NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS CS 5 

NORTH CAROLINA SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECT: INTERIM 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

September 2004 

n 0 a a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Ocean Service 

Coast Survey Development Laboratory 
NOTICE 

Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an 

endorsement by NOAA. Use for publicity or advertising purposes of 

information from this publication concerning proprietary products or the 

tests of such products is not authorized. 
NOM Technical Memorandum NOS CS 5 

NORTH CAROLINA SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECT: INTERIM 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

Kurt W. Hess Office of Coast Survey 

Stephen A. White National Geodetic Survey 

Jon Sellars National Geodetic Survey 

Emily A. Spargo Office of Coast Survey 

Adeline Wong Office of Coast Survey 

Stephen K. Gill Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services 

Chris Zervas Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services 

September 2004 

n 0 a a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF COMMERCE 

Donald Evans, Secretary 

Office of Coast Survey 

Captain Roger L. Parsons 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., 

VADM USN (Ret.), Under Secretary 

National Ocean Service 

Richard Spinrad, Ph.D. 

Assistant Administrator 

Coast Survey Development 

Laboratory 

Maureen Kenny, Acting Chief 
Office of Coast Survey 

National Oc~an Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

The Office of Coast Survey (CS) is the Nation's only official chartmaker. As the oldest United States 

scientific organization, dating from 1807, this office has a long history. Today it promotes safe 

navigation by managing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) nautical 

chart and oceanographic data collection and information programs. 

There are four components of CS: 

The Coast Survey Development Laboratory develops new and efficient techniques to 

accomplish Coast Survey missions and to produce new and improved products and services for 

the maritime community and other coastal users. 

The Marine Chart Division collects marine navigational data to construct and maintain nautical 

charts, Coast Pilots, and related marine products for the United States. 

The Hydrographic Surveys Division directs programs for ship and shore-based hydrographic 

survey units and conducts general hydrographic survey operations. 

The Navigation Services Division is the focal point for Coast Survey customer service activities, 

concentrating predominantly on charting issues, fast-response hydrographic surveys and Coast 

Pilot updates. 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ v 

BASE MAP ........................................................................................................................ vi 

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 

2. BATHYMETRIC, WATER LEVEL, AND COASTLINE DATA ................................ 3 

2.1. Bathymetric Data ..................................................................................................... 3 

2.2. Tide and Water Level Data ...................................................................................... 4 

2.3. Long-term Sea Level Rise ....................................................................................... 7 

2.4. Digitized Coastline .................................................................................................. 7 

3. TIDAL AND HYDRODYNAMIC MODELING ........................................................ 10 

3.1. The ADCIRC Model .............................................................................................. 10 

3.2. Model Grid Development ...................................................................................... 10 

3.3. Bathymetric Data for the Model Grid .................................................................... 12 

3.4. Boundary Forcing .................................................................................................. 12 

3.5. Results of Model Water Level Simulations ........................................................... 13 

4. CREATION OF THE DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL ........................................... 16 

4.1. Data Sources .......................................................................................................... 16

4.2. Re-referencing the Bathymetric Data .................................................................... 17 

4.3. Preliminary Merged Topographic/Bathymetric Dataset ........................................ 17 

5. FUTURE PLANS ......................................................................................................... 20 

ACKNOWLDEGEMENTS .............................................................................................. 21 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 22

APPENDIX A. PROJECT PERSONNEL ........................................................................ 24 

APPENDIX B. WATER LEVEL STATION DATA ...................................................... 26 
iv
v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The National Ocean Service (NOS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) has begun studying the impacts of long-term sea level rise on 

the coastal ecosystems in the sounds and estuaries of North Carolina. NOS’ Office of 

Coast Survey (OCS), National Geodetic Survey (NGS), and the Center for Operational 

Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS), are cooperating to develop data sets, 

modeling tools, and maps that will be useful to coastal managers. 

The approach is to simulate projected sea level variations for the coastal region using a 

coastal flooding model that combines a hydrodynamic model of water levels with a highresolution digital elevation model (DEM). When developed, the coastal flooding model 

will be used to simulate long-term rises in water levels and to delineate areas where sea 

level rise changes inundation due to astronomic tides, winds and waves, and storm 

surges. Based on project resources and input from state management, the area of the 

DEM was selected to focus on the southern Pamlico Sound and the region around 

Beaufort, North Carolina. 

During the past year, a hydrodynamic model for tides and water levels has been 

developed and used to simulate astronomical tides and determine tidal datum fields. 

Water depths, which NOS archives and are referenced to Mean Low Water (MLW) or 

Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), were then adjusted to Mean Sea Level (MSL) using 

the tidal datum fields and then re-adjusted to a land elevation like the North American 

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Finally, the bathymetry for a sub-region of the 

study area was then integrated with the land elevations from recent airborne lidar data to 

create a preliminary DEM that covers a portion of the planned area. The software 

conversion package VDatum was developed as part of the project. 

Key words: hydrodynamic model, tides, digital elevation model, sea level rise, wetlands, 

coastal flooding 
vi

BASE MAP 

Map of the coastal portion of central North Carolina showing locations mentioned 

in this report.
1

1. INTRODUCTION

The National Ocean Service (NOS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) has begun studying the impacts of long-term sea level rise on 

the coastal ecosystems in the sounds and estuaries of North Carolina. The study is being 

led by the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research/Coastal Ocean Program 

(CSCOR/COP) of NOS’ National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, which is 

committed to providing decision makers with high quality scientific information and 

predictive tools in formats appropriate to promoting near-term improvements in coastal 

ecosystem management. Technical support is provided by NOS’ Office of Coast Survey 

(OCS), National Geodetic Survey (NGS), and the Center for Operational Oceanographic 

Products and Services (CO-OPS), which are cooperating to develop data sets, modeling 

tools, and maps that will be useful to coastal managers. The technical personnel and their 

activities are shown in Appendix A. 

The approach is to simulate projected sea level variations for the coastal region using a 

coastal flooding model that combines a hydrodynamic model of water levels with a highresolution digital elevation model (DEM). When it is developed, the coastal flooding 

model will be used to simulate long-term rises in water levels and to delineate areas 

where sea level rise changes inundation due to astronomic tides, winds and waves, and 

storm surges. Ultimately, coastal wetland and forest ecosystems as well as human-made 

structures will be added to the coastal flooding model to simulate their influences and 

alterations. The resulting information will be depicted on maps detailed enough to allow 

managers to see projected shoreline changes and to display predictions of ecosystem 

impacts. Using these predictions, coastal managers can proactively plan mitigation. 

Based on project resources and input from state management, the area of the DEM was 

selected to focus on the southern Pamlico Sound and the region around Beaufort (Figure 

1). This area includes both types of geologic provinces: the flatter, large-lagoon 

geography typical of the State’s coast north of Cape Lookout, and the greater-sloped, 

narrow-lagoon geography typical of the coast further to the south (Pilkey et al., 1998). 

Progress in the development of the models and DEM was discussed at a workshop in 

Beaufort, North Carolina, during February 4-5, 2004 (Auer et al., 2004). 

As a preliminary step in creating the coastal flooding model, during the past year (March 

2003 to April 2004) a hydrodynamic model for tides and water levels has been developed 

and used to simulate astronomical tides and determine tidal datum fields. Water depths, 

which NOS archives and are referenced to Mean Low Water (MLW) or Mean Lower 

Low Water (MLLW), were then adjusted to Mean Sea Level (MSL) using the tidal datum 

fields and then re-adjusted to a land elevation like the North American Vertical Datum of 

1988 (NAVD 88). Finally, the bathymetry for a sub-region of the study area was then 

integrated with the land elevations from recent airborne lidar data to create a preliminary 

DEM that covers only a portion of the planned area. 

The adjustment of water depths from MLLW or MLW to NAVD 88 is being carried out 

by use of the software tool for vertical datum transformation, VDatum (Parker et al., 
2

2003). VDatum, which requires the tidal datum fields from the hydrodynamic model, is 

under development and will eventually cover most of the marine water areas in North 

Carolina (Hess et al., in preparation). 

 

Figure 1. The Pamlico Sound area of North Carolina showing the region of the DEM and of 

VDatum. The DEM is defined on the lower left by point (34° 24' N, 77° 15' W) and on the upper right 

by point (35° 18' N, 75° 45' W). The VDatum area is defined by the same lower left point, and on the 

upper right by point (35° 51.6' N, 75° 15' W). 

The following sections describe the technical approach and the progress to date in the 

major components of the study: 

 Access of historical NOS bathymetric, coastline, and tidal data, 

 Development of the hydrodynamic grid and model, 

 Integration of the land and bathymetry into a DEM, and 

 Creation of the coastal flooding model. 

Appendices include a description of the project staff and the locations and names of the 

water level stations. 
3

2. BATHYMETRIC, WATER LEVEL, AND COASTLINE DATA

Water level model development for the Pamlico Sound region requires several types of 

data. Bathymetric data is available from NOS and other sources, and model validation 

depends on comparisons to datums based on observed water levels. Updated tidal datums 

were therefore derived for several local tide stations, and a new tide station was installed 

in Core Sound. Historical water levels were re-analyzed to determine updated estimates 

of long-term sea level rise. A digital coastline was accessed and used to delineate land 

and water areas. 

2.1. Bathymetric Data 

Water depths from historic NOS bathymetric surveys of the North Carolina coast 

were selected for sounding values from the GEOphysical DAta System 

(GEODAS) created by NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). 

About 90% of the study area is covered by NOS sounding data. Bathymetric data 

sets were processed from nearly 1,659,000 soundings extracted from 148 

hydrographic surveys spanning the years 1869 to 2001. Individual surveys lasted 

from several days to several months. Sounding methods reported in GEODAS 

assume lead line surveys before 1940, and digital echo sounder surveys from 

1940 onward. 

According to NGDC, the horizontal accuracy of the soundings is generally 30 m, 

with improved accuracy of recent surveys that employ a differential global 

position system (DGPS). GEODAS converts original depth units (feet or 

fathoms) to tenths of meters. For common reference, the original horizontal 

datum of each survey was transformed to NAD 83(86) using the North American 

Datum Conversion utility (NADCON). Soundings from the 30 oldest (about 20% 

of the total) surveys acquired before 1927 were initially converted to NAD 27 and 

then to NAD 83(86). Historic NOS survey data sets were cleaned of missing 

depth values (denoted by a depth value of -99999), sorted and merged by year 

and by original vertical datum. Soundings in each survey were checked against 

adjacent and overlapping surveys to ensure continuous coverage. Thirty-four 

spatial-temporal filters were applied to select and compile the best available NOS 

historical bathymetry for the project area, which resulted in approximately 

1,210,910 useful soundings. 

The NOS sounding data are referenced to one of several vertical datums; each 

sounding has associated metadata that lists whether the depth value is 

referenced to Mean Low Water (MLW), MLLW, or the low water datum (LWD), 

which is defined for North Carolina as 0.5 feet (0.15 meters) below the local 

Mean Water Level (MWL). MWL is the average water level over the available 

record. Analysis of tidal data included in NOAA hydrographic reports reveals that 

LWD is usually used for surveys within Pamlico Sound at locations far from 

inlets. Vertical accuracy of the NOS soundings conforms to the international 
4

hydrographic standard: 0.3 m in 0 to 20 m of water, 1.0 m in 20 to 100 m of 

water, and 1% of the water depth in waters of 100 m depth or deeper. The plots 

below show the age of the NOS historical data (Figure 2), as well as the 

sounding density (Figure 3).

 

Figure 2. Dates of NOS surveys. Figure 3. Location of soundings from NOS surveys in 

North Carolina. 

Historical NOS bathymetry data are also available in an interpolated, gridded format as 

part of NOAA’s Coastal Relief Model (CRM) at NGDC. CRM gridded bathymetry are 

available at a horizontal spacing of 3 arc-seconds, or approximately 90 m, while 

elevations are resolved to 0.1 m. However, CRM depths have not been corrected from 

their original vertical datum (MLW, MLLW, or LWD). 

Recent bathymetric data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) originate 

from 54 inlet and channel surveys conducted between 1997 and 2003. The data consist of 

61,573 soundings whose horizontal positions were converted from state plane coordinates 

to NAD 83, and whose depth values were converted from feet to meters. Where 

applicable, these channel soundings blend with or supersede the NOS bathymetry (see 

Section 3.3). 

2.2. Tide and Water Level Data 

!

1998-2001

!

1974-1980

!

1970-1971

!

1962-1965

!

1953-1955

!

1942-1943

!

1932-1936

!

1920-1927

!

1913-1917

!

1869-1877
5

Tidal datums and other data (e.g., harmonic constants and time series of water levels) are 

available from NOS for numerous historical stations around the region (Figure 4). These 

are used for comparison with the model output. Station location and tidal datum values 

are given in Appendix B. 

Figure 4. Locations of 45 water level stations (red and blue squares) used in the study. Datums at 

locations denoted by red squares have been updated to the 1983-2001 tidal datum epoch, while 

datums at other locations are for earlier epochs. See Appendix B for further information. 

As part of the study, a short-term tide station was installed at the town of Sea Level, 

North Carolina, on Core Sound in late January 2004. Six-minute interval water level data 

are being collected every hour over GOES satellite radio transmissions and are quality 

controlled and processed at CO-OPS. The station will be operated from 3 to 4 months, at 

which time tidal datums will be computed. Tidal datum elevations relative to local 

benchmarks and to geodetic datum will be determined as well. Geodetic datum 

connections are being made in partnership with the North Carolina Geodetic Survey, 

which will be occupying the tidal benchmarks with GPS. 
6
7

2.3. Long-term Sea Level Rise 

An in-depth analysis of historical North Carolina water level data was carried out as part 

of the project (Zervas, 2004). MSL and tidal datum trends will be applied to a coastal 

DEM for North Carolina in order to predict shoreline movements and to map submerged 

zones that may occur 25 to 50 years in the future. MSL trends were obtained from 

monthly data from eight North Carolina stations (Duck, Oregon Inlet Marina, Cape 

Hatteras, Beaufort, Atlantic Beach, Wilmington, Southport, and Yaupon Beach). Where 

there were significant gaps in the data, comparisons were made with the stations with 

more complete records to narrow the trend confidence intervals. The calculated MSL rise 

increases with latitude from 1.79 mm/yr at Yaupon Beach in the south to 4.27 mm/yr at 

Duck in the north, with an overall average rise of 2.74 mm/yr. Average seasonal cycles 

were similar for all stations, with the highest monthly water levels in the early fall and 

lowest monthly water levels in the winter. The longest time series (68 years at 

Wilmington) shows no significant changes in the average rate of rise over the period of 

the data. 

The mean and great diurnal ranges were analyzed to determine any long-term changes in 

tidal range. Oregon Inlet Marina, Beaufort, and Wilmington have large (greater than 3 

mm/yr) and statistically significant increases in tidal range. Stations directly on the 

Atlantic Ocean had no such increase in tidal range. Harmonic analyses were carried out 

for a period near the installation date of the above three stations and for 2002. The 

observed increases in the amplitude of the largest tidal constituent (M2) agree with the 

calculated increases in tidal range. For these three stations, the Mean Higher High Water 

(MHHW), MHW, MLW, and MLLW trends were calculated. Continual dredging of the 

channels connecting these stations to the ocean has resulted in significant variation in the 

trends of the different tidal datums. High water datums have been rising at a rate 

significantly faster than the MSL trend. Whether or not this difference in trend continues 

depends on future dredging activity and on the opening or closing of inlets in North 

Carolina's chain of barrier islands. 

2.4. Digitized Coastline 

Digital files containing the mean high water (MHW) and the mean lower low water 

(MLLW) shoreline were obtained from the Coast Survey’s Extracted Vector Shoreline 

(EVS) project. The digital files contain points defining the coastline that were extracted 

from digital images of NOS’ finest-scale raster nautical charts; a sample is shown in 

Figure 5. The MHW line from the charts depicts the land-intertidal, or sometimes landmarsh, boundary at a time when the water elevation is equal to MHW, and the MLLW 

line depicts the intertidal-water, or sometimes marsh-water, boundary at a time when the 

water elevation is equal to MLLW. 
8

Figure 5. Sample of the extracted vector shoreline for MHW (black) and MLLW (green). 
9
10

3. TIDAL AND HYDRODYNAMIC MODELING

As part of the tidal model development, a high-resolution finite element hydrodynamic 

model was created for the study area. Historical bathymetry from NOS and other sources 

was used to populate the grid with depths. The model was run numerous times to 

simulate astronomical tides, and further revised and calibrated until it produced relatively 

accurate tidal datum information. Tidal datum fields have been produced, and bathymetry 

was re-referenced to MSL. 

3.1. The ADCIRC Model 

Tide modeling was accomplished using ADCIRC, the ADvanced CIRCulation model for 

oceanic, coastal and estuarine waters. The model runs in two-dimensional (i.e., 

barotropic) mode on an unstructured grid composed of triangular elements; this type of 

grid is ideally suitable for representing complex coastlines to any desired resolution, and 

can be easily modified to add spatial resolution in any geographic area with little effort. 

The grid must then be populated by bathymetry to represent the region, and boundary 

forcing must be added to simulate astronomical tides and other causes of water level 

variability. 

The ADCIRC model was developed by Dr. Rick Luettich at the University of North 

Carolina at Chapel Hill, Institute of Marine Sciences, and by Dr. Joannes Westerink at 

University of Notre Dame, Department of Civil Engineering and Geologic Sciences 

(Luettich et al., 1992; Luettich and Westerink, 2004). This model is a system of 

computer programs that solves time-dependent, free surface circulation and transport 

problems in two and three dimensions. The ADCIRC Two-Dimensional Depth 

Integrated (2DDI) version, used for the North Carolina area studies, is the barotropic 

version of the model. ADCIRC utilizes the finite element method in space, taking 

advantage of highly flexible, irregularly spaced grids. Numerous studies have shown this 

model to be robust throughout the Eastern North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions 

(Luettich and Westerink, 1995; Mukai et al., 2001). 

3.2. Model Grid Development 

The modeling strategy was to create a regional grid (Figure 6) by taking a portion of a 

larger scale grid, in this case, a course grid of the western North Atlantic grid (Westerink 

et al., 1994). Then, additional cells were added to incorporate the sounds, which were not 

present in the original grid. The grid in the sounds was combined with a grid obtained 

from Rick Luettich. Finally, additional cells were added to the area around Beaufort. The 

final grid contains 36,409 nodes, and the smallest cells have a node spacing on the order 

of 20 m. A portion of the high-resolution part of the grid around Beaufort is shown in 

Figure 7. 
11

Figure 6. Model finite element grid for the regional model. 

Figure 7. Model finite element grid with DEM boundary (dark black box) and 

MHW coastline (blue). 
12

3.3. Bathymetric Data for the Model Grid 

The bathymetric data used to populate the model grid came from five different sources. 

These data are: (1) Post-Hurricane Isabel Army Corps of Engineers sounding data, (2) 

Pre-Hurricane Isabel Army Corps of Engineers sounding data, (3) NOS historical 

sounding data, (4) Coastal Relief Model (CRM) data, and (5) manually digitized NOAA 

paper nautical charts. The Post-Hurricane Isabel Army Corps of Engineers sounding 

data, henceforth referred to as POST-ISA, is referenced to MLW, and was obtained after 

the passage of Hurricane Isabel on September 18, 2003. The Pre-Hurricane Isabel Army 

Corps of Engineers sounding data, henceforth referred to as PRE-ISA, is referenced to 

MLLW. The NOS sounding data is referenced to one of several datums; each sounding 

has associated metadata that lists whether the point is referenced to MLW, MLLW, or a 

low water datum (LWD). The CRM data is referenced to MLW. The NOAA paper 

nautical chart data, digitized 15 years ago at the University of North Carolina, are 

referenced to MLW; these data points were incorporated into a finite element grid, which 

was made available to NOS. 

The depth value for each node in the grid was obtained by averaging the depth values 

from the highest-priority source located within the area covered by all triangular cells 

with a vertex at the node. 

The depths were adjusted to MSL by an iterative process. Initially, a MSL-to-LWD 

difference of 15 cm in the portions of Pamlico Sound where LWD was used, and 

estimated MSL-to-MLW and MSL-to-MLLW differences of 50 cm elsewhere were 

applied to the bathymetric depths. After the first and each subsequent 30-day tide 

simulation, the computed water levels at each node were saved and analyzed to extract 

the tidal datums. Then the MSL-to-MLW, MSL-to-MLLW, and MSL-to-LWD 

differences were averaged for each triangular element and applied to the bathymetric 

depths from the original sources within that element. Depth adjustments at most locations 

converged to within 1 cm of their final values after three simulations. Note that the 

modeled MSL, determined by averaging 6-min values at each node, differs from the 

model’s zero elevation in Pamlico Sound by approximately 5 cm. 

Inter-tidal areas often did not have depth values, since neither NOS nor USGS measures 

depths in those areas, and lidar data are usually not collected at the times when the water 

level is at or below MLLW. Therefore, depths in those inter-tidal areas that had no 

elevation values were assumed to be everywhere 15 cm below MSL. 

3.4. Boundary Forcing 

The outer coastal boundary of the regional grid (Figure 6) is forced with periodic water 

level variations to simulate astronomical tides. The water level, relative to the model’s 

zero elevation, at each node along the outer boundary is 

 H = ho + ∑ fn An cos ( ωnt + [Vo + u]n – κn) (1) 
13

where H is the total water level (m), ho represents a constant offset (here taken to be zero), 

and the remaining term represents the astronomical tide. An is the constituent amplitude 

(m), ωn is the constituent speed (degrees/hr), t is the time, [Vo + u]n is the equilibrium 

angle (degrees), and κn is the phase relative to Greenwich time (degrees). There is a 

unique set of harmonic constants at each grid node along the coastal boundary; a sample 

is shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. Sample of the tidal constituents and harmonic 

 constants used to force the regional model. 

 Constituent Amplitude (m) Phase (deg) 

 An κn

 

K1 0.091433 177.978 

O1 0.068979 191.636 

Q1 0.012528 177.459 

M2 0.408000 351.313 

S2 0.074515 10.154 

N2 0.096141 336.247 

K2 0.017007 16.020 

For the simulation of water levels that are to be used to generate tidal datums, as opposed 

to simulating the tide for a specific date, the day and year of the simulation is not 

important. Therefore, for the following model runs the lunar node factor, fn, was set to 1.0 

and the equilibrium angle [Vo + u]n was set to 0.0. 

3.5. Results of Model Water Level Simulations 

The model was run to simulate astronomical tides, and the time series of water levels 

were analyzed to determine tidal datums. The datums at each node in the grid were found 

by extracting the high and low waters, categorizing them as highs, higher highs, lows, or 

lower lows, then averaging. The computed datums were compared to those based on 

observations at 45 water level stations. The root mean square (RMS) difference between 

the modeled and observed MHHW, MHW, MLW, and MLLW datum values, relative to 

MSL, was 5.1 cm. A plot of the MHHW and MLLW comparisons is shown in Figure 8. 
14

Figure 8. Comparison of the MHHW and MLLW tidal datums (m) obtained from 

observations (horizontal axis) and the hydrodynamic model (vertical axis). RMS error for 

both datums was 4.5 cm. 

As described in Section 3.3, the tidal datums were used to correct the NOS bathymetry, 

which is referenced to MLW, MLLW, or LWD. The bathymetric data were used in the 

hydrodynamic model when re-referenced to the model’s zero elevation. The modeled 

fields for MSL and tide range (MHW minus MLW) are shown in Figures 9 and 10. 

Freshwater flows for the Neuse, Pamlico-Tar, Roanoke, and Chowan Rivers were added 

to the water level model to assess their influence on mean levels. The differences 

between the tide-only and the tide plus river forcing was negligible, except in the upper 

reaches on the rivers, where differences on the order of less than 1 cm was found. The 

simulated flowrates (Amein and Airan, 1976) are shown in Table 2. 

Table 2. Freshwater inputs to the major rivers to Pamlico and Albemarle Sounds (from 

Amein and Airan, 1976). The estimated flow from marshes directly into the sounds was 

4,000 cfs. 

River 

Gauged 

Flowrate 

(cfs) 

Estimated 

Ungauged 

Flowrate 

(cfs) 

Total Flowrate 

(cfs) 

Total Flowrate 

(m3

/s) 

Neuse 3938 1242 5180 146.6 

Pamlico-Tar 2420 2150 4570 129.4 

Roanoke 8155 1185 9340 264.4 

Chowan 315 5020 5335 151.0 
15

 

Figure 9. Mean sea level (relative to the hydrodynamic model's zero elevation) as computed 

by the hydrodynamic model. 

Figure 10. Tide range (i.e., the difference between MHW and MLW) as computed by the 

hydrodynamic model. 
16

4. CREATION OF THE DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL

North Carolina land elevation data from several sources, including the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored statewide lidar survey, was 

acquired, and processing was begun on a limited area (White and Sellars, 2004). Using 

existing benchmark data, a topography of the sea surface (TSS) was generated. A 

preliminary DEM for part of the study area has been developed. The DEM integrates the 

bathymetry and the land elevations at a 6-m horizontal resolution. 

4.1. Data Sources 

For developing a combined topographic/bathymetric digital elevation model, various data 

sources were evaluated. Three different data sources of elevation data were assessed for 

this part of the elevation model. All three data sources are available through the Web. 

These sources are: 

 North Carolina FEMA lidar data, 

 Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) Data, and 

 USGS’ digital National Elevation Dataset (NED). 

The raw FEMA lidar data has a horizontal resolution of 4 to 6 m and a vertical accuracy 

of 20 cm in coastal counties and 25 cm in inland counties. The available elevations 

consist of the original data and the bare earth data. The bare earth data are the original 

point data that have been thinned to consist of only the lidar returns that represent the 

ground surface. This includes removing lidar returns capturing vegetation, buildings, 

power lines, birds, etc. However, once the original lidar point data were thinned, gaps 

appeared in the lidar return coverage. 

The bare earth data have two formats: the point data and the regularly gridded data. The 

second format is a regular raster grid representing a bare earth surface. These raster cells 

have a 6.1-m spacing and are filled with a z-value depicting the vertical elevation within 

the bounds of the cell. The raster dataset was obtained by first creating a Triangular 

Irregular Network (TIN) from the bare-earth point data. A regular grid was then 

populated through the extraction of elevation information for each grid cell from the 

corresponding TIN using linear interpolation. The use of tinning, however, produces 

artificial elevations along coastal areas where water bodies are not properly masked out. 

Therefore, the bare earth point data were used for the preliminary DEM. 

Both the bare-earth point data and the regular grid bare-earth data from the North 

Carolina FEMA lidar survey contain sites of missing data within the study area. Since 

there are no lidar data for some areas, data from another source (e.g., the NED and the 

STRM) would have to be utilized to fill in gaps. The second concern is that the data are 

not tide coordinated: when lidar data are acquired at varying tide stages, the amount of 

the shoreline exposed will differ. 
17

4.2. Re-referencing the Bathymetric Data 

Each bathymetric data point was adjusted to local MSL based on the tidal datums 

produced from the tidal model of the region (see Section 3). The model produced these 

tidal datums at all nodes in the finite element mesh. The datums for an element were 

determined by taking the average of the datums at the three nodes that compose an 

element. To adjust a bathymetric data point to MSL, first the data point was located 

within one of the grid elements. Next, the difference between MLW and MSL or MLLW 

and MSL for that element was applied to the bathymetric sounding point depending on 

the original sounding reference. For points where the metadata indicated that the data 

came from a LWD area, the bathymetry was adjusted 0.15 meters to MSL. 

At some locations, data were available from several sources. Priority was given first to 

the POST-ISA data, then the PRE-ISA data, then the NOS soundings, then the CRM and 

finally the NOAA chart data. This means that all POST-ISA points within the DEM 

region were used. A tolerance distance of 0.0004 arc-degrees (~20.6 ft) was set. The 

PRE-ISA data were examined and any points that fell within the tolerance distance from 

any POST-ISA data point were eliminated. Points that were further by the tolerance 

distance from the PRE-ISA data were retained. Next, the NOS data points were 

compared to both the POST-ISA and PRE-ISA data points. Any NOS points closer than 

the predetermined tolerance were eliminated. The CRM data were compared to the PREand POST-ISA data as well as the NOS data to make sure the CRM data did not 

supersede data from any of those sources. Additionally, CRM data with 0.0 or –99999.0 

depths were eliminated, since these two depths were only used in the CRM model as 

“placeholders.” Finally, the NOAA nautical chart point data were compared to all 

previously mentioned data sources and were checked to make sure they were further than 

0.0004 arc-degrees from any other points. 

The final output files contain all saved points (i.e., those that were not eliminated in the 

process described above) adjusted to MSL. The files were constructed to contain data in 

a 1 arc-degree by 1 arc-degree area, and are labeled YY_XXX.xyz where the YY is the 

latitude and XXX is the longitude of the southeastern corner of the box. Each file lists the 

longitude in degrees, latitude in degrees, and bathymetric depth in meters relative to 

MSL. Negative bathymetry values indicate a depth below local MSL and positive 

bathymetry values indicate a height above local MSL. Additionally, there is a fourth 

column of data with an integer from 1 to 5 that corresponds to the source of the data 

where 1 = POST-ISA, 2 = PRE-ISA, 3 = NOS, 4=CRM, and 5 = NOAA paper nautical 

chart data. 

4.3. Preliminary Merged Topographic/Bathymetric Dataset 

A preliminary merge on a small portion of the topographic and bathymetric datasets was 

performed to work out the processing procedures that will be utilized when constructing 

the final combined topographic and bathymetric digital elevation model (Figure 11). 

This first run utilized only the North Carolina FEMA lidar bare-earth point data and the 
18

bathymetric point data. The bare-earth point data were in the appropriate format for 

processing in VDatum. The lidar point data also allow for a smoother workflow when 

they are ready to be merged with the bathymetric point data. The preliminary DEM has a 

horizontal spacing of 6.1 m and a vertical datum of NAVD 88. 

In the future, in order to help fill the void in areas where lidar data were not made 

available, the other datasets that were acquired will be utilized. The highest priority will 

be given to making use of the regular grid bare-earth data. The regular grids will be 

converted to point data and the water surfaces will be masked out. If the regular grid 

bare-earth data are not available, raw lidar data will be used. A bare-earth routine will be 

used to remove features such as buildings, trees, towers, etc. that are not representative of 

the ground surface. This bare-earth data will then be integrated with the other datasets. 

 Figure 11. Isometric view of the preliminary topographic/bathymetric DEM created for 

designing the proper procedures for the merging of North Carolina elevation datasets. 
19
20

5. FUTURE PLANS

The goal of the project is to predict and assess the impacts of rising sea level on coastal 

wetland and forest ecosystems in Pamlico, Core, Back, and Bogue Sounds and the 

adjacent lands in Pamlico, Craven, and Carteret Counties. Work on the physical aspects 

of sea level rise began in the first year of the study. The activities described below are 

planned for completion in the second year (May 2004 to May 2005). 

The project staff will complete the task of applying VDatum for the selected geographic 

area so that the bathymetry can be re-referenced to a common vertical datum such as 

NAVD 88. VDatum is a NOS software application that converts among approximately 29 

vertical datums, including tidal, orthometric, and three-dimensional datums, and is a 

prerequisite to creating the DEM. Tasks include generating the VDatum marine grid and 

populating the grid with tidal datum fields and sea surface topography. 

The hydrodynamic model, which is substantially complete, will be used to simulate the 

influence of winds on water levels in the sounds. If time and resources permit, wind 

waves will be added to the model, and a three-dimensional version of the model that 

incorporates salinity and temperature will be tested. 

The DEM will be completed when the bathymetry is combined with the land elevation 

data from the State’s topographic lidar survey to produce the bathymetric/topographic 

elevation model, with a spatial resolution of 10 to 30 m in the horizontal. USGS 

personnel are also producing a DEM of the same area, possibly of higher spatial 

resolution, and the project staff plans to exchange data with them. 

The coastal flooding model (CFM) combines the tide and water level model and the 

DEM. The CFM will be developed by expanding the existing tide model grid to cover 

low-lying land areas and then populating the grid’s land cells with DEM-based elevation 

values. Elevations will be in a uniform vertical reference frame such as NAVD 88 or 

NAD 83 (86). The DEM will be revised to include roadways, drainages ditches, and other 

features affecting inundation. The CFM will then be used to assess land inundation due to 

storm surges and sea level rise. The CFM will be designed to be able to incorporate submodels that will simulate surface and subsurface water flow, wetlands, and inter-tidal 

areas. 

Management tools that include maps of inundated areas and other new information may 

be developed and accessed as work on the DEM and CFM progresses. The goal is to 

significantly improve the ability of coastal managers to assess the potential ecosystem 

changes due to rising sea levels. 
21

ACKNOWLDEGEMENTS 

The digital coastline data for North Carolina were extracted from the digital nautical 

charts and quality-controlled by CSDL’s Annemieke Reymond. Maurice Hickson and 

George Myers of OCS’ Hydrographic Surveys Division investigated the original 

hydrographic survey reports to verify the tidal datums. Rick Leuttick very kindly 

provided his model girds and bathymetry for much of the Pamlico-Albemarle Sound 

region. CSDL’s Edward Myers generated the initial grid used here for the sounds and 

provided additional tidal harmonic constant data for the regional grid. 
22

REFERENCES 

Amein, M., and D. S. Airan, 1976: Mathematical Modeling of Circulation and Hurricane 

Surge in Pamlico Sound, N. C. University of North Carolina Sea Grant Publication 

UNC-SG-716-12, 202 pp. 

Auer, C., K. Hess, G. Stafanski, R. Stumpf, and E. Turner, 2004: A White Paper on the 

Ecological Effects of Sea Level Rise: Summary of the February 2004 workshop held in 

Beaufort North Carolina. NOS, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver 

Spring, Maryland (see http://www.cop.noaa.gov/projects/Sea_Level_Rise_WP.pdf). 

Hess, K.W., E. A. Spargo, A. Wong, S. K. Gill, and S. A. White (in preparation): 

VDatum for North Carolina: Generation and Population of the Marine Grid. NOS 

Technical Memorandum. 

Luettich, R.A. and J.J. Westerink, 1995: Continental Shelf Scale Convergence Studies 

with a Barotropic Tidal Model. In Quantitative Skill Assessment for Coastal Ocean 

Models, D.R. Lynch and A.M. Davies, Editors, Coastal and Estuarine Studies Series, 47, 

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 1995. 

___, 2004: Theory Report: Formulation and Numerical Implementation of the 2D/3D 

ADCIRC finite element model version 44.XX. Available at 

www.marine.unc.edu/C_CATS/adcirc/adcirc_theory_2004_05_14.pdf. 

Luettich, R.A., J.J. Westerink, and N.W. Scheffner, 1992: ADCIRC: and advanced threedimensional circulation model of shelves, coasts and estuaries, Report 1: theory and 

methodology of ADCIRC-2DD1 and ADCIRC-3DL, Technical Report DRP-92-6, 

Department of the Army, Vicksburg, MS, 1992. 

Mukai, A., J.J. Westerink, R.A. Luettich, and D. Mark, 2000: A Tidal Constituent 

Database for the Western North Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. 

Technical Report, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg 

MS, September 2001. 

Parker, B., K. W. Hess, D. Milbert, and S. K. Gill, 2003: A national vertical datum 

transformation tool. Sea Technology, v. 44. no. 9 (Sept. 2003), 10 - 15. 

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

and B. A. Cowan, 1998: The North Carolina Shore and Its Barrier Islands: Restless 

Ribbons of Sand. (see pages 61- 63) Duke University Press, 319 pp. 

Westerink, J. J., R. A. Luettich, and J. C. Muccino, 1994: Modeling tides in the western 

North Atlantic using unstructured graded grids. Tellus, 46A, 178 – 199. 

White, S. A., and J. Sellars, 2004: Creation of the Digital Elevation Model for the North 

Carolina Sea Level Rise Project. Unpublished report. 13 pp. 
23

Zervas, C. E., 2004: North Carolina Bathymetry/Topography Sea Level Rise Project: 

Determination of Sea Level Trends. NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 41, 31 pp. 
24

APPENDIX A. PROJECT PERSONNEL 

The following NOS personnel participated in the project. The initial planning was done 

by David Johnson of NCCOS, Bruce Parker and Kurt Hess of CSDL, Chris Zervas of 

CO-OPS, and Dennis Milbert of NGS. 

Name Organization Activities 

Kurt Hess CSDL Principal Investigator, VDatum marine grid 

Dennis Milbert1 NGS VDatum advisor 

Emily Spargo CSDL Tide modeling 

Adeline Wong CSDL Bathymetric data access 

Jon Sellars NGS Land elevation data analysis, DEM 

Stephen White NGS Land elevation data analysis, DEM 

Stephen Gill CO-OPS Tidal data 

Chris Zervas CO-OPS Sea Level Rise data analysis 

1. Presently retired from federal service. 
25
26

APPENDIX B. WATER LEVEL STATION DATA 

Table B.1. Tidal and orthometric datums (meters) relative to mean sea level for NOS 

water level stations in North Carolina used in this study. The value –9.999 denotes a 

missing value. An * in the rightmost column indicates tidal datums from the 1983-2001 

tidal datum epoch (see Fig. 4, red stations). 

No. Station Latitude Longitude MHHW MHW MLW MLLW NAVD88 

 1 8651370 36.1833 -75.7467 0.585 0.487 -0.495 -0.539 0.128 * 

 2 8652226 35.9100 -75.5917 0.609 0.518 -0.488 -0.549 -9.999 

 3 8652232 35.9100 -75.6700 0.065 0.051 -0.045 -0.081 -9.999 

 4 8652247 35.9033 -75.7700 0.061 0.049 -0.046 -0.061 -9.999 

 5 8652437 35.8450 -75.6550 0.091 0.061 -0.061 -0.091 -9.999 

 6 8652547 35.8117 -75.7000 0.088 0.061 -0.061 -0.088 -9.999 

 7 8652587 35.7950 -75.5483 0.180 0.135 -0.137 -0.176 0.026 * 

 8 8652591 35.7983 -75.5833 0.092 0.061 -0.061 -0.091 -9.999 

 9 8652648 35.7750 -75.5817 0.135 0.095 -0.102 -0.140 -9.999 

 10 8652657 35.7733 -75.5583 0.214 0.183 -0.183 -0.213 -9.999 

 11 8652659 35.7733 -75.5383 0.336 0.275 -0.305 -0.335 -9.999 

 12 8652678 35.7683 -75.5267 0.366 0.305 -0.294 -0.321 0.158 * 

 13 8652715 35.7567 -75.5317 0.274 0.244 -0.275 -0.305 -9.999 

 14 8652737 35.7483 -75.5533 0.153 0.122 -9.999 -0.152 -9.999 

 15 8652905 35.6983 -75.7733 0.101 0.073 -0.070 -0.098 -9.999 

 16 8653215 35.5950 -75.4717 0.168 0.115 -0.105 -0.131 0.009 * 

 17 8653305 35.5650 -75.7350 0.091 0.061 -0.058 -0.091 -9.999 

 18 8654400 35.2233 -75.6350 0.564 0.455 -0.456 -0.492 0.135 * 

 19 8654792 35.1150 -75.9883 0.204 0.158 -0.141 -0.162 0.027 * 

 20 8655151 35.0200 -76.3100 0.082 0.071 -0.042 -0.045 -0.003 * 

 21 8656084 34.8233 -76.6900 0.407 0.336 -0.308 -0.334 -9.999 

 22 8656225 34.7917 -76.6083 0.330 0.284 -0.256 -0.280 -9.999 

 23 8656298 34.7667 -76.6867 0.606 0.515 -0.430 -0.491 -9.999 

 24 8656306 34.7683 -76.6717 0.560 0.472 -0.467 -0.505 -9.999 * 

 25 8656451 34.7283 -76.6683 0.531 0.451 -0.472 -0.518 -9.999 

 26 8656467 34.7250 -76.8033 0.229 0.195 -0.021 -0.204 -9.999 

 27 8656483 34.7200 -76.6700 0.558 0.470 -0.477 -0.521 0.112 * 

 28 8656485 34.7217 -76.7517 0.354 0.302 -0.302 -0.332 -9.999 

 29 8656486 34.7200 -76.7550 0.354 0.302 -0.302 -0.332 -9.999 

 30 8656487 34.7167 -76.6717 0.551 0.475 -0.461 -0.491 -9.999 

 31 8656495 34.7200 -76.6950 0.552 0.470 -0.487 -0.533 -9.999 

 32 8656499 34.7183 -76.7367 0.457 0.396 -0.336 -0.366 -9.999 

 33 8656502 34.7200 -76.7267 0.541 0.458 -0.481 -0.524 0.118 * 

 34 8656503 34.7150 -76.5783 0.145 0.095 -0.224 -0.248 0.066 * 

 35 8656518 34.7117 -76.6450 0.496 0.419 -0.440 -0.483 -9.999 * 

 36 8656539 34.7083 -76.6200 0.428 0.356 -0.365 -0.402 -9.999 * 

 37 8656554 34.7033 -76.6200 0.360 0.299 -0.311 -0.341 -9.999 

 38 8656566 34.7000 -76.7683 0.268 0.225 -0.257 -0.287 -9.999 

 39 8656569 34.6983 -76.6650 0.634 0.542 -0.433 -0.494 -9.999 

 40 8656571 34.6983 -76.6817 0.546 0.464 -0.487 -0.533 -9.999 

 41 8656590 34.6933 -76.7117 0.696 0.587 -0.584 -0.628 0.133 * 

 42 8656612 34.6867 -76.5333 0.318 0.257 -0.266 -0.295 0.094 * 

 43 8656841 34.6133 -76.5383 0.722 0.614 -0.620 -0.669 -9.999 * 

 44 8656937 34.6067 -76.5283 0.600 0.500 -0.500 -0.570 -9.999 

 45 8657419 34.4517 -77.4950 0.710 0.615 -0.616 -0.668 -9.999
27

Table B.2. NOS water level station names.

 No. Station Name 

 1 8651370 DUCK FRF PIER NC 

 2 8652226 JEANETTES PIER NC 

 3 8652232 MANTEO SHALLOWBAG BAY NC 

 4 8652247 MANNS HARBOR CROATAN SOUND 

 5 8652437 OYSTER CREEK CROATAN SOUND 

 6 8652547 ROANOKE MARSH CROATAN SOUND 

 7 8652587 OREGON INLET MARINA NC 

 8 8652591 ROANOKE SOUND CHANNEL NC 

 9 8652648 OLD HOUSE CHANNEL NC 

 10 8652657 OREGON INLET CHANNEL NC 

 11 8652659 OREGON INLET BRIDGE NC 

 12 8652678 USCG LIFEBOAT STATION ORE 

 13 8652715 PEA ISLAND #2 NC 

 14 8652737 DAVIS SLOUGH NC 

 15 8652905 LAKE WORTH, STUMPY POINT BAY 

 16 8653215 RODANTHE PAMLICO SOUND NC 

 17 8653305 LONG SHOAL LT. 

 18 8654400 CAPE HATTERAS FISHING PIER 

 19 8654792 OCRACOKE ISLAND NC 

 20 8655151 CEDAR ISLAND NC 

 21 8656084 CORE CREEK BRIDGE NC 

 22 8656225 NORTH RIVER BRIDGE BETTIE 

 23 8656298 NEWPORT RIVER NC 

 24 8656306 MOREHEAD-BEAUFORT Y C NEW 

 25 8656451 GALLANT CHANNEL NC 

 26 8656467 SPOONERS CREEK NC 

 27 8656483 BEAUFORT DUKE MARINE LAB 

 28 8656485 N C A R STATE FISHERIES N 

 29 8656486 N C A R STATE FISHERIES N 

 30 8656487 DUKE MARINE LA (MOD BUB) 

 31 8656495 PORT TERMINAL NC 

 32 8656499 ATLANTIC BEACH BRIDGE NC 

 33 8656502 MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR HARB 

 34 8656503 HARKERS ISLAND BRIDGE NC 

 35 8656518 BEAUFORT TAYLOR CREEK NC 

 36 8656539 LENOXVILLE POINT NORTH RI 

 37 8656554 CHANNEL MARKER LIGHT #59 

 38 8656566 CORAL BAY ATLANTIC BEACH 

 39 8656569 BEAUFORT INLET CHANNEL RA 

 40 8656571 FORT MACON NC 

 41 8656590 ATLANTIC BEACH TRIPLE S P 

 42 8656612 CALICO JACKS MARINA NC 

 43 8656841 CAPE LOOKOUT (INSIDE) NC 

 44 8656937 CAPE LOOKOUT (OUTSIDE) NC 

 45 8657419 OCEAN CITY FISHING PIER N