Methods

Shoreline Type Analysis

For this study, we utilized NOAA’s Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) data.
Designed to provide a summary of coastal resources that could be at risk in the event of an oil
spill, ESI maps contain geospatial information about each state’s shoreline, including shoreline
type. ESI classifies shorelines into 15 different types and subtypes, each with a corresponding
code. Thus, the maps are an excellent resource for estimating shoreline length and the degree to
which shorelines have been anthropogenically modified. NOAA’s ESI data was first analyzed
for this purpose in 2015 (Gittman, 2015). Since then, 21 states have provided either partially or
completely updated shoreline data, with collection dates ranging from 2014 to 2016.
The 2015 study classified shorelines as either armored or unarmored. Our study focused
on ​how​ the shoreline was armored (eg. riprap vs seawalls) in addition to ​if​ the shoreline was
armored, so we re-analyzed the data from every state, whether or not they had been updated
since the 2015 study, using the most recent maps available.
In order to calculate shoreline length, we exported the ESI maps to ArcGIS and
calculated linear kilometers of shoreline using the Calculate Geometry feature. For ESI maps that
included multiple states in one file, we overlaid maps of state boundaries (usually a US Census
Coastal Counties map) and used these, in combination with the Clip tool, to separate the data by
state.
We identified ESI types 1B (exposed, solid man made structures), 6B (riprap), 8B
(sheltered, solid, man made structures), and 8C (sheltered riprap) as man-made structures. Any
segment of shore containing one or more of these ESI shoreline types was classified as armored
shoreline, even if it also contained natural shoreline types (eg 8B/10A). Segments containing
multiple man-made ESI types (eg 6B/8B) were treated as their own category, not combined with
any other type of armored shoreline. After calculating linear shoreline length in ArcGIS, we
sorted the resulting data by ESI type in Excel and calculated the total kilometers of armored
shoreline per state, as well as the quantity armored with riprap, the quantity with seawalls, and so
on.
We had planned to compare our findings with those from Gittman et al. 2015 to
determine how the amount of armoring in each state had changed over time. However, there was
a significant increase in the overall shoreline length in the updated maps. Upon investigation, it
appears that this discrepancy was caused by an increased level of shoreline profile detail and
attention to shoreline contours in the updated maps, as well as increased map range. This
combination of factors makes it difficult to compare the maps, even if the range of the updated
ESI data is reduced to the same area as older versions.
Shoreline Policy Review
To gain a better understanding of how and if each state maps their shoreline and tracks
shoreline change individually, we conducted internet searches using consistent key words (eg
“Washington state coastal atlas”, “Washington state shoreline mapping”, “Washington state
coastal change.”), read through Department of Natural Resources websites, and examined
publicly available digital data we encountered. Through this research, we answered the following
questions about each state:
(a) Does this state have a shoreline mapping or shoreline change mapping program?
(b) Is the data from this program publically available?
(c) Is it updated on a set schedule?
(d) Do the maps classify shoreline by type?
Finally, we reached out to scientists and coastal planners involved with the mapping programs, if
those programs existed, to verify our discoveries and clarify any remaining questions.

I. Introduction
A. Importance of coasts
1. Economic/livelihood advantages
2. Coastal areas are also zones of rapid development, home to dense and
steadily increasing populations.
a) “Human settlement has long been drawn to coastal areas, which
provide many resources and trading opportunities (McGranahan,
Balk, & Anderson, 2007)
(1) Today, low elevation coastal zones contain about 2% of the
world’s land and 10% of its population (McGranahan,
Balk, & Anderson, 2007)
(2) In North America alone, studies from 2000 indicate that 24
million people, 8% of the total population, lie in the Low
Elevation coastal zone which makes up 3% of the country’s
land area. (McGranahan, Balk, & Anderson, 2007)
(3) And, 21 million of those people live in urban areas
(McGranahan, Balk, & Anderson, 2007)
(a) Which statistically have higher housing densities
and therefore are more likely to be armored
(Gittman et al. 2015)
b) Coastal populations are projected to keep growing over the next
eighty years (Hauer, Evans & Mishra, 2016)
(1) (Paper with concrete stats on this)
 3. Despite their small land area, coastal zones have an outsize socioeconomic
impact globally. At the same time, coastal populations and economies face
outsize risks due to natural disasters and climate change.
B. Risks to coasts
1. Sea level rise
a) Throughout the United States, mean sea levels are estimated to be
rising at rates ranging from​ ​XX to XX ​per year.
(1) Accounting for population growth, even a conservative
SLR estimate of 0.9 meters by 2100 puts 4.2 million people
at risk of inundation in the United States. (Hauer, et al.)
(2)
b) Globally, sea level rise estimates range from 8 inches to 6.6 feet of
sea level rise before 2100, potentially affecting billions. (Lindsey,
2018)
2. Increasing storm frequency also poses a threat.
a) Higher sea surface temperatures, especially over the Atlantic
Ocean, are believed by scientists to be increasing the severity of
tropical storms and hurricanes, and the resulting storm surges
(Elsner, Kossin, & Jagger, 2008). Moreover, as sea levels rise,
surges will penetrate further inland, posing a significant threat to
the livelihood of coastal communities.
b) It is estimated that a sea level rise of 38 centimeters would increase
fivefold the number of people flooded by storm surges (Nicholls,
Hoozemans, & Marchand, 1999)
II. Definitions / Background
A. Coastal resilience
1. Facing these risks, the importance of coastal resilience has grown
considerably.
2. Coastal resilience is the ability of coastlines to defend against and quickly
recover from physical disturbances such as storm surges, erosion, and sea
level rise.
3. Resilient shorelines (Bridges, 2015)
B. Armoring
1. Homeowners and developers commonly attempt to stabilize coasts and
increase resilience through shoreline armoring, or the anthropogenic
modification of coastlines for a variety of purposes, including erosion and
flood protection (Deither, Toft & Shipman, 2016; Hartig et al., 2011).
 2. These techniques involve the use of various stone, concrete and wooden
structures, including seawalls, bulkheads, levees, and riprap revetments,
for the purpose of stabilizing a shoreline.
3. Figure: Labeled visuals of different armoring types
C. Negative impacts of shoreline armoring
1. Coastal wetlands are vital ecosystems. They sequester carbon, improve
water quality, and provide habitats for a wide variety of at-risk species
(EPA, 2010). But, each year, hectares of coastal wetlands are lost as a
result of sea level rise and ensuing coastal squeeze (marsh loss that occurs
when marshes at risk of inundation due to sea level rise have nowhere to
go due to shoreline development) (Cunniff, Personal Communication). At
a time when the preservation of coastal ecosystem services is essential,
shoreline armoring does the opposite, replacing and fragmenting coastal
habitat, thereby destroying valuable coastal ecosystems.
2. Specific types of armored shorelines, like bulkheads and seawalls, have
been shown to cause vertical erosion of intertidal shoreline habitats
(Douglass & Pickel, 1999).
3. In addition to eroding intertidal habitats, shoreline armoring causes habitat
fragmentation, or the restriction of access to adjacent habitats, a
phenomenon which leads to a loss of genetic diversity, as well as
decreased population stability (Hartig, Zarull, & Cook, 2011).
4. Armoring can lead to a decrease in the abundance of flora and fauna on
shorelines. (Morley, Toft and Hanson 2012)
D. As our shorelines continue to be impacted by anthropogenic modifications,
erosion, and rising sea levels, tracking change and making development choices
that improve, rather than erode, the health of our coasts is becoming more and
more important.
1. In order to create successful, sustainable coastal policies, mapping coasts
and tracking coastal changes due to human modification and erosion is
imperative.
a) Coastal mapping allows us to track the long-term impacts of
policies concerning coastal development.
b) It’s essential for those designing coastal protection solutions,
formulating policies to regulate coastal protection, and quantifying
historical rates of change. (Boak & Turner, 2005)
c) It’s also key to studying sediment budgets and the role of natural
processes in shoreline alteration, determining the role of natural
processes in shoreline alteration, and studying the effectiveness of
shoreline protection structures (Moore, 2000)
 d) Real-world example of the positive impacts of shoreline change
tracking
2. All in all, with the challenges facing our coasts,
a) Further coastal change must be tracked so we can gain a deeper
understanding of the extent of human impacts on our shorelines
and make informed decisions concerning coastal stabilization and
development in the future.
b) These decisions and initiatives require data about current shoreline
types and profiles on a nationwide scale. ​Today, that data is
frequently outdated or simply unavailable.
(1) Shoreline change tracking details
(2) Shoreline armoring tracking details
(3) Shoreline type tracking
(a) Less prevalent than other mapping methods
(4) Preview of why current work is inadequate or
incomplete
III. Statement of purpose
A. In this paper we endeavor to reduce the shoreline type data gap specifically by
furthering research last updated in Rachel Gittman’s 2015 study.
B. We document the number of kilometers of armored shoreline in the US and per
state, and the most common armoring types in each state, and compare it to the
total shoreline in each state as well as among different states. The data presented
in this paper will support later shoreline change tracking research and informed
decisions concerning coastal protection methods.
C. We also present an overview of the state of shoreline mapping in each coastal
state based on online research and discussions with those involved in the
initiatives. The overview identifies the strengths and opportunities for growth
within each state mapping program.
IV. Methods (Split into armoring and change tracking sections when possible)
A. The study utilized NOAA’s Environmental Sensitivity Index data
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/esimap.html
1. ESI data provides a summary of coastal resources that could be at risk in
event of an oil spill (NAO)
a) Including information about shoreline sensitivity and natural
resources
2. The most recent NOAA ESI data from each state or group of states in the
“lower 48” was used.​ ​Dates ranged from 2014-2016.
 3. Using ArcGIS, the data was separated by state when necessary using the
clip tool (overlay of coastal county data) and shoreline length was
calculated with the calculate geometry feature.
4. Length data was analyzed in excel, where shoreline segments with one or
more occurrences of armoring were hierarchically selected and their
lengths were summed.
B. Plans/attempts to calculate change over time by comparing current ESI data with
older data were made. But, the newer data was not consistent with older ESI
maps. In many states there was a significant increase in the amount of mapped
shoreline, and therefore shoreline length, in the updated maps.
1. Upon investigation, it appears that this discrepancy was caused by an
increased level of shoreline profile detail and attention to shoreline
contours in the updated maps, as well as updated maps that range further
upstream
2. This combination of factors makes it difficult to compare the maps, even if
the range of the updated ESI data is reduced to the same area as older
versions.
C. Shoreline mapping by state literature review discussion
1. The overview analyzes the presence of shoreline mapping programs in
each state, the availability of that data to the public

V. Results
A. ESI data analysis (pending collection on California, Texas, and Alabama)
1. In total, the ESI data shows that at least XXXX miles of continental US
shoreline have been anthropogenically modified, accounting for XX% of
the total shoreline surveyed
2. The most common type of shoreline armoring was found to be sheltered,
solid man made structures like seawalls and piers.
3. The amount shoreline armoring as a percentage of total state shoreline
occurred in
4. While the state with the least armoring as a percentage of total state
shoreline was
5. Figures
B. Shoreline mapping review
1. Number of states that have ongoing shoreline mapping or shoreline change
mapping projects
a) Does the project focus on mapping or on mapping and analyzing
change?
b) Does the state also have a system for tracking either shoreline
 2. Public availability
a) Number of states where that data is available to the public
b) In what form it’s generally available to the public (online viewer,
shapefile download, etc.)
3. Generally, whether or not that data is regularly updated.
4. Figures
a) Possibly a simplified version of the data collection spreadsheet
with a slot for each state’s program (four criteria - presence,
type, public availability, change vs simple map)

VI. Discussion/conclusions