7 

Evaluating Coastal Landscape Response to

Sea-Level Rise in the Northeastern United States— 

Approach and Methods

Open-File Report 2014–1252

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Evaluating Coastal Landscape Response to Sea-Level 

Rise in the Northeastern United States—Approach and 

Methods

By Erika E. Lentz, Sawyer R. Stippa, E. Robert Thieler, Nathaniel G. Plant, Dean B. Gesch, and Radley M. Horton

Open-File Report 2014–1252

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit

http://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). 

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may

contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items

must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Lentz, E.E., Stippa, S.R., Thieler, E.R., Plant, N.G., Gesch, D.B., and Horton, R.M., 2015, Evaluating coastal 

landscape response to sea-level rise in the northeastern United States—Approach and methods: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2014–1252, 26 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141252. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Geology Program, the Department of 

the Interior Northeast Climate Science Center, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources 

under the Responses to Climate Change Program. Aaron Turecek of the U.S. Geological Survey assisted with data 

acquisition and preliminary data processing for this project. Dan Bader of Columbia University, was a contributor in 

the sea-level projections. We are grateful to the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative Structured 

Decision Making Workshop participants and coaches for early input on decision-support needs: Andrew Milliken, 

Tim Jones, Kevin Kalasz, Adam Whelchel, Matt Whitbeck, Dorina Frizzera, Bill Hulslander, Brady Mattsson, Erin 

Rivenbark, and Krishna Pacifici. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme's Working Group on 

Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), and we thank the 

climate modeling groups for producing and making available their model output. The U.S. Department of Energy 

Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provided coordinating support and led development of 

software infrastructure for CMIP in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. Neil 

Ganju of the U.S. Geological Survey and Joanna Grand of the University of Massachusetts provided helpful 

reviews of this report.

v 

Contents

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................................iii

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Decision-Support Requirements................................................................................................................................. 2

Characterizations of Sea-Level Rise Effects on the Coast.......................................................................................... 3

Modeling Approach..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Model Inputs ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

Sea-Level Projections ............................................................................................................................................. 8

Vertical Land Movement Estimates......................................................................................................................... 9

Elevation ................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Land Cover ........................................................................................................................................................... 10

Model Predictions ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Adjusted Elevation ................................................................................................................................................ 12

Coastal Response Type Probability ...................................................................................................................... 12

Application of Predictions to Decision Support...................................................................................................... 13

Dataset Access and Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 13

Data Access.......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Metadata............................................................................................................................................................... 14

Data Quality Control.............................................................................................................................................. 14

References Cited...................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figures

1. Map showing coastal extent of regional predictions from Maine to Virginia within the boundary of the North 

Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative ............................................................................................ 19

2. Conceptual diagram showing the structure of the Bayesian network........................................................... 20

3. Diagram showing Bayesian network configuration, including inputs and outputs ........................................ 21

4. Projected sea-level rise in decadal averages............................................................................................... 22

5. Maps showing vertical land movement rates across the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative region from which model inputs were extracted at land-cover point locations ......................... 23

6. Map showing sources and coverage of land elevation data for the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative region ...................................................................................................................................... 24

7. Maps showing geospatial distribution of the land-cover data....................................................................... 25

8. Example 2050 prediction results for Sandy Neck in Barnstable, Massachusetts......................................... 26

Tables

1. The land-cover classes falling within the six generalized land-cover categories used in this study............... 4

2. Likelihood estimates of response for each adjusted elevation range and corresponding land-cover type..... 4

3. Discretized bin ranges for all parameters in the Bayesian network................................................................ 5
vi 

Conversion Factors

International System of Units to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Flow rate

millimeter per year (mm/yr) 0.03937 inch per year (in/yr) 

Datum

Except where otherwise noted in the report, vertical coordinate information is referenced to mean high water, a tidal datum that is derived 

from the average of all high water heights observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch. 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Abbreviations

AR5 International Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report

CCSP U.S. Climate Change Science Program

CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 

CMIP5 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5

CRM Coastal Relief Model [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Geophysical Data Center] 

ESM ecological systems map

GIA glacial isostatic adjustment

GPS Global Positioning System

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LCAD University of Massachusetts Landscape Conservation and Design

MHW mean high water

NALCC North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative

NED National Elevation Dataset

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

RCP representative concentration pathway

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
1 

Evaluating Coastal Landscape Response to Sea-level Rise 

in the Northeastern United States—Approach and 

Methods

By Erika E. Lentz,1 Sawyer R. Stippa,1 E. Robert Thieler,1 Nathaniel G. Plant,1 Dean B. Gesch,1 and Radley M. 

Horton2

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey is examining effects of future sea-level rise on the coastal landscape 

from Maine to Virginia by producing spatially explicit, probabilistic predictions using sea-level 

projections, vertical land movement rates (due to isostacy), elevation data, and land-cover data. Sealevel-rise scenarios used as model inputs are generated by using multiple sources of information, 

including Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models following representative 

concentration pathways 4.5 and 8.5 in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth 

Assessment Report. A Bayesian network is used to develop a predictive coastal response model that 

integrates the sea-level, elevation, and land-cover data with assigned probabilities that account for 

interactions with coastal geomorphology as well as the corresponding ecological and societal systems it 

supports. The effects of sea-level rise are presented as (1) level of landscape submergence and (2) 

coastal response type characterized as either static (that is, inundation) or dynamic (that is, landform or 

landscape change). Results are produced at a spatial scale of 30 meters for four decades (the 2020s, 

2030s, 2050s, and 2080s). The probabilistic predictions can be applied to landscape management 

decisions based on sea-level-rise effects as well as on assessments of the prediction uncertainty and 

need for improved data or fundamental understanding. This report describes the methods used to 

produce predictions, including information on input datasets; the modeling approach; model outputs; 

data-quality-control procedures; and information on how to access the data and metadata online.

Introduction

Climate change effects, such as sea-level rise and changes in coastal storm intensities (Karl and 

others, 2009; Bender and others, 2010; Church and others, 2013; Hartmann and others, 2013), will 

likely result in increased effects on coastal regions (Field and others, 2012; Moser and others, 2014; 

Wong and others, 2014). In particular, the combined effects of climate-driven erosion and inundation 

may reduce habitat area and (or) quality along sandy and (or) wetland shorelines (Craft and others, 

2009; Kirwan and Megonigal, 2014) and make human infrastructure vulnerable (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2013; Horton and others, 2014). These changes are expected to have a broad range of effects

 

1

U.S. Geological Survey 

2

Columbia University 
2 

on natural and built environments, from affecting the breeding, nesting, and feeding behavior of 

threatened shorebird species such as the piping plover (Seavey and others, 2011; Gieder and others, 

2014) to driving investment decisions related to the protection or abandonment of structures 

(McNamara and Keeler, 2013).

Assessments of future effects of sea-level rise on coastal regions vary depending on the 

responses that the assessments are trying to predict. The simplest assessments produce inundation 

scenario maps that show the flooding of existing topography to set increments of elevated sea level 

(Gesch, 2009; Marcy and others, 2011; Weiss and others, 2011). This type of assessment is 

straightforward and useful for understanding which areas are potentially vulnerable to flooding. 

However, coastal processes across short and long timescales (for example, storms, water-level extremes, 

changes to sediment flux) and other factors that drive evolution of the coast are expected to occur as sea 

level rises (Fitzgerald and others, 2008; Gutierrez and others, 2009), and as neither land elevation nor 

land-cover changes are considered, such assessments do not address the possibility of dynamic 

response. Spatially explicit forecasts of the interactions of oceanographic, geomorphic, and ecological 

processes have produced more detailed coastal evolution and vulnerability assessments in response to 

sea-level rise, storms, and other climate factors. However, these forecasts are accompanied by 

substantial and spatially variable uncertainty resulting from errors in initial elevations, limitations in 

understanding of the relevant processes, and uncertainty in the climate-change drivers such as sea-levelrise rates (Thieler and Hammar-Klose, 1999; Craft and others, 2009; Arkema and others, 2013), and the 

integration of these uncertainties with decision making related to climate change is not straightforward. 

This report describes methods used to build, test, and run a sea-level-rise decision-support model 

that considers two coastal response types—one that is driven by inundation and one that also considers 

dynamic evolution of the coastal landscape. The model represents a conceptual framework aimed at 

supporting sound adaptive management and resource allocation strategies for the northeastern United 

States. The application of a structured decision-making process at the outset of this research has helped 

ensure that the results provided by this analysis directly address decision-making needs and are readily 

compatible with parallel habitat-modeling efforts. Through this modeling approach we are able to apply 

prediction uncertainty to identify areas where confidence levels are sufficiently high to inform decision 

making, and those where low confidence levels indicate improvements in data or information are

needed to ensure predictions are accurate. The effects of regional sea-level-rise on the coast are 

predicted for four decades (the 2020s, 2030s, 2050s, and 2080s) at resolutions commensurate with those 

of other decision-support applications. In addition to describing the approach and the model, this report 

describes the input datasets and data-validation procedures, and it includes information on how to access 

the predictions and metadata online. 

Decision-Support Requirements

The purpose of this model is to develop a geospatially explicit understanding of the probability 

of coastal landscape change and land loss in response to sea-level rise. This information will directly 

address decision-support needs elicited through a collaborative effort with the North Atlantic Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative (NALCC) through a structured decision-making process (Bashari and others, 

2009; Ogden and Innes, 2009; Calkin and others, 2011; Martin and others, 2011; Runge and others, 

2011; Marcot and others, 2012) involving regional resource managers and researchers. By requiring 

clear articulation of every stage of the problem to be solved, the application of a structured decisionmaking framework at the outset of a research project helps to ensure that the result generated will 

provide information necessary to tackle the problem identified rather than a result related to but not 
3 

ultimately as useful to the decision-making process as another outcome might be. The coastal response 

information we provide will be used to inform corresponding habitat models as well as to map out 

alternative management strategies to optimize conservation efforts and allocate resources for the 

NALCC region. As such, our study area encompasses the entire NALCC region, which extends from 

Maine to Virginia (fig. 1). 

Several datasets are central for ensuring that our coastal response predictions meet decisionmaking needs. Sea-level projections are produced for time periods that either match those being used by 

collaborators or are common planning horizons for decision makers; vertical land movement rates, 

which vary throughout the region because of isostasy and other factors, are incorporated to make 

relative sea-level scenarios. The use of high-quality elevation data allows the projection of water-level

increases across the landscape to define a general level of submergence. The land-cover base map from

a corresponding habitat effects model is used to ensure that results are produced at a resolution and 

coverage readily usable by collaborators; land-cover information from this map is coupled with 

landscape submergence information to identify environment types likely to dynamically respond rather 

than submerge. The objectives of this assessment, therefore, are to use these datasets (land cover, 

relative sea-level rise, elevation), as inputs to region-wide predictions of the likelihood that a 30-meter 

(m) area will persist, be altered, or become submerged in the future. 

Characterizations of Sea-Level Rise Effects on the Coast

We geospatially resolve the alteration and adaptability of coastal land-cover types to a range of 

sea-level-rise scenarios. Adjusted elevation serves as a primary variable that can be used to describe the 

landscape with respect to the projected sea levels. The adjusted elevation (AE) transforms the current 

[2010s] elevation (E), expected sea-level (SL), and expected geologically or tectonically controlled 

vertical land movement (VLM), as follows: 

AE x t E x SL x t VLM x t uncertainties ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) , ,, =− + +    , (1)

where

x

 indicates dependence on the geospatial location (that is, x

 = latitude and longitude) 

and

t indicates dependence on time. 

Here, the spatial and temporal variability in sea level is presented as projected sea-level scenarios for the 

2020s, 2030s, 2050s, or 2080s obtained from models, and variability in vertical land movement is 

presented as the calculated amount of elevation change caused by subsidence and (or) glacial isostatic 

adjustment based on current rates extrapolated to the times of interest. Uncertainties apply to each of the 

variables on the right side of equation 1. 

In addition to adjusted elevation, the coastal response of the landscape is considered by 

identifying the likelihood that a coastal area will respond or submerge in response to sea-level scenarios. 

This prediction is made by combining adjusted elevation predictions with land-cover information 

(fig. 2). The possibilities for coastal response of the land include morphologic and ecological evolution 

(dynamic response) or inundation (static response) as water levels increase for six general land-cover

types (table 1). There are two forms of dynamic response: one is when the initial land cover type is 

maintained; the other is when there is a transition to another nonsubmerged land cover type. Static 

response, on the other hand, occurs in areas that cannot accommodate or adapt to water-level increases 

and, therefore, become submerged or inundated. 
4 

Table 1. The land-cover classes falling within the six generalized land-cover categories used in this study.

[Each category assumes a similar response rate of the land-cover classes to sea-level-rise effects]

Land cover category Land-cover classes included

Subaqueous Bays, lakes, rivers, marine and estuarine subtidal, and deepwater 

Marsh Salt and freshwater marshes, bogs, swamps, fens, wetland forests, intertidal aquatic beds and reefs

Beach Dune and swale/sandy beach (including bluffs), marine and estuarine intertidal unconsolidated shore 

Rocky Rocky outcrops and shores, marine and estuarine intertidal rock bottom

Forest Forests, woodlands, grasslands, agricultural, shrublands

Developed All National Land Cover Dataset developed classes (open space, low, medium, and high density), roads, active and 

abandoned railroad tracks

Coastal response predictions include prediction probabilities specific to different land cover

types (table 1); including prediction probabilities allows us to address the varying degrees of complexity 

and understanding regarding the effects of sea-level rise across the landscape. The coastal response is 

determined by coupling adjusted elevation predictions with estimated probabilities of land-cover-type

adaptation for each of 30 adjusted elevation and land cover scenarios (table 2). The probability of a 

dynamic response to adjusted elevation was specified for each combination of five discretized adjusted 

elevation levels (-12 to < -1, -1 to < 0, 0 to 1, >1 to 5, and > 5 to 10 m) and six land-cover categories 

(table 1). The probability of an inundation response is the dynamic response probability subtracted from 

1. The resulting transition boundary table (table 2) shows these probabilities. A higher level of 

confidence for one outcome over the other is expressed by assigning a higher likelihood percentage to 

the former; where uncertainty in the two outcomes was greatest, each response type was given an equal 

likelihood of occurrence. The following sections describe in detail our modeling approach and how 

likelihoods were estimated for each coastal response scenario.

Table 2. Likelihood estimates of response for each adjusted elevation range and corresponding land-cover type.

[References are those associated with sea-level threshold rates used to inform probabilities] 

Land cover type Coastal reponse by adjusted elevation, in meters1References -12 to -1 -1 to 0 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10

Subaqueous 0.90 | 0.10 0.70 | 0.30 0.50 | 0.50 0.10 | 0.90 x | x Niederoda and others (1984); Swift and others (1985); Wright 

and others (1991, 1994); Orth and others (2006)

Rocky 0.05 | 0.95 0.10 | 0.90 0.50 | 0.50 0.90 | 0.10 x | x Thieler and Hammar-Klose (1999)

Marsh 0.25 | 0.75 0.45 | 0.55 0.65 | 0.35 0.90 | 0.10 x | x Morris and others (2002); Kirwan and others (2007); Cahoon 

and others (2009); Kirwan and others (2010); and Kirwan 

and Megonigal (2013)

Beach 0.40 | 0.60 0.85 | 0.15 0.95 | 0.05 1.00 | 0.00 1.00 | 0.00 Fitzgerald and others (2008); Cahoon and others (2009);

Gutierrez and others (2009)

Forest 0.10 | 0.90 0.45 | 0.55 0.50 | 0.50 0.75 | 0.25 x | x Clark (1986); Brinson and others (1995); Robichaud and 

Begin (1997); Williams and others (1999)

Developed 0.05 | 0.95 0.25 | 0.75 0.50 | 0.50 0.75 | 0.25 x | x McNamara and Werner (2008); McNamara and others (2011);

McNamara and Keeler (2013)

1

Response is shown as dynamic | static by land cover type and adjusted elevation range. x denotes the elevation range was not included for 

the specified land cover type. 

Modeling Approach

Bayesian networks generate robust probabilistic predictions. Assigning a probability of 

occurrence to a predicted outcome makes uncertainty easier for the user to assess. A number of coastal 

Bayesian network applications have been demonstrated to date, including wave predictions (Plant and 

Holland, 2011), sea-cliff erosion (Hapke and Plant, 2011), long-term shoreline change (Gutierrez and 

others, 2011), dune erosion (Plant and Stockdon, 2012), groundwater response to sea-level rise (Fienen 

and others, 2013; Masterson and others, 2013), and overwash response (Plant and others, 2014). The 

conceptual model is used to guide the Bayesian network design (fig. 2) that takes the E, SL, VLM, and 

LC input and predicts AE and CR. 
5 

We use the following equations based on Bayes’ theorem (Bayes, 1763) to resolve the two 

probabilistic outputs: 

 P (AEi|[E, SL, VLM]j) = P([E, SL, VLM]j|AEi) × P(AEi) / P([E, SL, VLM]j) (2A) 

P (CRi|[LC, AE]j) = P([LC, AE]j |CRi) × P(CRi) / P([LC, AE]j) (2B) 

The left side of the equation is the likelihood (posterior probability) of a particular coastal response, 

either AE or CR given a particular set of inputs. The inputs and outputs are allowed to take on a finite 

number of discrete states (fig. 3; table 3), and equation 2 evaluates the likelihood of the ith output state 

(and does so for all possibilities) given inputs extracted from the jth spatial location. The particular 

response might include the joint occurrence of a specific sea-level projection and a specific adjusted 

elevation range or prediction of coastal response type. The first term on the right side of the equations—

for example, P([LC, AE]j |CRi)—is the likelihood of the observation if the response (in this case, CR) is 

known. That is, it is the probability of a particular adjusted elevation range or coastal response type 

integrated over all scenarios. The next term—for example, P(CRi)—is the prior probability, or what is 

known about the parameter before new or additional information is available, including uncertainty. The 

denominator is a normalization factor to account for the likelihood of the observations. 

Table 3. Discretized bin ranges for all parameters in the Bayesian network.

Model Parameter Discretized Bin Ranges

Projected sea-level (meters) 0 to 0.25; > 0.25 to 0.5; > 0.5 to 0.75; > 0.75 to 2

Vertical land movement (meters) -0.3 to < 0; 0 to 0.1; > 0.1 to 0.3

Elevation (meters) -10 to < -1; -1 to < 0; 0 to 1; > 1 to 5; > 5 to 10

Land cover1 Subaqueous; marsh; beach; rocky; forest; developed

Adjusted elevation (meters) -12 to < -1; -1 to < 0; 0 to 1; > 1 to 5; > 5 to 10

Coastal response type Dynamic; static

1

Detail on the land classes that fall into these general land-cover categories can be found in table 1. 

The Bayesian network was constructed and trained by using Netica software (Norsys Software 

Corp., version 5.12, 1992–2013, http://www.netica.com/). Nodes in the Bayesian network (fig. 3) show 

input parameters (left) and forecasts (right); probability distributions in each box show the prior 

probability, or the probability of data falling within one of the specified ranges (discrete bins, table 3) 

given the full distribution of the regional data. Because sea level and vertical land movement bin ranges 

are time-step dependent, prior probabilities for these two inputs show uniform distributions; because our 

approach is scenario based, setting the prior probabilities in this way allows an equally likely chance of 

any of these projections occurring if a time step is not specified. Correlations among nodes are 

represented by arrows between them. Because we are forecasting a future state for which observations 

do not exist, three different methods to train the BN are applied on the basis of the following: (1) a 

mathematically defined relation of the input variables with one another (equation 1), used to compute 

adjusted elevation predictions; (2) the relation between elevation and land cover as based on data-input 

locations; and (3) probability assignments to inform CR predictions. More information on these training 

methods is described in the following section and in the section entitled Land Cover. 

Assigning coastal response type probabilities.—Coastal response probabilities (table 2) are 

assigned based on sea-level-rise induced change thresholds specific to land cover categories and used to 

train the Bayesian network on the relationship between land cover and adjusted elevation. For each time 

step, the sea-level projections included in our model increase, a point that becomes important when sealevel rates in the published literature are compared with the adjusted elevation outcomes presented in 

the discussion that follows. Therefore, an inherent assumption in the estimates of response-type

probability for the 30 scenarios is that larger time steps (2010s to 2050s or 2080s) correspond to the 

lowest adjusted elevation ranges (greatest levels of submergence), whereas the middle and highest 
6 

elevation ranges were more likely to correspond to smaller time increments (2010s to 2020s or 2030s). 

Published threshold values of relative sea-level rise for marshes, beaches, and to some degree forests 

were incorporated by converting sea-level-rise rates to sea levels, adding estimates of vertical land 

movement, comparing them with the adjusted elevation estimates (equation 1), and assigning a 

corresponding probability of dynamic response. For other land-cover categories, documentation of 

threshold rates can be sparse, and the physical response to sea-level rise in many cases is 

straightforward; therefore, we assigned probabilities to fill the knowledge gap following research that 

has demonstrated the use of expert opinion as a means of quantifying a parameter or substituting outputs 

from highly uncertain models (for example, Bamber and Aspinall, 2013). 

A number of studies have estimated threshold values for marsh adaptability to sea-level

increases. Threshold sea-level-rise rates for the conversion of wetlands to subtidal environments have 

been modeled as a function of suspended-sediment concentrations and spring tidal ranges (Kirwan and 

others, 2010); predictions specific to geomorphic setting (throughout the mid-Atlantic coastal region) 

have included additional factors such as existing rates of relative sea level and wetland accretion, which 

were then evaluated for likelihood of open-water conversion at current [2010s] as well as increased sealevel-rise rates (Cahoon and others, 2009). An ensemble of five wetland adaptation models identifies 

threshold sea-level-rise rates for marshes globally (Kirwan and others, 2010). Along the largely 

microtidal northeastern coast under midrange sediment concentrations, one of these models shows 

threshold sea-level rates in the 8- to 20-millimeter per year (mm/yr) range, which equates to a possible 

range of water-level increases of 0.4 to 0.8 m by 2050 and 0.7 to 1.4 m by 2080 (from 2010). Similarly, 

results from an expert panel convened as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 

found that with an increase of 7 mm/yr in the sea-level-rise rate (which, when combined with the current 

[2010s] rate of 3 to 4 mm/yr, falls within the rate predicted by the ensemble models), approximately 

80 percent of marshes would be converted to open water (Cahoon and others, 2009). These values 

compare well with the likelihoods estimated for this scenario; under the lowest adjusted elevation bin (-

1 to -12 m), a 75-percent likelihood is estimated that the threshold condition would be reached (response 

would be static) and marshes would be converted to open water. An estimated 25-percent dynamic 

response reflects the uncertainty in this bin range, which leaves open the possibility that the variability 

of increases in sea-level rate, suspended-sediment concentrations, vertical accretion rate, and (or) tidal 

range in the area can combine in such a manner that in some instances marshes are in fact able to 

accommodate such water-level increases.

Higher adjusted elevations predicted by our model showed a greater chance for dynamic 

response over that of a static response in marsh environments; this can be interpreted as an increasing 

confidence in marsh adaptability at lower sea-level-rise rates. Approximately two-thirds of the marsh 

ensemble models show threshold sea-level rates in the 2–8-mm/yr range (Kirwin and others, 2010), 

which equates to a maximum of 0.4 m by 2050 and 0.6 m by 2080. Similarly, the CCSP expert panel 

found a nearly 50-percent likelihood that at a 2-mm/yr increase in the sea-level-rise rate (which when 

combined with the existing rate of 3–4 mm/yr would correlate with the above listed ensemble model 

range), marshes in the mid-Atlantic region would be converted to open water (Cahoon and others, 

2009). To relate this finding to likelihood estimates in the coastal response model, we estimate a higher 

likelihood of marsh adaptability at lower elevation ranges (65 percent for adjusted elevation of 0 to 1 as 

opposed to 45 percent for adjusted elevation of -1 to 0 m), although these predictions reflect 

considerable uncertainty. Factors such as the rate of sea-level rise, the suspended-sediment 

concentration, and the vertical accretion rate, or some combination of these factors, will mean the 

difference between marsh survival and marsh conversion, but variability and uncertainty among these 

factors makes predicting the marsh response difficult. At the highest adjusted elevation ranges (1 to 
7 

5 m), it is very likely (90-percent probability of dynamic response) that a marsh in a given location 

would be able to adapt to water-level increases to remain a marsh; this agrees well with the CCSP expert 

panel results, in which experts estimated, at the current [2010s] sea-level-rise rate, an 11-percent

likelihood of conversion to open-water conditions. 

Like marshes, beaches are expected to dynamically adapt to some sea-level increases, 

determined in large part by the frequency of storm events, availability of sediment, and rate of sea-level

rise. Where coastal sediment resources are insufficient, barrier beaches will thin, leaving them more 

vulnerable to overwash, segmentation through breaching, and a consequent further loss of sediment 

through inlet and ebb tidal delta formation (Fitzgerald and others, 2008). Because of the limited 

information available on threshold values for beach conversion, particularly threshold values that are 

regionally consistent, we draw on results from a second expert panel of 13 coastal scientists that 

convened—as part of the CCSP—to identify threshold sea-level-rise rates for spits, headlands, and 

wave-dominated barrier islands for the mid-Atlantic coast (Gutierrez and others, 2009). CCSP panel 

findings were provided as the likelihoods of specific outcomes at the same sea-level-rise scenarios as 

used for marshes (the current [2010s] rate; the current rate +2 mm/yr; the current rate +7 mm/yr). At the 

highest rate (current +7 mm/yr, which as shown with marshes previously, corresponds most directly to 

our adjusted elevation bin of –1 to –12 m), the CCSP panel estimated that threshold conditions were 

likely (probability 68 percent) to be reached for spits and that it was very likely (probability 90 percent) 

that potential for threshold behavior would increase for wave-dominated barriers; this corresponds well 

with the estimated probability of about 60-percent probability (table 2) of static response for beaches, 

which suggests threshold exceedance is more likely than not but also reflects considerable uncertainty in 

the response. In all other scenarios, the CCSP panel was virtually certain (99 percent) that 

morphological changes caused by erosion, overwash, and inlet formation would be found on spits and 

wave-dominated barriers and that headlands would experience increased erosion; comparatively, we see 

an increasing likelihood of dynamic response estimated in the model (85 percent; 95 percent; and 

100 percent corresponding to bin elevation increases), suggesting the highest areas are the least likely to 

transition to another land class category and that lower areas are more likely to transition. Although our 

coastal response model is only based on the likelihood of vertical change per cell and does not include 

an element of landward translation, we see that translation as driven by these processes for beaches is 

implied in the increasing dynamic certainty observed in the predictions of coastal response type. 

Threshold values for the modeled land-cover conversion of the remaining types have not been 

explicitly estimated by the existing literature; therefore, the approach presented here demonstrates how a 

probabilistic model can be applied to constrain and parse prediction uncertainty. Forests are on the 

whole expected to have a slow adaptability response to sea-level increases; published literature 

documents that it is the coupling of sea-level increases with additional stressors such as episodic 

events—fire, wind from severe storms, land-use change—that damage the mature canopy (Clark, 1986; 

Brinson and others, 1995; Robichaud and Begin, 1997; Kirwin and others, 2007) and more gradual 

groundwater inundation that limits recruitment failure and drives forest erosion, flooding, or conversion 

into marsh (Robichaud and Begin, 1997; Williams and others, 1999; Kirwin and others, 2007). The 

probabilities estimated for the coastal response type incorporated in the model reflects this 

understanding and the accompanying uncertainty; end-member adjusted elevations show a strong 

likelihood (90 percent) of forest submergence (static response) in the range of -12 to -1 m, whereas there 

is a some likelihood or at least potential for forest adaptation (dynamic response) in the 1- to 5-m 

elevation range (75 percent). Middle-range adjusted elevations (-1 to 0 and 0 to 1 m) show responsetype predictions of near total uncertainty (about 50 percent) where unknowns, such as the sea-level-rise

rate and location specific stressors, make more definitive predictions impossible at this elevation range.
8 

The remaining land-cover categories have response types that are straightforward to forecast on 

the basis of the limited mobility of the substrates from which they are composed or of their built 

environments. Rocky categories by definition are composed of hard material and therefore unable to 

adapt to sea-level increases; we see near certain submergence predictions in the two lower elevation 

ranges, with near certain dynamic response (no submergence, therefore no change in land-cover class) 

in the elevation ranges above mean high water (MHW; table 1). Developed areas are by definition 

composed of 50- to 100-percent impermeable material (Fry and others, 2011) and, in addition to 

flooding from the shore, are vulnerable to groundwater inundation from rising water tables (Rotzoll and 

Fletcher, 2012). Further uncertainties include the likelihood, spatial extent, and frequency of human 

modifications, such as beach replenishment, which depend heavily on socioeconomic factors and the 

rate of coastal change in response to storms and sea-level rise in a given area (McNamara and others, 

2011). In elevations that fall below the adjusted mean sea level, our predictions are near certain of 

submergence or flooding (probability 95 and 75 percent). At elevations above the adjusted MHW (or 

adjusted elevation), uncertainty increases, reflecting the possibility that human modifications to 

vulnerable areas at very low elevations can prompt or permit adaptation or mitigation, depending upon 

the rate at which sea level rises. In the 0- to 1-m adjusted elevation range, a largely uncertain response is 

estimated (50 percent) because of an unknown human-response element, which is an important factor in 

these locales. The highest adjusted elevation level shows a moderate likelihood of dynamic response 

(75 percent). This estimate reflects the knowledge that at sufficient elevations, the area is not at risk of 

flooding, has the potential for human response and (or) coastal modifications that can be employed more 

effectively than at lower elevations, can adapt under a slower sea-level-rise scenario, or some 

combination thereof. 

The coastal response type estimates for the subaqueous category indicate the adaptability of the 

submerged environment type and (or) substrate to sea-level scenarios. In deepwater areas (-12 to -1 m), 

there is high confidence that water-level increases were likely to result in minimal overall change to the 

environment type or substrate (90-percent dynamic) (Wright and others, 1994). At moderate elevations, 

shallow subaqueous/subaerial environments are more likely to be sensitive to water-level increases 

caused by influences from waves, tides, sediment transport and resuspension, and sunlight attenuation 

(among other influences) than deeper environments (Niederoda and others, 1984; Swift and others, 

1985; Wright and others, 1991; Orth and others, 2006). Therefore a decreasing dynamic response 

likelihood (70 percent; 50 percent; and 10 percent) was estimated at elevations just below (-1 to 0 m), at 

(0 to 1 m), or slightly above (1 to 5 m) the adjusted MHW. These areas were read as increasingly unable 

to adapt and therefore estimated as likely to become submerged.

Model Inputs

The descriptions of the input datasets used in the Bayesian network explain both the source of 

the data and how they were treated to fit the Bayesian network model. This treatment includes assigning 

continuous variables to discrete bins (table 3) whose units are elevation measures in meters (E, SL, 

VLM, AE). Each of the variables includes an uncertainty estimate that reflects the uncertainties in

measurement (E, VLM), analysis (SL, VLM, CR), and the propagation of these uncertainties (AE, CR).

Sea-Level Projections

Global sea-level projections generated by using representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 

scenarios for the 2014 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) 

are used as model inputs. Projections use RCP scenarios 4.5 and 8.5. Three components comprise sea-
9 

level projections: those related to oceans (both local ocean height and global thermal expansion); 

icemelt; and global land water storage. Of these components, local ocean height and global thermal 

expansion estimates are generated from 24 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) 

models (Taylor and others, 2012), which provided simulations to AR5; local ocean heights are estimated 

by regridding global estimates to a 1- by 1-degree grid. Icemelt from the Greenland Ice Sheet and the 

two Antarctic Ice Sheets was estimated on the basis of the expert elicitation of Bamber and Aspinall 

(2013); the contributions of the glaciers and ice caps was estimated on the basis of Marzion and others 

(2012) and Radić and others (2013). For the ice-loss terms, no local fingerprints associated with 

gravitational, isostatic, and rotational effects resulting from ice-mass loss were included. Components of 

land water storage were incorporated into the model on the basis of Church and others (2013). For each 

of these three components of sea-level change, set percentiles (10th, 25th–75th, and 90th) of the 

distribution were estimated, and these percentiles were used to represent sea-level uncertainty. The sum 

of all components at each percentile is assumed to give the aggregate sea-level-rise projection. This 

method does not take into account potential correlation among components. For these reasons and 

others, these sea-level-rise projections should be thought of as scenarios, not fully probabilistic 

predictions. Decadal projections for the 2020s, 2030s, 2050s, and 2080s were generated by averaging 

across 10-year intervals and subtracting average values for 2000 to 2004. Time can be inferred from the 

sea-level bins in the Bayesian network; the extents of the four bin ranges correspond to the high (75th 

to 90th) water-level projections for a specific time step (figs. 3, 4; table 3).

Vertical Land Movement Estimates

Vertical land movement rates (caused largely by glacial subsidence and rebound) are 

incorporated with the sea-level projections by using vertical velocities measured from Global 

Positioning System (GPS) data (Sella and others, 2007) and estimated by using tide station records 

(Zervas and others, 2013), as shown in figure 5. Vertical motion was determined by using interpolated 

grids generated from a dataset of 362 continuously recording GPS devices throughout North America 

that were recently processed to account for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). Additional estimates 

generated by using a methodology that extracts oceanographic effects from relative sea-level rates to 

determine local vertical land movement rates from records of long-range tide stations were incorporated 

at 69 coastal locations (Zervas and others, 2013). Uncertainties provided for each dataset (specific to 

each station at 1 sigma) were averaged to provide an overall vertical land movement 1 sigma uncertainty 

estimate of 1.6 mm/yr. For integration with other inputs, vertical land movement rates were converted to 

meters; rates were multiplied by the time elapsed since 2010 to keep time increments decadal. Bin 

ranges correspond with moderate (0 to 0.1 m) and more extreme levels (-0.3 to < 0; > 0.1 to 0.3 m) of 

GIA as a product of the estimated rate and time. Measurement uncertainty for vertical land movement 

parameters is also reflected in bin divisions (fig. 3; table 3) in that bin boundary values are not more 

resolved than the estimated dataset uncertainty.

Elevation

Topographic data were acquired from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) (Gesch, 2007). 

Complete regional coverage is available at 1/3 arc-second (about 9-m cells), whereas partial coverage at 

higher resolution (1/9 arc-second; about 3-m cells) is also available. The 1/3-arc-second data come from 

a combination of topographic maps, aerial photos, and lidar, whereas the high-resolution data in the 1/9-

arc-second NED are from bare-earth lidar datasets (Gesch, 2007). Both are referenced to the North 
10 

American Vertical Datum of 1988. Lidar data in the NED were collected by a variety of Federal, State, 

and local partners between 2001 and 2011. 

Bathymetric data were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Geophysical Data Center’s Coastal Relief Model (CRM). These data are available at a 3-arcsecond (about 90-meter) resolution and are produced by using hydrographic soundings data from the 

National Ocean Service and a number of academic institutions (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2014). CRM data are used where NED data are unavailable for submerged areas such as 

bays, estuaries, and open ocean coasts.

We used the highest resolution elevation data available to discern elevation changes along lowlying coastal topography at increments small enough to correspond with 21st-century sea-level-rise rates 

between 2010 (our start date) and 2080. This means that the 1/9-arc-second data from the NED are used 

where available, supplemented by the 1/3-arc-second NED data where gaps in the 1/9 coverage exist, 

and CRM data are used where NED data are unavailable (fig. 6). Following Gesch (2009), uncertainties 

(root mean square error) for the 1/9- and 1/3-arc-second NED data are estimated at 0.42 m and 1.25 m. 

The topographic datasets were converted from the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 to MHW by 

using VDatum conversion grids at 6-arc-second resolution as supplied by VDatum (National Ocean 

Service, 2012). Vertical datum shifts to MHW were propagated landward through Euclidean allocation, 

which smooths vertical ledges at edges of VDatum zones. Coastal Relief Model (CRM) DEM data were 

not vertically referenced to MHW, as a significant portion of the CRM DEM (about 80 percent) 

remained within the same elevation range when applying MHW conversion (because the model uses 

elevation ranges instead of discrete values). Furthermore, CRM vertical datum conversion to MHW did 

not cover the full extent of the study area (about 9 percent loss) and an additional percentage (about 10 

percent) of the MHW conversion exceeded the vertical accuracy (± 1.0 m). Therefore the CRM remain 

primarily referenced to MLW with a vertical accuracy of ± 1.0 m (National Ocean Service, 2012). 

In addition to providing essential input information, the elevation data were used to define the 

extent of the coastal zone for the Bayesian network. Elevation data extend seaward to -10 m (referenced 

to mean low water), which generally corresponds to the base of the open Atlantic Ocean shoreface in the 

study area, along and across which the exchange of sediment between subaerial and subaqueous 

environments occurs (Swift and others, 1985; Wright and others, 1994). The landward extent of the data 

is generally bounded by the 5-m elevation contour (above MHW), though in some cases land elevations 

above 5 m have been included to provide continuous coverage of features with a high likelihood of 

dynamic response. Bluffs, dunes, and sand beach areas (or areas coded as “beach” as described in the 

land-cover section that follows) and within an elevation range of 5 to 10 m were therefore included in 

addition to the land areas at 5 m or below. Bin ranges (table 3) encompass these greater elevation 

ranges, where effects to the ecosystem and (or) geomorphology are less likely, and more moderate 

ranges (–1 to 0 and 0 to 1 m), where sea-level projections are likely to have greatest chance of 

exceeding sea-level thresholds for various environment types and therefore are important to classify for 

decision support. 

Land Cover

Land-cover information was obtained from the Ecological Systems Map (ESM) Plus (ESMplus) 

dataset provided by the University of Massachusetts Landscape Conservation and Design (LCAD) 

model (http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/dsl/dsl.html). ESMplus uses The Nature Conservancy 

(TNC) Northeast Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Classification System of 2010 

(http://rcngrants.org/content/creation-regional-habitat-cover-maps-application-northeast-terrestrialhabitat) as a base. Changes or additions to the TNC base map were incorporated from additional 
11 

datasets and information deemed important to the LCAD model. LCAD documents the following 

changes made to ESM to generate ESMplus:

• Road and train track misalignment issues were corrected (source: Open Street Map roads, at 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/51.509/-7.778); 

• Estuarine and marine classes were used to replace ESM estuarine classes (source: National 

Wetlands Inventory, 2013, at http://www.fws.gov/Wetlands/NWI/index.html);

• Five development and two agricultural classes were used to replace ESM single-developed and 

agriculture classes by replacing those cells in the ESM (source: National Land Cover Dataset, 

2011, at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php); 

• High-resolution streams and road-stream crossings were empirically derived (sources: National 

Hydrography Dataset (NHD) at http://nhd.usgs.gov/; high-resolution vector streams; Open Street 

Map vector roads data at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/51.509/-7.778); and

• Dam data originated from TNC's Northeast Aquatic Connectivity project and included data 

compiled from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Inventory of Dams 

(http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:12:) and individual States. These data were modified 

through alignment with the NHD 1:24,000 high-resolution streams by using a combination of 

the reach code, distance to stream, and visual inspection. 

Uncertainty is a known and unquantified element of the land-cover dataset. Error, for which 

more robust calculation is in progress (Jin and others, 2013), is present in some of the base maps, and 

the integration of additional datasets listed with the base layers to create ESMplus will compound this 

error. Because little information is available on the land-cover-classification error, we have not assigned 

an uncertainty value to the dataset at this time. This potentially limits our model because of

misclassification of parts of the landscape that could affect prediction outcomes. Despite this limitation, 

we do not anticipate that land-cover uncertainty, when available, will grossly alter our predictions. The 

Bayesian network is designed in such a way that the important relationships among the input parameters 

are captured and should be preserved even with the addition of land-cover uncertainty. This is 

particularly true because of the generalization of the land-cover information for modeling purposes. As 

error calculations and analyses are completed for this dataset, an uncertainty value can easily be 

incorporated in the Bayesian network and predictions correspondingly updated. 

For integration with the Bayesian network model, land-cover classes from ESMplus were 

assigned to generalized land-cover categories. Of the 197 land-cover classes in ESMplus, land-cover

categories with distinctive responses to sea-level-rise effects—morphologic, ecologic, or caused by

human influence—were established to assess the likelihood of land loss. Each category therefore 

anticipates a similar response and rate of response to sea-level-rise effects among the land-cover classes 

within them. The six categories and general summaries of the land-cover types in them are provided in 

table 2; their distribution and a comparison of them with the original ESMplus categories is shown in 

figure 7. To ensure seamless integration with habitat models being concurrently developed, the landcover data at 30-meter resolution were converted to point values and used to extract values from sealevel, vertical land movement, and elevation layers. The Bayesian network was trained on the 

relationship between land cover and elevation by using the colocated input information from both 

datasets at each point; the relationship established between these two inputs allows us to observe how 

elevation constrains the distribution of land-cover types throughout the region and to parse uncertainties 

in both adjusted elevation and coastal response according to land cover. 
12 

Model Predictions

Similarly to input datasets, the predicted variables (AE and CR) were discretized into five finite 

elevation ranges (adjusted elevation) and two outcome scenarios (coastal response). An example of the 

predicted outputs is shown in figure 8. Additional detail on the data outputs, including processing steps 

to produce predictions and their geospatial displays, can be found in the metadata for this report (Lentz, 

2015; http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F73J3B0B).

Adjusted Elevation

Predictions of adjusted elevations with respect to projected MHW levels were discretized into 

five possible ranges: –12 to <–1 m; –1 to <0 m; 0 to 1 m; >1 to 5 m; and >5 to 10 m. Bin ranges 

encapsulate both end members (submerged or at elevations that exceed sea level projections and remain

dry) as well as moderate elevation ranges where a variety of sea-level-rise effects are more likely to be 

observed. Monte Carlo simulations are run by using the 60 unique scenarios determined by 

equation 1—because of discretization of the input data with four sea-level bins, three vertical land 

movement bins, and five elevation bins—which in turn train the Bayesian network to make region-wide 

forecasts of adjusted elevation in lieu of observational data. Because there are a finite number of unique 

scenarios, probabilities assigned by the Bayesian network inherently incorporate correlations among 

inputs, in that scenarios seen most frequently are predicted with greater confidence than are other, less 

common scenarios. This category has two outputs: the first shows the most probable elevation range for 

a given time step (adjusted elevation); the second shows the probability that an observation at that range 

will be observed. Adjusted elevation results (fig. 8B) show only the prediction that is most likely to 

occur (the bin that has the highest probability associated with it). Adjusted elevation probability rasters 

(fig. 8C) indicate the level of confidence in the adjusted elevation prediction; higher probabilities

indicate greater certainty, whereas lower probabilities indicate greater uncertainty. Because these 

predictions are generated on the basis of data values and a fixed relationship among them (equation 1), 

uncertainty in adjusted elevation predictions is attributable to projected sea levels and data quality rather 

than limited knowledge or understanding of response. By identifying where data quality is limited, such 

information can be used by decision makers to determine where future data-acquisition efforts might be 

focused. Sea-level projections also reflect increasing uncertainty through time, which can be similarly 

used to establish planning horizons for decision support. 

Coastal Response Type Probability

Predictions of coastal response type (equation 2B) are determined by coupling adjusted elevation

predictions with estimated probabilities of land-cover-type survival for each of the 30 coastal response

scenarios (table 1). The predictions include the underlying uncertainty associated with the coastal 

response expert knowledge (table 2), as well as the propagated uncertainty in the adjusted elevation. An 

example of a coastal response prediction result is shown in figure 8D. Dark colors show areas where the 

predicted coastal response has highest confidence; beige areas show areas where uncertainty is greatest. 

Unlike the adjusted elevation, uncertainty in this dataset can either be a result of data quality and sealevel projections, or, as explained earlier, an indication of limited knowledge or understanding about the 

processes and (or) response of a certain land cover to sea-level rise. In addition to adjusted elevation, 

therefore, the uncertainty in these predictions can be used to highlight where knowledge of the physical 

process or response of a certain environment type may be limited and, consequently, where and in 

which environment types future efforts or research needs may be greatest.
13 

Application of Predictions to Decision Support

As defined in the structured decision-making process, the optimization of resources and 

conservation efforts for the NALCC is a two-part decision problem requiring (1) the identification of 

possible locations of current [2010s] and future land area that provide important habitat or ecosystems 

services and (2) an understanding of how these areas may fare under a variety of sea-level rise 

scenarios. Adjusted elevation and coastal response predictions address the latter part of this problem by 

providing decision makers critical information in terms of the future adaptability and corresponding 

uncertainty of the landscape to such scenarios. Understanding not only where land is likely to submerge 

but also the likelihood that the landscape can cope with that change at the output resolution provided 

can help decision makers to identify areas of resiliency and areas that may provide for transition and 

(or) buffering from sea-level-rise effects on a variety of spatial scales. Areas of considerable response 

uncertainty can also help to guide decision-making efforts in determining where data-collection efforts 

and research to improve knowledge on processes and (or) response might be focused, or, alternatively, 

where limited resources might be better used elsewhere. Coupled with corresponding habitat and 

ecosystem modeling efforts, such information can be used to address the first part of this problem, 

identifying locations of important habitat or ecosystems services, to locate prime areas for conservation. 

With this information, decision makers can evaluate where land may need to be acquired or managed 

differently, now or in the future, to ensure sound implementation of efforts and resources throughout the 

region. 

Dataset Access and Assessment

Three grids showing adjusted elevation ranges (fig. 8B), their associated probabilities (PAE; 

fig. 8C), and probability estimates of coastal response type (fig. 8D) have been produced in ArcGIS 

raster format for each of the four prediction decades (the 2020s, 2030s, 2050s, and 2080s). Adjusted 

elevation rasters display the most probable range as determined by the Bayesian network, and the 

corresponding probability raster shows the likelihood of observing that outcome. Coastal response 

rasters show the probability of dynamic response; because the forecast is binary, the corresponding 

static response can be determined as the dynamic response probability shown subtracted from 1. 

Probability of 0.5 percent indicates total uncertainty in the CR prediction, meaning a static or dynamic 

response is deemed equally likely. Results span the coastal zone from elevations 10 m inland to -10 m 

offshore at a 30-m resolution matching that of the land-cover dataset. 

Data Access

Predictions of the coastal landscape response to sea-level rise are available as part of this report 

(Lentz, 2015; http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F73J3B0B). The data are assembled by year and correspond to 

the northeastern region of the United States as delineated by U.S. Department of the Interior Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives (fig. 1; http://lccnetwork.org/find-an-lcc ). The prediction data can also be 

accessed through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal Landscape Response to Sea-Level Rise 

Assessment project page (http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/coastal_response/). These 

predictions can be updated as new and improved input data become available for the region. 
14 

Metadata

Federal Geographic Data Committee-compliant metadata provided with each raster include 

detailed information on the model and probability predictions for use in interpreting the data contained 

within that file. The metadata, which vary by time step, include descriptions of the model (Bayesian 

network), the input data used, the time period over which the outputs were calculated, the spatial and 

temporal resolution of the outputs, and specific process steps and model parameters that would be 

necessary to recreate the results. Metadata also include any references, such as peer reviewed 

publications, reports, or Web sites that provide additional information on the data inputs, models and 

their parameterizations.

Data Quality Control

Quality-control checks are performed as part of model review, and errors are rectified before 

predictions are posted online. The following protocols are used to ensure data quality: 

• Model input data are accessed directly from collaborators and published literature online; 

• Data are extracted at the centroid of each land-cover cell from the highest resolution dataset 

available (where 1/9- and 1/3-arc-second elevation (NED) data are both available, 1/9-arcsecond data are selected; where NED and CRM data are available, NED data are used);

• Data processing steps are documented and recorded; 

• Model predictions (outputs) are validated against locations where coastal response 

characterization is well understood as available and appropriate;

• Output rasters (adjusted elevations, their probabilities, and coastal responses) are examined for 

outliers or other artifacts, and reviewed and interpreted by project scientists to verify that ranges, 

patterns, and trends are reasonable and data and metadata formats are error free; if errors or 

inconsistencies are found, the model runs and geospatial conversions are reviewed and corrected 

as necessary; and

• The database manager reviews and verifies that metadata are complete and accurate and data 

format standards are met.

Data are continually assessed as they are used in analysis by the USGS and others. If errors or 

inconsistencies are discovered, the online data are updated and changes documented in the metadata.

References Cited

Arkema, K.K., Guannel, Greg, Verutes, Gregory, Wood, S.A., Guerry, Anne, Ruckelshaus, Mary, 

Kareiva, Peter, Lacayo, Martin, and Silver, J.M., 2013, Coastal habitats shield people and property 

from sea-level rise and storms: Nature Climate Change, v. 3, p. 913–918. 

Bamber, J.L., and Aspinall, W.P., 2013, An expert judgment assessment of future sea-level rise from the 

ice sheets: Nature Climate Change, v. 3, no. 4, p. 424–427. 

Bashari, H., Smith, C., and Bosch, O.J.H., 2009, Developing decision support tools for rangeland 

management by combining state and transition models and Bayesian belief networks: Agricultural 

Systems, v. 99, p. 23–34. 

Bayes, Thomas, 1763, An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances: Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society London, v. 53, p. 370–418. [Reprinted in Biometrika, 1958, v. 45, 

p. 296–315.] 
15 

Bender, M.A., Knutson, T.R., Tuleya, R.E., Sirutis, J.J., Vecchi, G.A., Garner, S.T., and Held, I.M., 

2010, Modeled impact of anthropogenic warming on the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes:

Science, v. 237, p. 454–458. 

Brinson, M.M., Christian, R.R., and Blum, L.K., 1995, Multiple states in the sea-level induced transition 

from terrestrial forest to estuary: Estuaries, v. 18, no. 4, p. 648–659. 

Cahoon, D.R., Reed, D.J., Kolker, A.S., Brinson, M.M., Stevenson, J.C., Riggs, Stanley, Christian, 

Robert, Reyes, Enrique, Voss, Christine, and Kunz, David, 2009, Coastal wetland sustainability, chap. 

4 of Titus, J.G. [coordinating lead author], Anderson, K.E., Cahoon, D.R., Gesch, D.B., Gill, S.K., 

Gutierrez, B.T., Thieler, E.R., and Williams, S.J. [lead authors], Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise—

A focus on the mid-Atlantic region: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p. 57–

72. 

Calkin, D.E., Finney, M.A., Ager, A.A., Thompson, M.P., and Gebert, K.G., 2011, Progress towards 

and barriers to implementation of a risk framework for Federal wildland fire policy and decision 

making in the United States: Forest Policy and Economics, v. 13, p. 378–389. 

Church, J.A., Clark, P.U., Cazenave, Anne, Gregory, J.M., Jevrejeva, Svetlana, Levermann, Anders, 

Merrifield, M.A., Milne, G.A., Nerem, R.S., Nunn, P.D., Payne, A.J., Pfeffer, W.T., Stammer, Detlef, 

and.Unnikrishnan, A.S., 2013, Sea-level change, chap. 13 of Stocker, T.F., Qin, Dahe, Plattner, G.-K., 

Tignor, M.M.B., Allen, S.K., Boschung, Judith, Nauels, Alexander, Xia, Yu, Bex, Vincent, and 

Midgley, P.M., eds., Climate change 2013—The physical science basis—Contribution of Working 

Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 

Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, p. 1137–1216. 

Clark, J.M., 1986, Coastal forest tree populations in a changing environment, southeastern Long Island, 

New York: Ecological Monographs, v. 56, no. 3, p. 259–277. 

Craft, Christopher, Clough, Jonathan, Ehman, Jeff, Joye, Samantha, Park, Richard, Pennings, Steve, 

Guo, Hongyu, and Machmuller, Megan, 2009, Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on 

tidal marsh ecosystem services: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 7, no. 2, p. 73–78. 

Field, C.B., Barros, Vicente, Stocker, T.F., Qin, Dahe, Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., 

Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, Melinda, and Midgley, P.M., eds., 2012, Managing 

the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation; special report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University 

Press, 582 p. 

Fienen, M.N., Masterson, J.P., Plant, N.G., Gutierrez, B.T., and Thieler, E.R., 2013, Bridging 

groundwater models and decision support with a Bayesian network: Water Resources Research: v. 49, 

p. 6459–6473. 

Fitzgerald, D.M., Fenster, M.S., Argow, B.A., and Buynevich, I.V., 2008, Coastal impacts due to sealevel rise: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 36, p. 601–647. 

Fry, J.A., Xian, George, Jin, Suming, Dewitz, J.A., Homer, C.G., Yang, Limin, Barnes, C.A., Herold, 

N.D., and Wickham, J.D., 2011, Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the 

conterminous United States: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 77, no. 9, p. 858–

864. [Also available at http://www.mrlc.gov/downloadfile2.php?file=September2011PERS.pdf.] 

Gesch, D.B., 2007, The national elevation dataset, chap. 4 of Maune, D.F., ed., Digital elevation model 

technologies and applications—The DEM users manual (2d ed.): Bethesda, Md., American Society 

for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, p. 99–118. 

Gesch, D.B., 2009, Analysis of lidar elevation data for improved identification and delineation of lands 

vulnerable to sea-level rise: Journal of Coastal Research, special issue 53, p. 49–58. 
16 

Gieder, K.D., Karpanty, S.M., Fraser, J.D, Catlin, D.H., Gutierrez, B.T., Plant, N.G., Turecek, A.M., 

and Thieler, E.R., 2014, A Bayesian network approach to predicting nest presence of the federallythreatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus) using barrier island features: Ecological Modelling, v. 

276, p. 38–50. 

Gutierrez, B.T., Plant, N.G., and Thieler, E.R., 2011, A Bayesian network to predict the coastal 

vulnerability to sea-level rise: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 116, p. 1–15. 

Gutierrez, B.T., Williams, S.J., and Thieler, R.T., 2009, Ocean coasts, in Titus, J.G. [coordinating lead 

author], Anderson, K.E., Cahoon, D.R., Gesch, D.B., Gill, S.K., Gutierrez, B.T., Thieler, E.R., and 

Williams, S.J. [lead authors], Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise—A focus on the mid-Atlantic 

region: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p. 43–56. 

Hapke, C.J. and Plant, N.P., 2011, Predicting coastal cliff erosion using a Bayesian probabilistic model: 

Marine Geology, v. 278, nos. 1–4, p. 140–1499. 

Hartmann, D.L., Klein Tank, A.M.G., Rusticucci, Matilde, Alexander, L.V., Brönnimann, Stefan, 

Charabi, Y.A.-R., Dentener, F.J., Dlugokencky, E.J., Easterling, D.R., Kaplan, Alexey, Soden, B.J., 

Thorne, P.W., Wild, Martin, and Zhai, Panmao, 2013, Observations—Atmosphere and surface, chap. 

2 of Stocker, T.F., Qin, Dahe, Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M.M.B., Allen, S.K., Boschung, Judith, Nauels, 

Alexander, Xia, Yu, Bex, Vincent, and Midgley, P.M., eds., Climate change 2013—The physical 

science basis—Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University 

Press, p. 159–254. 

Horton, Radley, Yohe, Gary, Easterling, William, Kates, Robert, Ruth, Matthias, Sussman, Edna, 

Whelchel, Adam, Wolfe, David, and Lipschultz, Fredric, 2014, Northeast, chap. 16 of Melillo, J.M., 

Richmond, T.C., and Yohe, G.W., eds., Climate change impacts in the United States—The third 

national climate assessment: Washington, D.C., U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 371–395. 

Jin, Suming, Yang, Limin, Danielson, Patrick, Homer, Collin, Fry, Joyce, and Xian, George, 2013, A 

comprehensive change detection method for updating the national land cover database to circa 2011: 

Remote Sensing of the Environment, v. 132, p. 159–175. 

Karl, T.R., Melillo, J.M., and Peterson, T.C., eds., 2009, Global climate change impacts in the United 

States: Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 189 p. 

Kirwan, M.L., Guntenspergen, G.R., D’Alpaos, Andrea, Morris, J.T., Mudd, S.M., and Temmerman, 

Stijn, 2010, Limits on the adaptability of coastal marshes to rising sea-level: Geophysical Research 

Letters, v. 37, no. 23, 5 p. 

Kirwan, M.L., Kirwan, J.L., and Copenheaver, C.A., 2007, Dynamics of an estuarine forest and its 

response to rising sea-level: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 23, no. 2, p. 457–463. 

Kirwan, M.L., and Megonigal, J.P., 2013, Tidal wetland stability in the face of human impacts and sealevel rise: Nature, v. 504, p. 53–60. 

Lentz, E.E., 2015, Coastal landscape response to sea-level rise assessment for the northeastern United 

States: U.S. Geological Survey data release, http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F73J3B0B. 

Marcot, B.G., Thompson, M.P., Runge, M.C., Thompson, F.R., McNulty, Steven, Cleaves, David, 

Tomosy, Monica, Fisher, L.A., and Bliss, Andrew, 2012, Recent advances in applying decision 

science to managing national forests: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 285, p. 123–132. 

Marcy, Doug, Brooks, William, Draganov, Kyle, Hadley, Brian, Haynes, C., Herold, Nate, McCombs, 

John, Pendleton, Matt, Ryan, Sean, Schmid, Keil, Sutherland, Mike, and Waters, Kirk, 2011, New 

mapping tool and techniques for visualizing sea-level rise and coastal flooding impacts, in

Wallendorf, Louise, Jones, Chris, Ewing, Lesley, and Battalio, Bob, eds., Solutions to Coastal 
17 

Disasters 2011, Anchorage, Alaska, June 25–29, 2011, proceedings: Reston, Va., American Society of 

Civil Engineers, p. 474–490. 

Martin, Julien, Fackler, P.L., Nichols, J.D., Lubow, B.C., Eaton, M.J., Runge, M.C., Stith, B.M., and 

Langtimm, C.A., 2011, Structured decision making as a proactive approach to dealing with sea-level 

rise in Florida: Climatic Change, v. 107, p. 185–202. 

Marzion, B., Jarosch, A.H., and Hofer, M., 2012, Past and future sea-level change from the surface mass 

balance of glaciers: The Cryosphere, v. 6, no. 6, p. 1295–1322. 

Masterson, J.P., Fienen, M.N., Thieler, E.R., Gesch, D.B., Gutierrez, B.T., and Plant, N.G., 2013, 

Effects of sea-level rise on barrier island groundwater system dynamics—Ecohydrological 

implications: Ecohydrolology, v. 7, no. 3., p. 1064–1071. 

McNamara, D.E., and Keeler, Andrew, 2013, A coupled physical and economic model of the response 

of coastal real estate to climate risk: Nature Climate Change, v. 3, p. 559–562. 

McNamara, D.E., Murray, A.B., and Smith, M.D., 2011, Coastal sustainability depends on how 

economic and coastline response to climate change affect each other: Geophysical Research Letters, 

v. 38, no. 7, 5 p. 

McNamara, D.E., and Werner, B.T., 2008, Coupled barrier island-resort model—1. Emergent 

instabilities induced by strong human-landscape interactions: Journal of Geophysical Research, v., 

113, F01016, 10 p. 

Morris, J.T., Sundareshwar, P.V., Nietch, C.T., Kjerfve, Björn, and Cahoon, D.R., 2002, Responses of 

coastal wetlands to rising sea level: Ecology, v. 83, p. 2869–2877. 

Moser, S.C., Davidson, M.A., Kirshen, Paul, Mulvaney, Peter, Murley, J.F., Neumann, J.E., Petes, 

Laura, and Reed, Denise, 2014, Coastal zone development and ecosystems, chap. 25 of Melillo, J.M., 

Richmond, T.C., and Yohe, G.W., eds., Climate change impacts in the United States—The third 

National Climate Assessment: Washington, D.C., U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 579–618. 

National Ocean Service, 2012, VDatum manual for development and support of NOAA’s vertical datum 

transformation tool, VDatum (ver. 1.01): National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 

National Geodetic Survey, 119 p. [Also available at http://vdatum.noaa.gov/docs/publication.html.] 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Geophysical Data Center, 2014, U.S. 

coastal relief model: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Geophysical Data 

Center Web page, accessed June 2014 at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/crm.html. 

National Research Council, 2009, Science and decisions—Advancing risk assessment: Washington, 

D.C., The National Academies Press, 478 p. 

Niederoda, A.W., Swift, D.J.P., Hopkins, T.S., and Meanima, C.-M., 1984, Shoreface morphodynamics 

on wave-dominated coasts: Marine Geology, v. 60, p. 331–354. 

Ogden, A.E., and Innes, J.L., 2009, Application of structured decision making to an assessment of 

climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation options for sustainable forest management: Ecology and 

Society: v. 14, no. 1, [article 11], accessed November 3, 2014, at 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art11/. 

Orth, R.J., Carruthers, T.J.B., Dennison, W.C., Duarte, C.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Heck, K.L., Jr., 

Hughes, A.R., Kendrick, G.A., Kenworthy, W.J., Olyarnik, Suzanne, Short, F.T., Waycott, Michelle, 

and Williams, S.L., 2006, A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems: Bioscience, v. 56, no. 12, p. 987–

996. 

Plant, N.G., Flocks, James, Stockdon, H.F., Long, J.W., Guy, Kristy, Thompson, D.M., Cormier, J.M., 

Smith, C.G., Miselis, J.L., and Dalayander, P.S., 2014, Predictions of barrier island berm evolution in 

a time-varying storm climatology: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 119, no. 2, p. 300–316. 
18 

Plant, N.G., and Holland, K.T., 2011, Prediction and assimilation of surf-zone processes using a 

Bayesian network—Part I—Forward models: Coastal Engineering, v. 58, no. 1, p. 119–130. 

Plant, N.G., and Stockdon, H.F., 2012, Probabilistic prediction of barrier-island response to hurricanes: 

Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 117, F03015, 17 p. 

Radić, Valentina, Bliss, Andrew, Beedlow, C.D., Hock, Regine, Miles, Evan, and Cogley, J.G., 2013, 

Regional and global projections of twenty-first century glacier mass changes in response to climate 

scenarios from global climate models: Climate Dynamics, v. 42, nos. 1–2, p. 37–58. 

Robichaud, A., and Begin, Y., 1997, The effects of storms and sea-level rise on a coastal forest margin 

in New Brunswick, eastern Canada: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 13, no. 2, p. 429–439. 

Rotzol, Kolja, and Fletcher, C.J., 2013, Assessment of groundwater inundation as a consequence of sealevel rise: Nature Climate Change, v. 3, p. 477–481. Runge, M.C., Converse, S.J., and Lyons, J.E., 

2011, Which uncertainty?—Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an 

adaptive program: Biological Conservation, v. 144, p. 1214–1223. 

Seavey, J.R., Gilmer, Ben, and McGarigal, K.M., 2011, Effect of sea-level rise on piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) breeding habitat: Biological Conservation, v. 144, p. 393–401. 

Sella, G.F., Stein, Seth, Dixon, T.H., Craymer, Michael, James, T.S., Mazzotti, Stephane, and Dokka, 

R.K., 2007, Observation of glacial isostatic adjustment in “stable” North America with GPS: 

Geophysical Research Letters, v. 34, L02306, 6 p. 

Swift, D.J.P., Niederoda, A.W., Vincent, C.E., and Hopkins, T.S., 1985, Barrier island evolution, 

middle Atlantic shelf, U.S.A.; Part I—Shoreface dynamics: Marine Geology, v. 63, p. 331–361. 

Taylor, K.E., Stouffer, R.J., and Meehl, G.A., 2012, An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design: 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 93, no. 4, p. 485–498. 

Thieler, E.R., and Hammar-Klose, E.S., 1999, National assessment of coastal vulnerability to future sealevel rise—Preliminary results for the U.S. Atlantic coast: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

99–593, 1 sheet. [Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of99-593/.] 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2013, Coastal risk reduction and resilience—Using the full array of 

measures: U.S Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Technical Series 2013–3, 11 p., 1 appendix. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2014, National elevation dataset: U.S. Geological Survey database, accessed 

August 30, 2012, at http://ned.usgs.gov/. 

Weiss, J.L., Overpeck, J.T., and Strauss, Ben, 2011, Implications of recent sea-level rise science for 

Low-elevation areas in coastal cities of the conterminous U.S.A.: Climatic Change, v. 105, p. 635–

645. 

Williams, Kimberlyn, Ewel, K.C., Stumpf, R.P., Putz, F.E., and Workman, T.W., 1999, Sea-level rise 

and coastal forest retreat on the west coast of Florida, USA: Ecology, v. 80, no. 6, p. 2045–2063. 

Wong, P.P., Losada, I.J., Gattuso, J.P., Hinkel, Jochen, Khattabi, Abdellatif, McInnes, K.L., Saito, 

Yoshiki, and Sallenger, Asbury, 2014, Coastal systems and low-lying areas, chap. 5 of Field, C.B., 

Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, Monalisa, Ebi, 

K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, Betelhem, Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, Sandy, 

Mastrandrea, P.R.,, and White, L.L., eds., Climate change 2014—Impacts, adaptation, and 

vulnerability—Part A—Global and sectoral aspects—Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge, United Kingdom, 

Cambridge University Press, p. 361–409. 

Wright, L.D.; Boon, J.D.; Kim, S.C., and List, J.H., 1991, Modes of cross-shore sediment transport on 

the shoreface of the middle Atlantic bight: Marine Geology, v. 96, p. 19–51. 
19 

Wright, L.D., Xu, J.P., and Madsen, O.S., 1994, Across-shelf benthic transports on the inner shelf of the 

Middle Atlantic Bight during the “Halloween storm” of 1991: Marine Geology, v. 118, nos. 1–2, p. 

61–77. 

Zervas, Chris, Gill, Stephen, and Sweet, William, 2013, Estimating vertical land motion from long-term 

tide gauge records: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report NOS CO–

OPS 065, 30 p. 

Figure 1. Map showing coastal extent of regional predictions from Maine to Virginia (yellow) within the boundary 

of the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (gray). North Atlantic Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative boundary is from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012). 
20 

Figure 2. Conceptual diagram showing the structure of the Bayesian network. Sea-level projections (SL) and 

vertical land movement (VLM) are driving forces (green boxes), elevation (E) and land cover (LC) are boundary 

conditions (red boxes), and adjusted elevation (AE) and coastal response type (CR) are the sea-level-rise response 

variables (blue boxes). The equation shown relates SL, VLM, and E to produce AE predictions, whereas AE

predictions and LC (table 1) are related through expert knowledge (ref. table 2) to produce CR predictions. 
21 

Figure 3. Diagram showing Bayesian network configuration, including inputs (left) and outputs (right). Horizontal 

bars shown in the boxes represent prior distributions (probability of occurrence) for each parameter, with uniform 

distributions assigned to projected sea-level and vertical land motion parameters to provide an equal likelihood of 

occurrence among them until a time step is specified. Correlations among nodes are shown by the arrows between 

them. Probabilities may not add up to exactly 100 percent due to independent rounding. m, meters.
22 

Figure 4. Projected sea-level rise in decadal averages; left side shows gridded (1- by 1-degree resolution) 

outputs in the four percentile ranges, and right side shows the number of grid cells in each percentile range within 

the study area.
23 

Figure 5. Maps showing vertical land movement rates at A, Global Positioning System (GPS) and tide station 

point locations and B, as an interpolated surface across the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

region from which model inputs were extracted at land-cover point locations. 
24 

Figure 6. Map showing sources and coverage of land elevation data (topography and bathymetry) for the North 

Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative region (orange and gray); supplemental bathymetric data to the -10-

m contour offshore are shown in blue. Data are from U.S. Geological Survey (2014) and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration National Geophysical Data Center (2014).
25 

Figure 7. Maps showing geospatial distribution of the land-cover data A, as shown in Ecological Systems Map 

(ESM) Plus (ESMplus) and B, as generalized to the six land-cover categories used in this study. ESMplus digital 

data from the Designing Sustainable Landscapes Project, University of Massachusetts (2014).
26 

Figure 8. Example 2050 prediction results for Sandy Neck in Barnstable, Massachusetts, showing A, 

generalized land-cover information, B, adjusted elevation (AE) ranges with respect to mean high water, C, the 

prediction probability or likelihood of observing the AE prediction, and D, the likelihood that the coastal response is 

dynamic or static.
Prepared by the Pembroke Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this report, contact:

Director

Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

384 Woods Hole Road

Quissett Campus

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598

WHSC_science_director@usgs.gov

508-548-8700 or 508-457-2200

or visit our Web site at:

http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/
ISSN 2331

-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151252

Lentz and others—Evaluating Coastal Landscape Response to Sea-Level Rise in the Northeastern United States—Approach and Methods—Open-File Report 2014–1252