Potential for Shoreline Changes Due to Sea-Level Rise 

Along the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region 

By Benjamin T. Gutierrez, S. Jeffress Williams, and E. Robert Thieler 

Report Series 2007–1278 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2007 

Revised and reprinted: 2007 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

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

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Gutierrez, B.T., Williams, S.J., and Thieler, E.R., 2007, Potential for shoreline changes due to sea-level rise 

along the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1278. Web only, available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1278. 

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

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

ii
 

Contents 

Contents ..............................................................................................................................................................................iii

Figures .................................................................................................................................................................................iii

Conversion Factors ............................................................................................................................................................v

Inch/Pound to SI .............................................................................................................................................................v

A. Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................................1

B. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................2

C. The Assessment Process .............................................................................................................................................3

D. Geological Characteristics of the Mid-Atlantic Coast ............................................................................................4

E. Sea-Level Rise on the U.S. Atlantic Coast.................................................................................................................5

F. Important Processes Involved in Mid-Atlantic Bight Shoreline Changes ...........................................................6

G. Approaches for Long-Term Assessment and Prediction.......................................................................................6

H. Coastal Landforms of the Mid-Atlantic Bight ...........................................................................................................7

Spits...................................................................................................................................................................................7

Headlands ........................................................................................................................................................................7

Wave-Dominated Barrier Islands................................................................................................................................8

Mixed-Energy Barrier Islands ......................................................................................................................................8

I. Potential Responses to Future Sea-Level Rise..........................................................................................................8

J. Assessment of Question 2 ..........................................................................................................................................10

Spits (Compartments 4, 9, 15) .....................................................................................................................................11

Headlands (Compartments 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16)...........................................................................................................11

Wave-Dominated Barrier Islands (Compartments 2, 6, 11, 13, 17).......................................................................11

Mixed-Energy Barrier Islands (Compartments 3, 7, 14) .........................................................................................12

K. Summary........................................................................................................................................................................12

L. Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................................13

M. References Cited ........................................................................................................................................................13

..............................................................................................................................................................................................20

Appendix-List of Committee Participants.....................................................................................................................25

Figures 

1. Map of the mid-Atlantic coast of the United States showing the seventeen coastal compartments and 

their coastal geomorphic type..........................................................................................................................20 

2. Paleogeography of the Delaware Bay region inferred from geological investigations of shallow marine 

sediments. Compiled from Fletcher and others (1990 and 1992). . .............................................................21 

3. Map showing the potential sea-level rise responses for each coastal compartment. Colored portions of 

the coastline indicates the potential response for a given sea-level rise scenario according to the 

inset table. Numbers indicate the coastal compartments shown in Figure 1. .......................................22 

4. Schematic diagram of the degrees of likelihood for shoreline change outcomes. ........................................23

Tables 

1. Rates of Relative Sea-Level Rise for Selected Long-Term Tide Gauges on the East Coast of the United 

States (Zervas, 2001). .........................................................................................................................................24

iii
 

iv
 

v

Conversion Factors 

Inch/Pound to SI 

Multiply By To obtain 

Length 

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm) 

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm) 

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) 

yard (yd) 0.9144 meter (m) 

Rate 

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr) 
 

Potential for Shoreline Changes Due to Sea-Level 

Rise Along the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region 

By Benjamin T. Gutierrez, S. Jeffress Williams, and E. Robert Thieler 

A. Abstract 

Sea-level rise over the next century is expected to contribute significantly to physical 

changes along open-ocean shorelines. Predicting the form and magnitude of coastal changes is 

important for understanding the impacts to humans and the environment. Presently, the ability to 

predict coastal changes is limited by the scientific understanding of the many variables and 

processes involved in coastal change, and the lack of consensus regarding the validity of existing 

conceptual, analytical, or numerical models. In order to assess potential future coastal changes in 

the mid-Atlantic U.S. for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), a workshop was 

convened by the U.S. Geological Survey. Assessments of future coastal change were made by a 

committee of coastal scientists with extensive professional experience in the mid-Atlantic region. 

Thirteen scientists convened for a two-day meeting to exchange information and develop a 

consensus opinion on potential future coastal changes for the mid-Atlantic coast in response to sealevel rise. Using criteria defined in past work, the mid-Atlantic coast was divided into four 

geomorphic compartments: spits, headlands, wave-dominated barriers, and mixed-energy barriers. 

A range of potential coastal responses was identified for each compartment based on four sea-level 

rise scenarios. The four scenarios were based on the assumptions that: a) the long-term sea-level 

rise rate observed over the 20th century would persist over the 21st century, b) the 20th century rate 

would increase by 2 mm/yr, c) the 20th century rate would increase by 7 mm/yr, or d) sea-level 

would rise by 2 m over the next few hundred years. Potential responses to these sea-level rise 

scenarios depend on the landforms that occur within a region and include increased likelihood for 

erosion and shoreline retreat for all coastal types, increased likelihood for erosion, overwash and 

inlet breaching for barrier islands, as well as the possibility of a threshold state (e.g., dramatic 

change in barrier evolution, such as segmentation or disintegration) for some barrier island systems. 

The likelihood of the potential coastal responses is expressed using standard terminology employed 

in climate change assessments (e.g., as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

and CCSP). This assessment was based on the coastal geomorphology in its present condition and 

does not consider any coastal protection that might be undertaken in the future. The committee 

recognized that a variety of erosion mitigation measures have been implemented along developed 

portions of the coast and these are very likely to be applied in the future. It was also acknowledged 

that economics, political will, and other factors can drive decisions to implement these measures, 

and that such decisions cannot be predicted with confidence. The results of this assessment are 

depicted graphically on maps of the study area. 

1
 

B. Introduction 

Compelling observations have led most scientists to agree that the global climate is 

changing due to human-induced warming (e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[IPCC] reports released in 2001 and 2007, IPCC, 2001 and IPCC, 2007). The predicted 

consequences are highly variable, but two that will greatly affect coastal regions are sea-level rise 

and the potential for more frequent and energetic storms. In the United States, the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP; http://www.climatescience.gov/) has undertaken a synthesis and 

assessment of the state-of-science regarding climate change and its impacts. As part of this effort, 

scientists from the USGS, EPA, and NOAA have been tasked with reviewing potential sea-level 

rise impacts to coastal regions (see http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-1/SAP4-

1prospectus-final.pdf.). The CCSP synthesis and assessment (SAP) products are typically framed to 

answer a set of key questions about specific topics relating to climate change and its impacts. For 

this SAP, the USGS was asked to address several "key questions." The subject of this report is key 

question 2: 

How does sea-level rise change the coastline? Among those lands with sufficient 

elevation to avoid inundation, which land could potentially erode in the next 

century? Which lands could be transformed by related coastal processes? (key 

question 2, page 5 of SAP 4.1 Prospectus) 

Sea-level changes over geological time scales have driven large changes in shoreline 

position, particularly on low-gradient margins lacking significant fluvial systems (e.g., Muhs and 

others, 2004). While it is widely believed that changes in sea-level over the last century have had 

some role in shoreline change and land-loss along the coast, it has been difficult to quantify this 

relationship. The difficulty is due to the range of processes that affect coastal areas, the frequency 

at which coastal changes occur, and the closely coupled links between sea-level rise and the other 

processes driving coastal change. For example, over time periods of a century or less, changes in 

shoreline position have been linked closely to the availability of sand to the coastal sediment 

transport system (Carter and Woodroffe, 1994; Wright, 1995). In addition, shoreline changes 

caused by large storms can cause changes in shoreline position that persist for weeks to a decade or 

more (Morton and others, 1994; Zhang and others, 2004; List and others, 2006; Riggs and Ames, 

2007). Shoreline position and beach morphology can vary by tens of meters over periods of a few 

months to several decades in response to these factors (Morton and others, 1994; Honeycutt and 

others, 2001; Zhang and others, 2002). Complex interactions with nearshore sand bodies and/or 

underlying geology (the geologic framework), the mechanics of which are not yet clearly 

understood, also influence the behavior of beach morphology over a range of time scales (Riggs 

and others, 1995; Honeycutt and others, 2003; Schuup and others, 2006; Miselis and McNinch, 

2006). 

Existing shoreline-change prediction techniques such as the Bruun Rule (Bruun, 1962), 

extrapolation of historic shoreline change rates (NRC, 1987; Leatherman, 1990), and simple 

inundation of a static topography (Najjar and others, 2000; Titus and Richman, 2001) are based on 

assumptions that are either difficult to validate or too simplistic to account for the complex 

processes driving coastal change to be reliable for many real-world applications (Pilkey and Davis, 

1987; Wells, 1995; Bird, 1995). As a result, the usefulness of these predictive approaches, and 

whether it is possible to quantify the link between sea-level rise and shoreline change, has been 

debated in the coastal science community (Pilkey and others, 1993; Thieler and others, 2000; 

Leatherman and others, 2000a; 2000b; Pilkey and others, 2000; Sallenger and others, 2000; Cooper 

2
 

and Pilkey, 2004). Recently, more complex coastal process-based models like the Advanced 

Circulation Model (ADCIRC) (Luettich and Westerink, 1995), Regional Ocean Modeling System 

(ROMS) (Shchepetkin and McWilliams, 2005), Delft3D (e.g., Vitousek and others, 2007), 

Shoreface Translation Model (Cowell and others, 1995) and the Geomorphic Model of Barrier, 

Estuarine, and Shoreface Translations (GEOMBEST) (Stolper and others, 2005) have sought to 

incorporate important factors such as the sediment budget and geologic framework into predictions 

of coastal evolution. Research with these models is underway to advance our understanding of past 

and present coastal behavior. However, much additional research and testing against both the 

geologic record and present-day processes are needed to advance scientific understanding and 

inform management. 

A different technique for assessing the potential for future coastal changes, the Coastal 

Vulnerability Index, uses physical characteristics of the coastal system to classify the potential 

effects of sea-level rise on open coasts. This approach combines the coastal system's susceptibility 

to change with its natural ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, yielding a 

quantitative, although relative, measure of the shoreline's natural vulnerability to the effects of sealevel rise. The method has been applied in the U.S. (Gornitz and White, 1992; Thieler and 

Hammar-Klose, 1999; 2000a; 2000b; Pendleton and others, 2004a; 2004b; 2005), Canada (Shaw 

and others, 1998), and elsewhere (Argentina -- Diez and others, 2007), and is presently used by the 

U.S. National Park Service as a planning tool for coastal park units (Thieler and others, 2002). 

While a rank-based vulnerability assessment allows scientists and decision makers to identify 

portions of the coast at higher risk, it is not a predictive tool. 

Because of the difficulties involved in long-term coastal change projections and the general 

lack of consensus among coastal scientists regarding appropriate methodologies, the USGS authors 

of the CCSP SAP 4.1 (Anderson, Cahoon, Gutierrez, Thieler, Williams; see Appendix A) chose to 

convene a committee of coastal scientists to address key question 2. Given the limited time and 

resources available to conduct this assessment, more formal group consensus approaches such as 

expert panel methods (e.g., Fink and others, 1984; Cooke, 1991; Aspinall and Cooke, 1998) were 

not pursued. In this effort, USGS authors convened a committee of 13 coastal scientists (see 

Appendix A) to discuss the potential changes that might occur to the ocean shores of the U.S. midAtlantic coast in response to predicted accelerations in sea-level rise over the next century. The 

resulting assessment that is synthesized in this document is based upon the professional judgement 

of the committee members who participated in this process. 

In this report, the results of the two-day meeting are summarized and reviewed. The details 

of the meeting process are presented in Section C. Section D reviews the geological characteristics 

of the mid-Atlantic coast. Section E reviews the current understanding of relative sea-level rise for 

the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Section F summarizes the important factors and processes 

of shoreline change discussed by the committee. Section G provides a brief summary of assessment 

and prediction techniques that could be used to assess shoreline changes in response to sea-level 

rise. Section H summarizes the coastal landforms of the mid-Atlantic coast. Section I describes the 

potential landform response to sea-level rise, and Section J presents the assessment of coastal 

changes that may occur due to the future sea-level rise scenarios that were considered in this effort. 

C. The Assessment Process 

To address key question 2, the USGS authors assembled a committee of coastal scientists to 

evaluate the potential outcomes of the four sea-level rise scenarios specified in SAP 4.1 and how 

these might be developed. The members of this group were chosen on the basis of their expertise 

and long experience in the coastal research community and also their involvement with coastal 

3
 

management within the mid-Atlantic region. Of the 13 committee members who were contacted, all 

agreed to participate, but three were unable to attend the meeting due to schedule conflicts (see 

Appendix A). The two-day workshop was held on April 12-13, 2007 in Beltsville, MD at the USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Prior to the meeting, the committee members were informed of 

the meeting objectives and provided with background documents. To orient the participants to the 

scope of the discussion, members were provided with: a) the SAP 4.1 Prospectus, b) a list of 

questions and topics that the USGS authors needed to address, and c) a report by a panel of 

wetlands scientists (Reed and others, 2007) developed for SAP 4.1. This report was provided as an 

example of a committee-based approach to answer other questions posed by the SAP 4.1 

Prospectus. 

The sea-level rise impact assessment effort was conducted as an open discussion facilitated 

by the USGS authors. The group of scientists was tasked with discussing the potential changes that 

could occur over the remainder of this century based on four sea-level rise scenarios: 

1. a continuation of the 20th century rate of sea-level rise, 

2. the 20th century rate + 2 mm/yr, 

3. the 20th century rate + 7 mm/yr, and 

4. a 2-m rise over the next few hundred years. 

The 20th century rate refers to the long-term relative sea-level rise rates that have been observed 

over the last century at east coast tide gauge stations (Table 1; Zervas, 2001). The relative rates 

include both contributions from the long-term eustatic rate (1.7 mm/yr) and local contributions due 

to subsidence (See Section E). The second two scenarios assume the acceleration of the local rates 

will be driven by accelerations in the eustatic rate. The first two scenarios imply changes in sealevel that are within the range of those presented by the recent IPCC report (Bindoff and others, 

2007). The third scenario implies a change that could exceed the IPCC model predictions by 0.3 m. 

These three scenarios are also consistent with a recently conducted wetlands accretion assessment 

for the mid-Atlantic region between New York and Virginia (Reed and others, 2007). The main 

topics that the committee discussed were: 

1. approaches that can be used to conduct long-term assessments of coastal change; 

2. important factors and processes contributing to shoreline change over the next century; 

3. key geomorphic settings in the mid-Atlantic Bight; 

4. potential responses of these environments to sea-level rise; and 

5. likelihood of these responses to the sea-level rise scenarios. 

After the meeting, the USGS authors assembled this report to summarize the discussion that 

occurred during the two day meeting and to synthesize the resulting assessment. Drafts of this 

report were circulated to the meeting participants soliciting feedback. Participants provided 

comments and suggested changes to the overall assessment that were incorporated into the final 

document, which was subsequently approved by all members. 

D. Geological Characteristics of the Mid-Atlantic Coast 

The mid-Atlantic portion of the U.S. is classified as a trailing edge coast (Inman and 

Nordstrom, 1971) which is comprised of a low gradient coastal plain that has accumulated over 

millions of years in response to the erosion and denudation of the Appalachian mountain chain 

(Walker and Coleman, 1987). The resulting sedimentation has constructed a broad coastal plain and 

continental shelf that extends up to 300 km seaward of the present coast (Colquhoun and others, 

4
 

1991). The current morphology of this coastal plain and continental shelf is the product of erosion 

by rivers that drain the region, the marine regressions and transgressions, and the construction of 

barrier islands and other coastal landforms on the intervening mainland. Repeated glaciations over 

the last 3 million years have resulted in sea-level fluctuations of up to 120-140 m (Lambeck and 

others, 2002; Miller and others, 2005). The major river systems (e.g., Hudson River, Delaware 

River, Susquehanna River, and Roanoke River) incised large valleys across the continental shelf 

during periods of low sea level that were subsequently flooded and partly filled with sediments 

during the Holocene transgression as sea level rose to present levels. At the northern limit of the 

focus area, Long Island formed from glacial outwash plains and two terminal moraines formed by 

the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which began to retreat at the end of the last glacial maximum 

approximately 21,000. The low gradient of the mid-Atlantic landscape in combination with slow 

rates of sea-level rise over the last few thousand years and the availability of sufficient sand have 

enabled the formation of the barrier spits and barrier islands along much of the coast. 

Presently, the river systems along the mid-Atlantic coast mostly discharge into estuaries and 

bays and deliver minor amounts of coarse sediment to the open coast (Meade, 1972). As a result, 

the region is generally considered to be sediment starved (Wright, 1995). The sediments that form 

mainland beaches and barrier beaches are derived from the erosion of older, pre-existing coastal 

landforms and the seabed of the continental shelf. Since the largest waves and associated currents 

that transport sediments and mold landforms occur during storms, the Atlantic margin of the U.S. is 

often referred to as a storm-dominated coast (Davis and Hayes, 1984). 

The majority of the open ocean coast along the mid-Atlantic Bight is comprised of sandy 

shores that include beach and barrier-island environments. While barriers comprise about 15 

percent of the world coastline (Glaeser, 1978), they are the dominant shoreline type along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast. Along the portion of the mid-Atlantic Bight coast that we consider here, barriers line 

approximately 90 percent of the study area. Consequently, scientific investigations exploring 

coastal geology of this portion of North America have largely focused on understanding barrier 

island systems (Fisher, 1962; Pierce and Colquhoun, 1970; Kraft, 1971; Swift, 1975; Leatherman, 

1979; Moslow and Heron, 1979; 1994; Oertel, 1985; Belknap and Kraft, 1985; Hine and Snyder, 

1985; Davis, 1994; Oertel and Kraft, 1994; Pilkey and others, 1998). 

E. Sea-Level Rise on the U.S. Atlantic Coast 

Over the last century, relative sea-level rise rates along the Atlantic coast of the U.S. have 

ranged between 1.8 mm/yr (Maine) to as much as 4.4 mm/yr (Virginia, Table 1; Zervas, 2001). The 

lowest rates (~1.8 mm/yr) are nearly equivalent to the average global rate for the 20th century of 1.7 

± 0.5 mm/yr (Bindoff and others, 2007) and occur along coastal New England and from Georgia to 

southern Florida. The highest rates have been observed in the mid-Atlantic region between northern 

New Jersey and northeastern North Carolina (Table 1; Zervas, 2004). Subsidence of the land 

surface due to a range of factors contributes to the high rates of relative sea-level rise observed in 

this region. It is believed that the subsidence is attributable mainly to glacio-isostatic adjustments of 

the earth's crust in response to the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet, and to the compaction of 

sediments due to freshwater withdrawal from coastal aquifers (Gornitz and Lebedeff, 1987; Emery 

and Aubrey, 1991; Peltier, 2001). 

With the anticipated acceleration in the rate of global sea-level rise (e.g., IPCC 2001; 2007), 

local rates of relative sea-level rise will also accelerate. Recently, the Fourth Assessment Report 

(FAR) of the IPCC has predicted that sea level will rise by 10-59 cm over the next century (Meehl 

and others, 2007), which is a somewhat smaller rise and range than reported in the Third 

Assessment Report (TAR; IPCC, 2001; estimate 11-88 cm) (Church and others, 2001). Several 

5
 

recent criticisms of the FAR estimates of future sea-level changes (Rahmstorf, 2007; Rahmstorf 

and others, 2007; Hansen and others, 2007) argue that these estimates are conservative and do not 

incorporate adequately the potential contributions of land-based ice melt from Greenland and 

western Antarctica to global sea level. The IPCC assessment concludes that the science regarding 

future acceleration in ice melt and its contribution to sea-level rise is not yet sufficient to include in 

their sea-level projections. 

F. Important Processes Involved in Mid-Atlantic Bight Shoreline Changes 

Several important factors influencing the evolution of the mid-Atlantic coast in response to 

sea-level rise were identified. Among these are: a) the geologic framework, b) physical processes, 

c) the sediment budget, and d) human activity. The committee agreed that the sediment budget is a 

critical determinant of how a specific shoreline setting will respond to changes in sea-level, but the 

response is dependent upon the interactions with the other three variables. At the same time, it was 

agreed that it is not possible to quantify with high confidence the sediment budget over time 

periods as long as a century and its precise role in influencing shoreline changes. Another factor is 

the human impact on coasts. A variety of erosion control practices and alterations of the coast have 

been undertaken over the last century along much of the mid-Atlantic region, particularly during 

the latter half of the 20th century. In many cases, shoreline engineering structures such as seawalls, 

revetments, groins and jetties have significantly altered sediment transport processes, often 

exacerbating erosion on a local to regional scale. At the same time, beach nourishment has been 

used on many beaches to temporarily mitigate erosion and provide storm protection by adding to 

the sediment budget. It is uncertain whether or how these engineering measures might impede the 

ability of natural processes to respond to future sea-level rise. It is also uncertain whether ongoing 

and planned coastal engineering projects, such as beach nourishment, will be continued into the 

future due to economic constraints and potentially limited supplies of suitable sand resources. 

Because of these uncertainties, the committee focused on assessing the vulnerability of the coastal 

system as it exists today. 

G. Approaches for Long-Term Assessment and Prediction 

A range of different techniques to predict shoreline change and how these might be applied 

to assess shoreline change over the next century were discussed. The committee believed that the 

particular challenges to the application of such techniques are knowledge of how the sediment 

budget and geologic framework will affect long-term shoreline changes. 

The discussion focused primarily on three techniques: a) the Bruun Rule (Bruun, 1962), b) 

extrapolation of historical shoreline change rates (Leatherman, 1990), and c) the Coastal 

Vulnerability Index (CVI, Gornitz and White, 1992; Gornitz and others, 1994; Thieler and 

Hammar-Klose, 1999). The first two approaches were not deemed adequate to form a basis for 

long-term prediction. The main reason is that there is a lack of consensus in the coastal science 

community regarding their validity for long-term prediction. In addition, regarding the Bruun 

model, it was recognized that there is a lack of basic information available over wide stretches of 

the coast that can be used to adequately define the model input parameters, and that the basic 

assumptions of the model cannot be satisfied in most real-world applications. Reservations were 

expressed about shoreline change rate extrapolation due to the quality of historical shorelines that 

are used and whether these accurately reflect natural processes that contribute to long-term 

changes. The CVI technique was also discussed but there was no consensus among the group as to 

whether this tool could be used to inform quantitative long-term assessments. 

6
 

Given the limited time available for input into the CCSP effort, members of the committee 

agreed to conduct a qualitative assessment of the potential response of the ocean coast of the midAtlantic region to four sea-level rise scenarios described in Section C (page 4, paragraph 2). Using 

these scenarios, this effort focused on: 

1. defining key geomorphic compartments along the mid-Atlantic coast, and 

2. specifying potential responses based on knowledge of their behavior that has been 

established in the coastal science literature and in the experience of the committee members. 

Coastal compartments were defined, and the committee assigned a geomorphic designation 

to each portion of the mid-Atlantic coast. The potential coastal response for each of the specified 

outcomes for a given sea-level rise scenario were then evaluated. The results of this assessment are 

explained below. 

H. Coastal Landforms of the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

A consensus was reached by the committee that coastal landforms along the shores of the 

mid-Atlantic Bight can best be classified by merging the schemes developed by Fisher (1982), 

Hayes (1979), and Davis and Hayes (1984). Four distinct geomorphic settings were identified (fig. 

1). 

Spits 

 The accumulation of sand from longshore transport has built large spits that extend from 

adjacent headlands into the mouths of large coastal embayments. Outstanding examples of these 

occur at the entrances of Raritan (Sandy Hook, NJ) and Delaware Bays (Cape Henlopen, DE). The 

evolution and existence of these spits result from the interaction between alongshore transport 

driven by incoming waves and the tidal flow through the large embayments. Morphologically these 

areas can extend and evolve rapidly. Since 1842, Cape Henlopen (fig. 1, compartment 9) has 

extended over 1.5 km to the north into the mouth of Delaware Bay as the northern Delaware 

shoreline has retreated and sediment has been transported north by longshore currents (Kraft 1971; 

Ramsey and others, 2001). 

Headlands 

In the mid-Atlantic Bight, coastal headlands typically front drainage divides that separate 

creeks and rivers from one another in the older landscape (fig. 2). These regions provide a source of 

sediment that is eroded and incorporated into the longshore transport system that maintains 

adjacent beaches and barriers. Coastal headlands are present on Long Island, NY (See fig. 1), from 

Southhampton to Montauk (compartment 1), in northern New Jersey from Monmouth to Point 

Pleasant (compartment 5; Oertel and Kraft, 1994), in southern New Jersey at Cape May 

(compartment 8), on Delaware north and south of Indian River and Rehoboth Bays (compartments 

10 and 12; Kraft, 1971; Oertel and Kraft, 1994; Ramsey and others, 2001), and on the Virginia 

coast, from Cape Henry to Sandbridge (compartment 16). 

7
 

Wave-Dominated Barrier Islands 

Wave-dominated barrier islands occur as relatively long and thin stretches of sand fronting 

shallow estuaries, lagoons, or embayments and are bisected by widely-spaced tidal inlets. These 

barriers are present in regions where wave energy is large relative to tidal energy (Hayes, 1979; 

Davis and Hayes, 1984). Limited tidal ranges result in flow through tidal inlets that is marginally 

sufficient to flush the sediments that accumulate from longshore sediment transport. In some cases 

this causes the inlet to migrate over time in response to a changing balance between tidal flow 

through the inlet and wave driven alongshore transport. Inlets on wave-dominated coasts often 

exhibit large flood-tidal deltas and small ebb-tidal deltas as tidal currents are often stronger during 

the flooding stage of the tide. In addition, inlets on wave-dominated barriers are often ephemeral. 

They open intermittently in response to storm-generated overwash and migrate laterally in the 

direction of net littoral drift. In many cases these inlets are prone to filling with sands from 

alongshore transport (e.g., Riggs and others, 1995; McBride, 1999). 

Overwash produced by storms is common on wave dominated barriers (e.g., Morton and 

Sallenger, 2003; Riggs and Ames, 2007). Overwash cuts through low-lying dunes into the island 

interior. Sediment deposition from overwash adds to the island's elevation. Washover fans that 

extend into the back-barrier waterways form substrates for back-barrier marshes and submerged 

aquatic vegetation. Overwash is critical for the evolution of these barriers over time. The process of 

overwash is an important mechanism by which some types of barriers migrate landward and 

upward over time. This process of landward migration has been referred to as "roll-over" (Dillon, 

1970; Godfrey and Godfrey, 1976; Fisher, 1982; Riggs and Ames, 2007). Over decades to 

centuries, the intermittent processes of overwash and inlet formation enable the barrier to migrate 

over and erode into back-barrier environments such as marshes as relative sea-level rise occurs over 

time. As this occurs, back-barrier environments such as marshes are eroded and buried by barrier 

beach and dune sands. Wave-dominated barrier islands and spits are found along Long Island, NY 

(fig. 1, compartments 2 and 3), the New Jersey coast north of Little Egg inlet (fig. 1, compartment 

6), the Delaware and Maryland coasts (fig. 1, compartments 10 and 13) , and much of the North 

Carolina coast that are considered in this assessment (fig. 1, compartment 17). 

Mixed-Energy Barrier Islands 

The other barrier island type present along the U.S. Atlantic coast, mixed-energy barrier 

islands, are shorter and wider than their wave-dominated counterparts (Hayes, 1979). They are 

punctuated by well-developed tidal inlets. The large sediment transport capacity of the tidal 

currents within the inlets of these systems maintains large ebb-tidal deltas seaward of the inlet 

mouth. The shoals that comprise ebb-tidal deltas cause incoming waves to refract around the large 

sand body that forms the delta so that local reversals of alongshore currents and sediment transport 

occur downdrift of the inlet. As a result, portions of the barrier downdrift of inlets become localized 

sediment sinks that are manifest as recurved sand ridges, giving the barrier islands a 'drumstick'-

like shape (Hayes, 1979; Davis, 1994). Mixed-energy barriers are present along the Virginia coast 

(fig. 1, compartment 14), and the New Jersey coast between Little Egg Inlet and Cape May (Oertel 

and Kraft, 1994). Some authors have referred to the mixed-energy barriers as tide-dominated 

barriers along the Delmarva shoreline (e.g., Oertel and Kraft, 1994). 

I. Potential Responses to Future Sea-Level Rise 

Three potential responses that could occur along the mid-Atlantic coast in response to sealevel rise over the next century were identified. 

8
 

1. Bluff and upland erosion. Shorelines composed of older geologic units that form 

headland regions of the coast will retreat landward with rising sea level. As sea level rises over 

time, the uplands are eroded, and sandy materials are incorporated into the beach and dune systems 

along the shore and adjacent compartments. It is expected that bluff and upland erosion will persist 

for all four sea-level rise scenarios. A possible management reaction to bluff erosion is armoring of 

the shore. This may reduce bluff erosion in the short term, but will probably increase erosion of the 

beach in front of the armored bluff due to wave reflection as well as increased erosion of adjacent 

coastal segments by modifying the littoral sediment budget. 

2. Overwash, inlet processes, shoreline retreat, and barrier island narrowing. Five 

main processes were identified as agents of change as sea-level rise occurs. First, storm overwash 

will become more likely. In addition, recent studies suggest that hurricanes have become more 

intense over the last century (Emanuel, 2005; Webster and others, 2005). Some have argued that 

there is insufficient data to support this finding (Landsea and others, 2006), but recent work 

supports this trend for the North Atlantic (Kossin and others, 2007) and the contention that the 

increased storm activity is linked to 20th century climate and ocean warming (Holland and 

Webster, 2007). 

Tidal inlet formation and migration will also be important components of future shoreline 

changes. Barrier islands are often subject to inlet formation by storms. If the storm surge produces 

channels that extend below sea level, an inlet may persist after the storm abates. These inlets can 

persist for some time until the inlet channels are filled with sediments accumulated from longshore 

transport, or they may remain open for months to decades. Geological investigations along the 

shores of the mid-Atlantic Bight have encountered numerous geomorphic features and deposits 

indicating former inlet positions (Fisher, 1962; Everts and others, 1983; Leatherman, 1985; 

McBride and Moslow, 1991; Moslow and Heron, 1994; Riggs and others, 1995; McBride, 1999). 

Historically, most inlets have opened by the storm surge associated with major hurricanes. In the 

20th century four of the most important inlets in the mid-Atlantic Bight were formed by storm 

surges and breaches from the 1933 hurricane (Barden's Inlet, NC; Ocean City Inlet, MD; Indian 

River Inlet, DE; and Moriches Inlet, NY). Most recently, tidal inlets have formed in the North 

Carolina Outer Banks in response to Hurricane Isabel in 2003 and on Nauset beach, Cape Cod, MA 

in response to a spring 2007 storm. 

The combined effect of rising sea level and stronger storms potentially acting at higher 

elevations on the barrier could be expected to accelerate shoreline retreat in many locations. 

Assessments of shoreline change on barrier islands indicate that barrier island narrowing has 

been observed on some islands over the last century (Leatherman, 1979; Jarrett, 1983; Everts and 

others, 1983; McBride and Byrnes, 1997; Penland and others, 2005). Actual barrier island 

migration is less widespread, but has been noted at Core Banks, NC (Riggs and Ames, 2007), the 

Virginia barriers (Byrnes and Gingerich, 1987; Byrnes and others, 1989), and the northern end of 

Assateague Island, MD (Leatherman, 1984). 

3. Threshold Behavior. Barrier islands are dynamic environments that are sensitive to a 

variety of driving forces. Some evidence suggests that changes in some or all of these processes 

can lead to conditions where a barrier system becomes less stable and crosses a geomorphic 

threshold. In this situation, the potential for rapid barrier-island migration or 

segmentation/disintegration is high. It is difficult to precisely define an unstable barrier but 

indications of instability can be: 

9
 

a) rapid landward recession of the ocean shoreline 

b) decrease in barrier width and height 

c) increased overwash during storms 

d) increased barrier breaching and inlet formation 

e) chronic loss of beach and dune sand volume. 

Given the unstable state of some barrier islands under current rates of sea-level rise and 

climate trends, it is very likely that conditions will worsen under accelerated sea-level rise rates. 

The unfavorable conditions for barrier maintenance could result in barrier 

segmentation/disintegration as witnessed in coastal Louisiana (McBride and others, 1995; McBride 

and Byrnes, 1997; Penland and others, 2005; Day and others, 2007; Sallenger and others, 2007). 

This segmentation/disintegration may result from a combination of 1) limited sediment supply by 

longshore or cross-shore transport, 2) accelerated rates of sea-level rise, and 3) permanent removal 

of sand from the barrier system by storms. Changes in sea level coupled with changes in the 

hydrodynamic climate and sediment supply in the broader coastal environment contribute to the 

development of unstable behavior. The threshold behavior of unstable barriers could result in: a) 

landward migration/roll-over, barrier segmentation, or c) disintegration. If the barrier were to 

disintegrate, portions of the ocean shoreline could migrate or back-step toward and/or merge with 

the mainland. 

During storms, large portions of low-elevation, narrow barriers can be inundated under high 

waves and storm surge. The parts of the mid-Atlantic coast most vulnerable to threshold behavior 

can be estimated based on their physical dimensions. Narrow, low-elevation barrier islands are 

most susceptible to storm overwash, which can lead to landward migration, and the formation of 

new tidal inlets. The northern portion of Assateague Island and segments of the North Carolina 

Outer Banks are examples of barrier islands that are extremely vulnerable to even modest storms 

because of their narrow width and low elevation (e.g., Leatherman, 1979; Riggs and Ames, 2003). 

The future evolution of narrow, low-elevation barriers will likely depend in part on the 

ability of salt marshes in back-barrier lagoons and estuaries to keep pace with sea-level rise 

(FitzGerald and others, 2003 and 2006; Reed and others, 2007). It has been suggested that a 

reduction of salt marsh in back-barrier regions could change the hydraulics of back-barrier systems, 

altering local sediment budgets and leading to a reduction in sandy sediment available to sustain 

barrier systems (FitzGerald and others, 2003 and 2006). In these cases, even barrier systems that 

are relatively wide and exhibit well-developed dunes may evolve toward narrow, low-elevation 

barriers as local sand supplies are reduced. 

J. Assessment of Question 2 

Seventeen coastal compartments were identified in the SAP mid-Atlantic focus area (fig. 1). 

The compartments were classified as one of the four geomorphic types described above. The 

potential coastal responses to the sea-level rise scenarios are described below and the potential 

responses to the first three sea-level rise scenarios are shown in figure 3. Spits (Compartments 4, 9, 

15) 

Three caveats to this approach were identified for this assessment. These are: 

a) This is a regional scale assessment and there are local exceptions to these 

classifications and potential outcomes. 

10
 

b) Given that some portions of the mid-Atlantic coast are heavily influenced by 

development and erosion mitigation practices, it cannot be assumed that these will 

be continued into the future given uncertainties regarding the decision-making 

process that occurs when these practices are pursued. 

c) There are locations where some committee members felt that erosion mitigation 

will be implemented regardless of cost. 

To express the likelihood of a given outcome for a particular sea-level rise scenario, 

terminology modified from CCSP (2006) is used to quantify and communicate the degree of 

likelihood of a given outcome identified by this sea-level rise impact assessment (fig. 4). This 

represents the degree of confidence that the committee members believe that a specific outcome 

will be realized. These terms should not be construed to represent a quantitative relationship 

between a specific sea-level rise scenario and a specific dimension of coastal change, or rate at 

which a specific process operates on a coastal geomorphic compartment. 

Spits (Compartments 4, 9, 15) 

For the first three sea-level rise scenarios (the 20th century rate, the 20th century rate + 2 

mm/yr, and the 20th century rate + 7 mm/yr) it is virtually certain that the coastal spits in the midAtlantic Bight will be subject to increased storm overwash, erosion, deposition over the next 

century. It is virtually certain that some of these coastal spits will continue to prograde though the 

accretion of sediments from longshore transport as erosion of updrift coastal compartments occurs. 

For a 2 m rise in sea level, it is likely that threshold behavior could occur for this type of coastal 

landform (rapid landward and/or alongshore migration). 

Headlands (Compartments 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16) 

Over the next century, it is virtually certain that these headlands will be subject to 

increased erosion for all four sea-level rise scenarios. It is very likely that shoreline and upland 

(bluff) erosion will accelerate in response to projected increases in sea-level. 

Wave-Dominated Barrier Islands (Compartments 2, 6, 11, 13, 17)

Potential sea-level rise impacts on wave-dominated barriers in the mid-Atlantic Bight vary 

spatially and depend on the sea-level rise scenario (fig. 3). 

Assuming that the 20th century rate rates of sea-level rise will continue, it is virtually 

certain that the majority of the wave-dominated barrier islands in the mid-Atlantic Bight will 

continue to experience morphological changes through erosion, overwash, and inlet formation as 

they have over the last several centuries. The northern portion of Assateague Island (compartment 

13) is an exception. Here the shoreline exhibits high rates of erosion and large portions of this 

barrier are submerged during moderate storms. At times in the past, large storms have breached and 

segmented portions of northern Assateague Island (Morton and others, 2003). Due to this behavior, 

it is possible that these portions of the coast are already at a geomorphic threshold. With any 

increase in sea level, it is virtually certain that this barrier island will exhibit large changes in 

morphology ultimately leading to the degradation of this island. Periodic nourishment and sand 

bypassing at Ocean City Inlet may reduce erosion on compartment 13, but the long-term 

sustainability of this practice is uncertain. Small segments within the highly developed portion of 

the North Carolina Outer Banks (fig. 3) may similarly be nearing a geomorphic threshold (Riggs 

and Ames, 2003). 

11
 

For the second sea-level rise scenario, the 20th century rate + 2 mm/yr, it is virtually

certain that the majority of the wave-dominated barrier islands in the mid-Atlantic Bight will 

continue to experience morphological changes through overwash, erosion, and inlet formation as 

they have over the last several centuries. It is also about as likely as not that a geomorphic 

threshold could be reached, resulting in rapid morphological changes in these barrier systems. It is 

very likely that the barrier islands along the shores of northern Assateague Island (compartment 

13) and a substantial portion within the center of compartment 17 (Riggs and Ames, 2003) could 

exhibit threshold behavior (barrier migration, segmentation, or disintegration). 

For the second sea-level rise scenario, the ability of wetlands to maintain their elevation 

through accretion at higher rates of sea-level rise may be reduced (Reed and others, 2007). It is 

about as likely as not that the loss of back-barrier marshes and shallow submarine shoals could 

lead to changes in hydrodynamic conditions between tidal inlets and back-barrier lagoons affecting 

the evolution of barrier islands (e.g., FitzGerald and others, 2003 and 2006). 

For the third sea-level rise scenario, the 20th century rate + 7 mm/yr, it is very likely that 

the potential for threshold behavior will increase. It is virtually certain that a 2 m sea-level rise 

will lead to threshold behavior for this landform type. 

Mixed-Energy Barrier Islands (Compartments 3, 7, 14) 

The response of mixed-energy, tide-dominated, barrier islands will vary among coastal 

compartments. 

For the first two sea-level rise scenarios (the 20th century rate and the 20th century rate + 

2mm/yr), the mixed-energy, tide-dominated, barrier islands along the mid-Atlantic Bight will be 

subject to processes much as have occurred over the last century. Storm overwash and shoreline 

erosion are very likely to occur over the next century. Given the degree to which these barriers 

have been developed, it is difficult to determine the likelihood of future inlet breaches, or whether 

such breaches would be allowed to persist. In addition, changes to the back-barrier shores are 

uncertain due to the extent of development. 

For the higher sea-level rise scenarios (the 20th century rate + 7 mm/yr or greater), it is 

about as likely as not that these barriers could reach a geomorphic threshold. This threshold is 

dependent on the availability of sand from the longshore transport system to supply the barrier. It is 

virtually certain that a 2 m sea-level rise will have severe consequences along the shores of this 

compartment, including one or more of the extreme responses described above. 

The ability of wetlands to maintain their elevation through accretion at higher rates of sealevel rise may be reduced (Reed and others, 2007). It is about as likely as not that the loss of backbarrier marshes and shallow submarine shoals could lead to changes in the hydrodynamic 

conditions between tidal inlets and back-barrier lagoons, affecting the evolution of barrier islands 

(FitzGerald and others, 2003 and 2006). 

It is about as likely as not that four of the barrier islands along the Virginia coast (Wallops 

Island, Assawoman Island, Metompkin Island, and Cedar Island) are presently at a geomorphic 

threshold. Thus, it is very likely that further sea-level rise will contribute to significant changes 

resulting in the landward migration, disintegration, or segmentation of these barrier islands. 

K. Summary 

A committee of coastal scientists was convened to discuss the potential impacts of future 

sea-level rise in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. Atlantic coast. The committee discussed and 

deliberated on the nature of a regional assessment of sea-level rise impacts that could occur over 

12
 

the next century. The group agreed that a high degree of uncertainty exists in predicting long-term 

shoreline changes because of the variety of factors involved and the complexity of their interaction. 

Principal unknowns identified by the committee include regional sediment budgets and 

anthropogenic influences (e.g., erosion mitigation efforts such as beach nourishment). 

The committee conducted a qualitative review of potential shoreline changes that could be 

expected over the next century under different sea-level rise scenarios. Using a combination of 

criteria defined by Fisher (1982) and Hayes (1979), the shore of the mid-Atlantic study area was 

divided into four geomorphic compartments: spits, headlands, wave-dominated barriers, and 

mixed-energy barriers. A range of potential coastal responses was identified for each compartment 

based on four sea-level rise scenarios. The sea-level rise responses included an increased likelihood 

for erosion and shoreline retreat for all geomorphic compartments, increased likelihood for erosion, 

overwash and inlet breaching for barrier islands, as well as the possibility of a threshold state (e.g., 

segmentation or disintegration) for some barrier island systems. 

L. Acknowledgements 

The authors thank Donald Cahoon (USGS-BRD) for providing the facilities to convene this 

committee. The efforts of Eric Anderson (USGS-NMD) to document and facilitate this process are 

also appreciated. Most importantly, the authors would like to thank the members of the committee 

for making time to participate in the process, freely offer their expert judgment, and comment on 

this report. Walter Barnhardt and Jeff List of the USGS-Woods Hole Science Center are thanked 

for critically reviewing this report and offering constructive comments. The comments of Tom 

Cronin of the USGS are also appreciated. 

M. References Cited 

Aspinall, W.P., and Cooke, R.M., 1998, Expert judgement and the Montserrat Volcano eruption, in 

Alin Mosleh and Robert A. Bari eds.: Proceedings, 4th International Conference Prob. Safety 

Assessment and Management PSAM4, New York, v. 3, p. 2113-1118. 

Belknap, D.F. and Kraft, J.C., 1985, Influence of antecedent geology on stratigraphic preservation 

potential and evolution of Delaware's barrier system: Marine Geology, v. 63, p. 235-262. 

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, Le Quéré, 

S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D.Talley and A. Unnikrishnan, 2007, Observations; oceanic 

climate change and sea level, in Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. 

Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

N.Y., USA. 

Bird, E.C.F, 1995, Present and future sea level; the effects of predicted global changes, in, D. 

Eisma, ed., Climate Change: Impact on Coastal Habitation, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, p. 29-

56. 

Bruun, P., 1962, Sea-level rise as a cause of shore erosion: Proceedings, American Society of Civil 

Engineers, Journal of Waterways Harbors Division, v. 88, p. 117-130. 

Byrnes, M.R. and K.J. Gingerich, 1987, Cross-island profile response to Hurricane Gloria, in N.C. 

Kraus, ed., Coastal Sediments '87: American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, N.Y., p. 

1486-1502. 

Byrnes, M.R., K.J. Gingerich, S.M. Kimball, and G.R. Thomas, 1989, Temporal and spatial 

variations in shoreline migration rates, Metompkin Island, Virginia, in D.K. Stauble, ed., Barrier 

13
 

Islands: Process and Management, Proceedings, Coastal Zone '89, American Society Civil 

Engineers, New York, N.Y., p. 78-92. 

Carter, R.W.G., and Woodroffe, C.D., 1994, Coastal evolution; late Quaternary shoreline 

morphodynamics: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 517 p. 

Church, J.A., Gregory, J.M. Huybrechts, P., Kuhn, M., Lambeck, K., Nhuan, M.T., Qin, D. and 

Woodworth, P.L., 2001, Changes in sea level, in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, 

Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change, edited by J.T. Houghton, and others, Cambridge University Press, New 

York, p. 639-693. 

CCSP, 2006, Recommendations for implementing the CCSP synthesis and assessment guidelines, 

December 18, 2006, Climate Change Science Program. Online at 

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sapguidelines.pdf. 

Colquhoun, D.J., Johnson, G.H., Peebles, P.C., Huddleston, P.F., and Scott, T., 1991, Quaternary 

geology of the Atlantic Coastal Plain., in R.B. Morrison, ed., Quaternary nonglacial geology: 

conterminous U.S. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America, The Geology of North 

America, v. K-2, p. 629-650. 

Cooke, R.M., 1991, Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science: Oxford 

University Press, 321 p. 

Cooper, J.A.G. and Pilkey, O.H., 2004, Sea-level rise and shoreline retreat; time to abandon the 

Bruun Rule: Global and Planetary Change, v. 43, p. 157-171. 

Cowell, P.J., Roy, P.S., and Jones, 1992, Shoreface translation model; computer simulation of 

coastal-sand-body response to sea level rise: Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, v. 33, p. 

603-608. 

Davis, R.A., 1994, Barrier island systems-a geologic overview, in R.A. Davis, ed., Geology of 

Holocene Barrier Island Systems: Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 435-456. 

Davis, R.A, and Hayes, M.O., 1984, What is a wave-dominated coast?: Marine Geology, v. 60, p 

313-329. 

Day, J.W.J., Mitsch, W.J. Orth, K., Mashriqui, H., Reed, R.J., Shabman, L., Simenstad C.A., 

Streever, B.J., Twilley, R.R, Watson, C.C.,Wells, J.T, Whigham, D.F., 2007, Restoration of the 

Mississippi Delta: Lessons from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Science, v. 315, no. 5819, p. 1679-

1684. 

Diez, P.G., Perillo, G.M.E., and Picolo, M.C., 2007, Vulnerability to seal-level rise on the coast of 

the Buenos Aires Province: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 23, p. 119-126. 

Dillon, W.P., 1970, Submergence effects on Rhode Island barrier and lagoon and influences on 

migration of barriers Journal of Geology, v. 78, p. 94-106. 

Emanuel, K., 2005, Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years: Nature, 

v. 436, p. 686-688. 

Emery, K.O. and Aubrey, D.G., 1991, Sea Levels, Land Levels, and Tide Gauges: Sringer-Verlag, 

237 p. 

Everts, C.H., Battley, J.P., and Gibson, P.N., 1983, Shoreline movements, Cape Henry, VA to Cape 

Hatteras, NC, 1849-1980, Report 1: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., Technical 

Report CERC-83-1, 111 p. 

Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., Brook, R., 1984, Consensus methods; characteristics and 

guidelines for use: American Journal of Public Health, v. 74, p. 979-983. 

FitzGerald, D.M., Argow, B.A., and Buynevich, I.A., 2003, Rising sea level and its effects on backbarrier marshes and tidal flats, tidal inlets, and adjacent barrier shorelines, Proceedings in R.A. 

Davis, A. Sallenger, and P. Howd, eds., Coastal Sediments '03: America Society of Civil 

Engineers, Reston, Virg. 

14
 

FitzGerald, D.M., Buynevich, I.V., and Argow, B., 2006, Model of tidal inlet and barrier island 

dynamics in a regime of accelerated sea-level rise: Journal of Coastal Research, SI 39, p. 789-

795. 

Fisher, J.J., 1962, Geomorphic expression of former inlets along the Outer Banks of North 

Carolina: M.S. thesis, Department of Geology and Geography, University of North Carolina, 

Chapel Hill, 120 p. 

Fisher, J.J., 1982, Barrier Islands, in M.L. Schwartz, ed., The Encyclopedia of Beaches and Coastal 

Environments: Volume XV, p. 124-133. 

Fletcher, C. H., Knebel, H.J., and Kraft, J.C., 1990, Holocene evolution of an estuarine coast and 

tidal wetlands: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 102, p. 283-297. 

Fletcher, C. H., Knebel, H.J., and Kraft, J.C., 1992, Holocene depocenter migration and sediment 

accumulation in Delaware Bay; a submerging marginal marine sedimentary basin: Marine 

Geology, v. 103, p. 165-183. 

Glaeser, J.D., 1978, Global distribution of barrier islands in terms of tectonic setting Journal of 

Geology, v. 86, p. 283-297. 

Godfrey, P.J., and Godfrey, M.M., 1976. Barrier Island Ecology of Cape Lookout National 

Seashore and Vicinity, North Carolina: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

20402, National Park Service Monograph Series, no. 9, 160 p. 

Gornitz, V., and Lebedeff, S., 1987, Global sea-level changes during the past century, in

Nummedal, O.H. Pilkey, and J.D. Howard, eds., Sea-Level Fluctuation and Coastal Evolution: 

Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication 41, p. 3-16. 

Gornitz, V., and White, T. W., 1992, A coastal hazards database for the U.S. East Coast.: 

ORNL/CDIAC-45, NDP-043A, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

Gornitz, V.M., Daniels, R.C., White, T.W., and Birdwell, K.R., 1994, The development of a coastal 

risk assessment database: vulnerability to sea-level rise in the U.S. southeast: Journal of Coastal 

Research, SI 12, p. 327-338. 

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Russell, G., Lea, D.W., and Siddall, M., 2007, Climate change 

and trace gases: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, v. 365, p. 1925-1954. 

Hayes, M.O., 1979, Barrier island morphology as a function of tidal and wave regime, in S. 

Leatherman,, ed.: Barrier Islands, from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, p. 211- 

236. 

Holland, G.J., and Webster, P.J., 2007, Heightened tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic; 

natural variability or climate trend?: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 

A., doi:10.1098/rsta/2007.2083. Honeycutt, M.R., Crowell, M., and Douglas, B.C., 2001, 

Shoreline position forecasting; impacts of storms, rate-calculation methodologies, and temporal 

scales: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 17, no. 3, p. 721-730. 

Honeycutt, M.R., and Krantz, D.E., 2003, Influence of geologic framework on spatial variability in 

long-term shoreline change, Cape Henlopen to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware: Journal of Coastal 

Research, SI 38, p. 147-167. 

Hine, A.C., and Snyder, S.W., 1985, Coastal lithosome preservation: evidence from the shoreface 

and inner continental shelf off Bogue Banks, North Carolina: Marine Geology, v. 63, p. 307-330. 

Inman, D.L., and Nordstrom, C.E., 1971, On the tectonic and morphologic classification of coasts: 

Journal of Geology, v. 79, p. 1-21. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001, Climate change 2001; The scientific basis, 

contribution of Working Group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change: Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 944 p. (Available online at 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm) 

15
 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Climate Change 2007; The physical science 

basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, N.Y., USA. (Available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-

wg1.htm)http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm) 

Jarrett, J.T., 1983, Changes of some North Carolina barrier islands since the mid-19th century, 

Proceedings: Coastal Zone '83, American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 641-

661.http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm) 

Kossin, J.P., Knapp, K.R., Vimont, D.J., Murnane,R.J., and Harper, B.A., 2007, A globally 

consistent reanalysis of hurricane variability and trends: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 34, 

L04815, doi:10.1029/2006GL028836. 

Kraft, J.C., 1971, Sedimentary facies patterns and geologic history of a Holocene marine 

transgression: Geological Society of American Bulletin, v. 82, p. 2131-2158. 

Lambeck, K., Esat, T.M., and Potter, E.K., 2002, Links between climate and sea levels for the past 

three million years: Nature, v. 19, p. 199-206. 

Landsea, C.W., B.A. Harper, K. Hoarau, and J.A. Knaff, 2006, Can we detect trends in extreme 

tropical cyclones?: Science, v. 313, p. 452- 454. 

Leatherman, S.P., 1979, Migration of Assateague Island, Maryland, by inlet and overwash 

processes: Geology, v. 7, p. 104-107. 

Leatherman, S.P., 1984. Shoreline evolution of north Assateague Island: Shore and Beach, v. 52, p. 

3-10. Leatherman, S.P., 1985, Geomorphic and sedimentary analysis of Fire Island: New York, 

Marine Geology, v. 63, p. 173-195. 

Leatherman, S.P., 1990, Modelling shore response to sea-level rise on sedimentary coasts: Progress 

in Physical Geography, v. 14, no. 4, p. 447-464. 

Leatherman, S.P., Zhang, K., and Douglas, B.C., 2000a, Sea-level rise shown to drive costal 

erosion: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 81, p. 55-58. 

Leatherman S.P., K. Zhang, B.C. Douglas, 2000b, Sea level rise shown to drive coastal erosion: A 

reply: EOS Transactions, v. 81 p. 437-441. 

List, J.H., Farris, A.S., and Sullivan, C., 2006, Reversing storm hotspots on sandy beaches; spatial 

and temporal characteristics: Marine Geology, v. 226, p. 261-279. 

Luettich, R.A., Jr. and Westerink, J.J., 1995, Continental shelf scale convergence studies with 

barotropic tidal model, in D. Lynch and A. Davies, eds., Quantitative Skill Assessment for 

Coastal Ocean Models, Washington D.C.: American Geophysical Union, Coastal and Estuarine 

Studies Series 48, p. 349-371. 

McBride, R.A. and Moslow, T.F., 1991, Origin, evolution, and distribution of shoreface sand 

ridges, Atlantic inner shelf, USA, Marine Geology, v. 97, p. 57-85. 

McBride, R.A. and Byrnes, M.R., 1997, Regional variations in shore response along barrier island 

systems of the Mississippi River delta plain; Historical change and future prediction: Journal of 

Coastal Research, v.13 (3), p. 628-655. 

McBride,R.A., Byrnes, M.R., and Hiland, M.W., 1995, Geomorphic response-type model for 

barrier coastlines; a regional perspective: Marine Geology, v. 126, p. 143-159. 

McBride, R.A., 1999, Spatial and temporal distribution of historical and active tidal inlets; 

Delmarva Peninsula and New Jersey, USA, in N.C. Kraus and W.G. McDougal, eds., Coastal 

Sediments '99: America Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virg. , v. 2, p.1505-1521. 

Meade R.H., 1972, Transport and deposition of sediments in estuaries: Geological Society of 

America, v. 133, no. 1, p. 91-120. 

Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. 

Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao, 2007, 

16
 

Global Climate Projections, in Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. 

Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds., Climate Change 2007; The Physical Science Basis: 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

N.Y., USA. 

Miller, K.G., Kominz, M.A., Browning, J.V., Wright, J.D., Mountain, G.S., Katz, M.E., Sugar,am, 

P.J., Cramer, B.S., Christie-Blick, N., and Pekar, S.F., 2005, The Phanerozoic record of global 

sea-level change: Science, v. 310, p. 1293-1298. 

Miselis, J.L. and J.E. McNinch, 2006, Calculating shoreline erosion potential using nearshore 

stratigraphy and sediment volume, Outer Banks, North Carolina: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, 111, F02019. 

Morton, R.A., 1994, Texas barriers, in R.A. Davis, ed., Geology of Holocene Barrier Island 

Systems: Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 75-114. 

Morton, R.A., Guy, K.K., Hill, H.W., and Pascoe, T., 2003, Regional morphological responses to 

the March 1962 Ash Wednesday Storm, in R.A. Davis, A. Sallenger, and P. Howd, eds., Coastal 

Sediments '03: America Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virg. 

Morton, R.A. and Sallenger, A.H., 2003, Morphological impacts of extreme storms on sandy 

beaches and barriers: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 19, no. 3, p. 560-573. 

Moslow, T.F. and Heron, S.D., 1979, Quaternary evolution of Core Banks, North Carolina; Cape 

Lookout to Drum Inle, in S. Leatherman, ed., Barrier Islands; from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to 

the Gulf of Mexico, p. 211-236. 

Moslow, T.F. and Heron, S.D., 1994, The Outer Banks of North Carolina, in Davis, R.A., ed., 

Geology of Holocene Barrier Island Systems: Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 47-74. 

Muhs, D.R., Wehmiller, J.F., Simmons, K.R., and York, L.L., 2004, Quaternary sea level history of 

the United States, Developments in Quaternary Science, v. 1, p. 147-183. Najjar, R.G., Walker, 

H.A., Anderson, P.J., Barron, E.J., Brod, R.J., Gibson, J.R., Kennedy, V.S., Knight, C.G., 

Megonigal, J.P., O'Connor, R.E., Polsky, C.D., Psuty, N.P., Richards, B.A., Sorenson, L.G., 

Steele, E.M., Swanson, R.S., 2000, The potential impacts of climate change on the mid-Atlantic 

coastal region: Climate Research, v. 14, p. 219-233. 

National Research Council, 1987, Responding to changes in sea level; engineering implications: 

Washinton D.C., National Academy Press, 148 p. 

Oertel, G.F., 1985, The barrier island system: Marine Geology, v. 63, p. 1-18. 

Oertel, G.F. and Kraft, J.C., 1994, New Jersey and Delmarva barrier islands, in R.A. Davis, ed., 

Geology of Holocene Barrier Island Systems: Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 207-232. 

Peltier, W.R., 2001, Global glacial isostatic adjustment and modern instrumental records of relative 

sea level history, in B.C. Douglas, M.S. Kearney, S.P. Leatherman, eds., Sea Level Rise; History 

and Consequences: International Geophysics Series, Academic Press, v. 75, p. 65-95. 

Pendleton, E.A., Williams, S.J., and Thieler, E.R., 2004a, Coastal vulnerability assessment of 

Assateague Island National Seashore (ASIS) to sea-level rise: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2004-1020. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1020/. 

Pendleton, E.A., Williams, S.J., and Thieler, E.R., 2004b, Coastal vulnerability assessment of Fire 

Island National Seashore (FIIS) to sea-level rise: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-

439. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-439/. 

Pendleton, E.A., Thieler, E.R., and Williams, S.J., 2005, Coastal vulnerability assessment of Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA) to sea-level rise: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2004-1064. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1064/. 

Penland, S., Connor, P.F., Beall, A., Fearnley, S., Williams, S.J., 2005, Changes in Louisiana's 

shoreline, 1855-2002: Journal of Coastal Research, SI 44, p. 7-39. 

17
 

Pierce, J.W. and Colquhoun, D.J., 1970, Holocene evolution of a portion of the North Carolina 

coast: Geological Society of America Bulletin, no. 12, p. 241-246. 

Pilkey, O.H., Davis, T.W., 1987, An analysis of coastal recession models; North Carolina coast, in 

Nummedal, D., Pilkey, O.H., Howard, J.D., eds., Sea-Level Fluctuation and Coastal Evolution: 

Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 59-68. 

Pilkey, O.H., Young, R.S., Riggs, S.R., Smith, A.W.S., Wu, H., and Pilkey, W.D., 1993, The 

concept of a shoreface profile of equilibrium: a critical review: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 9, 

p. 255-278. 

Pilkey, O.H., Neal, W.J., Riggs, S.R., Webb, C.A., Bush, D.M., Pilkey, D.F., Bullock, J., and 

Cowan, B.A. 1998, The North Carolina shore and its Barrier Islands; Restless ribbons of sand: 

Duke University Press, Durham, N.C., 318 p. 

Pilkey, O.H., Young, R.S., and Bush, D.M., 2000, Comment on sea level rise shown to drive 

coastal erosion: EOS Transactions, v. 81, no. 38, p. 437-441. 

Rahmstorf, S., 2007, A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise: Science, v. 315, 

p. 368-370. 

Rahmstorf, S., Cazenave, A., Church, J.A., Hansen, J.E., Keeling, R. F., Parker, D.E., and 

Somerville, R.C.J., 2007, Recent climate observations compared to projections: Science Express, 

10.1126/science.1136843. 

Ramsey, K.W., Schenck, W.S., and Wang, L.T., 2001, Physiographic regions of the Delaware 

Atlantic coast: Delaware Geological Survey, Special Publication 25, University of Delaware, 

Lewes, Delaware, 1 map. 

Reed, D.J., Bishara, D.A., Cahoon, D.R., Donnelly, J., Kearney, M., Kolker, A.S., Leonard, L.L., 

Orson, R.A., Stevenson, J.C., 2007, Site-specific scenarios for wetlands accretion as sea level 

rises in the mid-atlantic region: Report to the Climate Change Division, Environmental 

Protection Agency, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, La., 49 p. 

Richardson, T.M. and McBride, R.A., 2007, Historical shoreline changes and morphodynamics of 

Parramore Island, Virginia, in N.C. Kraus and J.D. Rosati eds., Coastal Sediments '07: America 

Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virg. 

Riggs, S.R., and Ames, D.V., 2003, Drowning of North Carolina; Sea-Level Rise and Estuarine 

Dynamics: N.C. Sea Grant College Program, Raleigh, N.C., Pub. No. UNC-SG-03-04, 152 p. 

Riggs, S.R., and Ames, D.V., 2007, Effect of storms on barrier island dynamics, Core Banks, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960-2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2006-5309, 78 p. 

Riggs, S.R., Cleary, W.J., and Snyder, S.W., 1995, Influence of inherited geologic framework upon 

barrier beach morphology and shoreface dynamics: Marine Geology, v. 126, p. 213-234. 

Sallenger, A., Morton, R., Fletcher, C., Thieler, R., and Howd, P., 2000, Discussion of sea level rise 

shown to drive coastal erosion by Leatherman and others, 2000: EOS, Transactions, American 

Geophysical Union. v. 81, no.38, p. 436-437. 

Sallenger, A.S., Wright, C.W., and Lillycrop, J., 2007, Coastal-change impacts during Hurricane 

Katrina; an overview, in N.C. Kraus and J.D. Rosati, eds., Coastal Sediments '07: America 

Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virg. 

Sanders, J.E. and Kumar, N., 1975, Evidence of shoreface retreat and in-place "drowning" during 

Holocene submergence of barriers, shelf off Fire Island,:New York, Geological Society of 

America Bulletin, v. 86, p. 65-76. 

Shaw, J., Taylor, R.B., Forbes, D.L., Ruz, M.-H., and Solomon, S., 1998, Sensitivity of the 

Canadian Coast to Sea-Level Rise: Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 505, 114 p. 

Schupp, C.A., J.E. McNinch, and J.H. List, 2006 Shore-oblique bars, gravel outcrops and 

correlation to shoreline hotspots: Marine Geology, v. 233, p. 63-79.McNinch Shchepetkin, A.F., 

18
 

J.C. McWilliams, 2005, The Regional Ocean Modeling System; A split-explicit, free-surface, 

topography-following coordinates ocean model: Ocean Modelling, v. 9, no. 4, p. 347-404, 

doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2004.08.002 

Stolper, D., List, J.H., and Thieler, E.R., 2005, Simulating the evolution of coastal morphology and 

stratigraphy with a new morphological-behavior model (GEOMBEST): Marine Geology, v. 218, 

p. 17-36. 

Swift, D.J.P., 1975, Barrier island genesis; evidence from the central Atlantic shelf, eastern USA: 

Sedimentary Geology, v. 14, p. 1-43. 

Thieler, E. R. and Hammar-Klose, E., 1999, National assessment of coastal vulnerability to future 

sea-level rise--Preliminary results for U.S. Atlantic Coast: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 99-593. 

Thieler, E.R., and Hammar-Klose, E.S., 2000a, National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea 

level rise; Preliminary results for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico Coast: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 00-179, 1 map sheet. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of00-179/. 

Thieler, E.R., and Hammar-Klose, E.S., 2000b, National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea 

level rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Pacific Coast. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 00-178, 1 map sheet. Avaible at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of00-178/. 

Thieler, E.R., Pilkey, O.H., Young, R.S., Bush, D.M., and Chai, F., 2000, The use of mathematical 

models to predict beach behavior for coastal engineering: A critical review: Journal of Coastal 

Research, no. 16, v. 1, p. 48-70. 

Thieler, E.R., Williams, S.J., and Beavers, R., 2002, Vulnerability of U.S. national parks to sea 

level rise and coastal changes: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-095-02, 2 p. Available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-02/. 

Titus, J.G. and Richman, C., 2001, Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise; Modeled elevations 

along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts: Climate Research, v. 18, p. 205-228. 

Vitousek, S., Fletcher, C.H., Merrifield, M.A., Pawlak, G., and Storlazzi, C.D., 2007, Model 

scenarios of shoreline change at Kaanapali Beach, Maui: seasonal and extreme events, in, N.C. 

Kraus and J.D. Rosati, eds., Coastal Sediments '07: America Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 

Virg., p. 1227-1240. 

Walker, H.J. and Coleman, J.M., 1987. Atlantic and Gulf Coast province, in W.L. Graf, ed., 

Geomorphic Systems of North America: Geological Society of America, Special Volume 2, 

Boulder Colorado, p. 51- 110. 

Webster, P.J., G.J. Holland, J.A. Curry, and H.R. Chang, 2005, Changes in tropical cyclone 

number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment: Science, v. 309, p. 1844-1846. 

Wells, J.T., 1995, Effects of sea level rise on coastal sedimentation and erosion, in D. Eisma, ed., 

Climate Change; Impact on Coastal Habitation: Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, p. 29-56. 

Wright, L.D., 1995, Morphodynamics of inner continental shelves: CRC Press, Boca Raton, 

Florida, 241 p. 

Zervas, C., 2001, Sea Level Variations of the United States 1854-1999: NOAA Technical Report 

NOS CO-OPS 36, 201 p. Available at 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt36doc.pdf. 

Zervas, C., 2004, North Carolina Bathymetry/Topography Sea Level Rise Project; Determination 

of Sea Level Trends: NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 41, 31 p. Available at 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt41.pdf. 

Zhang, K., Douglas, B.C., and Leatherman, S.P., 2002, Do storms cause long-term beach erosion 

along the U.S. east barrier coast?: Journal of Geology v. 110, p. 493-502. 

Zhang, K., Douglas, B.C., and Leatherman, S.P., 2004, Global warming and coastal erosion, 

Climatic Change, v. 64, no. 1-2, p. 41-58. 

19
 

Figure 1. Map of the mid-Atlantic coast of the United States showing the seventeen coastal 

compartments and their coastal geomorphic type.

20
 

Figure 2. Paleogeography of the Delaware Bay region inferred from geological investigations of 

shallow marine sediments. Compiled from Fletcher and others (1990 and 1992). 

21
 

Figure 3. Map showing the potential sea-level rise responses for each coastal compartment. 

Colored portions of the coastline indicates the potential response for a given sea-level rise scenario 

according to the inset table. Numbers indicate the coastal compartments shown in Figure 1. 

22
 

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the degrees of likelihood for shoreline change outcomes. 

23
 

Table 1. Rates of Relative Sea-Level Rise for Selected Long-Term Tide Gauges on the East Coast of 

the United States (Zervas, 2001) 

Station Rate of Sea Level 

Rise (mm/yr) Latitude Longitude Time Span of Record 

Eastport, ME 2.12 ± 0.13 44.9033 -66.9850 1929-1999 

Portland, ME 1.91 ± 0.09 43.6567 -70.2467 1912-1999 

Seavey Island, ME 1.75 ± 0.17 43.0833 -69.2500 1926-1999 

Boston, MA 2.65 ± 0.1 42.3550 -71.0517 1921-1999 

Woods Hole, MA 2.59 ± 0.12 41.5233 -70.2222 1932-1999 

Providence, RI 1.88 ± 0.17 41.8067 -71.4017 1938-1999 

Newport, RI 2.57 ± 0.11 41.5050 -71.3267 1930-1999 

New London, CT 2.13 ± 0.15 41.3550 -72.0867 1938-1999 

Montauk, NY 2.58 ± 0.19 41.0733 -71.935 1947-1999 

Willets Point, NY 2.41 ± 0.15 40.8000 -72.2167 1931-1999 

The Battery, NY 2.77 ± 0.05 40.7000 -74.0150 1905-1999 

Sandy Hook, NJ 3.88 ± 0.15 40.4667 -73.9833 1932-1999 

Atlantic City, NJ 3.98 ± 0.11 39.355 -74.4183 1922-1999 

Philadelphia, PA 2.75 ± 0.12 39.9335 -75.1417 1900-1999 

Lewes, DE 3.16 ± 0.16 38.7817 -75.1200 1919-1999 

Baltimore, MD 3.12 ± 0.08 39.2667 -76.5783 1902-1999 

Annapolis, MD 3.53 ± 0.13 38.9833 -76.4800 1928-1999 

Solomons Island, 

MD 3.29 ± 0.17 38.3167 -76.4517 1937-1999 

Washington D.C. 3.13 ± 0.21 38.8733 -77.0217 1931-1999 

Hampton Roads, 

VA 4.42 ± 0.16 36.9467 -76.3300 1927-1999 

Portsmouth, VA 3.76 ± 0.23 36.8167 -75.7000 1935-1999 

Wilmington, NC 2.22 ± 0.25 34.2267 -77.9533 1935-1999 

Charleston, SC 3.28 ± 0.14 32.7817 -79.9250 1921-1999 

Fort Pulaski, GA 3.05 ± 0.2 32.3330 -80.9017 1935-1999 

Fernandina Beach, 

FLA 2.04 ± 0.12 30.6717 -81.4650 1897-1999 

Mayport, FLA 2.43 ± 0.18 30.3967 -81.4300 1928-1999 

Miami, FLA 2.39 ± 0.22 25.7667 -79.8667 1931-1999 

Key West, FLA 2.27 ± 0.09 24.5533 -81.8083 1913-1999 

24
 

25

Appendix-List of Committee Participants 

Fred Anders* (New York State, Dept. of State) 

Eric Anderson (USGS, NOAA Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC) 

Mark Byrnes (Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Mashpee, MA) 

Donald Cahoon (USGS, Laurel MD) 

Stewart Farrell (Richard Stockton College, Stockton, NJ) 

Duncan FitzGerald* (Boston University, Boston, MA) 

Paul Gayes (Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC) 

Benjamin Gutierrez (USGS, Woods Hole, MA) 

Carl Hobbs (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Pt., VA) 

Randy McBride (George Mason University, Fairfax, VA) 

Jesse McNinch (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Pt., VA) 

Stanley Riggs* (East Carolina State University, Greenville, NC) 

Antonio Rodriguez (University North Carolina, Moorehead City, NC) 

Jay Tanski (New York Sea Grant, Stony Brook, NY) 

E. Robert Thieler (USGS, Woods Hole, MA) 

Art Trembanis (University of Delaware, Lewes, DE) 

S. Jeffress Williams (USGS, Woods Hole, MA) 

* denotes participants who could not attend the April 12-13, 2007 meeting, but have provided 

information and commented on written results and conclusions from the meeting.