EPA/600/R-18/385
Final
April 2019
www.epa.gov/research
Appendices
Application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model
(SLAMM) to the Lower Delaware Bay, with a Focus on
Salt Marsh Habitat
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Appendix A
SLAMM model setup and input parameters
-------
The Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) software is free and has modest data requirements.
"Core" data (the minimum spatial data required to run SLAMM) can easily be obtained from nationwide
data sources, including:
• Coastal elevation - https://coast.noaa.gOv/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/
• Tidal range (great diurnal tide range, salt elevation) - https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/
• NWI wetlands - https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Data-Download.html
• NLCD land cover - https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcdll data.php
If higher resolution and more recent data are available from local sources, SLAMM allows for use of
those data.
Other required parameters are as follows:
Wetland Data Photo Date - Year that the wetland data layer being used was taken. This date
represents the starting date for the simulation.
DEM Date - Year of the flight or survey for the elevation data.
Historic SLR Trend - The historic rate of sea level rise in mm/year. These data are usually
collected from gauge stations present in the area that keep track of this trend.
MTL-NAVD88 - Elevation correction to be applied when using mean tide level as the reference
zero elevation.
GT Great Diurnal Tide Range - Equivalent to the difference between MHHW and MLLW.
Normally these data are obtained from gauge stations and/or tide tables.
Salt Elevation - The elevation at which dry land and water wetlands begin. Salt elevation is often
defined as the elevation that is inundated by salt water less than every 30 days.
Marsh/Swamp/Tidal Flat Erosion - Horizontal erosion rates for each land type. Any information
available is welcomed, otherwise literature or default values based on measurements obtained
in similar locations can be used to estimate appropriate values.
Marsh/Swamp/Mangrove Accretion - Values of vertical accretion rates for each land type.
Accretion rates also may be entered as function of marsh elevation providing a more realistic
response to sea level changes. Similar to above, these values can be obtained from literature or
any other information available.
Beach Sedimentation Rate - Vertical accretion for tidal flats and beaches.
-------
in this project, to reduce computer processing time, we divided the SLAMM input files into four blocks
as depicted in Figure Al. The four blocks are: Dividing and Maurice (NJ); Dennis and Reeds Beach (NJ);
Broadkill and Mispillion (DE); and St. Jones (DE).
1 "* -
St. Jones
block
Dover
Dividing-
Maurice block
Dennis-Reeds
beach block
Broadkill-
Mispillion
block
H«ni|]lon/
I [
*¦!
r-if.«!!•? „
Rehoiolli
Befell
« I
~ Broadkill
~ Dennis
Dividing
~ Mauri ce_Lower
Mispillion
Reeds
~ StJones_Lower
Model Block
, ' Model block
Figure Al. To reduce computer processing time, we divided the SLAMM input files into four blocks as
depicted in this map. The four blocks are: Dividing and Maurice; Dennis and Reeds Beach; Broadkill and
Mispillion; and St. Jones. The seven sites were delineated based on PDE's monitoring and management
units. Note that in some cases (such as Dennis and Reeds), the output sites partially overlap.
-------
Table A1 contains the minimum wetland elevations that were applied to the study area. Minimum
wetland elevations define the elevation, relative to Mean Tide Level (MTL), below which a wetland is
assumed to convert to another wetland class or open water. We used the default settings for everything
except transitional salt marsh, which we changed from 1 to 0.75.
Table Al. Minimum wetland elevations used in the SLAMM conceptual model.
SLAMM Category
Min Elev.
Min Unit
Developed Dry Land
1
Salt Elev.
Undeveloped Dry Land
1
Salt Elev.
Swamp
1
Salt Elev.
Cypress Swamp
1
Salt Elev.
Inland-Fresh Marsh
1
Salt Elev.
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0
Meters
Trans. Salt Marsh
0.75
HTU
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0
Meters
Mangrove
0
Meters
Estuarine Beach
-1
HTU
Tidal Flat
-1
HTU
Ocean Beach
-1
HTU
Ocean Flat
-1
HTU
Rocky Intertidal
-1
HTU
Inland Open Water
1
Salt Elev.
Riverine Tidal
0
Meters
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.5
HTU
Inland Shore
-1
HTU
Tidal Swamp
0
Meters
In each block, we used the same SLAMM Execution Options (Figure A2) and applied the same accretion
rate formula (inputs are shown in Table A2; the derivation of this formula is shown in greater detail in
Attachment 1). In three of the blocks (all but the St. Jones) we had to create input subsites to account
for differences in input parameters (NWI photo dates, DEM dates, tide range, salt elevation or marsh
erosion).
-------
Text Box #1. Output vs. input sites
Output and input sites can be a source of confusion in SLAMM. Output sites are used to create
Word maps, raster, and tabular results for a specific location within the study area. In our SLAMM
simulations, the output sites are the seven marsh areas depicted in Figure Al, which are based on
units used by PDE for monitoring and management. In some cases, there is overlap across output
sites (e.g., Dennis and Reeds Beach). This overlap does not affect or alter results for the seven
sites since SLAMM reports results for each output site independently.
Input subsites (such as those shown in Figure A4) are used to adjust for spatially-variable model
input parameters (such as tide, accretion and erosion) within the study blocks. Boundaries of
input subsites are driven by differences in input parameters (and do not necessarily correspond
with output sites).
Table A2. We applied the same accretion rate input formula (shown below) to each block.
Parameter
Inputs
Reg Flood Use Model [True,False]
TRUE
Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mm/year)
8
Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mm/year)
3.5
Reg Flood Elev a (mm/(year HTUA3))
1.3
Reg Flood Elev b (mm/(year HTUA2))
-4
Reg Flood Elev c (mm/(year*HTU))
1.3613
Reg Flood Elev d (mm/year)
7.6316
Irreg Flood Use Model [True,False]
TRUE
Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mm/year)
4.6
Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mm/year)
3.8
Irreg Flood Elev a (mm/(year HTUA3))
0
Irreg Flood Elev b (mm/(year HTUA2))
0
Irreg Flood Elev c (mm/(year*HTU))
-1.6386
Irreg Flood Elev d (mm/year)
0
T.FIat Use Model [True,False]
FALSE
Tidal Fresh Use Model [True,False]
FALSE
-------
I# Custom SIR
Select Custom ,SLR Sweat 2017 - Low
SLR Scenario:
SLR Sweet 2017 - Low
SLR Sweet 2017 - intermed
SLR Sweet High
G£ Run In Current Simulation
Name: SLR Sweet 2017 - Low
Base Year 2000
Sea Level Rise Data
Year
SLR (m)
2010
0.03
2020
0.06
2030
0.09
2040
0.13
2050
0.16
2060
0.19
2070
0.22
2030
0.25
2090
0.28
To delete a record, cick on record and press
Data may be pasted from Excel Select eel then
SLAMM Execution Options
SLR scenarios to Run
NYS/ESVA SLR Scenarios
IPCC 2001 Estimates
~ A1B f Min
Custom SLR Time Series
{3 selected to run)
OA1T
IQA1F1
0 A2
OB1
BB2
_J Mean
23 Max
Fixed Rise by 2100
(base year 1990)
01 meter
01-5 meters
0 2 meters
El Custom m by 2100
One or more levels e.g. 0.5,1.4,1.8
© Display Maps on screen
~ Pause with Examination Tools
Automatically Paste Maps to Word Output
~ Save Maps to GIF Files
Extra maps to save
o No Maps (Quicker Execution)
0 Include Dikes E No-Data Elevs Loaded as Blanks
~ Use Soil Saturation
0 Use Bruun Rule for "Ocean Beach" Erosion
m
Use Connectivity
Algorithm
8 resrest neighbors
Optional Land Covers
|9J Flooded Developed Dry Land
|f] Flooded Forest
$
Save simulation
Return to Main Menu
Protection Scenarios to Run
[§9 Don't Protect
[Vj Protect Developed Dry Land
® Protect All Dry Land
Time Step (years) 10
Last Year of Simulation 2100
HO Run Model for Specific Years
2025.2050.2075.2100
e.g. 2050.2075.2100
Data to Save
Save Tabular Data Only
o Save Output for GIS GIS File Options
[V] Save Comprehensive Run Record File
Area to Save (Tabular and/or GIS)
© Save entire study area
Save only ROS area
0 Run Latin-Hypercube Analysis
0 Run Sensitivity Analysis
Uncertainty I Sensitivity Setup
Cancel
Execute
Figure A2. We used the same SLAMM Execution Options (as shown in this screenshot) for each of the four blocks.
-------
Before running the simulations for future years, we did "time zero" SLAMM runs in each block to
identify if there were any initial problems with key SLAMM modeling inputs (such as NWI land cover,
elevations, modeled tidal ranges and hydraulic connectivity). In these "time zero" runs, the tides are
applied to the study area but no sea-level rise, accretion or erosion inputs are considered. Differences
will arise between the original NWI land cover layer and the SLAMM "time zero" land cover layer if cells
are below the lowest allowable elevation land cover categories (based on the SLAMM settings), which
causes them to be converted to a different land cover category. For example, an area classified in the
NWI wetland layer as fresh-water swamp that, based on the elevation data, tidal data and SLAMM
settings, is subject to regular saline tides, would be converted by SLAMM to a tidal swamp at time zero.
More detailed information on "time zero" SLAMM runs can be found in the SLAMM technical manual.
(Warren Pinnacle 2016)
If there are significant differences between the land cover output from the "time zero" SLAMM run and
the original NWI land cover layer (e.g., too many conversions are occurring) additional investigation is
required and adjustments may be necessary. In some cases, the initial land cover re-categorization by
SLAMM better describes the current coverage of a given area (e.g., sometimes the high horizontal
resolution of the elevation data can allow for a more refined wetland map than the original NWI-
generated shapefiles). We found this to be the case with the two New Jersey blocks, where some of the
NWI data date back to 1995, and extensive restoration work has been performed in certain areas (such
as near the outlets of the Maurice and Dividing Rivers).
We did additional checks to verify the accuracy of the "time zero" SLAMM land cover layers by using GIS
software to overlay aerial photographs and GIS inundation files over the land cover layer. We also had
LeeAnn Haaf (PDE) and Kari St. Laurent (NOAA/St. Jones estuary) review the land cover maps. In some
cases, we found discrepancies and had to make edits to the "time zero" land cover layer. Those land
cover edits, as well as other model inputs, are described in detail in this Appendix, which are divided
into four separate sections (one for each block: 1 - Dennis-Reeds Beach; 2 - Dividing/Maurice; 3 -
Broadkill/Mispillion; 4 - St. Jones).
It should be noted that we had difficulty modeling certain areas in the Broadkill and Mispillion block.
More specifically, the SLAMM model appears to flood some areas along the coast too aggressively in the
"time zero" run. We tried making adjustments by reducing the salt elevation, but none of these changes
made a big difference. This is a difficult area to model due to the barrier/dunes along the coast and
because a large restoration project is underway in the Prime Hook NWR, where some of the marsh areas
behind the barrier/dunes are very subsided due to many years of impoundments. There may also be
dikes or flow alterations not currently accounted for in the GIS layers.
-------
Dennis-Reeds Beach block
SLAMM File Setup
DEM Fie (elevation):
(required)
den reed elev.SLB
NRows: 7376, NCols: 6814.
1 Browse ] [ Binary ]
SLAMM Categories (NWI): DR_TimeZero_LandUse_edited.SLB
freaured}
H ' NRows: 7376, NCols; 6314.
slope File, denreed slope. SLB
(required)
v ' NRows: 7376, NCols: 6814.
Browse | | Binary
DikeFfe: denreed dike2,SLB
(optional)
I Browse |
I Browse ]
I Binary J
1 Binary 1
NRows: 7376, NCols: 6814.
Classic dike raster (protected areas)
Dike location raster (dike locations and height)
Pet. Imperious File: denreed_imp2.SLB
{optional) NRows; 737Si NCo)s. M H
[ Browse 1 | Binary 1
Raster Output Sites File:
(optional)
VDATUM file:
(optional)
Uplift, Subidence File:
(optional)
No Raster Output File Selected, outputs wi not be summarized by raster coverage
Browse 1 1 Binary
d e n reed_vd a tu m. S LB
NRows: 7376, NCols: 6814.
Browse | j Binary
Browse [ 1 Binary
No Raster Uplift/Subsidence Map Selected, using Historic Trend to estimate land movement.
Salinity Fife (base):
(optional) No 531^^ Raster File Selected. The initial concfition file should be specified here.
Browse | 1 Binary
Storm Surge Raster (base): |_Browse j
(optional) storm Surge Ffe Selected: Storm Levels taken from Subsite Data. FileN should end with _00_010.ASC or _00_1Q0.ASC
Binary
Distance To Mouth:
(optional)
SAV Parameters
Base Output Fie Name: DR_F ut
Browse | j Binary'
Re-check Files' Validity
Browse
Track A1 Celfe
© Do not Track "Blank*
o Do not Track High Elevations and Open Water
Cells to Track: 11,103,742 I Count 1
Memory Utilization in GB: 1.15821Q5
Conv. Binary Files to ASCII
Cancel
OK
Save simulation
Figure A3. SLAMM File Setup for the Dennis-Reeds Beach block. For the SLAMM categories input file, we
used the "time zero" land cover layer with some edits (based on local knowledge and aerial
photographs, as described in Figures A5-A7). We decided to use the "time zero" file because we checked
the original NWI land cover file and the "time zero" land cover file against aerial photographs,
inundation GIS files and local knowledge and found the "time zero" land cover file to be more accurate.
-------
Input subsites
SLAMM Map -- F:\SLAMM\SLAMM_2CI70724\DennisReeds\SLAMM_DennisReeds_2G170724.SLAMM6
Input Subsites -
Show Selected
o Show All
Define Boundary
Zoom
12.6%
[ Add | Sub-site: Reeds Subsite Parameters
f Delete | |*«ds -|
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
~ Inland Fresh Marsh
~ Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
1 Regularly-flooded Marsh
1 I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
~ Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A4. We set up two SLA MM input subsites for the Dennis-Reeds Beach block to account for the
different marsh erosion rates at Dennis and Reeds Beach. The boundaries of the input subsites differ
from the Dennis and Reeds output sites (shown in Figure Al). The output sites are delineated based on
units used by PDE for monitoring and management, whereas the boundaries of the input sites are driven
by differences in input parameters. For a more detailed explanation of differences between input and
output sites, see Text Box #1.
Dennis
Reeds
-------
Table A3 lists the input parameters for the Dennis-Reeds Beach block. All subsite inputs are the same
except for marsh erosion. The NWI photo date for both subsites is actually 2009, but we entered 2014
because the SLAMM land cover input file is based on the "time zero" file that utilizes the best available
high-resolution elevation data through 2014.
Table A3. Input parameters for the Dennis-Reeds Beach block.
Parameter
Global
Subsite 1
Subsite 2
Description
Dennis Reeds
Reeds
Dennis
NWI Photo Date (YYYY)
2014
2014
2014
DEM Date (YYYY)
2014
2014
2014
Direction Offshore [n,s,e,w]
West
West
West
Historic Trend (mm/yr)
3.8
3.8
3.8
Historic Eustatic Trend (mm/yr)
1.7
1.7
1.7
MTL-NAVD88 (m)
0
0
0
GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
1.918
1.918
1.918
Salt Elev. (m above MTL)
1.21
1.21
1.21
Marsh Erosion (horz. m/yr)
0.89
1.34
0.443
Marsh Erosion Fetch (km)
0.1
0.1
0.1
Swamp Erosion (horz. m/yr)
1
1
1
T.FIat Erosion (horz. m/yr)
0.5
0.5
0.5
Reg.-Flood Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
see below
see below
see below
Irreg.-Flood Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
see below
see below
see below
Tidal-Fresh Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
5
5
5
Inland-Fresh Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
1
1
1
Mangrove Acer (mm/yr)
0
0
0
Tidal Swamp Acer (mm/yr)
1.1
1.1
1.1
Swamp Accretion (mm/yr)
1.6
1.6
1.6
Beach Sed. Rate (mm/yr)
0.5
0.5
0.5
Irreg-Flood Collapse (m)
0
0
0
Reg-Flood Collapse (m)
0
0
0
Use Wave Erosion Model [True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Use Elev Pre-processor [True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
HI inundation (m above MTL)
0.48
0.48
0.48
H2 inundation (m above MTL; H2>H1)
0.96
0.96
0.96
H3 inundation (m above MTL: H3>H2)
1.17
1.17
1.17
H4 inundation (m above MTL; H4>H3)
2
2
2
H5 inundation (m above MTL; H5>H4)
5
5
5
-------
Table A3. Input parameters for the Dennis-Reeds Beach block. (Continued)
Parameter
Global
Subsite 1
Subsite 2
Reg Flood Use Model
[True,False]
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
Reg Flood Max. Acer,
(mm/year)
8
8
8
Reg Flood Min. Acer,
(mm/year)
3.5
3.5
3.5
Reg Flood Elev a (mm/(year
HTUA3))
1.3
1.3
1.3
Reg Flood Elev b (mm/(year
HTUA2))
-4
-4
-4
Reg Flood Elev c
(mm/(year*HTU))
1.3613
1.3613
1.3613
Reg Flood Elev d (mm/year)
7.6316
7.6316
7.6316
Irreg Flood Use Model
[True,False]
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
Irreg Flood Max. Acer,
(mm/year)
4.6
4.6
4.6
Irreg Flood Min. Acer,
(mm/year)
3.8
3.8
3.8
Irreg Flood Elev a
(mm/(year HTUA3))
0
0
0
Irreg Flood Elev b
(mm/(year HTUA2))
0
0
0
Irreg Flood Elev c
(mm/(year*HTU))
-1.6386
-1.6386
-1.6386
Irreg Flood Elev d
(mm/year)
0
0
0
T.FIat Use Model
[True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Tidal Fresh Use Model
[True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
-------
Table A4. Dennis time-zero results (acres).
SLAMM category
Initial
coverage
(acres)
Time Zero
(2014)
Change
(acres)
% Change
Developed Dry Land
747.8
747.8
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Beach
1.9
1.9
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Open Water
4127.0
4127.4
0.4
0.0
Flooded Developed Dry Land
9.6
9.6
0.0
0.0
Inland Open Water
320.6
320.2
-0.4
-0.1
Inland Shore
8.3
8.3
0.0
0.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
53.6
53.3
-0.3
-0.5
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
8348.4
8315.7
-32.6
-0.4
Ocean Beach
13.3
13.3
0.0
-0.1
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
400.8
421.6
20.8
5.2
Riverine Tidal
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Swamp
11409.2
11394.9
-14.3
-0.1
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Tidal Flat
11.4
41.4
30.0
263.5
Tidal Swamp
17.8
17.8
0.0
0.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
39.3
39.3
0.0
0.0
Trans. Salt Marsh
838.9
836.8
-2.2
-0.3
Undeveloped Dry Land
15648.3
15646.8
-1.5
0.0
-------
Table A5. Reeds Beach time-zero results (acres).
SLAMM category
Initial
coverage
(acres)
Time Zero
(2014)
Change
(acres)
% Change
Developed Dry Land
257.6
257.6
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Beach
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Open Water
2657.3
2660.1
2.8
0.1
Flooded Developed Dry Land
12.8
12.8
0.0
0.0
Inland Open Water
72.8
70.1
-2.8
-3.8
Inland Shore
1.8
1.8
0.0
0.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
34.1
33.9
-0.2
-0.6
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
3290.7
3277.8
-12.9
-0.4
Ocean Beach
19.6
19.6
0.0
-0.1
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
213.1
235.0
21.9
10.3
Riverine Tidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Swamp
3515.5
3512.8
-2.7
-0.1
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Tidal Flat
0.0
20.3
20.3
—
Tidal Swamp
17.1
17.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
3.9
3.9
0.0
0.0
Trans. Salt Marsh
263.0
237.7
-25.3
-9.6
Undeveloped Dry Land
4553.4
4552.3
-1.1
0.0
-------
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦I Swamp
11nland Fresh Marsh
~ Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
1 Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
~ inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
IB1 Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A5. We made edits to the "time zero" land cover file in four places (delineated in yellow in this
map) before running the SLAMM model. The edits are described in greater detail in Figure A6.
-------
Changed from
estuarine beach
to 'tidal flat'
Changed entire
lake to 'inland
open water'
(based on photos)
Changed transitional
salt marsh areas to
ocean beach based on
photos
Changed from
estuarine beach to
'estuarine open water'
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
H Inland Fresh Marsh
~ Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
H Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
I~1 Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A6. Four edits we made to the "time zero" land cover file before running the SLAMM model. The
edits were based on aerial photos and feedback from the Partnership of the Delaware Estuary
-------
Output subsites
I) SLAMM Map -- F:\SlAMM\SLAMM.20170724\DennisRMds\SlAMM_DennrsReeds.201707M,SLAMM6
Output Subsites ~]
Show Selected
•) Show All
Define Boundary
Zoom
12.5% »
AtJ{| j Sub-site: uutputsitei
Delete | 1 OutputSitel
lil
OutputSitel
= Dennis
0utputSite2
= Reeds
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
11nland Fresh Marsh
I I Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
El Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
11rreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A7. Results were generated for the Dennis and Reeds Beach output sites (Dennis is outlined in
yellow; Reeds is outlined in white). The output site delineations are based on units used by PDE for
monitoring and management. The overlap between the two sites does not affect the results because
SLAMM generates results for each output site independently. For a more detailed explanation of
differences between input and output sites, see Text Box #1.
-------
Dividing-Maurice block
StAMM Categories (NWI): [)jvMf
(required)
v ' NRows:
Dike File:
divmaur elev.SLB
[ Browse
I Binary |
NRows: 8340, NCols: 9335.
DivMaur_TimeZero_LandUse_edited.SLB
[ Browse
I BinaryJ
NRows: 8340, NCols: 9335.
divmaurslope. SLB
f Browse
| Binary
NRows: 8340, NCols: 9335.
Binary
a Classic dike raster (
Pet. Impervious File: divmaurjmp2. SLB
(optional} mgws. SJ40j 9335
Raster Output Sites File:
(optional)
No Raster Output
Dike location raster (dike locations and height)
I Browse | [ Binary
vdatum File: divmaiir_vdatum.SLB
(optional) flRows. fjcols; 9335,
Uplift, Subidence File;
(optional)
No Raster
Sainity File (base^:
(optional) rto Salinity Raster
Storm Surge Raster (basej
(optional'
Distance To Mouth:
(optional)
File Selected, outputs Mill not be summarized by raster coverage
I Brows b j | Binary
[ Browse I Binary
• Uplift/Subsidence Map Selected, using Historic Trend to estimate land movement.
me tpase^:
(optional) No Salinity Raster File Selected. The initial condition file should be specified here.
: Raster (base):
(optional) ^ Stofm Jyfgj R|e S!nrm Levels taken from SUbsite Data. FteN should end with
anceTo Mouth:
(optional)
SAV Parameters
initial condition file
_00_010. ASC or _00_100.ASC
1 Browse
[ Browse | [ Binary
I Browse
Browse
Base Output File Name: DivMaur_Fut_
Re-check Files' Validity
1 Browse
[ Binary 1
[ Binary 1
I Binary |
Track All Ceils
Do not Track "Blank"
0 Do not Track High Elevations and Open Water
Cells to Track: 60,238,941 I Count 1
Memory Utilization in (33: 6.2834112
Conv. Binary Files to ASCII
Cancel OK
Save simulation
Figure A8. SLAMM File Setup for the Dividing-Maurice block. For the SLAMM categories input file, we
used the "time zero" land cover layer with some edits (based on local knowledge and aerial
photographs, as described in Figures A10-A17). We decided to use the "time zero" file because we
checked the original NWI land cover file and the "time zero" land cover file against aerial photographs,
inundation GIS files and local knowledge and found the "time zero" land cover file to be more accurate.
-------
Input subsites
NWI_2002
DEM2008
DWLJ
2009l|
DEM 2014
9 SIAMM Map - F:\SLAMM\SLAMM_20170724'\DivM3ui\SLAMM_DivM3tjr_20170724.SLAMM6
Edit Input or Output Subsites Analysis Tools | Edit Cells |
Input Subsites
SuDsite Parameters
show selected . Define Boundary
AM Sub-site: MVLM09
I Oetele I
Copy to Clipboard
Save Simulation
I
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
IE Inland Fresh Marsh
~ Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
n Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
~ Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
n Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A9. We set up six SLAMM input subsites for the Dividing-Maurice block to account for differences in NWI photo dates, elevation data
dates, and marsh erosion rates. The names of the input subsites reflect the different NWI and elevation dates. The boundaries of the input
subsites differ from the Dividing and Maurice output sites (shown in Figure Al). The output sites are delineated based on units used by PDE for
monitoring and management, whereas the boundaries of the input sites are driven by differences in input parameters. For a more detailed
explanation of differences between input and output sites, see Text Box #1.
-------
Table 6 lists the input parameters for the Dividing-Maurice block. The NWI photo dates range from 1995 to 2009. However, we entered 2008 for
the inland areas and 2014 for the coastal areas because the SLAMM land cover input file is based on the "time zero" file that utilizes high
resolution elevation data from 2008 (NJ statewide LiDAR) and 2014 (Post-Sandy (SCto NY)).
Table A6. Input parameters for the Dividing-Maurice block.
Parameter
Global
SubSite 1
SubSite 2
SubSite 3
SubSite 4
SubSite 5
SubSite 6
Description
All
NWI_2009
NWI_1997
Maur_NWI1995
Div_NWI1995
NWI2002_DEM2014
NWI_2002_DEM2008
NWI Photo Date
(YYYY)
2014
2014
2008
2014
2014
2014
2008
DEM Date
(YYYY)
2008
2014
2008
2014
2014
2014
2008
Direction
Offshore
[n,s,e,w]
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
Historic Trend
(mm/yr)
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Historic Eustatic
Trend (mm/yr)
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
MTL-NAVD88
(m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GT Great
Diurnal Tide
Range (m)
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
Salt Elev. (m
above MTL)
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
Marsh Erosion
(horz. m/yr)
0.425
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.43
Marsh Erosion
Fetch (km)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Swamp Erosion
(horz. m/yr)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table A6. Input parameters for the Dividing-Maurice block. (Continued)
Parameter
Global
SubSite 1
SubSite 2
SubSite 3
SubSite 4
SubSite 5
SubSite 6
T.FIat Erosion (horz. m/yr)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Reg.-Flood Marsh Acer
(mm/yr)
see below
see below
see below
see below
see below
see below
see below
Irreg.-Flood Marsh Acer
(mm/yr)
see below
see below
see below
see below
see below
see below
see below
Tidal-Fresh Marsh Acer
(mm/yr)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Inland-Fresh Marsh Acer
(mm/yr)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mangrove Acer (mm/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tidal Swamp Acer (mm/yr)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Swamp Accretion (mm/yr)
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Beach Sed. Rate (mm/yr)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Irreg-Flood Collapse (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reg-Flood Collapse (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Use Wave Erosion Model
[True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Use Elev Pre-processor
[True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
HI inundation (m above
MTL)
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
H2 inundation (m above
MTL; H2>H1)
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
H3 inundation (m above
MTL: H3>H2)
1.169
1.169
1.169
1.169
1.169
1.169
1.169
-------
Table A6. Input parameters for the Dividing-Maurice block. (Continued)
Parameter
Global
SubSite 1
SubSite 2
SubSite 3
SubSite 4
SubSite 5
SubSite 6
H4 inundation (m above MTL;
H4>H3)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
H5 inundation (m above MTL;
H5>H4)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Reg Flood Use Model
[True,False]
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
Reg Flood Max. Acer,
(mm/year)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Reg Flood Min. Acer,
(mm/year)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Reg Flood Elev a (mm/(year
HTUA3))
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Reg Flood Elev b (mm/(year
HTUA2))
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
Reg Flood Elev c
(mm/(year*HTU))
1.3613
1.3613
1.3613
1.3613
1.3613
1.3613
1.3613
Reg Flood Elev d (mm/year)
7.6316
7.6316
7.6316
7.6316
7.6316
7.6316
7.6316
Irreg Flood Use Model
[True,False]
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
Irreg Flood Max. Acer,
(mm/year)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Irreg Flood Min. Acer,
(mm/year)
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Irreg Flood Elev a (mm/(year
HTUA3))
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table A6. Input parameters for the Dividing-Maurice block. (Continued)
Parameter
Global
SubSite 1
SubSite 2
SubSite 3
SubSite 4
SubSite 5
SubSite 6
Irreg Flood Elev b (mm/(year
HTUA2))
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Irreg Flood Elev c
(mm/(year*HTU))
-1.6386
-1.6386
-1.6386
-1.6386
-1.6386
-1.6386
-1.6386
Irreg Flood Elev d (mm/year)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T.FIat Use Model [True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Tidal Fresh Use Model
[True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
-------
Table A7. Dividing time-zero results (acres).
SLAMM category
Initial
coverage
(acres)
Time Zero
(2014)
Change
(acres)
% Change
Developed Dry Land
128.6
128.6
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Open Water
2827.7
2968.7
141.1
5.0
Flooded Developed Dry Land
8.1
8.1
0.0
0.0
Inland Open Water
880.2
739.2
-141.0
-16.0
Inland Shore
100.6
100.6
0.0
0.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
316.4
316.3
-0.1
0.0
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
4788.7
4700.6
-88.1
-1.8
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1977.7
1707.7
-269.9
-13.6
Riverine Tidal
7.2
7.2
0.0
-0.1
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Swamp
4599.5
4594.7
-4.8
-0.1
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Tidal Flat
4.4
449.1
444.7
10026.1
Tidal Swamp
1082.6
1082.6
0.0
0.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
54.1
54.1
0.0
0.0
Trans. Salt Marsh
399.3
326.0
-73.4
-18.4
Undeveloped Dry Land
5857.3
5848.8
-8.5
-0.1
-------
Table A8. Lower Maurice time zero results (acres).
SLAMM category
Initial
coverage
(acres)
Time Zero
(2014)
Change
(acres)
% Change
Developed Dry Land
394.8
394.8
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Beach
25.4
25.4
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Open Water
7543.7
7544.4
0.7
0.0
Flooded Developed Dry Land
35.9
35.9
0.0
0.0
Inland Open Water
32.2
31.7
-0.4
-1.3
Inland Shore
3.8
3.8
0.0
0.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
80.3
63.4
-16.8
-21.0
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
4854.1
4804.3
-49.8
-1.0
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1550.8
1299.5
-251.3
-16.2
Riverine Tidal
6.0
5.7
-0.3
-4.4
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Swamp
3288.0
3269.5
-18.5
-0.6
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Tidal Flat
11.5
376.3
364.8
3166.5
Tidal Swamp
584.6
584.6
0.0
0.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
17.6
17.6
0.0
0.0
Trans. Salt Marsh
440.2
421.1
-19.2
-4.4
Undeveloped Dry Land
5431.5
5422.3
-9.3
-0.2
-------
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
Q Inland Fresh Marsh
I I Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
H Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
Ml Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A10. We made edits to the "time zero" land cover file in five areas (delineated in yellow in this map) before running the SLAMM model.
The edits are described in greater detail in Figures A11-A17.
-------
Figure All. In the northwest part of the block, there is a highly modified area with sand pits, etc. We changed one of the lakes in this area from
estuarine open water to inland (fresh) open water based on aerial photos and local knowledge.
Highly modified area (sand pits, etc.). Based on this photo (and our
best assessment of connectivity), we changed this lake from
estuarine open water to inland fresh.
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
¦] Inland Fresh Marsh
~ Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
M Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
~ Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
¦ Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
before
-------
before
Changed from estuarine beach to irreg
flooded marsh based on photo.
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
B Inland Fresh Marsh
I I Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
H Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
¦ Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A12. This is one of the areas that we changed from estuarine beach to irregularly flooded marsh based on aerial photos.
-------
Changed from estuarine beach to irreg flooded marsh
based on photo.
before
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
PI Inland Fresh Marsh
~ Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
1 Regularly-flooded Marsh
1 I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
~ Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
El Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A13. This is one of the areas that we changed from estuarine beach to irregularly flooded marsh based on aerial photos.
-------
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
B Inland Fresh Marsh
I I Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
¦ Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
¦ Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Changed from estuarine beach to irreg flooded marsh
based on photo.
Changed from irreg flooded marsh to regularly
flooded marsh based on photo.
before
Figure A14. This is one of the areas that we changed from estuarine beach to irregularly flooded marsh based on aerial photos.
-------
Changed from estuarine beach to irreg
flooded marsh based on photo.
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
¦ Inland Fresh Marsh
I I Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
¦ Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
I I Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
¦ Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A15. This is one of the areas that we changed from estuarine beach to irregularly flooded marsh based on aerial photos.
before
-------
/
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
¦ Inland Fresh Marsh
I I Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
¦ Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I 1 Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
Olrreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Changed to
tidal swamp
based on
Figure A16. We changed this area from tidal fresh marsh to tidal swamp based on aerial photos.
-------
Changed canals to estuarine open water
(previously regularly flooded marsh)
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Diy Land
¦ Swamp
¦ Inland Fresh Marsh
I 1 Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
0 Regularly-flooded Marsh
1 I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I 1 Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
C3 Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A17, The southern part of the block (near the outlets of the Maurice and Dividing Rivers) has been highly modified. Based on aerial
photos, we changed some of the areas that were clearly canals to estuarine open water (they had previously been labeled as regularly flooded
marsh).
-------
Output subsites
Edit Input or Output Subsites Analysis Tools { Edit Cells |
Output Subsites »|
[ yytitf | Sub-site: OutputSltel
i Delete I OutputSltel
Output Site?
OutputSitel
Show Selected Define Boundary
o Show All
Copy to Clipboard
Save Simulation
OutputSitel
= Dividing
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
0 Inland Fresh Marsh
1 I Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
fiB Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
~ Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
nirrea.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A18. Results were generated for the Dividing and Maurice output sites (Dividing is outlined in yellow; "Lower Maurice" and "Maurice AN"
are outlined in white; later we ended up limiting results to the Lower Maurice only). The output site delineations are based on units used by PDE
for monitoring and management. The overlap between the two sites does not affect the results because SLAMM generates results for each
output site independently. For a more detailed explanation of differences between input and output sites, see Text Box #1.
-------
Broadkiil-Mispillion block
SLAMM File Setup
DEM File (elevation):
(required)
SLAMM Categories (T
(required)
(required)
Dike File:
(optional)
(optional)
Raster Output Sites File:
(optional)
(optional)
Uplift, Subidence Fie:
(optional)
Salinity File (base):
(optional)
Storm Surge Raster (base):
Distance To Mouth:
(optional)
SAV Parameters I
Base Output File Name: MispBDK_Fut_
Browse
Binary
NRows: 8416, NCols: 10359.
MispBDKIandcoverdrylandfillededit.SLB
Browse |
Binary
NRows: 8416, NCols: 10359.
mslop.SLB
Browse
Binary
NRows: 8416, NCols: 10359.
m_dike.SLB
Browse
Binary
NRows: 8416, NCols: 10359.
0 Classic dike raster (protected areas) Dike location raster (dike locations and height)
inirnpervious.SLB
Browse
Binary
NRows: 8416, NCols: 10359.
Browse
Binary
No Raster Output Fie Selected, outputs will not be summarized by raster coverage
mvadum.SLB
Browse
Binary
NRows: 8416, NCols: 10359.
Browse |
Binary
No Raster Uplift/Subsidence Map Selected, using Histonc Trend to estimate land movement.
Browse |
Binary
No Salinity Raster FBe Selected. The initial condition file should be specified here.
Browse ]
Binary
No Storm Surge File Selected: Storm Levels taken from Subsrte Data. FileN should end with _00_010.ASC or jD0_
.100. ASC
Browse |
Binary
Re-check Files' Validity
Browse
Trade All Cells
Do not Track "Blank*
© Do not Trade High Sevations and Open Water
Cells to Track: 43,217,766 I Count I
Memory UBraSon in 60: 4,5079643
Conv. Binary Files to ASCII
Cancel
OK
Save simulation
Figure A19. SLAMM File Setup for the Broadkiil-Mispillion block. For the SLAMM categories input file, we
used the NWI land cover layer (based on 2007 data) with one edit (which is described in Figure A21).
-------
Input subsites
Broadkill'Canary
| Copy to Clipboard
Save Simulation
Save As _
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
E] Inland Fresh Marsh
I I Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
II Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
I I Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
llrreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
9 SUMM Map - f-:\SLAMM\SLM1Mi201?Q?24\Ml5pBDK\Misp8DK_2O17(!724.SLAMM6
Edit Input or Output Subsites | Analysis Tools ) Edit Cells!
Show Selected I Define Boundary
A(jd I Sub-site: Broadkill'Canary Subslte Parameters
Delete [Broad kin/Canary ~ ]
Figure A20. We set up two SLAMM input subsites for the Broadkill-Mispillion block to account for
differences in Great Diurnal Tide Range (GT), salt elevation and marsh erosion rates. The boundaries of
the input subsites differ from the Broadkill and Mispillion output sites (shown in Figure Al). The output
sites are delineated based on units used by PDE for monitoring and management, whereas the
boundaries of the input sites are driven by differences in input parameters. For a more detailed
explanation of differences between input and output sites, see Text Box #1.
-------
There are differences in Great Diurnal Tide Range (GT), salt elevation and marsh erosion rates across
input subsites. During the "time zero" run, the SLAMM model was flooding some areas along the coast
too aggressively (based on the aerial photos, too much dry land was being converted to transitional salt
marsh). We tried making several adjustments (reductions) to the salt elevation entries to reduce these
conversions, but they did not make a big difference. In the end, we used slightly reduced salt elevation
entries (we changed the Broadkill from 1.05 to 1.04 and the Mispillion from 1.18 to 1.10). This is a
difficult area to model due to the barrier/dunes along the coast and because a massive restoration
project is underway in the Prime Hook NWR (where some marsh areas behind the barrier/dunes are
very subsided due to many years of impoundments). Also there may be dikes or flow alterations not
currently accounted for in the GIS layers.
Table A9. Input parameters for the Broadkill-Mispillion block.
Parameter
Global
SubSite 1
SubSite 2
Description
All
Broadkill
Mispillion
NWI Photo Date (YYYY)
2007
2007
2007
DEM Date (YYYY)
2014
2014
2014
Direction Offshore [n,s,e,w]
East
East
East
Historic Trend (mm/yr)
3.4
3.4
3.4
Historic Eustatic Trend (mm/yr)
1.7
1.7
1.7
MTL-NAVD88 (m)
0
0
0
GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
1.614
1.418
1.811
Salt Elev. (m above MTL)
1.076
1.04
1.1
Marsh Erosion (horz. m/yr)
0.3399
0.115
0.563
Marsh Erosion Fetch (km)
0.1
0.1
0.1
Swamp Erosion (horz. m/yr)
1
1
1
T.FIat Erosion (horz. m /yr)
0.5
0.5
0.5
Reg.-Flood Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
see below
see below
see below
Irreg.-Flood Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
see below
see below
see below
Tidal-Fresh Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
see below
see below
see below
Inland-Fresh Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
1
1
1
Mangrove Acer (mm/yr)
0
0
0
Tidal Swamp Acer (mm/yr)
1.1
1.1
1.1
Swamp Accretion (mm/yr)
1.6
1.6
1.6
Beach Sed. Rate (mm/yr)
0.5
0.5
0.5
Irreg-Flood Collapse (m)
0
0
0
Reg-Flood Collapse (m)
0
0
0
Use Wave Erosion Model [True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Use Elev Pre-processor [True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
HI inundation (m above MTL)
0.4035
0.35
0.45
H2 inundation (m above MTL; H2>H1)
0.807
0.709
0.905
H3 inundation (m above MTL: H3>H2)
1.076
1.076
1.076
H4 inundation (m above MTL; H4>H3)
2
2
2
H5 inundation (m above MTL; H5>H4)
5
5
5
-------
Table A9. Input parameters for the Broadkill-Mispillion block. (Continued)
Parameter
Global
SubSite 1
SubSite 2
Reg Flood Use Model
[True,False]
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mm/year)
8
8
8
Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mm/year)
3.5
3.5
3.5
Reg Flood Elev a (mm/(year
HTUA3))
1.3
1.3
1.3
Reg Flood Elev b (mm/(year
HTUA2))
-4
-4
-4
Reg Flood Elev c
(mm/(year*HTU))
1.3613
1.3613
1.3613
Reg Flood Elev d (mm/year)
7.6316
7.6316
7.6316
Irreg Flood Use Model
[True,False]
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
Irreg Flood Max. Acer,
(mm/year)
4.6
4.6
4.6
Irreg Flood Min. Acer,
(mm/year)
3.8
3.8
3.8
Irreg Flood Elev a (mm/(year
HTUA3))
0
0
0
Irreg Flood Elev b (mm/(year
HTUA2))
0
0
0
Irreg Flood Elev c
(mm/(year*HTU))
-1.6386
-1.6386
-1.6386
Irreg Flood Elev d (mm/year)
0
0
0
T.FIat Use Model [True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Tidal Fresh Use Model
[True,False]
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
-------
Table A10. Broadkill time-zero results (acres).
SLAMM category
Initial
coverage
(acres)
Time Zero
(2007)
Change
(acres)
% Change
Developed Dry Land
3232.2
3232.2
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Beach
148.9
114.0
-34.9
-23.5
Estuarine Open Water
8106.8
8415.7
309.0
3.8
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Inland Open Water
897.7
727.1
-170.5
-19.0
Inland Shore
37.0
37.0
0.0
0.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
167.2
131.7
-35.4
-21.2
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
2261.9
1613.0
-648.9
-28.7
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
3284.3
3955.8
671.5
20.4
Riverine Tidal
208.9
105.7
-103.2
-49.4
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Swamp
2348.6
1802.6
-546.0
-23.2
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Tidal Flat
0.0
38.3
38.3
(increase
from zero)
Tidal Swamp
1463.1
1445.9
-17.2
-1.2
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
164.3
159.3
-5.0
-3.0
Trans. Salt Marsh
64.7
1626.7
1562.0
2413.3
Undeveloped Dry Land
36833.4
35813.8
-1019.6
-2.8
-------
Table All. Mispillion time-zero results (acres).
SLAMM category
Initial
coverage
(acres)
Time Zero
(2007)
Change
(acres)
% Change
Developed Dry Land
2827.5
2827.5
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Beach
165.1
157.1
-8.0
-4.8
Estuarine Open Water
11159.9
11263.5
103.6
0.9
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Inland Open Water
668.2
612.1
-56.2
-8.4
Inland Shore
40.0
40.0
0.0
0.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
162.2
127.3
-34.8
-21.5
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
2622.4
2067.6
-554.8
-21.2
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
6440.0
7165.8
725.8
11.3
Riverine Tidal
137.1
103.0
-34.1
-24.9
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Swamp
4683.6
4134.0
-549.6
-11.7
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Tidal Flat
93.5
119.2
25.7
27.4
Tidal Swamp
1127.6
1119.3
-8.2
-0.7
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
40.3
40.2
0.0
0.0
Trans. Salt Marsh
325.1
2194.0
1869.0
575.0
Undeveloped Dry Land
40211.5
38733.2
-1478.3
-3.7
-------
Changed these areas from estuarine beach to estuarine open water based on photo
Figure A21. We changed the area outlined in yellow from estuarine beach to estuarine open water based on this aerial photo.
-------
Output subsites
itSrtej
Delete^] joutputSitel
OutputSite2
¦ Oeveloped Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
¦3 Inland Fresh Marsh
I I Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
1 Regularly-flooded Marsh
I I Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean 6each
~ Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
M~1 Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
9 SLAMM Map - F:\SLAMM\SLAMM_20170724YMispBDtC\MispBDK_20170724.SLAMM6
Edit Input or Output Subsites Analysis Tools Edit Cells
' Output Subsites
Add |
Sub-site: OutputSitel
Show Selected I Define Boundary
a Show All
Copy to Clipboard
j Save Simulation
Figure A22. Results were generated for the Broadkill and Mispillion output sites (Broadkiil is outlined in
yellow; Mispillion in white). The output site delineations are based on units used by PDE for monitoring
and management. The overlap between the two sites does not affect the results because SLAMM
generates results for each output site independently. For a more detailed explanation of differences
between input and output sites, see Text Box #1.
-------
St. Jones block
5 LA MM File Setup
DEM File (elevation):
(required)
elevation. SLB
NRows: 4403, NCols: 41S7.
SLAMM Categones (NWI): StJoneslandcoverdrylandfilled.SLB
(reqUred) Wta*s:4403.NCoi»:4lS7
Browse ] i Binary
Browse 1 Binary
SLOPE File: s slope.SLB
(required) (lRows. ^ NCo|s. 4157
Dike File: s dike.SLB
" NRows: 4403, NCols: 4157.
o Classic dike raster (protected areas)
Dike location raster (dike locations and height)
[ Browse ] | Binary ]
| Browse ] ( Binary ]
Pet. Impervious File: s impervious. SLB
0^*)On NRows: 4403/ NCols: 4157.
Raster Output Sites File:
(optional)
No Raster Output File Selected, outputs wl not be summarized by raster coverage
"DATUM File: s vdatllm.SLB
(op6onal) NRows: 4403, NCols: 4157.
Uplift, Subidence File:
(optional)
No Raster Uplift/Subsidence Map Selected, using Historic Trend to estimate land movement.
Safcnity File (base):
(optional) ^ salinity Raster File Selected. The nitial condition file should be specified here.
Storm Surge Raster (base}:
1 Browse 1 [^Binary
1 Browse 1 Binary
Browse 1 I Binary
I Browse j
[Browse 1
Binary
Binary
(optional; ^ s^orm Surge File Selected: Storm Levels taken from Subsite Data. FileN should end with _00_010,ASC or _00_100.ASC
I Browse 1 ( Binary 1
Distance To Mouth:
(optional)
I SAV Parameters
Re-check Files' Validity
Binary
Base Output File Name: SU_Fut_
I Browse 1
© Track All Cells
© Do not Track "Blank'
o Do not Track High Elevations and Open Water
Cells to Track: 6,519,970 1 Count I
Memory Utilization in GB: 0.68003587
Conv. Binary Files to ASCII
Cancel
OK
Save simulation
Figure A23. SLAMM File Setup for the St. Jones block. For the SLAMM categories input file, we used the
NWI land cover layer (based on 2007 data), with no edits.
-------
Input subsites (not needed)
SLAMM Map -- F:\SLAMM\SLAMM_20170724\StJones\Stlones_20170724.SLAMM6
Edit Input or Output Subsites
[input Subsites ~"]
Input Subsites
Output Subsites
Fresh-Water Flows
Roads Layer
Infrastructure Layer
Analysis Tools
Edit Cells
Subsite Parameters
Show Selected
o Show All
¦ Developed Dry Land
¦ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
¦ Inland Fresh Marsh
~ Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦I Trans. Salt Marsh
Ml Regularly-flooded Marsh
I 1 Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
~ Ocean Beach
~ Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
¦3 Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A24. The input parameters were uniform within the St. Jones block, so we did not need to set up
any SLAMM input subsites. This map differs from the St. Jones output site shown in Figure A1 because
output sites are delineated based on units used by PDE for monitoring and management. If there had
been input subsites within this block, those boundaries would have been driven by differences in input
parameters. For a more detailed explanation of differences between input and output sites, see Text
Box #1.
-------
Table A12. Input parameters for the St. Jones block.
Parameter
Global
Description
St. Jones
NWI Photo Date (YYYY)
2007
DEM Date (YYYY)
2014
Direction Offshore [n,s,e,w]
East
Historic Trend (mm/yr)
3.4
Historic Eustatic Trend (mm/yr)
1.7
MTL-NAVD88 (m)
0
GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
1.811
Salt Elev. (m above MTL)
1.18
Marsh Erosion (horz. m /yr)
0.31
Marsh Erosion Fetch (km)
0.1
Swamp Erosion (horz. m /yr)
1
T.FIat Erosion (horz. m /yr)
0.5
Reg.-Flood Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
see below
Irreg.-Flood Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
see below
Tidal-Fresh Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
5
Inland-Fresh Marsh Acer (mm/yr)
1
Mangrove Acer (mm/yr)
0
Tidal Swamp Acer (mm/yr)
1.1
Swamp Accretion (mm/yr)
1.6
Beach Sed. Rate (mm/yr)
0.5
Irreg-Flood Collapse (m)
0
Reg-Flood Collapse (m)
0
Use Wave Erosion Model [True,False]
FALSE
Use Elev Pre-processor [True,False]
FALSE
HI inundation (m above MTL)
0.4528
H2 inundation (m above MTL; H2>H1)
0.9055
H3 inundation (m above MTL: H3>H2)
1.076
H4 inundation (m above MTL; H4>H3)
2
H5 inundation (m above MTL; H5>H4)
5
-------
Table A12. Input parameters for the St. Jones block. (Continued)
Parameter
Global
Reg Flood Use Model [True,False]
TRUE
Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mm/year)
8
Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mm/year)
3.5
Reg Flood Elev a (mm/(year HTUA3))
1.3
Reg Flood Elev b (mm/(year HTUA2))
-4
Reg Flood Elev c (mm/(year*HTU))
1.3613
Reg Flood Elev d (mm/year)
7.6316
Irreg Flood Use Model [True,False]
TRUE
Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mm/year)
4.6
Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mm/year)
3.8
Irreg Flood Elev a (mm/(year HTUA3))
0
Irreg Flood Elev b (mm/(year HTUA2))
0
Irreg Flood Elev c (mm/(year*HTU))
-1.6386
Irreg Flood Elev d (mm/year)
0
T.FIat Use Model [True,False]
FALSE
Tidal Fresh Use Model [True,False]
FALSE
-------
Table A13. St. Jones time-zero results (acres).
SLAMM category
Initial
coverage
(acres)
Time Zero
(2007)
Change
(acres)
% Change
Developed Dry Land
1973.8
1973.8
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Beach
36.2
36.2
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Open Water
2194.0
2202.0
8.0
0.4
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Inland Open Water
349.1
341.1
-8.0
-2.3
Inland Shore
8.6
8.6
0.0
0.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
42.8
39.7
-3.1
-7.3
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1357.3
1354.8
-2.5
-0.2
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1859.6
1865.2
5.6
0.3
Riverine Tidal
2.6
2.6
0.0
0.0
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Swamp
732.2
657.5
-74.7
-10.2
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Tidal Flat
10.1
10.1
0.0
0.0
Tidal Swamp
101.0
101.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
48.3
48.3
0.0
0.0
Trans. Salt Marsh
2.5
164.0
161.5
6406.2
Undeveloped Dry Land
9876.2
9789.5
-86.8
-0.9
-------
Output subsites
SLAMM Map -- F:\SLAMM\SLAMMJ0170724\SUones\Stlones_20170724.SLAMM6
Edit Input or Output Subsites I Analysis Tools Edit Cells
Output Subsites
Show Selected
utputSire2
All St J ¦ >
= Lower St J
OutputSitel
OutputSite2
¦ Developed Dry Land
^ Undeveloped Dry Land
¦ Swamp
¦ Inland Fresh Marsh
~ Tidal Fresh Marsh
¦ Trans. Salt Marsh
¦ Regularly-flooded Marsh
~ Estuarine Beach
~ Tidal Flat
I I Ocean Beach
~ Inland Open Water
¦ Riverine Tidal
¦ Estuarine Open Water
¦ Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
¦ Inland Shore
¦ Tidal Swamp
¦ Flooded Dev. Dry Land
Figure A25. Outputs were generated for two output subsites: "Lower St. Jones" and "St. Jones All"
("Lower St. Jones" is outlined in yellow; "St. Jones All" is outlined in white; later we ended up limiting
results to the Lower St. Jones only). The output site delineations are based on units used by PDE for
monitoring and management. SLAMM generates results for each output site independently. For a more
detailed explanation of differences between input and output sites, see Text Box #1.
a Show All
Reference
Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. (2016). "SLAMM 6.7 Technical Documentation." Available online:
http://warrenpinnacle.com/prof/SLAMM6/SLAMM 6.7 Technical Documentation.pdf
-------
Appendix B
NWI Classes to SLAMM Categories
-------
NWI Classes to SLAMM Categories
NWI Code Characters
SLAMM
Code
Name
System
Subsystem
Class
Subclass1
Water Regime 2
Notes
1
Developed Dry
Land (upland)
U
SLAMM assumes developed land will
be defended against sea-level rise.
Categories 1 & 2 need to be
distinguished manually.
2
Undeveloped
Dry Land
(upland)
U
3
Nontidal Swamp
P
NA
FO.
ss
1. 3. to 7.
None
A. B. C. E. F. G.
H. J. K None or U
Palustrine Forested and Scrub-Shrub
(living or dead)
4
Cypress Swamp
P
NA
FO.
SS
2
A. B. C. E. F. G.
H. J. K None or U
Needle-leaved Deciduous forest and
Scrub-Shrub (living or dead)
5
Inland Fresh
Marsh
P
NA
EM.
f*
All
None
A. B. C. E. F. G.
H. J. K None or U
Palustrine Emergents; Lacustrine and
Riverine Nonpersistent Emergents
L
2
EM
2
None
E. F. G. H. K.
None or LI
R
2.3
EM
2
None
E. F. G. H. K.
None or LI
6
Tidal Fresh
Marsh
R
1
EM
2. None
Fresh Tidal N. T
Riverine and Palustrine Freshwater
Tidal Emergents
P
NA
EM
All.
None
Fresh Tidal S. R.
T
7
Transitional
Marsh /Scrub-
Shrub
E
2
SS.
FO
1. 2. 4 to
7. None
Tidal M. N. P
None or LI
Estuarine Intertidal. Scrub-shrub and
Forested (ALL expect 3 subclass)
8
Regularly
Flooded Marsh
(Saltmarsh)
E
2
EM
1
None
TidalN
None or LI
Only regularly flooded tidal marsh;
No intermittently flooded "P" water
regime
9
Mangrove
Tropical settings
only, otherwise 7
E
2
FO.
SS
3
Tidal M. N. P
None or LI
Estuarine Intertidal Forested and
Scrub-shrub. Broad-leaved Evergreen
10
Estuarine Beach
(old code BB
and FL = LIS)
E
2
us
1. 2
Tidal N. P
Estuarine Intertidal LInconsolidated
Shores
E
2
us
None
Tidal N. P
Only when shores (need images or
base map)
11
Tidal Flat old
code BB and FL
= US
E
2
us
3. 4
None
Tidal M. N
None or LI
Estuarine Intertidal LInconsolidated
Shore (mud or organic) and Aquatic
Bed; Marine Intertidal Aquatic Bed
E
2
AB
All
Except 1
Tidal M. N
None or LI
E
2
AB
1
P
M
2
AB
1. 3
None
Tidal M. N
None or LI
12
Ocean Beach
(old code BB
and FL = US)
M
2
US
1. 2
Important
Tidal N. P
Marine Intertidal LInconsolidated
Shore. Cobble-gravel, sand
M
2
us
None
TidalP
13
Ocean Flat (old
code BB and FL
= US)
M
2
us
3. 4
None
Tidal M. N
None or LI
Marine Intertidal LInconsolidated
Shore, mud or organic (low energy
coastline)
-------
NWI Code Characters
SLAMM
Code
Name
System
Subsystem
Class
Subclass
Water Regime
Notes
Tidal M. N. P
M
2
RS
All None
None or U
Tidal M. N. P
14
Rocky Intertidal
E
2
RS
All None
None or U
Marine and Estuarine Intertidal
Tidal M. N. P
Rocky Shore and Reef
E
2
RF
2.3 None
None or U
Tidal M. N. P
E
2
AB
1
None or U
R
2
UB. AB
All. None
All. None
UB. AB.
Inland Open Water
R
3
RB
All. None
All. None
Riverine. Lacustrine, and
UB. AB.
RB
15
(old code OW =
UB)
L
1.2
All. None
All. None
Palustrine Unconsolidated
Bottom, and Aquatic Beds
UB. AB.
P
NA
RB
All. None
All. None
R
5
UB
All
Only U
16
Riverine Tidal
Open Water (old
code OW = UB)
R
1
All
Except
EM
All, None
Except 2
Fresh Tidal S, R,
T. V
Riverine Tidal Open Water
(R1EM2 falls under SLAMM
Category 6)
17
Estuarine Open
Water (no h** for
diked / impounded,
old code OW = UB)
E
1
All
All, None
Tidal L. M. N. P
Estuarine Subtidal
Tidal M. N. P
18
Tidal Creek
E
2
SB
All. None
Fresh Tidal R. S
Estuarine Intertidal Streambed
Open Ocean (old
code OW = UB)
M
1
All
All
Tidal L. M. N. P
Marine Subtidal and Marine
Intertidal Aquatic Bed and Reef
19
M
2
RF
1,3, None
Tidal M. N. P
None or U
Irregularly Flooded
Marsh
E
2
EM
1, 5, None
P
Irregularly Flooded Estuarine
Intertidal Emergent Marsh
20
E
2
us
2, 3, 4, None
P
Only when these salt pans are
associated with E2EMN or P
21
Not Used
L
2
US. RS
All
All Nontidal
All Nontidal
Inland Shore (old
P
NA
us
All, None
None or U
Shoreline nor pre-processed using
Tidal Range Elevations.
22
code BB and FL =
US)
R
2.3
US. RS
All, None
All Nontidal
None or U
All Nontidal
R
4
SB
All, None
None or U
23
Tidal Swamp
P
NA
SS. FO
All, None
Fresh Tidal R. S.T
Tidally influenced swamp
vfote: *
Farmed wetlands are coc
ed as Pf
** h = Diked/Impounded - When it is desirable to model the protective effects of dikes, an
additional raster layer must be specified.
1 Subclasses: All - Valid components; None - no "Subclass" or "Water Regime" listed; U -
Unknown Water regime; NA - Not applicable
2 Water regimes: A, B, C, E, F, G, J, K - Nontidal; L, M, N, P - Saltwater Tidal; R, S, T, V -
Fresh Tidal
Source: Bill Wilen. For more information on the NWI coding systems, see Appendix A of Dahl et
al. (2009)
-------
Appendix C
Elevation change and accretion rate calculations
-------
Surface Elevation Table (SET) data were used to determine models of wetland elevation-change rates for the study area. This appendix contains
elevation change data for each site with SET data (see list below).
Table CI. Sites with Surface Elevation Table (SET) data.
Lat
Long
State
Site name
SET
SLAMM
category*
Date of first
measurement**
Date of last
measurement**
38.78110
-75.16995
DE
Canary Creek
BDK3
RF
2014-05-28
2016-08-24
38.78632
-75.16978
DE
Canary Creek
BDK2
RF
38.78733
-75.16603
DE
Canary Creek
BDK1
RF
39.07065
-75.41741
DE
St. Jones -
Impoundment
SJIP
RF
2007-06-07
2015-09-02
39.08807
-75.43750
DE
St. Jones -
Boardwalk
SJBW
RF
2004-06-22
2015-09-02
39.11576
-75.49751
DE
St. Jones -
Wildcat
SJWC
IRF
2007-06-18
2015-03-18
39.16974
-74.87750
NJ
Dennis Creek
DNSET1
IRF
2011-05-13
2015-09-11
39.17344
-74.86976
NJ
Dennis Creek
DNSET2
IRF
39.18449
-74.84963
NJ
Dennis Creek
DNSET3
IRF
39.22728
-75.10800
NJ
Dividing Creek
DIVSET1
IRF
2012-05-31
2015-10-21
39.23281
-75.11678
NJ
Dividing Creek
DIVSET2
IRF
39.23983
-75.10400
NJ
Dividing Creek
DIVSET3
IRF
39.24200
-75.01034
NJ
Maurice River
MCSET3
IRF
2011-04-18
2015-10-06
39.24378
-75.01386
NJ
Maurice River
MCSET2
IRF
39.24418
-75.01483
NJ
Maurice River
MCSET1
IRF
* SLAMM categories: RF = Regularly-
looded Marsh, IRF = Irreg.-Flooc
ed Marsh
**Additional data may be available. This table only reflects the date range of the data we were able to obtain at the time of this case study.
-------
New Jersey SET sites
Maurice! own
Dorchesh
Lee&burg
Port N orris MC1,
MC2, 9-3 mm/yr
1.3 mm/yr ¦
MC3,
4.3 mm/yr
.Delmcfnl
DN1,
5.2 mm/yr
Marsh_type
¦ Irreg.-Flooded
¦ Regularly-flooded
~ Dennis
~ Dividing
~ Maurice_Lower
1.5 3 miles
_l I
Figure CI. Locations of SET sites in the New Jersey marshes (Dividing (DIV), Maurice (MC) and Dennis (DN)). Values equal elevation change
(mm/yr) averaged across the period of record.
-------
Dennis (DIM) Subsite
Average of position/pin data for each set & date (mm)
Date
DN1
DN2
DN3
2011-03-18
Installation date
2011-05-13
165.58
127.67
84.56
2011-10-06
163.64
113.83
97.08
2012-08-02
165.08
119.42
85.33
2012-09-10
168.33
114.47
89.31
2012-10-23
170.08
116.39
89.17
2012-11-15
165.97
118.36
89.81
2013-04-17
173.56
108.11
98.50
2013-08-29
174.75
110.00
88.67
2014-05-23
174.92
113.53
89.19
2014-10-02
182.36
116.67
98.47
2015-04-28
179.33
111.25
98.72
2015-07-07
185.08
116.56
94.86
2015-09-11
186.11
114.33
94.67
Set Elev. (HTU)1
1.040
1.317
0.949
Elev. Change (mm/yr)2
5.205
-1.473
1.883
Elevation change from starting point (converted to cm)
2011-03-18 installation date
Starting point
2011-05-13
165.58
(mm)
127.67
(mm)
84.56
(mm)
Date
DNl(cm)
DN2 (cm)
DN3 (cm)
Average (cm)
2011-10-06
-0.19
-1.38
1.25
-0.11
2012-08-02
-0.05
-0.83
0.08
-0.27
2012-09-10
0.28
-1.32
0.48
-0.19
2012-10-23
0.45
-1.13
0.46
-0.07
2012-11-15
0.04
-0.93
0.53
-0.12
2013-04-17
0.80
-1.96
1.39
0.08
2013-08-29
0.92
-1.77
0.41
-0.15
2014-05-23
0.93
-1.41
0.46
-0.01
2014-10-02
1.68
-1.10
1.39
0.66
2015-04-28
1.38
-1.64
1.42
0.38
2015-07-07
1.95
-1.11
1.03
0.62
2015-09-11
2.05
-1.33
1.01
0.58
Elev. NAVD88 (m)*
0.869
1.134
0.782
NAVD88-MTL**
-0.129
-0.129
-0.128
Tide Range (GT) (m)
1.918
1.918
1.918
*2013 RTK, adjusted for 2011 installation date
**Used in VDATUM
Tide range data is from NOAA Station (ID 8536581), Bidwell Creek
1 Excel formula for Set Elev. = [(Elev NAVD88-(NAVD88-MTL))]/(Tide Range/2)
2 Excel formula for Elev. Change = LINEST(first measurement:last measurement, first measurement date:last date)*365.25
-------
DN1 y = 0.0016x- 63.775
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
2011-10-06 2012-10-06 2013-10-06 2014-10-06
DN2 y = -9E-05x + 2.5104
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
2011-10-06 2012-10-06 2013-10-06 2014-10-06
Avg y = 0.0006x-25.643
0.00
-0.20
DN3 y = 0.0004x-15.664
0.00 -0.40
2011-10-06 2012-10-06 2013-10-06 2014-10-06 I 2011-10-06 2012-10-06 2013-10-06 2014-10-06
Figure C2. Elevation change plots for the three Dennis SET sites, fit with a linear trendlines. The average across all three sites (Avg) is also
included. The y-axis shows elevation change (cm) from the starting point, and the x-axis shows measurement dates.
-------
Maurice (MC) Subsite
Average of position/pin data for each set & date (mm)
Date
MR1
MR2
MR3
2010-10-13
installation date
2011-04-18
191.47
252.49
185.25
2011-09-20
194.47
252.17
187.31
2012-05-29
199.31
250.67
185.83
2012-09-07
201.14
252.81
182.00
2012-10-25
205.58
255.50
190.14
2012-11-14
190.14
231.53
165.94
2013-04-25
202.72
248.56
188.56
2013-09-11
209.64
246.36
187.50
2014-04-22
205.50
248.19
187.31
2014-09-30
223.64
255.53
196.28
2015-04-29
223.08
252.25
197.28
2015-07-24
230.19
257.22
202.22
2015-10-06
233.92
256.53
200.58
Set Elev. (HTU)1
0.788
1.002
0.978
Elev. Change (mm/yr)2
9.31
1.31
4.30
Elevation change from starting point (converted to cm)
2010-10-13 installation date
Starting point
2011-04-18
191.47
(mm)
252.49
(mm)
185.25
(mm)
Date
MR1 (cm)
MR2 (cm)
MR3 (cm)
Average (cm)
2011-09-20
0.30
-0.03
0.21
0.16
2012-05-29
0.78
-0.18
0.06
0.22
2012-09-07
0.97
0.03
-0.33
0.22
2012-10-25
1.41
0.30
0.49
0.73
2012-11-14
-0.13
-2.10
-1.93
-1.39
2013-04-25
1.13
-0.39
0.33
0.35
2013-09-11
1.82
-0.61
0.23
0.48
2014-04-22
1.40
-0.43
0.21
0.39
2014-09-30
3.22
0.30
1.10
1.54
2015-04-29
3.16
-0.02
1.20
1.45
2015-07-24
3.87
0.47
1.70
2.01
2015-10-06
4.24
0.40
1.53
2.06
Elev. NAVD88 (m)*
0.667
0.877
0.852
NAVD88-MTL**
-0.105
-0.105
-0.106
Tide Range (GT) (m)
1.96
1.96
1.96
*2013 RTK, adjusted for 2010 installation date
**=VDATUM
Tide range data is from NOAA Station (ID 8536931), Fortescue
1 Excel formula for Set Elev. = [(Elev NAVD88-(NAVD88-MTL))]/(Tide Range/2)
2 Excel formula for Elev. Change = LINEST(first measurement:last measurement, first measurement date:last date)*365.25
-------
-0.50
2011-09-20
MR1
V = 0.0027x-109.92
2012-09-20
2013-09-20
2014-09-20 2015-09-20
1.00
MR2
y = 0.0005x-21.675
0.50
•
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
•
-2.50
2011-09-20
2012-09-20
2013-09-20
2014-09-20 2015-09-20
MR3
y = 0.0014x - 57.143
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
•
0.00
-0.50 -
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
2011-09-20
2012-09-20
2013-09-20
2014-09-20 2015-09-20
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 *
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
2011-09-20
Avg
y = 0.0015x-62.913
2012-09-20 2013-09-20 2014-09-20 2015-09-20
Figure C3. Elevation change plots for the three Maurice SET sites, fit with a linear trendlines. The average across ail three sites (Avg) is also
included. The y-axis shows elevation change (cm) from the starting point, and the x-axis shows measurement dates.
-------
Dividing (DIV) Subsite
Average of position/pin data for each set & date (mm)
Date
DV1
DV2
DV3
2012-01-09
installation date
2012-05-31
139.25
179.47
71.28
2012-08-17
138.28
172.92
74.89
2012-10-23
153.53
171.94
80.33
2012-11-14
149.39
179.42
77.61
2013-05-29
143.83
181.92
78.64
2013-08-19
140.78
175.97
78.08
2014-04-28
148.78
184.19
85.47
2014-09-23
154.11
188.83
92.17
2015-04-21
147.69
189.22
94.08
2015-08-10
151.14
194.67
97.17
2015-10-21
149.08
186.42
92.31
Set Elev. (HTU)1
1.234
0.849
0.889
Elev. Change (mm/yr)2
2.23
4.91
6.69
Elevation change from starting point (converted to cm)
2012-01-09 installation date
Starting point
2012-05-31
139.25
(mm)
179.47
(mm)
71.28
(mm)
130.00
(mm)
Date
DVl(cm)
DV2 (cm)
DV3 (cm)
Average (cm)
2012-08-17
-0.10
-0.66
0.36
-0.13
2012-10-23
1.43
-0.75
0.91
0.53
2012-11-14
1.01
-0.01
0.63
0.55
2013-05-29
0.46
0.24
0.74
0.48
2013-08-19
0.15
-0.35
0.68
0.16
2014-04-28
0.95
0.47
1.42
0.95
2014-09-23
1.49
0.94
2.09
1.50
2015-04-21
0.84
0.98
2.28
1.37
2015-08-10
1.19
1.52
2.59
1.77
2015-10-21
0.98
0.69
2.10
1.26
Elev. NAVD88 (m)*
1.137
0.763
0.799
NAVD88-MTL**
-0.072
-0.069
-0.072
Tide Range (GT) (m)
1.96
1.96
1.96
*2013 RTK, adjusted for 2012 installation date
**=VDATUM
Tide range data is from NOAA Station (ID 8536931), Fortescue
1 Excel formula for Set Elev. = [(Elev NAVD88-(NAVD88-MTL))]/(Tide Range/2)
2 Excel formula for Elev. Change = LINEST(first measurement:last measurement, first measurement date:last date)*365.25
-------
y = 0.0015x-62.77
y = 0.0005x-18.326
2013-08-17
2015-08-17
2014-08-17
2015-08-17
y = 0.0018x-71.735
y = 0.0012x-50.944
2015-08-17
2014-08-17
Figure C4. Elevation change plots for the three Dividing SET sites, fit with a linear trendlines. The average across all three sites (Avg) is also
included. The y-axis shows elevation change (cm) from the starting point, and the x-axis shows measurement dates.
-------
Delaware SET sites
WetoW
SJWC,
3.1 mm/yr
highland
Acr«*
SJBW,
3 mm/yr
Magnolia
Marsh_type
¦ Irreg.-Flooded
¦ Regularly-flooded
~ Broadklll
~ StJories_Lower
Beach
2 miles
I
UURDE RKILL NECK
,-oming
BDK3,
4.1 mm/yr
Goidon
Pond
BDK1,
6
DetovMir* Etoy •
i
&
I -
t Rocks N»ck
V %
BDK2,
Figure C5. Locations of SET sites in the Delaware marshes (St. Jones (SJ) and Broadkill
(BDK)). Values equal elevation change (mm/yr) averaged across the period of record.
-------
Broadkill (BDK) Subsite
Average of position/pin data for each set & date (mm) Elevation change from starting point (converted to cm)
Date
BDK1
BDK2
BDK3
2014-05-28
164.89
167.47
266.94
2014-06-30
163.61
180.31
266.17
2014-11-19
168.83
180.33
267.06
2015-03-19
169.72
181.31
266.11
2015-08-24
173.36
183.53
272.06
2015-11-17
173.89
184.33
271.36
2016-03-30
176.86
184.97
271.39
2016-08-24
176.67
188.06
276.36
Set Elev. (HTU)1
1.250
1.074
0.964
Elev. Change (mm/yr)2
6.028
6.152
4.093
Starting point
2014-05-28
164.89
(mm)
167.47
(mm)
266.94
(mm)
Date
BDKl(cm)
BDK2 (cm)
BDK3 (cm)
Average (cm)
2014-06-30
-0.13
1.28
-0.08
0.36
2014-11-19
0.39
1.29
0.01
0.56
2015-03-19
0.48
1.38
-0.08
0.59
2015-08-24
0.85
1.61
0.51
0.99
2015-11-17
0.90
1.69
0.44
1.01
2016-03-30
1.20
1.75
0.44
1.13
2016-08-24
1.18
2.06
0.94
1.39
Elev. NAVD88 (m)*
0.77
0.65
0.57
NAVD88-MTL**
-0.117
-0.116
-0.116
Tide Range (GT) (m)
1.418
1.418
1.418
*2015 RTK, adjusted for installation date
**=VDATUM
Tide range data is from NOAA Station (ID 8557390), Lewes
1 Excel formula for Set Elev. = [(Elev NAVD88-(NAVD88-MTL))]/(Tide Range/2)
2 Excel formula for Elev. Change = LINEST(first measurement:last measurement, first measurement date:last date)*365.25
-------
BDK1
y = 0.0017x-69.329
BDK2
y = 0.001x-40.159
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20 *
-0.40
2014-06-01
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
1.60
1.40
2014-06-01
2015-06-01
Avg
V = 0.0013x-54.009
2016-06-01
-0.20
-0.40
0.80
0.20
0.00
1.00
2014-06-01
2015-06-01
BDK3
y = 0.0013x-52.54
Figure C6. Elevation change plots for the three Broadkill SET sites, fit with a linear trendlines. The average across all three sites (Avg) is also
included. The y-axis shows elevation change (cm) from the starting point, and the x-axis shows measurement dates
2.50
0.50
o.oo
2015-06-01 2016-06-01 2014-06-01 2015-06-01 2016-06-01
-------
St. Jones Impoundment (SJIP) Area
Average of position/pin data for each set & date. Elevation change from starting point.
Date
SJIP (mm)
2007-06-07
238.21
2007-06-18
243.40
2007-08-27
242.72
2008-01-16
248.85
2008-06-25
238.63
2008-10-22
252.04
2009-04-02
235.19
2009-11-06
278.96
2010-07-16
281.35
2011-02-11
279.51
2011-09-16
285.75
2012-03-13
287.72
2012-09-19
292.28
2013-03-14
298.22
2014-05-30
283.89
2015-03-19
265.89
2015-09-02
283.35
Set Elev. (HTU)1
1.01
Elev Change (mm/yr)2
6.11
Starting point
2007-06-07
238.21 (mm)
Date
SJIP (cm)
2007-06-18
0.52
2007-08-27
0.45
2008-01-16
1.06
2008-06-25
0.04
2008-10-22
1.38
2009-04-02
-0.30
2009-11-06
4.08
2010-07-16
4.31
2011-02-11
4.13
2011-09-16
4.75
2012-03-13
4.95
2012-09-19
5.41
2013-03-14
6.00
2014-05-30
4.57
2015-03-19
2.77
2015-09-02
4.51
Elevation NAVD88 (m)*
0.858
NAVD88-MTL**
-0.060
Tide Range (GT) (m)
1.811
*no RTK measurement; used LiDAR instead (2014)
**=VDATUM
Tide range data is from NOAA Station (ID 8554399), Mahon River Entrance
1 Excel formula for Set Elev. = [(Elev NAVD88-(NAVD88-MTL))]/(Tide Range/2)
2 Excel formula for Elev. Change = LINEST(first measurement:last measurement, first measurement
date:last date)*365.25
-------
St. Jones Boardwalk (SJBW) Area
Average of position/pin data for each set & date. Elevation change from starting point.
Date
SJBW (mm)
2004-06-22
254.61
2004-08-13
257.24
2005-07-26
263.03
2007-06-21
261.63
2007-10-03
265.94
2008-01-17
266.29
2008-07-14
263.75
2008-09-22
239.52
2009-04-27
270.56
2009-11-10
278.32
2010-04-20
281.94
2010-07-15
268.86
2011-02-11
279.72
2011-09-15
286.25
2012-03-13
285.18
2012-09-19
276.51
2013-03-14
285.33
2013-12-06
285.07
2014-05-30
285.97
2014-09-12
283.85
2015-03-19
286.42
2015-09-01
277.49
Set Elev. (HTU)1
0.42
Elev. Change (mm/yr)2
2.97
Starting point
2004-06-22
254.61 (mm)
Date
SJBW (cm)
2004-08-13
0.26
2005-07-26
0.84
2007-06-21
0.70
2007-10-03
1.13
2008-01-17
1.17
2008-07-14
0.91
2008-09-22
-1.51
2009-04-27
1.59
2009-11-10
2.37
2010-04-20
2.73
2010-07-15
1.43
2011-02-11
2.51
2011-09-15
3.16
2012-03-13
3.06
2012-09-19
2.19
2013-03-14
3.07
2013-12-06
3.05
2014-05-30
3.14
2014-09-12
2.92
2015-03-19
3.18
2015-09-01
2.29
Elevation NAVD88 (m)*
0.32
NAVD88-MTL**
-0.060
Tide Range (GT) (m)
1.811
*2016 RTK, adjusted for installation
**=VDATUM
Tide range data is from NOAA Station (ID 8554399), Mahon River Entrance
1 Excel formula for Set Elev. = [(Elev NAVD88-(NAVD88-MTL))]/(Tide Range/2)
2 Excel formula for Elev. Change = LINEST(first measurement:last measurement, first measurement
date:last date)*365.25
-------
St. Jones Wildcat (SJWC) Area
Average of position/pin data for each set & date. Elevation change from starting point.
Date
SJWC (mm)
2007-06-18
201.00
2007-08-27
198.47
2008-01-16
189.06
2008-06-25
207.86
2008-10-22
207.57
2009-04-02
208.00
2010-04-19
219.78
2011-02-10
222.94
2011-09-16
224.68
2012-03-14
216.60
2012-09-20
225.65
2013-03-15
208.21
2013-12-05
229.50
2014-09-10
212.96
2015-03-18
222.32
Set Elev. (HTU)1
0.250
Elev Change
(mm/yr)2
3.129
2007-06-18
201.00 (mm)
Date
STWC (cm)
2007-08-27
-0.25
2008-01-16
-1.19
2008-06-25
0.69
2008-10-22
0.66
2009-04-02
0.70
2010-04-19
1.88
2011-02-10
2.19
2011-09-16
2.37
2012-03-14
1.56
2012-09-20
2.47
2013-03-15
0.72
2013-12-05
2.85
2014-09-10
1.20
2015-03-18
2.13
Elevation NAVD88
(m)*
0.166
NAVD88-MTL**
-0.060
Tide Range (GT) (m)
1.811
*2016 RTK, adjusted for installation
**=VDATUM
Tide range data is from NOAA Station (ID 8554399), Mahon River Entrance
1 Excel formula for Set Elev. = [(Elev NAVD88-(NAVD88-MTL))]/(Tide Range/2)
2 Excel formula for Elev. Change = LINEST(first measurement:last measurement, first measurement
date:last date)*365.25
-------
SJIP y = 0.0016x -61.823
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
^ -^7^-
3.00
2.00
•
l.oo A
•• sy \ /
0.00 • #
-1.00
& sT*
> Jp &
Si5, sf" sJ*
& & & &
s> o jy
^ ^
j$* , s>N
•v? -V5
SJBW V = 0.0008x- 30.704
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
SJWC V = 0.0008x-32.936
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50 •-*
•
A Z\ >
• \/ ...\.—/ \
\ /
\ / ¦
•
0.00
•
-0.50 \ /
-1.00 Y
-1.50
&
.& S> <$>
V V V
s>N ^ SS*
c>'° ^ ^ ^ ^
# # I?5- ^
Figure C7. Elevation change plots for the three SET sites in the Lower St. Jones, fit with a linear
trendlines. The y-axis shows elevation change (cm) from the starting point, and the x-axis shows
measurement dates
-------
Appendix D
Results - Broadkill (DE)
-------
At time zero (2007), 12% of the Broadkill marsh area is composed of saltmarsh (6.7% regularly-flooded
marsh, 2.7% irregularly-flooded marsh and 2.7% transitional salt marsh). Under the intermediate SLR
scenario (Sweet et al. 2017), from 2007 to 2100, the SLAMM model projects the following changes in
saltmarsh habitat (Table Dl, Figure Dl):
Regularly-flooded marsh: projected to experience an overall net gain from 2007 to 2100 due primarily
to inundation/conversion of irregularly-flooded marsh. However, after steady gains in acreage from
2007 to 2075 (3956 to 6932 acres), the marsh reaches a tipping point and large areas along the bay
convert to tidal flat and estuarine open water between 2075 and 2100.
Irregularly-flooded marsh: by 2050, over half (66%) of the irregularly-flooded marsh is projected to be
lost due to inundation (converting to regularly-flooded marsh). From 2050 to 2075, the acreage of
irregularly-flooded marsh increases slightly due to the conversion of an area of tidal swamp to
irregularly-flooded marsh. However irregularly-flooded marsh is once again lost between 2075 and
2100, with an overall decrease in acreage from 1613 acres in 2007 to 348 acres in 2100.
Transitional salt marsh: projected to experience an overall net gain from 2007 to 2100. After decreasing
slightly from 2007 to 2025, acreage increases from 2025 to 2075 (from 1627 to 2221 acres) due to
inundation/conversion of undeveloped dry land and swamp. From 2075 to 2100, transitional salt marsh
loses acreage due to conversion to regularly-flooded marsh.
Tables D2 and D3 contain results for the low and high SLR scenarios, and Table D4 has results for three
model protection scenarios.
-------
Table Dl. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero to 2100 at Broadkill. Saltmarsh habitats are in bold print
because they are the focus of our case study. Percent change calculations are based on change in acreage relative to time zero. The % change
cells are color-coded based on direction of change (loss in light red; gains in green). Results are based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et
al. 2017) and "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario (which prevents the developed dry land categories from changing thus the
hashes).
SLAMM category
Acres
% Change
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
2025
2050
2075
2100
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1613.0
1301.0
547.8
832.2
348.4
-19.3
-66.0
-48.4
-78.4
Trans. Salt Marsh
1626.7
1583.3
1974.1
2220.6
1813.1
-2.7
21.4
36.5
11.5
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
3955.8
4678.8
5907.4
6931.7
5036.7
18.3
49.3
75.2
27.3
Tidal Flat
38.3
54.1
113.6
462.7
4458.9
41.4
196.8
1108.4
11545.8
Estuarine Open Water
8415.7
8509.8
8630.6
8804.5
9264.4
1.1
2.6
4.6
10.1
Undeveloped Dry Land
35813.8
35472.2
34774.4
33708.7
32557.3
-1.0
-2.9
-5.9
-9.1
Swamp
1802.6
1752.8
1669.4
1599.8
1531.2
-2.8
-7.4
-11.2
-15.1
Tidal Swamp
1445.9
1428.2
1254.8
426.4
107.2
-1.2
-13.2
-70.5
-92.6
Inland Open Water
727.1
718.3
708.7
698.4
682.5
-1.2
-2.5
-3.9
-6.1
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
159.3
157.3
147.2
108.4
20.3
-1.2
-7.6
-32.0
-87.3
Inland-Fresh Marsh
131.7
128.5
123.3
113.2
105.9
-2.5
-6.4
-14.0
-19.6
Estuarine Beach
114.0
92.7
67.3
43.5
28.3
-18.6
-41.0
-61.8
-75.2
Riverine Tidal
105.7
72.5
33.1
3.9
0.9
-31.4
-68.7
-96.4
-99.2
Inland Shore
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
36.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.7
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Developed Dry Land
3232.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Low SLR
Intermediate SLR
High SLR
Time Zero
(2007)
2050
Salt marsh habitats
| Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
~ Trans. Salt Marsh
Other SLAMM categories
[ | Tidal Flat
| Estuarine Open Water & Riverine Tidal
| Undeveloped Dry Land
| Developed Dry Land
I —III Tidal Swamp
I 1 Swamp
Inland Open Water
Inland-Fresh Marsh
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
| Flooded Developed Dry
Estuarine Beach
I | Ocean Beach
| Inland Shore
0 2.5 5 miles
1 i i
Figure Dl. SLAMM land use categories from early to late century for the Broadkill under the low, intermediate and high SLR scenarios (based on
Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario.
-------
Table D2. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Broadkill under the low SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling
scenario.
SLAMM category
Projected chan
ge in acreage (low SLR scenario
Time zero
(2007)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
Estuarine Beach
148.9
114.0
93.2
67.9
48.1
37.4
Estuarine Open Water
8106.8
8415.7
8494.5
8581.2
8654.8
8719.3
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Inland Open Water
897.7
727.1
720.3
711.7
709.1
705.8
Inland Shore
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
167.2
131.7
130.0
126.4
124.0
123.2
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
2261.9
1613.0
1590.3
1522.5
1516.6
1531.8
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
3284.3
3955.8
4280.5
4374.3
4422.4
4466.7
Riverine Tidal
208.9
105.7
83.3
61.8
43.9
23.9
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
2348.6
1802.6
1777.5
1737.5
1699.1
1666.3
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
0.0
38.3
44.9
54.9
58.4
72.1
Tidal Swamp
1463.1
1445.9
1437.7
1411.7
1355.7
1259.6
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
164.3
159.3
158.8
158.1
157.3
156.6
Trans. Salt Marsh
64.7
1626.7
1542.1
1885.0
2228.6
2565.5
Undeveloped Dry Land
36833.4
35813.8
35596.7
35256.9
34932.8
34624.0
-------
Table D3. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Broadkill under the high SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling
scenario.
SLAMM category
Projected chart]
»e in acrea
ge (high SLR scenario
Time zero
(2007)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
Estuarine Beach
148.9
114.0
92.2
63.4
31.8
9.8
Estuarine Open Water
8106.8
8415.7
8516.5
8733.1
9519.3
15880.6
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Inland Open Water
897.7
727.1
717.0
703.6
674.9
640.0
Inland Shore
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
36.5
32.8
Inland-Fresh Marsh
167.2
131.7
127.9
121.3
105.1
81.8
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
2261.9
1613.0
1146.5
651.1
706.7
72.4
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
3284.3
3955.8
4885.2
6241.3
2899.2
2768.0
Riverine Tidal
208.9
105.7
69.3
10.0
0.8
0.2
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
2348.6
1802.6
1743.9
1618.3
1469.9
1259.6
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
0.0
38.3
64.5
741.3
6138.5
2744.6
Tidal Swamp
1463.1
1445.9
1421.8
772.1
84.6
16.6
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
164.3
159.3
156.2
115.1
2.4
0.4
Trans. Salt Marsh
64.7
1626.7
1600.7
1995.4
2033.3
2289.0
Undeveloped Dry Land
36833.4
35813.8
35407.8
34187.8
32288.5
30195.8
-------
Table D4. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at Broadkill under three different model
protection scenarios, based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017).
SLAMM category
Protect All Dry
Protect Dry Developed
Protect None
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3232.2
3200.4
3188.8
3163.9
3091.9
2994.8
Estuarine Beach
113.7
92.6
67.1
43.2
28.2
114.0
92.7
67.3
43.5
28.3
114.0
92.7
67.3
43.4
28.6
Estuarine Open Water
8415.7
8508.4
8626.0
8795.2
9246.0
8415.7
8509.8
8630.6
8804.5
9264.4
8415.7
8509.8
8630.1
8786.7
9255.4
Flooded Developed Dry
Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31.8
43.4
68.2
140.2
237.4
Inland Open Water
727.1
718.3
708.7
698.4
682.5
727.1
718.3
708.7
698.4
682.5
727.1
718.3
708.7
698.4
682.5
Inland Shore
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
36.7
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
36.7
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
36.7
Inland-Fresh Marsh
131.7
128.5
123.3
113.2
105.9
131.7
128.5
123.3
113.2
105.9
131.7
128.5
123.3
113.2
105.9
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1613.0
1301.0
547.9
832.2
348.3
1613.0
1301.0
547.8
832.2
348.4
1613.0
1301.0
547.9
832.6
348.3
Ocean Beach
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ocean Flat
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Open Ocean
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Regularly-Flooded
Marsh
3955.4
4485.1
5495.3
5839.3
2573.2
3955.8
4678.8
5907.4
6931.7
5036.7
3955.8
4678.8
5907.8
6948.0
5037.4
Riverine Tidal
105.7
72.5
33.1
3.9
0.9
105.7
72.5
33.1
3.9
0.9
105.7
72.5
33.1
3.9
0.9
Rocky Intertidal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Swamp
1802.6
1752.8
1669.4
1599.8
1531.2
1802.6
1752.8
1669.4
1599.8
1531.2
1802.6
1752.8
1669.4
1599.8
1531.2
Tidal Creek
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tidal Flat
38.3
54.0
108.3
449.6
4368.0
38.3
54.1
113.6
462.7
4458.9
38.3
54.1
113.6
462.8
4468.5
Tidal Swamp
1445.9
1428.2
1254.8
426.4
107.2
1445.9
1428.2
1254.8
426.4
107.2
1445.9
1428.2
1254.8
426.4
107.2
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
159.3
157.3
147.2
108.4
20.2
159.3
157.3
147.2
108.4
20.3
159.3
157.3
147.2
108.6
20.3
Trans. Salt Marsh
607.9
417.5
337.0
210.9
110.0
1626.7
1583.3
1974.1
2220.6
1813.1
1626.7
1583.3
1974.1
2221.5
1811.4
Undeveloped Dry Land
36833.4
36833.4
36833.4
36833.4
36833.4
35813.8
35472.2
34774.4
33708.7
32557.3
35813.8
35472.2
34774.4
33708.7
32557.3
Reference
Sweet, W., Kopp, R. E., Weaver, C., Jayantha, O., Horton, R. M., Thieler, E. R., and Zervas, C. (2017). "Global and regional sea level rise scenarios
for the United States". NOAATech. Rep. NOS CO-OPS, 083. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pub.html
-------
Appendix E
Results - Mispillion (DE)
-------
At time zero (2007), 16% of the Mispillion marsh area is composed of saltmarsh (10% regularly-flooded
marsh, 3% irregularly-flooded marsh and 3% transitional salt marsh). Under the intermediate SLR
scenario (Sweet et al. 2017), from 2007 to 2100, the SLAMM model projects the following changes
(Table El, Figure El):
Regularly-flooded marsh: projected to gain acreage from 2007 to 2100 (increasing from 7166 to 12115
acres) due primarily to inundation/conversion of irregularly-flooded marsh. From 2075 to 2100, the rate
of increase slows due to the conversion of areas of regularly-flooded marsh in the southern portion of
the marsh to tidal flat and estuarine open water.
Irregularly-flooded marsh: by 2075, over half (62%) of the irregularly-flooded marsh is projected to be
lost due to inundation (converting to regularly-flooded marsh). Losses in acreage occur across each time
period (from 2068 acres in 2007 to 357 acres in 2100). The conversion of an area of tidal swamp to
irregularly-flooded marsh slightly lessens the rate of loss.
Transitional salt marsh: projected to experience a mix of gains and losses, with an overall net loss (-
11%). After decreasing slightly from 2007 to 2025, the acreage increases from 2025 to 2050 (from 1903
to 2482 acres) due primarily to inundation/conversion of undeveloped dry land and swamp. From 2050
to 2100, acreage decreases (to 1953 acres) due to conversion to regularly-flooded marsh.
Tables D2 and D3 contain results for the low and high SLR scenarios, and Table D4 has results for three
model protection scenarios.
-------
Table El. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero to 2100 at Mispillion. Saltmarsh habitats are in bold print
because they are the focus of our case study. Percent change calculations are based on change in acreage relative to time zero. The % change
cells are color-coded based on direction of change (loss in light red; gains in green). Results are based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et
al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario (which prevents the developed dry land categories from changing thus the
hashes).
SLAMM category
Acres
% Change
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
2025
2050
2075
2100
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
2067.6
1943.1
1670.4
784.6
356.5
-6.0
-19.2
-62.1
-82.8
Trans. Salt Marsh
2194.0
1902.6
2482.1
2199.6
1953.2
-13.3
13.1
0.3
-11.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
7165.8
8166.8
9188.7
11991.7
12114.5
14.0
28.2
67.3
69.1
Tidal Flat
119.2
113.3
139.9
426.3
2937.0
-5.0
17.3
257.6
2363.8
Estuarine Open Water
11263.5
11417.3
11570.0
11792.5
12074.2
1.4
2.7
4.7
7.2
Undeveloped Dry Land
38733.2
38252.4
37333.6
35939.9
34359.5
-1.2
-3.6
-7.2
-11.3
Swamp
4134.0
3979.3
3647.1
3394.2
3147.0
-3.7
-11.8
-17.9
-23.9
Tidal Swamp
1119.3
1104.2
923.9
552.6
216.6
-1.4
-17.5
-50.6
-80.6
Inland Open Water
612.1
590.1
580.3
574.8
565.6
-3.6
-5.2
-6.1
-7.6
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
40.2
39.5
38.7
34.3
19.4
-1.8
-3.9
-14.7
-51.8
Inland-Fresh Marsh
127.3
115.4
101.8
90.6
89.1
-9.4
-20.1
-28.8
-30.0
Estuarine Beach
157.1
124.9
93.0
68.6
43.3
-20.5
-40.8
-56.4
-72.5
Riverine Tidal
103.0
87.5
70.8
13.9
4.7
-15.1
-31.3
-86.5
-95.4
Inland Shore
40.0
40.0
40.0
39.9
39.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Developed Dry Land
2827.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Low SLR
Intermediate SLR
High SLR
Time Zero
(2007)
2050
2100
Salt marsh habitats
I Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
~ Trans. Salt Marsh
Other SLAMM categories
| | Tidal Flat
| Estuarine Open Water & Riverine Tidal
| Undeveloped Dry Land
| Developed Dry Land
| Tidal Swamp
IHi Swamp
]] Inland Open Water
^ Inland-Fresh Marsh
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
| Flooded Developed Dry
Estuarine Beach
I I Ocean Beach
¦ Inland Shore
0 3.5 7 miles
Figure El. SLAMM land use categories from early to late century for the Mispillion under the low, intermediate and high SLR scenarios (based on
Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario.
-------
Table E2. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Mispillion under the low SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling
scenario.
SLAMM category
Projected change in acreage (low SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2007)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
Estuarine Beach
165.1
157.1
125.1
95.9
82.5
74.9
Estuarine Open Water
11159.9
11263.5
11406.4
11536.3
11639.8
11740.4
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Inland Open Water
668.2
612.1
593.0
585.3
582.1
580.0
Inland Shore
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
162.2
127.3
117.9
112.5
104.4
101.9
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
2622.4
2067.6
2048.0
2014.3
2018.8
2025.0
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
6440.0
7165.8
7875.5
7941.0
7971.4
7979.4
Riverine Tidal
137.1
103.0
93.2
81.4
73.8
67.4
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
4683.6
4134.0
4046.4
3924.9
3770.8
3676.5
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
93.5
119.2
110.9
109.1
108.3
121.6
Tidal Swamp
1127.6
1119.3
1112.8
1087.1
1022.7
927.8
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
40.3
40.2
39.6
38.8
38.2
37.6
Trans. Salt Marsh
325.1
2194.0
1845.3
2344.1
2873.7
3376.4
Undeveloped Dry Land
40211.5
38733.2
38422.3
37965.8
37551.2
37135.4
-------
Table E3. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Mispillion under the high SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land"
modeling scenario.
SLAMM category
Projected chan
ge in acreage (high SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2007)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
Estuarine Beach
165.1
157.1
124.7
91.0
48.7
13.9
Estuarine Open Water
11159.9
11263.5
11424.3
11670.0
12231.6
20323.4
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Inland Open Water
668.2
612.1
586.5
578.2
564.2
546.8
Inland Shore
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
39.9
38.8
Inland-Fresh Marsh
162.2
127.3
114.3
93.4
87.6
75.7
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
2622.4
2067.6
1894.1
976.2
546.3
113.1
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
6440.0
7165.8
8307.7
10781.2
5961.9
3568.1
Riverine Tidal
137.1
103.0
85.6
30.3
4.0
1.1
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
4683.6
4134.0
3948.4
3461.2
3041.5
1915.4
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
93.5
119.2
119.0
699.2
8317.7
6258.0
Tidal Swamp
1127.6
1119.3
1097.9
681.8
134.7
23.5
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
40.3
40.2
39.5
36.0
10.0
1.1
Trans. Salt Marsh
325.1
2194.0
1928.5
2201.1
2980.6
4571.4
Undeveloped Dry Land
40211.5
38733.2
38165.9
36557.2
33952.0
30470.3
-------
Table E4. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at Mispillion under three different model
protection scenarios, based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017).
SLAMM category
Protect All Dry
Protect Dry Developed
Protect None
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2827.5
2783.2
2768.8
2741.2
2701.9
2656.3
Estuarine Beach
156.8
124.9
93.0
68.6
43.3
157.1
124.9
93.0
68.6
43.3
157.1
124.9
93.0
68.6
43.5
Estuarine Open Water
11263.5
11413.6
11505.4
11721.9
12039.4
11263.5
11417.3
11570.0
11792.5
12074.2
11263.5
11417.3
11510.3
11665.1
12000.2
Flooded Developed Dry
Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.3
58.6
86.3
125.6
171.2
Inland Open Water
612.1
590.1
580.3
574.8
565.6
612.1
590.1
580.3
574.8
565.6
612.1
590.1
580.3
574.8
565.6
Inland Shore
40.0
40.0
40.0
39.9
39.9
40.0
40.0
40.0
39.9
39.9
40.0
40.0
40.0
39.9
39.9
Inland-Fresh Marsh
127.3
115.4
101.8
90.6
89.1
127.3
115.4
101.8
90.6
89.1
127.3
115.4
101.8
90.6
89.1
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
2067.6
1943.1
1678.9
786.9
356.4
2067.6
1943.1
1670.4
784.6
356.5
2067.6
1943.1
1678.9
789.4
356.6
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
7164.4
7547.1
8159.7
9556.6
8066.3
7165.8
8166.8
9188.7
11991.7
12114.5
7165.8
8166.8
9237.8
12107.4
12151.0
Riverine Tidal
103.0
87.5
70.8
13.9
4.7
103.0
87.5
70.8
13.9
4.7
103.0
87.5
70.8
13.9
4.7
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
4134.0
3979.3
3647.1
3394.2
3147.0
4134.0
3979.3
3647.1
3394.2
3147.0
4134.0
3979.3
3647.1
3394.2
3147.0
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
119.2
113.2
138.2
420.6
2849.1
119.2
113.3
139.9
426.3
2937.0
119.2
113.3
139.9
428.5
2974.6
Tidal Swamp
1119.3
1104.2
923.9
552.6
216.6
1119.3
1104.2
923.9
552.6
216.6
1119.3
1104.2
923.9
552.6
216.6
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
40.2
39.5
39.4
34.9
19.4
40.2
39.5
38.7
34.3
19.4
40.2
39.5
39.4
35.6
19.5
Trans. Salt Marsh
717.5
566.8
690.3
436.5
272.0
2194.0
1902.6
2482.1
2199.6
1953.2
2194.0
1902.6
2483.5
2203.1
1952.6
Undeveloped Dry Land
40211.5
40211.5
40211.5
40211.5
40211.5
38733.2
38252.4
37333.6
35939.9
34359.5
38733.2
38252.4
37333.6
35939.9
34359.5
Reference
Sweet, W., Kopp, R. E., Weaver, C., Jayantha, O., Horton, R. M., Thieler, E. R., and Zervas, C. (2017). "Global and regional sea level rise scenarios
for the United States". NOAATech. Rep. NOS CO-OPS, 083. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pub.html
-------
Appendix F
Results - Lower St. Jones (DE)
-------
At time zero (2007), 18% of the Lower St. Jones marsh area is composed of saltmarsh (10% regularly-
flooded marsh, 7% irregularly-flooded marsh and 1% transitional salt marsh). Under the intermediate
SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017), from 2007 to 2100, the SLAMM model projects the following changes
(Table Fl, Figure Fl):
Regularly-flooded marsh: projected to experience slow, steady gains from 2007 to 2100 (increasing
from 1865 to 3934 acres) due primarily to inundation/conversion of irregularly-flooded marsh. While
net gains are occurring, from 2075 to 2100, small areas of regularly-flooded marsh are lost due to
conversion to tidal flat or estuarine open water.
Irregularly-flooded marsh: by 2075, over half (57%) of the irregularly-flooded marsh is projected to be
lost due to inundation (converting to regularly-flooded marsh). Losses in acreage occur across each time
period (from 1355 acres in 2007 to 109 acres in 2100).
Transitional salt marsh: projected to increase across each time period (increasing from 164 acres in
2007 to 444 acres in 2100) due to inundation/conversion of undeveloped dry land and swamp. While
net gains are occurring, small areas of transitional salt marsh are lost over time due to conversion to
regularly-flooded marsh.
Tables F2 and F3 contain results for the low and high SLR scenarios, and Table F4 has results for three
model protection scenarios.
-------
Table Fl. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero to 2100 at Lower St. Jones. Saltmarsh habitats are in bold
print because they are the focus of our case study. Percent change calculations are based on change in acreage relative to time zero. The %
change cells are color-coded based on direction of change (loss in light red; gains in green). Results are based on the intermediate SLR scenario
(Sweet et al. 2017) and "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario (which prevents the developed dry land categories from changing thus
the hashes).
SLAMM category
Acres
% Change
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
2025
2050
2075
2100
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1354.8
1344.6
1258.6
581.5
108.8
-0.7
-7.1
-57.1
-92.0
Trans. Salt Marsh
164.0
197.7
304.6
359.0
444.4
20.6
85.7
118.9
171.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1865.2
1922.3
2102.1
3076.5
3933.5
3.1
12.7
64.9
110.9
Tidal Flat
10.1
6.6
3.4
3.2
18.9
-35.1
-66.6
-68.8
86.4
Estuarine Open Water
2202.0
2268.3
2378.7
2443.5
2465.2
3.0
8.0
11.0
12.0
Undeveloped Dry Land
9789.5
9729.9
9588.5
9325.7
8958.6
-0.6
-2.1
-4.7
-8.5
Swamp
657.5
620.6
559.6
474.9
384.1
-5.6
-14.9
-27.8
-41.6
Tidal Swamp
101.0
101.0
101.0
98.1
75.1
0.0
0.0
-2.9
-25.6
Inland Open Water
341.1
305.9
212.2
161.0
151.9
-10.3
-37.8
-52.8
-55.5
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
48.3
47.4
47.1
46.9
39.1
-1.8
-2.5
-2.9
-19.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
39.7
35.1
29.0
23.0
20.7
-11.6
-26.9
-42.0
-47.7
Estuarine Beach
36.2
30.0
24.8
16.7
10.2
-17.2
-31.6
-53.9
-71.9
Riverine Tidal
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
-20.7
-44.0
Inland Shore
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Developed Dry Land
1973.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Low SLR
Intermediate SLR
High SLR
Time Zero
(2007)
2050
2100
mm,-
Salt marsh habitats
| Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
I I Trans. Salt Marsh
Other SLAMM categories
| | Tidal Flat
| Estuarine Open Water & Riverine Tidal
| Undeveloped Dry Land
| Developed Dry Land
II I Tidal Swamp
~ Swamp
I | Inland Open Water
^ Inland-Fresh Marsh
^ Tidal-Fresh Marsh
| Flooded Developed Dry
| Estuarine Beach
I | Ocean Beach
Inland Shore
L
1.5 3 miles
_J I
Figure Fl. SLAMM land use categories from early to late century for the Lower St. Jones under the low, intermediate and high SLR scenarios
(based on Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario,
-------
Table F2. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Lower St. Jones under the low SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land"
modeling scenario.
SLAMM category
Projected change in acrea
ge (low SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2007)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
Estuarine Beach
36.2
36.2
30.1
26.6
22.1
19.6
Estuarine Open Water
2194.0
2202.0
2226.3
2285.2
2381.2
2451.9
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Inland Open Water
349.1
341.1
326.5
298.3
213.1
168.2
Inland Shore
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
Inland-Fresh Marsh
42.8
39.7
35.9
33.5
31.2
29.0
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1357.3
1354.8
1354.7
1346.5
1345.1
1337.3
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1859.6
1865.2
1915.3
1913.8
1919.7
1911.9
Riverine Tidal
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
732.2
657.5
637.3
608.3
587.4
567.4
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
10.1
10.1
6.6
3.4
2.9
2.8
Tidal Swamp
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
48.3
48.3
48.3
47.3
47.0
46.1
Trans. Salt Marsh
2.5
164.0
175.6
253.7
332.3
421.2
Undeveloped Dry Land
9876.2
9789.5
9751.7
9691.8
9626.4
9552.9
-------
Table F3. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Lower St. Jones under the high SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land"
modeling scenario.
SLAMM category
Projected change in acreaj
ge (high SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2007)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
Estuarine Beach
36.2
36.2
29.9
22.6
14.5
6.8
Estuarine Open Water
2194.0
2202.0
2270.0
2448.3
2563.3
3579.0
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Inland Open Water
349.1
341.1
304.4
163.4
149.2
71.4
Inland Shore
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
Inland-Fresh Marsh
42.8
39.7
34.7
27.0
20.5
15.3
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1357.3
1354.8
1341.7
701.3
51.4
36.5
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1859.6
1865.2
1933.8
2769.0
3069.4
793.7
Riverine Tidal
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.4
1.3
0.0
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
732.2
657.5
613.3
502.9
358.3
263.5
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
10.1
10.1
6.6
3.7
734.1
2883.0
Tidal Swamp
101.0
101.0
101.0
100.8
62.0
24.2
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
48.3
48.3
47.4
46.4
18.8
5.3
Trans. Salt Marsh
2.5
164.0
207.0
381.6
707.2
1190.0
Undeveloped Dry Land
9876.2
9789.5
9719.7
9442.6
8862.0
7743.6
-------
Table F4. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at Lower St. Jones under three different
model protection scenarios, based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017).
SLAMM category
Protect All Dry
Protect Dry Developed
Protect None
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1973.8
1969.2
1967.6
1963.0
1955.3
1947.8
Estuarine Beach
36.2
30.0
24.8
16.7
10.2
36.2
30.0
24.8
16.7
10.2
36.2
30.0
24.8
16.7
10.2
Estuarine Open Water
2202.0
2266.4
2390.6
2472.9
2495.1
2202.0
2268.3
2378.7
2443.5
2465.2
2202.0
2268.3
2378.7
2465.2
2511.1
Flooded Developed Dry Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
6.2
10.8
18.4
25.9
Inland Open Water
341.1
305.9
212.2
161.0
151.9
341.1
305.9
212.2
161.0
151.9
341.1
305.9
212.2
161.0
151.9
Inland Shore
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
Inland-Fresh Marsh
39.7
35.1
29.0
23.0
20.7
39.7
35.1
29.0
23.0
20.7
39.7
35.1
29.0
23.0
20.7
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1354.8
1344.6
1253.1
576.4
108.1
1354.8
1344.6
1258.6
581.5
108.8
1354.8
1344.6
1258.6
578.8
107.8
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1862.6
1882.1
1998.3
2766.9
3344.1
1865.2
1922.3
2102.1
3076.5
3933.5
1865.2
1922.3
2102.1
3058.6
3890.7
Riverine Tidal
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.1
1.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.1
1.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.1
1.5
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
657.5
620.6
559.6
474.9
384.1
657.5
620.6
559.6
474.9
384.1
657.5
620.6
559.6
474.9
384.1
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
10.1
6.6
3.4
3.1
17.3
10.1
6.6
3.4
3.2
18.9
10.1
6.6
3.4
3.2
18.7
Tidal Swamp
101.0
101.0
101.0
98.1
75.1
101.0
101.0
101.0
98.1
75.1
101.0
101.0
101.0
98.1
75.1
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
48.3
47.4
46.4
45.5
38.0
48.3
47.4
47.1
46.9
39.1
48.3
47.4
47.1
46.1
37.9
Trans. Salt Marsh
79.8
93.5
114.9
95.2
89.5
164.0
197.7
304.6
359.0
444.4
164.0
197.7
304.6
358.6
443.7
Undeveloped Dry Land
9876.2
9876.2
9876.2
9876.2
9876.2
9789.5
9729.9
9588.5
9325.7
8958.6
9789.5
9729.9
9588.5
9325.7
8958.6
Reference
Sweet, W., Kopp, R. E., Weaver, C., Jayantha, O., Horton, R. M., Thieler, E. R., and Zervas, C. (2017). "Global and regional sea level rise scenarios
for the United States". NOAATech. Rep. NOS CO-OPS, 083. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pub.html
-------
Appendix G
Results - Dennis (NJ)
-------
At time zero (2014), 23% of the Dennis marsh area is composed of saltmarsh (1% regularly-flooded
marsh, 20% irregularly-flooded marsh and 2% transitional salt marsh). Under the intermediate SLR
scenario (Sweet et al. 2017), from 2014 to 2100, the SLAMM model projects the following changes
(Table Gl, Figure Gl):
Regularly-flooded marsh: projected to experience large gains from 2014 to 2100 (increasing from 422 to
10283 acres by 2100) due primarily to inundation/conversion of irregularly-flooded marsh. The rate of
conversion starts slowly (with limited change by 2025) but increases dramatically from 2050 onward.
Irregularly-flooded marsh: the rate of loss is projected to start slowly (-5% by 2050) but then increases
dramatically by late century. Acreage decreases from 8316 acres in 2014 to 323 acres in 2100 due to
inundation/conversion to regularly-flooded marsh.
Transitional salt marsh: projected to increase across each time period (increasing from 837 acres in
2014 to 2393 acres in 2100) due to inundation/conversion of undeveloped dry land and swamp. While
net gains are occurring, small areas of transitional salt marsh are lost over time due to conversion to
regularly-flooded marsh.
Tables G2 and G3 contain results for the low and high SLR scenarios, and Table D4 has results for three
model protection scenarios.
-------
Table Gil. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero to 2100 at Dennis. Saltmarsh habitats are in bold print
because they are the focus of our case study. Percent change calculations are based on change in acreage relative to time zero. The % change
cells are color-coded based on direction of change (loss in light red; gains in green). Results are based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et
al. 2017) and "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario (which prevents the developed dry land categories from changing thus the
hashes). It should be noted that Dennis is not fully independent of Reeds (9,850 total acres overlap); the two sites were modeled separately as
per PDE's convention to view them as different units for monitoring and management.
SLAMM category
Acres
% Change
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2025
2050
2075
2100
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
8315.7
8274.9
7891.6
4619.4
323.1
-0.5
-5.1
-44.4
-96.1
Trans. Salt Marsh
836.8
965.8
1315.0
2229.5
2392.9
15.4
57.1
166.4
186.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
421.6
472.0
939.3
4814.4
10282.6
11.9
122.8
1041.9
2338.8
Tidal Flat
41.4
36.1
43.3
82.2
241.7
-12.8
4.4
98.4
483.1
Estuarine Open Water
4127.4
4136.7
4183.5
4248.1
4319.3
0.2
1.4
2.9
4.7
Undeveloped Dry Land
15646.8
15626.9
15526.0
15311.4
14913.9
-0.1
-0.8
-2.1
-4.7
Swamp
11394.9
11277.6
10904.3
9521.0
8353.0
-1.0
-4.3
-16.4
-26.7
Tidal Swamp
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
16.5
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-7.7
Inland Open Water
320.2
317.3
310.3
295.4
294.5
-0.9
-3.1
-7.8
-8.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
39.3
39.3
39.3
39.2
39.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
53.3
51.3
45.8
37.8
37.0
-3.7
-14.0
-29.1
-30.5
Estuarine Beach
1.9
1.5
1.1
0.9
0.6
-23.0
-42.0
-54.5
-66.0
Riverine Tidal
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.0
-0.2
-2.1
-3.9
Inland Shore
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Beach
13.3
9.7
6.3
3.7
4.8
-27.3
-52.5
-72.3
-63.6
Open Ocean
0.0
3.6
7.0
9.6
11.3
36787.5
70725.0
97337.5
114240.0
Developed Dry Land
747.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Flooded Developed Dry Land
9.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Low SLR
Intermediate SLR
High SLR
Time Zero
(2014)
2050
2100
Salt marsh habitats
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
~ Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
I I Trans. Salt Marsh
Other SLAMM categories
| | Tidal Flat
| Estuarine Open Water & Riverine Tidal
| Undeveloped Dry Land
| Developed Dry Land
| Tidal Swamp
~ Swamp
|] Inland Open Water
Inland-Fresh Marsh
^2 Tidal-Fresh Marsh
| Flooded Developed Dry
Estuarine Beach
I I Ocean Beach
Inland Shore
0 3 6 miles
1 I I
Figure Gl. SLAMM land use categories from early to late century for Dennis under the low, intermediate and high SLR scenarios (based on Sweet
et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario. The lower third of Dennis overlaps with Reeds; the two sites were modeled
separately as per PDE's convention to view them as different units for monitoring and management.
-------
Table G2. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Dennis under the low SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling
scenario. It should be noted that Dennis is not fully independent of Reeds (9,850 total acres overlap);
the two sites were modeled separately as per PDE's convention to view them as different units for
monitoring and management.
SLAMM category
Projected change in acreage (low SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2014)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
Estuarine Beach
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.6
Estuarine Open Water
4127.0
4127.4
4171.0
4189.5
4227.1
4270.5
Flooded Developed Dry Land
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
Inland Open Water
320.6
320.2
318.2
313.5
311.7
305.8
Inland Shore
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
Inland-Fresh Marsh
53.6
53.3
52.2
49.7
47.3
44.9
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
8348.4
8315.7
8292.9
8263.4
8225.2
8194.3
Ocean Beach
13.3
13.3
9.7
6.4
4.0
4.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
3.6
6.9
9.3
10.9
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
400.8
421.6
411.9
437.9
449.9
450.4
Riverine Tidal
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
11409.2
11394.9
11331.3
11182.2
11034.3
10891.1
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
11.4
41.4
35.7
33.5
32.3
31.0
Tidal Swamp
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
39.3
39.3
39.3
39.3
39.3
39.3
Trans. Salt Marsh
838.9
836.8
909.7
1095.2
1283.8
1482.5
Undeveloped Dry Land
15648.3
15646.8
15635.8
15594.1
15547.6
15487.4
-------
Table G3. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Dennis under the high SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling
scenario. It should be noted that Dennis is not fully independent of Reeds (9,850 total acres overlap);
the two sites were modeled separately as per PDE's convention to view them as different units for
monitoring and management.
SLAMM category
Projected chan
ge in acreage (high SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2014)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
Estuarine Beach
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.4
Estuarine Open Water
4127.0
4127.4
4173.0
4217.1
4305.4
5743.6
Flooded Developed Dry Land
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
Inland Open Water
320.6
320.2
316.7
297.4
294.0
285.8
Inland Shore
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.2
Inland-Fresh Marsh
53.6
53.3
50.9
40.1
37.0
27.0
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
8348.4
8315.7
8229.2
5898.9
40.9
15.6
Ocean Beach
13.3
13.3
9.7
6.3
3.6
2.3
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
3.7
7.0
9.7
12.2
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
400.8
421.6
488.0
3338.6
7980.7
3037.1
Riverine Tidal
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.0
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
11409.2
11394.9
11247.1
10110.5
7777.8
5351.2
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
11.4
41.4
38.4
102.0
3001.8
9576.0
Tidal Swamp
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
13.8
0.6
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
39.3
39.3
39.3
39.2
39.2
34.9
Trans. Salt Marsh
838.9
836.8
993.1
1734.0
2969.0
4127.9
Undeveloped Dry Land
15648.3
15646.8
15622.2
15420.5
14756.7
13016.9
-------
Table G4. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at Dennis under three different model
protection scenarios, based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017). It should be noted that Dennis is not fully independent of
Reeds (9,850 total acres overlap); the two sites were modeled separately as per PDE's convention to view them as different units for monitoring
and management.
SLAMM category
Protect All Dry
Protect Dry Developed
Protect None
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.8
747.6
744.9
735.1
719.9
704.2
Estuarine Beach
1.9
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.6
1.9
1.5
1.1
0.9
0.6
1.9
1.5
1.1
0.9
0.6
Estuarine Open Water
4127.4
4172.2
4195.1
4256.7
4326.4
4127.4
4136.7
4183.5
4248.1
4319.3
4127.4
4172.2
4195.3
4257.6
4328.6
Flooded Developed Dry
Land
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.8
12.5
22.3
37.5
53.2
Inland Open Water
320.2
317.3
310.3
295.4
294.5
320.2
317.3
310.3
295.4
294.5
320.2
317.3
310.3
295.4
294.5
Inland Shore
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
Inland-Fresh Marsh
53.3
51.3
45.8
37.8
37.0
53.3
51.3
45.8
37.8
37.0
53.3
51.3
45.8
37.8
37.0
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
8315.7
8256.9
7885.3
4614.8
321.7
8315.7
8274.9
7891.6
4619.4
323.1
8315.7
8256.9
7885.3
4614.8
321.7
Ocean Beach
13.3
9.7
6.3
3.7
2.0
13.3
9.7
6.3
3.7
4.8
13.3
9.7
6.3
3.7
4.8
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
3.6
7.0
9.6
11.3
0.0
3.6
7.0
9.6
11.3
0.0
3.6
7.0
9.6
11.3
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
421.6
455.7
934.4
4782.2
10043.2
421.6
472.0
939.3
4814.4
10282.6
421.6
455.7
934.6
4810.2
10275.4
Riverine Tidal
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
11394.9
11277.6
10904.3
9521.0
8353.0
11394.9
11277.6
10904.3
9521.0
8353.0
11394.9
11277.6
10904.3
9521.0
8353.0
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
41.4
36.1
42.6
81.6
241.0
41.4
36.1
43.3
82.2
241.7
41.4
36.1
42.6
81.6
241.0
Tidal Swamp
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
16.5
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
16.5
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
16.5
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
39.3
39.3
39.3
39.2
39.2
39.3
39.3
39.3
39.2
39.2
39.3
39.3
39.3
39.2
39.2
Trans. Salt Marsh
835.3
943.2
1192.8
1921.4
1895.7
836.8
965.8
1315.0
2229.5
2392.9
836.8
964.6
1314.8
2229.5
2392.9
Undeveloped Dry Land
15648.3
15648.3
15648.3
15648.3
15648.3
15646.8
15626.9
15526.0
15311.4
14913.9
15646.8
15626.9
15526.0
15311.4
14913.9
Reference
Sweet, W., Kopp, R. E., Weaver, C., Jayantha, O., Horton, R. M., Thieler, E. R., and Zervas, C. (2017). "Global and regional sea level rise scenarios
for the United States". NOAATech. Rep. NOS CO-OPS, 083. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pub.html
-------
Appendix H
Results - Reeds Beach (NJ)
-------
At time zero (2014), 26% of the Reeds Beach marsh area is composed of saltmarsh (2% regularly-flooded
marsh, 22% irregularly-flooded marsh and 2% transitional salt marsh). Under the intermediate SLR
scenario (Sweet et al. 2017), from 2014 to 2100, the SLAMM model projects the following changes
(Table HI, Figure HI):
Regularly-flooded marsh: projected to experience large gains from 2014 to 2100 (increasing from 235 to
3961 acres by 2100) due primarily to inundation/conversion of irregularly-flooded marsh. The rate of
conversion starts slowly (with limited change by 2025) but increases dramatically from 2050 onward.
Irregularly-flooded marsh: the rate of loss is projected to start slowly (-5% by 2050) but then increases
dramatically by late century. Acreage decreases from 3278 acres in 2014 to 153 acres in 2100 due to
inundation/conversion to regularly-flooded marsh.
Transitional salt marsh: projected to increase across each time period (increasing from 238 acres in
2014 to 1074 acres in 2100) due to inundation/conversion of undeveloped dry land and swamp. While
net gains are occurring, small areas of transitional salt marsh are lost over time due to conversion to
regularly-flooded marsh.
Tables H2 and H3 contain results for the low and high SLR scenarios, and Table H4 has results for three
model protection scenarios.
-------
Table HI. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero to 2100 at Reeds Beach. Saltmarsh habitats are in bold
print because they are the focus of our case study. Percent change calculations are based on change in acreage relative to time zero. The %
change cells are color-coded based on direction of change (loss in light red; gains in green). Results are based on the intermediate SLR scenario
(Sweet et al. 2017) and "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario (which prevents the developed dry land categories from changing thus
the hashes). It should be noted that Reeds is not fully independent of Dennis (9,850 total acres overlap); the two sites were modeled separately
as per PDE's convention to view them as different units for monitoring and management.
SLAMM category
Acres
% Change
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2025
2050
2075
2100
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
3277.8
3264.0
3115.3
1841.9
152.5
-0.4
-5.0
-43.8
-95.3
Trans. Salt Marsh
237.7
266.8
413.0
729.7
1073.7
12.3
73.8
207.0
351.8
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
235.0
262.4
467.0
1861.9
3961.4
11.7
98.7
692.4
1585.9
Tidal Flat
20.3
17.4
20.8
36.1
90.3
-14.2
2.4
77.6
344.2
Estuarine Open Water
2660.1
2676.0
2696.8
2725.2
2758.7
0.6
1.4
2.4
3.7
Undeveloped Dry Land
4552.3
4541.9
4493.3
4382.3
4149.6
-0.2
-1.3
-3.7
-8.8
Swamp
3512.8
3481.7
3316.4
2957.0
2348.8
-0.9
-5.6
-15.8
-33.1
Tidal Swamp
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
-0.4
-11.8
Inland Open Water
70.1
59.1
53.6
47.0
46.5
-15.7
-23.5
-32.9
-33.7
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Inland-Fresh Marsh
33.9
32.1
26.8
22.5
21.2
-5.1
-20.8
-33.4
-37.4
Estuarine Beach
5.0
3.5
2.0
1.4
0.8
-31.1
-60.3
-72.8
-83.8
Riverine Tidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Inland Shore
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Beach
19.6
14.5
9.8
6.2
7.1
-25.7
-50.0
-68.4
-63.5
Open Ocean
0.0
5.0
9.8
13.4
15.7
50857.5
98982.5
135337.5
158620.0
Developed Dry Land
257.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Flooded Developed Dry Land
12.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Low SLR
Intermediate SLR
High SLR
2050
2100
Salt marsh habitats
^ Regularly-Flooded Marsh
] Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
Trans. Salt Marsh
Other SLAMM categories
| | Tidal Flat
| EstuarineOpen Water & Riverine Tidal
| Undeveloped Dry Land
| Developed Dry Land
| Tidal Swamp
Swamp
] Inland Open Water
Inland-Fresh Marsh
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
| Flooded Developed Dry
Estuarine Beach
I I Ocean Beach
I Inland Shore
0 2 4 miles
1 I I
Figure HI. SLAMM land use categories from early to late century for the Reeds Beach under the low, intermediate and high SLR scenarios (based
on Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario. The upper two-thirds of Reeds overlaps with Dennis; the two
sites were modeled separately as per PDE's convention to view them as different units for monitoring and management.
-------
Table H2. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Reeds Beach under the low SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land"
modeling scenario. It should be noted that Reeds is not fully independent of Dennis (9,850 total acres
overlap); the two sites were modeled separately as per PDE's convention to view them as different units
:or monitoring and management.
SLAMM category
Projected change in acrea
ge (low SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2014)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
Estuarine Beach
5.0
5.0
3.5
1.8
1.2
0.9
Estuarine Open Water
2657.3
2660.1
2685.2
2698.7
2713.2
2730.9
Flooded Developed Dry Land
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
Inland Open Water
72.8
70.1
60.6
55.5
54.3
50.1
Inland Shore
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Inland-Fresh Marsh
34.1
33.9
32.9
30.4
28.1
26.1
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
3290.7
3277.8
3273.7
3265.1
3256.4
3249.0
Ocean Beach
19.6
19.6
14.6
9.9
6.7
6.2
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
5.0
9.6
12.8
15.1
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
213.1
235.0
230.2
242.3
245.5
243.7
Riverine Tidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
3515.5
3512.8
3498.3
3436.2
3374.8
3310.2
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
0.0
20.3
17.2
16.0
15.4
14.6
Tidal Swamp
17.1
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
Trans. Salt Marsh
263.0
237.7
257.3
333.2
414.2
503.8
Undeveloped Dry Land
4553.4
4552.3
4546.2
4526.0
4501.8
4474.0
-------
Table H3. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Reeds Beach under the high SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land"
modeling scenario. It should be noted that Reeds is not fully independent of Dennis (9,850 total acres
overlap); the two sites were modeled separately as per PDE's convention to view them as different units
:or monitoring and management.
SLAMM category
Projected change in acreaj
ge (high SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2014)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
Estuarine Beach
5.0
5.0
3.5
1.8
1.2
0.7
Estuarine Open Water
2657.3
2660.1
2687.7
2712.9
2754.0
3396.5
Flooded Developed Dry Land
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
Inland Open Water
72.8
70.1
58.4
47.8
46.1
34.1
Inland Shore
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Inland-Fresh Marsh
34.1
33.9
31.7
23.5
21.1
17.5
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
3290.7
3277.8
3250.9
2310.5
30.9
12.2
Ocean Beach
19.6
19.6
14.5
9.7
6.1
3.9
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
5.1
9.8
13.5
17.1
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
213.1
235.0
271.9
1328.2
2947.4
1559.4
Riverine Tidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
3515.5
3512.8
3471.9
3121.6
2008.3
901.6
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
0.0
20.3
18.7
46.1
1257.4
3588.0
Tidal Swamp
17.1
17.0
17.0
17.0
12.7
2.3
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
1.1
Trans. Salt Marsh
263.0
237.7
270.7
573.2
1512.4
2055.7
Undeveloped Dry Land
4553.4
4552.3
4539.6
4439.5
4030.4
3055.4
-------
Table H4. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at Reeds Beach under three different
model protection scenarios, based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017). It should be noted that Reeds is not fully independent
of Dennis (9,850 total acres overlap); the two sites were modeled separately as per PDE's convention to view them as different units for
monitoring and management.
SLAMM category
Protect All Dry
Protect Dry Developed
Protect None
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.6
257.1
253.3
239.6
223.7
211.7
Estuarine Beach
5.0
3.5
1.8
1.2
0.8
5.0
3.5
2.0
1.4
0.8
5.0
3.5
1.8
1.3
0.8
Estuarine Open Water
2660.1
2686.7
2701.5
2728.4
2759.9
2660.1
2676.0
2696.8
2725.2
2758.7
2660.1
2686.8
2702.0
2729.8
2763.1
Flooded Developed Dry Land
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
13.3
17.1
30.8
46.7
58.7
Inland Open Water
70.1
59.1
53.6
47.0
46.5
70.1
59.1
53.6
47.0
46.5
70.1
59.1
53.6
47.0
46.5
Inland Shore
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Inland-Fresh Marsh
33.9
32.1
26.8
22.5
21.2
33.9
32.1
26.8
22.5
21.2
33.9
32.1
26.8
22.5
21.2
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
3277.8
3260.9
3113.3
1840.0
152.1
3277.8
3264.0
3115.3
1841.9
152.5
3277.8
3260.9
3113.3
1840.0
152.1
Ocean Beach
19.6
14.5
9.8
6.2
3.9
19.6
14.5
9.8
6.2
7.1
19.6
14.5
9.8
6.2
7.1
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
5.0
9.8
13.4
15.7
0.0
5.0
9.8
13.4
15.7
0.0
5.0
9.8
13.4
15.7
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
235.0
255.0
464.4
1847.9
3843.5
235.0
262.4
467.0
1861.9
3961.4
235.0
255.0
464.5
1860.0
3958.2
Riverine Tidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
3512.8
3481.7
3316.4
2957.0
2348.8
3512.8
3481.7
3316.4
2957.0
2348.8
3512.8
3481.7
3316.4
2957.0
2348.8
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
20.3
17.4
20.5
35.7
89.7
20.3
17.4
20.8
36.1
90.3
20.3
17.4
20.5
35.7
89.7
Tidal Swamp
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
15.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
Trans. Salt Marsh
236.6
255.1
353.2
571.9
791.0
237.7
266.8
413.0
729.7
1073.7
237.7
266.5
412.7
729.5
1073.7
Undeveloped Dry Land
4553.4
4553.4
4553.4
4553.4
4553.4
4552.3
4541.9
4493.3
4382.3
4149.6
4552.3
4541.9
4493.3
4382.3
4149.6
Reference
Sweet, W., Kopp, R. E., Weaver, C., Jayantha, O., Horton, R. M., Thieler, E. R., and Zervas, C. (2017). "Global and regional sea level rise scenarios
for the United States". NOAATech. Rep. NOS CO-OPS, 083. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pub.html
-------
Appendix I
Results - Dividing (NJ)
-------
At time zero (2014), 28% of the Dividing marsh area is composed of saltmarsh (7% regularly-flooded
marsh, 20% irregularly-flooded marsh and 1% transitional salt marsh), under the intermediate SLR
scenario (Sweet et al. 2017), from 2014 to 2100, the SLAMM model projects the following changes
(Table II, Figure II):
Regularly-flooded marsh: projected to experience steady gains from 2014 to 2100 (increasing from
1708 to 5533 acres by 2100) due primarily to inundation/conversion of irregularly-flooded marsh. While
these gains are occurring, by late century, areas of regularly-flooded marsh are concurrently being lost
(mostly in the southeast portion of the marsh) due to conversion to tidal flat and estuarine open water.
Irregularly-flooded marsh: by 2075, over half (70%) of the irregularly-flooded marsh is projected to be
lost due to inundation (converting to regularly-flooded marsh). Losses in acreage occur across each time
period (from 4701 acres in 2014 to 675 acres in 2100). The rate of loss is projected to start slowly (-5%
by 2025) but then increases steadily.
Transitional salt marsh: projected to increase across each time period (increasing from 326 acres in
2014 to 990 acres in 2100) due to inundation/conversion of undeveloped dry land and swamp. While
net gains are occurring, small areas of transitional salt marsh are lost over time due to conversion to
regularly-flooded marsh.
Tables 12 and 13 contain results for the low and high SLR scenarios, and Table 14 has results for three
model protection scenarios.
-------
Table II. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero to 2100 at Dividing. Saltmarsh habitats are in bold print
because they are the focus of our case study. Percent change calculations are based on change in acreage relative to time zero. The percentage
change cells are color-coded based on direction of change (loss in light red; gains in green). Results are based on the intermediate SLR scenario
(Sweet et al. 2017) and "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario (which prevents the developed dry land categories from changing thus
the hashes).
SLAMM category
Acres
% Change
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2025
2050
2075
2100
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
4700.6
4482.2
3254.9
1390.6
674.9
-4.6
-30.8
-70.4
-85.6
Trans. Salt Marsh
326.0
403.2
565.9
802.7
990.4
23.7
73.6
146.2
203.8
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1707.7
1893.5
3121.5
4914.9
5533.0
10.9
82.8
187.8
224.0
Tidal Flat
449.1
424.5
409.8
671.6
1419.0
-5.5
-8.8
49.5
215.9
Estuarine Open Water
2968.7
3046.3
3353.8
3665.8
4005.3
2.6
13.0
23.5
34.9
Undeveloped Dry Land
5848.8
5780.8
5588.0
5284.6
4942.8
-1.2
-4.5
-9.6
-15.5
Swamp
4594.7
4566.4
4473.5
4257.1
3857.5
-0.6
-2.6
-7.3
-16.0
Tidal Swamp
1082.6
1082.5
1082.0
1018.1
658.0
0.0
-0.1
-6.0
-39.2
Inland Open Water
739.2
738.0
570.4
428.8
391.5
-0.2
-22.8
-42.0
-47.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
54.1
54.1
54.1
51.6
31.3
0.0
0.0
-4.7
-42.2
Inland-Fresh Marsh
316.3
316.2
314.4
304.0
290.1
0.0
-0.6
-3.9
-8.3
Estuarine Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-100.0
Riverine Tidal
7.2
7.2
6.9
5.5
3.1
-0.4
-4.8
-23.8
-56.7
Inland Shore
100.6
100.6
100.6
100.4
98.7
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-1.9
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Developed Dry Land
128.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Flooded Developed Dry Land
8.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Low SLR
Intermediate SLR
High SLR
Time Zero
(2014)
2050
2100
Salt marsh habitats
| Regularly-Flooded Marsh
] Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
I I Trans. Salt Marsh
Other SLAMM categories
| | Tidal Flat
| Estuarine Open Water & Riverine Tidal
| Undeveloped Dry Land
| Developed Dry Land
| Tidal Swamp
3 Swamp
]] Inland Open Water
Inland-Fresh Marsh
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
| Flooded Developed Dry
Estuarine Beach
Ocean Beach
I Inland Shore
0 2.5 5 miles
1 I I
Figure II. SLAMM land use categories from early to late century for the Dividing under the low, intermediate and high SLR scenarios (based on
Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario.
-------
Table 12. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Dividing under the low SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling
scenario.
SLAMM category
Projected change in acrea
ge (low SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2014)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
Estuarine Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Open Water
2827.7
2968.7
3040.5
3272.0
3346.7
3427.3
Flooded Developed Dry Land
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
Inland Open Water
880.2
739.2
738.6
583.6
579.8
567.9
Inland Shore
100.6
100.6
100.6
100.6
100.6
100.6
Inland-Fresh Marsh
316.4
316.3
316.2
315.4
314.5
314.4
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
4788.7
4700.6
4690.0
4606.4
4576.1
4559.8
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1977.7
1707.7
1677.3
1764.0
1797.6
1795.0
Riverine Tidal
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
6.9
6.7
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
4599.5
4594.7
4586.5
4537.9
4503.6
4468.6
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
4.4
449.1
424.3
357.8
315.2
277.1
Tidal Swamp
1082.6
1082.6
1082.6
1082.5
1082.2
1081.6
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
54.1
54.1
54.1
54.1
54.1
54.1
Trans. Salt Marsh
399.3
326.0
353.4
507.1
609.3
712.7
Undeveloped Dry Land
5857.3
5848.8
5824.5
5707.2
5609.1
5529.7
-------
Table 13. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Dividing under the high SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling
scenario.
SLAMM category
Projected change in acreaj
ge (high SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2014)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
Estuarine Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Open Water
2827.7
2968.7
3059.7
3437.6
4101.6
8110.1
Flooded Developed Dry Land
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
Inland Open Water
880.2
739.2
729.1
563.9
390.5
161.6
Inland Shore
100.6
100.6
100.6
100.5
98.4
94.2
Inland-Fresh Marsh
316.4
316.3
316.2
305.3
289.5
238.6
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
4788.7
4700.6
4339.4
1632.6
735.0
560.1
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1977.7
1707.7
2016.2
4400.2
2295.6
1739.8
Riverine Tidal
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.5
2.7
1.0
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
4599.5
4594.7
4561.3
4351.8
3690.5
1980.5
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
4.4
449.1
450.4
852.6
4596.4
3155.3
Tidal Swamp
1082.6
1082.6
1082.5
1067.8
575.8
262.3
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
54.1
54.1
54.1
53.0
21.2
4.7
Trans. Salt Marsh
399.3
326.0
410.6
679.6
1237.8
2582.1
Undeveloped Dry Land
5857.3
5848.8
5768.4
5444.2
4860.7
4005.5
-------
Table 14. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at Dividing under three different model
protection scenarios, based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017).
SLAMM category
Protect All Dry
Protect Dry Developed
Protect None
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.6
128.5
125.2
120.0
111.8
98.4
Estuarine Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Estuarine Open Water
2968.7
3046.0
3336.5
3641.1
3970.6
2968.7
3046.3
3353.8
3665.8
4005.3
2968.7
3046.3
3353.8
3665.8
4005.3
Flooded Developed Dry Land
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.2
11.5
16.7
24.9
38.3
Inland Open Water
739.2
738.0
570.4
428.8
391.5
739.2
738.0
570.4
428.8
391.5
739.2
738.0
570.4
428.8
391.5
Inland Shore
100.6
100.6
100.6
100.4
98.7
100.6
100.6
100.6
100.4
98.7
100.6
100.6
100.6
100.4
98.7
Inland-Fresh Marsh
316.3
316.2
314.4
304.0
290.1
316.3
316.2
314.4
304.0
290.1
316.3
316.2
314.4
304.0
290.1
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
4700.6
4482.2
3259.2
1393.9
675.4
4700.6
4482.2
3254.9
1390.6
674.9
4700.6
4482.2
3254.9
1390.6
674.9
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1707.7
1893.3
3119.2
4834.4
5124.2
1707.7
1893.5
3121.5
4914.9
5533.0
1707.7
1893.5
3121.5
4914.9
5533.0
Riverine Tidal
7.2
7.2
6.9
5.5
3.1
7.2
7.2
6.9
5.5
3.1
7.2
7.2
6.9
5.5
3.1
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
4594.7
4566.4
4473.5
4257.1
3857.5
4594.7
4566.4
4473.5
4257.1
3857.5
4594.7
4566.4
4473.5
4257.1
3857.5
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
449.1
424.5
409.8
671.9
1415.7
449.1
424.5
409.8
671.6
1419.0
449.1
424.5
409.8
671.6
1419.0
Tidal Swamp
1082.6
1082.5
1082.0
1018.1
658.0
1082.6
1082.5
1082.0
1018.1
658.0
1082.6
1082.5
1082.0
1018.1
658.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
54.1
54.1
54.1
51.6
31.3
54.1
54.1
54.1
51.6
31.3
54.1
54.1
54.1
51.6
31.3
Trans. Salt Marsh
317.6
327.4
311.9
331.5
522.3
326.0
403.2
565.9
802.7
990.4
326.0
403.2
565.9
802.7
990.4
Undeveloped Dry Land
5857.3
5857.3
5857.3
5857.3
5857.3
5848.8
5780.8
5588.0
5284.6
4942.8
5848.8
5780.8
5588.0
5284.6
4942.8
Reference
Sweet, W., Kopp, R. E., Weaver, C., Jayantha, O., Horton, R. M., Thieler, E. R., and Zervas, C. (2017). "Global and regional sea level rise scenarios
for the United States". NOAATech. Rep. NOS CO-OPS, 083. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pub.html
-------
Appendix J
Results - Lower Maurice (NJ)
-------
At time zero (2014), 27% of the Lower Maurice marsh area is composed of saltmarsh (5% regularly-
flooded marsh, 20% irregularly-flooded marsh and 2% transitional salt marsh). Under the intermediate
SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017), from 2014 to 2100, the SLAMM model projects the following changes
(Table Jl, Figure Jl):
Regularly-flooded marsh: projected to experience steady gains from 2014 to 2100 (increasing from
1300 to 5639 acres by 2100) due primarily to inundation/conversion of irregularly-flooded marsh. The
rate of conversion starts slowly (with limited change by 2025) but increases sharply from 2050 onward.
While these gains are occurring, by late century, some areas of regularly-flooded marsh are concurrently
being lost (mostly in the southwest portion of the marsh) due to conversion to tidal flat and estuarine
open water.
Irregularly-flooded marsh: by 2075, almost half (45%) of the irregularly-flooded marsh is projected to be
lost due to inundation (converting to regularly-flooded marsh). Losses in acreage occur across each time
period (from 4804 acres in 2014 to 390 acres in 2100). The rate of loss is projected to start slowly (-2%
by 2025) but then increases steadily from 2050 onward.
Transitional salt marsh: projected to increase across each time period (increasing from 421 acres in
2014 to 851 acres in 2100) due to inundation/conversion of undeveloped dry land and swamp. While
net gains are occurring, small areas of transitional salt marsh are lost over time due to conversion to
regularly-flooded marsh.
Tables J2 and J3 contain results for the low and high SLR scenarios, and Table J4 has results for three
model protection scenarios.
-------
Table J2. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero to 2100 at Lower Maurice. Saltmarsh habitats are in bold
print because they are the focus of our case study. Percent change calculations are based on change in acreage relative to time zero. The %
change cells are color-coded based on direction of change (loss in light red; gains in green). Results are based on the intermediate SLR scenario
(Sweet et al. 2017) and "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario (which prevents the developed dry land categories from changing thus
the hashes).
SLAMM category
Acres
% Change
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2025
2050
2075
2100
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
4804.3
4717.7
4208.4
2626.5
390.2
-1.8
-12.4
-45.3
-91.9
Trans. Salt Marsh
421.1
480.8
718.2
849.7
850.8
14.2
70.6
101.8
102.1
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1299.5
1379.6
1899.9
3467.2
5638.5
6.2
46.2
166.8
333.9
Tidal Flat
376.3
329.7
336.3
575.9
1047.4
-12.4
-10.6
53.0
178.3
Estuarine Open Water
7544.4
7620.4
7712.7
7848.2
8139.0
1.0
2.2
4.0
7.9
Undeveloped Dry Land
5422.3
5402.1
5302.0
5145.3
4909.4
-0.4
-2.2
-5.1
-9.5
Swamp
3269.5
3225.8
3011.4
2697.5
2314.2
-1.3
-7.9
-17.5
-29.2
Tidal Swamp
584.6
584.6
584.2
576.5
508.0
0.0
-0.1
-1.4
-13.1
Inland Open Water
31.7
31.4
29.3
27.9
26.3
-1.1
-7.6
-12.1
-17.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
16.7
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-5.1
Inland-Fresh Marsh
63.4
49.5
26.9
22.8
20.6
-21.9
-57.7
-64.0
-67.6
Estuarine Beach
25.4
21.4
15.0
8.2
3.7
-15.8
-41.0
-67.6
-85.3
Riverine Tidal
5.7
5.3
4.0
2.7
1.0
-6.3
-30.4
-53.4
-83.1
Inland Shore
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
Developed Dry Land
394.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Flooded Developed Dry Land
35.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Low SLR
Intermediate SLR
High SLR
Time Zero
(2014)
2050
2100
Salt marsh habitats
| Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
| Trans. Salt Marsh
Other SLAMM categories
| | Tidal Flat
| Estuarine Open Water & Riverine Tidal
| Undeveloped Dry Land
| Developed Dry Land
| Tidal Swamp
~ Swamp
I | Inland Open Water
Inland-Fresh Marsh
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
| Flooded Developed Dry
Estuarine Beach
I I Ocean Beach
| Inland Shore
0 2 4 miles
1 i i
Figure Jl. SLAMM land use categories from early to late century for lower Maurice under the low, intermediate and high SLR scenarios (based on
Sweet et al, 2017) and the "protect dry developed land" modeling scenario.
-------
Table J2. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Lower Maurice under the low SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land"
modeling scenario.
SLAMM category
Projected chan
ge in acrea)
»e (low SLR scenario)
Time zero
(2014)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
Estuarine Beach
25.4
25.4
21.5
15.6
11.6
8.2
Estuarine Open Water
7543.7
7544.4
7617.4
7674.1
7732.3
7787.8
Flooded Developed Dry Land
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
Inland Open Water
32.2
31.7
31.5
30.7
29.5
28.9
Inland Shore
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Inland-Fresh Marsh
80.3
63.4
55.4
37.3
28.9
26.0
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
4854.1
4804.3
4789.2
4743.6
4704.7
4680.5
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1550.8
1299.5
1297.9
1347.8
1371.7
1378.1
Riverine Tidal
6.0
5.7
5.5
4.8
4.1
3.6
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
3288.0
3269.5
3247.2
3171.6
3074.1
3001.5
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
11.5
376.3
328.4
288.2
262.1
240.6
Tidal Swamp
584.6
584.6
584.6
584.5
584.4
584.1
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
Trans. Salt Marsh
440.2
421.1
458.6
580.5
729.6
844.6
Undeveloped Dry Land
5431.5
5422.3
5411.1
5369.7
5315.3
5264.3
-------
Table J3. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at
Lower Maurice under the high SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) and the "protect dry developed land"
modeling scenario.
SLAMM category
Pro
ected change in acreage (high SLR scenario
Time zero
(2014)
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
Estuarine Beach
25.4
25.4
21.3
13.4
6.3
2.1
Estuarine Open Water
7543.7
7544.4
7622.8
7758.8
8174.2
10397.6
Flooded Developed Dry Land
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
Inland Open Water
32.2
31.7
31.3
28.7
24.8
9.6
Inland Shore
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Inland-Fresh Marsh
80.3
63.4
44.8
24.0
19.9
2.7
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
4854.1
4804.3
4665.0
3056.1
170.9
283.6
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1550.8
1299.5
1424.9
2789.9
4017.2
1141.6
Riverine Tidal
6.0
5.7
5.2
3.1
0.7
0.3
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
3288.0
3269.5
3206.7
2824.0
2199.5
1457.0
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
11.5
376.3
344.5
769.1
2940.3
4792.1
Tidal Swamp
584.6
584.6
584.6
582.1
465.7
176.9
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
14.3
0.1
Trans. Salt Marsh
440.2
421.1
500.6
782.1
974.2
1484.0
Undeveloped Dry Land
5431.5
5422.3
5396.5
5217.1
4857.8
4118.4
-------
Table J4. Projected changes in acreage of SLAMM land use categories from time zero (2007) to 2100 at Lower Maurice under three different
model protection scenarios, based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017).
SLAMM category
Protect All Dry
Protect Dry Developed
Protect None
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
2014
2025
2050
2075
2100
Developed Dry Land
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.8
394.4
390.8
372.5
354.5
336.1
Estuarine Beach
25.4
21.4
15.0
8.2
3.7
25.4
21.4
15.0
8.2
3.7
25.4
21.4
15.0
8.2
3.7
Estuarine Open Water
7544.4
7620.4
7696.6
7830.5
8118.8
7544.4
7620.4
7712.7
7848.2
8139.0
7544.4
7620.4
7712.7
7848.2
8139.0
Flooded Developed Dry Land
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
36.3
39.9
58.1
76.2
94.6
Inland Open Water
31.7
31.4
29.3
27.9
26.3
31.7
31.4
29.3
27.9
26.3
31.7
31.4
29.3
27.9
26.3
Inland Shore
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Inland-Fresh Marsh
63.4
49.5
26.9
22.8
20.6
63.4
49.5
26.9
22.8
20.6
63.4
49.5
26.9
22.8
20.6
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
4804.3
4717.7
4216.8
2633.6
392.2
4804.3
4717.7
4208.4
2626.5
390.2
4804.3
4717.7
4208.4
2626.5
390.2
Ocean Beach
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ocean Flat
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Open Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1299.5
1379.6
1904.3
3437.6
5436.4
1299.5
1379.6
1899.9
3467.2
5638.5
1299.5
1379.6
1899.9
3467.2
5638.5
Riverine Tidal
5.7
5.3
4.0
2.7
1.0
5.7
5.3
4.0
2.7
1.0
5.7
5.3
4.0
2.7
1.0
Rocky Intertidal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swamp
3269.5
3225.8
3011.4
2697.5
2314.2
3269.5
3225.8
3011.4
2697.5
2314.2
3269.5
3225.8
3011.4
2697.5
2314.2
Tidal Creek
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tidal Flat
376.3
329.7
336.3
576.4
1048.3
376.3
329.7
336.3
575.9
1047.4
376.3
329.7
336.3
575.9
1047.4
Tidal Swamp
584.6
584.6
584.2
576.5
508.0
584.6
584.6
584.2
576.5
508.0
584.6
584.6
584.2
576.5
508.0
Tidal-Fresh Marsh
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
16.7
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
16.7
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
16.7
Trans. Salt Marsh
411.8
451.4
592.0
603.3
548.2
421.1
480.8
718.2
849.7
850.8
421.1
480.8
718.2
849.7
850.8
Undeveloped Dry Land
5431.5
5431.5
5431.5
5431.5
5431.5
5422.3
5402.1
5302.0
5145.3
4909.4
5422.3
5402.1
5302.0
5145.3
4909.4
Reference
Sweet, W., Kopp, R. E., Weaver, C., Jayantha, O., Horton, R. M., Thieler, E. R., and Zervas, C. (2017). "Global and regional sea level rise scenarios
for the United States". NOAATech. Rep. NOS CO-OPS, 083. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pub.html
-------
Appendix K
Sensitivity analysis
-------
Table Kl. Acreage changes (in percentage) caused by +/-15% change in parameters for three types of marshes.
Marsh type
Variable
Percent change
Broadkill
Mispillion
Lower
St.
Jones
Dividing
Lower
Maurice
Dennis
Reeds
Beach
Irregularly
flooded
marsh
GT Great Diurnal Tide Range
1.40
4.40
30.20
7.80
50.60
74.25
58.64
Salt Elevation
0.20
0.70
1.80
0.40
2.20
6.58
8.81
Marsh Erosion
0.30
0.20
0.70
0.10
0.30
0.15
0.57
Reg Flood Max. Acer.
0.30
0.30
0.80
0.00
0.60
0.85
0.86
Reg Flood Min. Acer.
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.00
0.40
0.27
0.31
Irreg Flood Max. Acer.
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.49
0.14
Irreg Flood Min. Acer.
0.50
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.50
0.48
0.54
Regularly
flooded
marsh
GT Great Diurnal Tide Range
14.70
5.90
3.20
11.80
9.60
8.85
7.17
Salt Elevation
2.50
2.20
2.70
1.50
1.20
2.12
1.39
Marsh Erosion
0.30
0.80
0.90
0.10
0.10
0.17
0.10
Reg Flood Max. Acer.
0.40
1.30
1.00
0.20
0.20
0.38
0.29
Reg Flood Min. Acer.
0.20
0.90
0.50
0.20
0.10
0.13
0.10
Irreg Flood Max. Acer.
0.40
1.10
0.60
0.20
0.20
0.29
0.21
Irreg Flood Min. Acer.
0.50
1.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.28
0.20
Transitional
salt marsh
GT Great Diurnal Tide Range
15.80
17.40
12.40
17.00
19.50
22.80
14.12
Salt Elevation
32.60
25.10
20.00
38.40
37.20
39.63
49.39
Marsh Erosion
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.03
Reg Flood Max. Acer.
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.02
Reg Flood Min. Acer.
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
Irreg Flood Max. Acer.
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
Irreg Flood Min. Acer.
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
-------
Tornado plots -
Broadkill
-------
Broadkill - Transitional Salt Marsh
Sensitivity of Trans. Salt Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
217%- Salt Elev. (mult.)-
105%- GT Great Diurnal Tide Range(m)
1.08%-Irreg Flood Min.Acer.(mult.}
0.906%- Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.637%-Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.561%-Marsh Erosion (mult.))
0.14%-Reg Flood Min.Accr.(mult.)
600
650 700
750 800 850
Trans, Salt Marsh
900
950 1,000
-------
Broadkill - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of Regularly-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
98.1%- GT Great DiurnalTide Range(rr(r
16.5%-Salt Elev. (rrult.)'
3.63%-lrreg Flood Min. Acer, (milt.)
288%-Reg Flood Max. Acer, (rrult.)
246% -Irreg Flood Max. Acer.[rrult.)
1.91%-Marsh Erosion (mult.;)
1.34%-Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
2,000
Regularlv-Flooded Marsh
-------
Broadkill - Irregularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of Irreg.-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
9.54%- GT Great Di urn al Tide Range(rr(t-
3.11%-Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (rrult.)-
1.96% - Reg Flo od Max. Acer, (rrult.)-
1.77%-Marsh Erosion (mult.))¦
1.76%-Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (milt.)
1.21%-Salt Elev. (mjlt.)
0.519%-Reg Flood Min. Acer, (rrult.^
139.5 140 140.5 141 141.5 142 142.5 143 143.5
Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
-------
Broadkill effects - GT
Effect of 15% change in "GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)" parameter
105% - Trans. Salt Marsh
98.1 % - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
64.1% - Estuarine Beach
62% - Tidal Flat
9.54%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
3.52% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
3.43%- Inland Shore
2.87% - Estuarine Open Water
0.00752% - Tidal Swamp
7.74E-06% - Undeveloped Dry Land
7.04E-06%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
-15
-10
::
—
15
Percent Change
-------
Broadkill effects - Salt elevation
217% - Trans. Salt Marsh
31.7% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
21.7% - Swamp
16.5%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
12.1%- Estuarine Beach
8.4%- Undeveloped Dry Land
8%- Inland Open Water
7.65%-Aggregated Non Tidal
3.54%-Tidal Flat
3.24% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
2.68% - Estuarine Open Water
1.21%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0%- Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
-20
Effect of 15% change in "Salt Elev. (mult.)" parameter
-15
-10
5 10 15
Percent Change
20
25
30
35
40
-------
Broadkill effects - Marsh erosion
4.47% - Estuarine Beach
3.5% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
3.1%-Tidal Flat
2.7% - Estuarine Open Water
1.91%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.77% - Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.561% - Trans. Salt Marsh
5.94E-06% - Undeveloped Dry Land
5.41 E-06%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Mangrove
0%-Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Swamp
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
Effect of 15% change in "Marsh Erosion (mult.))" parameter
-12
-0.8
0 6
-0.4
_______
-0.2 0
Percent Change
0.2
0.4
0.6
-------
Broadkill effects - Reg Flood Max Acer
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)" parameter
5.74% - Tidal Flat
5.6%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
4.85% - Estuarine Beach
4.52% - Estuarine Open Water
2.88% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.96% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
0.637% - Trans. Salt Marsh
8.12E-06% - Undeveloped Dry Land
7.38E-06%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Swamp
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
-12
-0.6
-0.4
_______
-0.2 0
Percent Change
:::
-------
Broadkill effects - Reg Flood Min Acer
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)" parameter
3.89% - Tidal Flat
2.86% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
2.65% - Estuarine Open Water
1.34% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.667% - Estuarine Beach
0.519%-Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.14% - Trans. Salt Marsh
3.24E-06% - Undeveloped Dry Land
2.95E-06%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Swamp
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Percent Change
-------
Broadkill effects - Irreg Flood Max Acer
8.76% - Estuarine Beach
4.59%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
3.82% - Tidal Flat
3.4% - Estuarine Open Water
2.46% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.76% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
0.906% - Trans. Salt Marsh
7.69E-06% - Undeveloped Dry Land
6.99E-06%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Swamp
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)" parameter
2
w
0 8
-0.6
-0.4
_______
-0.2 0
Percent Change
0.2
__
0.4
—
0.6
0.8
-------
Broadkill effects - Irreg Flood Min Acer
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)" parameter
8.67% - Estuarine Beach
6.78%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
5.74%-Tidal Flat
5.05%- Estuarine Open Water
3.63%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
3.11% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
1.08% - Trans. Salt Marsh
1,18E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
1.07E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Mangrove
0%- Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Swamp
0%- Inland-Fresh Marsh
-12
-1
-0.8
0 6
-0.4
-0.2 0
Percent Change
0 2
0.4
0.6
-------
Tornado plots -
Mispillion
-------
Mispillion - Transitional Salt Marsh
Sensitivity of Trans. Salt Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
167%-Salt Elev. (mult.)
116%- GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
1.45% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
1.02%- Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.965% - Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.732%-Marsh Erosion (mult.))
0.386% - Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
750
800
850
900 950
Trans. Salt Marsh
:::::: 1,050 1,100
-------
Mispillion - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of Regularly-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
39.4% -GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
14.5% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
9.72% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
8.44%-Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
7.23%-Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
5.84%-Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
5%-Marsh Erosion (mult.))
4,700
4,800
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
5,000
-------
Mispillion - Irregularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of irreg.-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
29.1% -GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
4.55% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
2.27% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
1.8%-Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
1.61% - Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
1.15% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
1.08%- Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
¦
P
142
146 148
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
152
-------
Mispillion - Effects - GT
116% - Trans. Salt Marsh
97.6% - Estuarine Beach
89.6%-Tidal Flat
39.4%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
29.1%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
17.7%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
9.25%- Estuarine Open Water
0.265%- Inland Shore
0.00488% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0.000957% - Tidal Swamp
6.24E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
5.77E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
3.89E-05% - Swamp
0%- Mangrove
Effect of 15% change in "GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)" parameter
—
20
-10
—
-5
0 5
Percent Change
::
—
15
25
-------
Mispillion - Effects - Salt elevation
Effect of 15% change in "Salt Elev. (mult.)" parameter
167% - Trans. Salt Marsh
61.8% - Estuarine Beach
24.9% - Swamp
18.4% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
14.5% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
12.1% - Undeveloped Dry Land
12%-Tidal Flat
11.2%-Aggregated Non Tidal
10.7% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
10.3% - Estuarine Open Water
4.55% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
3.83% - Inland Open Water
0.00244% - Tidal Swamp
0%-Developed Dry Land
—
10
5
Percent Change
25
:::
35
-------
Mispillion - Effects - Marsh erosion
11.8%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
7.55%-Tidal Flat
6.98%- EstuarineOpen Water
5%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.15%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.98% - Estuarine Beach
0.732% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.000957% - Tidal Swamp
8.34E-06% - Swamp
6.05E-06% - Undeveloped Dry Land
5.59E-06%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0%- Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
:
Effect of 15% change in "Marsh Erosion (mult.))" parameter
-15
-1
0 5
0.5
1
2.5
3.5
Percent Change
-------
Mispillion - Effects - Reg flood max accr
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
21%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
14.5%-Tidal Flat
12.2%- EstuarineOpen Water
>.44%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
2.76% - Estuarine Beach
1.8%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.965% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.00191% - Tidal Swamp
1,67E-05% - Swamp
1.21 E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
1.12E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0%- Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
2
1.5
1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Percent Change
-------
Mispillion - Effects - Reg flood min accr
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
15.2%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
11.7%-Tidal Flat
1.77% - EstuarineOpen Water
5.84%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
3.04% - Estuarine Beach
1.08%-Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.386% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.000957% - Tidal Swamp
1,67E-05% - Swamp
1,07E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
9.91E-06%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0%- Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
1.5
1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Percent Change
-------
Mispillion - Effects - Irreg flood
max accr
17.7%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
9.79%- EstuarineOpen Water
9.71%-Tidal Flat
7.23%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.61%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1.02% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.925% - Estuarine Beach
0.000957% - Tidal Swamp
1,43E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
1.32E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
8.34E-06% - Swamp
0%- Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
—
:
-1.5
-0.5
:::
1
2.5
3.5
Percent Change
-------
Mispillion - Effects - Irreg flood
min accr
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
23.4%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
14.5%-Tidal Flat
13.5%- EstuarineOpen Water
9.72%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
2.27%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1.82% - Estuarine Beach
1.45% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.00191% - Tidal Swamp
1,67E-05% - Swamp
1.21 E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
1.12E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0%- Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
2
1.5
1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Percent Change
-------
Tornado plots -
Lower St. Jones
-------
Lower St. Jones - Transitional Salt Marsh
Sensitivity of Trans. Salt Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
133% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
82.9% -GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
0.719% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
0.662%-Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.603%-Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.532% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.221%- Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
170
:::
190
200 210
Trans. Salt Marsh
220
230
240
-------
Lower St. Jones - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of Regularly-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
21.4% -GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
18% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
6.53%-Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
5.7% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
3.95%-lrreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
3.5% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
3.21%- Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
:::::
1,520
1,540 1,560
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1,600
-------
Lower St. Jones - Irregularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of irreg.-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
201%- GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
12.3%-Salt Elev. (mult.)
5.24% - Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
4.67% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
3.28%- Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
2.71% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
2.16% - Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
,
.
d
1
1
1
34 36 38 40
42 44 46 48
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
50 52 54 56 58
-------
Lower St. Jones - Effects - GT
Effect of 15% change in "GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)" parameter
919%-Tidal Flal
201%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsl
82.9% - Trans. Salt Marsh
21.4% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
14.1%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
8.6%- EstuarineOpen Water
0.748% - Estuarine Beach
0.00663% - Swamp
0.000157% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0.000129%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0%- Mangrove
0%- Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0%- Inland-Fresh Marsh
50
100
Percent Change
150
200
-------
Lower St. Jones - Effects - Salt elevation
133% - Trans. Salt Marsh
63.9% - Estuarine Beach
60.4% - Swamp
18% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
15.2%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
14.2%- Inland Open Water
12.5%- Undeveloped Dry Land
12.3%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
10.3%-Aggregated Non Tidal
9.94% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
8.78% - Estuarine Open Water
6.59%-Tidal Flat
0% - Mangrove
0% - Cypress Swamp
Effect of 15% change in "Salt Elev. (mult.)" parameter
—
—
10
—
20
"i
30
Percent Change
-------
Lower St. Jones - Effects - Marsh erosion
Effect of 15% change in "Marsh Erosion (mult.))" parameter
16.4%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
9.75%- EstuarineOpen Water
7.75%-Tidal Flat
5.7%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
4.67%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.719% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.000719% - Swamp
1,93E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
1.58E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Estuarine Beach
0%- Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
3
-2.5
¦2
1.5
1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Percent Change
-------
Lower St. Jones - Effects - Reg flood max accr
18.6%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
11.1%- EstuarineOpen Water
9.88%-Tidal Flat
6.53%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
5.24%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.662% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.000418% - Swamp
6.18E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
5.06E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Estuarine Beach
0%- Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
—
-3.5
—
-3
-2.5
2
-1.5
________
-1 -0.5
Percent Change
0 5
1.5
—
2.5
-------
Lower St. Jones - Effects - Reg flood min accr
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
9.55%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
6.29%-Tidal Flat
5.45%- EstuarineOpen Water
3.21%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
2.16%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.221% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.000418% - Swamp
3.49E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
2.86E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Estuarine Beach
0%- Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
" i
-2
—
-1
-0.5
Percent Change
:::
1.5
-------
Lower St. Jones - Effects - Irreg flood max accr
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
11.9%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
6.78%- EstuarineOpen Water
4.16%-Tidal Flat
3.95%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
3.28%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.603% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.00036% - Swamp
6.21 E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
5.09E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Estuarine Beach
0%- Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
::-o.6 -0.4 -0.2
Percent Change
0 2
0.4
__
0.6
-------
Lower St. Jones - Effects - Irreg flood min accr
10.6%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
6%- EstuarineOpen Water
3.9%-Tidal Flat
3.5%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
2.71%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.532% - Trans. Salt Marsh
7.27E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
5.96E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Estuarine Beach
0%- Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Swamp
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
-16
-1.4
-1.2
—
-1
-0.8
0 6
-0.4 -0.2
Percent Change
0 2
0.4
__
0.6
-------
Tornado plots -
Dividing
-------
Dividing - Transitional Salt Marsh
Sensitivity of Trans. Salt Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
256% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
113%- GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
0.918% - Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.357% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
0.202%-Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.0796% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.0796%- Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
300
350
400
450
Trans. Salt Marsh
500
550
600
-------
Dividing - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of Regularly-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
78.7% -GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
9.92% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
1.36% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
1.36%-lrreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
1.22%-Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
1%- Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.836% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
I
_
I
I
-i
-i
1
1
1
2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
-------
Dividing - Irregularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of irreg.-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
51.7% -GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
2.7% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
0.433%-Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.433% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.372% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
0.281%-Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.27%-Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
-------
Dividing - Effects - GT
159%-Tidal Flat
113% - Trans. Salt Marsh
78.7% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
51.7%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
16% - Estuarine Open Water
4.42% - Inland Shore
0.000403% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0.000392%-Aggregated Non Tidal
3.06E-07% - Swamp
0% - Estuarine Beach
0%- Mangrove
0%- Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Cypress Swamp
Effect of 15% change in "GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)" parameter
-15
-10
—
10
—
20
"i
Percent Change
:::
35
-------
Dividing - Effects - Salt elevation
Effect of 15% change in "Salt Elev. (mult.)" parameter
256% - Trans. Salt Marsh
38.2% - Swamp
21.3% - Undeveloped Dry Land
20.8%-Aggregated Non Tidal
9.92% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
3.54% - Inland Open Water
3.34% - Tidal Flat
3.16% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
2.7% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
0.804% - Estuarine Open Water
0.00177%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0.000191% - Tidal Swamp
0% - Mangrove
0% - SLR (eustatic)
-20
0
10
Percent Change
30
50
-------
Dividing - Effects - Marsh erosion
1.39%- EstuarineOpen Water
0.836% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.648%-Tidal Flat
0.372%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.357% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.0341%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0.000131% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0.000127%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Estuarine Beach
0%- Mangrove
0%- Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Swamp
0%- Inland-Fresh Marsh
Effect of 15% change in "Marsh Erosion (mult.))" parameter
0 2
-0.15
-0.1
0 05
0.05 0.1
Percent Change
0.15
:::
0.25
0 3
0.35
—
0.4
-------
Dividing - Effects - Reg flood max accr
1.97% - Estuarine Open Water
1.22% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.15%-Tidal Flat
0.918% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.281% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
0% - Estuarine Beach
0% - Mangrove
0% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0%- Undeveloped Dry Land
0%-Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Cypress Swamp
0% - Swamp
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
0 2
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05
::
0 0.05
Percent Change
0.15
0 2
0.25
0.3
0.35
-------
Dividing - Effects - Reg flood min accr
1.75%- EstuarineOpen Water
1%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.728%-Tidal Flat
0.27%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.202% - Trans. Salt Marsh
4.76E-05% - Undeveloped Dry Land
4.63E-05%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Estuarine Beach
0%- Mangrove
0% - Swamp
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
-0.2
-0.15
0
-0.05
0 05 0.1
Percent Change
0.15
0 2
0.25
0.3
0.35
-------
Dividing - Effects - Irreg flood max accr
2.4% - Estuarine Open Water
1.36% - Regularly-Flooded Marsl
1.15%-Tidal Flat
0.433% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
0.0796% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0% - Estuarine Beach
0% - Mangrove
0% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0%- Undeveloped Dry Land
0%-Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Cypress Swamp
0% - Swamp
-0.2
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
0 5
-0.1
0 05
0.05 0.1
Percent Change
0.15
:::
0.25
::::
0.35
-------
Dividing - Effects - Irreg flood min accr
2.4% - Estuarine Open Water
1.36% - Regularly-Flooded Marsl
1.15%-Tidal Flat
0.433% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
0.0796% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0% - Estuarine Beach
0% - Mangrove
0% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0%- Undeveloped Dry Land
0%-Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Cypress Swamp
0% - Swamp
-0.2
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
0 5
-0.1
0 05
0.05 0.1
Percent Change
0.15
:::
0.25
::::
0.35
-------
Tornado plots -
Lower Maurice
-------
Lower Maurice - Transitional Salt Marsh
Sensitivity of Trans. Salt Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
248% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
130%- GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
0.124% - Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.0571%- Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.0571% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.0403%-Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.0393% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
250
300
350
Trans. Salt Marsh
400
450
-------
Lower Maurice - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of Regularly-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
64.3% -GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
7.81% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
1.36% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
1.36%-lrreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
1.19% - Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.965%- Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.784% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
']
1
2 050
2,100
2 55:
2,350
2.400
2,450
2,200 2,250 2,300
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
-------
Lower Maurice - Irregularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of irreg.-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
337%- GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
14.6%-Salt Elev. (mult.)
3.7% - Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
3.37%- Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
3.37%-Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
2.56% - Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
1.87%-Marsh Erosion (mult.))
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
Lower Maurice - Effects - GT
337%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
130% - Trans. Salt Marsh
67.6%-Tidal Flat
64.3%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
49.4% - Estuarine Beach
6.15%- EstuarineOpen Water
0.249%- Inland Shore
9.53E-06% - Undeveloped Dry Land
8.76E-06%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0%- Mangrove
0%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Swamp
Effect of 15% change in "GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)" parameter
-30
-10
0
Percent Change
30
50
--
60
-------
Lower Maurice - Effects - Salt
elevation
Effect of 15% change in "Salt Elev. (mult.)" parameter
248% - Trans. Salt Marsh
51.6% - Swamp
43.6% - Estuarine Beach
33.2% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
28.4% - Inland Open Water
15.7% - Undeveloped Dry Land
14.6% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
14.5%-Aggregated Non Tidal
7.81% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.64%-Tidal Flat
1.14% - Tidal Swamp
0.464% - Estuarine Open Water
0% - Mangrove
0%-Developed Dry Land
:::
-20
-10
I 10
Percent Change
30
-------
Lower Maurice - Effects - Marsh erosion
8.16% - Estuarine Beach
1.87%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.784%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.702% - Estuarine Open Water
0.497%-Tidal Flat
0.0393% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0% - Mangrove
0%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0%-Undeveloped Dry Land
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Cypress Swamp
0% - Swamp
-1.2
Effect of 15% change in "Marsh Erosion (mult.))" parameter
-11
—
-1
-0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4
Percent Change
-0.3
-0.2
0
0.1
:::
-------
Lower Maurice - Effects - Reg
flood max accr
8.16% - Estuarine Beach
3.7% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
1.19% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.02% - Estuarine Open Water
0.899% - Tidal Flat
0.124% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0% - Mangrove
0% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0%- Undeveloped Dry Land
0%-Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Cypress Swamp
0% - Swamp
:
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
—
-1
-0.8
——
-0.6
-0.4 -0.2
Percent Change
:::
0.4
—
0.6
-------
Lower Maurice - Effects - Reg flood min accr
6.8% - Estuarine Beach
2.56%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.965%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.865%- Estuarine Open Water
0.508%-Tidal Flat
0.0403% - Trans. Salt Marsh
1,68E-12% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0%- Mangrove
0% - Swamp
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Cypress Swamp
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
-12
-1.1
—-
-1
-0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4
Percent Change
-0.3
-0.2
0
0.1
0 2
-------
Lower Maurice - Effects - Irreg flood max accr
8.16% - Estuarine Beach
3.37% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
1.36% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.23% - Estuarine Open Water
0.899% - Tidal Flat
0.0571% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0% - Mangrove
0% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0%- Undeveloped Dry Land
0%-Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Cypress Swamp
0% - Swamp
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
-12
-1.1
—-
-1
-0.9
-0.8
0 '
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4
Percent Change
-0.3
-0.2
0
0.1
—
0 2
-------
Lower Maurice - Effects - Irreg flood min accr
8.16% - Estuarine Beach
3.37%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1.36%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.23%- Estuarine Open Water
0.899%-Tidal Flat
0.0571% - Trans. Salt Marsh
1,68E-12% - Undeveloped Dry Land
1.54E-12%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0%- Mangrove
0% - Swamp
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
-12
-1.1
—-
-1
-0.9
-0.8
0 '
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4
Percent Change
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
::
—
0.2
-------
Tornado plots -
Dennis
-------
Dennis - Transitional Salt Marsh
264% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
152% - GTGreat Diurnal Tide Range (m)
0.0635% - Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.0542% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
0.053% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.0372%-Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.0371% - Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
Trans. Salt Marsh
Sensitivity of Trans. Salt Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
-------
Dennis - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of Regularly-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
59% - GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
14.1% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
2.56% - Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
1.91%-lrreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
1.9%-lrreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
1.11% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
0.848%-Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
3,900
4,100 4,200
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
'¦ ':00
4,400
-------
Dennis - Irregularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of Irreg.-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
495% - GTGreat Diurnal Tide Range (m)
43.9% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
5.69% - Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
3.25% - Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
3.2%-Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
1.79% - Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
1.03% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
160 180
Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
-------
Dennis - Effects - GT
Effect of 15% change in "GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)" parameter
495% - Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
310% - Tidal Flat
152% - Trans. Salt Marsh
59% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
30.6% - Estuarine Beach
4.16% - Estuarine Open Water
0.407% - Open Ocean
0.21%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0.106% - Ocean Beach
0.000223% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0.000212%-Aggregated NonTidal
0% - Mangrove
-40 -20
20
Percent Change
40
60
80
100
-------
Dennis - Effects - Salt elevation
264% - Trans. Salt Marsh
96.1% - Ocean Beach
53% - Swamp
43.9%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
33.7% - Estuarine Beach
17% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
16.8% - Tidal Flat
14.1% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
11.1%- Undeveloped Dry Land
10.5%-Aggregated Non Tidal
3.69% - Estuarine Open Water
2.33% - Inland Open Water
-25
-20
Effect of 15% change in "Salt Elev. (mult.)" parameter
-15
-10
__
10
5
20
__
25
0
35
40
Percent Change
v
50
-1
55
-------
Dennis - Effects - Marsh erosion
30.2% - Estuarine Beach
7.73% - Tidal Flat
3.25% - Estuarine Open Water
1.11%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1.03%- Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.105%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0.0542% - Trans. Salt Marsh
9.87E-13% - Swamp
5.53E-13% - Undeveloped Dry Land
5.26E-13%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
Effect of 15% change in "Marsh Erosion (mult.))" parameter
-4.5
-3.5
3
-2.5 -2
Percent Change
-1.5
—
-1
-0.5
-------
Dennis - Effects - Reg flood max accr
14.3% - Estuarine Beach
9.16% - Tidal Flat
7.23% - Estuarine Open Water
5.69% - Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
2.56% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.157%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0.0635% - Trans. Salt Marsh
1.11E-12%-Undeveloped Dry Land
1.05E-12%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
-3.5
-2.5
-1.5 -1
Percent Change
-0.5
0.5
1.5
-------
Dennis - Effects - Reg flood min accr
7.82% - Estuarine Beach
3.59% - Tidal Flat
2.43% - Estuarine Open Water
1.79%-Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
0.848% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.0525%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0.0372% - Trans. Salt Marsh
1.97E-12% - Swamp
5.53E-13% - Undeveloped Dry Land
5.26E-13%-Aggregated NonTidal
0% - Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
-2.2
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
1 -0.8 -0.6
Percent Change
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
-------
Dennis - Effects - Irreg flood max
accr
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
22.7% - Estuarine Beach
8.86% - Tidal Flat
5.42% - Estuarine Open Water
3.25% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
1.91% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.105%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0.0371% - Trans. Salt Marsh
1.97E-12% - Swamp
5.53E-13% - Undeveloped Dry Land
5.26E-13%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
-3.5
-2.5
-1.5 -1
Percent Change
-0.5
0.5
-------
Dennis - Effects - Irreg flood min
accr
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
13.5% - Estuarine Beach
6.96% - Tidal Flat
5.3% - Estuarine Open Water
3.2% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
1.9% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.157%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0.053% - Trans. Salt Marsh
1.97E-12% - Swamp
5.53E-13% - Undeveloped Dry Land
5.26E-13%-Aggregated Non Tidal
0% - Mangrove
0% - Developed Dry Land
-3.5
-2.5
-1.5 -1
Percent Change
-0.5
0.5
-------
Tornado plots -
Reeds Beach
-------
Reeds Beach - Transitional Salt Marsh
Sensitivity of Trans. Salt Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
329% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
94.1% -GTGreat Diurnal Tide Range (m)
0.187% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
0.153%-Reg Flood Max.Acer.(mult.)
0.126% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.124% - Irreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
0.104%-Reg Flood Min.Acer.(mult.)
300
350
400
450 500
Trans. Salt Marsh
550
600
650
700
-------
Reeds Beach - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of Regularly-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
47.8% -GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
9.28% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
1.9% - Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
1.39%-lrreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
1.36% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
0.685% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
0.639%-Reg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
¦l
¦l
¦l
1,500
1,550
1,600
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
1,700
-------
Reeds Beach - Irregularly-Flooded Marsh
Sensitivity of Irreg.-Flooded Marsh to 15% change in tested parameters
391% - GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)
58.7% - Salt Elev. (mult.)
5.75%-Reg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
3.79% - Marsh Erosion (mult.))
3.58% - Irreg Flood Min. Acer, (mult.)
3.41%-lrreg Flood Max. Acer, (mult.)
2.08%-Reg Flood Min.Acer, (mult.)
¦
1
1
1
1
[
1
1
1
1
1
r
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
I rreg.-Flooded Marsh
-------
Reeds Beach - Effects - GT
391%-Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
269% - Tidal Flat
94.1% - Trans. Salt Marsh
53.5% - Estuarine Beach
47.8% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
2.35% - Estuarine Open Water
0.396% - Open Ocean
0.298% - Ocean Beach
0% - Mangrove
0% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Swamp
0% -Tidal-Fresh Marsh
Effect of 15% change in "GT Great Diurnal Tide Range (m)" parameter
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
20
Percent Change
30
40
50
60
70
-------
Reeds Beach - Effects - Salt elevation
Effect of 15% change in "Salt Elev. (mult.)" parameter
329% - Trans. Salt Marsh
134% - Estuarine Beach
105% - Swamp
73.6% - Ocean Beach
58.7% - Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
29.3% - Tidal Flat
27.7% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
26.7% - Undeveloped Dry Land
25.1%-Aggregated Non Tidal
9.28% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
6.09% - Inland Open Water
3.28% - Open Ocean
1.82% - Estuarine Open Water
0% - SLR (eustatic)
-30
-20
-10
10 20
Percent Change
30
40
50
60
-------
Reeds Beach - Effects - Marsh erosion
113% - Estuarine Beac
10.2% - Tidal Flat
3.79% - Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1.4% - Estuarine Open Water
0.685%- Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.187% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0% - Mangrove
0%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Cypress Swamp
0% - Swamp
Effect of 15% change in "Marsh Erosion (mult.))" parameter
¦
1
-26 -24 -22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10
Percent Change
-------
Reeds Beach - Effects - Reg flood max accr
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
88.7% - Estuarine Beac
12.5% - Tidal Flat
5.75% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
3.59% - Estuarine Open Water
1.9% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.153% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.00139% - Open Ocean
0% - Mangrove
0% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Swamp
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10 -8
Percent Change
-------
Reeds Beach - Effects - Reg flood min accr
Effect of 15% change in "Reg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
57.2% - Estuarine Bead
4.49% - Tidal Flat
2.08% - Irreg.-Flooded Marsh
1.26% - Estuarine Open Water
0.639% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.104% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.00139% - Open Ocean
0% - Mangrove
0% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% -Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Swamp
-16
-14
-12
-10 -8
Percent Change
-2
-------
Reeds Beach - Effects - Irreg flood max accr
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Max. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
133% - Estuarine Beach
11.8% - Tidal Flat
3.41% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
2.68% - Estuarine Open Water
1.39%-Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.124% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0.00139% - Open Ocean
0% - Mangrove
0% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Developed Dry Land
0%-Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Swamp
-30
-25
-20
-15
Percent Change
-10
-5
-------
Reeds Beach - Effects - Irreg flood min accr
86.7% - Estuarine Beac
9.12% - Tidal Flat
3.58% - Irreg .-Flooded Marsh
2.55% - Estuarine Open Water
1.36% - Regularly-Flooded Marsh
0.126% - Trans. Salt Marsh
0% - Mangrove
0% - Tidal-Fresh Marsh
0% - Undeveloped Dry Land
0% - Developed Dry Land
0% - SLR (eustatic)
0% - Inland-Fresh Marsh
0% - Cypress Swamp
0% - Swamp
-18
Effect of 15% change in "Irreg Flood Min. Accr. (mult.)" parameter
-16
:
-12
-10 -8
Percent Change
—
-6
:
-2 0
-------
Appendix L
Comparison of outcomes under different model
protection scenarios
-------
To assess marsh migration potential, we ran SLAMM simulations for three different model
protection scenarios:
• "Protect None": All cells are subject to inundation and can be converted to other habitat
types in the simulations
• "Protect Developed Dry Land": The cells designated as developed dry land are protected
from inundation and cannot be converted to other habitat types in the simulations
• "Protect All Dry Land": The cells designated as dry land (inclduing developed and
undeveloped dry land) are protected from inundation and cannot be converted to other
habitat types in the simulations.
Table LI summarizes how much the results for transitional salt marsh, irregularly-flooded marsh and
regularly-flooded marsh change by 2100 when the "Protect None" or "Protect All Dry Land"
scenarios are used instead of the "Protect Developed Dry Land" scenario. The comparison is based
on percent change in acreage using the results under the "Protect Developed Dry Land" senario as a
reference. Percent change was calculated using the following equation.
acreage under "Protect Developed Dry Land" — acreage under alternate scenario) * 100
Percent change = -— - - — %
acreage under Protect Developed Dry Land
Positive numbers mean that the marsh acreage in the alternate scenario was lower than the
"Protect Developed Dry Land" scenario. As listed in Table LI, changing to "Protect None" has very
little effect on the outcome for all three salt marsh habitat types1 (the mean percent change is
<0.3%). Changing to the "Protect All Dry Land" scenario has a large effect on regularly-flooded and
transitional salt marsh at certain sites, particularly the Delaware sites where large areas of low-lying
undeveloped dry land border the marshes. Here is an example of how to interpret the results. At the
Broadkill subsite, under the "Protect All Dry Land" scenario (where both undeveloped and developed
dry land are protected from wetland conversion), the SLAMM simulations project that the amount of
transitional salt marsh acreage in 2100 would be 94% less and the regularly-flooded marsh acreage
would be 49% less than the projected acreages under the "Protect Developed Dry Land" scenario
(under which undeveloped dry land is able to convert).
Changing the "Protect None" scenario does, however, affect projections for developed dry land (which
converts to flooded developed dry land).
-------
Table LI. Percent change in acreage in 2100 if the "Protect All Dry Land" or "Protect None" model protection scenarios are used instead of the "Protect
Developed Dry Land" scenario.
State
Site
Percent change = (acreage under protect dry developed in 2100 - acreage in 2100 under alternate
scenario/acreage under protect dry developed in 2100)*100
Irreg.-Flood
ed Marsh
Regularly-Flooded Marsh
Trans. Sa
t Marsh
Protect All Dry
Protect None
Protect All Dry
Protect None
Protect All Dry
Protect None
DE
Broadkill
0.09 %
0.04 %
48.91 %
-0.01 %
93.93 %
0.09 %
Mispillion
0.03 %
-0.03 %
33.42 %
-0.30 %
86.07 %
0.03 %
St. Jones
0.62 %
0.93 %
14.98 %
1.09 %
79.85 %
0.16 %
NJ
Dividing
-0.06 %
0.00 %
7.39 %
0.00 %
47.27%
0.00 %
Maurice
-0.51%
0.00 %
3.58 %
0.00 %
35.57 %
0.00 %
Reeds
0.30 %
0.31 %
2.98 %
0.08 %
26.33 %
0.01 %
Dennis
0.44 %
0.44 %
2.33 %
0.07 %
20.78 %
0.00 %
Mean
0.13%
0.24%
16.23 %
0.13%
55.69%
0.04%
StDev
0.37%
0.35%
18.13 %
0.44%
30.35 %
0.06%
Min
-0.51 %
-0.03 %
2.33%
-0.30 %
20.78%
0.00%
Max
0.62%
0.93%
48.91 %
1.09%
93.93 %
0.16%
-------
Tables L2-L4 include actual acreages for each protection scenario at each time step (time zero, 2025,
2050, 2075, 2100) for transitional salt marsh, regularly-flooded marsh and irregularly-flooded marsh,
respectively. Results are based on the intermediate SLR scenario (Sweet et al. 2017).
Table L2. Transitional salt marsh - comparison of results across the three different model protection
scenarios.
Site
Model protection
scenario
Acres of transitional salt marsh
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Broadkill
(DE)
Protect All Dry
607.9
417.5
337.0
210.9
110.0
Protect Dry Developed
1626.7
1583.3
1974.1
2220.6
1813.1
Protect None
1626.7
1583.3
1974.1
2221.5
1811.4
Dennis (NJ)
Protect All Dry
835.3
943.2
1192.8
1921.4
1895.7
Protect Dry Developed
836.8
965.8
1315.0
2229.5
2392.9
Protect None
836.8
964.6
1314.8
2229.5
2392.9
Dividing (NJ)
Protect All Dry
317.6
327.4
311.9
331.5
522.3
Protect Dry Developed
326.0
403.2
565.9
802.7
990.4
Protect None
326.0
403.2
565.9
802.7
990.4
Maurice
Lower (NJ)
Protect All Dry
411.8
451.4
592.0
603.3
548.2
Protect Dry Developed
421.1
480.8
718.2
849.7
850.8
Protect None
421.1
480.8
718.2
849.7
850.8
Mispillion
(DE)
Protect All Dry
717.5
566.8
690.3
436.5
272.0
Protect Dry Developed
2194.0
1902.6
2482.1
2199.6
1953.2
Protect None
2194.0
1902.6
2483.5
2203.1
1952.6
Reeds(NJ)
Protect All Dry
236.6
255.1
353.2
571.9
791.0
Protect Dry Developed
237.7
266.8
413.0
729.7
1073.7
Protect None
237.7
266.5
412.7
729.5
1073.7
St Jones
(DE)
Protect All Dry
79.8
93.5
114.9
95.2
89.5
Protect Dry Developed
164.0
197.7
304.6
359.0
444.4
Protect None
164.0
197.7
304.6
358.6
443.7
-------
Table L3. Regularly-flooded marsh - comparison of results across the three different model
protection scenarios.
Site
Model protection
scenario
Acres of regularly-flooded marsh
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Broadkill (DE)
Protect All Dry
3955.4
4485.1
5495.3
5839.3
2573.2
Protect Dry Developed
3955.8
4678.8
5907.4
6931.7
5036.7
Protect None
3955.8
4678.8
5907.8
6948.0
5037.4
Dennis (NJ)
Protect All Dry
421.6
455.7
934.4
4782.2
10043.2
Protect Dry Developed
421.6
472.0
939.3
4814.4
10282.6
Protect None
421.6
455.7
934.6
4810.2
10275.4
Dividing (NJ)
Protect All Dry
1707.7
1893.3
3119.2
4834.4
5124.2
Protect Dry Developed
1707.7
1893.5
3121.5
4914.9
5533.0
Protect None
1707.7
1893.5
3121.5
4914.9
5533.0
Maurice
Lower (NJ)
Protect All Dry
1299.5
1379.6
1904.3
3437.6
5436.4
Protect Dry Developed
1299.5
1379.6
1899.9
3467.2
5638.5
Protect None
1299.5
1379.6
1899.9
3467.2
5638.5
Mispillion
(DE)
Protect All Dry
7164.4
7547.1
8159.7
9556.6
8066.3
Protect Dry Developed
7165.8
8166.8
9188.7
11991.7
12114.5
Protect None
7165.8
8166.8
9237.8
12107.4
12151.0
Reeds (NJ)
Protect All Dry
235.0
255.0
464.4
1847.9
3843.5
Protect Dry Developed
235.0
262.4
467.0
1861.9
3961.4
Protect None
235.0
255.0
464.5
1860.0
3958.2
St Jones(DE)
Protect All Dry
1862.6
1882.1
1998.3
2766.9
3344.1
Protect Dry Developed
1865.2
1922.3
2102.1
3076.5
3933.5
Protect None
1865.2
1922.3
2102.1
3058.6
3890.7
-------
Table L4. Irregularly-flooded marsh - comparison of results across the three different model
protection scenarios.
Site
Model protection scenario
Acres of irregularly-flooded marsh
2007
2025
2050
2075
2100
Broadkill (DE)
Protect All Dry
1613.0
1301.0
547.9
832.2
348.3
Protect Dry Developed
1613.0
1301.0
547.8
832.2
348.4
Protect None
1613.0
1301.0
547.9
832.6
348.3
Dennis (NJ)
Protect All Dry
8315.7
8256.9
7885.3
4614.8
321.7
Protect Dry Developed
8315.7
8274.9
7891.6
4619.4
323.1
Protect None
8315.7
8256.9
7885.3
4614.8
321.7
Dividing (NJ)
Protect All Dry
4700.6
4482.2
3259.2
1393.9
675.4
Protect Dry Developed
4700.6
4482.2
3254.9
1390.6
674.9
Protect None
4700.6
4482.2
3254.9
1390.6
674.9
Maurice
Lower (NJ)
Protect All Dry
4804.3
4717.7
4216.8
2633.6
392.2
Protect Dry Developed
4804.3
4717.7
4208.4
2626.5
390.2
Protect None
4804.3
4717.7
4208.4
2626.5
390.2
Mispillion (DE)
Protect All Dry
2067.6
1943.1
1678.9
786.9
356.4
Protect Dry Developed
2067.6
1943.1
1670.4
784.6
356.5
Protect None
2067.6
1943.1
1678.9
789.4
356.6
Reeds(NJ)
Protect All Dry
3277.8
3260.9
3113.3
1840.0
152.1
Protect Dry Developed
3277.8
3264.0
3115.3
1841.9
152.5
Protect None
3277.8
3260.9
3113.3
1840.0
152.1
St Jones (DE)
Protect All Dry
1354.8
1344.6
1253.1
576.4
108.1
Protect Dry Developed
1354.8
1344.6
1258.6
581.5
108.8
Protect None
1354.8
1344.6
1258.6
578.8
107.8
Reference
Sweet, W., Kopp, R. E., Weaver, C., Jayantha, O., Horton, R. M., Thieler, E. R., and Zervas, C. (2017).
"Global and regional sea level rise scenarios for the United States". NOAATech. Rep. NOS CO-OPS,
083. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pub.html
------- |