This website is the digital version of the 2014 National Climate Assessment, produced in collaboration with the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

For the official version, please refer to the PDF in the downloads section. The downloadable PDF is the official version of the 2014 National Climate Assessment.

Credits | Site Map

Search Options


Search form


Welcome to the National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future.

A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

Explore the effects of climate change
United States Global Change Research Program logo
United States Department of Agriculture logo United States Department of Commerce logo United States Department of Defense logo United States Department of Energy logo United States Department of Health and Human Services logo United States Department of the Interior logo United States Department of State logo United States Department of Transportation logo United States Environmental Protection Agency logo National Aeronautics and Space Administration logo National Science Foundation logo Smithsonian Institution logo United States Agency for International Development logo


Coastal lifelines, such as water and energy infrastructure, and nationally important assets, such as ports, tourism, and fishing sites, are increasingly vulnerable to sea level rise, storm surge, erosion, flooding, and related hazards. Socioeconomic disparities create uneven vulnerabilities.

Explore how climate change is affecting coastal zones.



Coasts covers the special challenges faced by the coastal areas of our nation, including the Great Lakes coasts as well as ocean coasts. The Highlights section below offers a high-level overview of climate change impacts on coastal areas, including the five Key Messages and selected topics. (see Ch. 25: Coasts)

Key Message: Coastal Lifelines at Risk

Coastal lifelines, such as water supply and energy infrastructure and evacuation routes, are increasingly vulnerable to higher sea levels and storm surges, inland flooding, erosion, and other climate-related changes.

Key Message: Economic Disruption

Nationally important assets, such as ports, tourism, and fishing sites, in already-vulnerable coastal locations, are increasingly exposed to sea level rise and related hazards. This threatens to disrupt economic activity within coastal areas and the regions they serve and results in significant costs from protecting or moving these assets.

Key Message: Uneven Social Vulnerability

Socioeconomic disparities create uneven exposures and sensitivities to growing coastal risks and limit adaptation options for some coastal communities, resulting in the displacement of the most vulnerable people from coastal areas.

Key Message: Vulnerable Ecosystems

Coastal ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change because many have already been dramatically altered by human stresses; climate change will result in further reduction or loss of the services that these ecosystems provide, including potentially irreversible impacts. 

Key Message: The State of Coastal Adaptation

Leaders and residents of coastal regions are increasingly aware of the high vulnerability of coasts to climate change and are developing plans to prepare for potential impacts on citizens, businesses, and environmental assets. Significant institutional, political, social, and economic obstacles to implementing adaptation actions remain.


Coastal road damage

Damage to coastal roads is already a problem along the shores of the U.S. and will worsen as sea level continues to rise.

More than 50% of Americans – 164 million people – live in coastal counties, with 1.2 million added each year. Residents, combined with the more than 180 million tourists that flock to the coasts each year,1,2 place heavy demands on the unique natural systems and resources that make coastal areas so attractive and productive.1,2

No other region concentrates so many people and so much economic activity on so little land, while also being so relentlessly affected by the sometimes violent interactions of land, sea, and air. Humans have heavily altered the coastal environment through development, changes in land use, and overexploitation of resources.

Now, the changing climate is imposing additional stresses,3 making life on the coast more challenging. The consequences will ripple through the entire nation.

Lifelines at Risk

Paths of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Relative to Oil and Gas Production Facilities

Paths of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Relative to Oil and Gas Production Facilities

A substantial portion of U.S. energy facilities are located on the Gulf Coast as well as offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, where they are particularly vulnerable to hurricanes and other storms and sea level rise. (Figure source: U.S. Government Accountability Office 20064).


Key coastal vulnerabilities arise from complex interactions among climate change and other physical, human, and ecological factors. These vulnerabilities have the potential to fundamentally alter life at the coast and disrupt coast-dependent economic activities.

The more than 60,000 miles of coastal roads are essential for human activities. Already, many coastal roads are affected during storm events5,6,7,8 and extreme high tides.9,10,11,12 As coastal bridges, tunnels, and roads are built or redesigned, engineers must account for present and future climate change impacts.13

Wastewater management and drainage systems are also at risk. Systems will become overwhelmed with increased rainfall intensity over more impervious surfaces, such as asphalt and concrete.14,15,16,17,18,19,20 Sea level rise will cause a variety of problems including salt water intrusion into coastal aquifers.21,22,23 Together, climate change impacts increase the risks of urban flooding, combined sewer overflows, deteriorating coastal water quality, and human health impacts.24,25,26

Natural gas platform

Natural gas platform in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates some of the infrastructure at risk from coastal storms.

The nation’s energy infrastructure, such as power plants, oil and gas refineries, storage tanks, transformers, and electricity transmission lines, are often located directly in the coastal floodplain.27,28,29,30 Roughly two-thirds of imported oil enters the U.S. through Gulf of Mexico ports,31 and unless adaptive measures are taken, storm-related flooding, erosion, and permanent inundation from sea level rise will disrupt the supply of refined products to the rest of the nation.32,33,34,35,36

There are a variety of options to protect, replace, and redesign existing infrastructure, including flood proofing and flood protection through dikes, berms, pumps, integration of natural landscape features, elevation, more frequent upgrades, or relocation.37,38 Such adaptation options are best assessed in a site-specific context, weighing social, economic, and ecological considerations.

Economic Disruption

More than 5,790 square miles and more than $1 trillion of property and structures are at risk of inundation from sea level rise of two feet above current sea level – which could be reached by 2050 under a high rate of sea level rise, by 2070 assuming a lower rate of rise, and sooner in areas of rapid land subsidence.40,41,42 Roughly half of the vulnerable property value is located in Florida.41,43

Although comprehensive national estimates are not yet available, regional studies are indicative of the potential risk: the incremental annual damage of climate change to capital assets in the Gulf region alone could be $2.7 to $4.6 billion by 2030, and $8.3 to $13.2 billion by 2050; about 20% of these at-risk assets are in the oil and gas industry.44 Investing approximately $50 billion for adaptation over the next 20 years could lead to approximately $135 billion in averted losses over the lifetime of adaptive measures.44,45

Coast-to-Inland Economic Connections Coast-to-Inland Economic Connections Details/Download

Coastal recreation and tourism comprises the largest and fastest-growing sector of the U.S. service industry, accounting for 85% of the $700 billion annual tourism-related revenues.1,46,47 Hard shoreline protection against the encroaching sea (like building sea walls or riprap) generally aggravates erosion and beach loss, and causes negative effects on coastal ecosystems, undermining the attractiveness of beach tourism. Thus, “soft protection,” such as beach replenishment or conservation and restoration of sand dunes and wetlands, is increasingly preferred to “hard protection” measures.

Socioeconomic Disparities

There are large socioeconomic disparities in coastal areas,48,49,50,51,52,53 and a full understanding of risk for coastal communities requires consideration of social vulnerability factors that limit people’s ability to adapt. These factors include lower income, minority status, low educational achievement, advanced age, lower economic and social mobility, and much lower likelihood of being insured than wealthy property owners.54,55,56,57,58 The most socially vulnerable populations also tend to have fewer adaptation options in their current locations, and thus may be at greater risk of dislocation.51,59,60,61,62

Vulnerable Ecosystems

Coastal ecosystems provide a suite of valuable benefits (ecosystem services) on which humans depend, including reducing the impacts from floods, buffering from storm surge and waves, and providing nursery habitat for important fish and other species, water filtration, carbon storage, and opportunities for recreation and enjoyment.67,68,69,70,71

However, many of these ecosystems and the services they provide are rapidly being degraded by human impacts, including pollution, habitat destruction, and the spread of invasive species.

These existing stresses on coastal ecosystems will be exacerbated by climate change effects, such as increased ocean temperatures that lead to coral bleaching,72 altered river flows affecting the health of estuaries,73 and acidified waters threatening shellfish.74 Of particular concern is the potential for coastal ecosystems to cross thresholds of rapid change (“tipping points”), beyond which they exist in a dramatically altered state or are lost entirely from the area. Some ecosystems are already near tipping points and in some cases the changes will be irreversible.75

Adaptation Challenges and Opportunities

Coastal leaders and populations are increasingly concerned about climate-related impacts and are developing adaptation plans,76,77,78 but support for development restrictions or managed retreat is limited.79,80,81,82

Enacting measures that increase resilience in the face of current hazards, while reducing long-term risks due to climate change, continues to be challenging.83,84,85

coastal ecosystem restoration project

A coastal ecosystem restoration project in New York City integrates revegetation (a form of green infrastructure) with bulkheads and riprap (gray or built infrastructure). Investments in coastal ecosystem conservation and restoration can protect coastal waterfronts and infrastructure, while providing additional benefits, such as habitat for commercial and recreational fish, birds, and other animal and plant species, that are not offered by built infrastructure.

A robust finding is that the cost of inaction is 4 to 10 times greater than the cost associated with preventive hazard mitigation.41,86 Even so, prioritizing expenditures now whose benefits accrue far in the future is difficult.87

Cumulative costs to the economy of responding to sea level rise and flooding events alone could be as high as $325 billion by 2100 for 4 feet of sea level rise, with $130 billion expected to be incurred in Florida and $88 billion in the North Atlantic region.42 The projected costs associated with one foot of sea level rise by 2100 are roughly $200 billion. These figures exclude losses of valuable ecosystem services, as well as indirect losses from business disruption, lost economic activity, impacts on economic growth, or other non-market losses.42,88,89,90

Property insurance can serve as an important mode of financial adaptation to climate risks,91 but the full potential of leveraging insurance rates and availability has not yet been realized.92,93,94 Federal fiscal exposure for the National Flood Insurance Program was estimated at nearly $1.3 trillion in 2012.95 Reforms were enacted in 2012, though various challenges remain.96,97,98,99,100,101

Climate adaptation efforts that integrate hazard mitigation, natural resource conservation, and restoration of coastal ecosystems can enhance ecological resilience and reduce the exposure of property, infrastructure, and economic activities to climate change impacts.69,102,103,104,105,106,107,108 Yet, the integration and translation of scientific understanding of the benefits provided by ecosystems into engineering design and hazard management remains challenging.109,110 Adaptation efforts to date that have begun to connect these issues across jurisdictional and departmental boundaries and create innovative solutions are thus extremely encouraging.92,111,112,113,114

Coastal Climate Change Threats Around the U.S.

Coastal Figures



  • Newtok, AK, is relocating away from the eroding shoreline.
  • Summer sea ice is receding rapidly, altering marine ecosystems, allowing for greater ship access and offshore development, and making Native communities highly susceptible to coastal erosion.
  • Ice loss from melting Alaskan and Canadian glaciers currently contributes almost as much to sea level rise as does melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
  • Current and projected increases in Alaska’s ocean temperatures and changes in ocean chemistry are expected to alter the distribution and productivity of Alaska’s marine fisheries.


  • San Diego Bay engaged in a multi-sector, multi-level stakeholder process to develop a first adaptation plan.
  • California Ocean Protection Council developed sea level rise guidance for state and local governments.
  • Bay Conservation and Development Commission passed Bay Plan Amendment.
  • Sea level has risen approximately 7 inches from 1900 to 2005, and is expected to rise at growing rates in this century.
  • Higher temperatures; changes in precipitation, runoff and water supplies; and saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers will result in negative impacts on coastal water resources.
  • Coastal storm surges are expected to be higher due to increases in sea level alone, and more intense persistent storm tracks (atmospheric river systems) will increase coastal flooding risks from inland runoff.
  • Expensive coastal development, critical infrastructure, and valuable coastal wetlands are at growing risk from coastal erosion, temporary flooding, and permanent inundation.
  • The San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin/Sacramento River Delta are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and changes in salinity, temperature, and runoff; endangering one of the ecological “jewels” of the West Coast, growing development, and crucial water infrastructure.

Great Lakes

  • Wisconsin’s state adaptation plan includes emphasis on lake shorefront areas.
  • Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission updated hazard mitigation plans.
  • Ohio’s Lake Erie Commission is in the process of developing model shoreline development legislation.
  • Higher temperatures and longer growing seasons in the Great Lakes region favor production of blue-green and toxic algae that can harm fish, water quality, habitat, and aesthetics.
  • Increased winter air temperatures will lead to decreased Great Lakes ice cover, making shorelines more susceptible to erosion and flooding.
  • Current projections of lake level changes are uncertain.

Gulf Coast

  • Mississippi – Coastal Improvements Program includes buy-outs and relocation.
  • 2012 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan ambitiously aims to protect and restore low-lying land.
  • Entergy, America’s Wetland Foundation, and Oxfam champion joint adaptation planning for America’s Energy Coast.
  • Texas requires rolling easements.
  • Hurricanes, land subsidence, sea level rise, and erosion already pose great risks to Gulf Coast areas, placing homes, critical infrastructure, and people at risk, and causing permanent land loss.
  • Coastal inland and water temperatures are expected to rise; coastal inland areas are expected to become drier.
  • There is still uncertainty about future frequency and intensity of Gulf of Mexico hurricanes but sea level rise will increase storm surges.
  • The Florida Keys, South Florida, and coastal Louisiana are particularly vulnerable to additional sea level rise and saltwater intrusion.


  • Researchers map sea level rise in Honolulu to help communities assess risks.
  • USGS helps monitor saltwater intrusion on Majuro Atoll, Marshall Islands.
  • Warmer and drier conditions will reduce freshwater supplies on many Pacific Islands, especially on low lying islands and atolls.
  • Sea level rise will continue at accelerating rates, exacerbating coastal erosion, damaging infrastructure and agriculture, reducing critical habitat, and threatening shallow coral reef systems.
  • Extreme water levels occur when high tides combine with interannual and interdecadal sea level variations (such as ENSO, PDO, mesoscale eddy events) and storm surge.
  • Coral reef changes pose threats to communities, cultures, and ecosystems.


  • Delaware launched a multi-faceted effort to prepare coastal communities for sea level rise.
  • Maryland’s Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Change has a strong initial focus on sea level rise and coastal hazards.
  • The Hampton Roads area, including the City of Norfolk, Virgina, is working to reduce recurrent flooding and impacts on coastal infrastructrure.
  • Rates of local sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay are greater than the global average.
  • Sea level rise and related flooding and erosion threaten coastal homes, infrastructure, and commercial development, including ports.
  • Chesapeake Bay ecosystems are already heavily degraded, making them more vulnerable to climate-related impacts.


  • Portland, ME, is assessing costs for retrofitting its wastewater infrastructure.
  • New Hampshire’s Coastal Adaptation Workgroup is providing education, guidance, and networking for local planners.
  • City of Boston considers adaptation and mitigation equal priorities, and sea level rise is a top concern.
  • Connecticut State Assembly amended the state’s Coastal Management Act to promote adaptation to sea level rise.
  • Highly built-up coastal corridor concentrates population and supporting infrastructure.
  • Storm surges from nor’easters and hurricanes can cause significant damage.
  • The historical rate of relative sea level rise varies across the region.
  • Wetlands and estuaries are vulnerable to inundation from sea level rise; buildings and infrastructure are most vulnerable to higher storm surges as sea level rises.


  • Swinomish Tribe’s Climate Change Initiative highlights special challenges of coastal tribes.
  • Oregon Sea Grant surveyed its coastal professionals on preparedness for local climate change impacts.
  • The substantial global sea level rise is regionally moderated by the continuing uplift of land, with few exceptions, such as the Seattle area and central Oregon.
  • Commercial shellfish populations are at risk from ocean acidification.
  • The region’s relatively high economic dependence on commercial fisheries makes it sensitive to climate change impacts on marine species and ecosystems and related coastal ecosystems.
  • Coastal storm surges are expected to be higher due to increases in sea level alone, and more intense persistent storm tracks (atmospheric river systems) will increase coastal flooding risks from inland runoff.


  • NC Department of Transportation is raising the road bed of US Highway 64 to account for future sea level rise.
  • The City of Charleston upgraded stormwater pumps and sewer systems to reduce tidal flooding.
  • Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and City of Punta Gorda, FL, involved community stakeholders in its adaptation planning process.
  • Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact designated Adaptation Action Areas.
  • A large number of cities, critical infrastructure, and water supplies are at low elevations and exposed to sea level rise, in some places moderated by land uplift.
  • Ecosystems of the Southeast are vulnerable to loss from relative sea level rise, especially tidal marshes and swamps.
  • Sea level rise will affect coastal agriculture through higher storm surges, saltwater intrusion, and impacts on freshwater supplies.
  • The number of land-falling tropical storms may decline, reducing important rainfall.
  • The incidence of harmful algal blooms is expected to increase with climate change, as are health problems previously uncommon in the region.

Adaptation Examples: Examples of Adaptation Activities in Coastal Areas of the U.S. and Affiliated Island States are compiled from technical input reports, the regional chapters in this report, and scientific literature. For related information, see

Shoreline Erosion: Probability of Shoreline Erosion greater than 3.3 feet per year for counties along the coast. Probability is based on historical conditions only and does not reflect the possibility of acceleration due to increasing rates of sea level rise.63,64,65

Social Vulnerability: Social Vulnerabilty Index (SoVI) at the Census tract level for counties along the coast. The Social Vulnerability Index provides a quantitative, integrative measure for comparing the degree of vulnerability of human populations across the nation. A high SoVI (dark pink) typically indicates some combination of high exposure and high sensitivity to the effects of climate change and low capacity to deal with them. Specific index components and weighting are unique to each region (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Great Lakes, Alaska, and Hawai‘i). All index components are constructed from readily available Census data and include measures of poverty, age, family structure, location (rural versus urban), foreign-born status, wealth, gender, Native American status, and occupation.51,66

Regional Differences: Regional threats from climate change are compiled from technical input reports, the regional chapters in this report, and from scientific literature. For related information, see



  1. Abbott, T., 2013: Shifting shorelines and political winds – The complexities of implementing the simple idea of shoreline setbacks for oceanfront developments in Maui, Hawaii. Ocean & Coastal Management, 73, 13-21, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.12.010. URL | Detail

  2. Agyeman, J., P. Devine-Wright, and J. Prange, 2009: Close to the edge, down by the river? Joining up managed retreat and place attachment in a climate changed world. Environment and Planning A, 41, 509-513, doi:10.1068/a41301. URL | Detail

  3. AWF/AEC/Entergy, 2010: Building a Resilient Energy Gulf Coast: Executive Report. 11 pp., America’s Wetland Foundation, America’s Energy Coast, and Entergy. URL | Detail

  4. Barthel, F., and E. Neumayer, 2010: A trend analysis of normalized insured damage from natural disasters. Climatic Change, 113, 215-237, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0331-2. | Detail

  5. Barton, A., B. Hales, G. G. Waldbusser, C. Langdon, and R. A. Feely, 2012: The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, shows negative correlation to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: Implications for near-term ocean acidification effects. Limnology and Oceanography, 57, 698-710, doi:10.4319/lo.2012.57.3.0698. | Detail

  6. Bierwagen, B. G., D. M. Theobald, C. R. Pyke, A. Choate, P. Groth, J. V. Thomas, and P. Morefield, 2010: National housing and impervious surface scenarios for integrated climate impact assessments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 20887-20892, doi:10.1073/pnas.1002096107. | Detail

  7. Biging, G., J. Radke, and J. H. Lee, 2012: Impacts of Predicted Sea-Level Rise and Extreme Storm Events on the Transportation Infrastructure in the San Francisco Bay Region. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-040. California Energy Commission. URL | Detail

  8. Bjerklie, D. M., J. R. Mullaney, J. R. Stone, B. J. Skinner, and M. A. Ramlow, 2012: Preliminary Investigation of the Effects of Sea-Level Rise on Groundwater Levels in New Haven, Connecticut. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1025. 56 pp., U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey. URL | Detail

  9. Bovbjerg, R. R., and J. Hadley, 2007: Why Health Insurance is Important. Report No. DC-SPG no. 1. 3 pp., The Urban Institute. URL | Detail

  10. Bronen, R., 2011: Climate-induced community relocations: Creating an adaptive governance framework based in human rights doctrine. New York University Review Law & Social Change, 35, 357-408. URL | Detail

  11. Burkett, V., and M. Davidson, 2012: Coastal Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabilities: A Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment. Island Press, 216 pp. | Detail

  12. Burton, C., and S. Cutter, 2008: Levee failures and social vulnerability in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area, California. Natural Hazards Review, 9, 136, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:3(136). | Detail

  13. California King Tides Initiative, 2012: California King Tides Initiative. URL | Detail

  14. CCAP and EESI, 2012: Climate Adaptation & Transportation: Identifying Information and Assistance Needs. 66. URL | Detail

  15. Changnon, S. A., 2011: Temporal distribution of weather catastrophes in the USA. Climatic Change, 106, 129-140, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9927-1. | Detail

  16. Clark, G. E., S. C. Moser, S. J. Ratick, K. Dow, W. B. Meyer, S. Emani, W. Jin, J. X. Kasperson, R. E. Kasperson, and H. E. Schwarz, 1998: Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme storms: The case of Revere, MA., USA. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 3, 59-82, doi:10.1023/A:1009609710795. | Detail

  17. Colls, A., N. Ash, and N. Ikkala, 2009: Ecosystem-based Adaptation: A Natural Response to Climate Change. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 16 pp. URL | Detail

  18. Cooley, H., E. Moore, M. Heberger, and L. Allen, 2012: Social Vulnerability to Climate Change in California. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-500-2012-013. 69 pp., Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA. URL | Detail

  19. Costanza, R., O. Pérez-Maqueo, L. M. Martinez, P. Sutton, S. J. Anderson, and K. Mulder, 2008: The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 37, 241-248, doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[241:tvocwf];2. URL | Detail

  20. Cropper, M. L., and P. R. Portney, 1990: Discounting and the evaluation of life-saving programs. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3, 369-379, doi:10.1007/BF00353347. | Detail

  21. Cutter, S. L., B. J. Boruff, and W. L. Shirley, 2003: Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 242-261, doi:10.1111/1540-6237.8402002. | Detail

  22. Cutter, S. L., and C. Finch, 2008: Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 2301-2306, doi:10.1073/pnas.0710375105. | Detail

  23. Czajkowski, J., H. Kunreuther, and E. Michel-Kerjan, 2011: A Methodological Approach for Pricing Flood Insurance and Evaluating Loss Reduction Measures: Application to Texas, Wharton Risk Management Center and CoreLogic, Philadelphia, PA and Santa Ana, CA. 87 pp. URL | Detail

  24. Daily, G. C., S. Polasky, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, H. A. Mooney, L. Pejchar, T. H. Ricketts, J. Salzman, and R. Shallenberger, 2009: Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 21-28, doi:10.1890/080025. | Detail

  25. Danielsen, F., M. K. Sørensen, M. F. Olwig, V. Selvam, F. Parish, N. D. Burgess, T. Hiraishi, V. M. Karunagaran, M. S. Rasmussen, L. B. Hansen, A. Quarto, and N. Suryadiputra, 2005: The Asian tsunami: A protective role for coastal vegetation. Science, 310, 643, doi:10.1126/science.1118387. | Detail

  26. DOT, 2010: Freight Analysis Framework (Version 3) Data Tabulation Tool, Total Flows. U.S. Department of Transportation. URL | Detail

  27. DOT, 2012: Climate Impacts and U.S. Transportation: Technical Input Report for the National Climate Assessment. DOT OST/P-33. U.S. Department of Transportation. URL | Detail

  28. Emrich, C. T., and S. L. Cutter, 2011: Social vulnerability to climate-sensitive hazards in the southern United States. Weather, Climate, and Society, 3, 193-208, doi:10.1175/2011WCAS1092.1. URL | Detail

  29. EPA, 2008: A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Mitigation in the Great Lakes and New England Regions. EPA/600/R-07/033F. 50 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. URL | Detail

  30. FDEP, 2012: Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida. 76 pp., Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Division of Water Resource Management. URL | Detail

  31. FEMA, 2013: Total Coverage by Calendar Year. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. URL | Detail

  32. FHWA, 2008: Highways in the Coastal Environment, Second Edition. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 25. FHWA-NHI-07-096. 250 pp., Federal Highway Administration. Department of Civil Engineering, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL. URL | Detail

  33. Francis, R. A., S. M. Falconi, R. Nateghi, and S. D. Guikema, 2011: Probabilistic life cycle analysis model for evaluating electric power infrastructure risk mitigation investments. Climatic Change, 106, 31-55, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-0001-9. | Detail

  34. Franck, T., 2009: Coastal adaptation and economic tipping points. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 20, 434-450, doi:10.1108/14777830910963762. | Detail

  35. GAO, 2006: Natural Gas: Factors Affecting Prices and Potential Impacts on Consumers (GAO-06-420T). 28 pp., U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. URL | Detail

  36. GAO, 2010: National Flood Insurance Program: Continued Actions Needed to Address Financial and Operational Issues. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. URL | Detail

  37. Georgetown Climate Center, 2012: Helping Communities Adapt to Climate Change. URL | Detail

  38. Goidel, K., C. Kenny, M. Climek, M. Means, L. Swann, T. Sempier, and M. Schneider, 2012: 2012 Gulf Coast Climate Change Survey Executive Summary. 36 pp., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Texas Sea Grant, Louisiana Sea Grant, Florida Sea Grant, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. URL | Detail

  39. H. John Heinz III Center for Science Energy and the Environment, 2000: Evaluation of Erosion Hazards. 205 pp., Washington, DC, USA. URL | Detail

  40. H. John Heinz III Center for Science Energy and the Environment, 2000: The Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards: Implications for Risk Assessment and Mitigation. A multisector collaborative project of the H. John Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. Island Press, 252 pp. | Detail

  41. Hallegatte, S., 2008: Adaptation to climate change: Do not count on climate scientists to do your work. 15 pp. URL | Detail

  42. Hallegatte, S., 2012: A framework to investigate the economic growth impact of sea level rise. Environmental Research Letters, 7, 015604, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/015604. | Detail

  43. Hayhoe, K., M. Robson, J. Rogula, M. Auffhammer, N. Miller, J. VanDorn, and D. Wuebbles, 2010: An integrated framework for quantifying and valuing climate change impacts on urban energy and infrastructure: A Chicago case study. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 36, 94-105, doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2010.03.011. | Detail

  44. Hilton, T. W., R. G. Najjar, L. Zhong, and M. Li, 2008: Is there a signal of sea-level rise in Chesapeake Bay salinity? Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 113, C09002, doi:10.1029/2007jc004247. URL | Detail

  45. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and J. F. Bruno, 2010: The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science, 328, 1523-1528, doi:10.1126/science.1189930. | Detail

  46. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M. E. Hatziolos, 2007: Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science, 318, 1737-1742, doi:10.1126/science.1152509. | Detail

  47. Holzman, D. C., 2012: Accounting for nature's benefits: The dollar value of ecosystem services. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, a152-a157, doi:10.1289/ehp.120-a152. URL | Detail

  48. Houston, J. R., 2008: The economic value of beaches – a 2008 update. Shore & Beach, 76, 22-26. | Detail

  49. Hudson, B., 2012: Coastal land loss and the mitigation – adaptation dilemma: Between Scylla and Charybdis. Louisiana Law Review, 73. URL | Detail

  50. 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. C.B. Field, 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, 582 pp. URL | Detail

  51. Johnson, L., 2012: Rising groundwater may flood underground infrastructure of coastal cities. Scientific American,. URL | Detail

  52. Kenward, A., D. Yawitz, and U. Raja, 2013: Sewage Overflows From Hurricane Sandy. 43 pp., Climate Central. URL | Detail

  53. Kick, E. L., J. C. Fraser, G. M. Fulkerson, L. A. McKinney, and D. H. De Vries, 2011: Repetitive flood victims and acceptance of FEMA mitigation offers: An analysis with community–system policy implications. Disasters, 35, 510-539, doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01226.x. | Detail

  54. King, R. O., 2011: National Flood Insurance Program: Background, Challenges, and Financial Status. R40650. 33 pp., Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C. URL | Detail

  55. Koch, E. W., E. B. Barbier, B. R. Silliman, D. J. Reed, G. M. E. Perillo, S. D. Hacker, E. F. Granek, J. H. Primavera, N. Muthiga, S. Polasky, B. S. Halpern, C. J. Kennedy, C. V. Kappel, and E. Wolanski, 2009: Non-linearity in ecosystem services: Temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 29-37, doi:10.1890/080126. URL | Detail

  56. Krosnik, J., 2013: Stanford University Climate Adaptation National Poll. 20 pp., Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. URL | Detail

  57. Kunreuther, H. C., and E. O. Michel-Kerjan, 2009: At War with the Weather: Managing Large-Scale Risks in a New Era of Catastrophes. The MIT Press, 416 pp. | Detail

  58. Maldonado, J. Koppel, C. Shearer, R. Bronen, K. Peterson, and H. Lazrus, 2013: The impact of climate change on tribal communities in the US: Displacement, relocation, and human rights. Climatic Change, 120, 601-614, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0746-z. | Detail

  59. Martinich, J., J. Neumann, L. Ludwig, and L. Jantarasami, 2013: Risks of sea level rise to disadvantaged communities in the United States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18, 169-185, doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9356-0. URL | Detail

  60. MDOT, 2003: Bridge Design Guide. Maine Department of Transportation, Prepared by Guertin Elkerton & Associates. URL | Detail

  61. Michel-Kerjan, E., and H. Kunreuther, 2011: Redesigning flood insurance. Science, 333, 408-409, doi:10.1126/science.1202616. URL | Detail

  62. Michel-Kerjan, E. O., 2010: Catastrophe economics: The National Flood Insurance Program. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 165-186, doi:10.1257/jep.24.4.165. URL | Detail

  63. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Health Synthesis. J. Sarukhán, A. Whyte, and P. Weinstein, Eds. Island Press, 53 pp. | Detail

  64. Moser, S. C., R. E. Kasperson, G. Yohe, and J. Agyeman, 2008: Adaptation to climate change in the Northeast United States: Opportunities, processes, constraints. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13, 643-659, doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9132-3. URL | Detail

  65. Moser, S. C., and J. A. Ekstrom, 2012: Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in San Francisco Bay: Results from Case Studies. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-034. 186 pp., California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. URL | Detail

  66. Moser, S. C., S. J. Williams, and D. F. Boesch, 2012: Wicked challenges at land’s end: Managing coastal vulnerability under climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Natural Resources, 37, 51-78, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-021611-135158. URL | Detail

  67. Multihazard Mitigation Council, 2005: Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings From Mitigation Activities. Volume 2 - Study Documentation. 150 pp., National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C. URL | Detail

  68. Neumann, J., D. Hudgens, J. Herter, and J. Martinich, 2010: The economics of adaptation along developed coastlines. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2, 89-98, doi:10.1002/wcc.90. URL | Detail

  69. Neumann, J. E., D. E. Hudgens, J. Herter, and J. Martinich, 2010: Assessing sea-level rise impacts: A GIS-based framework and application to coastal New Jersey. Coastal Management, 38, 433-455, doi:10.1080/08920753.2010.496105. | Detail

  70. NOAA, 1998: National Ocean Report. NOAA’s Office of Public and Constituent Affairs. URL | Detail

  71. NPCC, 2009: Climate Risk Information. 74 pp., New York City Panel on Climate Change, New York, New York. URL | Detail

  72. NPCC, 2010: Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response: New York City Panel on Climate Change 2009 Report. Vol. 1196C. Rosenzweig and W. Solecki, Eds. Wiley-Blackwell, 328 pp. URL | Detail

  73. Ntelekos, A. A., M. Oppenheimer, J. A. Smith, and A. J. Miller, 2010: Urbanization, climate change and flood policy in the United States. Climatic Change, 103, 597-616, doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9789-6. | Detail

  74. OTTI, 2012: Overseas Visitation Estimates for U.S. States, Cities, and Census Regions: 2011. 6 pp., U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Commission, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, Washington, D.C. URL | Detail

  75. Oxfam America, 2009: Exposed: Social Vulnerability and Climate Change in the US Southeast. 24 pp., Oxfam America Inc., Boston, MA. URL | Detail

  76. Parris, A., P. Bromirski, V. Burkett, D. Cayan, M. Culver, J. Hall, R. Horton, K. Knuuti, R. Moss, J. Obeysekera, A. Sallenger, and J. Weiss, 2012: Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment. NOAA Tech Memo OAR CPO-1. 37 pp., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. URL | Detail

  77. Peach, S., 2012: Sea Level Rise, One More Frontier For Climate Dialogue Controversy. Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media,. URL | Detail

  78. Perez, P. R., 2009: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on California's Energy Infrastructure and Identification of Adaptation Measures: Staff Paper. California Energy Commission, 23 pp. | Detail

  79. Peterson, T. C., P. A. Stott, and S. Herring, 2012: Explaining extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93, 1041-1067, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00021.1. URL | Detail

  80. Petes, L. E., A. J. Brown, and C. R. Knight, 2012: Impacts of upstream drought and water withdrawals on the health and survival of downstream estuarine oyster populations. Ecology and Evolution, 2, 1712-1724, doi:10.1002/ece3.291. URL | Detail

  81. Principe, P., P. Bradley, S. H. Yee, W. S. Fisher, E. D. Johnson, P. Allen, and D. E. Campbell, 2012: Quantifying Coral Reef Ecosystem Services. EPA/600/R-11/206. 158 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. URL | Detail

  82. Responsive Management, 2010: Responsive Management: Delaware Residents’ Opinions on Climate Change and Sea Level Rise. 351 pp., Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, VA. URL | Detail

  83. Rosato, V., L. Issacharoff, F. Tiriticco, S. Meloni, S. Porcellinis, and R. Setola, 2008: Modelling interdependent infrastructures using interacting dynamical models. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 4, 63-79, doi:10.1504/IJCIS.2008.016092. | Detail

  84. Rosenzweig, C., W. D. Solecki, R. Blake, M. Bowman, C. Faris, V. Gornitz, R. Horton, K. Jacob, A. LeBlanc, R. Leichenko, M. Linkin, D. Major, M. O’Grady, L. Patrick, E. Sussman, G. Yohe, and R. Zimmerman, 2011: Developing coastal adaptation to climate change in the New York City infrastructure-shed: Process, approach, tools, and strategies. Climatic Change, 106, 93-127, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-0002-8. URL | Detail

  85. Rotzoll, K., and C. H. Fletcher, 2013: Assessment of groundwater inundation as a consequence of sea-level rise. Nature Climate Change, 3, 477-481, doi:10.1038/nclimate1725. | Detail

  86. Ruckelshaus, M., S. C. Doney, H. M. Galindo, J. P. Barry, F. Chan, J. E. Duffy, C. A. English, S. D. Gaines, J. M. Grebmeier, A. B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N. N. Rabalais, W. J. Sydeman, and L. D. Talley, 2013: Securing ocean benefits for society in the face of climate change. Marine Policy, 40, 154-159, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.009. | Detail

  87. Rygel, L., D. O’Sullivan, and B. Yarnal, 2006: A method for constructing a Social Vulnerability Index: An application to hurricane storm surges in a developed country. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11, 741-764, doi:10.1007/s11027-006-0265-6. URL | Detail

  88. Sathaye, J., L. Dale, P. Larsen, G. Fitts, K. Koy, S. Lewis, and A. Lucena, 2011: Estimating Risk to California Energy Infrastructure from Projected Climate Change. 85 pp., Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California Energy Commission, Berkeley, CA. URL | Detail

  89. Schmidtlein, M. C., R. C. Deutsch, W. W. Piegorsch, and S. L. Cutter, 2008: A sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index. Risk Analysis, 28, 1099-1114, doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01072.x. URL | Detail

  90. Seneviratne, S. I., N. Nicholls, D. Easterling, C. M. Goodess, S. Kanae, J. Kossin, Y. Luo, J. Marengo, K. McInnes, M. Rahimi, M. Reichstein, A. Sorteberg, C. Vera, and X. Zhang, 2012: Ch. 3: Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. 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 (IPCC), C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, 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, 109-230. | Detail

  91. Solecki, W., and C. Rosenzweig, 2012: U.S. Cities and Climate Change: Urban, Infrastructure, and Vulnerability Issues, Technical Input Report Series, U.S. National Climate Assessment.. URL | Detail

  92. State of Louisiana, 2012: Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA. URL | Detail

  93. State of Washington, 2012: Climate Change, King Tides in Washington State. Department of Ecology, State of Washington. URL | Detail

  94. Swann, L. D., 2008: The Use of Living Shorelines to Mitigate the Effects of Storm Events on Dauphin Island, Alabama, USA. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 12 pp., Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture, Auburn University, Ocean Springs, MS. URL | Detail

  95. Texas General Land Office, 2012: Caring for the Coast: Coastal Management Program. State of Texas. URL | Detail

  96. Texas Health Institute, 2012: Climate Change, Environmental Challenges and Vulnerable Communities: Assessing Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future. 109 pp., The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Research Project, Washington, D.C. URL | Detail

  97. The World Bank, 2009: Convenient Solutions for an Inconvenient Truth: Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change. The World Bank, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 91 pp. URL | Detail

  98. Thieler, E. R., and E. S. Hammar-Klose, 1999: National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-593, 1 Map Sheet. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. URL | Detail

  99. Thieler, E. R., and E. S. Hammar-Klose, 2000: National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico Coast. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-179, 1 map sheet. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. URL | Detail

  100. Thieler, E. R., and E. S. Hammar-Klose, 2000: National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Pacific Coast. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-178, 1 map sheet. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. URL | Detail

  101. Titus, J. G., D. E. Hudgens, D. L. Trescott, M. Craghan, W. H. Nuckols, C. H. Hershner, J. M. Kassakian, C. J. Linn, P. G. Merritt, T. M. McCue, J. F. O’Connell, J. Tanski, and J. Wang, 2009: State and local governments plan for development of most land vulnerable to rising sea level along the US Atlantic coast. Environmental Research Letters, 4, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/044008. | Detail

  102. Tobey, J., P. Rubinoff, D. Robadue, Jr., G. Ricci, R. Volk, J. Furlow, and G. Anderson, 2010: Practicing coastal adaptation to climate change: Lessons from integrated coastal management. Coastal Management, 38, 317-335, doi:10.1080/08920753.2010.483169. | Detail

  103. Toll, D. G., 2010: The Impact of Changes in the Water Table and Soil Moisture on Structural Stability of Buildings and Foundation Systems. Systematic review CEE10-005 (SR90). Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. URL | Detail

  104. Turner, S., 2011: Extreme high tides expected along RI coast; grab your camera. East Greenwich Patch,. URL | Detail

  105. U.S. Government, 2009: Executive Order 13514. Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. Federal Register, 74, 52117-52127. URL | Detail

  106. U.S. Travel Association, 2012: U.S. Travel Forecasts. U.S. Travel Association. URL | Detail

  107. -WCMC, U. N. E. P., 2006: In the Front Line: Shoreline Protection and Other Ecosystem Services From Mangroves and Coral Reefs. UNEP-WCMC, 33 pp. URL | Detail

  108. Villanoy, C., L. David, O. Cabrera, M. Atrigenio, F. Siringan, P. Aliño, and M. Villaluz, 2012: Coral reef ecosystems protect shore from high-energy waves under climate change scenarios. Climatic Change, 112, 1-13, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0399-3. | Detail

  109. Vugrin, E. D., and R. C. Camphouse, 2011: Infrastructure resilience assessment through control design. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 7, 243-260, doi:10.1504/IJCIS.2011.042994. | Detail

  110. Vugrin, E. D., D. E. Warren, M. A. Ehlen, and C. R. Camphouse, 2010: A framework for assessing the resilience of infrastructure and economic systems. Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems, K. Gopalakrishnan and S. Peeta, Eds., Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 77-116. | Detail

  111. Watson, S., 2011: Alignment of the Sun, moon and Earth will cause unusually high tides.,. URL | Detail

  112. Wilbanks, T., S. Fernandez, G. Backus, P. Garcia, K. Jonietz, P. Kirshen, M. Savonis, B. Solecki, and L. Toole, 2012: Climate Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems, and Vulnerabilities. Technical Report to the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate Assessment. 119 pp., Oak Ridge National Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Oak Ridge, TN. URL | Detail

  113. Wolshon, B., 2006: Evacuation planning and engineering for Hurricane Katrina. The Bridge, 36, 27-34. | Detail

  114. Zimmerman, R., 2006: Ch. 34: Critical infrastructure and interdependency. The McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook, D.G. Kamien, Ed., McGraw-Hill, 523-545. | Detail

The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future.

A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

United States Global Change Research Program logo United States Global Change Research Program participating agency logos