Jim Garster, Mark Huber, & Kate White

USACE Responses to Climate Change Program

JUNE 2015

JUNE

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Screening-Level Assessment of Projects 

with Respect to Sea Level Change

P00000019290

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 24
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report contains a summary of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) initial screening-level 

assessment of the vulnerability of projects with respect sea level change. This is the first phase of a 

series of progressively more detailed screening assessments that will be completed before embarking 

on detailed assessments of the most vulnerable projects and those with the highest consequences. 

The screening level assessments were completed by USACE district staff using a web-based tool 

that interfaces with USACE geospatial databases. The comprehensive evaluation with respect to sea 

level (CESL) web tool also relies on information developed by other agencies, including the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) and the US Geological Survey (USGS). This report contains a detailed description of the 

development of CESL, the process used to collect the initial vulnerability assessment (IVA) data, 

and the results of the screening. Of the 5545 projects initially considered by CESL due to proximity 

to the coastline (within 40 miles of a tidally influenced body of water), 1431 were prescreened as 

potentially impacted by sea level change and were evaluated in the initial screening assessment. 

About one-third of these projects (487) were identified as being vulnerable to changing sea levels, 

and thus require examination in more detail in the next phase of the screening. The vulnerable 

projects were ranked and sorted resulting in 25 Very High, 69 High, 188 Medium, and 205 Low 

priority projects. The CESL tool used in USACE screening-level analyses can be made available to 

others who wish to perform similar coastal vulnerability assessments. This technical transfer has 

already begun with the transfer of the technology to Army staff for Installations, Environment, and 

Energy in 2015. By developing, testing, and making this toolkit available to others, USACE is wellaligned with the recommendations of the White House State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force

released in November 2014.

Please cite as:

Garster, J.G., M. W. Huber, and K.D. White (2015) US Army Corps of Engineers Screening-Level 

Assessment of Projects with Respect to Sea Level Change. Civil Works Technical Report, CWTS 

2015-16, US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC. 

P00000019291

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 24
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................i

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

1.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS...................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 CURRENT EFFORT......................................................................................................................................... 3

2 OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 PROJECT TEAM.............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 GEOSPATIAL DATABASE INTERFACE............................................................................................................. 5

2.4 SEA LEVEL CHANGE CALCULATOR ............................................................................................................... 5

2.5 VISUALIZATION AND MAPPING..................................................................................................................... 6

3 PROCESS..................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 PRESCREENING............................................................................................................................................. 8

3.2 TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.3 DISTRICT DATA INPUT.................................................................................................................................. 8

3.5 QA/QC OF IVA DATA ...............................................................................................................................10

3.6 SCORING AND RANKING OF PROJECTS........................................................................................................11

4 RESULTS................................................................................................................................................... 14

5 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................ 15

5.1 INTERMEDIATE DETAILED ASSESSMENT.....................................................................................................15

5.2 CESL PLANNING TOOL ..............................................................................................................................15

5.3 STREAMLINED ASSESSMENTS.......................................................................................................................15

6 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................ 16

7 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 17

P00000019292

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 3 of 24
1

US Army Corps of Engineers Screening-Level Vulnerability 

Assessment of Projects with Respect to Sea Level Change

1 INTRODUCTION

Climate change is among the major challenges of the 21st century facing the US Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), and can impact all areas of our missions and operations. Our climate 

preparedness and resilience policies [USACE, 2011a, 2014a] require us to integrate climate change 

adaptation planning and actions into USACE missions, operations, programs, and projects, using the 

best available and actionable climate science and climate change information at the appropriate level 

of analysis, and to consider climate change impacts when undertaking long-term planning, setting 

priorities, and making decisions. Since the issuance of Executive Order 13514 [2009], and continuing 

with the President’s Climate Action Plan [Executive Office of the President, 2013] and Executive Order 

13653 [2013], USACE has been a leader in collaborating with other agencies to integrate and 

translate climate science into actionable information for decision makers, develop technical guidance

to address climate change impacts and adaptation, and develop tools to support adaptation decisionmaking. This report demonstrates USACE leadership through completion of a nationwide 

screening-level assessment of the vulnerability of our existing projects to the effects of changing sea 

levels.

1.1 BACKGROUND

Global sea levels vary over time and regionally, and have been the focus of intense interest by the 

U.S. federal agencies [e.g. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2012; National 

Research Council (NRC), 2012; Melillo et al., 2014]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC), particularly working groups 1 (Physical Science) and 2 (Impacts and Adaptation), have also 

expended considerable effort researching changing sea levels. Local relative sea level (LRSL) changes 

are a combination of global sea level and dynamic land changes such as subsidence or glacial 

rebound. Changes in LRSL directly impact coastal communities and important economic and 

ecological resources, as well as indirectly impact inland areas through supply chain and other 

economic interconnections.

The USACE requirement to include future conditions resulting from changing sea levels was first 

established through a 1986 guidance letter which addressed the historic rate of sea level [Eiker, 

1986]. By 2000, Engineer Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100 [USACE, 2000] required that planners 

consider sensitivity to historic and high rate sea level change (SLC) as defined by the NRC [1987]. 

Internal and external analyses performed after Hurricane Katrina [American Society of Civil Engineers

(ASCE), 2006a, 2006b; Interagency Performance Evaluation Taskforce (IPET), 2008; Woolley and Shabman,

2008] identified the need to incorporate new and changing information into the project planning, 

design, construction, operation, and maintenance phases of our civil works projects. As a result of 

these findings, the USACE published policy and guidance to establish a consistent nationwide 

datum [USACE, 2009a, 2010] and initiated the Comprehensive Evaluation of Project Datums 

(CEPD). The CEPD program evaluated all USACE projects and corrected those projects that were 

P00000019293

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 4 of 24
2

not accurately related to the current National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) and local water level 

and tidal datums. 

For the same reason, USACE also updated its guidance on how to understand and adapt to SLC in 

Civil Works (CW) programs and projects beginning in 2009. Post-Katrina USACE policy and 

guidance [USACE, 2009b, 2011b, 2013a] require that all USACE CW projects within the extent of 

estimated tidal influence must evaluate their robustness against three scenarios of future SLC. These 

low, intermediate, and high scenarios are based on different assumptions about physical processes 

and causes without specific attributions of likelihood. USACE also published technical guidance 

[USACE, 2014b] on how to adapt our projects, both new and existing, to changing sea levels. This 

guidance uses a tiered approach with the level of effort commensurate with scale of decision and 

consequences. These policies and methods are implemented for all new projects, and provide a 

foundation to begin to understand the vulnerabilities of existing projects.

1.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS

Vulnerability assessments are necessary to help guide adaptation planning and implementation so 

that USACE can successfully perform its missions, operations, programs, and projects in an 

increasingly dynamic environment. USACE has completed several activities in connection with 

addressing vulnerabilities to climate change. The first was a preliminary assessment of how climate 

could impact Federal water resources management, presented in USGS Circular 1331 [Brekke et al.,

2009], published jointly by USACE, Bureau of Reclamation, the USGS, and NOAA. This document 

is focused primarily on watershed changes but noted a number of impacts from changing sea levels 

and suggested that “planning and design studies should consider designs that are most appropriate 

for a range of possible future rates of rise.” 

In 2011, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) required each Federal agency to undertake a 

high-level analysis of vulnerability to help each agency identify priorities for future adaptation [CEQ,

2011a, 2011b]. Changing sea levels and associated waves, tides, and surges were identified as a 

potential source of vulnerability in the USACE high-level vulnerability assessment [USACE, 2012, 

2013b]. One of six priority areas identified in the USACE high-level assessment [USACE, 2012]

was to complete and refine our preliminary, screening-level assessments of vulnerability to climate 

change. 

Since that time, USACE has been conducting nationwide screening-level assessments of the 

vulnerability of USACE missions, operations, programs, and projects to climate change [USACE,

2013b]. Due to differences in the availability of actionable science, two concurrent vulnerability 

assessments are being conducted: one for coastal projects at the project scale, and one at the 

watershed scale for inland projects. Both screening-level vulnerability assessments are conducted in 

phases so that the initial assessments can be refined over time, using a modular approach so new and 

updated information can replace initial information, and supported by district- accessible tools and 

visualizations. The assessments will be merged in the future to provide complete watershedcoastshed assessments.

P00000019294

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 5 of 24
3

1.3 CURRENT EFFORT

This report describes the screening-level Initial Vulnerability Assessment (IVA) of existing coastal 

projects, which is part of the Comprehensive Evaluation of Projects with Respect to Sea Level 

Change (CESL) program building on post-Katrina recommendations around land subsidence, tidal 

fluctuations, and sea level change. The purpose of the CESL project is to assess the potential 

vulnerability of projects to the effects of SLC over the next 100 years, determine which projects 

need more comprehensive assessment or evaluation to better understand vulnerability, and to begin 

to prioritize more detailed assessments that will support adaptation planning and implementation.

The phased approach allows us to identify vulnerabilities and uncertainties in climate projections or 

in systems responses with the joint goals of beginning adaptation first where vulnerabilities are 

relatively higher but at the same time the probability of adverse or unintended consequences is 

lower, and move to detailed assessments for projects where consequences are higher or where the 

probability of adverse or unintended consequences is higher. 

This report contains a summary of the CESL effort along with an analysis of the data collected from 

the CESL web tool. A detailed discussion on the development of CESL, the process used to collect 

data, and the results based on this input are included. Data used by CESL came from USACE and 

other federal agencies such as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), United States 

Geological Survey (USGS), the Census Bureau, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). The results section includes the findings based on user input and analysis 

with other data. Findings and lessons learned are included in the conclusions section. 

2 OVERVIEW 

Consistent with other USACE climate change adaptation efforts, the CESL IVA relies on a webaccessible geospatial tool built on the foundation of the existing USACE automated information 

system, CorpsMap. The CESL web tool and IVA described in this report were developed based on 

requirements developed by a small interdisciplinary team based on user feedback. The tool relies on 

local USACE district staff to input data based on their local knowledge and engineering judgment. 

The CESL process includes training and technical support for the district teams to build technical 

capacity and improve knowledge about future coastal conditions and climate impacts that are 

required for adaptation planning and implementation. The four major features of the resulting CESL 

web tool are: the geospatial component, including linkages to the Corps Project Notebook and its 

underlying Oracle database, CorpsMap; the sea level change calculator, which provides repeatable 

analytical results and allows for nationwide comparisons; the CESL visualization tool, which tracks 

progress and provide easy access to overall results; and an automated impacts analysis that serves as 

a review step and assists in prioritization.

2.1 PROJECT TEAM

A Project Delivery Team (PDT) was assembled to assist in developing the CESL requirements. The 

PDT members involved in the initial CESL requirements were from the Army Geospatial Center 

(AGC), Jacksonville District (SAJ), Portland District (NWP), the Institute for Water Resources 

(IWR), the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), and the National Oceanic and 

P00000019295

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 6 of 24
4

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Several other USACE district representatives were involved 

in reviewing and providing feedback on CESL during various stages of development. The PDT also 

included contracted support.

2.2 REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT 

Requirements that underlie the CESL tool were developed by USACE staffers familiar with the 

planning, engineering, operation, and maintenance of USACE coastal projects. The context of the 

requirements considered by the team was guided by USACE adaptation policy [USACE, 2011a, 

2014a] and CEQ [CEQ, 2011a, 2011b]. Members of the requirements development team also had 

experience with USACE policy and guidance around sea level change, subsidence, datums and 

vertical control, and adaptation policy. The resulting initial user requirements of CESL include:

 Web-based tool requiring no additional software and based on existing USACE geospatial 

systems.

 Secure Common Access Card (CAC)-enabled entry.

 Defined user roles control access to various aspects of the tool.

 Encompass project information required to perform an initial vulnerability assessment.

 Streamline input through the use of automatic entry of digital project data so that users 

verify and correct data as necessary without having to develop for individual projects.

 Identify authorized purpose(s) of project.

 Check for datum compliance according to policy and guidance by USACE [2009b, 2010].

 Serve as a repository for datum and tidal information, supporting nationally consistent and 

repeatable analytical results.

 Support consistent nationwide screening and prioritization process.

 Provide visualization to assist in estimation of vulnerability and consequences and to track 

IVA completion.

 Capture initial high level information on exposure and consequences, including the 

identification of elevation threshold(s) at which project performance could be impacted (per 

ETL 1100-2-1) and ballpark consequences in terms of economic damages [USACE, 2014b].

 Classify vulnerabilities to assist in prioritization.

 Provide some idea of whether projects need to take LRSLC into consideration immediately

or can take longer to address.

 Identify projects determined to be highly susceptible or vulnerable to LRSLC and capture 

information allowing districts to perform a more detailed assessment in a consistent manner.

 Generate custom reports and project summaries.

 Serve as a hazard communication tool for other Federal and state agencies and local 

stakeholders.

 Support follow-on more detailed analyses and future project planning.

Once the initial requirements were developed, the PDT began organizing them into various 

categories which formed the basis for the high level functionality and components of the CESL web 

tool. The preliminary development of the CESL web tool consisted of various tabs including a map 

interface, search and report functions, a vulnerability assessment function, a parameter 

weighting/assignment, administration functions, and a help section. Feedback from USACE districts 

and PDT members after the initial CESL tool development recommended that the vulnerability 

assessment portion be broken into two components: an initial vulnerability assessment; and a more 

P00000019296

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 7 of 24
5

detailed impacts assessment. The main reason for this change was to simplify the amount of data 

collected so that we could more easily determine which projects are most vulnerable to SLC. Based 

on this initial recommendation, the web tool was revised and tested through a pilot project with 

several USACE districts. Feedback collected from the pilot resulted in adjustments to improve data 

entry, reporting process, visual displays, and overall functionality.

2.3 GEOSPATIAL DATABASE INTERFACE

The CESL web tool includes multiple geospatial features allowing users to view and verify project 

information, view SLC curves for gauges at or near project sites, enter data, view Extreme Water 

Level (EWL) information, and view projects on a map interface. The initial list of projects came 

from the USACE Corps Project Notebook (CPN), which is considered to be the most 

comprehensive list of USACE projects. CPN provides a point location for each project along with 

authorized purpose(s), business line, and project phase (e.g. planning, operating). However, gaps or 

duplications were known to exist in CPN, so the CESL process required careful review and addition, 

deletion, or correction as necessary of CPN data for coastal projects. Data from CEPD was used 

within CESL to ensure that projects were tied to the correct vertical datums. Some data used by 

CESL, such as tide gauge location and observations, datum relationships, mean sea level trends, and 

extreme water levels were obtained from NOAA’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products 

and Services [NOAA, 2013b]. Other data used by CESL included the FEMA flood hazard based on 

FEMA base flood elevation (BFE), the USGS coastal vulnerability index [e.g., Thieler and HammarKlose, 1999], and the county population and population density data collected by the Census Bureau

[2010]. The CESL database is used to store project related information from these various data 

sources along with the data entered by the USACE district users. This database can be used within 

the CESL tool to generate reports and export data to be used by others. Data can be pulled directly 

into visualization programs such as Tableau and internal USACE geospatial applications.

2.4 SEA LEVEL CHANGE CALCULATOR

The need to provide repeatable analytical results when addressing LRSLC in the planning and design 

of USACE CW projects required the development of a simple, web-based tool to calculate these 

changes. The Sea Level Change Curve Calculator uses the methodology described by USACE 

[2013a]. The calculator is hosted on a publicly available web site1so that our partners and 

stakeholders have access to the same information that we are using to understand potential project 

vulnerability. It uses data from NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and 

Services (CO-OPS), whose mission it is to maintain and communicate tide gauge data. A companion 

tool allows users to reach approved long-term non-NOAA tide gauges from this same site [USACE,

2013c]. The calculator also provides the capability for users to compare USACE sea level scenarios 

to those presented in the NOAA Technical Report OAR CPO-1: Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the 

United States National Climate Assessment [NOAA, 2012], the National Research Council’s (NRC) 2012 

report, “Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and 

Future” [NRC, 2012] and the 2013 update of the report by the New York City Panel on Climate Change

 

1 http://www.corpsclimate.us/ccaceslcurves.cfm

P00000019297

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 8 of 24
6

(NPCC) [2013]. The calculator functionality was incorporated into the CESL web tool and used in 

evaluating projects for IVA. Users enter an elevation threshold at which performance can be 

impacted for a specific project and can visualize it relative to the USACE SLC scenarios (low, 

intermediate, and high curves). The user can opt to add extreme water levels calculated using either 

the Kriebel method [Kriebel et al., 2015] method or the NOAA generalized extreme value (GEV) 

output to the SLC curves to visualize potential extreme events that could impact the project (e.g., 

Figure 1). District users performing the IVA used this in determining the potential vulnerability of a 

project to SLC along with the extreme water levels. The version of the sea level calculator in the 

CESL tool at the time of the IVA uses either the Kriebel method or user-entered values for extreme 

water levels. After the IVA was completed, the CESL calculator was updated to include the NOAA 

GEV as well.

Figure 1: Example results from the Sea Level Change Calculator showing projected sea level changes when the NOAA GEVcomputed 100yr return level water elevations are added to the USACE Low rate sea level curve. Also shown are the FEMA Base 

Flood Elevation.

2.5 VISUALIZATION AND MAPPING

The two primary components of visualization and mapping are the graphical presentation of the sea 

level change calculator and threshold elevation as described above, and an associated web tool to 

capture IVA progress. IVA progress visualization relies on commercial-off-the shelf software 

(Tableau) that is used in other USACE web visualizations, such as the watershed-based screeninglevel climate vulnerability assessment and the portal supporting the team updating drought 

contingency plans to incorporate climate change. This web-based Tableau visualization instance is 

map-based, allowing users to drill down to the MSC and district level and provides summary 

information on IVA status: not started, in progress, completed - not impacted, and completed –

P00000019298

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 9 of 24
7

impacted. (Figure 2, available to USACE staff only) A second tab provides additional information 

about the level of potential vulnerability identified in the IVA (low, moderate, high, very high) and 

additional drill-down to specific primary purposes (coastal storm damage reduction, commercial 

navigation, ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, hydropower, recreation, and water 

supply), It also provides direct access to information in the IVA through the use of a link in a popup window that appears when the user hovers on a particular project (Figure 3). 

Figure 2: CESL Status Dashboard for 9 April 2014.

Figure 3: Tableau Dashboard showing the North Atlantic Division's IVA priority level and example of the pop-up window with link 

to a particular project.

P00000019299

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 10 of 24
8

3 PROCESS

PDT members developed a five-step process to be used in the assessment of potential SLC impacts 

on USACE coastal projects: prescreening, training, district data input, quality assurance and quality 

control, and scoring and ranking projects.

3.1 PRESCREENING

The CPN database does not contain an attribute to identify or quickly determine coastal projects or 

those that might be impacted by increases in SLC. CESL employed proximity analysis to determine 

those projects that would be considered “Potentially Impacted by SLC” and be required to undergo 

the IVA. The prescreening criteria selected all USACE projects within 40 miles of tidally influenced 

waters as determined by NOAA [NOAA, 2014]. The rationale for choosing this distance buffer was 

to minimize the chance of a Type II error (i.e., identify a project as not impacted when it is actually 

potentially impacted by SLC) by erring on the side of inclusion, while filtering out projects with 

minimal potential vulnerability. The prescreening included all projects in CPN within the selected 

proximity, including duplicate entries and projects in different phases. All projects identified in the 

prescreening as potentially impacted by SLC received an IVA. District staff made corrections to 

CPN throughout the IVA process, eventually decreasing the number of prescreened projects to 

1431 from about 2400 (see, for example, the 9 April 2014 status shown in Figure 2, at which point 

2070 prescreened projects were included). 

3.2 TRAINING

In May 2013, a USACE Headquarters memo requested that each coastal district provide a POC and 

identify a small team of three to four staffers representing planning, engineering, operations and 

maintenance to complete an IVA for all coastal projects within their district. The PDT set up web

permissions for the district POC and teams to access and enter data into the CESL tool. All users 

with a CAC can view data submitted into the tool, but only those with permissions may enter and 

edit data for their specific district’s projects. Once a district POC was identified, webinars presented 

in May and June of 2013 provided training on the purpose of IVA and specifics on entering data 

into the tool. Follow-up training was provided to individual district and division POCs on an asneeded basis. Following completion of the IVA in September 2014, training materials were 

developed to present the results to MSC POCs to obtain their input on any project classifications 

they felt should change. This training was provided by webinar in November and December 2014. 

All the training materials were posted to the CESL SharePoint site for future reference.

3.3 DISTRICT DATA INPUT

Data input begins with the selection of a project upon which to perform an assessment from the 

IVA tab of the CESL tool. Once in the IVA input page, the user reviews the project information, 

selects the primary mission area for the project, selects the appropriate compliant tidal gauge, enters

the elevation threshold with its reference datum, source and description, and enters the FEMA base 

flood elevation (BFE) with its reference datum and date. The use of the FEMA BFE is not 

P00000019300

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 11 of 24
9

intended to signify its use as a metric related to USACE project design or evaluation, but rather to 

familiarize users with obtaining external data and with reading FEMA products. CESL then displays

the elevation threshold plotted with the SLC curves along with a table of the estimated extreme 

water levels. If project-related values are available from recent models that better describe the 

extreme water levels for this area, these may be entered as well. 

Based on the intersection of the elevation threshold and SLC curves, and taking into consideration 

the extreme water level of an appropriate return interval, the user was asked to determine the impact 

of SLC on the project at 50 and 100 years (Figures 4 and 5). To provide consistency across districts 

in the IVA process, 2020 was used as the start year for the 50- (2070) and 100- (2120) year planning

horizons. The user was also required to enter the project’s local sponsor (if known), upload a map of 

the project (if available), enter a suggested priority for a more detailed study along with an 

explanation, and add additional comments if desired. After entering the required information, the 

user submits the data, the data entered is verified, and the project is classified in CESL as 

“Completed” or “Completed (Not Impacted by Sea Level Change)” as appropriate. A project 

classified as “Completed” means that the project is impacted by sea level change within the 50- or 

100-yr planning horizon. 

Figure 4: Example IVA Input for 50 and 100 year Planning Horizons (no estimated extreme water level).

P00000019301

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 12 of 24
10

3.5 QA/QC OF IVA DATA

After each district completed the IVA for all their projects, the input was reviewed and scanned by 

the PDT leads for potential inconsistencies to ensure data quality and the resultant priorities. One 

part of the review involved searching through the database to identify projects with elevation 

threshold descriptions such as “crest of levee”, “top of floodwall”, or “top of structure,” and 

flagging these for review. These projects are potentially using an elevation threshold that is too high

(i.e., not conservative). The database was also searched to identify and flag large differences 

between FEMA’s BFE and the estimated EWL 100-yr value, not to signify that these differences are 

meaningful in the context of USACE project design or evaluation, but rather to test the functionality 

of the flagging routine and to provide users with an opportunity to review whether this data from an 

external source was entered correctly. Information from several projects for each district was pulled 

and used to create a summary PowerPoint file. This PowerPoint file along with the list of projects, 

including flagged projects, was sent to each district POC for review and clarification. If necessary, 

the district POC went back into the CESL IVA and made changes and/or additions to the project 

information and resubmitted for review.

Figure 5: Example IVA Input for 50 and 100 year Planning Horizons (with extreme water level).

P00000019302

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 13 of 24
11

3.6 SCORING AND RANKING OF PROJECTS

Following submittal of district input data, each project was given two scores. The first score was 

based on the data entered in IVA and was used as the primary score in determining the priority of 

projects for a more detailed analysis. The IVA score was based on the following values (Figure 6

shows criteria used to develop these numbers, including weights used in the scoring):

 Average time until intersection of elevation threshold with High/Intermediate rate 

curves

 Average time until intersection of elevation with High/Intermediate rate curves with 

extreme water level (100 year return period)

 Consequential impact within 50-year planning horizon 

 Consequential impact within 100-year planning horizon consequential impact

 District-suggested priority for more detailed study

Figure 6: Criteria used to develop IVA score based on data input.

A second score, the Parameters Analysis Score (PAS), was developed automatically within CESL and 

used as a secondary score to help prioritize projects for a more detailed analysis. The PAS was based 

solely on the following parameters:

 CEPD compliance

 County population

 FEMA flood hazard

 MSL trend from NOAA gauge

 Population density collected by the Census Bureau [2010]

 Project phase

 USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) [Thieler and Hammar-Klose, 1999]

The PAS parameters were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being low and 5 being high. Figure 7 from 

the Parameters Tab in the CESL web tool provides specific details on the weights and scoring used 

in the project rankings. 

P00000019303

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 14 of 24
12

Figure 7: Criteria used to develop Parameter Analysis Score

The IVA score and the PAS were combined to derive an Impacts Assessment Prioritization Score. 

The combined score is used to rank the projects’ need for a more detailed assessment. Within CESL, 

scores greater than or equal to 4 are considered “Very High”. Scores that are greater than or equal 

to 3 and less than 4 are considered “High”. Scores that that are greater than or equal to 2 and less 

than 3 are considered “Medium”. Scores that are less than 2 are considered “Low.”

The IVA score was given a greater weight than the PAS in combining the two scores because the 

user has far more knowledge about the project that can be derived from the supplemental 

parameters that rely on a single point based on the project’s location. Determining the weights to 

apply to the IVA score and the PAS required an examination of how changes in the contribution of 

each score impacted the overall score and how this score compared to the users suggested priority. 

The goal of the sensitivity analysis was to be sure the combined score for each project did not 

overlook any highly vulnerable projects.

The sensitivity analysis was performed using an Excel spreadsheet. Graphs were produced to show 

the number of projects classified as Very High, High, Medium, and Low categories while the % 

weight of IVA score decreased in 10% increments from 100%, and the corresponding PAS weight 

increased in 10% increments from 0. An example is provided in Figure 8. The resulting 

classifications for each 10% change was reviewed and compared with the user’s suggested priority 

score to ensure that user-identified high vulnerability projects were classified as either Very High or 

High. The results showed that combining the scores with the IVA score weighted 80% and the 

Parameter Analysis score weighted at 20% provides the optimum classifications. In a few cases, 

projects having a user-suggested classification as High were classified as Medium using the weighted 

scoring. Following case-by-case discussions with the users, these projects are expected to retain their 

Medium ranking.

P00000019304

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 15 of 24
13

Figure 8: Example of sensitivity analysis for weighted scores

P00000019305

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 16 of 24
14

4 RESULTS

Of the 5545 projects brought into CESL from CPN, 1431 were prescreened as potentially impacted 

by sea level change (within 40 miles of a tidally influenced body of water). These 1431 projects were 

evaluated using the IVA. About two-thirds of these, or 944 projects, were identified as not 

vulnerable to SLC. About one-third of the projects (487) were considered to be vulnerable to SLC 

and thus require examination in more detail (Figure 9). Based on the combined 80/20 weighted 

IVA-PAS scoring, the 487 vulnerable projects were ranked and sorted resulting in 25 Very High, 69

High, 188 Medium, and 205 Low priority projects (Figure 10).

Figure 9: Number of projects considered in 

phases of the IVA.

Figure 10: Graph of IVA Project Rankings.

P00000019306

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 17 of 24
15

5 NEXT STEPS

During development of the CESL tool and performance of the IVA, the PDT was engaged in 

concurrent development of the follow-on steps. These include an expansion of the IVA to collect 

more detailed information necessary to affirm IVA ranking and support a component-level 

vulnerability assessment, the expansion of the CESL tool for use in project planning to support 

SMART planning [USACE, 2014c], and pilot tests of the next level of detailed assessment.

5.1 INTERMEDIATE DETAILED ASSESSMENT 

Based on the scoring of the 487 vulnerable projects, those with scores in the Very High and High 

classification require more detailed vulnerability assessments performed beginning in 2015 to refine 

our knowledge about their SLC vulnerability. The next level of assessment developed is the 

Intermediate Detailed Assessment (IDA), which collects feature-level data (individual structures and 

components) for each project. Information entered into IDA includes: survey data within the 

project area; identification of hydrodynamic models used for the project; information on project 

features and structures; wave and surge data for the project area; information about the project 

environment (geomorphology, habitat types and endangered species, conversion, adaptability); 

federal agencies with projects in and around the project area; and specific project documents. 

Project information collected during this phase will support a re-evaluation of IVA classification to 

guide the next step of streamlined vulnerability assessment. The IDA will also help identify what 

data may be lacking and need to be collected for each project.

5.2 CESL PLANNING TOOL

The CESL tool was developed to assess the vulnerability of existing projects in accordance with 

requirements for Federal agencies to undertake analyses of vulnerability to help each agency identify 

priorities for future adaptation [e.g., CEQ, 2011a, 2011b; Executive Order, 13653, 2013]. The 

capabilities of the CESL tool also support SMART planning [USACE, 2014c] by providing 

information that supports a better understanding of risks and consequences in the project area. In 

response to early feedback, alterations are being made to better assist planners as they consider the 

potential impacts of SLC during planning of new projects. These changes will help the user to 

visualize and document these potential impacts in accordance with USACE planning requirements.

5.3 STREAMLINED ASSESSMENTS

Following the IDA, the ranked projects will receive a streamlined assessment of different classes of 

projects (e.g., navigation structures, beach renourishment, and coastal ecosystem restoration 

projects). The streamlined assessment process is currently being piloted at the Stamford Hurricane 

Barrier [O’Brien et al., in prep]. Lessons learned from this process will then be incorporated in the 

strategy to deploy streamlined assessments where appropriate nationally. Finally, the most complex 

and detailed projects likely require very detailed assessments, similar in scale to those conducted by 

Donoghue et al., [2013]; Chadwick et al., [2014]; and Li et al., [2012].

P00000019307

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 18 of 24
16

6 CONCLUSIONS 

The USACE conducted a screening-level analysis of the vulnerability of our coastal projects to 

climate change. In doing so, our geospatial databases were clarified, resulting in 1431 projects 

potentially impacted by sea level. About a third of the coastal projects were classified as being

vulnerable to changing sea levels now or in the future. Of these, about 100 projects were classified as 

having high or very high vulnerability. The results of this screening level analysis are providing a 

foundation for USACE to continue a program of progressively more detailed screening assessments 

before embarking on detailed assessments of the most vulnerable projects and those with the 

highest consequences. This approach is consistent with a DoD policy report [Strategic Environmental 

Research and Development Program (SERDP), 2013] prepared after the USACE screening assessment 

had begun. 

The process included district staff feedback in developing the CESL tool, conducting the IVA, and 

developing the next steps. The feedback improved the tool and also helped to build ownership in 

the results. Over 35 district staff from 20 districts participated in the analysis along with the PDT. 

This level of participation certainly supports improved professional and technical competence at the 

district level with respect to sea level change. This is an important factor in mainstreaming climate 

change adaptation as called for in USACE climate preparedness and resilience policies [USACE,

2011a, 2014a].

Using the 40 mile buffer for the initial screening of projects produced a large number of projects 

that were beyond tidal influence and marked as N/A in the CESL tool. Because of the large 

number of projects that were evaluated during the screening phase, we feel confident that no 

projects that might be vulnerable were missed. Of the 944 projects identified as not impacted by 

SLC after IVA input, some may have to be reexamined if SLC rates and trends increase beyond the 

current projections. The data for these projects is stored in the CESL database, making re-evaluation 

in the future a relatively simple matter. Similarly, the projects considered to be impacted by SLC that 

scored in the medium and low categories may have to be reviewed if future projections indicate an 

increase in the rate of sea level change. 

Finally, the CESL tool used in USACE screening-level analyses can be made available to others who 

wish to perform similar coastal vulnerability assessments. This technical transfer has already begun, 

with the transfer of the technology to Army staff for Installations, Environment, and Energy in 

2015. Other users are encouraged to work with the contractors to evaluate the necessary 

modifications to suit their own particular purposes. By developing, testing, and making this toolkit 

available to others, USACE is well-aligned with the recommendations of the White House State, 

Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force [CEQ, 2014].

P00000019308

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 19 of 24
17

7 REFERENCES

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2006a), What Must We Do Next, in The New Orleans 

Hurricane Protection System: What Went Wrong and Why, p. 73-80, American Society of 

Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, [Available at: 

http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/Ch9_WhatMustWeDoNext.pdf] 

ASCE (2006b), ASCE’s External Review Panel Comments on the Draft Final Report of the 

Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force, American Society of Civil Engineers: 

Reston, VA, [Available at: http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/11292006erpletter.pdf]

Brekke, L. D., J. E. Kiang, J. R. Olsen, R. S. Pulwarty, D. A. Raff, D. P. Turnipseed, R. S. Webb, and 

K. D. White (2009), Climate change and water resources management-A federal perspective:

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1331, 65 p. [Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/] 

Chadwick, B., S. Boyce, M. Brand, P. Bromirski, I. Canner, W. Crampton, R. Flick, R. Guza, J. Helly, 

M. Landon, B. Leslie, M. Martinez, T. Nishikawa, W. O’Reilly, P. F. Wang, and A. Young 

(2014), A Methodology for Assessing the Impact of Sea Level Rise on Representative 

Military Installations in the Southwestern United States (RC-1703), Space and Naval Warfare 

Center Systems Center Pacific: San Diego, CA. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (2011a), Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation 

Planning Support Document, Council on Environmental Quality: Washington, DC, 

[Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/adaptation_support_docum

ent_3_3.pdf] 

CEQ (2011b), Implementing Instructions for Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation, Council 

on Environmental Quality: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/adaptation_final_implemen

ting_instructions_3_3.pdf] 

CEQ (2014), President’s State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and 

Resilience: Recommendations to the President, Council on Environmental Quality:

Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/resilience/taskforce] 

Donoghue, J. F., J. B. Elsner, B. X. Hu, S. A. Kish, A. W. Niedoroda, Y. Wang, and M. Ye (2013), 

Effects of near-term sea-level rise on coastal infrastructure. Florida State University: 

Tallahassee, FL, [Available at: https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/ResourceConservation-and-Climate-Change/Climate-Change/Vulnerability-and-ImpactAssessment/RC-1700] 

Eiker, E. (1986), Relative Sea Level Change. Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of 

Engineers: Washington, DC.

Executive Office of the President (2013), The President’s Climate Action Plan: Washington, DC, 

[Available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf] 

Executive Order 13653 (2013), Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change: 

Washington, DC, [Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-06/pdf/2013-

26785.pdf] 

P00000019309

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 20 of 24
18

Executive Order 13514 (2009), Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Performance: Washington, DC, [Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-10-

08/pdf/E9-24518.pdf] 

Interagency Performance Evaluation Taskforce (IPET) (2008), Performance Evaluation of the New 

Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System, Volumes I thru IX, USACE: 

Washington, DC, [Available at: https://ipet.wes.army.mil/] 

Kriebel, D. L., J. D. Geiman, and G. R. Henderson (2015), Future Flood Frequency under 

Sea-Level Rise Scenarios, Journal of Coastal Research, In-Press, doi: 

10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-13-00190.1. 

Li, H., L. Lin, and K.A. Burks-Copes (2012), Numerical Modeling of Coastal Inundation 

and Sedimentation by Storm Surge, Tides, and Waves at Norfolk, Virginia, USA, 

Coastal Engineering Research Council of the American Society of Civil Engineers: 

Reston, VA.

Melillo, J. M., T. C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds. (2014), Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, 841 p. doi: 10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

National Research Council (NRC) (1987), Responding to Changes in Sea Level: 

Engineering Implications, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 

[Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1006/responding-to-changes-in-sea-levelengineering-implications]

NRC (2012), Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, 

Present, and Future, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13389] 

New York City Panel on Climate Change (2013), NPCC2 Climate Risk Information 2013 - Climate 

Methods Memorandum: New York, NY, [Available at: 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/NPCC2_Climate%20Methods%20

Memorandum_2013.pdf] 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2012), Global Sea Level Rise 

Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/2012/NOAA_SLR_r3.pdf] 

NOAA (2013b), CO-OPS Evaluation Criteria for Water Level Station Documentation, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/COOPS_Evaluation_Criteria_for_Water_Level_Station_Documentation_updated_October_20

13.pdf] 

NOAA (2014), Data Set, NOAA Medium Resolution Shoreline, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://shoreline.noaa.gov/data/datasheets/medres.html] 

O’Brien, P., D. Friedman, A. Miller, H. R. Moritz, and K. White (in prep), Streamlined Coastal 

Vulnerability Assessment Pilot: Stamford Hurricane Barrier, Civil Works Technical Report 

CWTS 2015-xx, US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC. 

P00000019310

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 21 of 24
19

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) (2013), Assessing Impacts 

of Climate Change on Coastal Military Installations: Policy Implications: Alexandria, VA, 

[Available at: https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Resource-Conservation-andClimate-Change/Climate-Change] 

Thieler, E. R. and E. S. Hammar-Klose (1999), USGS Open-File Report 99-593, National 

Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. 

Atlantic Coast, Coastal Vulnerability Index, U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, [Available 

at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99-593/index.html] 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2000), Engineer Regulation, Planning Guidance 

Notebook, Regulation No. 1105-2-100, Department of the Army: Washington, DC, 

[Available at: 

http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerRegulations/ER

_1105-2-100.pdf]

USACE (2009a), Engineer Regulation, Policies for Referencing Project Elevation Grades to 

Nationwide Vertical Datums, Regulation No. 111-2-8160, Department of the Army: 

Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerRegulations/ER

_1110-2-8160.pdf] 

USACE (2009b), Engineer Circular, Water Resource Policies and Authorities Incorporating SeaLevel Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs, Circular No. 1165-2-211, 

Department of the Army: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.corpsclimate.us/docs/EC_1165-2-211.pdf]

USACE (2010), Engineer Manual, Standards and Procedures for Referencing Project Elevation 

Grades to Nationwide Vertical Datums, Manual No. 1110-2-6056, Department of the Army: 

Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1

110-2-6056.pdf] 

USACE (2011a), USACE Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement, United States Army Corps 

of Engineers: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.corpsclimate.us/docs/USACEAdaptationPolicy3June2011.pdf] 

USACE (2011b), Engineer Circular, Sea-Level Change Considerations for Civil Works Programs, 

Circular No. 1165-2-212, Department of the Army: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.corpsclimate.us/docs/EC_1165-2-212%20-Final_10_Nov_2011.pdf] 

USACE (2012), USACE 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Plan and Report, United States Army 

Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.corpsclimate.us/docs/2012_USACE_Adaptation_Plan_and_Report_23_June_

2012%20final.pdf] 

USACE (2013a), Engineer Regulation, Incorporating Sea-Level Change in Civil Works Programs, 

Regulation No. 1100-2-8162, Department of the Army: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerRegulations/ER

_1100-2-8162.pdf] 

USACE (2013b), USACE 2013 Climate Change Adaptation Plan, United States Army Corps of 

Engineers: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

P00000019311

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 22 of 24
20

http://www.corpsclimate.us/docs/2013_USACE_Adaptation_Plan_28_June_2013post_v1.

pdf] 

USACE (2013c), Engineering and Construction Bulletin, Use of Non-NOAA Tide Gauge Records 

for Computing Relative Sea Level Change, No. 2013-27, United States Army Corps of 

Engineers: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

https://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/COEECB/ecb_2013_27.pdf] 

USACE (2014a), USACE Climate Preparedness and Resilience Policy Statement, United States 

Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.corpsclimate.us/docs/USACE_Adaptation_Plan_Policy_2014Jun27_highres.p

df] 

USACE (2014b), Engineer Technical Letter, Procedures to Evaluate Sea Level Change: Impacts, 

Responses, and Adaptation, Technical Letter No. 1100-2-1, United States Army Corps of 

Engineers: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerTechnicalLetters

/ETL_1100-2-1.pdf]

USACE (2014c), Planning Bulletin, Planning SMART Guide, PB 2012-02, United States Army 

Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, [Available at: 

http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/library/pb/PB2012-02.pdf] 

U.S. Census Bureau (2010), Census of Population and Housing, U.S. Census Bureau: Web. 

[Available at: https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html] 

Woolley, D. and L. Shabman (2008), Decision-Making Chronology for the Lake Pontchartrain & 

Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, United States Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, 

DC, [Available at http://library.water-resources.us/docs/hpdc/hpdc.cfm]

P00000019312

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 23 of 24
P00000019313

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-80 Filed 06/28/18 Page 24 of 24