APPLICATION GUIDE 

for the 

2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report
FORWARD

Sooner or later, those working on coastal resilience issues come to understand an important 

tenet of our shared efforts: resilience is not a product which can be created—and then 

delivered—by the federal government. It is a condition that individuals and organizations 

must advance locally and on their own terms.

The federal government can and should bring its human, technical, fiscal, legal, and policy 

resources to bear in a manner designed to lift up and support the needs of state, local, 

tribal, and territorial governments. Our task is to help these entities understand and engage 

with coastal challenges within the unique context of their geography, their history, their 

priorities, and their aspirations for the future.

The recently released Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: 

Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines (2022 

Sea Level Rise Technical Report) provides the best available scientific insights regarding 

how and when sea level is expected to change. While we rightly celebrate the success of this 

recent update, we know more accurate and sophisticated science does not directly translate 

into improved adaptation outcomes.

This document, Application Guide for the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report, is a first-ofits-kind effort to bridge this gap. Our goal is to move from information to knowledge, with a 

focus on empowering those practitioners who must apply this science to decision-making. 

I am deeply impressed by the quality of the work in this guide but even more so by the 

forward-thinking cooperation which yielded it. The collaboration of the 2022 Sea Level 

Rise Technical Report scientists and expert practitioners from both federal and non-federal 

organizations is an inspiring example of partnership in service of empowering others.

The urgency of our national coastal challenges is apparent to anyone who cares to take 

even a passing look. Communities are facing risks emerging at a global scale in the absence 

of a global-scale response. This publication represents a partnership across communities 

and governments, born from a humble commitment to iterative learning and collaborative 

knowledge building. This guide demonstrates that we have both the courage and skill to 

forge new approaches and build an increasingly strong foundation from which to take 

action towards a more resilient and equitable future for our nation’s coasts.

Mark Osler

NOAA Senior Advisor for Coastal Inundation and Resilience

June 2022
Authors

Renee Collini, Ph.D.

Coastal Climate Resilience Specialist, Mississippi State University, MississippiAlabama Sea Grant Consortium, and Florida Sea Grant

Jamie Carter

Regional Geospatial Coordinator, NOAA Office for Coastal Management

Lisa Auermuller

Assistant Manager, Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve, 

Rutgers University 

Laura Engeman

Coastal Resilience Specialist, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and 

California Sea Grant, University of California San Diego

Katy Hintzen

Coastal Resilience Specialist, University of Hawaiʻi Sea Grant College Program

Jill Gambill

Coastal Community Resilience Specialist, University of Georgia Marine 

Extension and Georgia Sea Grant

Rachel Johnson

Coastal Resilience Sea Grant Knauss Policy Fellow, NOAA National Ocean 

Service

Ian Miller, Ph.D.

Coastal Hazards Specialist, Washington Sea Grant

Carey Schafer

Project Coordinator, EcoAdapt 

Heidi Stiller

South Regional Director, NOAA Office for Coastal Management

Suggested Citation:

Collini, R.C., J. Carter, L. Auermuller, L. Engeman, K. Hintzen, J. Gambill, R.E. 

Johnson, I. Miller, C. Schafer, and H. Stiller. 2022. Application Guide for the 

2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Office for Coastal Management, Mississippi–Alabama Sea Grant 

Consortium (MASGP-22-028), and Florida Sea Grant (SGEB 88).

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt02-globalregional-SLR-scenarios-US-application-guide.pdf

Figure development led by Jamie Carter. Please reach out to him at jamie.

carter@noaa.gov with questions regarding figure re-creation or adaptation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE..............................................................................................................1

2. 2022 SEA LEVEL RISE TECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS ...............................................2

2.1 Global, Regional, and Local Sea Level Rise Scenarios........................................................................... 2

2.2 Observation-Based Extrapolations ........................................................................................................ 3

2.3 Extreme Water Levels.............................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Additional Insights from the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report..................................................... 6

3. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................7

3.1 Stakeholder Engagement and Co-Production....................................................................................... 7

3.2 Uncertainty in Rising Seas ...................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Using Observation-Based Extrapolations .............................................................................................. 9

3.4 Using Extreme Water Levels.................................................................................................................. 12

3.5 How to Apply Sea Level Rise Scenarios at Different Spatial Scales .................................................... 14

3.6 Considering 2022 Scenarios When Other Sea Level Rise Scenarios Are Already in Use..................... 17

3.7 Understanding Datums, Baselines, and Epochs.................................................................................. 18

3.8 Accessing the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report Data .................................................................. 20

4. APPROACHES FOR INTEGRATING THE 2022 SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS INTO 

PLANNING .............................................................................................................. 21

4.1 Evaluating Sea Level Rise Exposure and Vulnerability ........................................................................ 21

4.2 Sea Level Rise Planning Using a Risk Tolerance Approach ................................................................. 22

4.3 Sea Level Rise Planning Using a Scenario-Based Approach ............................................................... 26

4.4 Sea Level Rise Planning Using an Adaptation Pathways Approach.................................................... 29

5. I’VE MADE IT THIS FAR. WHAT DO I DO NOW? .......................................................... 32

6. APPENDIX A: DETERMINING HOW MUCH SEAS HAVE RISEN TO ADJUST SEA LEVEL RISE 

SCENARIOS............................................................................................................. 35

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................... 37
1

1. PURPOSE

2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report

The recently released federal Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: 

Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines (2022 Sea Level 

Rise Technical Report) is a synthesis of the latest available science on sea level rise. It was developed 

by an interagency team of experts as an update to the Sweet et al. (2017) report (2017 Sea Level 

Rise Technical Report), and serves as a technical input to the Fifth National Climate Assessment. 

Read more about the report’s key takeaways, frequently asked questions, and additional tools and 

resources.

2022 Application Guide

This document, Application Guide for the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report (Application Guide), 

is designed to assist decision makers and coastal professionals with applying and integrating 

the information in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report into local sea level rise planning and 

adaptation decisions. 

This Application Guide is national in scope, and it includes examples from different geographic 

regions. It describes how updated sea level rise scenarios and related science information in the 

2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report can be considered and applied through various coastal hazard 

evaluation and planning approaches. 

The Application Guide is divided into the following sections.

• Section 1: Purpose.

• Section 2: Introduction to the updated science from the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report. 

• Section 3: Overall considerations when applying sea level rise scenarios in planning efforts.

• Section 4: Examples of specific application approaches that can be used to address the 

uncertainty in the amount and timing of future sea level rise when making decisions.

• Section 5: Additional resources for thinking about next steps.

This Application Guide is not a comprehensive guide on how to plan for sea level rise. Adapting 

to rising seas requires robust and continual efforts that consider a complex array of place-based 

sociocultural, economic, policy, physical, and ecological factors. This document provides broad 

guidance on where to start with sea level rise planning and on how to consider the updated 

information provided in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report. It includes recommended practices 

for decision-making in the face of uncertainty, but does not offer formal regulatory or engineering 

guidance. 

Intended Audiences for the Application Guide 

The intended audiences for this Application Guide are coastal decision makers and professionals 

who need to understand, communicate, or apply the best available sea level rise information. 

Development of this Document

A geographically diverse team of extension, planning, and outreach professionals developed this 

document. Members of the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report author team ensured scientific 

accuracy of the content, and intended end users served as external reviewers. 
2

2. 2022 SEA LEVEL RISE TECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS

The 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report provides three types of sea level rise (SLR) information:

• Global, Regional, and Local SLR Scenarios: These scenarios represent the range of SLR 

projections out to 2150. These projections consider a variety of processes that could influence 

sea level across a wide range of future warming conditions.

• Observation-Based Extrapolations: An estimated continuation of sea level changes based on 

extending observed tide-gauge trends from 1970-2020 out to 2050. The extrapolations extend 

the observed rates of SLR and SLR acceleration from the past 50 years out an additional 30 

years into the future.

• Extreme Water Level Probabilities: Data depicting the frequency of above-average water 

levels at many locations across the U.S. These values highlight how often different locations 

may experience elevated water levels, and the increased frequency of those elevated water 

levels with rising seas.

Each of these is described below in more detail. Key Takeaways and Frequently Asked Questions from 

the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report are also available online to provide additional information 

and details.

2.1 Global, Regional, and Local Sea Level Rise Scenarios

The SLR scenarios from the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report: 

• reflect greater certainty about SLR out to 2050; 

• integrate regional factors that provide better understanding of how and when SLR could impact 

different coastlines; and 

• include the best-available science on global processes to provide updated potential SLR ranges 

out to 2150.

The 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report provides a set of five SLR scenarios, providing a range of 

plausible sea level changes through 2150. The scenarios were developed from a suite of modeled 

projections that include new advancements in the understanding of when and how various global 

processes may occur (e.g., glacier and ice sheet melt, mass redistribution). The five scenarios (Low, 

Intermediate-Low, Intermediate, Intermediate-High, and High) correspond to average global SLR 

magnitudes in the year 2100 (relative to a baseline of 2000; Figure 1). Global, regional, and local 

processes (including vertical land motion) were incorporated to generate regional and local-level 

scenarios. See Sections 3 and 4 of this Application Guide to learn more about how to consider these 

scenarios based on the SLR planning situation. Readers can also reference Section 2.2.3 of the 2022 

Sea Level Rise Technical Report for more detail on the development of the different scenarios. 
3

Figure 1. Global sea level rise scenarios from the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report, including projected 

values for the years 2050, 2100, and 2150. All values are referenced to a year 2000 baseline.

2.2 Observation-Based Extrapolations

The 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report includes regional extrapolations of SLR based on tidegauge record data and compares these to the five SLR scenarios (Figure 2) for eight coastal regions 

of the United States. The report provides a detailed explanation for how historic tide-gauge data 

and knowledge of regional ocean dynamics were used to determine sea level trends from 1970 

to 2020. Cyclical ocean dynamics (e.g., El Niño/La Niña cycles) were removed from tide station 

data, the data were averaged regionally, and then rates and accelerations were used to project, or 

extrapolate, regional trajectories of SLR out to the year 2050 (see more in Section 2.2.4 of the 2022 

Sea Level Rise Technical Report). It is important to note that like the SLR scenarios, the observationbased extrapolations have likely ranges (also known as confidence limits). These likely ranges 

capture uncertainty associated with extrapolating the rate of acceleration. This uncertainty is further 

described in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report. Additional observation-based extrapolations 

are available for some individual tide gauges through NASA’s Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool. 
4

Figure 2. Regional sea level rise scenarios, observation-based extrapolation (median [bold dash] and 

17th/83rd percentile confidence limits [light dash]), and average annual water levels from tide gauges 

throughout the Southeast region (North Carolina to Key West, Florida).

2.3 Extreme Water Levels

A primary impact of SLR is increased magnitude and frequency of flooding, which will change how 

people live, work, and play along the nation’s coastlines, and drive shifts in ecosystem processes. 

The 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report, for the first time, includes estimates of how coastal flood 

frequency and magnitude will change with rising seas. The analysis, known as an extreme water 

level analysis, used tide-gauge records to assess the likelihood of extreme water levels that occur 

relatively infrequently, but are often associated with significant impacts. 

The water level frequencies assessed ranged from more frequent events (e.g., 10 times per year) to 

much less frequent events (Figure 3). It should be noted that the 1% annual chance water levels, 

sometimes referred to as a 100-year flood, in this analysis are not the same as those found in the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) regulatory products (e.g., Flood Insurance Rate 

Maps). Find more detail on the relationship between this extreme water level analysis and FEMA’s 

regulatory floodplain designations in Section 3.1 of the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report.

Extreme water level analyses can help a user understand changes in the frequency of specific water 

levels as seas rise, and to answer questions such as,

• If my community is currently affected by a moderate coastal flood roughly once every 10 years, 

how much SLR will it take for that same water level to occur every year?

• In 30 years, what will the water level be for an event likely to occur annually? 
5

The extreme water level analysis makes it clear that the coastal U.S. can expect a shift in flood regime 

in the next 30 years, with more damaging and dangerous floods occurring much more frequently 

as seas rise. The report highlights that although wave-driven water levels are excluded from this 

analysis, they should be included in future assessments of exposed coastlines where waves can 

contribute 25-90% of extreme water levels. See Box 3.1 in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report 

for more information on waves and extreme water levels. The extreme water level probabilities 

are available for tide gauges and 1-degree grids throughout the coastal United States. Methods are 

provided in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report to derive extreme water level probabilities for 

locations not included in the report by using tide range information or short-term records from local 

observations. See Section 3 in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report for more information on how 

extreme water levels were calculated and to obtain methods to generate localized extreme water 

level probabilities.

Figure 3. Maximum water levels in Hampton, New Hampshire, were 1.5 ft higher than normal Mean Higher 

High Water (MHHW) during peak tides over three consecutive days from November 5-7, 2017. This three-day 

event exceeded the Minor flood threshold set by the local community and is predicted to occur six times per 

year based on the gridded Extreme Water Level analysis in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report. Sea 

level rise since 2000 has already increased the frequency of this flood level. 

(Photo credit: Jennifer Dubois)
6

2.4 Additional Insights from the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report

The 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report also analyzed and communicated when the five SLR 

scenarios will diverge from each other, and found that most of the divergence occurred after 2050. In 

other words, there is less uncertainty about the magnitude of SLR in the near term (i.e., before 2050), 

relative to the uncertainty in the more distant future (i.e., after 2050). This insight leads to a new 

emphasis on and distinction between planning applications for sea level information in the “near 

term” (i.e., before 2050), and the “long term” (i.e., after 2050). It is worth noting that the near-term 

planning time frame is consistent with many city and individual planning time frames (e.g., capital 

infrastructure upgrades, earlier than a standard 30-year mortgage). See Section 2.5 of the 2022 Sea 

Level Rise Technical Report for more detail and Section 4 of this guide for more information on how 

these time horizons can be considered under different planning approaches.

Importantly, the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report notes the relationship between higher global 

average temperature, and the increased likelihood of higher amounts of SLR. For example, there is 

a 50% likelihood of exceeding 1.6 ft (0.5 m) of SLR on average in the United States by 2100 if global 

average temperature increase is limited to 3.6°F (2°C). However, if global average temperature 

change exceeds 5.4°F (3°C) by 2100, the probability rises to 82%, and if temperature change exceeds 

9°F (5°C) by 2100, the probability is nearly certain (>99%). See Section 2.4 and Table 2.4 in 2022 Sea 

Level Rise Technical Report for more detail. 

Annual Chance Events vs. Exceedance Probabilities

At times there can be confusion between different terminology that uses percentages 

around flood risk and rising seas. We often talk about flood risk in terms of the probability 

that a given water level will be reached each year. A common regulatory term is the 1% 

annual chance flood event, also referred to as a 100-year flood. What this represents is the 

fact that there is a 1% chance every year that an event of that magnitude may occur.

The likelihood or probability that one of these events will occur increases over multiple 

years. For example, a coastal flood event that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given 

year (the “100-year event”) has a 26% chance of occurring within a 30-year period, and sea 

level rise further increases the chance over that 30-year period.

The exceedance probabilities that we discuss around the likelihood of a SLR scenario 

being exceeded are not related to an annual chance (Table 1); it is simply the likelihood 

that in the future it will be exceeded. The length of time over which you consider the 

possibility of that SLR scenario does not change the probability of exceedance. A 37% 

chance of being exceeded is always a 37% chance of being exceeded. 
7

3. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Stakeholder Engagement and Co-Production

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to building community resilience; yet stakeholder engagement 

and co-production of adaptation planning are critical to success. More accurate and sophisticated 

climate science does not directly translate into improved climate adaptation outcomes. High 

quality climate services and communication are needed to translate the science into adaptation 

capacity at all scales. Furthermore, top-down scientific assessments are not sufficient to fully assess 

vulnerabilities, understand uncertainties, or inform adaptation. Local knowledge and expertise are 

essential in this process.

Through co-production of adaptation plans and policies, local stakeholders and communities hold 

active decision-making power in preparing for and responding to sea level rise. The local scale is 

where climate change impacts are most acutely felt and where adaptation actions are needed to 

translate science and policy into action. Co-production of adaptation planning also allows for those 

with the deepest knowledge of place-based factors to inform adaptation choices. Place-based 

factors are critical in assessing risk tolerance and the full range of trade-offs associated with different 

adaptation approaches. A wealth of guidance documents, tools, and best practices are available to 

support impactful co-production and stakeholder engagement in the sea level rise planning process; 

see Section 5 of this document for some examples.

3.2 Uncertainty in Rising Seas

When planning for SLR it is important to understand why there is not a single scenario for how much 

seas will rise. Uncertainty in how much seas will rise is driven by three general sources, and these are 

captured by the full set of five SLR scenarios from the 2022 Technical Report (Figure 4). They include: 

1. Process uncertainty encompasses how well we currently understand why sea level has 

changed in the past and how it will change in the future at specific times and locations. 

Process uncertainty is captured in the shading above and below the median values for each 

individual scenario. The farther forward the sea level values are projected in time, the greater 

the uncertainty around each scenario.

2. Emissions uncertainty represents how human behavior will drive future global emissions 

of greenhouse gasses and ensuing warming. Emissions uncertainty is captured in the 

ranges between the Low, Intermediate-Low, and Intermediate scenarios. In other words, 

the differences in SLR between the Low, Intermediate-Low, and Intermediate scenarios are 

closely connected to emissions uncertainty and largely are reflected in the divergence of the 

scenarios after 2050 and out to 2100.
8

3. Low confidence processes encompass ongoing scientific discussion and exploration 

about the potential for rapid ice melt (e.g., marine ice cliff disintegration). If rapid ice melt 

occurs, it would span several decades with impacts taking even longer to be felt. Sometimes 

referred to as low confidence processes, there is not currently scientific consensus on if or 

when these rapid ice melt processes could occur and, if they did occur, how rapidly they 

would raise sea levels. Given that rapid ice sheet melt may be possible and could result 

in a very large increase in sea level, these processes are integrated into international and 

federal SLR assessments. Within the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report, the possibility 

of rapid ice sheet melt is considered in the Intermediate, Intermediate-High, and High 2022 

SLR scenarios. All three of these SLR scenarios require high emissions (defined as Shared 

Socioeconomic Pathways [SSPs] SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical 

Report), and each SLR scenario reflects different amounts of rapid ice melt. See Box 2.1 from 

the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report for more information on uncertainty in SLR and 

Section 2.4 from the report for more information on how low confidence processes were 

represented in the scenarios. 

Italicized phrases indicate phrases or words that have specific scientific definitions. These 

are defined within the text, but further explanation can be found in the 2022 Sea Level 

Rise Technical Report. 

There are several strategies for addressing the uncertainty in how much seas will rise when planning. 

These are described in detail in Section 4 of this report.
9

Figure 4. Sea level rise scenarios for the contiguous United States relative to a year 2000 baseline. The 

ranges within and between the five scenarios represent different sources of uncertainty. Average annual 

tide-gauge observations and the observation-based extrapolation are overlaid for context.

3.3 Using Observation-Based Extrapolations

The historic trends and observation-based extrapolations are useful for coastal professionals and 

decision makers for several reasons. The historic trends provide evidence of recent SLR—and of an 

acceleration in the rate of rise—to help ground discussions with stakeholders using tangible and 

observed measurements to which they can relate. The observation-based extrapolations provide 

insight about how observed sea level is tracking against the SLR scenarios and can be a useful 

comparison for assessing the likelihood of SLR scenarios and ranges out to 2050. For example, the 

observation-based extrapolation for the Northwest region tracks 6.3 inches (0.16 m) by 2050 (Figure 

5). This falls between the Northwest region’s Intermediate-Low scenario (5.9 inches; 0.15 m by 

2050) and Intermediate scenario (7.1 inches; 0.18 m by 2050). If a planner or coastal professional is 
10

interested in understanding which SLR scenario the observations are tracking or a likely scenario for 

2050, as a set the regional comparisons are among the best pieces of information available for doing 

that. Collectively the regional extrapolated observations for the U.S. show SLR tracking between 

the Intermediate-Low and Intermediate-High SLR scenarios in the near term. Regional and U.S. 

trends can be found in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report and the associated online portals 

and data sources. NASA’s Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool also includes tide-gauge-specific 

extrapolations for locations that have at least 30 years of observations and meet other quality 

criteria. See Section 5 of this report for a list of resources.

Figure 5. Regional sea level rise scenarios and the observation-based extrapolation for the Northwest 

Region (Washington and Northern Oregon). Average annual water levels from tide gauges throughout the 

region show the variability due to cyclical ocean dynamics (i.e., ENSO) and are overlaid for context. This 

variability was removed prior to generating the observation-based extrapolation.

However, it is important to note that some regional or tide-gauge-specific observation-based 

extrapolations may not align with SLR scenarios. This can be a reflection of a local land movement or 

sea level process not captured in the SLR models. For example, in American Samoa there is ongoing 

vertical land movement due to an earthquake in 2009. The tectonic response to the earthquake (i.e., 

an increase in the rate of subsidence) is not captured in the local SLR scenarios, so the observationbased extrapolations are higher than the local SLR scenarios (Figure 6). Knowing this allows 

planners in American Samoa to consider the extrapolation-based observations in the near term or 

consider using the tectonic movements to adjust the SLR scenarios. Understanding why there are 

misalignments in some regions and local areas is both the focus of future research and should also 

be considered during local and regional planning. See the callout box below for an example of how 

to consider observation-based extrapolations in a broader suite of SLR scenarios in cases where 

there is no alignment due to processes other than vertical land movement.
11

Figure 6. The tide-gauge observations, observation-based extrapolations, and local sea level rise 

scenarios for Honolulu, Hawai‘i, and Pago Pago, American Samoa. The observation extrapolation shows 

the median (black dashed line) and the 17th and 83rd percentile confidence interval (gray shading). The 

Honolulu extrapolation falls between the Low and Intermediate-Low scenarios in 2050. The Pago Pago 

extrapolation is higher than all scenarios because of rapid subsidence since the 2009 earthquake, as seen 

in the tide-gauge observation (thin black line).
12

Understanding the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Region 

Observation-Based Extrapolations

The regional observation-based extrapolations in the Gulf of Mexico are trending higher 

than other regions. In the Eastern Gulf, particularly across coastal Mississippi, Alabama, 

and Northwest Florida, the observed increase in acceleration is consistent for most tide 

gauges and is also observed in the historic satellite altimetry data. This means that the 

trend in acceleration is not being driven by land movement (e.g., subsidence), but is 

coming from ocean dynamics (i.e., how the ocean moves and heats). A consequence of 

this phenomenon is that observation-based extrapolations for many tide gauges in the 

Eastern Gulf are trending above the SLR scenarios in the near term (out to 2050).

What scientists are unsure of, and why the scenarios are different from the observationbased extrapolations, is if the observed acceleration in SLR will be sustained out to 2050 

and beyond, or if the rate of acceleration may slow down in the mid-term (next 15 to 30 

years). It could be that the observations are currently trending higher due to a temporary 

upswing in a cyclical process that is not yet well understood, or it could be that there are 

climate change-related processes that will continue this rate of acceleration into the long 

term. 

Either way, it must be acknowledged that SLR rates in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico 

have been rising quickly. Scientists are not sure exactly why, but it is likely to continue in 

the near term. Therefore, the observation-based extrapolations should be considered 

during near-term planning in this sub-region. For long-term planning, observation-based 

extrapolations are not relevant because they only provide an estimated SLR trajectory out 

to 2050.

Over time, with additional observing data and research of climatic processes, it will 

become clearer where we are headed. In the meantime, we have sufficient information to 

make informed decisions to increase our resilience to future flooding. 

3.4 Using Extreme Water Levels

The extreme water level analyses from the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report can be used to 

examine how the frequency of water levels exceeding different flood thresholds is expected to 

increase as seas rise (Figure 7). The 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report defined specific water level 

thresholds that reflect

• Critical frequencies (e.g., the water level that has an average recurrence interval of 10 years, 

also referred to as a 10% annual chance event) or

• Impacts (e.g., minor, moderate, or major flooding). 

Because SLR will increase the frequency of flood events, the extreme water level analyses can be 

used in conjunction with the 2022 SLR scenarios to determine when flood regime shifts will occur 

(e.g., when today’s moderate flood will occur as frequently as today’s minor flood).
13

This information provides contextualized understanding of how SLR will change the frequency 

of these extreme water levels and the time frame in which they may occur, enabling coastal 

professionals and decision makers to assess priorities for action and the timeline for accomplishing 

those actions. 

Figure 7. Change in frequency and magnitude of extreme coastal water level events in Portland, Maine, 

as sea level rises based on the supplementary extreme water level tables from the 2022 Technical Report. 

The lower curve represents extreme water levels (EWL) with average event frequencies ranging from 10 

events per year to 0.01 events per year (the “100-year event”) calibrated to the year 1992. Frequent events 

have lower magnitude water levels and vice versa. The upper curve represents the extreme water levels 

for the year 2050 using data from the Intermediate SLR scenario (approximately 1 foot). The Intermediate 

SLR scenario was selected because it is the upper bound for the observation-based extrapolation at this 

location. Local statistically derived flood thresholds are overlaid for context. Three annotations show A)

the 10% annual chance event in 1992 shifts to an event that may occur at least once a year in 2050, B) the 

Moderate flood threshold may be exceeded 18 times more frequently in 2050 than in 1992 (which is more 

frequent than a Minor flood in 1992), and C) the design flood elevation for a 25-year event may increase 

from 8.5 to 9.6 feet NAVD88 between 1992 and 2050.
14

For communities that do not already have flood thresholds related to flooding impacts, or if the 

NOAA thresholds don’t adequately represent the local flood risk, they can determine their own 

critical thresholds of flood frequencies and heights. For example, the City of Imperial Beach, 

California, partnered with Scripps Institution of Oceanography to develop minor and moderate flood 

thresholds based on water level observations. Once thresholds have been established, communities 

can use the extreme water level data to assess how frequently those thresholds may be met or 

exceeded as seas rise.

For more information on establishing critical flood thresholds, understanding the additive 

impacts from SLR, and utilizing these thresholds in coastal decision-making, view the 

NOAA Stormwater Tool, which has been updated to include the 2022 SLR scenarios. 

Through application of the “Assess” section of the tool, users can produce a “Quick Flood 

Assessment Report” that includes

• A user-defined coastal flood threshold,

• An estimate of how often the flood threshold level will be experienced,

• The effects of future SLR on the user’s threshold,

• The number of high-tide flooding days and how it might change in the future, and

• How often significant flood events might occur in the future.

For more examples of how the extreme water level information can be used and to access the current 

available analyses, see Sections 3 and 4 of the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report.

3.5 How to Apply Sea Level Rise Scenarios at Different Spatial Scales

To support planning, policy, and decision-making at multiple spatial scales, the 2022 Sea Level Rise 

Technical Report provides SLR scenarios at different geographic scales. Variations in ocean and earth 

surface processes (e.g., uneven heating, changes in ocean currents, and vertical land motion) cause 

the rate and magnitude of SLR to be location-specific, often referred to as relative SLR. For example, 

under an Intermediate-High scenario, the Western Gulf Coast is expected to see an increase of 2.1 

ft (0.6 m) by 2050 relative to a year 2000 baseline, but Southern California is projected to see an 

increase of 1.0 ft (0.3 m). In the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report, the provided geographic scales 

are

• Global (i.e., a global average sea level change),

• National (i.e., averaged for the shorelines of the contiguous United States),

• Regional for eight regions in the United States, and

• Local for tide stations and grid stations distributed along the shorelines of the U.S.

Grid stations are theoretical stations that are located at the center of 1 degree latitude by 1 degree 

longitude cells and cover the entire U.S. coastline (Figures 8 and 9). Using this gridded approach 

allows the generation of SLR scenarios for locations that do not have a nearby tide station. While tide 

station scenarios can be appropriately applied at the city level for the city in which they are located, 

grid stations should be used beyond the local vicinity of tide gauges (i.e., county scale or larger). 
15

Projections for each grid station can be accessed through the CSV file located on the Technical Report 

Data and Tools web page, NOAA’s API URL Builder, and NASA’s Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario 

Tool. See Section 3.8 of this Application Guide for additional information on accessing the 2022 Sea 

Level Rise Technical Report data.

Figure 8. Gridded median projections of sea level change estimates in 2100 for the Intermediate SLR 

scenario with tide gauges overlaid. The inset highlights the Channel Islands, California, sub-region and 

illustrates the continuous coverage provided by the gridded data to fill gaps between tide gauges.

SLR vulnerability assessments and planning are typically conducted at a regional or local scale. 

Therefore, it is generally recommended to use the local or regional SLR scenarios because these 

capture important processes that can influence SLR at that specific location. For example, in 

Florida, the current recommendation from the state’s Department of Environmental Protection is 

that communities use the SLR scenarios for local tide gauges when planning. In locations where 

tide gauges are more limited or when planning extends across a range of tide gauges, using regional 

scenarios may be appropriate. The Maine Climate Council’s Scientific and Technical Subcommittee

assessed a suite of scenarios averaged across multiple tide gauges to generate a single set of SLR 

projections that are applicable statewide. This regionalization approach is useful when the variability 

among gauges is low and states or regional entities need to issue guidance that is broadly applicable. 

Regional scenarios can also provide a point of comparison when there is a high level of uncertainty at 

a particular grid or gauge, such as Philadelphia’s Pier 9N tide gauge. 
16

Figure 9. Gridded median projections of sea level change estimates in 2100 for the Intermediate SLR 

scenario with tide gauges overlaid. Panel includes data for A) Alaska, B) Saipan and Tinian in the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, C) Guam, D) the Manua Islands in American Samoa, E) 

Tutuila in American Samoa, F) Hawai‘i, G) Puerto Rico, H) St. Thomas and St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

and I) St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
17

3.6 Considering 2022 Scenarios When Other Sea Level Rise Scenarios 

Are Already in Use

For coastal planners and decision makers that have already started SLR planning using the 2017 SLR 

scenarios (Sweet et al. 2017) or other older scenarios, there are several ways to consider the 2022 SLR 

scenarios.

Some key changes to keep in mind that may be relevant to current planning (Figure 10):

• There is no longer an Extreme scenario. This was removed based on advancements in 

science that indicated reaching an average global SLR of 8.2 ft (2.5 m) by 2100 had a very low 

probability of occurring. Global average sea level could still reach or exceed this threshold after 

2100 (e.g., Intermediate-High and High scenarios in 2150).

• While the 2017 and 2022 SLR scenarios reach the same global mean sea level values by 2100, 

the 2022 SLR scenario pathways reflect slower acceleration of SLR in the near term, but a 

greater acceleration in rates of SLR after 2050. See Section 2.2.3 in the 2022 Sea Level Rise 

Technical Report for details on the science advancements that led to these pathways. 

• 2022 SLR scenarios out to 2050 reflect greater scientific alignment and certainty and this 

narrowed the SLR scenario ranges for this time period. 

• Local and regional-level SLR scenarios were also updated. Compared to the 2017 SLR scenarios, 

the 2022 scenarios are generally higher for the Low and Intermediate-Low scenarios and lower 

for the Intermediate through High scenarios in 2100. 

Figure 10. Global mean sea level rise scenarios from the 2017 to the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Reports 

referenced to a year 2000 baseline. Updates include the removal of the Extreme scenario and a narrower 

range among scenarios over the next few decades.
18

Integration of the updated scenarios depends on stage and type of planning, along with aspects such 

as available resources, planning time frame, data needs, and political will. If a project or planning 

effort is already underway, the difference between the 2017 and the 2022 SLR scenarios should be 

considered, but the decision whether to change specific numbers in use will be determined by the 

project. For new projects and projects in the early planning stages, the 2022 SLR scenarios are the 

most appropriate to apply as they reflect the latest science.

3.7 Understanding Datums, Baselines, and Epochs

Applying SLR projections to real-world projects requires an understanding of the relationships 

between various elevation references, or vertical datums, and the points in time that they represent. 

Ensuring that SLR data and local vertical datums are comparable is an important practical aspect 

of SLR planning. Tidal datums are referenced to specific periods of time known as epochs. SLR 

projections are initiated from a starting year, often referred to as a baseline year. When applying 

SLR scenarios to local land elevations or comparing them to local tidal datums, it is important 

that the SLR scenario baseline and the midpoint of the tidal datum epoch are aligned. This section 

will explore a few important concepts related to datums and baselines. NOAA’s National Geodetic 

Survey (NGS) provides more information on geodetic datums, and NOAA’s Center for Operational 

Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS) provides more information on tidal datums.

Water levels or depths are most often referenced to tidal datums that are location-specific and are 

based on local tidal dynamics. National tidal datums as defined by NOAA, such as mean sea level 

(MSL), are generally calculated at individual tide gauges by averaging water level measurements over 

a 19-year period, or epoch, to account for long-term variations in the moon’s orbit and associated 

tide ranges (NOAA offers more information on the National Tidal Datum Epoch, or NTDE, and the 

significance of the 18.6 year astronomical cycle). MSL tidal datum values for the current NTDE, for 

example, represent the average of hourly water level heights measured over the 19-year period from 

1983 to 2001 (or a Modified 5-Year Epoch in regions with anomalous sea level changes, such as those 

resulting from rapid or episodic vertical land motion), and therefore represent average sea level 

heights for this time period. Tidal datum epochs are updated at regular intervals to account for sea 

level change. The NTDE 83-01 epoch has a midpoint of 1992, which can be considered the baseline 

year for the NTDE 83-01 tidal datum. Other commonly used vertical datums include Mean Higher 

High Water (MHHW) and Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), which represent the average of the higher 

high (or lower low) water height of each tide observed during the epoch.

Elevations on land are most often referenced to geodetic or orthometric datums, which are 

nationally consistent reference systems that are based on benchmarks. The North American Vertical 

Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) is an orthometric datum that is primarily used as a land-based reference 

for measuring elevations (e.g., base flood elevation, road elevation, bridge deck height). Tools 

such as VDatum provide methods for transforming between different tidal, orthometric, and other 

datums. Local vertical control datums are also developed by municipalities and others for specific 

engineering, planning, and design applications, and these require yet another transformation when 

aligning with national tidal and orthometric datums. Local experts can often provide technical 

assistance to further refine datum transformations to make sure that everything is comparable and 
19

using the same frame of reference. It is important to note that the datums discussed here are official 

national datums and are updated over time. Both the current National Tidal Datum Epoch (1983-

2001) and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 are in the process of being updated and will be 

superseded by new datums in the near future (by 2025).

In order to understand how future water levels will relate to existing tidal datums, it is necessary to 

align the SLR scenario(s) and the datum of interest (e.g., MSL, MHHW) to the same baseline year. It 

is not sufficient to simply overlay a 2022 SLR scenario on an existing tidal record because they often 

use different baseline years. This type of temporal baseline adjustment typically involves applying 

a vertical offset that corresponds to the amount of sea level change observed between the different 

baseline years. Different approaches can be used to align baseline years depending on the datum(s) 

of interest. Aligning baseline years of existing tidal datums with the 2022 SLR scenarios can be done 

by shifting the tidal datum baselines to match the SLR baseline year (e.g., 1992 to 2000), or by shifting 

the SLR baseline year to match the tidal datum baseline year (e.g., 2000 to 1992). There are different 

ways this can be achieved using existing data. The 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report provides 

regional vertical offsets for the periods 1992-2000, 2000-2005, and 2005-2020. These offsets were 

generated from the regional-scale observation-based extrapolations and capture recent non-linear 

SLR. Time-series data of average annual water levels were developed to support the observationbased extrapolation analysis for the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report and can be used to adjust 

the SLR scenarios or tidal datums to other baseline years. These time-series data are accessible via 

the NASA Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool. For more detailed information and methodological 

choices, data sources, and an example for Washington, DC, see Appendix A.

When translating current and future water levels to equivalent land-based elevations (NAVD88), 

it is necessary to use an appropriate local transformation because the relationships between 

tidal datums and NAVD88 vary spatially. The relationship between tidal datums and NAVD88 is 

most accurately defined at individual tide stations. Therefore, when determining the land-based 

elevations of future water levels it is necessary to 1) align the SLR and tidal datum baseline years, 

and 2) ensure that the tidal datum-to-NAVD88 relationship is maintained or adjusted depending on 

the direction that the baseline year is shifted. In practice, this usually means that SLR scenarios are 

adjusted to the midpoint of the tidal datum epoch for a given tide station (1992 in most cases) in 

order to use the published relationship between a given tidal datum and NAVD88.
20

The 2022 SLR scenarios were developed with a starting year of 2005. The 2022 Sea Level 

Rise Technical Report presents the 2022 SLR scenarios with the baseline year adjusted 

to 2000 for consistency with the 2017 SLR scenarios, which were provided in all locations 

with a baseline year of 2000. However, the data associated with the 2022 Sea Level Rise 

Technical Report are available from various sources and the baseline years vary from 

source to source (2000 or 2005). So, if the 2022 scenarios are being compared to the 2017 

scenarios, it is important to be sure that they are using the same baseline year. Offset 

values are provided in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report to adjust the baseline year 

of the 2022 SLR scenario data from 2005 to 2000. The offsets for this 5-year period range 

from 0.4 to 1.6 inches, and the average value for the contiguous U.S. is 1.2 inches.

When using different SLR tools, check which baseline(s) are being used; tools that 

compare across tidal and land-based datums will continue to use the 1992 baseline until 

the National Tidal Datum Epoch is updated.

3.8 Accessing the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report Data

The 2022 SLR scenarios presented in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report can be downloaded 

from three primary locations:

1. The NOAA 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report Data and Tools website provides access to SLR 

and extreme water level data in comma separated value (CSV) files. The SLR data represent 

projected changes in sea level from a baseline year of 2005. The CSV file for the SLR data 

includes regional offset values to adjust the baseline year to 1992 or 2000.

2. The NOAA CO-OPS API URL Builder provides access to SLR scenario data from the 2017 and 

2022 reports in JSON and XML formats. The 2017 SLR data are served with a baseline year 

of 2000, while the 2022 data are served with a baseline year of 2005. The API allows users to 

specify units (inches or centimeters) and filter for specific scenarios and projection years.

3. The NASA Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool provides the SLR scenarios and 

observation-based extrapolation data discussed in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report. 

These data are available for download in Microsoft Excel (XLSX) and NetCDF formats and are 

provided with a year-2000 baseline. The adjustment of the SLR data from 2005 to 2000 was 

performed using the observation-based extrapolation data.
21

4. APPROACHES FOR INTEGRATING THE 2022 SEA LEVEL RISE 

SCENARIOS INTO PLANNING

When planning for SLR, there is no “wrong” answer to how much SLR to plan for. Like all planning 

decisions, preparing for SLR involves using the best available information to anticipate potential 

impacts for a specific set of planning and decision-making goals. The 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical 

Report provides multiple lines of evidence based on improved science to help guide planning for 

future SLR and addressing uncertainty by distinguishing between two planning time horizons: 1) 

near-term (present to 2050) and 2) long-term (2050 to 2150).

For the near term, the narrow range of SLR scenarios in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report 

emphasizes greater certainty in the amount of SLR to expect through 2050. This can assist coastal 

decision makers and professionals by providing greater confidence for making decisions or 

investments regarding assets and resources needed to address SLR that will occur in the next 30 

years. For long-term planning, the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report synthesizes current scientific 

consensus around future long-term (2050 to 2150) SLR across a range of potential processes, 

emissions, and warming.

This section

• Discusses a preliminary step of evaluating sea level rise exposure and vulnerability to 

determine what is at risk; and

• Provides an overview of commonly used approaches for SLR planning in the face of 

uncertainty—Risk Tolerance, Scenario Planning, and Adaptation Pathways approaches—

• By providing methods for integrating the data from the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical 

Report into each of these planning approaches; and

• By including references along with actual and theoretical examples of applying SLR science 

for each of these planning approaches.

This section is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all approaches; it is meant to identify broader 

conceptual approaches, and we acknowledge that in practice the use of these concepts will be 

adapted to meet the unique needs and capacity of each community. Furthermore, terminology 

associated with these concepts can vary. Terms and phrases are defined for clarity. These 

approaches are also not mutually exclusive and are often combined to address SLR—there is no onesize-fits-all approach.

4.1 Evaluating Sea Level Rise Exposure and Vulnerability

The first step for community planners and decision makers when considering SLR is to understand 

what assets, services, and culturally and ecologically significant areas in the region will potentially 

be exposed to SLR-related impacts over relevant time frames. As part of the process, communities 

evaluate what local areas and assets are likely to be exposed to flooding and permanent inundation 

across a spectrum of possible SLR scenarios. Evaluating exposure can also include an assessment of 

related coastal hazards that are intensified by rising sea levels, such as coastal erosion and elevated 

groundwater. Depending on the location, even slight increases in sea level can amplify flooding 
22

extent and magnitude during periods of high tides, storm surge, large wave events, or elevated 

groundwater levels. These hazards can also be amplified by heavy rainfall or higher sea levels, 

reducing the on-land drainage capacity.

Exposure information can then be used to assess the vulnerability of specific infrastructure, natural 

and cultural resources, people, or services. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2012) 

defined vulnerability as a function of the exposure of a particular system to climatic changes (e.g., 

SLR), its sensitivity to specific hazards, and its capacity to adapt to those changes (also referred to as 

adaptive capacity). In some situations, a community or agency may choose to assess vulnerability 

across the full range of Low to High SLR scenarios for specific future planning horizons (e.g., 2050, 

2075, 2100) to gain a broad understanding of potential risks. Other entities choose to narrow the 

range of SLR scenarios for consistency across multiple vulnerability assessments or to reduce 

computational expense. For example, in 2022 the State of Florida Resilient Coastlines Program 

required that any community vulnerability assessments they funded use the local 2017 Sea Level 

Rise Technical Report Intermediate-Low and Intermediate-High SLR scenarios. The outcome of a 

vulnerability assessment is often a list of those assets or services that are most likely to be negatively 

impacted as sea level rises, which can then be used to aid and inform sea level rise planning, 

including the selection or prioritization of adaptation projects or strategies. 

4.2 Sea Level Rise Planning Using a Risk Tolerance Approach

When planning for SLR, one common approach is to determine what level of risk tolerance is 

acceptable and then use this filter to narrow the range of SLR scenarios included in planning. Risk 

tolerance is subjective and is unique to the community and the infrastructure, project, or landscape 

being considered. However, there are common considerations for setting risk tolerance that fosters 

objectivity. These include understanding how critical the location or asset is to the community, the 

cost of damage, sociocultural value, how easily it can be adapted to accommodate SLR (adaptive 

capacity), and its life expectancy. For example, a coastal wastewater treatment facility deemed 

critical to the community for the next 50-60 years, and difficult to adapt or relocate, would likely be 

assigned a low risk tolerance. In this type of situation where risk tolerance is low, a community will 

often focus on the Intermediate-High or High SLR scenarios. Although these scenarios have a lower 

probability of occurring than the Low or Intermediate-Low scenarios, they could happen, and would 

have severe impacts if they did. Conversely, if a project is categorized as having a high risk tolerance 

(e.g., doesn’t have a long life span, is easier to move or adapt, or has a relatively low value to the 

community), a community may instead look at applying the SLR scenarios most likely to occur (Low 

to Intermediate). 

Risk tolerance should be based on socioeconomic and cultural values and be developed with local 

community stakeholders to understand place-based significance and sensitivities regarding these 

assets and their tolerance for SLR impacts. Characterizing risk tolerance for a specific project with 

stakeholders fosters increased buy-in and understanding of the process, and improved agreement 

with the amount of SLR that was chosen. Stakeholder engagement also contributes critical local 

knowledge to more accurately and fully assess risk tolerance. 

A risk-tolerance approach can be useful for narrowing the range of SLR scenarios used for adaptation 

planning in situations where the landscape is less dynamic and does not change frequently (e.g., 
23

upland areas). Conversely, a risk-tolerance approach is not well-suited for coastal landscapes with a 

high propensity for shoreline change (e.g., barrier islands) because the landscape is likely to undergo 

frequent and substantial changes, making it extremely difficult to anticipate conditions in the midand long-term future. Risk-tolerance planning is also not compatible with some aspects of coastal 

restoration. For example, planning the height of a restored marsh platform requires it be built within 

the existing tidal range, not where the tidal range will be in the future. Finally, risk-tolerance planning 

can potentially lead to over-investment or over-design; therefore, it is essential that communities 

also consider technology innovations, energy-climate policies, and social priorities and how these 

may shift in 30-50 years, affecting the life expectancy or value of certain community spaces or 

infrastructure. 

2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report Considerations for Risk-Tolerance Planning

For near-term planning, the narrow range of SLR scenarios out to 2050 coupled with the regional 

observation-based extrapolations provide a valuable guide about likely SLR out to 2050. For 

example, in the Southwest region, the observation-based extrapolations are closely tracking 

the Intermediate SLR scenario (Figure 11). In this case, planners working on a project with a high 

tolerance for risk may want to focus on the Intermediate SLR scenario because even if SLR exceeded 

the Intermediate SLR scenario, the impacts to that asset would be relatively minor. However, 

planners working on a project with a low risk tolerance may want to focus on the Intermediate-High 

or High SLR scenarios that, while still possible, are less likely to be exceeded. It is also important 

to keep in mind that due to the overall smaller range in scenarios in the near term, the difference 

between the Intermediate-High and High scenarios is fairly modest (less than three inches).

Figure 11. Regional sea level rise scenarios and the observation-based extrapolation for the Southwest 

Region (California and Southern Oregon). Average annual water levels from tide gauges throughout the 

region are overlaid for context.
24

After 2050, there are greater uncertainties and different processes driving the range of SLR scenarios; 

therefore, other mechanisms are required to assess the likelihood of exceeding a specific SLR 

scenario. The 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report assesses the likelihood of SLR scenarios being 

exceeded depending on different temperatures and related emissions scenarios. From these 

assessments, two concepts are clear: the greater the warming, the more likely SLR will be higher; 

and the lower SLR scenarios are very likely to be exceeded and the higher scenarios are very unlikely 

to be exceeded. When using the risk-tolerance approach for longer-term planning, likelihoods 

of scenarios being exceeded can be assessed using Table 1, instead of the observation-based 

extrapolations. For example, when planning a project with a long life span (beyond 2050) with a low 

tolerance for risk, choosing the higher SLR scenarios that are less likely to be exceeded, would result 

in greater risk avoidance. 
25

Table 1. This table shows the probability, or likelihood, of exceeding the associated global SLR scenario 

by 2100 under a range of different temperature and related emissions scenarios (emissions scenarios are 

represented through Shared Socioeconomic Pathways [SSPs]). For the low confidence processes (last row) 

a single temperature is not listed because the exceedance probabilities were based on a framework of 

high emissions, high warming, and the occurrence of low confidence processes. The greater the warming, 

the more likely SLR will be higher, and overall, lower scenarios are more likely to be exceeded and higher 

scenarios are very unlikely to be exceeded. 

Increase 

in Average 

Global Air 

Temperature 

in 2100

Closest 

Emissions 

Scenario

Likelihood of Exceeding a SLR Scenario

Low IntermediateLow Intermediate IntermediateHigh High

2.7°F

(1.5°C)

Low 

Emissions

(SSP 1-2.6)

92% 37% <1% <1% <1%

5.4°F

(3.0°C)

Intermediate 

to High 

Emissions

(SSP 2-4.5 – 

SSP 3-7.0)

>99% 82% 5% <1% <1%

9.0°F

(5.0°C)

Very High 

Emissions

(SSP 5-8.5)

>99% >99% 23% 2% <1%

*

Very High 

Emissions

(SSP 5-8.5) 

with Low 

Confidence 

Processes

>99% 96% 49% 20% 8%

* Single temperature not listed because the exceedance probabilities were based on a framework 

 of high emissions, high warming, and the occurrence of low confidence processes.
26

Examples of the Risk-Tolerance Approach in Application

The Jackson County Utility Authority (JCUA) in Mississippi was considering consolidating three 

wastewater treatment facilities into one. This facility would open in 2030 and be operational for 

50 years. JCUA determined this project had a low tolerance for risk because of its low adaptive 

capacity, the expense to build it, and the fact that it provided a critical public health and 

environmental function to many community members. Given these considerations, the utility opted 

to design a flood protection berm that would account for the 0.2% annual chance flood event under 

the High SLR scenario for the county in the year 2080 (accounting for the treatment plant’s full life 

expectancy).

JCUA also used the risk-tolerance approach to prioritize where to focus its near-term efforts for 

transitioning parcels with septic tanks to centralized wastewater. In planning for the transitioning of 

septic tanks, there was a high risk tolerance because all septic tanks were intended to be transferred 

(eventually) to centralized wastewater. Therefore, JCUA decided to use the Intermediate-Low 

SLR scenario, which was very likely to occur and even be exceeded. This type of approach helped 

prioritize the septic to centralized wastewater in parcels most likely to be affected so they could be 

addressed first. From there, the utility examined where future high tide and the 1% annual chance 

flood event (with SLR) would directly begin to impact additional septic tanks. Note: this was before 

the observation-based extrapolation data were available. 

4.3 Sea Level Rise Planning Using a Scenario-Based Approach

Another approach to planning for changes in sea level is scenario-based planning. In this approach, 

a planning team examines a range of “future scenarios” that represent future conditions inclusive of 

both human and environmental changes (e.g., land use changes, rising seas, precipitation changes). 

In this approach, multiple potential mitigation or adaptation strategies are evaluated under 

different future scenarios to determine which strategies best meet the desired outcomes. This may 

mean that a community does not pick an action that is the best under any one future scenario, but 

that could be somewhat effective under multiple scenarios (Figure 12).
27

Figure 12. Conceptualization of scenario planning. Scenarios refer to various climate scenarios (e.g., high 

sea-level rise and low land-use change vs. low sea-level rise and low land-use change). Management 

strategies are different approaches for achieving a specific planning goal. The colors designate how well 

a management strategy meets a desired outcome (red = does not meet outcome, yellow = moderately 

meets the desired outcome, green = meets the desired outcome well). In this conceptualization, 

Management Strategy 2 would likely be the best investment (indicated by the dashed outline) because 

while it is not the best (green) under all scenarios, it supports the desired outcome to some level under all 

future conditions explored.

Scenario planning provides opportunities for integrating stakeholders into the planning process, and 

may include characterizing the different future scenarios to explore, identifying which mitigation 

or adaptation strategies to evaluate, or defining measures of success by which to evaluate the 

mitigation or adaptation strategies. Integrating stakeholders in scenario-planning processes 

provides additional opportunities for equitable SLR resilience.

Scenario planning can be useful for complex coastal landscapes and management regimes where 

multifaceted, interacting processes make it difficult to determine how a landscape will respond over 

time. It is also useful when there are multiple natural resource and management responses that can 

have significant benefits or impacts to the landscape’s ability to adapt, recover, or transition over 

time. However, scenario planning can be time consuming and often requires additional research or 

modeling work. This may not be a good approach for projects where it is known that a mitigation or 

adaptation strategy must function in a worst or near-worst case scenario. It would also not be the 

best option for simple efforts with only one stressor or outcome of interest, or in situations where 

decisions need to be made quickly.

2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report Considerations for Scenario Planning

For near-term scenario planning, the observation-based extrapolations and the overall narrow range 

between SLR scenarios in 2050 can help to limit the analysis needed to evaluate future potential 

SLR. Returning to the Southwest example (Figure 11), a community may want to narrow its scenarioplanning exercise to only the Intermediate-Low (0.66 ft), Intermediate (0.79 ft), and IntermediateHigh (1.02 ft) SLR scenarios, as these are the ones that most closely align with the observation-based 

extrapolation’s entire range of uncertainty. Or, since the Low (0.49 ft) and High (1.25 ft) SLR scenarios 

are less than a foot apart, they could decide the full range is worth evaluating. Using fewer scenarios 

may permit a more detailed evaluation of other stressors in the planning scenarios.
28

When scenario planning beyond 2050, a community should consider using a broad range of SLR 

scenarios to create a robust picture of potential future conditions. However, this may not mean 

evaluating every SLR scenario, but strategically selecting specific time horizons and scenarios that 

can best represent potential future conditions. This can help to focus additional modeling and 

analysis so that it meets the needs and expectations of the scenario-planning effort.

Examples of Scenario-Planning Application

Scenario planning has a long and robust history with examples from the military and land use 

planning. There are many available resources (Section 5) on how to successfully pursue scenario 

planning, including some specifically for natural resource management in the face of climate 

change. We highly encourage anyone considering scenario planning to review some of these 

resources.

One example is a planning process focused on the Florida Everglades, where it is uncertain how 

climate change will impact the hydrologic functions that support wildlife in freshwater wetlands. 

Using climate change projections for 2060, four possible futures were explored that characterized 

different temperature, SLR, and precipitation conditions. Each climate scenario was examined for 

how birds, fish, alligators, amphibians, and invasive species would be impacted. This scenariobased planning framework identified specific locations where habitat important for sustaining 

priority wildlife appeared to maintain health and function under multiple future conditions. It also 

identified locations where important habitats did poorly under multiple scenarios. This allows 

considerations of which areas within the Everglades may be more appropriate for conservation or 

restoration. Further, the analyses identified that overall restoration strategies that are focused on 

increasing the delivery of freshwater into marshes and coastal wetlands should be a high priority, 

as this would benefit many of the critical species across a range of planning scenarios. 

Another common example of scenario planning is when adaptation strategies designed to protect 

an area of coastline from erosion are evaluated against a range of SLR scenarios combined with 

a range of storm events. Planners may evaluate how well different options such as seawalls, rock 

revetments, shoreline planting, or oyster reefs might perform in the different scenarios, as well as 

evaluating the feasibility of deploying these different options to provide protection from different 

magnitude events.
29

4.4 Sea Level Rise Planning Using an Adaptation Pathways Approach

Adaptation pathways allow planners and decision makers to map out a sequence of adaptation 

strategies in response to rising seas. Adaptation pathways can help a community plan for a range of 

uncertain futures while only investing in adaptation strategies when necessary. Adaptation pathways 

are built around specific goals (e.g., protecting specific infrastructure) and examine possible 

futures and potential adaptation or mitigation strategies to achieve those project goals. Adaptation 

strategies considered may cover a range of costs, effort, and desirability. Adaptation pathways 

identify thresholds, or “tipping points” when an adaptation strategy will no longer be effective 

(Figure 13). In SLR planning processes, a tipping point can be tied to observed amounts of relative 

SLR, or any number of other physical, economic, or biological thresholds. The various pathways 

or sequences of actions are also often ordered such that more cost-effective or desired actions are 

implemented first, whereas more significant or expensive capital projects are deferred to allow time 

to prepare for more significant and expensive capital projects.

Figure 13. Conceptualized diagram of an adaptation pathway planning approach. Tipping points in this 

case are associated with observed sea level change, and strategies are ordered within the pathway based 

on cost and effort. In some cases, it may make sense to skip a strategy (i.e., Strategy B and C) if it will have 

already been rendered ineffective as well by the amount of sea level rise.

Community residents and other stakeholders can be engaged in the adaptation planning process 

by involving them in determining and evaluating potential strategies (e.g., in defining success and 

failure, success could be defined as a dune not breaching, or failure could be defined as critical 

infrastructure being exposed during a storm). This will foster shared understanding of why some 

efforts are being undertaken and not others, and provide for more clear communications when it is 

time for decisions regarding additional actions.

Adaptation pathways can allow for greater flexibility while minimizing upfront investment costs that 

may be required to address higher magnitude, but less certain, sea level possibilities. This approach 

is also useful in highly dynamic environments (e.g., beaches, dunes, barrier islands), in situations 
30

where there are limited funds, or where there is little political will to plan for rising seas. It can also 

be suitable for communities looking to make immediate investments in nature-based or smallerscale flood protection measures, like earth berms, coastal dunes, or wetland restoration, while still 

indicating their commitment for more costly and complex adaptation strategies such as elevating 

or realigning coastal transportation corridors. Adaptation pathways may be less appropriate when 

there is little adaptive capacity or in highly complex settings where there may be multiple objectives 

or desired outcomes.

2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report Considerations 

for Adaptation Pathway Planning

The adaptation pathways approach can be utilized for both near- and long-term planning, but 

planners may have different reasons for using it across different timescales. In the near term, it might 

be associated with needing to prioritize limited available funding, whereas in the long-term it can 

allow for flexibility in the face of uncertainty about how much sea level will rise.

The 2022 SLR scenarios can provide guidance on the amount of SLR to consider when constructing 

the adaptation pathways. Because of the nature of adaptation pathways, potential adaptation 

strategies should be evaluated across a range of potential SLR amounts, which can be determined by 

considering the range in the 2022 SLR scenarios across the planning timeline. Evaluating adaptation 

strategies against many SLR amounts can be expensive or time consuming, so it may make sense to 

choose fewer SLR amounts that cover a larger range of possible SLR amounts in both the near and 

long term. 

In addition to providing a range of SLR amounts to consider, the 2022 SLR scenarios also provide an 

opportunity to assess feasibility of different management actions by evaluating when a particular 

SLR amount may be crossed. For example, a very expensive strategy associated with reducing risks 

associated with 3 feet of sea level change may not be as feasible if that change is likely to occur 

rapidly under multiple 2022 SLR scenarios. Expensive or highly intensive adaptation strategies 

require fiscal resources, consensus, and political will, which may take a great deal of time, more than 

is available.

Example of Adaptation Pathways Application

The Town of Falmouth, Massachusetts, developed a coastal resilience plan based on the dynamic 

adaptation pathways approach to reduce flood vulnerabilities of specific assets (Town of Falmouth, 

2020). This approach allowed flexibility in future adaptation pathways, with decision points and 

actions being triggered when specific amounts of SLR have been observed or certain functions are 

lost (Figure 14). An important component of the work in Falmouth was the integration of community 

outreach and engagement throughout the plan, as well as identifying how local land-use decisions, 

governance, and permitting may need to be revisited to support the long-term adaptation vision.
31

Figure 14. A dynamic adaptation pathways example from a coastal resilience planning process focused 

on Surf Drive in Falmouth, Massachusetts. In the top panel, adaptation actions are identified and their 

feasibility is evaluated under different amounts of future sea level rise (black line with different timelines 

associated with emissions scenarios represented by gray arrows). The actions are categorized into four 

general themes: managed retreat, protection, natural resources, and connections. The bottom panel 

assesses these themes individually and in combination for cost, target effects, and side effects. These are 

presented as path actions and a preferred path is identified (dashed red line) that addresses many of 

the community priorities considered during the planning process. This is a detailed representation of a 

multifaceted process. Readers are encouraged to refer to source documents for a full description.
32

5. I’VE MADE IT THIS FAR. WHAT DO I DO NOW?

A key message of the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report is that the impacts of SLR are here, 

and are not a problem that can be pushed off to the next planning cycle, or on to the shoulders 

of future decision makers. This document, Application Guide for the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical 

Report (Application Guide), is designed to assist decision makers and coastal professionals in the 

application and integration of the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report into coastal planning and 

adaptation decisions. The considerations included in this guide can be daunting, though, if only 

because of their variety. The lessons in this guide are distilled from numerous case studies and 

specific examples from across the nation, and represent innovative thinking and planning occurring 

in neighborhoods, towns, and cities across the country. The people at the center of these processes 

struggled with many of the same questions that you may be facing: What approach should I use? 

What scenario should I plan with? The answers to those questions are not always easy to come by, 

but do not let them become an obstacle to getting started.

If you do find yourself ready to integrate SLR considerations into your coastal decision-making, there 

are numerous additional resources that can enrich your understanding of sea level science, the 

impacts of SLR, approaches for assessing SLR vulnerability, and adaptation options and strategies. 

To that end, we have compiled a set of suggested additional resources. This is by no means an 

exhaustive list; there are many other high quality and salient resources covering these topics. This 

list simply represents a collection the authors of this report have found to be helpful in their work. 

Dig Into the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report

• Key Takeaway Messages from the Technical Report

• Frequently Asked Questions for the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report

• 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report

Access Data from the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report and Updated Tools

• Visualize community-level impacts from SLR and coastal flooding on NOAA’s Digital Coast Sea 

Level Rise Viewer.

• Visualize the updated scenarios and the new extrapolated observations data, as well as 

download the data, for global, regional, or individual tide gauges on NASA’s Interagency Sea 

Level Rise Scenario Tool.

• Generate reports with current and future flooding impacts on stormwater systems with NOAA’s 

Adapting Stormwater Management for Coastal Floods tool.

• View accessible charts and graphs with sea level rise data for a specific coastal county on 

NOAA’s Coastal County Snapshot tool.

• Access and download SLR observation data, trends, and projections at specific tide gauges on 

NOAA’s Sea Level Rise API URL Builder.

• Download three data sets—Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level (2000-2150); Extreme Water 

Levels (Tide Gauges); and Extreme Water Levels (Gridded)—from the 2022 Sea Level Rise 

Technical Report data and tools page.
33

Learn More About Sea Level Rise

• Learning Module on Sea Level Rise from NASA and NOAA

• Coastal Inundation Resources from NOAA’s Digital Coast

• Glossary of Sea Level Rise Terms from Washington State and Washington Sea Grant

• Glossary of Flood Terms from University of Georgia and Georgia Sea Grant

• Sea Level Change Portal from NASA

Communicating Sea Level Rise

• Videos on Sea Level Rise, Impacts, and Adaptation Case Studies from the Resilience to Future 

Flooding Project

• SLR Graphics Library from the Resilience to Future Flooding Project

Learn More About Community Engagement

• Toolkit on Equitable Adaptation: Legal and Policy from Georgetown Climate Center 

• Framework on Community-Driven Climate Resilience Planning from Movement Strategy Center 

(MSC) and the National Association of Climate Resilience Planners (NACRP)

• Toolkit on Advancing Resistance and Resilience in Climate Change Adaptation from the NAACP

• Case Studies on Municipal Community-Driven Environmental and Racial Equity Committees from 

the Urban Sustainability Directors Network Innovation Fund, Facilitating Power, MSC, and the 

NACRP

A Few Examples of SLR Planning 

• Risk-Tolerance Approach

• Jackson County Utility Authority, Mississippi (See Section 1.4)

• Scenario-Planning Approach

• Everglades, Florida

• Humboldt Bay, Jacobs Avenue, California

• Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Washington (see pages 15-16)

• Metro Parks, Tacoma, Washington (site design example)

• Monmouth County, New Jersey (using total water levels)

• Tijuana River Valley, California

• Guide from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Considering Multiple Futures: Scenario Planning 

to Address Uncertainty in Natural Resource Conservation

• Adaptation Pathways Approach

• Town of Falmouth, Massachusetts

Training Resources

• Training on sea level rise tools, coastal inundation mapping, coastal adaptation, coastal 

flooding, coastal stormwater management, nature-based solutions, and more from NOAA’s 

Digital Coast

• Sea-Level Rise in the Classroom Curriculum - targeted to support educating high school students 

but appropriate for older and more advanced audiences
34

Reports Cited

Fox-Kemper, B., H.T. Hewitt, C. Xiao, G. Aðalgeirsdóttir, S.S. Drijfhout, T.L. Edwards, N.R. Golledge, 

M. Hemer, R.E. Kopp, G. Krinner, A. Mix, D. Notz, S. Nowicki, I.S. Nurhati, L. Ruiz, J.-B. Sallée, A.B.A. 

Slangen, and Y. Yu, 2021: Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change. In: Climate Change 2021: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [MassonDelmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, 

C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. 

Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press. In Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and 

Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, 

K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.

Maine Climate Council (MCC) Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STS), 2020. Scientific 

Assessment of Climate Change and Its Effects in Maine: A Report by the Scientific and Technical 

Subcommittee of the Maine Climate Council. Augusta, Maine. 370 pp. http://climatecouncil.maine.

gov/future/sites/maine.gov.future/files/inline-files/GOPIF_STS_REPORT_092320.pdf

Sweet, W.V., R.E. Kopp, C.P. Weaver, J. Obeysekera, R.M. Horton, E.R. Thieler, and C. Zervas, 2017: 

Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States. NOAA Technical Report NOS 

CO-OPS 083. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Center for 

Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, Silver Spring, MD, 75 pp. https://tidesandcurrents.

noaa.gov/publications/techrpt83_Global_and_Regional_SLR_Scenarios_for_the_US_final.pdf

Sweet, W.V., B.D. Hamlington, R.E. Kopp, C.P. Weaver, P.L. Barnard, D. Bekaert, W. Brooks, M. 

Craghan, G. Dusek, T. Frederikse, G. Garner, A.S. Genz, J.P. Krasting, E. Larour, D. Marcy, J.J. Marra, J. 

Obeysekera, M. Osler, M. Pendleton, D. Roman, L. Schmied, W. Veatch, K.D. White, and C. Zuzak, 2022: 

Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and 

Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines. NOAA Technical Report NOS 01. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD, 111 pp. 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLRscenarios-US.pdf

Town of Falmouth. (2020). Coastal Resiliency Planning for the Surf Drive Area. https://www.

falmouthma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8286/Surf-Drive-DRAFT-Report
35

6. APPENDIX A: DETERMINING HOW MUCH SEAS HAVE RISEN 

TO ADJUST SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS

Consider the hypothetical question, “How much did sea level rise . . . in Washington, DC, between 

1992 and 2020?” To answer this question, we can consider three published trend analyses that 

are all based on historic tide-gauge observations. First, the long-term linear rate can be obtained 

from NOAA’s sea level trend database. The reported value of 0.14 inch/year is based on water level 

observations from 1924 to 2020. When adjusted to a baseline year of 1992, the linear trend results in 

3.8 inches of SLR from 1992 to 2020 (Figure A-1).

Second, the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report provides regional offset values for three time 

periods: 1992-2000, 2000-2005, and 2005-2020 (see 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report, Table A1.2). 

These values were derived from the regional observation-based extrapolations and represent nonlinear rates averaged throughout the entire Northeast region. When added together, the regional 

offsets result in 5.5 inches of SLR from 1992 to 2020.

Third, station-specific observation-based extrapolation data were obtained for the Washington, DC, 

tide gauge from the NASA Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool. The values for the 50th percentile 

of the observation extrapolation were obtained for the years 1992 and 2020, resulting in a total of 6.8 

inches of change.

Table A-1. Sea level rise in inches in Washington, DC from 1992-2020 determined using local and regional 

tide-gauge observations. Values are provided relative to the baseline year associated with the data source. 

The data are presented based on linear and non-linear models of sea level change.

SLR Source Trend Type Period 1992 2000 2005 2020 Change

Local Observation-Based 

Extrapolation1 Non-linear 1970-2019 -1.2 0.0 1.1 5.6 6.8

Regional ObservationBased Extrapolation2 Non-linear 1970-2019 -2.0 -0.8 0.0 3.5 5.5

Local Linear Trend3 Linear 1924-2021 0.0 1.1 1.8 3.8 3.8

1

Extrapolated observation for tide-gauge PSMSL ID #360 from NASA Interagency SLR Scenario Tool

2

Offset values for the Northeast region from Table A1.2 in the 2022 SLR Technical Report

3

Relative sea level trend data for Station ID #8594900 from NOAA CO-OPS sea level trend database
36

Figure A-1. Three characterizations of historic sea level change at the Washington, DC, tide gauge: the 

long-term linear rate of change based on data from 1924 to 2021, the non-linear trend fit to observed water 

levels from 1970 to 2020, and the non-linear trend built from the 1970-2020 tide-gauge trends throughout 

the Northeast region. Relative differences in sea level for 1992-2020 are annotated.

The data available through the NASA tool include annual values from 1970 to 2020, thus making it 

possible to calculate change between other years based on non-linear trend information (values for 

years 2000 and 2005 are included in the table for completeness).

Answering the question, “How much did sea levels rise between 1992 and 2020 in Washington, 

DC?” is not straightforward. The data presented here indicate that a linear approximation of SLR in 

Washington, DC, likely underestimates the true amount observed. Each of these methods includes 

associated uncertainty based on the lengths of the observed records and computation methods 

used. It can be said that seas have risen around half a foot in Washington, DC, between 1992 and 

2020.
37

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report Authors

This document would not have been possible without both the advancements in science presented 

in the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report nor the patience and dedication of the following 2022 

Sea Level Rise Technical Report authors. Benjamin Hamlington, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 

California Institute of Technology; Chris Weaver, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mark Osler, 

NOAA National Ocean Service; Patrick Barnard, U.S. Geological Survey; William Sweet, NOAA National 

Ocean Service. These authors spent countless hours ensuring that the content herein was accurate, 

working with us over language nuance so that the content was clear and correct.

External Reviewers

Our external reviewers spanned a variety of sectors and perspectives. Because of their time and 

thoughtful input, this document is better able to meet the needs of many more who may be 

attempting to address rising seas. Our external reviewers all took time to not only read and review, 

but to provide essential suggestions to enhance the entire document.

Abby Sullivan, Senior Advisor for Climate Science and Risk Communication, Philadelphia Office of 

Sustainability

Brad Romine, Coastal Resilience Extension Specialist, Hawai‘i Sea Grant / Deputy Director, Pacific 

Islands Climate Adaptation Science Center University Consortium

Cirse Gonzalez, Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine 

Research Reserve in Virginia

David Behar, Climate Program Director, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Harriett Morgan, Climate Coordinator, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Jayantha Obeysekera, Director, Sea Level Solutions Center, Research Professor, Institute of 

Environment, Florida International University

Jennifer Kline, Coastal Hazards Specialist, Georgia Coastal Management Program, Coastal 

Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Kelley Anderson Tagarino, American Samoa Extension Agent, Hawai‘i Sea Grant and American 

Samoa Community College

Maya Haden, Coastal Adaptation Program Leader, Point Blue Conservation Science

Nathalie DiGeronimo, Resilience Project Manager, New Hampshire Department of Environmental 

Services Coastal Program

Peter Slovinsky, Marine Geologist, Maine Geological Survey

Shannon Hulst, Floodplain Specialist, Deputy Director / Floodplain Specialist, Cape Cod 

Cooperative Extension and Woods Hole Sea Grant

Wes Shaw, Blue Urchin LLC, and Lead Coastal Consultant to the FEMA Community Rating System

Whitney Gray, Florida Program Manager, Resilience, Michael Baker International
MASGP-22-028

SGEB 88