ARMF 2014 USCG Technical Paper

1
Sea Level Rise and Navigable Waterways
Prepared for the United States Coast Guard.
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation for the Everglades
Mary Crider, Paul Boynton, Janna Ellis Kepley, Jessica Huffman,
Cheng-Tung Liu, Morgan Mooney, Nigel Woodfork.
1028 N. Federal Highway Lake Worth, FL 33460.
Phone: 561-233-9004 SIP@artmarshall.org
July 31, 2014
Introduction
Sea level rise (SLR) will impact the navigation and shipping capacity of the United
States. It is therefore necessary to proactively update permitting requirements for bridge
clearances over waterways before existing structures become obstacles. As sea level rises, the
established horizontal and vertical clearances of existing bridges will decrease. Bridges that are
built to existing permitting standards that do not take into account SLR will obstruct vessels that
were previously able to navigate under them, severely limiting the capacity potential of these
waterways. Larger cargo shipping vessels and passenger cruisers currently need to retract
smokestacks and remove antenna before fitting under bridges already significantly affected by
sea level rise (California Coastal Commission, 2013). According to the United States Coast
Guard (USCG) Bridge Administration (2012), “no bridge erected or maintained...shall at any
time unreasonably obstruct the free navigation of the waterway over which it is constructed”
(p.1). The USCG’s Bridge Permit Application Guide (2011) states that “any proposed bridge
must accommodate existing and prospective navigation” (p.6). The United States Coast Guard
Bridge Permit Program needs to be updated to reflect rising sea levels in order to reduce building
and repair costs, sustain the lifespan of bridges that are to be built or raised, and ensure continued
safe navigation for vessels under bridges over navigable water.
Sea Level Rise in Florida
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) global average temperature
has increased by 1.4˚F over the last 100 years and will continue to increase an additional 2˚F to
11.5˚F by the end of this century (2014). This atmospheric warming causes a series of modeled
and known interwoven events consisting of thermal expansion, land ice melting, and a reduction
in albedo, all of which contribute to SLR. The initial warming of the atmosphere is, in great

2
measure, absorbed by the thermal capacity of the oceans. This causes the oceans to physically
expand (i.e. thermal expansion) which raises the measured surface of the water. Higher
atmospheric temperature also drives the melting of land based glacial ice into the sea, which will
have major impacts on future sea level. Projections by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
(ACIA) show that there would be a rise in sea level of 23 feet if all of Greenland's ice sheet were
to melt. Antarctica, having much larger ice sheets, would have an even larger effect on rising
seas. The massive amounts of land ice, sea ice, and mountain glaciers reflect the rays of the sun
back into space. Albedo, or the reflectiveness of a surface, is measured on a scale from zero to
one, one being the most reflective. Ice typically has an albedo of 0.9 while bare land and ocean
have an albedo around 0.06 (NSIDC, 2014). The compound effects of the greenhouse gases
trapping the reflected solar radiation and the subsequent loss of ice leading to less overall albedo
effect will lead to further ocean and atmospheric warming and even higher seas.
Global sea level rise is projected at approximately 2 feet by 2050 and 6.6 feet by 2100
(Parris, 2012). Projected sea level rise is a particularly important issue to Florida since the state
has nearly 2,276 miles of tidal shoreline, 2,100 miles of canals, and more than 19 million
residents, most of which live near the coast (U.S. Census, 2014; Englander, 2012). Three-fourths
of the residents in Florida’s coastal counties generate 79% of the state’s total annual economy
Figure 1: GSLR projections in Feet (Parris 2012).

3
(Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, 2010). The Seventh Coast Guard District houses its office
in Miami, Florida, a city with the third largest U.S. population living less than one meter above
sea-level (1,609,312 people) (Strauss et al., 2012). Globally, Miami is ranked number one in
terms of assets exposure to SLR (Nickolls et al., 2007), and two counties, Broward and Miami-
Dade, will be affected by SLR more than any whole state outside of Florida (Strauss, 2014).
The low topography and porous geology of Florida make it particularly susceptible to sea
level rise (Williams et al., 1999) and will result in significant impacts to intracoastal bridges in
South Florida, including, but not limited to, highly trafficked interstate bridges over the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers, bridges that span the only inlets to Florida ports such as the
Tampa Bay Sunshine Skyway Bridge, and bridges that will be inundated by water such as
Miami’s Rickenbacker Causeway. The Seventh District of the USCG, under the United States
Department of Homeland Security, is delegated the authority for permitting, construction,
reconstruction, or alteration of bridges across navigable waters of the United States within its
geographic district (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006). With this inevitable increase in sea
level there are two main concerns that must be addressed when it comes to navigation; 1) the
potential for bridges to become obstacles; 2) the potential for previously non-navigable waters to
Figure 2: Cargo ship “Miami Super” barely fitting antennae beneath bridge span. (US Coast Guard).

4
become navigable with increase in channel depth. To address the effect of projected sea level rise
on current waterway infrastructure it is necessary that recommendations for bridge specifications
and permitting requirements be altered to account for the worst case scenario (e.g. 6.6 feet by
2100) of these environmental changes.
Coast Guard Bridge Permitting
Currently the USCG Bridge Administration Manual (USCGBA, 2004) only once
mentions rising sea level as a potential factor that could affect the lifespan of bridge structures.
The manual recommends that this and other factors should be taken into consideration when
determining the vertical clearance requirement of proposed bridges to prevent them from
becoming obstacles and “accommodate existing and prospective navigation” (USCGBA, 2004,
p. 2-11). The 1972 Waterways Safety Act mandates the establishment of bridge clearances with
the USCG and these clearances are such that the clear horizontal and vertical spacing available
for navigation beneath bridges should be sufficient to permit the safe transit of a vessel expected
to use the waterway under normal conditions (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006).
As sea level in the waterways rises, the vertical clearance of fixed bridges will be
reduced, leading to increased risk of vessel protrusions (e.g. masts and radio antenna) colliding
with bridges.
Figure 3: Weights added to purposefully list ship, in order to fit under bridge. (US Coast Guard).

5
The vertical clearance under bridges should be the vertical height between the water level during
normal ship transits and the lowest part of the bridge. In tidal waterways, the water level
specified is the mean higher high spring tide elevation, also known as Mean Higher High Water
(MHHW) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006).
Horizontal bridge dimensions regarding vessel clearances may play a role in rare cases
and should be of consideration. Horizontal dimension will change slightly as water rises up
banks and shores and increases susceptibility to erosion. This could have major indirect impacts
on supporting an increased span arc, and inundation of pylon support structures. Each bridge
permitting decision will vary greatly due to the fact that each waterway is different and multiple
factors influence bridge standards (USCGBA, 2004). In particular, some of these factors include
local tide range, wave action exposure, available space, condition of the foundation, the nature of
existing structures, shoreline length to be protected, local construction experience, and
availability of materials (Barth, 1984).
As sea level continues to rise with a projected 6.6 foot increase by 2100 the channel
depth of each waterway will increase potentially allowing vessels with deeper drafts to traverse
waterways that were previously too shallow to accommodate them (although any noticeable
change will only occur in confined channels with existing vertical accommodation). Waterways
that are not navigable at current sea level may have the potential to become navigable (RI’s
Climate Challenge, 2014). Waterways that were previously able to get advanced approval for
permitting of bridges, defined by the Bridge Administration Manual as “those waterways that are
not actually navigated other than by log rafts, rowboats, canoes, and small motorboats pursuant
to 33 CFR 115.70” (p. 4-9), may need to go through the more stringent permitting procedure in
the future (USCGBA, 2004). Although increased erosion due to SLR may negate any increased
draft gained, the potential for increased vessel accommodation must still be taken into account
when considering future bridge dimensions (Burkett & Davidson 2012).
Costs and Benefits
Restructuring the permitting requirements to accommodate projected sea level rise now
rather than waiting for the inevitable rise and the subsequent effects on our waterways, will bring
a multitude of benefits. Not only will it ensure continued navigation of essential waterways, this
proactive measure will eliminate costs associated with future reactive bridge alterations due to

6
SLR. Revised permitting of bridges in advance of projected sea level rise allows the cost to be
spread out over decades rather than paying for multiple compounded alterations as the need for
them arises. Current bridge lifespan depends on expected use and engineering factors, but tends
to be between 50 and 100 years; incorporating these recommended clearance buffers into
permitting standards will serve to sustain the lifespan of the bridge. When the lifespan of a
bridge is reached, or a bridge otherwise needs to be rebuilt, it is more efficient to construct the
bridges in accordance with worst case scenario sea level rise (e.g. 6.6 feet by 2100) in mind,
rather than building a bridge to insufficient standards and then requiring repair and clearance
adjustments when water levels become an immediate and dangerous issue.
One example of a bridge that will be affected by SLR in the near future is the
Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami-Dade County, FL. This bridge connects Key Biscayne and
Virginia Key over the Bear Cut waterway. The bridge was engineered to last 100 years but is
currently undergoing reinforcement, after 67 years in operation, to repair damaged pilings and
corrosion. To build a new bridge similar to the existing one would take seven to ten years in
planning, designing, permitting and construction, and will cost $100 million (Mazzei, 2013).
Bridges over Bear Cut are permitted for a mean high water vertical clearance of 16 feet. If a
single Bear Cut bridge is rebuilt at a cost of $100 million dollars, with the original projected
lifespan of 100 years after expected completion in 2025, the bridge’s mean high water vertical
clearance drops to 9.4 feet by its 75th year in operation due to projected sea level rise of 6.6 ft.
The lifespan will be further compromised by storm surge, as sea level rise more than doubles the
risk of a storm surge within the 4ft of the high tide line in South Florida by 2030, increasing the
costs of repair to the bridge in addition to any needs to raise the bridge in response to the
decreased clearance (Strauss, n.d.). Increasing the clearance requirements to consider projected
sea level rise, before the bridge is rebuilt, results in the lifespan of the bridge being sustained,
and the cost of the bridge being reduced overall.
The Okeechobee Waterway is another example where bridges have the potential to
become obstacles. The Okeechobee Waterway cuts a path across Florida and has several fixed
bridges with maximum clearance of 53-55 ft., and one lift bridge with maximum clearance of 49
ft. (US Army Corps of Engineers, n.d.). This waterway extends from the Caloosahatchee in the
west to the St. Lucie to the east. In 2012, Florida had 921,630 boats that traversed the waterway
representing $36 million in visitor spending for the area (US Army Corps of Engineers, n.d.).

7
This bridge stands to be inundated with as little local sea level rise as one foot (see Appendix B,
Sea Level Rise (SLR) on the Okeechobee Waterway).
Not only is the sea rising, vessel sizes are continuing to increase which will only
exacerbate the vertical and horizontal clearance problem (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006).
In general “major ports strive to provide bridge clearances over entrance channels that are greater
than those of other ports to make them competitive within the global marketplace” (USCGBA,
2004). The Panama Canal expansion project is one reason why ships are expected to be larger in
the future, which could have implications for south Florida commerce. This project is intended to
allow larger ships to pass through this vital channel of commerce and thus will have major
impacts on the ports up and down the east coast from New York to Miami. These Post-Panamax
ships will be about 1,200 feet long with a beam of 160 feet. The current Panamax ships on the
other hand are only 965 feet with a beam of 106 feet. This increase in size of the ships correlates
with an increased height (see Figure 4) (The Port Commerce Department; The Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey, 2009).
Already these ports are dredging and updating their port infrastructure in preparation for
Post-Panamax ships. New York City has begun a project costing around $1.3 billion to raise the
Bayonne Bridge to 215 feet above mean high water in order to accommodate them (Port
Authority of NY & NJ, 2014b). Ports and maritime infrastructure need to adapt to this physical
change in the oceans that will happen slowly over time; the rise in sea level projected for the end
of the century will only increase the need for port alterations (e.g. increased bridge heights). The
project plans do not state that future sea level rise is being taken into account, which could lead
Figure 4: Comparison of Panama and Post-Panamax ship dimensions. (Port
Commerce Department, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 2009)

8
to the Port of New York needing to raise the bridge, yet again (Port Authority of NY & NJ,
2014a).
The Sunshine Skyway Bridge that spans the mouth of Tampa Bay is already becoming
difficult to navigate under due to increased vessel heights (Thalji, 2013). This bridge has the
potential to severely limit ship traffic into the Port of Tampa. The Tampa Port Authority lists the
height of the Skyway Bridge as one of the ports biggest weaknesses and a limiting factor for
future cruise ship operations (Norbridge, Inc, 2008). The Tampa Bay Cruise Pre-Feasibility
Study released by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) shows that the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge is too short to accommodate new cruise ships. Port Tampa Bay says this
restriction represents a loss over 2.5 million passengers, up to 5,000 cruise-related jobs, and
missed economic gains of close to $1 billion per year (Titus, 2014). FDOT claims Tampa Bay
region stands to lose on between 33 to 35 million cruise passengers through 2043 (Titus, 2014).
Consequently they are exploring options to allow larger ships to pass under the bridge. Raising
the bridge would be one option, however if the bridge is raised without any consideration to
projected sea level rise this costly project would only condemn the bridge to a short lifespan and
the region to lost revenue.
Another consequence of SLR is the increased potential for vessel collisions with bridges.
These collisions not only pose the threat of loss of life, but collisions can cause damage to the
structural integrity of the bridge, disruption of motorist and marine trafﬁc, damage to the vessel
and cargo, regional economic losses, and environmental pollution (Larsen, 1993). The USCG
Bridge Manual (2004) states the layout of the bridge should maximize the horizontal and vertical
clearances for navigation; future permits needs to account for projected sea level rise. The
Mathews Bridge in Jacksonville, FL, was struck by the USNS 1st LT Harry L Martin of the
Military Sealift Command. Repairing the bridge cost $30 million and took 40 days, during which
the bridge was closed to vehicular and waterway traffic (Scanlan, 2013). Although this collision
was not due to SLR, it helps to illustrate the potential consequences of SLR if bridge permits are
not updated. According to the Bridge Engineering Handbook by Chen and Duan (2000), there
are approximately 35 vessel collision incidents reported to U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters every
day. As sea level continues to rise, so too will the frequency of ships striking bridges.

9
Figure 5: Damage to the Mathews Bridge after being struck by the USNS Harry L. Martin. (Scanlan, 2013).
In order to avoid collisions with bridges, vessels unable to navigate beneath a span will
have to be re-routed. The Julia Tuttle Causeway Bridge in Miami crosses the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AICW) and has a clearance of 56 feet; any vessel that requires a higher
clearance bound for Miami must leave the AICW in Ft. Lauderdale and re-enter at Government
Cut in Miami (BlueSeas, 2014). This represents a significant loss of time and fuel. Additionally,
any cargo offloaded at a secondary location may have increased land-travel time via truck or
train to its final destination. This represents a significant increase in cost and lowers efficiency.
Planning for sea level rise when building and refitting can belay these costs.
Potential delays to military deployments and commercial vessel movements due to
restrictive clearances and uninterrupted flow of commerce through vital ports along the eastern
seaboard including Florida represents a national security issue. The inability of waterways to
accommodate modern vessel designs greatly limits the potential for economic development
within the waterway systems and impedes expansion of the marine transportation system. Once
all future navigable waterways and their bridges are identified, it is necessary that the boats that
will eventually be able to use these be identified and taken into account when considering bridge
dimensions.
In order to protect their own coastal economy, the state of California has begun to adjust
coastal development policy to account for SLR. In the California Coastal Commission Draft
Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance Public Review Draft (2013) it was stated that increased water
levels could reduce bridge clearance, thereby reducing the size of vessels that can access ports.

10
Vessels could otherwise be restricted to transit only during low tides potentially stopping
shipping and cargo movement for large blocks of time, which could be very costly. Florida’s
coastal economy accounts for 9% of the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) with its shipping
industry of $67 billion in total trade with $28 billion in exports alone (Lambert, 2013). In the
U.S., Florida is first in economic impacts regarding passenger sailing. In 2012, Florida cruise
line passengers and crews spent more than $7 billion in Florida (Kennedy, 2014). It is
economically critical that the USCG update their bridge permitting requirements to account for
projected sea level rise and safeguard Florida’s commercial and recreational maritime economy.
Recommendations:
Restructuring the permitting requirements is critical to accommodate projected SLR now
rather than waiting for inevitable rise and the subsequent effects on our waterways and
infrastructure. Raising bridge permitting heights only when it becomes a necessity with each
additional foot of SLR, is an example of short term reactive alterations that is both time and cost
inefficient and may result in economic loss of tourism and commerce. Proactive permitting of
raised bridges allows the cost to be spread out over decades rather than paying for the alterations
continually with each additional rise in sea level.
Waterways under new bridges, or bridges that have exceeded their lifespan and are being
rebuilt, need to be examined to define the type of vessel traffic that uses, or could potentially use,
the waterways to determine the appropriate height of the bridge in question. This vertical
clearance must take into account the projected sea level for that general time frame (e.g. 2 feet by
2050 and 6.6 feet by 2100). The lifespan of the bridge itself must be taken into consideration to
ensure the vertical height of the bridge will still accommodate vessel traffic in the future (i.e.
with an average lifespan of 50-100 years, a bridge constructed in 2050 should have a vertical
clearance that takes into account the projected sea level rise in 2100). In other words, most likely
maximum projected sea level heights of 6.6 feet must be recognized in relation to bridge lifespan
and also be utilized during design planning and construction in order to increase cost efficiency.
The next opportunity to adjust bridge clearances for navigation is usually 50-100 years unless
other intermittent waterway improvement projects include the cost of bridge alterations. Another
solution to long term sea level rise would be to construct more drawbridges that are better able to
adapt to rising seas and therefore have a potentially longer lifespan. However, the USCG

11
encourages construction of high-level fixed bridges, whenever practicable, to minimize potential
conflict between land and waterborne modes of transportation (USCGBA, 2004). Every effort
must be made to reasonably accommodate existing and prospective navigation; the bridge
permitting requirements must be updated to account for projected sea level rise.

12
Appendix A: References
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). (2004). Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Highlights.
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/impacts-of-a-
warming-arctic-highlights/792
Barth, M. C., Titus, J. G., Sorensen, Robert M., Weisman, Richard N., Lennon, Gerard P.,
(1984). Ch.6 Control of Erosion, Inundation, and Salinity Intrusion Caused By Sea Level
Rise. Greenhouse effect and sea level rise: a challenge for this generation. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
http://papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_generation_Barth_and_Titus_c
hapter6.pdf
Blueseas. (2014). Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. (ICW) Bridge Schedule & Lock Restrictions.
Retrieved July 14, 2014, from http://www.offshoreblue.com/cruising/aicw-bridges.php
Burkett, V.R. and Davidson, M.A. [Eds.]. (2012). Coastal Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability: A Technical Input to the 2012 National Climate Assessment. Cooperative
Report to the 2013 National Climate Assessment, pp. 150.
California Coastal Commission (2013). California Coastal Commission Draft Sea-Level Rise
Policy Guidance Public Review Draft. San Francisco: State of California—Natural
Resources Agency.
Chen, W., & Duan, L. (2000). Bridge engineering handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Englander, J. (2012). High tide on Main Street: rising sea level and the coming coastal crisis.
Boca Raton, FL: The Science Bookshelf.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, July 2). Sea Level. EPA. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html
Florida International University International Hurricane Research Center (FIU-IHRC). (2007).
Lidar elevation of select Florida counties [Data file]. Available from http://digir.fiu.edu/
Lidar/lidarNew.php
Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. (2010). Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise in Florida: an
Update of a 2009 Report, “The effects of climate change on Florida’s ocean and coastal
resources.” Tallahassee, FL. www.floridaoceanscouncil.org.

13
Kennedy, S. (2014, July 8). Study offers options for cruise ships too tall for the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge. Bradenton Herald, Retrieved from
http://www.bradenton.com/2014/07/08/5245237/with-current-sunshine-skyway-
bigger.html
Lambert, B. (2013). International Maritime Trade Benefits the Nation’s Economy. New Orleans: Institute
for Trade and Transportation Studies.
Larsen, O. D. (1993). Ship Collision with Bridges: The Interaction Between Vessel Traffic and
Bridge Structures. Zurich, Switzerland: International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering.
Mazzei, P. (2013, August 28). Shorter lifespan for Key Biscayne bridge could speed up plans for
new one. Miami Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/28/3592160/shorter-lifespan-for-key-
biscayne.html
National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC). (2014). Thermodynamics: Albedo. Retrieved from
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html
Nicholls, R.J., Hanson, S., Herweijer, C., Patmore, N., Hallegatte, S., Corfee-Morlot, J., … Muir-
Wood, R. (2007). Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate
Extremes. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environment
Working Paper, 1, 30. Retrieved from
http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aias076737.pdf
Norbridge, Inc. (2008, July 17). Tampa Port Authority Master Plan.
http://www.tampaport.com/userfiles/files/TPA%202008%20Master%20Plan.pdf
Parris, A. (2012). Global sea level rise scenarios for the US National Climate Assessment. Silver
Spring, MD: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Climate Program Office.
Port Authority of NY & NJ. (2014a). Bayonne Bridge Navigational Clearance Program.
Retrieved from http://www.panynj.gov/bayonnebridge/#faqsBayonneBridgeClearQu02
Port Authority of NY & NJ. (2014b). Bayonne Bridge Navigational Clearance Program Project
Summary and Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?
objectId=09000064812e66ca&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

14
Scanlan, D. (2013, September 27). Mathews Bridge closed after 'significant hit' from ship. The
St. Augustine Record. http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2013-09-
26#.U8ksTPldX_k
Strauss, B. (n.d.). Surging Seas Sea level rise analysis by Climate Central. Florida and the Rising
Sea. Retrieved July 18, 2014, from http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/news/floria-and-the-
rising-sea
Strauss, B. H., Ziemlinski, R., Weiss, J. L., & Overpeck, J. T. (2012). “Tidally adjusted estimates
of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for the contiguous United
States.”
Environmental Research Letters, 7(1), 014033.
Strauss, B. (2014). What Does U.S. Look Like With 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise? | Climate Central.
Retrieved from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s.-with-10-feet-of-sea-level-rise-
17428
Thalji, J. (2013, December 6). Tampa Bay facing tough choices to keep cruise ship industry
going. Tampa Bay Times.
The Port Commerce Department; The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey; U.S Army
Corps of Engineers New York District. (2009). Bayonne Bridge Air Draft Analysis.
Titus, J. (2014, July 9). Could cruise industry be floating out of Tampa Bay? WTSP 10News.
Retrieved from http://wtsp.com/story/news/local/2014/07/08/cruise-industry-sunshine-
skyway/12375503
United States Army Corps of Engineers. (n.d.). Lake Level Report OKEECHOBEE
WATERWAY FL. Recreation Lake Level Report. Retrieved July 20, 2014, from
http://www.corpsresults.us/recreation/fastfacts/lake.cfml?LakeID=221
United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2006). Engineering and design: Hydraulic
design of deep-draft navigation projects. Washington, D.C.: Dept. of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers.
United States Census Bureau (USCB) (2014) Florida QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.
Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html
United States Coast Guard Bridge Administration (USCGBA). (2004). Bridge administration
manual COMDTINST M16590.5C. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation,
United States Coast Guard.

15
United States Coast Guard Bridge Administration (USCGBA). (2011). Bridge Permit
Application Guide COMDTPUB P16591.3C. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, United States Coast Guard.
United States Coast Guard Bridge Administration (USCGBA). (2012). Reasonable Needs of
Navigation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, United States Coast Guard.
United States Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset (USGS-NHD). (n.d.)
Watershed boundaries [Data file]. Available from http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
Williams, K., Ewel, K. C., Stumpf, R. P., Putz, F. E., & Workman, T. W. (1999). Sea-Level Rise
and Coastal Forest Retreat on the West Coast of Florida, USA. Ecology, 80(6), 2045.

16
Appendix B: Inundation Maps12
1
Map sea level rise depictions are conservative and were created using Mean High Water and do not account for the Mean Higher High Water
required for permit regulations.
2
The projected SLR was calculated using the equation provided in the NOAA's "Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National
Climate Assessment" paper (Parris, 2012).

17
Appendix B: Inundation Maps34
3
Map sea level rise depictions are conservative and were created using Mean High Water and do not account for the Mean Higher High Water
required for permit regulations.
4
The projected SLR was calculated using the equation provided in the NOAA's "Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National
Climate Assessment" paper (Parris, 2012).

ARMF 2014 USCG Technical Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to ARMF 2014 USCG Technical Paper

Similar to ARMF 2014 USCG Technical Paper (20)

ARMF 2014 USCG Technical Paper