At 282 feet below sea level, Death Valley in the Mojave Desert, California is the lowest point of elevation in the United States (and North America). Coincidentally, Death Valley is less than 85 miles from Mount Whitney, the highest point of elevation in the mainland United States. Death Valley is one of the hottest places on earth, and in 1913 it was the location of the highest naturally occurring temperature ever recorded on Earth (although some meteorologists doubt its legitimacy). New Orleans Louisiana is the only other state where the lowest point of elevation was below sea level. This is in the city of New Orleans, on the Mississippi River Delta. Over half of the city (up to two-thirds) is located below sea level, and recent studies suggest that the city is sinking further - man-made efforts to prevent water damage or flooding are cited as one reason for the city's continued subsidence, as they prevent new sediment from naturally reinforcing the ground upon which the city is built. These factors were one reason why New Orleans was so severely impacted by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 - the hurricane itself was one of the deadliest in history, and it destroyed many of the levee systems in place to prevent flooding, and the elevation exacerbated the damage caused. Highest low points The lowest point in five states is over 1,000 feet above sea level. Colorado's lowest point, at 3,315 feet, is still higher than the highest point in 22 states or territories. For all states whose lowest points are found above sea level, these points are located in rivers, streams, or bodies of water.

The United States has an average elevation of roughly 2,500 feet (763m) above sea level, however there is a stark contrast in elevations across the country. Highest states Colorado is the highest state in the United States, with an average elevation of 6,800 feet (2,074m) above sea level. The 10 states with the highest average elevation are all in the western region of the country, as this is, by far, the most mountainous region in the country. The largest mountain ranges in the contiguous western states are the Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevada, and Cascade Range, while the Appalachian Mountains is the longest range in the east - however, the highest point in the U.S. is Denali (Mount McKinley), found in Alaska. Lowest states At just 60 feet above sea level, Delaware is the state with the lowest elevation. Delaware is the second smallest state, behind Rhode Island, and is located on the east coast. Larger states with relatively low elevations are found in the southern region of the country - both Florida and Louisiana have an average elevation of just 100 feet (31m) above sea level, and large sections of these states are extremely vulnerable to flooding and rising sea levels, as well as intermittent tropical storms.

IntroductionClimate Central’s Surging Seas: Risk Zone map shows areas vulnerable to near-term flooding from different combinations of sea level rise, storm surge, tides, and tsunamis, or to permanent submersion by long-term sea level rise. Within the U.S., it incorporates the latest, high-resolution, high-accuracy lidar elevation data supplied by NOAA (exceptions: see Sources), displays points of interest, and contains layers displaying social vulnerability, population density, and property value. Outside the U.S., it utilizes satellite-based elevation data from NASA in some locations, and Climate Central’s more accurate CoastalDEM in others (see Methods and Qualifiers). It provides the ability to search by location name or postal code.The accompanying Risk Finder is an interactive data toolkit available for some countries that provides local projections and assessments of exposure to sea level rise and coastal flooding tabulated for many sub-national districts, down to cities and postal codes in the U.S. Exposure assessments always include land and population, and in the U.S. extend to over 100 demographic, economic, infrastructure and environmental variables using data drawn mainly from federal sources, including NOAA, USGS, FEMA, DOT, DOE, DOI, EPA, FCC and the Census.This web tool was highlighted at the launch of The White House's Climate Data Initiative in March 2014. Climate Central's original Surging Seas was featured on NBC, CBS, and PBS U.S. national news, the cover of The New York Times, in hundreds of other stories, and in testimony for the U.S. Senate. The Atlantic Cities named it the most important map of 2012. Both the Risk Zone map and the Risk Finder are grounded in peer-reviewed science.Back to topMethods and QualifiersThis map is based on analysis of digital elevation models mosaicked together for near-total coverage of the global coast. Details and sources for U.S. and international data are below. Elevations are transformed so they are expressed relative to local high tide lines (Mean Higher High Water, or MHHW). A simple elevation threshold-based “bathtub method” is then applied to determine areas below different water levels, relative to MHHW. Within the U.S., areas below the selected water level but apparently not connected to the ocean at that level are shown in a stippled green (as opposed to solid blue) on the map. Outside the U.S., due to data quality issues and data limitations, all areas below the selected level are shown as solid blue, unless separated from the ocean by a ridge at least 20 meters (66 feet) above MHHW, in which case they are shown as not affected (no blue).Areas using lidar-based elevation data: U.S. coastal states except AlaskaElevation data used for parts of this map within the U.S. come almost entirely from ~5-meter horizontal resolution digital elevation models curated and distributed by NOAA in its Coastal Lidar collection, derived from high-accuracy laser-rangefinding measurements. The same data are used in NOAA’s Sea Level Rise Viewer. (High-resolution elevation data for Louisiana, southeast Virginia, and limited other areas comes from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)). Areas using CoastalDEM™ elevation data: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Corn Island (Nicaragua), Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Blas (Panama), Suriname, The Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago. CoastalDEM™ is a proprietary high-accuracy bare earth elevation dataset developed especially for low-lying coastal areas by Climate Central. Use our contact form to request more information.Warning for areas using other elevation data (all other areas)Areas of this map not listed above use elevation data on a roughly 90-meter horizontal resolution grid derived from NASA’s Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). SRTM provides surface elevations, not bare earth elevations, causing it to commonly overestimate elevations, especially in areas with dense and tall buildings or vegetation. Therefore, the map under-portrays areas that could be submerged at each water level, and exposure is greater than shown (Kulp and Strauss, 2016). However, SRTM includes error in both directions, so some areas showing exposure may not be at risk.SRTM data do not cover latitudes farther north than 60 degrees or farther south than 56 degrees, meaning that sparsely populated parts of Arctic Circle nations are not mapped here, and may show visual artifacts.Areas of this map in Alaska use elevation data on a roughly 60-meter horizontal resolution grid supplied by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This data is referenced to a vertical reference frame from 1929, based on historic sea levels, and with no established conversion to modern reference frames. The data also do not take into account subsequent land uplift and subsidence, widespread in the state. As a consequence, low confidence should be placed in Alaska map portions.Flood control structures (U.S.)Levees, walls, dams or other features may protect some areas, especially at lower elevations. Levees and other flood control structures are included in this map within but not outside of the U.S., due to poor and missing data. Within the U.S., data limitations, such as an incomplete inventory of levees, and a lack of levee height data, still make assessing protection difficult. For this map, levees are assumed high and strong enough for flood protection. However, it is important to note that only 8% of monitored levees in the U.S. are rated in “Acceptable” condition (ASCE). Also note that the map implicitly includes unmapped levees and their heights, if broad enough to be effectively captured directly by the elevation data.For more information on how Surging Seas incorporates levees and elevation data in Louisiana, view our Louisiana levees and DEMs methods PDF. For more information on how Surging Seas incorporates dams in Massachusetts, view the Surging Seas column of the web tools comparison matrix for Massachusetts.ErrorErrors or omissions in elevation or levee data may lead to areas being misclassified. Furthermore, this analysis does not account for future erosion, marsh migration, or construction. As is general best practice, local detail should be verified with a site visit. Sites located in zones below a given water level may or may not be subject to flooding at that level, and sites shown as isolated may or may not be be so. Areas may be connected to water via porous bedrock geology, and also may also be connected via channels, holes, or passages for drainage that the elevation data fails to or cannot pick up. In addition, sea level rise may cause problems even in isolated low zones during rainstorms by inhibiting drainage.ConnectivityAt any water height, there will be isolated, low-lying areas whose elevation falls below the water level, but are protected from coastal flooding by either man-made flood control structures (such as levees), or the natural topography of the surrounding land. In areas using lidar-based elevation data or CoastalDEM (see above), elevation data is accurate enough that non-connected areas can be clearly identified and treated separately in analysis (these areas are colored green on the map). In the U.S., levee data are complete enough to factor levees into determining connectivity as well.However, in other areas, elevation data is much less accurate, and noisy error often produces “speckled” artifacts in the flood maps, commonly in areas that should show complete inundation. Removing non-connected areas in these places could greatly underestimate the potential for flood exposure. For this reason, in these regions, the only areas removed from the map and excluded from analysis are separated from the ocean by a ridge of at least 20 meters (66 feet) above the local high tide line, according to the data, so coastal flooding would almost certainly be impossible (e.g., the Caspian Sea region).Back to topData LayersWater Level | Projections | Legend | Social Vulnerability | Population | Ethnicity | Income | Property | LandmarksWater LevelWater level means feet or meters above the local high tide line (“Mean Higher High Water”) instead of standard elevation. Methods described above explain how each map is generated based on a selected water level. Water can reach different levels in different time frames through combinations of sea level rise, tide and storm surge. Tide gauges shown on the map show related projections (see just below).The highest water levels on this map (10, 20 and 30 meters) provide reference points for possible flood risk from tsunamis, in regions prone to them.

The sea level rise (SLR) coastal inundation layers were created using existing federal products: the (1) NOAA Coastal Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) and (2) 2022 Interagency Sea Level Rise Technical Report Data Files. The DEMs for the Continental United States (CONUS) are provided in North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88) and were converted to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) using the NOAA VDatum conversion surfaces; the elevation values are in meters (m). The NOAA Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level are provided in centimeters (cm). The MHHW DEMs for CONUS were merged and converted to cm and Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level were subtracted from the merged DEM. Values below 0 represent areas that are below sea level and are “remapped” to 1, all values above 0 are remapped to “No Data”, creating a map that shows only areas impacted by SLR. Areas protected by levees in Louisiana and Texas were then masked or removed from the results. This was done for each of the emissions scenarios (Lower Emissions = 2022 Intermediate SLR Scenario Higher Emissions = 2022 Intermediate High SLR Scenario) at each of the mapped time intervals (Early Century - Year 2030, Middle Century - Year 2050, and Late Century - Year 2090). The resulting maps are displayed in the CMRA Assessment Tool. County, tract, and tribal geographies summaries of percentage SLR inundation were also calculated using Zonal Statistics tools. The Sea Level Rise Scenario year 2020 is considered “baseline” and the impacts are calculated by subtracting the baseline value from each of the near-term, mid-term and long-term timeframes. General Disclaimer The data and maps in this tool illustrate the scale of potential flooding, not the exact location, and do not account for erosion, subsidence, or future construction. Water levels are relative to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (excludes wind driven tides). The data, maps, and information provided should be used only as a screening-level tool for management decisions. As with all remotely sensed data, all features should be verified with a site visit. Hydroconnectivity was not considered in the mapping process. The data and maps in this tool are provided “as is,” without warranty to their performance, merchantable state, or fitness for any particular purpose. The entire risk associated with the results and performance of these data is assumed by the user. This tool should be used strictly as a planning reference tool and not for navigation, permitting, or other legal purposes. SLR visualizations and statistics are not available in CMRA for Hawaii, Alaska, or U.S. territories at this time. Levees Disclaimer Enclosed levee areas are displayed as gray areas on the maps. Major federal leveed areas were assumed high enough and strong enough to protect against inundation depicted in this viewer, and therefore no inundation was mapped in these regions. Major federal leveed areas were taken from the National Levee Database. Minor (nonfederal) leveed areas were mapped using the best available elevation data that capture leveed features. In some cases, however, breaks in elevation occur along leveed areas because of flood control features being removed from elevation data, limitations of the horizontal and vertical resolution of the elevation data, the occurrence of levee drainage features, and so forth. Flooding behind levees is only depicted if breaks in elevation data occur or if the levee elevations are overtopped by the water surface. At some flood levels, alternate pathways around—not through—levees, walls, dams, and flood gates may exist that allow water to flow into areas protected at lower levels. In general, imperfect levee and elevation data make assessing protection difficult, and small data errors can have large consequences. Citations 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report - 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-nostechrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

The sea level rise (SLR) coastal inundation layers were created using existing federal products: the (1) NOAA Coastal Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) and (2) 2022 Interagency Sea Level Rise Technical Report Data Files. The DEMs for the Continental United States (CONUS) are provided in North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88) and were converted to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) using the NOAA VDatum conversion surfaces; the elevation values are in meters (m). The NOAA Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level are provided in centimeters (cm). The MHHW DEMs for CONUS were merged and converted to cm and Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level were subtracted from the merged DEM. Values below 0 represent areas that are below sea level and are “remapped” to 1, all values above 0 are remapped to “No Data”, creating a map that shows only areas impacted by SLR. Areas protected by levees in Louisiana and Texas were then masked or removed from the results.Scenario: For each of the 5 GMSL scenarios (identified by the rise amounts in meters by 2100--0.3 m , 0.5 m. 1.0 m, 1.5 m and 2.0 m), there is a low, medium (med) and high value, corresponding to the 17th, 50th, and 83rd percentiles. Scenarios (15 total): 0.3 - MED, 0.3 - LOW, 0.3 - HIGH, 0.5 - MED, 0.5 - LOW, 0.5 - HIGH, 1.0 - MED, 1.0 - LOW, 1.0 - HIGH, 1.5 - MED, 1.5 - LOW, 1.5 - HIGH, 2.0 - MED, 2.0 - LOW, and 2.0 - HIGH Years (15 total): 2005, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070, 2080, 2090, 2100, 2110, 2120, 2130, 2140, and 2150Report Website: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.htmlGeneral DisclaimerThe data and maps in this tool illustrate the scale of potential flooding, not the exact location, and do not account for erosion, subsidence, or future construction. Water levels are relative to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (excludes wind driven tides). The data, maps, and information provided should be used only as a screening-level tool for management decisions. As with all remotely sensed data, all features should be verified with a site visit. Hydroconnectivity was not considered in the mapping process. The data and maps in this tool are provided “as is,” without warranty to their performance, merchantable state, or fitness for any particular purpose. The entire risk associated with the results and performance of these data is assumed by the user. This tool should be used strictly as a planning reference tool and not for navigation, permitting, or other legal purposes.SLR data are not available for Hawaii, Alaska, or U.S. territories at this time.Levees DisclaimerEnclosed levee areas are displayed as gray areas on the maps.Major federal leveed areas were assumed high enough and strong enough to protect against inundation depicted in this viewer, and therefore no inundation was mapped in these regions. Major federal leveed areas were taken from the National Levee Database.Minor (nonfederal) leveed areas were mapped using the best available elevation data that capture leveed features. In some cases, however, breaks in elevation occur along leveed areas because of flood control features being removed from elevation data, limitations of the horizontal and vertical resolution of the elevation data, the occurrence of levee drainage features, and so forth. Flooding behind levees is only depicted if breaks in elevation data occur or if the levee elevations are overtopped by the water surface. At some flood levels, alternate pathways around—not through—levees, walls, dams, and flood gates may exist that allow water to flow into areas protected at lower levels. In general, imperfect levee and elevation data make assessing protection difficult, and small data errors can have large consequences.Citations2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report - 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-nostechrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

The sea level rise (SLR) coastal inundation layers were created using existing federal products: the (1) NOAA Coastal Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) and (2) 2022 Interagency Sea Level Rise Technical Report Data Files. The DEMs for the Continental United States (CONUS) are provided in North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88) and were converted to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) using the NOAA VDatum conversion surfaces; the elevation values are in meters (m). The NOAA Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level are provided in centimeters (cm). The MHHW DEMs for CONUS were merged and converted to cm and Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level were subtracted from the merged DEM. Values below 0 represent areas that are below sea level and are “remapped” to 1, all values above 0 are remapped to “No Data”, creating a map that shows only areas impacted by SLR. Areas protected by levees in Louisiana and Texas were then masked or removed from the results. This was done for each of the emissions scenarios (Lower Emissions = 2022 Intermediate SLR Scenario Higher Emissions = 2022 Intermediate High SLR Scenario) at each of the mapped time intervals (Early Century - Year 2030, Middle Century - Year 2050, and Late Century - Year 2090). The resulting maps are displayed in the CMRA Assessment Tool. County, tract, and tribal geographies summaries of percentage SLR inundation were also calculated using Zonal Statistics tools. The Sea Level Rise Scenario year 2020 is considered “baseline” and the impacts are calculated by subtracting the baseline value from each of the near-term, mid-term and long-term timeframes. General Disclaimer The data and maps in this tool illustrate the scale of potential flooding, not the exact location, and do not account for erosion, subsidence, or future construction. Water levels are relative to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (excludes wind driven tides). The data, maps, and information provided should be used only as a screening-level tool for management decisions. As with all remotely sensed data, all features should be verified with a site visit. Hydroconnectivity was not considered in the mapping process. The data and maps in this tool are provided “as is,” without warranty to their performance, merchantable state, or fitness for any particular purpose. The entire risk associated with the results and performance of these data is assumed by the user. This tool should be used strictly as a planning reference tool and not for navigation, permitting, or other legal purposes. SLR visualizations and statistics are not available in CMRA for Hawaii, Alaska, or U.S. territories at this time. Levees Disclaimer Enclosed levee areas are displayed as gray areas on the maps. Major federal leveed areas were assumed high enough and strong enough to protect against inundation depicted in this viewer, and therefore no inundation was mapped in these regions. Major federal leveed areas were taken from the National Levee Database. Minor (nonfederal) leveed areas were mapped using the best available elevation data that capture leveed features. In some cases, however, breaks in elevation occur along leveed areas because of flood control features being removed from elevation data, limitations of the horizontal and vertical resolution of the elevation data, the occurrence of levee drainage features, and so forth. Flooding behind levees is only depicted if breaks in elevation data occur or if the levee elevations are overtopped by the water surface. At some flood levels, alternate pathways around—not through—levees, walls, dams, and flood gates may exist that allow water to flow into areas protected at lower levels. In general, imperfect levee and elevation data make assessing protection difficult, and small data errors can have large consequences. Citations 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report - 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-nostechrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

The sea level rise (SLR) coastal inundation layers were created using existing federal products: the (1) NOAA Coastal Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) and (2) 2022 Interagency Sea Level Rise Technical Report Data Files. The DEMs for the Continental United States (CONUS) are provided in North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88) and were converted to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) using the NOAA VDatum conversion surfaces; the elevation values are in meters (m). The NOAA Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level are provided in centimeters (cm). The MHHW DEMs for CONUS were merged and converted to cm and Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level were subtracted from the merged DEM. Values below 0 represent areas that are below sea level and are “remapped” to 1, all values above 0 are remapped to “No Data”, creating a map that shows only areas impacted by SLR. Areas protected by levees in Louisiana and Texas were then masked or removed from the results. This was done for each of the emissions scenarios (Lower Emissions = 2022 Intermediate SLR Scenario Higher Emissions = 2022 Intermediate High SLR Scenario) at each of the mapped time intervals (Early Century - Year 2030, Middle Century - Year 2050, and Late Century - Year 2090). The resulting maps are displayed in the CMRA Assessment Tool. County, tract, and tribal geographies summaries of percentage SLR inundation were also calculated using Zonal Statistics tools. The Sea Level Rise Scenario year 2020 is considered “baseline” and the impacts are calculated by subtracting the baseline value from each of the near-term, mid-term and long-term timeframes. General Disclaimer The data and maps in this tool illustrate the scale of potential flooding, not the exact location, and do not account for erosion, subsidence, or future construction. Water levels are relative to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (excludes wind driven tides). The data, maps, and information provided should be used only as a screening-level tool for management decisions. As with all remotely sensed data, all features should be verified with a site visit. Hydroconnectivity was not considered in the mapping process. The data and maps in this tool are provided “as is,” without warranty to their performance, merchantable state, or fitness for any particular purpose. The entire risk associated with the results and performance of these data is assumed by the user. This tool should be used strictly as a planning reference tool and not for navigation, permitting, or other legal purposes. SLR visualizations and statistics are not available in CMRA for Hawaii, Alaska, or U.S. territories at this time. Levees Disclaimer Enclosed levee areas are displayed as gray areas on the maps. Major federal leveed areas were assumed high enough and strong enough to protect against inundation depicted in this viewer, and therefore no inundation was mapped in these regions. Major federal leveed areas were taken from the National Levee Database. Minor (nonfederal) leveed areas were mapped using the best available elevation data that capture leveed features. In some cases, however, breaks in elevation occur along leveed areas because of flood control features being removed from elevation data, limitations of the horizontal and vertical resolution of the elevation data, the occurrence of levee drainage features, and so forth. Flooding behind levees is only depicted if breaks in elevation data occur or if the levee elevations are overtopped by the water surface. At some flood levels, alternate pathways around—not through—levees, walls, dams, and flood gates may exist that allow water to flow into areas protected at lower levels. In general, imperfect levee and elevation data make assessing protection difficult, and small data errors can have large consequences. Citations 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report - 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-nostechrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

Marsh migration potential in the Chesapeake Bay (CB) salt marshes is calculated in terms of available migration area for each marsh unit defined by Ackerman and others (2022). The space available for landward migration is based on the NOAA marsh migration predictions under 2.0 feet of local sea-level rise (SLR). The migration space is further divided by National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Plus catchments before assigning related catchment polygons to each marsh unit. The migration rates are then calculated using present day estimates at the prescribed rate of SLR, which correspond to the 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 meter increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) scenarios by 2100 from Sweet and others (2022). Through scientific efforts, the U.S. Geological Survey has been expanding national assessment of coastal change hazards and forecast products to coastal wetlands, including the Chesapeake Bay salt marshes, with the intent of providing Federal, State, and local managers with tools to estimate the vulnerability and ecosystem service potential of these wetlands. For this purpose, the response and resilience of coastal wetlands to physical factors need to be assessed in terms of the ensuing change to their vulnerability and ecosystem services. Marsh migration is one of the natural responses to SLR. References: Ackerman, K.V., Defne, Z., and Ganju, N.K., 2022, Geospatial characterization of salt marshes in Chesapeake Bay: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P997EJYB. Sweet, W.V., Hamlington, B.D., Kopp, R.E., Weaver, C.P., Barnard, P.L., Bekaert, D., Brooks, W., Craghan, M., Dusek, G., Frederikse, T., Garner, G., Genz, A.S., Krasting, J.P., Larour, E., Marcy, D., Marra, J.J., Obeysekera, J., Osler, M., Pendleton, M., Roman, D., Schmied, L., Veatch, W., White, K.D., and Zuzak, C., 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.

At 20,310 feet (6.2km) above sea level, the highest point in the United States is Denali, Alaska (formerly known as Mount McKinley). The highest point in the contiguous United States is Mount Whitney, in the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California; followed by Mount Elbert, Colorado - the highest point in the Rocky Mountains. When looking at the highest point in each state, the 13 tallest peaks are all found in the western region of the country, while there is much more diversity across the other regions and territories.

Despite being approximately 6,500 feet lower than Denali, Hawaii's Mauna Kea is sometimes considered the tallest mountain (and volcano) on earth. This is because its base is well below sea level - the mountain has a total height of 33,474 feet, which is almost 4,500 feet higher than Mount Everest.

The sea level rise (SLR) coastal inundation layers were created using existing federal products: the (1) NOAA Coastal Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) and (2) 2022 Interagency Sea Level Rise Technical Report Data Files. The DEMs for the Continental United States (CONUS) are provided in North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88) and were converted to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) using the NOAA VDatum conversion surfaces; the elevation values are in meters (m). The NOAA Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level are provided in centimeters (cm). The MHHW DEMs for CONUS were merged and converted to cm and Scenarios of Future Mean Sea Level were subtracted from the merged DEM. Values below 0 represent areas that are below sea level and are “remapped” to 1, all values above 0 are remapped to “No Data”, creating a map that shows only areas impacted by SLR. Areas protected by levees in Louisiana and Texas were then masked or removed from the results. This was done for each of the emissions scenarios (Lower Emissions = 2022 Intermediate SLR Scenario Higher Emissions = 2022 Intermediate High SLR Scenario) at each of the mapped time intervals (Early Century - Year 2030, Middle Century - Year 2050, and Late Century - Year 2090).

The resulting maps are displayed in the CMRA Assessment Tool. County, tract, and tribal geographies summaries of percentage SLR inundation were also calculated using Zonal Statistics tools. The Sea Level Rise Scenario year 2020 is considered “baseline” and the impacts are calculated by subtracting the baseline value from each of the near-term, mid-term and long-term timeframes. General Disclaimer The data and maps in this tool illustrate the scale of potential flooding, not the exact location, and do not account for erosion, subsidence, or future construction. Water levels are relative to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (excludes wind driven tides). The data, maps, and information provided should be used only as a screening-level tool for management decisions. As with all remotely sensed data, all features should be verified with a site visit. Hydroconnectivity was not considered in the mapping process. The data and maps in this tool are provided “as is,” without warranty to their performance, merchantable state, or fitness for any particular purpose. The entire risk associated with the results and performance of these data is assumed by the user. This tool should be used strictly as a planning reference tool and not for navigation, permitting, or other legal purposes. SLR visualizations and statistics are not available in CMRA for Hawaii, Alaska, or U.S. territories at this time. Levees Disclaimer Enclosed levee areas are displayed as gray areas on the maps. Major federal leveed areas were assumed high enough and strong enough to protect against inundation depicted in this viewer, and therefore no inundation was mapped in these regions. Major federal leveed areas were taken from the National Levee Database. Minor (nonfederal) leveed areas were mapped using the best available elevation data that capture leveed features. In some cases, however, breaks in elevation occur along leveed areas because of flood control features being removed from elevation data, limitations of the horizontal and vertical resolution of the elevation data, the occurrence of levee drainage features, and so forth. Flooding behind levees is only depicted if breaks in elevation data occur or if the levee elevations are overtopped by the water surface. At some flood levels, alternate pathways around—not through—levees, walls, dams, and flood gates may exist that allow water to flow into areas protected at lower levels. In general, imperfect levee and elevation data make assessing protection difficult, and small data errors can have large consequences. Citations 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report - 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-nostechrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

Sea levels are projected to rise in the United States across various Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP). Under the SSP1-2.6 scenario, it is projected that U.S. sea levels will rise 7.71 centimeters (cm) during the next decades, and 15.99 cm by the mid-century, relative to historic baseline. Sea levels will continue rising to reach 31.96 cm by 2099, following the same scenario.

Estimates of coastal property damage and business interruption from storms and estimates of property below sea level by region and exposure category. Regions are groups of US counties designated by state and coastalflag, which indicates whether a region includes counties sharing a US coastline (coastalflag=1) or only inland counties (coastalflag=0). Estimates are produced using the RMS Model. These values are used as inputs by Probabilistic state-level estimates of US coastal storm property damages from climate change (doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.820086) using the code at https://github.com/ClimateImpactLab/acp-impacts Hurricane damage estimates include estimates using historical hurricane activity as well as estimates including projected changes in hurricane frequency and intensity under RCP 4.5 and 8.5.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise (EN11)

FULL MEASURE NAME Share of population living in zones at risk from various sea level rise forecast scenarios

LAST UPDATED July 2017

DESCRIPTION Vulnerability to sea level rise refers to the share of the historical and current Bay Area population located in areas at risk from forecasted sea level rise over the coming decades. Given that there are varying forecasts for the heightened high tides (i.e., mean highest high water mark), projected sea level impacts are presented for six scenarios ranging from a one foot rise to six feet. A neighborhood is considered vulnerable to sea level rise when at least 10 percent of its land area is forecasted to be inundated by peak high tides in the coming years. The dataset includes at-risk population and population share data for the region, counties, and neighborhoods.

DATA SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2017 Sea Level Rise Maps https://coast.noaa.gov/slrdata/

U.S. Census Bureau 2015 American Community Survey http://factfinder.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Projected areas of inundation were developed by BCDC and NOAA at one-foot intervals ranging from one foot to four feet of sea level rise. Regional and local sea level rise analysis is based on data from BCDC’s ART (Adapting to Rising Tides) Bay Area Sea Level Rise and Mapping Project. This data reflects the most up-to-date and detailed sea level rise mapping for the Bay Area. Sea level rise analysis for metro areas is based on national sea level rise mapping from NOAA, which is best for metro-to-metro comparison. To determine the impacts on historical and current populations, inundation areas were overlaid on a U.S. Census shapefile of 2010 Census tracts using Census Bureau population data.

Because census tracts can extend beyond the coastline, the baseline scenario of zero feet was used to determine existing sea level coverage of census tracts. Sea level rise refers to the change from this level. The area of the tract was determined by measuring the component of the tract area not currently under water. This area, rather than the total tract area, was used as the denominator to determine the percentage of the census tract that is inundated under future sea level rise projection scenarios. When at least 10 percent of tract land area is inundated with a given sea level, its residents are considered to be affected by sea level rise.

For the purpose of this analysis, SLR scenarios were assumed not to reflect periodic inundation due to extreme weather events, which may lead to an even greater share of residents affected on a less frequent basis. Prior to the impacts from sea level rise, neighborhoods will experience temporary flooding from extreme weather events which can create significant damage to homes and neighborhoods. It should be noted that by directly reviewing maps and tools through the ART (Adapting to Rising Tides) program, regular inundation sea level rise and temporary flooding from extreme weather events are both available. More information on this approach is available here: http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/project/regional-sea-level-rise-mapping-and-shoreline-analysis/

Sea level rise analysis for metro areas reflects local, as opposed to global, sea level rise. Recent data has shown sea level is rising faster in the southeast region of the United States. Regional differences in the rate of sea level rise. More information and data related to the rate of sea level rise for different coastal regions is available here: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel-global-local.html

This dataset contains projections of coastal cliff-retreat rates and positions for future scenarios of sea-level rise (SLR). Present-day cliff-edge positions used as the baseline for projections are also included. Projections were made using numerical and statistical models based on field observations such as historical cliff retreat rate, nearshore slope, coastal cliff height, and mean annual wave power, as part of Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) v.3.0 Phase 2 in Southern California. Details: Cliff-retreat position projections and associated uncertainties are for scenarios of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, and 5 meters of SLR. Projections were made at CoSMoS cross-shore transects (CST) spaced 100 m alongshore using a baseline sea-cliff edge from 2010 (included in the dataset). Within each zip file, there are two separate datasets available: one that ignores coastal armoring, such as seawalls and revetments, and allows the cliff to retreat unimpeded (“Do Not Hold the Line”); and another that assumes that current coastal armoring will be maintained and 100% effective at stopping future cliff erosion ("Hold the Line"). Eight numerical models synthesized from literature (Trenhaile, 2000; Walkden and Hall, 2005; Trenhaile, 2009; Trenhaile, 2011; Ruggiero and others, 2011; Hackney and others, 2013) were used to make projections. All models relate breaking-wave height and period to cliff rock or unconsolidated sediment erosion. Models range in complexity from 2-D models in which the entire profile evolves, from below water to the cliff edge, to simple 1-D empirical or statistical models in which only the cliff edge evolves as a function of wave impact intensity and frequency. The projections are a robust average of all models, and the uncertainties are proportional to 1) underlying uncertainties in the model input data, such as historical cliff retreat rates, and 2) the differences between individual model forecasts at each CST so that uncertainty is larger when the models do not agree. As sea level rises, waves break closer to the sea cliff, more wave energy impacts the cliffs, cliff erosion rates accelerate. Model behavior also includes wave run-up (Stockdon and others, 2006), wave set-up that raises the water level during big-wave events, and tidal levels. The more complex 2-D models were run on idealized cliff profiles extending from about 10 m water depth to 1 kilometer inland from the cliff edge. Profiles were extracted by overlaying the cross-shore transects on a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) covering the Southern California study area. For all models, the presence of a beach was recorded (yes or no) for all transects using aerial photography, and the cliff toe elevation (or beach/cliff junction) was digitized from the DEM profiles. Using historic cliff edge retreat rates by Hapke and Reid (2007), unknown coefficients within the cliff-profile models were calibrated using a Monte Carlo simulation (in other words, coefficients were tuned until the modeled mean retreat rate equaled the observed mean retreat rate for a given transect). Uncertainty was tallied using a root mean squared error (RMSE) approach. The RMSE represents cumulative uncertainty from multiple sources and assumes that different sources of error will, at times, cancel each other out. It is therefore not a 'worst-case uncertainty' (in other words, a straight sum of errors) but instead an average uncertainty. Total RMSE increased with SLR rate and varied between +/- 2-3 m to a maximum of +/- 50 m for the extreme 5 m SLR scenario.
For more information on model details, data sources, and integration with other parts of the CoSMoS framework, see CoSMoS_3.0_Phase_2_Southern_California_Bight:_Summary_of_data_and_methods (available at https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/file/get/5633fea2e4b048076347f1cf?name=CoSMoS_SoCalv3_Phase2_summary_of_methods.pdf).

Model projections of mangrove soil elevation under a range of sea-level rise scenarios (37, 52, 67, and 117 cm by 2100). Soil elevation changed in response to mineral and organic matter inputs and relative changes in sea-level. The model was calibrated using dated soil cores, extensive elevation and vegetation survey data, and water level observations around Pohnpei. Mean elevation for each region was calculated from 100 Monte Carlo simulations and were output annually from 2020-2100. Further details on model development, calibration, and validation are provided in the full report.

Probabilistic estimates of property damage (2010 USD) by damage mechanism, sea level measure, region, and time period. Values are derived from Estimates of US coastal damages by local sea level (doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.820149) using the code at https://github.com/ClimateImpactLab/acp-impacts

Direct (surge + wind) and business-interruption storm damage estimates as well as estimated property below sea level are projected by estimating damages as a function of local sea level (LSL). These damage functions are then applied to probabilistic estimates of local sea level from Kopp et al (2014) using a Monte Carlo simulation. Percentiles of the resulting distributions are presented in the included files. Estimates of property below sea level are calculated for both mean sea level (MSL) as well as mean higher high water (MHHW).

In each period, estimates of the cumulative value of inundated property, or property below sea level, are removed from the exposure data set when computing future storm damages; therefore, projections of future storm damages differ between the two measures of sea level.

Rising sea levels (SLR) will cause coastal groundwater to rise in many coastal urban environments. Inundation of contaminated soils by groundwater rise (GWR) will alter the physical, biological, and geochemical conditions that influence the fate and transport of existing contaminants. These transformed products can be more toxic and/or more mobile under future conditions driven by SLR and GWR. We reviewed the vulnerability of contaminated sites to GWR in a US national database and in a case comparison with the San Francisco Bay region to estimate the risk of rising groundwater to human and ecosystem health. The results show that 326 sites in the US Superfund program may be vulnerable to changes in groundwater depth or flow direction as a result of SLR, representing 18.1 million hectares of contaminated land. In the San Francisco Bay Area, we found that GWR is predicted to impact twice as much coastal land area as inundation from SLR alone, and 5,297 state-managed sites of contamination may be vulnerable to inundation from GWR in a 1-meter SLR scenario. Increases of only a few centimeters of elevation can mobilize soil contaminants, alter flow directions in a heterogeneous urban environment with underground pipes and utility trenches, and result in new exposure pathways. Pumping for flood protection will elevate the salt water interface, changing groundwater salinity and mobilizing metals in soil. Socially vulnerable communities are more exposed to this risk at both the national scale and in a regional comparison with the San Francisco Bay Area. Methods Data Dryad This data set includes data from the California State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB), the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the USGS, the US EPA, and the US Census. National Assessment Data Processing: For this portion of the project, ArcGIS Pro and RStudio software applications were used. Data processing for superfund site contaminants in the text and supplementary materials was done in RStudio using R programming language. RStudio and R were also used to clean population data from the American Community Survey. Packages used include: Dplyr, data.table, and tidyverse to clean and organize data from the EPA and ACS. ArcGIS Pro was used to compute spatial data regarding sites in the risk zone and vulnerable populations. DEM data processed for each state removed any elevation data above 10m, keeping anything 10m and below. The Intersection tool was used to identify superfund sites within the 10m sea level rise risk zone. The Calculate Geometry tool was used to calculate the area within each coastal state that was occupied by the 10m SLR zone and used again to calculate the area of each superfund site. Summary Statistics were used to generate the total proportion of superfund site surface area / 10m SLR area for each state. To generate population estimates of socially vulnerable households in proximity to superfund sites, we followed methods similar to that of Carter and Kalman (2020). First, we generated buffers at the 1km, 3km, and 5km distance of superfund sites. Then, using Tabulate Intersection, the estimated population of each census block group within each buffer zone was calculated. Summary Statistics were used to generate total numbers for each state. Bay Area Data Processing: In this regional study, we compared the groundwater elevation projections by Befus et al (2020) to a combined dataset of contaminated sites that we built from two separate databases (Envirostor and GeoTracker) that are maintained by two independent agencies of the State of California (DTSC and WRCB). We used ArcGIS to manage both the groundwater surfaces, as raster files, from Befus et al (2020) and the State’s point datasets of street addresses for contaminated sites. We used SF BCDC (2020) as the source of social vulnerability rankings for census blocks, using block shapefiles from the US Census (ACS) dataset. In addition, we generated isolines that represent the magnitude of change in groundwater elevation in specific sea level rise scenarios. We compared these isolines of change in elevation to the USGS geological map of the San Francisco Bay region and noted that groundwater is predicted to rise farther inland where Holocene paleochannels meet artificial fill near the shoreline. We also used maps of historic baylands (altered by dikes and fill) from the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) to identify the number of contaminated sites over rising groundwater that are located on former mudflats and tidal marshes. The contaminated sites' data from the California State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) and the Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) was clipped to our study area of nine-bay area counties. The study area does not include the ocean shorelines or the north bay delta area because the water system dynamics differ in deltas. The data was cleaned of any duplicates within each dataset using the Find Identical and Delete Identical tools. Then duplicates between the two datasets were removed by running the intersect tool for the DTSC and WRCB point data. We chose this method over searching for duplicates by name because some sites change names when management is transferred from DTSC to WRCB. Lastly, the datasets were sorted into open and closed sites based on the DTSC and WRCB classifications which are shown in a table in the paper's supplemental material. To calculate areas of rising groundwater, we used data from the USGS paper “Projected groundwater head for coastal California using present-day and future sea-level rise scenarios” by Befus, K. M., Barnard, P., Hoover, D. J., & Erikson, L. (2020). We used the hydraulic conductivity of 1 condition (Kh1) to calculate areas of rising groundwater. We used the Raster Calculator to subtract the existing groundwater head from the groundwater head under a 1-meter of sea level rise scenario to find the areas where groundwater is rising. Using the Reclass Raster tool, we reclassified the data to give every cell with a value of 0.1016 meters (4”) or greater a value of 1. We chose 0.1016 because groundwater rise of that little can leach into pipes and infrastructure. We then used the Raster to Poly tool to generate polygons of areas of groundwater rise.

Sea level rise in the United States will lead to large scale migration in the future. We propose a framework to examine future climate migration patterns using models of human migration. Our framework requires that we distinguish between historical versus climate driven migration and recognizes how the impacts of climate change can extend beyond the affected area. We apply our framework to simulate how migration, driven by sea level rise, differs from baseline migration patterns. Specifically, we couple a sea level rise model with a data-driven model of human migration and future population projections, creating a generalized joint model of climate driven migration that can be used to simulate population distributions under potential future sea level rise scenarios. The results of our case study suggest that the effects of sea level rise are pervasive, expanding beyond coastal areas via increased migration, and disproportionately affecting some areas of the United States.

Understanding how ecological and cultural resources may change in the future is an important component of conservation planning and for the implementation of long-term environmental monitoring. We modeled six future scenarios of urbanization and sea level rise to investigate their potential effects on the Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative's Priority Resources (PFLCC 2016), which were identified as important for conservation through a cooperative multi-partner effort to prioritize conservation efforts on a state-wide scale. These data represent conservation targets for the Coastal Uplands, High Pine and Scrub, and Freshwater Aquatics Priority Resources at present, and under six future scenarios of sea level rise and urbanization.

Between January and March 2010, lidar data was collected in southeast/coastal Georgia under a multi-agency partnership between the Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center, USGS, FEMA, NOAA and local county governments. Data acquisition is for the full extent of coastal Georgia, approximately 50 miles inland, excluding counties with existing high-resolution lidar derived elevation data. The data capture area consists of an area of approximately 5703 square miles. This project is within the Atlantic Coastal Priority Area as defined by the National Geospatial Program (NGP) and supports homeland security requirements of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). This project also supports the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and will advance USGS efforts related to The National Map and the National Elevation Dataset.

The data were delivered in LAS format version 1.2 in 5000 x 5000 foot tiles. The data are classified according to ASPRS LAS 1.2 classification scheme:

Class 1 - Unclassified Class 2 - Bare Earth Class 7 - Low Point (Noise) Class 9 - Water Class 10 - Land below sea level Class 12 - Overlap