This data set contains vector lines representing the shoreline and coastal habitats of Connecticut classified according to the Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) classification system. ESI data characterize the marine and coastal environments and wildlife by their sensitivity to spilled oil. The ESI data include information for three main components: shoreline habitats, sensitive biological resources, and human-use resources.
publication date
The ESI attribute table contains attribute information for the vector lines representing linear shoreline features with ESI classification. (Source: Research Planning, Inc.)
Internal feature number. (Source: ESRI)
Feature geometry. (Source: ESRI)
The item ESI contains values representing the ESI shoreline type. In many cases shorelines are ranked with multiple codes, such as "6B/3A" (listed landward to seaward from left to right). The first code, "6B", is the most landward shoreline type and the second code, "3A", is the shoreline type closest to the water. Singular shoreline types are listed below. No multiple codes are listed, but all multiple codes included in the data set can be assembled from the codes described.
The ESI code definition changes based on the associated ENVIR item code. For example, the definition of a line with an ESI of "4" and an ENVIR code of "E" (for Estuarine) is "Coarse-grained sand beaches", while the definition of a line with an ESI of "4" and an ENVIR code of "R" (for Riverine) is "Sandy bars and gently sloping banks". For each ESI code definition below, the associated ENVIR code is referenced in parentheses.
The ESI rankings progress from low to high susceptibility to oil spills. To determine the sensitivity of a particular intertidal shoreline habitat, the following factors are integrated: 1) Shoreline type (substrate, grain size, tidal elevation, origin); 2) Exposure to wave and tidal energy; 3) Biological productivity and sensitivity; 4) Ease of cleanup. Prediction of the behavior and persistence of oil in intertidal habitats is based on an understanding of the dynamics of the coastal environments, not just the substrate type and grain size. The intensity of energy expended upon a shoreline by wave action, tidal currents, and river currents directly affects the persistence of stranded oil. The need for shoreline cleanup activities is determined, in part, by the slowness of natural processes in removal of oil stranded on the shoreline. The potential for biological injury and ease of cleanup of spilled oil are also important factors in the ESI ranking. Generally speaking, areas exposed to high levels of physical energy, such as wave action and tidal currents, and low biological activity rank low on the scale, whereas sheltered areas with associated high biological activity have the highest ranking.
(Source: Research Planning, Inc.)
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| 1A | Exposed Rocky Cliffs (Estuarine) |
| 1B | Exposed, Solid Man-made Structures (Estuarine) |
| 2A | Exposed, Wave-cut Platforms in Bedrock, Mud, or Clay; Rocky Shoals (Estuarine); Bedrock Ledges (Riverine) |
| 2B | Exposed Scarps and Steep Slopes in Clay (Estuarine) |
| 3A | Fine- to Medium-grained Sand Beaches (Estuarine) |
| 3B | Scarps and Steep Slopes in Sand (Estuarine); Exposed, Eroding Banks in Unconsolidated Sediments (Riverine) |
| 4 | Coarse-grained Sand Beaches (Estuarine); Sandy Bars and Gently Sloping Banks (Riverine) |
| 5 | Mixed Sand and Gravel Beaches (Estuarine); Mixed Sand and Gravel Bars and Gently Sloping Banks (Riverine) |
| 6A | Gravel Beaches (Estuarine); Gravel Beaches and Gently Sloping Banks (Riverine) |
| 6B | Riprap (Estuarine or Riverine) |
| 7 | Exposed Tidal Flats (Estuarine) |
| 8A | Sheltered Rocky Shores and Sheltered Scarps in Bedrock, Mud, or Clay (Estuarine) |
| 8B | Sheltered, Solid Man-made Structures (Estuarine or Riverine) |
| 8C | Sheltered Riprap (Estuarine or Riverine) |
| 8F | Vegetated, Steeply-sloping Bluffs (Riverine) |
| 9A | Sheltered Tidal Flats (Estuarine) |
| 9B | Vegetated Low Banks (Estuarine or Riverine) |
| 10A | Salt- and Brackish-water Marsh (Estuarine) |
| 10B | Freshwater Marshes (Estuarine or Riverine) |
| 10C | Freshwater Swamps (Estuarine or Riverine) |
| 10D | Scrub-shrub Wetlands (Estuarine or Riverine) |
Type of geographic feature. (Source: Research Planning, Inc.)
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| B | Breakwater |
| F | Flat |
| H | Hydrography |
| I | Index |
| M | Marsh |
| P | Pier |
| S | Shoreline |
Data source of the ESI lines. See the Lineage and Process_Description sections for more information on the original source data and how these data were integrated or manipulated to create the final data set. (Source: Research Planning, Inc.)
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| 2 | Low-altitude overflights by Research Planning, Inc. |
| 5 | Digitized from 1:24,000-USGS topographic quadrangle |
| 7 | Research Planning, Inc. Index |
| 11 | CT Department of Environmental Protection |
| 16 | CT DOQQ?s |
Used to identify the most sensitive shoreline type from the ESI field. (Source: State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection)
Feature geometry. (Source: ESRI)
Type of regional environment (Source: Research Planning, Inc.)
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| E | Estuarine |
| R | Riverine |
| U | Unranked |
This project was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, Washington; State of Rhode Island, Department of Environmental Management, Providence, Rhode Island; and The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey.
79 Elm St.
The ESI data were collected, mapped, and digitized to provide environmental data for oil spill planning and response. The Clean Water Act with amendments by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 requires response plans for immediate and effective protection of sensitive resources.
Environmental Sensitivity Index Information
Environmental Sensitivity Index Information
Environmental Sensitivity Index Information
Original Connecticut ESI maps, published in 1984, were re-examined and fully updated. The intertidal shoreline habitats of Connecticut were mapped during overflights and ground surveys conducted by an experienced coastal geologist in November of 1999. Prior to the field study, some preliminary shoreline classifications were made using black-and-white 12,000 Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQs) provided by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. The vertical photography used in the DOQQs was taken in 1990-1991. The shoreline used in this atlas was digitized from these photos. Overflights were conducted using an H-60 Helicopter operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, flying at elevations of 400-600 feet and slow air speed. During this work, the ESI ranking of observed intertidal shoreline habitats was denoted directly onto the shoreline depicted on 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps. Where appropriate, revisions to the existing shoreline were made and, where necessary, multiple habitats were described for each shoreline segment. Basemaps used in the field were then scanned using a large format scanner, and shoreline classifications mapped during the surveys were transposed onto the shoreline digitized from the DOQQs.
7600 Sand Point Way, N.E.
Using ArcGIS 8.3 - ArcInfo, all coverages from the original NOAA ESI CD were converted to shapefiles and reprojected from GCS NAD83 into CT State Plane Coordinates, NAD83. The data was then clipped using the politcal boundaries of the State of Connecticut. Once the data was reprojected into CTSP83 format and clipped, they were overlaid with the CTDEP DOQQs for a spatial accuracy verification. All data appear to fall into correct alignment when compared against the positions of their source data vis a vis the DOQQs. Next, using ArcView 3.3 with the Xtools extension available for download from ESRI ArcScripts, the following field was added: 1. Length: units = feet A field called MostSensit was added that identifies the most sensitive code from the ESI field. This was manually attributed by a series of sorts and queries through the ESI field to identify instances of each code. The sorts and queries were repeated after the initial attribution to check for completeness/consistency.
79 Elm St.
Dataset copied.
A multi-stage error checking process is used to verify both attribute accuracy and logical consistency throughout data production. The process includes a standardized data entry methodology, hardcopy data review by in-house and external resource experts, a final Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) process, and multiple automated logical consistency checks. Quantitative data (such as densities, counts, abundances, or concentrations) provided by resource experts for inclusion in the data set may vary widely in attribute accuracy, depending upon the methodology used to collect and compile such data. For a more detailed evaluation of source data attribute accuracy, contact the sources listed in the Lineage section.
The ESI data set was developed from pre-existing digital sources and reflects the positional accuracy of these original data. The horizontal positional accuracy of the 1:24,000 USGS topographic quads should conform to National Map Accuracy Standards at scales of 1:24,000. The minimum mapping unit (MMU) of the actual shoreline classification segments is estimated at 50 meters when mapping is conducted using 1:24,000 hardcopy fieldmaps. Field verification has shown that the absolute positional accuracy of breaks between shoreline ESI types with a 95-percent error bound is approximately 58 meters. See the Lineage and Process_Description sections for more information on the original source data and how these data were integrated or manipulated to create the final data set.
These data represent coastal shorelines and habitats classified according to the Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) classification system.
A multi-stage error checking process, described in the above Attribute_Accuracy_Report, is used to verify both attribute accuracy and logical consistency throughout data production. This process includes multiple automated logical consistency checks that test the files for missing or duplicate data, rules for proper coding, GIS topological consistencies (such as dangles, unnecessary node, etc.), and ORACLE(r) to ARC/INFO(r) consistencies. A final review is made by the GIS manager, where the data are written to CD-ROM and the metadata are written. After the data are delivered to NOAA, they are again subjected to a number of quality and consistency checks.
DO NOT USE MAPS FOR NAVIGATIONAL PURPOSES. Besides the above warning, there are no use constraints on these data. Note that the ESI database should not be used to the exclusion of other pertinent data or information held by state or federal agencies or other organizations. Likewise, information contained in the database cannot be used in place of consultations with environmental, natural resource, and cultural resource agencies, or in place of field surveys. Recognize that the information contained in the ESI database represents known concentration areas or occurrences of natural, cultural, and human-use resources, but does not necessarily represent the full distribution or range of each species or resource. This is particularly important to recognize when considering potential impacts to protected resources, such as endangered species, wetlands, etc. Acknowledgment of the originators, publishers, contributors, and sources listed would be appreciated in products derived from these data.
7600 Sand Point Way, N.E.
Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by NOAA regarding the utility of the data on any other system, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. NOAA warrants the delivery of this product in computer-readable format, and will offer a replacement copy of the product when the product is determined unreadable by computer-input peripherals, or when the physical medium is delivered in damaged condition.
| Data format: | in format Shapefile, Feature Class (version ArcGIS) |
|---|---|
| Network links: | http://www.ct.gov/deep |
Contact NOAA for distribution options (see Distributor). ESI data are processed into multiple formats to make them useful to a wider community of GIS/mapping users. Distribution formats include ARC export, MOSS and Shape files, and MARPLOT map folders. An ArcView ESI project and ESI_Viewer product are also included on the distribution CDs for ease of use of the ESI data. The database files are distributed both in the NOAA standard relational database format (see NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 115) and in a simplified desktop flat file format. This metadata document includes information on both of these database formats.
79 Elm St.