ASC (File 9). C* FORTRAN PROGRAM TO READ AND PRINT ECPOINT.ASC (FILE 9) INTEGER NLIN INTEGER ID, TRID, SLYR REAL SLLONG, SLLAT, SLR,,SLG, SLC, SLS REAL TRLONG, TRLAT, TRAVG, TRMAX, TRLVL CHARACTER SLNAME*38, TRNAME*45 C* INITIALIZE A COUNTER AND OPEN FILES FOR INPUT/OUTPUT NLIN=O OPEN(UNIT=5,FILE=IECPOINT.ASCI,READONLY,STATUS=IOLDO) OPEN(UNIT=6,FILE=SYS$OUTPUT,STATUS=INEWI) C*READ AND PRINT POINT ID, SEA-LEVEL, AND TIDE VARIABLES,* 10 READ (5,100,END=999) ID, SLLONG, SLLAT,, SLR, SLG, 1 SLC, SLS, SLYR, SLNAME READ@(5,110) TRLONG, TRLAT, TRAVG, TRMAX, TRLVL, I TRID, TRNAME IF (NLIN.GT.32) NLIN=O IF (NLIN.EQ.0) WRITE(6,120) IF (NLIN.EQ.0) WRITE(6,130) NLIN=NLIN+l WRITE(6,140) ID, SLLONG, SLLAT, SLR, SLG, SLC, SLS, 1 SLYR, SLNAME WRITE(6,150) TRLONG, TRLAT, TRAVG, TRMAX, TRLVL, 1 TRID, TRNAME 20 CONTINUE GO To 10 C 100 FORMAT(I5,6F8.2,I4,A38) 110 FORMAT(5F8.2,I5,A45) 120 FORMAT(lX,3X,IIDI,2X,ISLLONGI,3X,ISLLATI,5X,ISLRI, 1 5X,ISLG',5X,ISLC-,SX,ISLSI,lX,ISLYRI,15X,ISLNAMEI) 130 FORMAT(IX12X,ITRLONGI,3X,'TRLATI,3X,'TRAVG',3X, 1 'TRMAX1,3X,'TRLVL1,1 TRID1,15X,1TRNAME1) 140 FORMAT(1X,I5,6F8.2,I4,A38) 150 FORMAT(1X,5F8.2,I5,A45) 69 C* CLOSE FILES AND EXIT GRACEFULLY 999 CLOSE(UNIT=5) CLOSE(UNIT=6) STOP END The third FORTRAN 77 program (File 10 on the magnetic tape) is designed to read and print the file ECRISK.ASC (File 13). C* FORTRAN PROGRAM TO READ AND PRINT ECRISK.ASC (FILE 13)* INTEGER NLIN INTEGER ID, ERR, LSR, WHR, ELR, GMR, GLR, TRR C* INITIALIZE A COUNTER AND OPEN FILES FOR'INPUT/OUTPUT NLIN=O OPEN(UNIT=5,FILE=IECRISK.ASCI,READONLY,STATUS=IOLDI) OPEN(UNIT=6,FILE=SYS$OUTPUT,STATUS=INEWI) C* READ AND PRINT GRID CELL ID AND SEVEN RISK VARIABLES 10 READ(5,100,END=999) ID, 1 ERR,LSR,WHR,ELR,GMR,GLR,TRR IF (NLIN.GT.65) NLIN=O IF (NLIN.EQ.0) WRITE(6,110) NLIN=NLIN+l WRITE(6,105) ID,ERR,LSR,WHR,ELR,GMR,GLR,TRR 20 CONTINUE GO TO 10 C 100 FORMAT(I5,7I4) 105 FORMAT(1X,I5,7I4) 110 FORMAT(lX,3X,IID-,lX,-ERR-,lX,-LSRI,lX,IWHRI,'lX, 1 'ELRI,!X,IGMRI,lX,IGLRI,lX,'TRR') C* CLOSE FILES AND EXIT GRACEFULLY 999 CLOSE(UNIT=5) CLOSE(UNIT=6) STOP END 70 The last FORTRAN 77 program (File 14 on the magnetic tape) is designed to read and print the file ECOAST.ASC (File 17). C* FORTRAN PROGRAM TO READ AND PRINT ECOAST.ASC (FILE 17)* CHARACTER NAME*6, ALLNAME*7 CHARACTER COMMA INTEGER I, NUM, NLIN REAL X, Y C* OPEN FILES FOR INPUT/OUTPUT OPEN(UNIT=5,FILE='ECOAST.ASCI,READONLY,STATUS=IOLDI) OPEN(UNIT=6,FILE=SYS$OUTPUT,STATUS=INEWI) C* READ AND PRINT LINE NAME AND NUMBER OF POINTS IN LINE 10 NLIN=O READ(5,100,END=999) NAME,COMMA,NUM IF (COMMA.EQ.'-') NUM=NUM*-l IF (COMMA.EQ.1,1) THEN ALLNAME=NAME//',' ELSE ALLNAME=NAME//' END IF WRITE(6,130) WRITE(6,110) ALLNAME,NUM C* READ AND PRINT X,Y COORDINATES FOR THE LINE DO 20 1 = 1,NUM*-l IF (NLIN.GT.77) NLIN=O IF (NLIN.EQ.0) WRITE(6,140) NLIN=NLIN+l READ (5,120) X,COMMA,Y WRITE(6,120) X,COMMA,Y 20 CONTINUE GO TO 10 C 100 FORMAT(A6,AI,I6) 110 FORMAT(A7,I6) 120 FORMAT(F8.4,A1,F7.4) 130 FORMAT(lX,INAME NUMBER') 140 FORMAT(1X,1X 'y 1) 71 C* CLOSE FILES AND EXIT GRACEFULLY 999 CLOSE(UNIT=5) CLOSE(UNIT=6) STOP END 72 17. LISTING OF THE SASTm DATA RETRIEVAL PROGRAMS The following pages list the four SASTm data retrieval programs provided by CDIAC with this data base. Each program is designed to read and write the contents of one of the four flat ASCII data files. The first program (File 3 on the magnetic tape) is designed to read and print the file ECGRID.ASC (File 5). DATA ECGRID; INFILE IN; INPUT ID 1-5 WHAVG 6-13 WHMAX 14-21 WHSD 22-29 ERAVG 30-37 ERMAX 38-45 ERMIN 46-53 ERNUM 54-57 ELAVG 58-65 ELMAX 66-73 ELMIN 74-81 ELNUM 82-85; INPUT GM 1-5 GL 6-10 TRMAX 11-18 TRAVG 19-26 TRLVL 27-34 TRNUM 35-38 SLR 39-46 SLG 47-54 SLC 55-62 SLS,63-70 SLYR 71-74; PROC PRINT; RUN; 73 The second SAS" program (File 7 on the magnetic tape) is designed to read and print the file ECPOINT.ASC (File 9). DATA ECPOINT; INFILE IN; INPUT ID 1-5 SLLONG 6-13 SLLAT 14-21 SLR 22-2 9 SLG 30-37 SLC 38-45 SLS 46-53 SLYR 54-57 SLNAME $ 58-94; INPUT TRLONG 1-8 TRLAT 9-16 TRAVG 17-24 TRMAX 25-32 TRLVL 33-40 TRID 41-45 TRNAME $ 46-89; PROC PRINT; RUN; 74 The third SASTMprogram (File I I on the magnetic tape) is designed to read and print the file ECRISKASC (File 13). DATA ECRISK; INFILE IN; INPUT ID 1-5 ERR 6-9 LSR 10-13 WHR 14-17 ELR 18-21 GMR 22-25 GLR 26-29 TRR 30-33;:, PROC PRINT; RUN; 75 The last SAS' program (File 15 on the magnetic tape) is designed, to read and print the file ECOAST.ASC (File 17). DATA ECOAST; FILE PRINT; INFILE IN DLM=I, 1; INPUT NAME $ NUM; PUT 'NAME , NUMBER OF POINTS'; PUT NAME $ NUM; LENGTH DEFAULT=4; NUM2 = NUM * -1; ARRAY Xf4661; ARRAY Yf4661; PUT IX Y1; DO I = 1 TO NUM2; INPUT XJIJ YfIj; PUT XfIj Yf1j; END; RUN; 76 CD 00 Sample listing of ECGRID.ASC (File 5). ID WHAVG WHKAX WHSD ERAVG ERMAX ERMIN ERNUM ELAVG ELMAX ELKIN ELNUM. CA GH GL TRKAX TRAVG TRLVL TRNUM SLR SLG SLC SLS SLYR v 1 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 01 9999 9999 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 '9999.99 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999 9999 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.90 9999.99 0 3 9999.99 9999.99 9999-99 9999-99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999.99 0999.99 9999.09 0 9999 9999 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 91999099 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 -0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0,[email protected] 9999 1.99 0 9999 9999 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 [email protected] 9099.99 9999.gg 9999.99 0 5 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999-99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999 9999 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 '990.99 -0 0 > 6 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 .0 9999 9999 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999.;99 - 0 7 9999..99 9999.99 9999.99 9999-99,9999-99 9999.99 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999 9999 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 9999'.99 9999.99 9999.99 [email protected] 0 8 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 9999-99 9999-99 9999.99 0 9999.99 9999.99 9999.99 0 > Sample listing of ECPOINT.ASC (File 9). ID SLLONG SLLAT SLR SLG SLC SLS SLYR SLNAME TRLONG TRLAT TRAVG TRMAX TRLVL TRID TRNAME 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 -66.98 44.90 5.61 6.37 2.80 597' EASTPORT' 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 1 -67.05 44.97 5.61 6.37 2.80 599' GLEASON COVE- WESTERN PASSAGE' 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 9 -67.10 45.08 5.85 6.64 2.93 601' ROBBINSTON' 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0, 1 -67.13 45.13 5.97 6.80 2.99 603' ST. CROIX ISLAND' 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0, 9 -67.28 45.18 6.10 6.95 3.05 605' CALAIS' 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 08 0 -67.02 44.90 5.70 6.49 2.83 607' DEEP COVE- MOOSE ISLAND' 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. -67.12 44.93 5.82 6.64 2.90 609' EAST BAY 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. Sample listing of ECRISK.ASC (File 13). ID ERR LSR WHR ELR GMR GLR TRR 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 Sample listing of ECOAST.ASC (File 17). 112911, -42 -Vector 29 uses 42 points to describe the' arc 67.0226,44-9002 -67.0179,44.9023 -67.0151,44-9039 -67.0077,44.9008 -67.0011,44.8964 -66.9938,44,.8978 -66.9911,44.8986 -66.9884,44.9003 -66.9878,44-9057 -66.9880,44.9099 -66.9903,44-9132 -66.9944,44.9166 -67.0013,44.9192 79 19. VERIFICATION OF DATA TRANSPORT: FLAT ASCH DATA FILES The gridded coastal hazards data base and the original point data may be read using the FORTRAN 77 or SASTm input/output routines provided. After these files are loaded onto the system it should be verified that the files have not been corrupted during transport. To do this, some or all of the statistics or characteristics presented in the following tables should be generated. These statistics were obtained for ECGRID, , ECPOINT, and ECRISK using the SAS' statistical package (i.e., with PROC MEANS); @however, these statistics may be duplicated using other statistical packages or computer languages. The information shown for ECOAST was obtained using operating system commands. if the file sizes differ from those presented in Table 16 by > 1 byte or the number of rows differs from the number of rows shown, then the flat ASCII file may have been corrupted in transport. These statistics are presented only as a tool to ensure proper reading of the four flat ASCII data files and should not be construed as either a summary of the data or as an indicator of trends in the data. Table 13. Statistical characteristics of the numeric variables in ECGRID.ASC (File 5) Variable Number of Mean Standard Minimum Maximum observations deviation ID 7040 3520.50 2032.42 1.00 7040.00 WHAVG 7040 9819.60 1330.97 0.23 9999.99 WHMAX 7040 9819.67 1330.47 2.40 9999.99 WHSD 7040 9819.60 1330.98 0.36 9999.99 ERAVG 7040 9801.11 1396.32 -7.82 9999.99 ERMAX 7040 9801.14 1396.09 -6.40 9999.99 ERMIN 7040 9801.08 1396.55 -24.60 9999.99 ERNUM 7040 0.07 0.55 0.00 6.00 ELAVG 7040 9483.46 2212.24 0.00 9999.99 ELMAX 7040 9483.78 2210.87 0.00 9999.99 ELMIN 7040 9483.14 2213.62 0.00 9999.99 ELNUM 7040 0.22 1.20 0.00 9.00 GM 7040 9607.43 1757.68 1230.00 9999.00 GL 7040 9538.68 2062.81 110.00 9999.00 TRMAX 7040 9554.04 2064.09 0.06 9999.99 80 Table 13. (Continued) Variable Number of Mean Standard Minimum Maximum observations deviation TRAVC, 7040 9554.03 2064.16 0.03 9999.99 TRLVL 7040 9554.00 2064.30 0.02 9999.99 TRNUM 7040 0.21 1.29 0.00 36.00 SLR 7040 9521.43 2134.47 1.80 9999.99 SLG 7040 9521.36 2134.76 0.43 9999.99 SLC 7040 9521.36 2134.75 0.04 9999.99 SLS 7040 9521.37 2134.73 0.55 9999-99 SLYR 7040 0.27 4.12 0.00 130.00 Table 14. Statistical characteristics of the numeric variables in ECPOINT.ASC (File 9) Variable Number of Mean Standard Minimum Maximum observations deviation ID 1481 754.49 457.95 1.00 2036.00 SLLONG 1481 -1.82 11.56 -81.81 0.00 SLLAT 1481 0.93 5.94, 0.00 44.90 SLR 1481 0.07 0.43 0.00 4.30 SLG 1481 0.04 0.24 0.00 2.35 SLC 1481 0.03 0.23 0.00 3.10 SLS 1481 0.04 0.25 0.00 3.05 SLYR 1481 1.33 9.03 0.00 130.00 TRLONG 1481 -73.64 12.22 -82.87 0.00 TRLAT 1481 36.71 7.57 0.00 45.18 TRAVG 1481 1.34 0.93 0.00 6.10 TRMAX 1481 1.56 1.06 0.00 6.95 TRLVL 1481 0.67 0.46 0.00 3.05 TRID 1481 1965.81 866.06 0.00 3449.00 81 Table 15. Statistical characteristics of the numberic variables in ECRISKASC (File 13) Variable Number of Mean Standard Minimum Maximum observations deviation ID 7040 3520.50 2032.42 1.00 7040.00 ERR 7040 0.07 0.49 0.00 5.00 LSR 7040 0.10 0.44 0.00 3.00 WER 7040 0.04 0.30 0.00 3.00 ELR 7040 0.23 0.99 0.00 5.00 GMR 7040 0.16 0.78 0.00 5.00 GLR 7040 0.19 0.87 0.00 5.00 TRR 7040 0.05 0.25 0.00 4.00 Table 16. Characteristics and size, in bytes and 512-byte blocks, of ECOASTASC (File 17) Number of Number of rows Size in bytes Size in blocks lines/arcs 934 44,464 889,280 1465 82 20. VERMCATION OF DATA TRANSPORT: ARC/INFO'm EXPORT FILES The four ARCANFO' export files were created in ARC/INFO", Version 6. 0. 1, using the EXPORT command with the COVER and NONE options. Each export file contains an entire coverage and its associated INFO data files in a fixed-length, uncompressed format. The exported coverages are in a GEOGRAPHIC projection, which is a spherical reference system that locates positions using latitude and longitude coordinates that are stored in decimal degrees. As a result of this, the reference grids in which the data are stored are not uniform in size or area. After loading the ARC/INFO" export files onto a system, the user should verify that the files have been correctly transported. To verify the integrity of the files, the size of the export files and (after importing the data into ARCANFOrm) the total number of INFO data records in each coverage should be compared with those presented in Table 17. If the file sizes differ from those presented by > I byte or the number of INFO data records do not match,those shown in Table 17, then the coverage may have been corrupted in transport. Importation of the ARC/INFO" EOO files into the user's ARC/INFO' system can be accomplished using the IMPORT command with the COVER option. The IMPORT command will automatically recognize that the export file is in an uncompressed format (files should be EXTERNALED after being imported [e.g., ARC > external ECGRID Table 17. File size, in bytes and 512-byte blocks, and the number of INFO data records in each ARC/INFOT' export file Export Tape File File AMINFOTm Number file file size size data of ARC/INFOTm name number (bytes) (blocks) type records ECGRID.EOO 4 7,534,005 14715 Pat 7041. ECP01NT.E00 8 722,941 1412 Pat 1481 ECRISK.EOO 12 4,822,332 9419 Pat 7041 ECOAST.EOO 16 1,451,541 2836 Aat 934 83 APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE DATA GROUPS: A QUICK REFERENCE .1 THE DATA GROUPS: A QUICK REFERENCE The following provides a listing ard description of the data variables and other pertinent information for each of the three data groups and one auxiliary data,.file. In the ARC/INFOT1 version of these files, each data group contains several additional system variables. These system variables are AREA; PERIMETER; an internal point, polygon, or line segment number (e.g., ECGRID#); and an external point,polygon, or line segment identifier (e.g., ECGRID-ID). The external grid cell identifier is present in both the export (.EOO) and ASCII (.ASC) files and is used to identify the 0.25' by 0.25' grid cell, point, or line segment to which the data record belongs. (1) DATA GROUP ECGRID: Gridded, polygon data for 22 data variables. from the following data sets: elevation, geology, geomorphology, sea level trend, shoreline displacement, tidal range, and wave heights. (A value of 9999.99 or 9999 indicates no data-are available for the given data cell,for a given data variable.) Data Variables WHAVG - 20-year mean wave height calculated for each 0.25' grid cell: values-, expressed in meters. WHMAX - Maximum significant wave height for each 0.25' grid cell-, values expressed in meters. WHSD - Standard deviation of the mean wave heights experienced within each 0.25' grid cell; values expressed in meters. ERAVG - Average of the mean long-term,erosion trend values for a given 0.250 grid cell; values expressed in meters.. ERMAX - Maximum of the mean long-term erosion trends for a given 0.250 grid cell; -values expressed in meters. ERAMN - Minimum of the mean long-term erosion trends for a given 0.25' grid cell;% values expressed in meters. ERNUM - Number of 3', 7.5', or 15' grid cells (i.e., format of original data source).used in calculating ERAVG, ERMIN, or ERMAX for a given 0.250 grid cell. A - 3 DATA GROUP ECGRID: Data Variables (Continued) ELAVG - Average elevation calculated from all n onnegative 5' by 5' grid cells within a given 0.25' grid cell; values expressed in meters. ELMAX -.Maximum elevation of all the nonnegative 5' by 5' grid cells for a given 0.25' grid cell; values expressed in meters. ELNUN - Minimum elevation of all the nonnegative 5' by 5' grid cells for a given 0.25' grid cell; values expressed in meters. ELNUM - Number of 5' by 5' grid cells used in calculating ELAVG, ELMIN, and ELMAX for a given 0.250 grid cell. GM - Ordinal value indicating the type and susceptibility of the landforms within a given 0.25' grid cell to inundation and erosion. GL - Ordinal value indicating the type and resistance of the rocks within a given 0.25" grid cell to erosion through physical and chemical weathering. TRMAX - Maximum tide range measured for all gauge stations that occurred within a given 0.250 grid cell in 1988 (this value may be the 11spring" or "diurnal" tide range, depending on geographic location). Data values are expressed in meters and are based on the point data in data group ECPOINT. TRAVG - Average of the mean-tide-range values for all tide stations occurring within a given 0.25' grid cell in 1988 (the mean tide range is the difference in height between mean high water and mean low water for 1988). Data values are expressed in meters and are based on the point data in data group ECPOINT. TRLVL - Average of the mean-tide-level values for all tide stations occurring within a given 0.25' grid cell in 1988 (the mean tide level is a plane midway between mean low water and mean high water in 1988). Values are reckoned from chart datum, are expressed in meters, and are based on the point data in data group ECPOINT. (The Gulf Coast Mean Low Water Datum was used for the Florida Keys, and the Atlantic Coast Mean Low Water Datum was used for the rest of the East Coast.) A - 4 DATA GROUP ECGRID: Data Variables (Continued) TRNUM - Number of tide-gauge stations used in calculating TRAVG, TRMAX, and TRLVL for a given 0.250 grid cell. Data values are based on the point data in data group ECPOINT. SLR - Relative sea level trend within a given 0.25' grid cell; values are expressed in mm/year. Data values are based on the point data in data group ECPOINT. SLG - Long-term geologic-trend derived from 'T data for each 0.25' grid cell; values are expressed in mm/year. Data values are based on the point data in data group ECPOINT. SLC - Corrected sea level trend derived from tide-gauge data (i.e., SLR) and corrected for geologic trends (i.e., SLG) for each 0.250 grid cell; values are expressed in mm/year. Data values are base& on the point data in data group ECPOINT. SLS - Local subsidence trend derived from tide-gauge data (i.e., SLR) and corrected for the regional eustatic sea level trend (i.e., 1.25); values are expressed in mm/year. Data values are based on the point data in data group ECPOINT. SLYR - Number of years of record used in estimating the sea level trend for each 0.25' grid cell (grid cells in which tide-gauge stations do not occur have been assigned a zero value.) Data values are based on the point data in data group ECPOINT. Data Format - ARC/INFO` coverage and flat ASCII file with data,values for each 0.25' latitude by 0.25' longitude grid cell on the U.S. East Coast. File Storage- ARC/INFOTM coverage name is ECGRID.EOO (File 4) ASCII file name is ECGRID.ASC (File 5). A - 5 (2) DATA GROUP ECPOINT: Point data for the stations used in constructing the sea level trend and tidal range data sets. (Missing data values are indicated by the value 0.0 for real numbers, 0 for integers, and blank spaces [i.e., for station names.) Data Variables SLLONG - Longitude of the tide-gauge station used for determining the sea-level-trend variables. SLLAT - Latitude of the given tide-gauge station used for determining the sea-level-trend variables. SLR - Relative sea level trend for the tide-gauge station; values expressed in mm/year. SLG - Long-term geologic-trend derived from "C data; values expressed in mm/year. SLC - Corrected sea level trend derived from tide-gauge data (i.e., SLR) and corrected for geologic movements (i.e., SLG); values expressed in mm/year. SLS - Local subsidence trend derived from tide-gauge data (i.e., SLR) and corrected for the regional eustatic sea level trend (i.e., 1.25 mm/year); values are expressed in mm/year. SLYR - Period of record in years of the tide-gauge station used for determining the sea-level-trend variables. SLNAME - Station name of the tide-gauge station used for determining the sea level trend variables. TRLONG - Longitude of the tide-gauge station used for determining the tide-range variables. TRLAT - Latitude of the given tide-gauge station used for determining the tide-range variables. TRAVG - Difference (i.e., range) in height between mean high water and mean low water in 1988; values expressed in meters. A - 6 DATA GROUP ECPOINT: Data Variables (Continued) TRMAX - Difference (i.e., range) in height between the highest high tide and the lowest low tide in 1988 (this@value may bethe "spring" or,. "diurnal" tide range, depending on geographic location); values @ expressed in meters. TRLVL - Mean tide level is a plane midway between mean low water and mean high water in 1988; values expressed in meters. Values are reckoned from chart datums (i.e., Gulf Coast Mean Low Water Datum is used for, the Florida Keys; the Atlantic Coast Mean Low Water Datum is used for the rest of the East Coast). TRID - Station number (as given in the 1988 Tide Tables) of the given tide gauge station used in determining the tide-range variables. TRNAME - Station name (as given in the 1988 Tide Tables) of the given tide gauge station used in determining the tide-range variables. Data Format - ARC/INFO", coverage and flat ASCII file with data values for each point (i.e., station) on the U.S. East Coast. File Storage- ARC/INFO" coverage name is ECPOINT.EOO (File 8) ASCII file name is ECPOINT.ASC (File 9). A - 7 (3) DATA GROUP ECRISK: Gridded polygon data for the seven classified risk variables. The risk variables contain values ranging from 0 to 5. A value of zero indicates no data are available for a given data variablej for a given grid cell. When the value for a given variable is greater than zero, the value indicates the relative risk of each 0.250 grid cell to inundation or erosion, with 5 indicating the greatest risk. Data Variables ERR - Classified version of the mean erosion/accretion data variable (i.e., ERAVG). LSR - Classified version of the local subsidence trend data variable (i.e., SLS). "R - Classified version of the maximum significant wave-height variable (i.e., WHMAX). ELR - Classified version of the mean elevation data variable (i.e., ELAVG). GMR - Classified version of the geomorphology data variable (i.e., GM). GLR - Classified version of the geology data variable (i.e., GL). TRR - Classified version of the mean-tide-range data variable (i.e., TRAVG). Data Format - ARC/INFOTI coverage and flat ASCII file with data values for each 0.25' latitude by 0.25' longitude grid cell on the U.S. East Coast. File Storage- ARC/INFOTI coverage name is ECRISK.EOO (File 12) ASCII file name is ECRISK.ASC (File 13). A - 8 (4) AUXILIARY DATA GROUP ECOAST: 1:2,000,000 digitized coastline of the U.S. East Coast. Data Variables Unlike the other data groups within this data base, this coverage contains line segments (or arcs) that are used to describe the U.S. East Coast. The coastline provided has no dwa vafiables associated with the line segments. However, simple overlay commands (such as UNION, INTERSECT, IDENTITY) in ARC/INFO" may be used to transfer the gridded data values to the coastal segments, thus simplifying the interpretation of any derived indices. Data Forinat - ARC/INFO` coverage and flat ASCII file containing the latitude- longitude coordinates of line segments that describe the U.S. East Coast. File Storage- ARC/INFO` coverage name is ECOAST.EOO (File 16) ASCII file name is ECOAST.ASC (File 17). A - 9 I APPENDIX B GLOSSARY OF TERMS --- GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE GEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION What follows are a listing and definitions of the terms that appear in the geologic classification system shown in Table 1. The codes used in the classification system are shown in parentheses. When the classification number, given contains an "X" (e.g., IXX) it is implied that the definition is valid for all subsets of the given geologic feature. This list defines only those rock types. mentioned within Table I and should not be construed as a comprehensive set of geologic definitions. IGNEOUS ROCK (lXX) - Rock that has crystallized from a silicate melt at high temperatures (i.e., 900 to 16000C).. VOLCANIC (EXTRUSIVE) ROCK (OLD=IIX) (NEW=4XX) - Igneous rock that has reached the Earth's surface as a result of eruptive processes in a molten or partially molten state. Since these rocks tendto cool rapidly they are usually fine-grained. ANDESITE.(110) - Grayish fine-grained volcanic rock composed of oligoclase/andesine (plagioclase feldspar), with lesser amounts of hornblende,.biotite, or pyroxene. Potassium feldspar: and quartz compose less than 10 % of the total mineral content (plutonic equivalent is quartz diorite).. BASALT (110) - Dark fine-grained volcanic rock consisting of lab.radorite (plagioclase feldspar) and augite (pyroxene), with minor olivine (plutonic equivalent is gabbro). RHYOLITE (110) - Light fine-grained volcanic rock composed essentially of alkali feldspar and quartz, with minor biotite occasionally present (plutonic equivalent is granite). PLUTONIC (INTRUSIVE) ROCK (13X) - Igneous,rock which has crystallized from molten material (magma) at depth and has reached the Earth's surface through uplift and erosion. Because cooling is generally slower, these rocks are coarser-grained than their volcanic equivalents. METAMORPHIC ROCK (15X) - Rock derived from preexisting materials (either igneou 's, sedimentary, or metamorphic) when recrystallization occurs under - higher temperatures, pressures, and shear stresses than normally exist at the Earth's surface. GNEISS (150) - Metamorphic rock that exhibits al.ternating bands of lighter minerals (quartz, feldspars) and darker minerals (biotite, hornblende, pyroxene). QUARTZITE (150) - Metamorphic rock composed essentially of quartz. It results'from high-grade metamorphism of a quartz-rich sandstone in which recrystallization of silica has produced a tough, hard rock with interlocking quartz grains. B - 3 SCHIST (150) '- Metamorphic rock characterized by a layered or foliated appearance (schistosity) cause by the planar alignment of platy minerals, such as mica together with quartz, and minor amounts of other minerals, like garnet. SERPENTINITE (150) - Green to greenish-yellow rock composed chiefly of the mineral serpentine, derived from metamorphism of iron-magnesium-rich igneous rocks. SEDIMENTARY ROCK (2XX) - Rock consisting of weathered or eroded fragments of preexisting rocks that have been cemented together as a result of chemical cementation, compression, or precipitation. SHALE (210) - Sedimentary rock consisting of very fine-grained particles (:5 0.004 mm) composed chiefly of clay minerals. It is distinguished from mudstone, by its ability to split into thin layers. SILTSTONE (220) - Sedimentary rock consisting of fine-grained particles in the size range of 0.004 to 0.062 mm. Composed chiefly of clays and fine-grained quartz with mica. SANDSTONE (230) - Fine to medium-grained sedimentary rock with particles in the size range between 0.062 to 2.0 mm. Typically composed of quartz, feldspars, and rock fragments, which are cemented together by silica, calcite, iron oxide, or clay. The hardness or strength of this rock depends largely on the nature and extent of the cement. CONGLOMERATE (240) - Coarse-grained sedimentary rock composed of boulders to granule-sized particles (>2.0 mm), which are cemented together by silica, calcite, iron oxide, or clay. The hardness or strength of this rock depends largely on nature of the cement. LIMESTONE (250) - Carbonate rock that can consist either of fragmental material, including fossils, pellets, etc., or a chemical precipitate. EOLIANITE (260) - Layer of wind-blown beach sand often cemented by deposition of calcium carbonate. Tends to occur above the mean tide level in warm climates. UNCONSOLIDATED SEDIMENTS (3XX) - Fragmented materials that are derived from the chemical and mechanical weathering process or from chemical precipitation and that have not yet undergone cementation and induration into a consolidated rock. MUD, CLAY (310) - Very fine-grained particles (!:-@ 0.004 mm) of clay and quartz. SILT (320) - Fine-grained particles (:!@ 0.062 mm) of clay, quartz, and mica. SAND (330) - Fine- to medium-grained particles (2.0 to 0.062 mm) of quartz, feldspar, other heavy minerals, and rock fragments. B - 4 GRAVELS, CONGLOMERATES (340) - Coarse-grained rock fragments (> 2.0 mm), usually rounded to some degree, depending on the amount, of transportation before the fragments came to rest. GLACIAL TILL (350) - Unsorted materials, ranging in size from fine-grained "rock flour" to large boulders, deposited by glaciers (also known as glacial drift).- CALCAREOUS SEDIMENT (360) -. Very fine-grained to fine-grained carbonate sediment, which can be fragmental or chemically precipitated. LAVA (410) - Geologically recent.volcanic rock that has formed by extrusion of molten magma to the Earth's surface as a sheet or flow. ASH, TEPHRA (420) - Tephra is the general term for all fragmental volcanic materials ejected through a surface-reaching vent. Ash is unconsolidated, fine-grained ejected material (coarser-grained fragments are. called bombs, scoria, pumice, etc.). CORAL REEF (500) - Mass of calcareous material consisting of the skeletal structures of corals, growing in situ, as well as coralline debris and chemically precipitated material. Reefs are generally built of coral, but calcareous algae and shells contribute to the reef structure in many areas. B - 5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE GEOMORPHOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION What follows is a list of landform definitions and their associated classification values (shown in Table 2 on page 15). The terms are defined on the basis of the descriptions found in Bird (1984), Pethick (1984), Ritter (1986), Schwartz (1982), and Shepard and Wanless (1971). When the actual classification number contains an "X" (e.g., 222X) in the last digit, it is implied that the description is valid for all subsets of the given feature. ALLUVIAL PLAIN SHORELINE (22 1 X) - Intersection of broad alluvial slope, located at the base of a mountain range, with the ocean. These alluvial plains may also occur on delta coasts (222X) or outwash plains (231X). I BARRIER COASTS (212X) - In its most general sense, a barrier refers to accumulations of sand or gravel lying above high tide along a coast. These barriers may be partially or fully detached from the mainland. A barrier beach (2121) is a narrow strip of beach with a single ridge and often foredunes. A barrier island (2122) is completely surrounded by water and usually has multiple ridges, dunes, and salt marshes on the landward side of the island. It usually encloses a body of water known as a lagoon. Although barrier islands are the most common feature off the U.S. East and Gulf coasts, they constitute 10% - 15% of the rest of the world's shorelines. A bay barrier (2123) is a beach barrier built across an embayment and is found in areas with low tide ranges, and high to moderate wave energies. BEACH (21XX) - A beach is generally made up of sand, cobbles, or boulders and is defined as the portion of the coastal area that is directly affected by wave action and that is terminated inland by a sea cliff, a dune field, or the presence of permanent vegetation and seaward at the breaker/plunge point (the active portion of this zone varies based on wave and tide conditions). BEACH ROCK (2112) - Cementation of beach sand by CaC03 in intertidal zones. Confined to warm climates. CLIFFED COASTS (11 XX) - Coasts with cliffs and other abrupt changes in slope at the ocean land interface. Cliffs indicate marine erosion and imply that the sediment supply of the given coastal segment is low. The cliffs height depends upon the topography of the hinterland, lithology of the area, and climate. COASTAL PLAIN (21 1X) - Sedimentary deposits formed on a trailing-edge coast. Trailing- edge coasts are often associated with barrier beach systems and are commonly subject to subsidence. B - 6 CORAL REEF COASTS (241X, 242X) - Shoal water area built,up by secretions of CaCO3 by coral, marine algae, and other marine organisms. Reefs may form either fringing reefs that surround the shore or barrier reefs that grow at some distance from the coast and protect the coast from large waves. CUSPATE FORELAND (2126) 7, Seaward projection of accumulated, unconsolidated marine sand or gravel, bounded on both sides by wave-dominated coasts (indicates convergence of currents in a low-tide environment). DELTA (222X) - Accumulations of fine-grained sedimentary deposits at the. mouth of a river. The sediment is accumulating faster than wave erosion and subsidence can remove it. These are associated with mud flats (2224) and salt marshes (2225). DROWNED KARST (1500) - Terrain with distinctive characteristics. of relief and drainage arising from a high degree of rock solubility that was submerged at the end of the Wisconsin glaciation period (i.e., geologic,substrate that is made of highly soluble, usually carbonate, rock). ESTUARY COAST (133X) - Tidal mouth of a river or submerged river valley. Often defined to include any semi-enclosed coastal body of water diluted by freshwater, thus includes most bays. The estuaries are subjected to tidal influences with sedimentation rates and tidal ranges such. that deltaic accumulations are absent. Also, estuaries are associated with relatively low-lying hinterlands, mud flats (1334), and salt marshes (1335). FJORD (122X) - Narrow steep-walled, U-shaped, partially submerged glacial"valley. FIARD (123X) - Glacially, eroded inlet located on low-lying rocky coasts (other terms used include sea inlets, fiardur, and firth). ICE COAST (1400) - Coast bordered by glaciers. LAGOON (225X) - A shallow water body separated, fromthe open sea by sand islands (e.g., barrier islands) or coral reefs. MANGROVE SWAMP (245X) - Coasts with tree vegetation of subtropical/tropical origin located on muddy, peaty substrates. Occur in coastal regions with low wave energies that are located in tropical and subtropical climates (occupies same ecological niche as salt marsh in temperate zones). MUD FLATS - Located in areas with fine-grained sediments at low ends of the intertidal zone and are exposed at low tide. Found in estuaries (1334), deltaic environments (2224), and areas with marine/fluvial deposits (2254). B - 7 OUTWASH PLAIN (231X) - A river deposition coast. Deposits are derived from meltwater from the front of a glacier. Grades from gravel near the glacier edge to sand farther away. Other types of glacial deposits include moraines (2320), composed of poorly sorted till, and drumlins (2330), hills sculpted by glaciers, that are composed of well-sorted till. SALT MARSH - Salt-tolerant vegetation that colonizes the intertidal zones of estuaries (1335), deltas (2225), and lagoons (2255). Located on slightly higher elevations than mud flats, and vegetation zonation reflects subtle changes in elevation. SPIT (2127) - Curved or hooked depositional feature formed by longshore drift. Often has salt marshes on landward side and beach ridges marking former positions of the shoreline. Very mobile landform. VOLCANIC COASTS (25XX) - Coasts dominated by volcanic landforms. The coasts may be built up of lava flows (251X), ash flows (252X), peninsular and island volcanoes, or calderas (253X). Often may be flanked by coral reefs (241X) if the volcano has become submerged. REFERENCES Bird, E.C.F. 1984. Coasts. Basil Blackwell Publishing, New York, New York. Pethick, J. 1984. An Introduction to Coastal Geomorphology. Edward Arnold Publishers, London, England. Ritter, D.F. 1986. Process Geomorphology. William Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa. Schwartz, M.L. (ed.). 1982. 77?e Encyclopedia of Beaches and Coastal Environments. Hutchinson & Ross Publishing, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Shepard, F.P. and H.R. Wanless. 1971. Our Changing Coastline. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York. B-8 APPENDIX C DATA LISTING OF GEOLOGIC AND GEOMORPHIC DATA DATA LISTING OF THE GEOLOGIC DATA FOR LINE SEGMENTS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN A COASTAL GRID CELL The geologic data contained within this data base were originally obtained from coastal line segments. These segments averaged 4.5 km in length. As a result, more than one line segment may occur within each grid cell contained- in the data base. The geologic code assigned to each coastal grid cell was from the geologic classification code with the longest total shore length within each grid cell. For example, if grid cell 416 contained two classification codes and one occurred over 76% of the coastline and the other occurred over 24 %, then the geologic code and geologic risk value for the code with the largest percentage were assigned to grid cell 416. To help the data user determine how this selection process may have affected the gridded data, the following table was constructed. This table shows each geologic code (Table 1 on page 13) that occurred in each coastal grid cell along with the shore length of each code, percentage of total shore length (in the cell), and the risk value associated with each geologic code. GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (rn) PERCENTAGE VALUE 173 250 123231.30 100.00 3 174 250 141635.18 100.00 3 175 250 156516-44 100..00 3 176 250 44346.69 100.00 3 177 250 6893.82 100.00 3 255 250 13776.66 100.00 3 257 250 42652.21 100.00 3 258 250 57032.94 100.00 3 336 250 48145.89 100.00 3 337 250 89270.18 100.00 3 338 250 158958.47 100.00 3 339 250 154455.27 100.00 3 416 370 26126.38 23.84 4 416 250 83469.64 76.16 3 417 250 41405.19 100.00 3 419 250 79488.76 100.00 3 420 250 35458.22 100.00 3 495 370 42332.99 100.00 4 496 370 139053.01 100.00 4 499 250 29673.70 100.00 3 500 250 16730.12 36.33 3 500 350 29321.35 63.67 5 573 330 1819.98 100.00 5 574 250 23845.44 14.06 3 574 330 64627.12 38.11 5 574 370 [email protected] 47.82 4 C - 3 GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 575 370 116248.88 100.00 4 576 370 4709.21 100.00 4 580 250 31470.42 37.34 3 580 350 52806.85 62.66 5 653 250 32387.22 46.09 3 653 330 37885.34 53.91 5 654 330 1494.36 7.91 5 654 250 17386.82 92.09 3 660 350 28520.77 43.94 5 660 250 36386.55 56.06 3 733 330 16821.55 27.47 5 733 250 44425.36 72.53 3 740 350 40772.63 48.06 5 740 250 44071.36 51.94 3 820 250 28023.17 34.04 3 820 350 54304.21 65.96 5 900 350 49551.83 47.28 5 900 250 55259.55 52.72 3 979 250 28121.32 100.00 3 980 250 49794.64 45.73 3 980 350 59105.36 54.27 5 1059 250 26310.03 37.94 3 1059 350 43040.31 62.06 5 1060 250 4117.34 .12.27 3 1060 350 29430.69 87.73 5 1139 250 30551.33 32.25 3 1139 350 64169.17 67.75 5 1218 350 13642.03 43.43 5 1218 250 17772.21 56.57 3 1219 250 20041.75 27.55 3 1219 350 52695.06 72.45 5 1298 250 31104.71 26.77 3 1298 350 85081.52 73.23 5 1377 250 9200.43 100.00 3 1378 330 13873.82 8.45 5 1378 250 23411.67 14.26 3 1378 350 126932.74 77.30 5 1457 250 29634.16 46.97 3 1457 350 33459.75 53.03 5 1458 330 58572.35 36.88 5 1458 350 100244.62 63.12 5 1537 330 3746.18 3.45 5 153.7 9999 5250.14 4.83 0 1537 250 17655.71 16.25 3 1537 350 81995.13 75.47 5 1538 350 244.46 1.39 5 C - 4 GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (m) PERCENTAGE VALUE 1538 330 17365.52 98.61 5 1616 350 8548.31 47.80 5 1616 250 9336.49 52.20 3 1617 250@ 24534 * 46 25.76 3 1-617 350 70693.60 74 * 24 5 1696 350 45395.26 ..47.41 5 1696 250 50363.38 52.59 3 1775 250 724.71 100.00 3 1776 350 36639.17 @39.65 5 1776 250 55772.12 60.35 3 1855 310 10759.18 11.83 5 1855 330 17010.43 1&.70 5 1855 250 28859,59 31%.72 3 1855 350 34353.94 @37.76 5 1856 350 468,1.67 100.00 5 193,5 310 30607.94 5 1935 330 59192-64 65.92 5 2015 310 35832.30 29.65 5 2015 330 85028.58 70.35 5 2094 330 56360.75 100.00 5 2095 310 1809.25 .-.1'.67 5 2095 330 106291.07 98.33 5 2174 330 25417.46 29.48 5 .2174 .310-,@ 60802.16 70.52 5 2175 310 40225.12 5 2175 330 59855.76 59.81 5 2254 310 67957 * 48 1100.00 5 2255 39568.65 26..64 5 2255 310 108958.72 73.36 5 2335 300 5216.98 3.34 4 2335 330@ 12129..32 7.76 5 2,335 310 138924.95 88.90 5 233,6 330 11130.40 100.00 5 2415 300 60536.30 loo-.00 4 2416 330 22980.*92 18.74 5 2416 300 99653.16 81.26 4 2495 300, 34485.43 100.00 4 2496 320 10986.60 5 2496 11941.04 6-.77 5 2496 300 153496.45 87.00 4 2497 330 22506.50 41.91 5 2497 300 31193.53 5.8.09 4 2576 300 33371.22 1001.00 4 .2577 330 9604.71 6.73 5 25'77 300@ 133065.36 93.27 4 2578 30G 830.77 -4.72 4 C 5 GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 2578 330 16771.88 95.28 5 2657 300 108278.75 100.00 4 2658 9999 325.66 0.20 0 2658 330 19863.79 12.04 5 2658 300 144773.69 87.76 4 2659 330 19694.41 26.52 5 2659 300 54557.56 73.48 4 2737 300 13593.93 100.00 4 2738 300 52645.50 100.00 4 2739 330 4856.85 4.30 5 2739 300 108124.21 95.70 4 2740 330 32902.73 35.69 5 2740 300 59292.21 64.31 4 2741 330 13930.41 42.01 5 2741 300 19229.58 57.99 4 2820 300 5296.79 100.00 4 2821 330 10653.98 7.80 5 2821 300 125883.36 92.20 4 2822 300 28036.16 48.48 4 2822 330 29790.37 51.52 5 2823 300 1039.78 29.13 4 .2823 330 2505.20 70.67 5 2902 300 15754.23 100.00 4 2903 330 56092.58 45.10 5 2903 300 68294.78 54.90 4 2904 300 12273.83 32.13 4 2904 330 25931.39 67.87 5 2983 300 42615.96 100.00 4 2984 310 40412.73 40.85 5 2984 300 58516.48 59.15 4 3064 330 10154.79 100.00 5 3065 330 27048.51 100.00 5 3145 330 5970.85 100.00 5 3146 300 20191.19 33.86 4 3146 330 39432.16 66.14 5 3147 300 10847.07 17.24 4 3147 330 52085.40 82.76 5 3148 300 10227.30 22.27 4 3148 330 35695.68 77.73 5 3149 330 65657.13 100.00 5 3229 370 7758.89 5.13 4 3229 340 27596.50 18.24 4 3229 300 33409.61 22.08 4 3229 330 82560.38 54.56 5 3309 330 6411.43 39.44 5 3309 300 9844.43 60.56 4 3310 300 40798.40 32.89 4 C - 6 GRID GEOLOGY. LENGTH 'COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 3310 330 83255.18 67,11 5 3311 300 6866.46 4 3311 330 24733.46 78.27 5 3391 9999 828.83 0.50 0 3391 300 8433.50 5.12 4 3391 330 61937.70 37.62 5 3391 350 93427.72 56.75 5 3.392 350 8941.01 7.59 5 3392 34761.91 4 339 2 330 74055.68 62.89 5 3393 300 8177.01 4 3393 370 17890.93 24.62 4 3393 @330 46595.82 64.13 5 3394 65353.72 49.67 4 3394 330, 66219.13 50-.33 5 .30.0@ 1707.06 5.63 4 3395 330 28622.93 94.37 5 3471 350 304.84 .100.00 5 3472 370 5719.34 100.00 4 3473 300 32122.22 4 3473 370 53320.79 4 3474 300 140628.96 10-0.00 4 3475 330 59941.07 28.83 5 3475 300 147976.45 71.17 4 3476 300 11686.18 28.34 4 3476 330 29549e.06 71.66 5 3552 370 13183.98 24.72 4 3552 350 40156.43 75.28 5 3553 300 7558.22 15.86 4 3553 370 40093.62 84-.14 4 3554 .300 [email protected] 100.00 4 3555 300 69220.97 10P.00 4 35 *56 330 38615.06 100.00 5 3557 330 62258.49 100.00 5 3558 330 40551.84 100.00 5 3632 300 8513.28 1001.00 4 3633 @300 116663.48 -100.00 4 .3634 300 223926.17 100.00 4 3635 300, 100.00 4 3636 300 56812.36 loo.6o 4 3637 5650.59 100.00 4 3638 330 49539.02 100.00 5 3639 330 30685..42 100.00 5 3712 370 18070.16 -47.70 4 3712 300 19815.86 52.30 4 3713 300 3411.04 100.00 4 3714 300 71085.90 100.00 4 C - 7 GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 3715 300 24250.86 100.00 4 3716 300 49940.58 100.00 4 3717 300 64738.83 100.00 4 3718 330 10871.41 38.16 5 3718 300 17614.93 61.84 4 3719 330 52434.68 100.00 5 3794 370 17994.01 46.91 4 3794 300 20365.99 53.09 4 3795 300 41887.24 100.00 4 3796 300 102363.15 100.00 4 3797 300 109918.08 100.00 4 3798 300 12173.30 8.05 4 3798 330 138970.25 91.95 5 3873 370 13295.92 100.00 4 3874 300 19904.13 27.27 4 3874 370 53091.62 72.73 4 3875 300 108179.19 100.00 4 3876 300 88233.56 100.00 4 3877 330 42389.22 33.89 5 3877 300 82681.76 66.11 4 3878 330 58847.00 100.00 5 3953 370 35981.47 100.00 4 3954 370 30689.69 100.00 4 3956 300 45545.43 100.00 4 3957 330 95262.68 49.05 5 3957 300 98961.76 50.95 4 4036 300 24327.68 100.00 4 4037 300 13146.62 23.15 4 4037 330 43644.00 76.85 5 4114 350 45785.15 100.00 5 4115 350 22441.64 17.67 5 4115 330 104539.14 82.33 5 4116 330 86730.92 100.00 5 4117 330 20576.85 100.00 5 4193 330 41904.23 100.00 5 4194 330 10768.50 10.50 5 4194 350 91797.41 89.50 5 4195 350 12348.40 7.87 5 4195 330 144553.04 92.13 5 4196 330 8650.90 100.00 5 4197 330 127486;82 100.00 5 4273 330 21301.83 100.00 5 4274 350 30291.36 49.35 5 4274 330 31094.57 50.65 5 4275 350 3647.97 1.60 5 4275 330 223906.97 98.40 5 4276 330 30982.90 100.00 5 c - 8 GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 4277 330 244989.34 100. 00 5 4278 330 78137.58 100.00 5 4354 330 63135.51 100.00 5 4355 350 23767.04 11.20 5 4355 330 188355.10 88.80 5 4357 330 144982.63 100.00 5 4358 .330 172683.51 100.00 5 4433 370 8846.00 4 4433 .330 16809*,56 65.52 5 4434 330 71636:29 100-00 5 4435 330 175116.54 100.00 5 4436 330 45297.20 100.00 5 4437 330 130340.29 1.00.00 5 4438 330 147335.43 100.00 5 4439 157691.67 .100.00 5 4512 370 254-31 100.00 4 4513 330 1641.,14 3.18 5 4513 370 50030.28 96.82 4 4514 370 44879.70 32.04 4 4514 330 95188.39 67.96 5 4515 330 9554.02 7.59 5 4515 370 116369.81 92.41 4 4516 330 98609.43 100.00 5 4517 370 16274.89 9.71 4 330 151418.46 90.29 5 4518 330 871.05 @100.00 5 4519 330 69646.52 100.00 5 4520 370 12568.74 15.23 4 4520 330 69962.74 84.77 5 4591 330 30165.17 44.94 5 4591 370 36957.47 55.06 4 4592 330 44197.32 40.70 5 4592 .-370 64386.19 59.30 4 4593 370 95003.82 100.00 4 4594 370 96858.64 100.00 4 4595 310 4201;41 3.13 5 4595 330 24179.80 18.04 5 4595 370 105652.28 78.83 4 4596 370 15483.83 12.66 4 4596 330 106795.58 87.j4 5 4597 370 24448.40 30.90 4 4597 330 54682.40 69.10 5 4600 370 9288.20 6.58 4 4600 330 131794,39 5 4671 370 26876.50 100.00 4 4672 370 71302.77 100.00 4 4674 370 10689.28 35.55 4 c 9 GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 4674 310 19379.21 64.45 5 4675 310 695.05 0.70 5 4675 330 4016.21 4.06 5 4675 370 94133.85 95.23 4 4676 370 245328.63 100.00 4 4679 330 6354.95 100.00 5 ,4680 370 2998.07 2.28 4 4680 330 128223.59 97.72 5 4754 310 3017.48 3.88 5 4754 330 9496.14 12.22 5 4754 370 65205.43 83.90 4 4755 330 3459.35 1.86 5 4755 370 182569.37 98.14 4 4756 370 207982.63 100.00 4 4759 330 16626.74 100.00 5 4760 370 12133.38 44.86 4 4760 330 14911.13 55.14 5 4761 330 66123.89 100.00 5 4834 330 11196.13 10.82 5 4834 370 92232.40 89.18 4 4835 330 1549.88 1.11 5 4835 370 137716.61 98.89 4 4836 370 152927.65 100.00 4 4839 330 32323.68 100.00 5 4840 370 30576.44 100.00 4 4841 370 21559.36 28.65 4 4841 330 53692.81 71.35 5 4842 330 80045.55 100.00 5 4914 370 19790.16 100.00 4 4915 370 147987.18 100.00 4 4916 370 148468.07 100.00 4 4917 370 99808.59 100.00 4 4918 330 15125.61 41.45 5 4918 370 21365.41 58.55 4 4919 330 18129.20 34.47 5 4919 370 34470.21 65.53 4 4920 370 7908.62 100.00 4 4922 330 62351.14 100.00 5 4923 330 124318.02 100.00 5 4996 130 8366.81 33.@7 1 4996 370 16783.68 66.73 4 4997 370 58323.45 100.00 4 4998 370 8847.48 13.32 4 4998 310 19258.03 28.99 5 4998 330 38327.33 57.69 5 4999 330 3189.00 100.00 5 5003 330 65917.61 100.00 5 c - 10 GRID GEOLOGY LENG@TH.' COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 5004 330 92227.18 100.00 5 5084 330 129643.57 100.00 5 5164 310 1344.62 1.47 5 5164 330 90084.08 98.53 5 5165 310 3205.55 100.00 5 5243 370 20165.61 100.00 4 5244 370 5203.62 10,18 4 5244 310. 13251.38 25.93 5 52 44 330 32643.16 63.88 5 5245 310. 4250.97 8.15 5 5245 330 47936.36 91.-.85 5 5323 370 4731.56 100.00 4 .5324 270 13392.04 15.45 3 5324 345 13991.00 16.14 4 5324 iso 17257.07 19.91 2 5324 370 42025.18 48.49 4 5325 150 6033.80 .5.95 2 5325 345 10654.86 101.51 4 5325 370 84660. 46 83@53 4 .5326 370 69127.33 100.00 4 5327 370 75251.25 100.00 4 5328 370 77805.17 100.00 4 5329 370 40088.74 100.00 4 5405 370 14170.59 4 5405 150 17158.34 31.1124 2 5405 345 23589.10 42.95 4 5406 345 39711.61 45.23 4 5406 370 48089.02 54.77 4 5407 370 65788.24 1-00.00 4 5408 370 100.00 4 5409 @370 59522.96 100.00 4 5410 370 89400.41 100.00 4 5411 3170 75572.16 100.00 4 5412 370 22821.72 100.00 4 5486 345 5182.19 20.09 4 5486 150 20614.15 79.91 2 5487 150 30640.24 100.00 2 5488 150 42424-.37 100.00 2 5489 230 516,42 5.54 3 5489 130 3519.96 .37.16 1 .5489 150 5285.40 56.70 2 5490 1948.84 16.66 2 5490 370 9748.22 8 3.34 4 -.5491 370 131659.59 100.00 4 5492 370 76903.0,4 100.00 4 5493 @370 34397.82 100-00 4 5494 345 29130.00 100.100 4 c - 11 GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 5497 330 1855.74 100.00 5 .5500 330 13769.01 100.00 5 5501 330 865.27 36.41 5 5501 345 1510.93 63.59 4 5569 130 4538.62 15.45 1 5569 150 8832.08 30.06 2 5569 230 16012.89 54.50 3 5570 130 7710.23 29.74 1 5570 150 18218.55 70.26 2 5571 130 12359.18 22.11 1 5571 9999 18930.14 33.87 0 5571 150 24606.09 44.02 2 5572 130 570.64 1.01 1 5572 370 5507.40 9.70 4 5572 9999 11544.74 20.34 0 5572 150 39135.48 68.95 2 5573 j70 4434.02 9.64 4 5573 130 5687.03 12.36 1 5573 9999 12838.96 27.91 0 5573 150 23037.20 50.08 2 5574 130 35959.03 100.00 1 5575 240 270.16 0.48 3 5575 150 11029.29 19.59 2 5575 130 20685.18 36.74 1 5575 230 24319.08 43.'19 3 5576 230 1011.09 3.48 3 5576 150 1675.27 5.76 2 5576 240 3870.91 13.31 3 5576 130 22528.87 77.46 1 5577 345 28757.64 36.60 4 5577 330 49820.55 63.40 5 5578 345 23619.42 29.35 4 5578 330 56849.63 70.65 5 5579 330 36145.92 100.00 5 5580 345 8262.83 .12.94 4 5580 330 55598.31 87.06 5 5581 330 3803 * 18 31.94 5 5581 345 8104.93 68.06 4 5655 130 5202.62 3.57 1 5655 230 140664.87 96.@3 3 5656 150 2345.75 2.03 2 5656 240 18908.20 16.37 3 5656 130 43647.95 37.80 1 5656 230 50574.29 43.80 3 5657 150 24933.09 26.69 2 5657 130 68483.11 73.31 1 5658 330 21508.16 19.98 5 C - 12 GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 5658 130 23098.74 1 56-58 345 63060.55 58..57 4 5659 340 4334.41 4 5659 320 11285.75 15.,82 5 5659 330 55702'.20 78.10 5 5660 370 565.04 .1.45 4 5660 330 38421.08 98.55 5 5661 9999 4421.08 6.67 0 5661 320 10554.71 151.92 5 5661 370 .22.45 4 5661 330 36434.40 54.96 5 5735 230 30600.09 1100.00 3 5736 240 7122.86 39.32 3 5736 .230 10991.88 60.68 3 :5738 130 1968.47 4.29 1 5738 330 7839.10 17.10 5 5738 300 36045.31 [email protected] 4 5739 330 5842,01 1100.00 5 5740 330 62254.18 1.00.100 5 5741 320 3655.60 7.73 5 5741 370 19243.25 .40.71 4 5741 330 24364.45 51.55 5 5817 130 8831.36 39.00 1 5817 270 13811.39 61.00 3 5818 270 11405.73 18.65 3 5818 330 18578.28 30.38 5 5818 130 31172.90 50.97 1 5819 330 1916.66 1.00.00 5 5820 330 46990-32 100.00 5 5896 270 33955.01 100.00 3 5897 130 27053.82 28.35 1 5897 270 68386.88 71.65 3 5977 110 9231.04 14.67 1 5977 130 53673.83 85.33 1 5978 130 58978.78 100.00 1 6057 110 4252.36 .8.40 1 6057 150 11813.91 23.33 2 6057 130 34566.22 68.27 1 6137 130 1333.57 2.43 1 6137 150 53656.97 97.57 2 6138 130 2431.53 4.70 1 6138 150 49337.36 95.30 2 6218 150 14308.59 100.00 2 6219 130 7083.00 .23.17 1 6219 150 23484.61 76.83 2 6299 130 6376.65 23.35 1 6299 110 8620.11 31.56 1 C - 13 GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 6299 150 12315.76 45.09 2 6300 130 9440.94 15.40 1 6300 150 13257.63 21@63 2 6300 110 38603.94 62.97 1 6301 130 3323.44 14.68 1 6301 150 19321.37 85.32 2 6380 110 55178.84 100.00 1 6381 110 31741.35 16.64 1 6381 150 159026.33 83.36 2 6382 150 213378.67 100.00 2 6383 130 18109.48 24.57 1 6383 150 55595.98 75.43 2 6384 150 10597.16 48.87 2 6384 130 11086.45 51.13 1 6461 150 6594.11 28.15 2 6461 110 16829.36 71.85 1 6462 150 20279.74 100.00 2 6463 150 444.9.8 1.34 2 6463 130 32741'.26 98.66 1 6464 370 13171.98 16.23 4 6464 130 23805.46 29.33 1 6464 150 44193.35 54.44 2 6465 150 28130.37 28.84 2 6465 130 29628.00 30.37 1 6465 370 39788.10 40.79 4 6466 150 14713.25 15.93 2 6466 130 77619.67 84.07 1 6467 110 16125.90 25.31 1 6467 130 47580.70 74.69 1 6468 110 1947.25 100.00 1 6544 150 3437.69 100.00 2 6545 130 5242.48 3.31 1 6545 370 18792.17 11.88 4 6545 110 45775.19 28.94 1 6545 150 88377.96 55.87 2 6546 110 34592.33 27.98 1 6546 150 42866.89 34.67 2 6546 130 46182.92 37.35 1 6547 9999 709.06 0* 40 0 6547 110 5274.98 3.00 1 6547 130 83155.20 47.25 1 6547 150 86868.05 49.35 2 6548 110 2973.22 2.80 1 @6548 370 5179.43 4.88 4 6548 150 9664:.06 9.10 2 6548 130 88341.75 83.22 1 370 12861.57 15.13 4 C - 14 GRID GEOLOGY LENGTH :COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE @6549 130 72162.'89 84.87 1 6550 150 16175.61 100.00 2 6625 130 2435.24 4-15 1 6625 150 56203.32 95.85 2, 6626 130 1-814.89 [email protected] 1 6626 150 3000.36 @62.31 2 6627 150 14593.42 100.00 2 662@ 130 644.61 8.63 1 6628 150 6825.43 91.37 2 6629 130 65825.27 100.;00 1 6630 110 7575.28 7.72 1 6630 150 15465.09 15.76 2 6630 370 16272.56 16.58 4 6630 130 58811.59 59.94 .1 6631 9999 487.69 0.51 0 6631 130 12827.71 13.53 1 6631 110 33638.18- 35.47 1 6631 370 47870.5,1 50.48 4 6632 370 1174.28 4.32 4 6632 130 26011.58 95.68 1 6712 150 4876.08 3.49 2 6712 370 6275.53 4.49 4 6712 130 9395.13 6.72 1 6712 110 119262.80 85.30 1 6713 110 3562.84 21.45 1 6713 370 5586.85 33.63 4 6713 130 7463.37 44.92 1 6792 150 4329.22 30.74 2 6792 370 9752.05 69.26 4 C 15 DATA LISTING OF THE GEOMORPHIC DATA FOR LINE SEGMENTS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN A COASTAL GRID CELL The geomorphic data contained within this data base were originally obtained for coastal line segments that averaged 4.5 krn in length. As a result, more than one line segment may occur within each grid cell contained in the data base. The geomorphic code assigned to each coastal grid cell was from code with the greatest total shore length (derived from the coastal line segments). For example, if grid cell 416 contained two geomorphic codes and one covered 70 % of the shore and the other 30 % , then the geomorphic code and geomorphic risk value for the code with the greatest percentage were assigned to grid cell 416. To help the data user determine how this selection process may have affected the gridded data, the following table was constructed. This table shows, for each grid cell with data, the grid cell identification number, the geomorphic codes that occur (Table 2 on page 15) within the cell, the total shore length (in meters) for each code, and the percentage of the total shore length in the grid cell that is in each geomorphic code. GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE W PERCENTAGE VALUE 173 2459 12323.30 100.00 3 174 2459 1217.98 0.86 3 174 2450 140417.20 99.14 3 175 2425 19933.86 12.74 3 175 2450 136582.58 87.26 3 176 21425 44346.69 100.00 3 177 2425 6893.82 100.00 3 255 2450 13776.66 100.00 3 257 2450 4614.30 10.82 3 257 2425 38037.91 89.18 3 258 2450 1044.58 1.83 3 258 2425 55988.36 98.17 3 336 2255 15848.32 32.92 3 336 2450 32297.57 67.08 3 337 2255 31772.13 35.59 3 337 2450 57498.05 64.41 3 338 2425 13898.01 8.74 3 338 2255 60976.74 38.36 3 338 2450 84083.72 52.90 3 339 2450 269.73 0.17 3 339 2255 70489.97 45.64 3 339 2425 83695.57 54.19 3 416 2450 32714.41 29.85 3 416 2255 76881.61 70.15 3 417 2255 41405.19 100.00 3 C - 16 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH" COASTLINE RISK ID CODE PERCENTAGE VALUE 419 2450 39507.33 .49.70 3 419 2425 39981.43 50.30 3 420 2425 35458.22 100.00 3 495 2255 4736.76 11.19 3 495 2122 12044.29 28.45 5 495 2450 25551.94 60.36 3 496 2122 8347.09 6.00 5 496 2450 18628.20 13.40 3 496 2255 112077.72 80.60 3 499 2259 4157.86 14.01 4 499 2450 25515.84 [email protected] 3 500 2425 6637.35 14.41 3 500 2259 11879@99 25.80 4 500 2129 27534.13 59,79 5 573 2122 1819.98 100-.00 5 574 2122 4495.38 2.65 5 574 2127 6828.20 4...03 5 574 2255 29519.72 17-.41 3 574 2450 128718.60 75-.91 3 575 2122 8164.80 7.02 5 575 2255 22208.56 19.10 3 575 2450 8587-5.52 73.87 3 576 2255 4709.21 100.00 3 580 2259 27244..24 32.33 4 580 2129 57033.03 67.67 5 653 2255 15817.72 22.51 3 653 2122 25821.11 36.74 5 653 2121 28633.73 40.75 5 654 2122 1494.36 7.91 5 654 2255 17386.82 92.09 3 660 2129 13373.00 20.60 5 660 2259 23013.55 4 660 2122 28520.7 7 43.94 5 733 2121 9098.21 14.85 5 733 2255 52148.70 85.15 3 740 2122 41607.99 49.04 5 740 2259 43236.00 50.96 4 820 2122 11002.02 13.36 5 820 2129 21986.71 26.71 5 820 2259 49338.65 59.�3 4 900 2129 1342.04 1.28 5 900 2259 15415.29 14.71 4 900 1330 22484.78 21.45 4 900 2122 24909.15 23.77 5 900 2250 40660.12 38.79 4 979 1330 28121.32 i0o.00 4 980 2125 9001.36 8.27 3 C - 17 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID" CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 980 1330 20164.92 18.52 4 980 2122 29477.21 27.07 5 980 2250 50256.51 46.15 4 1059 2122 14730.27 21.24 5 1059 2250 26077.58 37.60 4 1059 2125 28542.49 41.16 3 1060 2250 4117.34 12.27 4 1060 2125 13225.35 39.42 3 1060 2122 16205.34 48.30 5 1139 2250 29319.29 30.95 4 1139 2122 29398.02 31.04 5 1139 2125 36003.19 38.01 3 1218 2126 3683.28 11.72 5 1218 2125 8473.80 26.97 3 1218 2250 19257.16 61.30 4 1219 2122 9637.30 13.25 5 1219 2126 14062.99 19.33 5 1219 2250 20041.75 27.55 4 1219 2125 28994.77 39.86 3 1298 2125 17991.93 15.49 3 1298 2126 37427.26 32.21 5 1298 2250 60767.04 52.30 4 1377 2250 9200.43 100.00 4 1378 2126 72631.08 44.23 5 1378 2250 91587.15 55.77 4 1457 2259 1722.71 2.73 4 1457 2255 28896.00 45.80 3 1457 2250 32475.20 51.47 4 1458 2255 10357.49 6.52 3 1458 2126 66591.26 41.93 5 1458 2250 81868.22 51.55 4 1537 9999 1542.42 1.42 0 1537 2255 9061.95 8.34 3 1537 2250 9651.43 8.88 4 1537 2259 38429.74 35.37 4 1537 2126 49961.62 45.99 5 1538 2126 17609.98 100.00 5 1616 2250 3089.43 17.27 4 1616 2259 6247.06 34.93 4 1616 2122 8548.31 47.@O 5 1617 2259 19313.58 20.28 4 1617 2126 19410.23 20.38 5 1617 2250 23326.02 24.49 4 1617 2122 33178.23 34.84 5 1696 2259 15648.62 16.34 4 1696 2250 22291.01 23.28 4 1696 2122 57819.01 60.38 5 c 18 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 1775' 2250' 724.71 100.00 4 1776 2250 41068.75 44.44 4 1776 2122 51342.54 55 .56 5 1855 2255 3439.11 3.78 3 185.5 2125 8995.64 3 1855 2259 18244.02.. 20.05 4 1855 2122 25406.65 27..92 5 1855 2250 34897.72 38.36 4 1856 2250 1317.07 28.13 4 1856 2122 3364.60 71.87 5 .1935 2122 28820.51 32i.09 5 1935 2125 30372.13 313.82 3 1935 2255, 30607.94 34@,,08 3 2015 1335 16104.37 1 .3.32 3 2015 2255 20303.75 [email protected] 3 2015 2125w 33639.14 27.83 3 2015 2122 .50813.62 42 ..64 5 2094 1335 15125.35 26;.84 3 .2094 41235.40 73-16 0 20 95 9 999- 14233-55 13.17 0 2.095 1335 29258.91 27.107 3 2095 2122. 29661.28 .27.44 5 2095 2125 34946.58 32,33 3 2174 9999 395.81 0-46 0 2174 2125 1384.37 .1.61 3 2174 1335 84439.04 97.93 3 2175 9999. 3332.04 0 2175 2122 27550.75 27.53 5 2175 2125 32845.92 32.82 3 2175 133.5 36352.17 36.32 3 2254 1335 67957.48 100.00 3 .2255 1339 5418.49 3.65 4 22@5 2125 23902.9@6 16.09 3 2255 2122 41501.23 27.94 5 2255 1335 77704.69 52.32 3 2335 2122 13154.84 8.42 5 2335 1335 143116.41 @9'1.-58 3 2336 2122 11130.40 loo.,00 5 21415 1335 60536.30 1100.00 3 2122 25688.28 20-95 5 24 16 1335 96945.80 79.05 3 2.495 1335 34485.43 10,0.00 3 2496 2122 11941.04 .6.77 5 249.6 1335 164483.05 93.23 3 2497 2122 22098.78 41.15 5 2497 1335 31601.125 58'.85 3 2576 1335 33371.22 100-00 3 c - 19 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 2577 1334 10091.04 7.07 5 2577 2122 10.41 5 2577 1335 117721.12 82.51 3 2578 1335 1214.68 6.90 3 2578 1334 6766.77' 38.44 5 2578 2122 9621.20 54.66 5 2657 1330 6100.38 5.63 4 2657 1335 102178.37 94.37 3 2658 2121 1472.51 0.89 5 2658 2122 8390.13 5.09 5 2658 1334 10592.15 6.42 5 2658 2255 33079.62 20.05 3 2658 1335 111428.73 67.55 3 2659 2125 1806.69 2.43 3 2659 2255 18792.61 25.31 3 2659 1335 24939 * os 33.59 3 2659 2122 28713.59 38.67 5 2737 1335 13593.93 100.00 3 2738 1335 52645.50 100.00 3 2739 2125 4856.85 4.30 3 2739 1335 108124'.21 95.70 3 2740 2125 11988.13 13.00 3 2740 2122 17061.98 18.51 5 2740 1335 63144.83 68.49 3 2741 2122 14128.89 42.61 5 2741 1335 19031.10 57.39 3 2820 1339 5296.79 lob.oo 4 2821 1330 10196.97 7.47 4 2821 1335 27820.25 20.38 3 2821 2122 46451.31 34.02 5 2821 1339 52068.81 38.14 4 2822 2255 28036.16 48.48 3 2822 2122 29790.37 51.52 5 2823 2122 451.45 12.73 5 2823 1335 1039.78 29.33 3 2823 2121 2053.75 57.93 5 2902 2255 15754.23 100.00 3 2903 2255 1722.08 1.38 3 2903 1330 6303.56 5.07 4 2903 2122 8302.37 6.67 5 2903 2121 10451.24 8.40 5 2903 2125 23365.14 18.78 3 2903 1335 74242.97 3 2904 2125 5315.26 '13.91 3 2904 1335 15010.13 39.29 3 2904 2122 17879.83 46.80 5 2983 9999 1657.51 3.89 0 C - 20 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 2983 1330 14720.44 34.54 4 2983 1335' 26238.01 61.57 3 2984 1330 3110.27 3.14 4 2984 2121 6307.83 6.38 5 2984 2122 8884.24 -8.98 5 2984 2125 9238.86 9.34 3 2984 9999. 14107.07 14.26 0 2984 2111 16209.29. 16.38 5 2984 1335 41071.65. 41.52 3 3064 2111 3796.94 37.39 5 3064 2121 6357.85 62.61 5 3065 2111 27048.51@ 100.00 5 3145 2111 5970.85 1100.00 5 3146 21722 4531..97 5 .3146 2121, 8894.76 14.92 5 3146 2111 11986.39 20.10 5 3146 2251 16883.83 28.32 5 3146 1330 17326.40 29.06 4 3147 2111 9267.41 14.73 5 3147 2122 14103.40 22.41 5 3147 1330 14801.65, 23.52 4 3147 2251 24760.01 39.34 5 314-8 9999 2032.09 4.42 0 3148 2125 4149.26 9;.*04 3 3148 2126 5302.34. 11.55 5 3148 2121 7209.50 15.70 5 ..3148 2111, 12055.12.. 26.25 5 3148 1330 15174.67 33-04 4 3149 2121 3038.96 4.63 5 3149 1330 13963.82 21.27 4 .3149 2125 23787.38 36.23 3 3149 2126 24866.97 37.87 5 3229 9999 2092,56 1.38 0 3229 1339 6288.04 4,16 4 3229 2121 6825.71 4-51 5 -3229 2126 12173.08 8-.04 5 3229 2122 26238.03 17.'34 5 3229 2250 28682.43. 18.95 4 3229 1330 30342.37 4 3229 2255 38683.16 25 @6 3 3309 2122. 988.52 6:08 5 3309 2255 5082.34 31,26 3 3309 2250 10185.00 62.65 4 3310 2124 9928.83, .8.00 5 3310 2255 36063.22 [email protected] 3 3310 2122 36123.74 .29.12 5 3310 2250 41937.79 3.3.81 4 C 21 'GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 3311 2250 6866.46 21.73 4 3311 2122 11100.31 35.13 5 3311 2124 13633.15- 43.14 5 -3391 9999 779.70 0.47 0 2124 4505.84 2.74 5 3391 2125 10253.71 6.23 3 3391 2255 11580.06 7.03 3 3391 2122 16508.51 10.03 5 3391 2250 20757.45 12.61 4 3391 1330 100242.48. 60.89 4 3392 9999 531.51 0.45 0 3392 2255 8385.63 7.12 3 3392 2250 17343.61 14.73 4 3392 2122 20946.57 17.79 5 3392 2125 27571.68 23.41 3 3392 1330 42979.60 36.50 4 3393 1330 1323.71 1.82 4 3393 2125 5120.12 7.05 3 3393 2250 24744.23 34.05 4 3393, 2122 41475.70 57.08 5 3394 2122 13828.35 10.51 5 3394 1330 24913.62 18.94 4 3394 2250 38532.21 29.29 4 3394 2126 54298.67 41.27 5 3395 2250 1707.06 5.63 4 3395 2126 28622.93 94.37 5 3471 1330 304.84 100.00 4 3472 1330 5719.34 100.00 4 3473 1330 85443.01 100.00 4 3474 2250 6317 * 90 4.49 4 3474 1335 15635.15 11.12 3 3474 1330 118675.91 84.39 4 3475 2122 7896.24, .3.80 5 3475 1330 8669.87 4.17 4 3475 2250 29820.14 14.34 4 3475 2255 39351.99 18.93 3 3475 2126 52044.83 25.03 5 3475 1335 70134.45 33.73 3 3476 1335 11686.18 28.34 3 3476 2122 29549.06 71.66 5 3552 1335 12423.63 23.29 3 3552 1339 15632.85 29.31 4 3552 1330 47.40 4 3553 1330 23664.21 49.66 4 3553 1335 23987.63 50.34 3 3554 1330 81584.15 44.03 4 3554 1335 103705.43 55.97 3 C - 22 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 3555 1330 1621.80 2.34 4 3555 1335 67599.17. 97.66 3 3556 2122 38615.06 100.00 5 3557 2126 895.59 1.44 5 3557 2122 98-56 5 3558 2126 40551.84 10:0.00 5 3632 1335@ 1725.1.1 20.,26 3 3632 1330 6788.17 79.74 4 3633 1335 42563.78 36.48 3 3633 1330 74099.70 63.52 4 3634 1.330 44830.64 20.02 4 3634 1335 179095.5,3 79.98 3 3635 1335' 152395.67- 100,00 3 3636 1335 14216.67 25.02 3 3636 2'255 42595.69, @74.98 3 3,637 2255 5650.59 100,00 3 3638 2126 49539.02 100.00 5 2126 30685.42 1,00.00 5 '3712 1339 4968.30 13,11 4 3712 1330 8062.19, 21.28 4 37-12 1335 24855.53 65.61 3 3713 1330 1588.82 46.58 4 3713 1335 1822-22 53.42 3 3714 1335 71085.90 100.00 3 .3715 1335 100.00 3 3716 1335 49940.58 100.00 3 3717 1335 1610.55 2.49 3 3717 2250 8662.34 13.38 4 3717 2255 54465.94 84.13 3 3718 2250 3157.72 11.09 4 3718 2126 10871.41 38.16 5 3718 2255 14457.21 50.75 3 3719 2126 52434.68 1-00.00 5 3794 1331 7953.37 20.73 5 3794 1330 11948.40 31.15 4 3794 1335 18458.23 48.12 3 3795 1330 11788.04 28.14 4 3795 1335 30099.20 71.86 3 3796 1335 102363.15 100.00 3 3797 2255 4292.79 3.61 3 3797 2250. 8959.50 8.@15 4 3797 1335 96665.79 87.94 3 3798 2250 6145.44 4.07 4 3798 2126 8827.85 5.84 5 3798 2122 62208.31 41.16 5 3798 2255 73961.95 48..93 3 3873 1335 3499.01 26.32 3 C - 23 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK @ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 3873 1330 9796.91 73.68 4 3874 1335 5075.77 6.95 3 3874 1330 67919.98 93.05 4 '3875 1330 108179.19. 100.00 4 3876 1330 88233.56 100.00 4 3877 2125 1071@46 0.86 3 3877 1335 8286.61 6.63 3 3877 2254' 10862'86 8.69 5 3877 2255 22983.32 18.38 3 3877 2122 30454.90 24.35 5 3877 1330 51411.83 41.11 4 3878 2125 4935.38 8.39 3 '3878 2122 53911.62 91.61 5 3953 1330 14331.03 39.83 4 3953 1335 21650.44 60.17 3 3954 9999 740.91 2.41 0 3954 1330 14091.05 45.91 4 3954 1335 15857".73 51.67 3 3956 1335 2308.15 5.07 3 3956 2255 12263.84 26.93 3 3956 1330 30973.44 68.01 4 3957 1330 12270.72 6.32 4 3957 2125 16437.89 8.46 3 3957 1335 17440.02. 8.98 3 3957 2254 25984.58' 13.38 5 3957 2122 49907.05 25.70 5 3957 2255 72184.18 37.17 3 4036 2255 24327.68 100.00 3 4037 2125 10322.83 18.18 3 4037 2255 17214.51 30.31 3 4037 2122 29253.28 51.51 5 4114 1330 45785.15 100.00 4 4115 1335 3888.79 3.06 3 4115 1330 31402.59 24.73 4 4115 1339 91689.40 72.21 4 4116 2122 1706.49 1.97 5 4116 1339 85024.43 98.03 4 4117 2122 20576.85 100.00 5 4193 1339 3602.92 8.60 4 4193 1330 38301.31. 91.40 4 4194 1339 4835.55 4.71 4 4194 1330 97730.36 95.29 4 4195 1339 1041.27 0.66 4 4195 1330 76163.55 48.54 4 4195 1335 79696.62 50.79 3 4196 1330 8650.90 100.00 4 4197 1330 12833.76 10.07 4 C 24 GRIDGEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE .4197 2122 20578.84 16.14 5 4197 2125 41324.31 32.41 3 .4197 2255 52749.91 41.38 3 4273 1330 21301.83 100.00 4 4274 1330 61385.93 100.00 4 4275 1335 39744.58@ 17.47 3 4275 1330 187810.36 82.53 4 4276 1335 4721.72 15.24 3 4,276 1330 26261.18 84.76 4 4277 2122 10957.98 4.47 5 4277 2125 11895.74 4.86 3 4277 1330, 74187.49 30.28 4 4277 2255 147948.13 60.39 3 4278 2122 33945.58 43-.44 5 4278 2255 44192.00 56.56 3 4354 1330 63135.51 100.00 4 1330 212122.14 10.0.00 4 4357 2255 2592.05 1.79 3 1335 2952.19 2.04 3 4357 1330 139438.39 96.18 4 4358 2125 7656.30 4.43 3 4358 2122 20753.57 12.02 5 41358 2255 144273.64 83.55 3 4433 1330 25655.56 100.00 .4 4434 1330 71636.29 100.00 4 4435 1330 175116.54 100.00 4 4436 1335 2264.34 5.00 3 4436 1330 43032.86 95.00 4 4437 1331 8179.54 6.28 5 4437 1330 8584.58 6.59 4 4437 1335 113576.17 87.14 3 4438 2125 9423.62 6.40 3 4438 2255 .38188.79 25..92 3 4438 1335 99723.02 67.68 3 4439 2125 14506.83 9.20 3 4439 2127 17845.25 11.32 5 4439 2122 19432.43 12.32 5 .4439 2255 105907.16 67.16 3 4512 1331 254.31 100-.00 5 4513 1330 17780.07 34.41 4 .4513 1331 33891.35 65.59 5 4514 1330 @52993.20 37.83 4 4514 1331 87074.89 62.17 5 4515 1331 6698.08 .5.32 5 4515 1330 119225 * 75 94.68 4 4516 1335 10609.25 10.76 3 4516 1330 88000.18 89.24 4 C - 25 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 4517 1331 4493.10 2.68 5 4517 1330 4755.63 2.84 4 4517 1335 158444.62 94.48 3 4518 1335 871.05 100.00 3 4519 2122 2660.91 3.82 5 4519 2125 7762.60 11.15 3 4519 2255 59223.01 85.0 3 4520 2255 20839.54 25.25 3 4520 2122 25941.00 31.43 5 4520 2125 35750.94 43.32 3 4591 1331 14763.32 21.99 5 4591 1330 52359.32 78.01 4 4592 1331 5492.98 5.06 5 4592 1330 103090.53 94.94 4 4593 1331 2467.62 2.60 5 4593 1330 92536.20 97.40 4 4594 1330 96858.64 100.00 4 4595 9999 4201.41 3.13 0 4595 1331 14019.59 10.46 5 4595 1330 115812.49 86.41 4 4596 1330 43869.34 35.88 4 4596 1335 78410.07 64.12 3 4597 1335 79130.80 100.00 3 4600 2123 5367.94 3.80 5 4600 2122 8486.07 6.01 5 4600 2121 15539.62 11.01 5 4600 2255 18605.18 13.19 3 4600 2125 29030.76 20.58 3 4600 1335 64053.02 45.40 3 4671 1330 26876.50 100.00 4 4672 1330 71302.77 100.00 4 4674 9999 4770.36 15.86 0 4674 1330 12221.43 40.65 4 4674 1331 13076.70 43.49 5 4675 9999 695.05 0.70 0 4675 1330 96150.06- 99.30 4 4676 1339 10389.88 4.24 4 4676 1330 234938.75 95.76 4 4679 1330 6354.95 100.00 4 4680 2111 3893.47 2.0 5 4680 2123 7731.46 5.89 5 4680 2121 18909.39 14.41 5 4680 1330 48591.07 37.03 4 4680 2250 52096.27 39.70 4 4754 1330 77719.05 100.00 4 4755 1331 27894.23 14.99 5 4755 1330 158134.49 85.01 4 C - 26 GRID. GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK .ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 4756 1330 207982.163 100.00 4 4759 1335 16626.74 100.00 3 4760 2127 4964.33 18.36 5 4760 2111 5323.73 19.69 5 4760 1331 7369.34 27.25 5 4760 1335 9387.11 34.71 3 4761 2129 7274.00 11.00 5 2122 11837.11 17.90 5 4761 1330 12993.44 4 4761 2125 14359.59 -21.72 3 4761 22,55 19659.75 29.73 3 4834 1339 48272.77 46.67 4 4834 1330 55155.76 53.33 4 4835 1331 30655.11 22.01 5 4835 1339 37226.58 26.73 4 4835 1330 71384.80 4 4836 1330 152927.65 100.00 4 4839 1335 32323.68 100.00 3 4840 @1335 30576.44 100.00 3 4841 2122 3798.75 '5.05' 5 4841 1330 8436.30 11.21 4 4841 2125 16852.43 3 4841 1335 20569.09 .27.33 3 4841 2255 25595.60 34,.01 3 4842 2125 22126.86 27;64 3 4842 2122 26849.33 33.54 5 4842 2255 31069.36 38.81 3 4914 1339 19790.16 100.00 4 .4915 1339 41531.88 28.06 4 4915 1330 106455.30 71.94 4 4916 1330 148468.07 100.00 4 4917 1330 99808.59 100.00 4 4918 1330 108711.26 29.79 4 4918 1335 25619.76 70.21 3 4919 1335 52599.41 100.00 3 4920 1335 7908.62 100.00 3 2129 2755.38 5 4922 2120 5950.46 9.54 5 4922 2122 6583.36 @10.56 5 4922 2125 14546.10 23.J3 3 4922 2255 32515.84 -52.15 3 4923 2129 15218.69 12.24 5 4923 2122 17685.40 14.23 5 4923 2250 23347.12 18.78 4 4923 2255 29577.64 23.79 3 4923 2120 38489.17 30.96 5 4996 1330 25150.49 100.00 4 C 27 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID' CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 4997 1330 58323.45 100.00 4 4998 1339 12360.36 18.61 4 4998 1335 13223.77 19.91 3 4998 1330 40848.71 61.49 4 4999 1330 3189.00 100.00 4 5003 2122 2674.60 4.06 5 5003 2120 4980.82 7.56 5 5003 2250 6931.69 10.52 4 5003 2255 51330.50 77.87 3 5004 2121 6956.23 7.54 5 5004 2250 12631.43 13.70 4 5004 2122 20553.34 22.29 5 5004 2255 24770.00 26.86 3 5004 2120 27316.18 29.62 5 5084 2250 14262.94 11.00 4 5084 2121 27953.73 21.56 5 5084 2120 30295.74 23.37 5 5084 2255 57131.16 44.07 3 5164 2121 9495.89 10.39 5 5164 2120 11739.85 12.84 5 5164 2119 22730.28 24.86 5 5164 2255 47462.68 51 , '91 3 5165 2119 3205.55 100.00 5 5243 2329 2119.60 10.51 3 5243 2119 4263.90 21.14 5 5243 1339 13782.11 68.34 4 5244 2127 4209.50 8.24 5 5244 1119 6472.50 12.67 3 5244 2119 19362.67 37.89 5 5244 1339 21053.49 41.20 4 5245 1119 1571.38 3.01 3 5245 2121 8234.96 15.78 5 5245 1339 13013.36 24.94 4 5245 2127 13801.34 26.45 5 5245 2119 15566.29 29.83 5 5323 2329 1503.53 31.78 3 5323 1339 3228.03 68.22 4 5324 2129 3004.12 3.47 5 5324 2349 16430.88 18.96 3 5324 1129 17806.08 20.55 2 5324 2329 49424.21 57.03 3 5325 2122 948.30 0.94 5 5325 1129 6033.80 5.95 2 5325 2329 8369.83 8.26 3 5325 2255 11357.75 11.21 3 5325 2319 32586.65 32.15 4 5325 2129 42052.79 41.49 5 C 28 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH@,. POA 'STLINE"- RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 5326 2319 12652iO4 18.30 4 5326 2125 14733.13 21.31 3 .5326 2315 17902.3 3 25.90 3 .5326 2122 23839-.83 34.49 5 .5327 2315 6537.43 8.69 3 5327 2319, 16865.51 22.41 4 5327 2125 22066.28 29. 32 3 5327 2122. 29782.0.3 39.58 5 5328 2125 1473.49 1.89 3 2315 30063.97 38..64 3 5328 2122 46267.71 .59.47 5 5329 2315 4110.85- 1.0.25 3 5329 21.22 35977.89 89.35 5 5405 2340. .1902.22 3 5405 1249 6015. 51 10..95 1 5405 1129 16526.40-- 310.09 2 5405 2329 30473.90 55.49 3 5406 2329 432. 80 O.A9 3 5406 2127 7463.05 8.50 5 5406 2321 9579.50 10.191 4 5 406 2320 14162.23 16.13 3 51406 1249 15840.27 18-04 1 5406 2340 40322.78 45.93 3 5407 2321 7665.03 11.65 4 5407 2127 27498.77 41-80 5 5407 2320 30624.44 416.55 3 5408 2315 680.50 1.17 3 5408 2321 13176..26 22.60 4 .5408 2127 44441.21 76.23 5 51409 21212 11287.80 18.96 5 5409 2321 21148.39 35.53 4 5409 2315 27086,77 45.51 3 5410 2321, 14434.75 16-15 4 5410 2315 16463.68 18-42 3 5410 2320 25772.63 28.83 3 5410 2121 32729.35 36.61 5 5411 2321, 2666.58 3-53 4 5411 2123 4499.13 5.95 5 5411 2311: 9680.23 12.81 5 54 11 ,2121 13469.69 17.62 5 5411 2310 14827.58 19.62 4 5411 2320 30428.95 40.26 3 5412 2321 1291.11 5.66 4 5.412 2311 21530.61 94.34 5 @5486 1249 25796.34 100.00 1 5487 .1245 3048.17 9.95 2 5487 1241 9599.85 31.33 2 C - 29 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 5487 1249 17992.22 58.72 1 5488 1330 2201.34 5.19 4 5488 1245 3712.66 8.75 2 5488 1241 6943.52 16.37 2 5488 1249 7247.38 17.08 1 5488 1339 8958.01 21.12 4 5488 2121 13361.46 31.49 5 5489 2341 4036.38 43.30 4 5489 1249 5285.40 56.70 1 5490 1240 1948.84 16.66 1 5490 2321 9748.22 83.34 4 5491 2121 11643.58 8.84 5 5491 2321 16845.87 12.80 4 5491 2320 103170.14 78.36 3 5492 2121 1587.68 2.06 5 5492 2311 1677.44 2.18 5 5492 2321 13239.66 17.22 4 5492 2320 60398-.26 '78.54 3 5493 2311 1078.75 3.14 5 5493 2321 33319.07 96.86 4 5494 2320 29130.00 100.00 3 5497 2321 1855.74 100.00 4 5500 2341 870.11 6.32 4 5500 2311 12898.90 93.68 5 5501 2341 2376.20 100.00 4 5569 1249 2761.79 9.40 1 5569 1339 11420.05 38.87 4 5569 2341 15201.75 51.74 4 5570 1240 1984.62 7.65 1 5570 2345 5264.31 20.30 3 5570 2341 18679.85 72.04 4 5571 1240 6740.19 12.06 1 5571 2341 23094.64 41.32 4 5571 1330 26060.58 46.62 4 5572 1330 6514.03 11.48 4 5572 1241 7422.15 13.08 2 5572 2320 9439.34 16.63 3 5572 1339 12435.87 21.91 4 5572 1240 20946.87 36.91 1 5573 2127 4232.74 9.20 5 5573 2121 10912.27 23.72 5 5573 2320 15239.50 33.13 3 5573 1240 15612.70 33.94 1 5574 1330 13711.35 38.13 4 5574 2121 22247.68 61.87 5 5575 2121 1124.79 2.00 5 5575 1249 8380.04 14.88 1 C 30 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE PERCENTAGE VALUE 5575 1241 11976.40 21.'27 2 5575 1240 34822.48 61-.85 1 5576 1330 947.85 @.26 4 5576 2121 6228.61 21.41 5 5576 1240 10830.35 37.24 1 5576 2123 11079.33 38.09 5 5577 2320 29405.17 37.42 3 5577 2321 49172.42 62.58 4 557P 2311 7169.95 8.91 5 55 78 2123 7765.24 9.65 5 557S 2321 13713.83 17.04 4 5578 2310 23513.92 29.22 4 5578 2320 28306.11 35-.18 3 5579 2310 1189.99 3.29 4 5579 2121 2528.90 7.00 5 ..5579 2122 5972.13 16'.52 5 5579 2127 6495.79 17-97 5 5579 23,11 19959.11 55.22 5 5580 2j2l 8655.52 13.55 4 5580 2311 20708.31 32.43 5 5580 2127 34497.31 54,02 5 5581 2127 21-22.00 ..17-82 5 5581 2341 9786.11 82.18 4 5655 1249@: 4443.95 3.05 1 56-55 lj39 49672.11 34.05 4 5655 1240 91751.43 i52.90 1 5656 2123 2997.75 2.60 5 5656 2121 4168.85 3.61 5 5656 1,339 5853.70 5.07 4 5656 1249 13245.39 1 5656 1330 37509.26 32.48 4 5656 1240 51701'.24 44.77 1 5657 2121 5196..62 5.56 5 5657 1239 28268.52 30.26 1 5657 1230 59951.06 64.18 1 5658 2320 3253.82 3.02 3 5658 2321 5150.22 4.78 4 5658 2311 23093.84 '21.45 5 5658 2350 35414.40 32.89 3 5658 1230 40755.17 37*.85 1 5659 2121 6132.79 8.60 5 5659 2341 7309.15 10.25 4 5659 2125 7516.44 10.54 3 5659 2111 7771..98 10.90 5 5659 2255 10837.34 15.19 3 5659 2311 31754.66 44.52 5 5660 2315 565.04 -1.45 3 c 31 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH .COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 5660 2255 1315.96 3.38 3 5660 2341 3435.10 8.81 4 5660 2122 5771.88 14.80 5 5660 2319 7397.55 18.97 4 5660 2111 7922.30 20.32 5 5660 2311 12578.29 32.26 5 5661 2311 9599.76 14.48 5 5661 2315 12308.24 18.57 3 5661 2121 22117.03 33.36 5 5661 2122 22271.71 33.59 5 5735 1339 30600.09 100.00 4 5736 1339 1320.79 7.29 4 5736 1330 16793.95 92.71 4 5738 2111 3919.45 8.55 5 5738 1240 7348.94 16.03 1 5738 2127 10891.85 23.75 5 5738 2321 23692.64 51.67 4 5739 2111 5842.01 100.00 5 5740 2111 15759.55 25.31 5 5740 2341 21991.98 35.33 4 5740 2127 24502.65 39.36 5 5741 2315 4775.60 10.10 3 5741 2121 11499.93 24.33 5 5741 2341 14341.89 30.34 4 5741 2345 16645.88 35.22 3 5817 1241 8831.36 39.00 2 5817 2359 13811.39 61.00 3 5818 2255 6503.81 3 5818 1241 8183.03 13.38 2 5818 2121 10975.66 17.95 5 5818 1240 12785.85 20.91 1 5818 2127 22708.56 37.13 5 5819 2127 1916.66 100.00 5 5820 2341 8071.32 17.18 4 5820 2127 38919.00 82.82 5 5896 2359 33955.01 100.00 3 5897 1249 544.62 0.57 1 5897 1241 4045.30 4.24 2 5897 1230 9183.59 9.62 1 5897 2127 16661.61 17.46 5 5897 2359 65005.58 68.11 3 5977 1230 3346.51 5.32 1 5977 1240 7954.24 12.64 1 5977 2121 7953.88 12.64 5 5977 1249 16958.81 26.96 1 5977 2255 26691.43 .42.43 3 5978 2121 2883.99 4.89 5 C 32 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH'. COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 5978 1240 4249.95 7.21 1 5978 2255 7692.47 13.04 3 5978 1230 44152.37 74'.'86 1 6057 1339 5682.33 11.22 4 6057 1330 9555.85. 18.87 4 6057 1241 12269.90 24.23 2 6057 2121 23124 41: 45.67 5 6137 1241 574 60 1-.04 2 6137 1330 54415.94 98.96 4 6138 1241 11143 *49 21 * 53 2 1330; 17488.38* 33.78 4 6138 1240 23137.02 44.69 1 @6218 1241 14308.59 100.00 2 6219 1241 2048.62 6.70 2 @6219 2111 4641.98 15.19 5 6219 2127 9286.27. 30.'38 5 6219 1240 14590.74 47e73 1 6299 1241 3496.75 12.80 2 6299 1249 6376.65 23,.,35 1 6299 2111 7699.26 [email protected] 5 6299 1240 9739.86, 35.66 1 @:6300 1249 12935.50 21.10 1 6300 1240 22072.77 36.01 1 6300 1230 26294-24 42.89 1 6301 1230 1001.00 1 -6380 1240 -.18985.12 34.41 1 6380 1230 36193.72 65.59 1 6381 1330 34396.24 18.03 4 6381 1230 156371.44 81-97 1 6382 1330 40380.98 18.92 4 6382 1230 172997 *69 81.08 1 6383 1230 73705.46 100.00 1 6384 1230 21683.61. 100.00 1 6461 1330 23423.47 100.00 4 6462 1330 20279.74 100.00 4 6463 1230 33186.24 100.00 1 6464 1230 81170.79 100.00 1 6465 1230 97546.47 100.00 1 6466 1230 92332.92 100.00 1 6467 1235 2979.36 4.68 2 6467 1230 60727.24 95.32 1 6468 1235 1947.25 100.00 2 6544 1230 3437.69 100.00 1 6545 1230 158187.80 100.00 1 6546 1231 4883.02 3.95 2 6546 1234 8253.74 6.68 2 6546 1230 110505.38 89.38 1 C - 33 GRID GEOMORPHIC LENGTH COASTLINE RISK ID CODE (M) PERCENTAGE VALUE 6547 1235 2954.03 1.68 2 6547 1231 5327.52 3.03 2 6547 1220 16838.74 9.57 1 6547 1230 150887.00 85.73 1 6548 1234 3893.79 3.67 2 6548 1230 102264.67 96.33 1 6549 1235 5728.10 6.74 2 6549 1234 17234.50 20.27 2 6549 1230 62061.86 72.99 1 6550 1230 16175.61 100.00 1 6625 1230 21665.93 36.95 1 6625 1330 36972.63 63.05 4 6626 1330 1676.87 34.82 4 6626 1230 3138.38 65.18 1 6627 1230 5467.30 37.46 1 6627 1231 9126.12 62.54 2 6628 1230 7470.04 100.00 1 6629 1230 20319.91 30.,87 1 6629 1234 45505.36 69.13 2 6630 1235 10730.61 10.94 2 6630 1234 31287.37 31.89 2 6630 1230 56106.54 57.18 1 6631 1231 5618.36 5.93 2 6631 1235 11618.81 12.25 2 6631 1234 23569.53 24.86 2 6631 1230 54017.39 56.97 1 6632 1231 2288.89 8.42 2 6632 1230 24896.97 91.58 1 6712 1231 1 464.12 0.33 2 6712 1230 139345.42 99.67 1 6713 1231 5275.72 31.76 2 6713 1230 11337.34 68.24 1 6792 2122 586.72 4.17 5 6792 1230 13494.55 95.83 1 C - 34 APPENDIX D REPRINTS OF PERTINENT LITERATURE Ri,prinirdfrom Proceilding.k of Kull Smlposium on Coastal and Occan ManagementlASCE Jul.%, 114. 1939;'Charleston, SC ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL COASTAL HAZARDS FROM SEA LEVEL RISE Vivien Gornitil and Paul Kandiruk2 ABSTRACT A global coastal hazards data base that contains topographic, geologic, geomorphic, erosional and subsidence information i 's being developed in order to predict the coastal- 'segments at greatest risk to a rise in sea level caused by future climate warming. .High risk 'areas are characterize-6--Ey -Iow '-c-o-as-tail relief, an erodible substrate, past and present evidence of subsidence, extensive shoreline retreat and high wave/tide energies'. Data have been assembled for the U.S.A. and are being extended to the rest of North America. Severalhigh risk areas have been tentatively identified and include the central Gulf Coast, South Florida, the North Carolina Outer Banks southern Delmarva 'peninsula, 'and the San Fr ancisc'o,Bay area. INTRODUCTION Recent studies predict that global climate warming' caused by accumulation of "Greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere could lead@to a sea level ri"se of between 50 and 150 cm within the next century (Ramanathan, 1988; NAS, 1987). Such a rise would endanger human populations,. cities, ports and wetlands in low-lying coastal areas. It becomes important, therefore, to classify and map the coastal areas that will be most vulnerable to future rise in sea level, and to select high-risk shorelinesfor more detailed studies. The coastal data base described here contains relevant topographic, geologic, geomorphologic, erosional and subsidence information, which are-Integrated into a Geographic Information System (GIS), to screen out high- risk shorelines. These latter areas are characterized by one or more of Ithe following conditions: - 1) low coas.tal@ INASA GSFC institute for Space Studies and Columbia University, New York, NY 10025 20ak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge,,TN.37831-6335. 1345 D - 3 1346 COASTAL ZONE '89 relief, 2) an erodible substrate (e.g. sand, unconsolidated sediment) , 3) present and past evidence of subsidence, 4) extensive shoreline retreat, and 5) high wave/tide energies. Information on at least eight variables relating to the coastal zone is being compiled and entered into the ORNL ARC/INFO Geographic Information System (GIS) . These variables include the following: 1) relief (elevation) , 2) lithology (rock type), 3) coastal landforms (geomorphology) , 4) vertical land movements (relative sea level changes), 5) horizontal shoreline changes (erosion or accretion) , 6) tidal ranges, 7) wave heights, and 8) storm frequencies and intensities. Data compilation for the first seven variables has been completed for the U.S. and is being extended to North America, with ultimate global coverage planned. Storm frequency data are being collected, for a related study, by others. In this paper, we briefly describe the components of the data base, treatment of data, entry into the GIS, and development of a Coastal Vulnerability Index. Procedures are still under development, and the outline presented here provides a demonstration of the approach rather than a final assessment. Preliminary results are given for individual variables in the U.S., and an overlay is shown of several components for a section of the U.S. East Coast. DEVELOPMENT OF THE GLOBAL COASTAL HAZARDS DATA BASE Survey of Data Base Components Coastal hazards, in the context of rising sea levels, fall into two major categories: 1) inundation, both permanent and episodic, and 2) erosion. Among the variables considered here, relief and vertical land movements (particularly subsidence) provide a direct measure of inundation risk, the other factors contribute to the erodibility risk. Bedrock lithology, shore materials and coastal landforms vary substantially in their resistance to erosion. Tidal currents and wave action can erode and modify the shoreline. Important coastal processes, outside the scope of the present study, include the sediment budget, and storm surges and frequencies, which contribute to episodic flooding. (The latter data are being compiled by others in a related study). Economic and demographic factors are not presently considered, but can be added later to the GIS. Coastal relief, or elevation, provides a first order approximation of the extent of inundation. Global digital elevation data exists at 5' latitude-longitude resolution (ETOPO5 Gridded World Elevations, National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, CO). Higher resolution coverage (such as D - 4 GLOBAL COASTAL HAZARDS 1347 the U.S.G.S. DEM) is incomplete, worldwide. A measure of rel-ief should extend beyond the immediate shoreline. In' this -,study, the measure of relief used, is the average elevation of 51 land,data points, grouped into 1/4 degree coastal cells., The absence of globally uniform map scales and contour intervals ' render unsatisfactory alternate indices, such as elevation at a fixed.distaince inland,,or distance inland to a fixed contour. Lithology is interpreted directly from geologic maps.' A simplified geologic classification is used (modified from Dolan et al., 1975), which differentiates between resistant crystalline rocks, sedimentary rocks and unconsolidated sediments (Table 1). Each rock type is assigned a 3-digit code. Table 1. Coastal Geologic.Classification I. OLD, RESISTANT ROCKS -(crystal lines) A. Igneous, volcanic (basalt, rhyolite, andesite, etc.) B. Igneous, plutonic (granite, granodiorite, etc.) C. Metamorphic (schists, gneisses, quartzites, serpentinite, etc.) II. SEDMENTARY ROCKS, CONSOLIDATED A. shale B. siltstone C. sandstone D. conglomerate. E. limeslone F. eolianite (calcite cemented sand) .G. mixed or varied lithology JII. SEDIMENTS, UNCONSOLIDATED A. mud, clay B. silt C. sand D. gravels, conglomerates 'E. glacial till F. calcareous sediment (inclu.d. coquiria') G. mixed or varied lithology IV;. VOLCANIC, Quaternar@ A. lava ,..B. ash, tephra C. composite V. CORAL REEF (living) D - 5 1 @48 COASTAL ZONE '89 Coastal landforms are interpreted and classified from the U.S. Geological Survey 1:250,000 topographic map series. This scale represents a compromise between completeness of international coverage at a uniform scale, and the ability to identify coastal landforms. Coastlines are divided here into those formed primarily by erosion (marine, non-marine), and by deposition (marine, non- marine), and assigned a four-digit code (Fig. 1). The last digit designates shore features that occur in more than one environment (i.e. beach, or salt marsh). Cliffed coo'.1 10 Blewtied Coldera V 2550 '*_ _s! Vol 25;0' 2.2 Gloctol Deposits A.1 fibow@ AO Drw" 2255 Moraint ... Lovo Hollis 25W 2225 2320 330 251WO Aq V.\ 0,0 , L< outwash PIM mongrovi lbo. tp rbo 230 Cow lb05091 se -0116 12 11@ 2224 Deilo 2220 Ftingirg 2450 I ky %\ reef. 'i 2410 Barlier rest 2420 Figure 1. Schematic classification of shorelines. Records of sea level (SL) change are obtained from a worldwide network of -1000 tide-gauge stations (Pugh et al., 1987), of which around 300 have usable record lengths greater than 20 years (Gornitz and Lebedeff, 1987). U.S. tide-gauge data are given in Lyles et al. (1987). The relative sea level change at each locality includes the eustatic component (around 1-1.5 mm/yr, Gornitz and Lebedeff, 1987; Barnett, 1983, 19841,, as well as glacio isostatic, neotectonic and local subsidence components. Subsiding areas (RSL @ 2 mm/yr), regardless of ultimate cause, are subject to greater inundation hazards (see below). Historical U.S. shoreline changes have been digitized and averaged into 31 cells (CEIS data base; Dolan et al., 1983). Continuous coverage extends from Long IslAnd to Key West, and from Apalachicola, FL to Mexico border, with some gaps in New England, West Florida and the Pacific Coast. No CEIS data are currently available for Alaska and Hawaii. Worldwide tide range data 'for around 6,000 stations are listed in the annual Tide Tables (NOS, 1988). Both mean and spring tide ranges are given. D - 6 , tAO let GLOBAL COASTAL HAZARDS 1349 U.S. wave data come from the Wave Information Study (WIS) conducted by the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) , U.S. -Army Corps of Engineers. Only Phase I deep- water coverage (120 n.mi) exists for the Gulf of Mexico, which does , not accurately represent @the near shore, environment. Phase II data, at 30 n. mi spacing, exist for Southern California (Corson et al., 1087), and -Phase III data (30 n. mi) for 166 stations 2along the East Coast, and 134 stations along the West Coast (Je Insen, 1983). The calculated 20 yr mean and maximum wave heights are used for these stations. Data entry into the Geographic Information System (GIS) The seven components of the coastal hazards data base discussed above include data in a variety of formats and spatial resolutions: 1) Point data (e.g. tide-gauge stations), 2) Line or arc data (lithology, landfo 'rms, waves), 3) Polygons or cells (relief, shoreline displacements).. The data are entered into the ARC/INFO (ESRI, Inc.) GIs at ORNL. The ARC/INFO GIs software can relate and manipulate point,' line and polygon data at different scales. Each.of the coastal components forms a feature class (coverage) , encoded within ARC/INFO, which can be displayed graphically. After each coverage has been formed@, the various classes can be overlaid and areas with a common set of attributes can be identified. Various modules within ARC/INFO allow transformation of different spatial projections to a common format and superposition of the various individual feature classes. A major advantage of the GIS is the ability to display spatially-referenced data graphically, highlighting relationships'among the different variables,. comprising the individual data sets. i Some-of the data sets ate continuous, whereas others .are point data that must be averaged or interpolated to eliminate discontinuities. For the conterminous U.S. -at least, all the variables, except for sea level trends, are continuous, or nearly so. The high spatial variability present in the CEIS shoreline displacement data can be reduced by using 3-5 point running means. sensitivity tests can be made to establish optimum values. Sea level trends, which are point data can be averaged over coastal segments of uniform geology or tectonic setting, and where stations are closely spaced. Alternatively, in regions with fairly good coverage, or where variability of sea level trends is not too great (as along the East Coast) , best-f it linear interpolations can be made in a straight line between stations, with the value projected to the nearest location along the coast. Geologically significant systematic variations in sea level trends could be lost by averaging schemes. However, different approaches may be required for different regions. D - 7 1350 COASTAL ZONE '89 Development of a Coastal Vulnerability Index A coastline vulnerable to sea level rise exhibits one or more of the following characteristics. I)Iow relief, 2) an erodible substrate, 3) present or past history of subsidence, 4) history of shoreline erosion, 5) high wave energies and/or tide ranges. A coastal vulnerability index (CVI) can be derived that will comprise some combination of the inundability variables (relief, subsidence) and er9dibility variables (lithology, landform, wave height, tide range). Each variable is assigned a rank, from I to 5, with 5 the most vulnerable class. The rationale for the ranking scheme for each variable is now briefly reviewed (summarized in Table 2). 1. Relief (elevation)-- inundation risk Projected sea level rise within the next 100 yrs is estimated to range between 0.5-1.5 m (NAS, 1987). Clearly, this elevation zone faces a high probability of permanent inundation. The coastal strip within 5 m of present MSL lies at high risk to higher than normal tides, or storm surges. The next 10 m may show some increased vulnerability to extreme storm events. The hazard decreases progressively for higher average elevations (Table 2). 2. Lithology (geologic rock type) -- erodibility risk The relative resistance of rocks to erosion depends on the chemical and physical breakdown of rocks (weathering), which in turn depends on mineral composition, rock texture (grain size), fabric (presence of planar elements) , cementation, climate (especially precipitation and temperature), and finally removal of weathering products. A rock weathering sequence has been adapted from the mineral sequence (Berner and Berner, 1987, p.153), and consideration given to responses under different climatic regimes (Loughnan, 1969; Carroll, 1970). As a rule, consolidated sedimentary rocks are more erodible than crystalline rocks. Unconsolidated sediments are the least resistant to erosion -- the finer-grained sediments the least so. The presence of a pronounced layered structure (bedding, slaty cleavage, or schistocity) and jointing also facilitates erosion. Chemical weathering, and removal of weathering products is accelerated in hot, humid climates. A generalized sequence of rock resistance to erosion is shown in Table 2. 3. Landforr (geomorphology) -- erodibility risk Landforms are the resultant of weathering processes acting upon topogra-Dhy and geology. in general, high risk landforms are mobile or unstable, hence underlain by unconsolidated material. In addition, these usually show D 8 GLOBAL COASTAL HAZARDS 1351 low relief (e.g. barrier coasts estuaries, lagoons, deltas, etc. At less risk are landforms with harder substrates and higher relief. (e.g. fiords, rocky coasts; Table 2). 4. Vertical land movement (relative sea level change) -7 subsidence risk (inundabilit,y) Relative SL change at each locality can 'be compared with the eustatic trend of 1-1.5 mm/yr (Gornitz -and Lebedeff, 1987; Barnett, 1983, 1984)w Stable regions have trend's close to the eustatic range'. Subsiding areas have SL trends > 2.0 mm/yr (high risk), while upl"ifting areas experience SL trends of <1.0 mm/yr (low risk, Table 2). 5. Shoreline displacement -- erodibility risk. Rates within t im lie within the measurement error. Such shorelines can be considered stable. Shores with displacement rates greater than +lm/yr are accreting, . and are thus at relatively low risk. Conversely, shores with rates of -1m/yr or less are eroding, and are at relatively higher risk (Table 2). 6. Tidal ranges.-_,erodibility risk Coasts with.- a tidal range of < 2m (microtidal) are at .low risk, while those with ranges over 4m (macrotidal) face a higher-risk (Table 2). 7. Wave heights -- erodibility risk The ranks shown in Table 2 are based on maximum wave heights. After each variable, for each portion of coastline, has been ranked, as described above, the ranks can be combined into a coastal vulnerability index, CVI, which is the product of the inundability and erodibility variables. A simple method of determining high risk -coastlines is to flag the high and very high risk classes (Table 2), for each individual component, separately.' Then the 'various components are overlaid in the GIS, and shore segments identified for which four or more of the c*omponents fall into the high and very,. high risk categories. An application of the procedure to the U.S. East Coast is shown below. PRELIMINARY RESULTS Individual components Differences in plate tectonic se,:.ting's among the U.S. coasts exert a strong influence on the regional variations in average values of several of the @data base components (Inman and Nordstrom, 1971). D - 9 1351, COASTAL ZONE '89 Table 2. Q911W VulnerabilitY PAW I V-Y LOW ftxierate I Kigh I Very high ruikl I VARTAMP I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 S.1-10.0 I Fial ief lial I >30.1 1 20.1-30.0 1 0-5-0 1 p4x* type JPl1ftDrLiC JLOi-@ metimax.)YAwt swilmentary1coarse and/or I Fins un=i- I (ralative lValcarLic (lava) I Sandstcre and I p-ly-morted I qoltgut-j reniirtance Inigh-madium gradel ccrig1cmerats I unmwlidwt I sediment to arpoicnI I NKAIDGWM I (well-cepantaill I I sediments 1voicitnic ash I JF=ky, cliffed lNedium cliffs I LCW cliffs I B-chas (pabblem) I Barrier beadhem I tarliform, I amsts I Irdented 00mirts lGlacial drift I Effbary I D-ld- (Gand) I Iriards I I Salt manih I Laga- JMdflatm I Iriards I I Doral Pleefs JAlluvial Plains JWtax I IFAn3ruw I I Vertical a-i-mint I el -1.1 -1.0 - 0.99 1 1.0 - 2.0 1 2.1 - 5.0 5.1 I(Ralative Sea I I I I I I-el dharge) I Land risirq I 1within range of I UVd eirkirq I I f Shmeline 1 2 2.1 1 1.0 - 2.0 -1.0 - +1-0 1 -1.1 - -2.0 S -2.0 displacement I I I I hwlyrl I Aocretion I Stable I I Tidal Raw, of 0. 99 1 1.0 - 1.9 2.0 - 4.0 1 4.1 - 6.0 @ 6.1 (mean) I I I I 14icrotidial I Nesmidal I lWave height, al 0 - 2.9 1 3.0 - 4.9 5.0 - 5.9 1 6.0 - 7.9 @ 7.o The East and Gulf Coasts are on trailing plate edges. The West Coast, on the other hand, undergoes plate convergence, north of the Mendocino triple junction, and transcurrent motion along the San Andreas fault system, to the south. Thus, the East and Gulf Coasts are generally low- lying, as shown by the % of coastal elevation points within the first 10 m of MSL (from the digitized ETOPOS data set): 55.6% and 82.0% respectively (Table 3). By contrast, on the West Coast, only 6.8% of the elevations are 5 10 m. Southern Alaska lies near the intersection of three major plates. Much of the coast consists of steep fiords; only 2.7% of the elevations lie within 10 m. The corresponding figure for Southern Alaska is 10.3%. On the other hand, the western and northern coasts of Alaska lie on trailing plate edges, with largely deltaic, coastal plains and barrier island landforms. In these two regions, 16.7% and 21.1% of the coastal elevations, respectively fall within 10 Tn or less (Table 3). Hawaii consists of a group of volcanic islands, that ha,.-e been eroded to varying degrees. Although beaches are widt--spread, the coast is cliffed in any places. Thus, only 9.4% of coastal elevat@dons are !On or less. Both East and Gulf Coasts are subsiding (Table 4). Anomalously high subsidence in the Gulf Coast, west of the Florida panhandle (6.68 � 4.30 mm/yr, Table 4) is caused by high sedimentation/compaction rates at the Mississippi delta, and oil/gas withdrawal (Gabrysch, 1984). D- 10 GLOBAL COASTAL HAZARDS 1353 The average sea level change for the West Coast (1.04 �1.07mm/yr, Table 4) reflects the prevalence of subsidence in the vicinity of most tide-gauges' with some localized uplift. This. stands in contrast to long-term .(late Quaternary-Holocene) evidence for regional uplift based on raised marine -terraces (West and McCrumb, 1986; Lajoie, 1986). Negative sea level trends at Neah Bay, WA; Astoria, OR and Crescent City, CA indicate ongoing.uplift. Further inland, subsidence is demonstrated by positive (rising) SL trends at Friday Harbor and Seattle, WA (Lyles et al., 1987). Tal"de 3. Summary of Elevation Data REGION ELEVATION s 10m ELEVATION 5 100m. East Coast 55.6 98.5 Gulf Coast 82.0 100.0 West Coast 6.8 34.5 SE Alaska 2.7 12.8 ,South Alaska- 10.3 .30.2,1. Aleutian Is. 12.6 West Alaska 16.7 62.4 North Slope, AK 84.3 Hawaii 0.4 22.6 Although deformation in southeast Alaska is, largely NNW right lateral motion, uplift also occurs, as shown by raised and warped beach' terraces (Plafker et al. 1980, Molnia 1985), and unusually negative SL trends: Juneau -12.4 mm.yr; Skagway -17.3 mm/yr, Yakutat, -4.6 mm/yr, and Sitka -2.2 mm/yr (Lyles et al; 1987) . However, some of this uplift may be caused by' isostatic rebound from glacial retreat within the last 100 years (Shepard * and Wanless, 1971). Erosion is predominant along the East and Gulf Coasts. Areas experiencing significant erosion r-ates over 2m/yr include Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, Fire Island, much of the rid-Atlantic Coast, the southern Delmarva peninsula, South Carolina to Georgia. The central Gulf Coast region (Louisiana:and'parts of Texas) has the highest average erosion rates in the U.S. Furthermore, the area is characterized by anomalously high subsidence (see -above). These factors, coupled with@ very low-lying topography and an 'erodible substrate (unconsolidated alluvium or sand) make it one of the most vulnerable regions in the conterminous U.S. D 1354 COASTAL ZONE '89 Table 4. Regional Average Sea-Level Trends (from,Lyles et al., 1987) Average Sea-level REGION Change, mm/yr N East Coast 2.69 0.78 33 Gulf Coast 6.68 4.30 12 West Coast 1.04 1.07 13 Alaska -6-49 6.09 8 Hawaii 1.40 1.60 5 Along the West Coast, erosion rates are generally lower, and some areas of accretion can be identified, often associated with influx of river sediments. The contrast in shoreline displacements along East and West coasts is another indication of fundamental geologic and tectonic differences (Inman and Nordstrom, 1971). The South Alaska coast, a glacial outwash coast, is accretionary in general, despite intensive wind and wave erosion, because of tectonic uplift, glacioisostatic rebound, and an abundant sediment supply from glacial meltwater and rivers. Erosion has been recorded for several areas, including the upper Cook Inlet and the northwest coast of Kodiak Island. Shoreline displacements for other parts of Alaska are sparsely documented (National Shoreline Study, 1971). In general, mean and maximum wave heights are higher along the West Coast than along the East Coast. However, variable, but below average wave heights for the West Coast are concentrated between San Francisco (37'N) and Pismo Beach (35*N). Along the East Coast, the highest wave heights are associated with the exposed Cape Hatteras; the lowest waves appear in Southern Florida (south of Miami) (Fig. 2). On the E-ist Coast, macrotidal conditions occur north of 42 'N (espc :_ial ly Maine) . South Carolina and Georgia also have relatively high tidal ranges, whereas Florida and the Gulf Coast are microtidal. The maximum tide ranges on the West Coat are found in the Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay. Much of the Alaska coast is resotidal to macrotidal, except within a microtidal environment (NOS, 1988). D - 12 GLOBAL.COASTAL HAZARDS 1355 6 East Coast E -- ----------- m 4- z U U my L ----------------------------- W- Nr 2 3 - 4.1 21 211 A 1 1 1 Z' 1 1 1 1 1 010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 9 West Coast E 8 - 0- 0 e----------------------------- CX 0,2 50L 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Station Number Figure 2. Regional variations in maximum wave heights, East and West Coasts. - Heavy lines are the regional means, dashed lines are,,� 1 a. Overlay of several components' This section illustrates the GIS overlay approach to the determination of high-ris.k coastal segments for the U.S. East Coast. Variables considered here include relief, lithology, landform and shoreline change. The very high risk category, for the present demonstration, comprises shore segments that have mean coastal relief between 0-5m, consist of mud, clay, silt, and sand, and located on coastal plains beaches, barrier beaches (including spits, barrier islands), mud flats and deltas. Mean erosion rates exceed -2m/yr. The high,risk category includes relief between 5-10m, consists of gravels, conglomerates, glacial till, and mixed or varied sediments., and landforms such as pebble or cobble beach, and more sheltered environments such as estuaries and lagoons. Mean erosion rates fall between [email protected] and -1.1 m/yr. An example of the GIS overlay for four components is illustrated for the southern half of Chesapeake Bay (Fig. 3). The barrier islands of the southern Delmarva D - 13 1356 COASTAL ZONE '89 4b VERY HIGH RISK HIGH RISK Figure 3. The southern half of Chesapeake Bay, showing very high and high risk coastal segments, based upon the criteria discussed in the text for fc,-.Ir components of the data base. D - 14 GLOBAL COASTAL HAZARDS 1357 Peninsula fall into the very high risk category, as defined above. The southwest shore of Chesapeake Bay, to Northumberland Co., VA; Tangier Island, and Crisfield, MD are all at high risk. Other very high risk shorel:ines along the East Coast (not illustrated) include southern NJ, Cape Hatteras and the outer banks of NC, portions of the South Carol ina-Georgia coast, Jupiter Island,, Ft 'and parts of South Florida. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This report has outlined the preliminary stages in the compilation and development of a global coastal hazards data base, designed to identify high risk shorelines in the face of future sea level rise, in terms of Vulnerability to both inundation -and erosion, and to establish priorities for more -detailed studies at higher resolution. Furthermore, 'this data can contribute to ' programs monitoring global environmental change, such as 'the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Because of the intended global coverage, the resolution is relatively coarse. However, the approach outlined here can be adapted to serve local planners by scaling.to higher resolution. Summaries are presented for coastal relief, lithologic types and landforms, relative' sea level changes, tide ranges and wave heights. Mean differences 'in these coastal properties, for the U.S., are attribute to fundamental differences. in plate. tectonic settings (Inman .and Nordstrom, 1971). Mean elevations, even at the relatively coarse spatial resolution of 0.25* vary sufficiently to distinguish among geomorphologic/geologic environments. Methods of averaging or smoothing data over longer segments are being implemented. Each variable is assigned a rank, ranging from 1 to 5, based on the relative risk factor. These risk factors are then combined into an overall coastal vulnerability index, CVI. Although implementation of the CVI is still incomplete, preliminary results,:from consideration of individual variables suggest that the areas most subject to inundation in the U.S. include: 1) the Louisiana-Texas coast, 2) southern Florida- Everglades, 3) portions of Chesapeake Bay and. the North Carolina Outer Banks,, 4) the North Slope of Alaska, and 5) the Stockton - Sacramento area, east of San Francisco Bay, CA. The latter area, although situated well inland, is at or close to sea level, and is connected to San Francisco Bay*by the Sacra.-iiento and San Joaquin Rivers,.and 'by canals. , .Even if not directly inundated, the agricultural potential of this valley could be adversely i-.-ipacted by increased salinization due to salt water 1.ntrusion. of the areas at high risk t@) inundation beca@_ise of low relief, the Louisiana-Texas coast is additionally D- 15 1358 COASTAL ZONE '89 vulnerable because of anomalously high subsidence rates in part due to oil, gas, groundwater withdrawal (Garbysch, 1984), and to high beach erosion rates. The Cape Hatteras area is additionally at risk to erosion because of relatively high wave heights. The Everglades, although very low-lying, are not subsiding substantially. Furthermore, they can be expected to undergo less erosion because of the protective mangrove vegetation (Kelletat, 1989), and the low wave-energy and microtidal environment. As these p---eliminary findings suggest, application of the CVI to low elevation areas should enable further discrimination based upon these other factors. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Energy Research, under contract DE-AC05- 840R21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. and Subcontract MRETTA 19x-91348V with Columbia University. Thanks are extended to Dr. D.T. Pugh, Director, Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, Bidston Observatory, England and Dr. J. Hubbard, National Ocean Service, NOAA, Rock- ville, MD for providing tide-gauge records; Dr. S.D. Hicks, NOS, Rockville, MD for sending a complete set of Tide Tables; and Dr. J. Hubertz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS for sending Wave Information Study (WIS) data. A tape of CEIS shoreline displacement data for the U.S. was obtained from Prof. R. Dolan, U. Virginia, Char- lottesville, VA. Programming assistance was provided by Mr. Ting Fan Dai and Mr. Jack Jia. Appreciation is also expressed to Mr. W. Masters and Ms. Tammy White, ORNL, for GIS data entry and analysis, and to Mr. Robert M. Cushman, ORNL, for his helpful suggestions and encouragement. REFERENCES Barnett. T.P. 1983. Recent changes in sea level and their possible causes. Clim. Change, 5: 15-38. Barnett, T.P., 1984. The estimation of "global" sea level change: a problem of uniqueness. J. Geophys. Res., 89: 7980-7988. Berner, E.K. and Berner, R.A., 1987. The Global WAte Cycle, Geochemistry and Environment. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., p. 153. Carroll, D., 1970f Rock Weatheting. Plenum Press, New York, 203 p. Corson, W.D., Abel, C.E., Brooks, R.M., Farrar, P.D., Groves, B.J., Payne, J.B., McAreny, D.S. and Tracy, B.A., 1987, Pacific Coast Hindcast Phase II Wave Infor-ration, WIS Report 16, USAE, CE, Vicksburg, MS. Dolan, R., Hayden, B. and Vincent, M., 1975. Classification of coastal landforms of the Americas. Z. Geomorph. N.F., Suppl. Band 22:72-88. Dolan, R., Hayden, B. and May, S., 1983. Erosion of the U.S. shorelines, in CRC-H-a-n-A-book of Coastal Processes and ErQsi-qn. P.D. Komar, ed., Chap 14: 285-299f CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. D- 16 GLOBAL COASTAL HAZARDS 1359 Gabrysch, R.K. , 1984. Ground-water withdrawals and land- surface subsidence in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas, 1906-80, Texas Dept. Water Res. Report 287: 64 p- Gornitz, V. and Lebedeff, S., 1987. Global sea level changes during the past century, in Nummedal, D., Pilkey, O.H.,and Howard,J.D., eds., sea Level Fluctuation and Coastal Evolution. SEPM Spec. Publ. No. 41: 3-15. Inman, D.L. and Nordstrom, C.E., 1971. On the tectonic and morphological classification of coasts. J. Geology, 79: 1-21. Jensen, R.E., 1983. Atlantic Coast hindcast, shallow water, significant wave information. WIS Report 9, USAE, WES, CE, Vicksburg, MS. Kelletat, D., 1989. The question of "zonality" in coastal geomorphology - with tentative application along the East Coast of the USA. J. Coast. Res., 5(2); 329-344. Lajoie, K.R., 1986. Rapid tectonic uplift near the Mendocino Triple Junction recorded by emergent marine strandlines. GSA Abstr. & Prog., 67(44): 1224. Loughnan, F.C., 1969. Chemical Weathering of the Silicate Minerals. American Elsevier Plubl. Co., New York, 154 P. Lyles, S.D., Hickman, L.E., Jr. and Debaugh, H.A., Jr., 1987. Sea-level variations for the United States. 1855-1986. NOAA Nat'l Ocean Serv., Rockville, MD., 182 p. Molnia, B.F., 1985. Evolution of the Gulf of Alaska coastal plain: Cape Suckling to Icy Point. GSA Abstr. with Prog., 17: 666-667 (abstr.). National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, 1987. Responding to Changes in Sea Level, Engineering Inplications. Washington, D.C., 148 p. National Ocean Service, 1988. Tide Tables 1988. NOAA, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Plafker, G., Hudson, T., and Rubin, M., 1980. Holocene marine terraces and uplift history in the Yakataga seismic gap, Alaska. EOS, 61(46) 1110 (abstr.). Pugh, D.T., Spencer, N.E. and Woodworth, P.L., 1987. Data Holdings of the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. Bidston'Observatory, England. Ramanathan, V., 1988. The greenhouse theory of climate change: a test by an inadvertent global experiment. Science, 240: 293-299. Shepard, F.P. and Wanless, H.R., 1971. Our Changinq Coastlines. McGraw Hill Book Co., NY, 579 p. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971. National Shoreline Study, vol.2, Regional Inventory Report, North Atlantic Region. 2 pts. West, D.O. and McCrumb, D.R., 1986. Uplifted Pleistocene marine terraces along the Wash i ngton-Oregon coast and implications regarding the nature of underthrusting alone the Cascadia subduction zone. GSA Abst. and Prog., 18(12): 197. D - 17 Reprinted.from Coastal Zone '91 Proceedings of 7ih Symposium on Coastal & Ocean Management ASCEIL.ong Beach, CAIJuly 8-12, 1991 VULNERABILITY OF THE U.S. TO FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE 2 Vivien Gornitz, Tammy W. White, Robert M. Cushman ABSTRACT The differential vulnerability of the conterminous United States to future sea level rise from greenhouse climate warming is assessed, using a coastal hazards data base. This data base contains information on seven variables relating to inundation and erosion risks. High risk shorelines are characterized bylow relief. erodible substrate, subsidence, shoreline retreat, and high wave/tide energies. Very high risk shorelines on the Atlantic Coast (Coastal Vulnerability Index 2! 33.0) include the outer coast of the Delmarva Peninsula, northern Cape Hatteras, and segments of New Jersey, Georgia and South Carolina. Louisiana and sections of Texas are potentially the most vulnerable, due to'anomalously high relative sea level rise and erosion, coupled with low elevation and mobile sediments. Although the Pacific Coast is generally the least vu:nerable, because of its rugged relief and erosion -resistant substrate, the high geogfaphic variabI111% leads to se%eral exceptions, such as the San Joaquin -Sac ramento Delta area, the barrier beaches of Oregon 3nd Washington, and p@irts of the Puget Sound Lo%kidnds. INTRODUCTION Projected sea level rise, based on models of greenhouse clim3te warming, could reach 0.66 m by the year 2100 (Warrick and Oerlemans, 1990), which '@kould represent an Ircrease of up to 7 times present rates. Locally, increases could be still greater, depending on land subsidence factors. NASA GSFC Institute for Space Studies and Co@urribla University, New York, NY 103-"3. En, ironmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. TIN 37S31. Ibid. 2354 D - 19 FLITL'RE SEA LEVEL RISE 2355 Potential impacts of this accelerated sIea level rise (SLR) include inundation, increased shoreline retreat, and saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers and estuaries. The coastal zone will be permanently inundated to an elevation equivalent to the vertical rise in sea level. However, episodic flooding from storm waves and high surges could penetrate much further inland. Enhanced erosion rates would threaten beaches and coastal structures. Finally, increasing salinization of coastal aquifers, and upstream penetration of saltwater resulting from the SLR, could contaminate drinking water supplies and adversely affect agriculture. The effects of the global SLIR on the shoreline will be spatially nonuniform because of the presence of local vertical crustal movements, differential resistance to erosion, varying wave climates and longshore currents. The coastal hazards data base is designed to evaluate the differential vulnerability of shorelines to inundation and erosion, on regional to global scales, and to classify and map the spatial distributions of high-risk coasts, in order to screen out targets for more detailed study. The data base integrates information on seven variables, including: (1) relief (elevation), (2) lithology (rock type), (3) coastal landforms geomorphology, (4) vertical land movements (relative sea level changes), (5) horizontal shoreline changes (erosion and accretion), (6) tidal ranges, and (7) wave heights. Although not specifically dealt with here, data on storm frequency and intensity have been compiled independently (Birdwell and Daniels, 1991). Storm surges and sediment transport, although also important factors, have not been included at the present time. However, as the data are incorporated into a Geographic Informations System (G IS), these layers can be added as information becomes available. The GIS approach also allows eventual integration with other climatological and socioeconomic data sets. Climate change will also affect such variables as winds, waves and storm surges. For example, hurricane intensity may increase In a double - C02 world (Emanuel, 1987). Because of the complexity of modeling the response of these variables to climate change, the determination of their effects on the relative vulnerability of coastal areas lies outside the scope of this paper. However, any detrimental consequences will only be exacerbated by rising sea levels. This paper briefly discusses the development of the data base for the conterminous United States. Results for the individual variables are summarized for each coast. The application of the Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) to the U.S. Atlantic Coast is illustrated as a test case. Extension of the CVI analysis to the Gulf and Pacific Coasts is still in progress, and the procedures are being refined. Thus the outline presented here serves as a demonstration of the approach rather than a final assessment. DATA BASE COMPONENT'S AND RISK CLASSES A vulnerable coastline is characterized by low coastal relief, an erodible substrate (e.g. sand, unconsolidated sediment), present and past evidence of D - 20 2356 COASTAL ZONE '91 subsidence, extensive shoreline retreat and high A-ave/tide energies. The rationale for the ranking scheme is summarized in the following- paragraphs. Among the variables considered here, relief and vertical land movements (particularly subsidence), are primarily indicators of inundation 'risk. The average elevation of 5' latitude- longitude land data points (from ETOPOS Gridded World Elevations, National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, CO) aggregated into 1/4* coastal cells, provides an approximate measure of inundation, appropriate for a global scale. While the elevation zone within I m faces the highest probability of permanent inundation, the coastal strip within s m or present SL is also at high risk to above normal tides from severe storm surges. The hazard decreases progressively for higher average elevations (Table 1). Table 1. WK very low LrW Mbdaz ta Kiqb Very high risk VXRL%-"Z 1 2 3 4 5 PAlief (a) 30.1 20.1-30.0 10.1-20.0 5.1-10.0 0-5.0 Pcck tyin Plutmic Lw-grads I Hos sedimentary Couve and/or Fine mricon- (ralative Volcanic (lava) Sandstone aid m r4- p-ly-sortsd 801 r"sixtance Kigh-tedium grude oanglowersta Unl3mmlidatad to erDsim) MetamorpKics (wall-cumvtod) sadixonts VoicanLic ash Fbcky, Cliffed HediUM Cliffs law Cliffs beaches (pabbl as) BuTier beaches lArdfam obasts indented oossts G]W-JAI (brift IfftLJAXY (san:* Fiords salt omrsh Lagoon Midflats ?lards coral Poefs AIIVVI&I plains Delta& Vertic2a ap"Exalyt S -1.1 -1.0 - 0.99 1.0 - 2.0 2.1 - 4.0 4.1 (ML ch-qe) (Wyr) Lard riX ing within range of Land &in" shistatiC riA16 Shoreline 1 2.1 1.0 - 2.0 -1.0 - +1.0 -1.1 - -2.0 S -2.0 SPLACEMM-It (111/yr) Aametion Stable ErC184M Tidal Rwqb 0." 1.0 - 1.9 2.0 - 4.0 4A - 6.0 6.1 a @Mmn) Mcrotldal Mw@m height, 0 2.9 3.0 4.9 1@ 0 - S. 9 6.0 6.9 Z 7.o a :Max.) D 21 FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE 2357 Vertical land movements for the U.S. are deduced from relative sea level trends, from a network of 76 stations (Lyles et al., 1987; Pugh et al., 1987). The relative sea level (RSL) change at each locality is a composite of the eustatic component (1-2 mm/yr, Gornitz and Lebedeff, 1987; Peltier and Tushingham, 1989), as well as other vertical land motions. Subsiding areas, or those with RSL in excess of the eustatic range (>2 mm/yr), regardless of ultimate cause, face greater inundation hazards (Table 1). The other variables of the data base are associated with erodibility risk. Bedrock lithology, shore materials, and coastal landforms vary substantially in their resistance to erosion. A generalized scale of lithologic and geomorphologic resistance to erosion is discussed in Gornitz and Kanciruk (1989). Because these factors are difficult to quantify, they are ranked into classes of increasing risk (Table 1). Digitized historical U.S. shoreline changes, are derived from the CEIS data base (Dolan et al., 1983, 1990). Rates within � I rn lie within the measurement error and are considered at relatively low risk. Shores with rates of - I m/yr or lest. (more negative) are eroding, and at relatively higher risk (Table 1). Conversely, shores with rates > + I m/yr are accreting, and at correspondingly low risk. Waves and tidal currents actively transform the shoreline. Wave heights are proportional to the square root of wave energy, which is a measure of the capacity for erosion. U.S. wave data come from the Wave Information Study (WIS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jensen, 1983: Corson et al., 1987; Hubertz and Brooks, 1989). (The ranks assigned in Table I are based on maximum significant wave heights). The tidal range is I)-.iked to both inundation and erosion hazards. Although a large tidal range dissipates wave energy, limiting active erosion to high tide, it also delineates a broad intertidal zone, susceptible to permanent inundation following SLR. Furthermore, the velocity of tidal currents in estuaries is proportional to the tidal range (Pethick, 1984). Therefore, other factors remaining constant ' high tidal range is associated with stronger tidal currents, capable oferoding and transporting sediment. Therefore, macrotidal coasts (>4 m) will be more vulnerable than those with lesser ranges (Table 1). Tide range data are listed in the annual Tide Tables (NOS, 1988). COAS TAL VULNERABILITY INDEX Because the data base comprises qualitative, as well as quantitative information, at different scales and units, each variable for each coastal segment has been assigned a rank from I to 5, with 5 representing the most vulnerable class (highest risk, Table 1). These individual risk classes can then be combined into a Coastal Vulnerability Index, CV1 which can be computed as either the sum or product of the variables. The product has the advantage of expanding the range of values. On the other hand, it may be quite sensitive to small changes D - 22 2@58 COASTAL. ZONE '91 in individual ranking factors. Therefore, it may be necessary to introduce a factor to dampen the extreme range. For the purposes of this paper, the CVI is taken as the square root of the geometric mean, or the square root of the product of the ranking factors, divided by the number of variables present. CVI - [1/n (a, x a2 x ... a.,)1112 (1) where a, - variable and n - total number of variables present. The total range of CVI was divided into four equal parts, and the upper quarter, or CVI 2: 33.0 was taken as "very high risk coastline.' DATA 'ENTRY INTO THE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) IThe ARC/INFO GIS (ESRI, Inc.) software at ORNL can relate and manipulate data in various formats and spatial resolutions, such as (1) point data (e.g. tide-gauge stations), (2) line or arc data (lithology,- landforms, waves), (3) polygons )r cells (relief, shoreline displacements, Gornitz and Kanciruk, 1999). Each vai iable forms a feature class (coverage), which can be displayed graphically. Individual feature classes can be superposed, and areas with a common set of attributes can be identified. COMPARISON OF U.S. COASTS Atlantic Coast Elevail,:)ns along the Atlantic Coast range from 144 m in Maine to -0 m a'ong b3rrier beaches. Around -,',.0% of the '-ind lies within 5 m of sea level, and 5 5.6 c@i lies within 10 ml (Table 2). Table 2. Summary of Elevation Data for the U.S. Relief (m) 2! 30.1 20.1-30.0 10.1-20.0 5.1-10.0 0-5.0 East Coast 19.3% 10.0 15.1 22.6 33.0 Gulf Coast 4.2 4.0 9.8 23.9 59.1 West Coast 85.3 4.2 3.6 2.6 4.2 *In terms of the popu@ation of 5' cells D 23 FUTURE SEA LEVEI., RISE 2359 Estuaries represent the dominant landform along the Atlantic Coast (41.9% of the shorelength), folio-,4-ed by barrier coasts (18.2%) and lagoons (15.3%). Rocky, glaciated coasts occupy 141.3% of the shore, while glacial deposits form 6.0% (Gornitz, 1990). The East -Coast, south of New England, lies on poorly consolidated to unconsolidated Mesozoic to Holocene Coastal Plains sediments. Long Island, like Cape Cod, is formed largely of glacial moraine and outwash deposits. While unconsolidated sediments underlie only 24% of the New England shoreline, they constitute -90% of the Coastal Plains, south of New England (the remainder is mainly limestone, in Florida). Around two-thirds of the Atlantic Coast is relatively stable (shoreline displacement within � I m), with 25.2%, eroding and 7.7% accreting (based upon shorelength for which data are available). However, erosion rates are extremely variable, particularly near tidal inlets. High erosion (more than 2 m/yr) affects parts of Long Island, New York, central New Jersey, and especially the Atlantic shore of Maryland- Virginia, where several barrier islands are retreating at rates exceeding 10 m/yr. Other highly eroding coasts include northern Cape Hatteras and parts of Georgia South Carolina (Gornitz, 1990; Dolan et al., 1989). In contrast, erosion rates in South Florida are relatively low, except between the St. Lucie and Jupiter Inlets (average erosion rate - 1.8 m/yr). The entire Atlantic Coast is subsiding. Rates of relative sea level rise exceeding 2 mm/yr affect 89.0% of the region. The mid-Atlantic region is characterized by above average rates of sea level rise (> 3 mm/yr). These rates are 1.5-2 times the global eustatic range of 1-2 mm/yr. Around half of the sea level rise can be attributed to continuing glacial-isostatic subsidence of the peripheral bulge (Peltier, 1986, Gornitz and Seeber, 1990). Mean tidal ranges decrease progressively southward from northern Maine to Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay estuary lies in a microtidal (<2 m) environment, in spite of the highly indented shoreline. Mesotidal (2-4 m) conditions prevail in Georgia, becoming microtidal further south, especially in southern Florida. The highest regional maximum significant wave heights occur on the exposed Cape Hatteras (5.9 m), southern Cape Cod (5.2 m) and the southern Delmarva Peninsula (5.2 m). The lowest waves appear south of Miami, Florida (2.4 m). The Coastal Vulnerabilit@ Index, CV], is calculated for the Atlantic Coast, according to (1). Values of CVI for the East Coast range between ).79 and 46.29. Around 40k, of the East Coast shoreline, predominantly along the outer barriers, has a CV] score of 33.0 or greater (*very high risk' coastline). The median value is 10.12, while the upper and lower quartiles are 15.12 and 6.87, respectively. Figure la-d shows the distribution of CVI values 2: 33.0 for four representative , areas of the East Coast (Cape Cod, the mid-Atlantic region, Cape Hatteras, and southern Florida). Other *very high risk' coasts, not shown in Fig. I include Jones Beach, Long Island, and segments of the coast between Wilmington, North Carolina, south to Jacksonville, Florida. D - 24 2360 COASTAL. ZONE '91 ell A. Cape Cod area S. Micl-AflontjC region .110 C. Cape Hctleras- Myrtle Beach D. Southern Florida Figure 1. Distribution of CV] values greater than or equal to 33.0 (heavy line). 4 D - 25 I'LiTI.IRE SEA LEVEL RISE 2361 Gulf Coast The Gulf Coast is generally low-lying. The maximum elevation Is 90 m. Around 58% of the coast lies within 5 m, and 82% within 10 m of sea level (Table 2). The Texas coast is characterized by barrier-lagoon complexes, including estuarine bays. The chenier plains of western Louisiana grade eastward into deltaic plains, with some outlying barrier islands that are the eroded remnants of abandoned and submerged deltaic lobes (Penland et al., 198 1 ). Eastward, barrier-lagoon complexes extend into northwest Florida. The west coast of Florida includes mangroves, reefs, as well as barrier systems. With the exception of some limestone outcrops in Florida, the rest of the Gulf Coast is underlain by Quaternary to Holocene unconsolidated sediments. In terms of the risk classification (Table 1), all Gulf landforms fall into classes 3-5,and rock types in classes 4-5, with a fairly high proportion, in each case, lying in class 5. Nearly half of the Gulf Coast is eroding, with 40% retreating at rates greater than 2 m/yr. Around 47% is stable, and only 4% accreting. The most severe erosion (rates > 8 to 10 m/yr) occurs on the Louisiana barrier islands (see also Ritchie and Penland, 1989, Dolan et al., 1985). Other areas of high erosion include the coast northeast of Galveston Bay, southwest of Freeport, Texas and also south Padre Island, Texas. The Gulf Coast west of the Florida Panhandle, displays the highest rates of relative Sea level rise in the U.S. (Fig. 2). Sea level trends over the period 1931-1988 for 20 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ticle-gauge stations in Louisiana range between 3.4 to 17.7 mmlvr, with an average value of 8.1 mrn/yr. The highest rates are associated \A,'ith the delta plains (Penland and Ramsey, 1990). Rates in excess of 2 mm/yr represent land subsidence. Based on regional sea level trends (Fig. 2). nearly the entire coast falls into risk classes 4 and 5 (Table I ). Mean tidal ranges throughout the Gulf Coast are microtidal (< 2 m), failing into risk classes I and 2 (Table 1). Average significant wave heights are generally under I m, except along the Texas coast. The regionally highest maximum significant wave heights (5.5-5.8 m) lie off the Mississippi Delta; the regionally lowest values cluster offriorthwest Florida. Thus wave heights fall into classes 1-3 (Table I Pacific Coast The Pacific Coast undergoes plate convergence north of the Mendocino triple junction, and transcurrent motion along the San Andreas fault, to the south. As a consequence of this tectonic activity, the relief is much greater than on either Atlantic or Gulf Coasts. Maximum elevations, near the coast, attain 1250 m (48* N, 124' W, Olympic Mts., Washington). Only 4.2% of the shore lies within 5 m of sea level, and only 6.8% lies within 10 m (Table 2). D - 26 23 0 2 ('0ASTAL ZONL '91 A AR MS AL GA TX LA Sabine Pass I Galveston 13-@ .0 ,j Pensoco lo Freeport Eugene 2.4 Cedar Key FL Island 9.7 Gran Isle 1.9 Rockport 4.0 10. Si Pv rsburg 2.3 N Pad@@Is 5.1 Port Isobel 3.1 Key West LOUISIANA 2.2 4.5 36 12. 'CIA 5.7 8- 7.7 16 9.8 10.9 11.70 9.4 Figure 2(A). Sea level trends in mm/yr, for tide-gauge stations along the Gulf of Mexico (after Lyles et al., 1987; Pugh et al., 1997). (B). Sea level trends in mm/yr for tide-gauge stations in Louisiana (from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers network; based on Penland and Ramsey, 1990). D - 27 FL7URE SEA LEVEL RISE 2363 Rocky or cliffed coasts, with pocket or fringing beaches, constitute the predominant landforms on the Pacific Coast. C6astal plains deposits outcrop in the Los Angeles, Ventura areas, around Monterey Bay and near Eureka, California. In the Pacific Northwest, several low-lying areas interrupt the generally cliffed coast. These include the stretch between Coos Bay and the Siuslaw River, Oregon, and Tillamook Head, northern Oregon to the Copalis River, Washington, These areas have the longest extent of barriers and lagoons on the Pacific Coast. The Puget Sound Lowlands are underlain mainly by glacial drift, and thus are potentially vulnerable to erosion (Table 1). In view of the generally high relief and prevalence of consolidated rocks, around 83% . of the Pacific Coast is relatively stable, 5.6% eroding and 11.6% accreting. In contrast to the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, most of the barrier beaches in the Pacific Northwest, are either accreting or stable. However. pockets of intense erosion are associated with barriers. or spits at Tillamook Bay (5 m/yr), Columbia Beach, Oregon (2 m/yr), Westport, Grays Harbor, Washington (3.9 m/yr). The shore between the Quinault River to Hoh Head, Washington is retreating at an average rate of 1.1 m/yr. it consists of low to medium cliffs cut into Tertiary continental and marine sediments, ove-fain by Quaternary glacial deposits. South of the Mendocino triple junction, sea levels are generally rising at rates comparable to the eustatic rise (av. 1.5 1 0.5 mm/yr, N-8). To the north, negative sea level trends along the outer coast (Crescent City, CA to Neah Bay, WA) indicate land emergence, while positive trends (Seattle, 2 mm/yr; Friday Harbor, 1.4 mm/yr) show submergence of the Puget Lowland. Sea level data are consistent with eastward tilting of the Oregon and Washington Coast Ranges, attributed to continuing subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate (Ando and Balazs, 1979). However, more recent geodetic leveling surveys suggest a more complex situation. Although the area around Neah Bay, Washington (west) is uplifting with respect to Seattle (east), the outer coast subsides toward the south, around Grays Harbor WA, and then rises further south toward Astoria (Holdahl et al., 1989, Shipman, 1990). Microtidal environments (< 2 m mean tidal range) are prevalent along the open coast. However, in major embayments, such as Puget Sound, the mean tidal range can exceed 3 m. In general, maximum wave heights are greater that along either the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts. The coast between southern Oregon and Pt. Delgada, CA has maximum wave heights over 7.5 m. DISCUSSION Examination of individual data base components suggests that Louisiana and parts of Texas, on the Gulf Coast, will rank among the most highly vulnerable shorelines in the conterminous Uillted States. Most of the Gulf Coast is characterized by low elevation (Table 2), presence of unconsolidated sediments, and unstable landforms. Around 40% of the Coast is retreating at rates greater than 2 m/yr, with the most se@ere erosion concentrated along the Louisiana D - 28 2364 COA STA L ZONE '91 barrier islands. These barrier islands are not just migrating landward, they are decreasing in area as well. For example, between 1890 and 1979, the Louisiana barriers decreased in area by 37%, from 92 to 58 square kilometers. Between 1897 to 1985, the Isles Dernieres, along the central Louisiana coast, shrank by 63%, from 48 to IS square kilometers (Sallenger et al., 1987). Louisiana is also subject to the highest rates of relative sea level rise in the nation (Figure 2). The state-wide average sea level rise of 8 mm/yr can be attributed to a combination of factors in addition to the eustatic rise, including compaction of Holocene deltaic sediments, subsurface fluid withdrawal (oil, gas, water), sediment deposition in upstream dams, and, channel dredging (Penland : nd Ramsey, 1990; Boesch et al., 1983). The anomalous subsidence is largely nthropogenic in origim late Holocene (< 3000 years BP) rates average -3 mm/yr; the phase of rapid increase only began around 150 years ago (see Fig. 57, Penland et al., 1988). The high subsidence and erosion rates have resulted in land loss rates of over 102 km 2/yr in the Mississippi delta plain (Gagliano et al., 1981). Extensive portions of the Atlantic Coastal Plains, particularly along the outer barriers, are also highly vulnerable (Fig. 1; also parts of South Carolina - Georgia, not illustrated). In South Florida, however, the combination of relatively low erosion rates, microtidal and low wave energy environments leads to an apparently lower vulnerability rating than for the above-mentioned areas. Incorporation of information on storm frequencies or surges, and population densities into the CVI could lead to revision of this vulnerablility assessment. For example, southern Florida has a 12-14% probability of experiencing a hurricane (winds > 119 km/yr) in any given year, as compared to a 12-16-5% probability along Cape Hatteras. While these prcbabilifies are roughly comparable, the area at risk is much more extensive in southern Florida (Birdwell and Daniels, 1991). Florida has the highest shoreline density (coastal population of each state divided by the tidal shorelength) south of New Jersey (Culliton et al., 1990; Table 3). Thus, if these two additional risk factors are included, Florida could rank ahead of the other high risk areas on the East Coast. California, because of the high degree of urbanization, also ranks high in terms of exposed population (Table 3). Table 3. Coastal Population Density per Shoreline Length State or Region Population Population Density/ Density/Shoreline Mile Shoreline Kilometer ATLANTIC COAST New England (av.) 2,306 1,433 New York 6,738 4,188 New Jei-sey 3,998 2,423 Delaware 1,733 1,077 Maryland 1,027 639 Virginia 1,133 704 D - 29 FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE 2365 North Carolina 202 126 South Carolina 303 188. Georgia 158 98 Florida LM WT. AV. GULF COAST Florida 1,064 661 Alabama Soo 497 Mississippi 928 577 Louisiana 352 219 Texas J.U 7 WT. A V. PACIFIC COAST California 6,551 4,071 Oregon 1,140 709 Washington LM 2a WT. A V. IJ21 The Pacific Coast is the least vulnerable, because of its high relief (only 6.8% less than 10 m), resistant lithologies. cliffs, low erosion rates, and moderately low to negative sea level trends. However, the relief and relative resistance to erosion are highly variable, because of the complex tectonic history. Low-lying areas, such as the San Joaquin -Sacramento Delta, east of San Francisco Bay, face potential inundation hazards, if sea level rises. In addition, the agricultural potential of this valley could be adversely. affected by increased salinization due to saltwater intrusion. Although the barrier beaches of Oregon and Washington are for the most part either stable or accreting, at present, these areas risk future inundation and increased erosion. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The differential vulnerability of the conterminous United States to future sea level rise is assessed. Highly vulnerable sections of the U.S. Atlantic Coast (CVl Z- 33.0, "very high risk") include the outer coast of the Delmarva Peninsula, northern Cape Hatteras, parts of New Jersey (Fig. 1), Georgia and South Carolina. The apparently lower vulnerability rating of south Florida could increase if additional risk factors, such as storm frequency and p)pulation diversity were considered. Louisiana and parts of Texa-,. are potentially the most vulnerable shorelines in the United States. In this region, at least five out of the seven variables considered here fah into the "high* to 'very iiigh" risk classes. In particular, Louisiana is characterized by anomolously high rates of relative sea level rise (Fig. 2; Penland and Ramsey, 1990). The state-wide average sea level rise of 8 mm/yr is close to that projected globally for year 2100 due to greenhouse- induced D - 30 2366 COASTAL ZONE '91 climate warming (Warrick and Oerlemans, 1990). Therefore, the present situation in Louisiana anticipates conditions that could 6ccur worldwide along highly vulnerable coastlines in the near future. Although the rugged relief, and erosion- resistant substrate reduce the overall vulnerability rating of the Pacific Coast, the highly variable topography and geologic/geornorphologic setting provide numerous exceptions. Some examples include the low-lying San Joaquin -Sacramento Delta area, some deltas and estuaries in the Puget Sound Lowlands, and the barrier beaches of Oregon and Washington. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by the Atmospheric and Climate Research Division, U.S. Dept. of Energy, under Contract No. DE -AC05 -840R21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. and Subcontract MRETTA 19x -91348V with Columbia University. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. S. Penland, Louisiana Geological Survey and to Dr. R.A. Morton, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, Texas for their helpful suggestions and copies of their papers. Programming assistance was provided by Mr. Z.Y. Zhang. Thanks are also extended to Dr. P.L. Woodworth, Director, Permanent Service for 'Mean Sea Level. Bidston Observatory, England for sending tide-gauge records. to Dr. J. Hubertz. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS for sending Wave Information Study (WIS) data, and to Mr. R. Daniels, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, for providing storm frequency maps. A tape of CEIS shoreline displacement data for the U.S. was obtained from Prof. R. Dolan, U. Virginia, Charlottesville, VA and the tape of ETOP05 digital relief data came from the National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, Colorado Publication No. 3647, Environmental Sci. Div., ORNL. REFERENCES Ando, M. and Balazs, E.I., 1979. Geodetic evidence for aseismic subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate. J. Geophys. Res., 84: 3023-3028. Birdwell, K. and Daniels, R.C., 1991. A Global Qeostraohic Information System Data Base of Storm Occurrences and Other Climatic Phenomenj Affecting Coastal Zones. ORNL/CDIAC-40, NDP-35. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. (In press). Boesch, D.F., Levin, D., Nummedal, D., and Bowles, K., 1983. Subsidence in Coasta I Louisiana: causes, rates. and effects on-wetlands. FWS/OBS- 83/26. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. Interior, 41 p. Corson, W.D., Abel, C.E., Brooks, R.M., Farrar, P.D., Groves, B.J., Pa@ne, J.B., McAreny, D.S. and Tracy, B.A., 1997. Pacific Coast Hindcast Ph-ase III Wave Information, WIS Report 16, USAE, CE, Vicksburg, MS. D - 31 FT7TL;RL SEA 11"I'v1`1 RISE 2163 Culliton, T.J., Warren, M.A., Goodspeed, T.R., Remer, D.G., Blackwell, C.M. and McDonough, J.J. Ill, 1990. 50 Years of Population Chanj@e Along the Nation's Coasts, 1960-201-Q. NOAA Nat'l Ocean Service, Rockville, MD. 4 1 p. Dolan, R., Hayden, B., and May, S., 1983. Erosion of the U.S. shorelines, in CRC HandboQk of Coastal Proces5es and Erosion. P.D. Komar, ed.,. Chap. 14: 285-1.99, CRC. Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. Dolan, R., Anders, F., and Kimball, S., 1985. Coastal erosion and accretion. National Atlas, Dept. Interior, U.S. Geol. Survey, 1: 7,500,000 (map). Dolan, R., Trossbach, S.J. and Buckley, M.K., 1989. Patterns of erosion along the Atlantic Coast, in Barrier Islands: Process and Management. D.K. Stauble, ed.: 17-22, Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, New York, NY. Dolan, R., Trossbach, S., and Buckley, T., 1990. New shoreline erosion data for the mid-Atlantic coast. J Coastal Res., 6(2): 471-477. Emanuel, K.A., 1987. The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate. Nature, 326: 483-485. Gagliano, S.M., Meyer-Arendt, K.J., and Wicker, K.M., 198). Land loss in the Mississippi -deltaic plain. Trans. Gulf Coast Ass. Geol. Soc., 31: 295-300. Gornitz, V., 1990. Vulnerability of the East Coast, U.S.A. to future sea level rise. J. Coastal Research Spec. Issue No. 9: 201-237. Gornitz, V. and Kanciruk; P., 1989. Assessment of global coastal hazards from sea level rise. Coastal Zone '89, Proc. of the 6th Symp. on Coastal and Ocean Management: 1345-1359, Am. Soc. Civ 'il Eng., New York, NY. Gornitz, V. and Lebecleff, S., 1987, Global sea level changes during the past century, in D. Nummedal, O.H. Pilkey, and J.D. Howard, eds., Sea Level Fluctuation and Coastal Evolution. SEPM Spec. Publ. No. 41: 3-16. Gornitz, V. and Seeber, L , 1990. Vertical crustal movements along the East Coast, North America, from his-,orical and late Holocene sea le,@el data. Tectonophysics, 178: 127-150@ Holdahl, S.R., Faucher, F. and Dragert, H., 1989. Contemporary vertical crustal motion in the Pacific Northwest, in Slow Deformation and Transmission of Stress in the Earth. S.C. Cohen. and P. Vanicek, eds., Geophysical Monograph 49: 17-29, Am. Geophys. Union, and Int'l Union Geod. and Geophys. Hubertz, J.M. and Brook s, R.M., 19,89. Gulf of Mexico hindcast wave information, WIS Report 18, U.S. Army Corps Eng., WES, Vicksburg, MS, 420p. Jensen, R.E., 1983. Atlantic Coast hindcast, shallow water, significant wave information. WIS Report 9, U.S. Army Corps Eng., WES, Vicksburg, NIS. Lyles, S.D., Hickman, L.E., Jr. and Debaugh, H.A., Jr., 1987. Sea-level variations fjr Lht_Vni!e.d Stat s. 1855-.1986. NOAA Nat'l Ocean Service, Rockville, MD, 182p. National Ocean Service, 1988. Tide Tables 1988. NOAA, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D.C. D 32 2368 COASTAL ZONE Peltier, W.R., 1996. Deglaciation- induced vertical motion of the North American continent and transient lower mantle rheology. J. Geophys. Res., 91: 9099-91.13. Peltier, W.R. and Tushingham, A.M., 1989. Global sea level rise and the greenhouse effect: Might they be connected? Science, 244: 806-810. Penland, S. and Boyd, R., 1981. Shoreline changes on the Louisiana barrier coast. Oceans, 81: '4109-219. Penland, S., Ramsey, K.E., McBride, R.A., Mestayer, JT. and Westphal, K.A., 1988. Relative sea level rise and delta-plain development in the Terrebonne Parish region. Coastal Geology Tech. Rept. No. 4, Louisiana Geol. Survey, Baton Rouge, LA, 121p. Penland, S. and Ramsey, K.E., 1990. Relative sea-level rise in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico: 1908-1988. J. Coast. Res., 6(2): 323-342. Pethick, J., 1984. An Introduction to Coastal GeomorphoLm. Arnold, London, 260p. Pugh, D.T., Spencer, N.E. and Woodworth, P.L., 1987. Data Holding's of the Permanent Service for Mean 5ta Level. Bidston Observatory, England. Ritchie, W. and Penland, S., 1989. Erosion and washover in Coastal Louisiana, in Barrier Islands: Process and Management, D.K. Stauble, ed.: 253-264, Am. Soc. Civ. Engineers, New York, NY. Sallenger, A.H., Jr., Penland S., Williams, S.J. and Suter, J.R., 1987. Louisiana barrier island erosion study. Coastal sediments '87, Proc. of Conf. on Advances in Understanding Coastal Sed. Processes, New Orleans, LA: 1503-1516, Am. Soc. Civil Eng., New York, NY. Shipman, H., 1990. Vertical land movement in coastal Washington. Washington Geol. Newsletter, 180): 26-33. Warricl,, R. and Oerlern3ns. J., 1990. Sea level rise, in Climate Chzinge - the IPCC S,:ientific Assessment. J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums, eds.: 257-281, Cambridge Uni%erslty Press, Cambridge, U.K. D - 33 ORNL/CDIAC-45 NDP-043A INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 1. T. A. Boden 2. J. B. Cannon 3. J. H. Cushman 4. R. M. Cushman 5. R. C. Daniels 6. M. P. Farrell 7. D. E. Fowler 8. C. W. Gehrs 9. S. G. Hildebrand 10. P. Kanciruk 11. D. E. Reichle 12. F. E. Sharpies 13. D. S. Shriner 14. S. H. Stow 15. R. 1. Van Hook 16. T. W. White 17-216. CDIAC 217. Central Research Library 218-221. ESD Library 222. Information Analysis Library 223-224. Laboratory Records Department 225. Laboratory Records, RC 226. ORNL Patent Office 227. ORNLY-12 Technical Library EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 228. S. S. Alexander, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Geosciences, 50-3 Deike Building, University Park, PA 16802 229. J. H. Allen, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center Code E/GC2, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 230. D. Alvic, EERC/UT, Pellissippi Office, Ste. 100, 10521 Research Drive, Knoxville, TN 37932 231. R. C. Barry, University of Colorado, World Data Center A, Glaciology, CIRES, Campus Box 449, Boulder, CO 80309-0449 232. Cory Berish, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtline, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365 233. Bill Breed, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Protection, PE-63, Forrestal Building, Room 4G-036, Washington, D.C. 20585 234. Doug Canning, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, PV-11, Olympia, WA 98504 235. M. A. Chinnery, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center Code E/GC2, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 8030-3 236. Cameron Coutts, Research Officer, Salamanca Road, Wellington 1, New Zealand 237. Roger C. Dahlman, Global Change Research Program, Environmental Sciences Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research, ER-74, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585 238. Robert Dolan, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Clark Hall, Rm 101, Charlottesville, VA 22903 239. W. Draeger, EROS Data Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD 57198 240. M. Dryer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Space Environmental Lab., ERL/OAR, R/E/SE, 320 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 ' 241. J. Filson, National Earthquake Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, P.O. Box 20546, Denver, CO 80225 242. Jerry F. Franklin, Bloedel Professor of Ecosystem Analysis, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Anderson Hall (AR-10), Seattle, WA 98195 243. David J. Galas, Office of Health and Environmental Research, ER-70, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585 244-248. Vivien Gornitz, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025 249. S. Graves, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters Code SED, 600 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20546 250. J. L. Green, National Space Science Data Center, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 630.2, Greenbelt, MD 20771 251. Thomas J. Gross, Global Change Research Program, Environmental Sciences Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research, ER-74, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585 252. K. D. Hadeen, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NESDIS/NCDC, Federal Building MC E/CC, Asheville, NC 28801 253. R. C. Harriss, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, Science and Engineering Research Building,- University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 0-3824 254. W. J. Hinze, Purdue University, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, West Lafayette, IN 47907 255. G. Y. Jordy, Director, Office of Program Analysis, Office of Energy Research, ER-30, G-226, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585. 256. D. Lauer, EROS Data Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD 57198 257. Jae Lee, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, GIS Laboratory, Bloomington, IN 47405 258. S. Levitus, NOAA/Natiohal Oceanographic Data Center,.1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20235 259. M. S. Loughridge, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center, Code E/GC3, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 260. H. M. McCammon, Acting Deputy Director, Environmental Sciences Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research, ER-74, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585 261. Ashish Mehta, Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, 336 Weil Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 262. R. H. Olsen, Vice President for Research, University of Michigan, Medical Science Building 11, #5605, 1301 East Catherine Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0620 263. J. T. Overpeck, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center, Paleoclimatology Program, 325 Broadway E/EC, Boulder, CO 8030-3 264. Ari Patrinos, Director, Environmental Sciences Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research, ER-74, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585 265. S. Ichtiaque Rasool, IGBP Data and Information System Office, Universite Paris, Tour 26, 4 Etage, Aile 26-16, 4 Place Jussieu, 75230 Paris, Cedex 06, France 266. Bill Renwick, Department of Geography, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056 267. Michael R. Riches, Global Change Research Program, Environmental Sciences Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research, ER-74, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585 268. S. Ruttenberg, Univ. Corporation for Atmospheric Research, CSNET, P. 0. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 269. A- L. Shumbera, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, YVDC-A for Meteorology, National Climatic Data Center, Federal Building MC E/CC, Asheville, NC 28801 270. Peter Stokoe, Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3E2 271. F. Webster, University of Delaware, College of Marine Studies, Lewes, DE 19958 272. F. J. Wobber, Environmental Sciences Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research, ER-74, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585 273. L. W. Wolf, National Research Council, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20418 274. Office of Assistant Manager for Energy Research and Development, U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Field Office, P. 0. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8600 275-284. Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P. 0. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 11101,11111ml ! 3 6668 00003 8309 1 1