United States Environmental Protection Agency	Region IV
Policy, Planning and
Evaluation Branch
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia

The prognosis for sea level rise should not be a cause for alarm or complacency.
Present decisions should not be based on a particular sea level rise scenario. Rather, those
charged with planning or design responsibilities in the coastal zone should be aware of and
sensitized to the probabilities of and quantitative uncertainties related to future sea level rise.
Options should be kept open to enable the most appropriate response to future changes in the
rate of sea level rise. Long-term planning and policy development should explicitly consider
the high probability of future increased rates of sea level rise.
Responding to Chanees in Sea Level. National Research Council, 1987

Library fy
®> 303SS
iaais^ ^
For more information on sea level rise contact:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation Branch
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Cover Photo: E. Kunze
This brochure was prepared by
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
King of Prussia, Pa. 19406
Printed on Recycled Paper

'	Region IV
SEA LEVEL RISE ?rot^HoaAgmey
I. Background — Street
	Georgia 30365		
A. Introduction
In the last few years, much attention has
been given to the issue of global warming and
its potential impact on the rate of Sea Level
Rise (SLR). The implications of SLR are fairly
well known and include increased flooding,
coastal erosion, and salt water intrusion. The
timing and rate of these impacts upon coastal
areas are uncertain, and thus difficult to
prepare for.
The current forecasts for global SLR by
the year 2100 range from: 50 cm - 200 cm (17
- 68") (Titus and Greene, 1989). However,
general estimates of SLR for the Atlantic and
Gulf Coasts of the U.S. are 15-20 cm (6-8")
higher than the global estimates in the next
As a coastal planner, you are concerned
with the protection of your community's
natural and developed resources. We are
continuing to learn more information about the
importance of protecting these coastal
resources, and state and federal agencies have
responded by enacting ordinances or adopting
policies designed to restrict or carefully guide
growth and development in sensitive or
vulnerable coastal areas, especially wetlands.
Coastal wetlands serve a variety of critical
functions including storm surge protection,
filtering water pollution, and providing
habitats for birds, fish and plants.
If accelerated rates of SLR occur, many
coastal protection measures may need to be
reexamined or strengthened. Some may
require major policy initiatives, while others
may require small changes to existing
programs. The question of how and when to
respond to the potential impacts of global
warming and SLR is one being asked by many
coastal officials.
The USEPA's, Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation has been gathering data and
sponsoring research in this area for over a
decade. This folder contains some general
guidelines to help stimulate ideas and help you
understand what you can do to plan for SLR.
B. General Description of Sea Level Rise
Of interest to any particular coastal
region is not the global mean sea level, but the
relative sea level change. Roughly speaking,
relative sea level change is the net sum of
coastal uplift (or subsidence) and global sea
level change. Louisiana, for instance, is
experiencing a large increase in relative sea
level and a loss of vast areas of land to the sea
largely because of subsidence or sinking.
Subsidence is especially acute in Louisiana due
to the modification of water and sediment flow
down the Mississippi River. (For further
information see EPA 1989.) Conversely, some
areas located in Oregon and Washington are
experiencing a drop in mean sea level. (See,
for example NRC 1987.) Predictions of relative
sea level involve uncertainty about the global
sea level as well as future uplift or subsidence.

I. Background
Coastal erosion rates generally increase
directly in proportion to SLR. North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Alabama
are all currently experiencing coastal erosion.
Along the Atlantic, where coasts are heavily
developed, beaches have also narrowed
primarily due to erosion. Barrier islands have
historically overwashed, but overwash is
generally inhibited now by development. The
implications of a rise in sea level on coastal
wetlands and drylands, as well as the cost of
protecting those areas in these states, could be
substantial. Coastal wetlands include back
barrier marshes, estuarine marshes and tidal
freshwater marshes. They perform many vital
ecologic, economic, and aesthetic functions.
Wetlands improve water quality, control
flood waters, provide and buffer against shore
erosion, support fish and wildlife habitats, and
provide nursery areas for fish and shrimp,
birds, and animals. Wetlands also provide
important scenic and recreational resources.
C. Causes of Sea Level Rise
The sea has risen and fallen over 100m
(381') between the ice ages and interglacial
periods. Sea level is traditionally perceived as
constant during a human time span, but has
risen over 10-25 cm (4-10") during the last
century. The level of the sea is affected both
by geological and climatic factors, although
climate has historically had more substantial
impacts on global sea level.
It appears that global warming in the last
century has been partly responsible for the last
century's rise in global sea level. However, the
degree to which global warming will contribute
to accelerated rates of SLR is still uncertain.
Global warming is still of great concern;
however, because the concentration of
greenhouse gases is expected to double in the
next century. Greenhouse gases, such as
carbon dioxide, trap heat emanating from the
earth's surface as depicted in the figure below.
It is estimated that this effect could raise the
earth's average temperature by 1.5-4.5°C (3-
8°F) in the next century.
Global warming could initiate four
processes that would increase sea level:
thermal expansion of ocean water, melting of
mountain glaciers, melting of Greenland
glaciers, and the sliding into the sea of massive
Antarctic glaciers. Since the magnitude of
global temperature change is highly uncertain,
as is our understanding of the glacial and
oceanic response to any particular temperature
increase, predictions of the rate of SLR are
likewise highly uncertain and the subject of
continuous scientific debate. The generally-
accepted estimate of the rate (or range of rates)
of SLR has changed from time to time as
research reveals more subtle changes
anticipated from global warming.

!J>ry# IV
I. Background	.a	ms c j v
	/uL'aiif Georgia aSffi-a		
D. Historical Trends
Tide gauges have been used to determine
global or eustatic sea level trends. Global sea
level has risen about 10-25 cm (4-10") in the
last century. This rise is caused by thermal
expansion of ocean water and glacial melting.
While global sea level has risen this amount,
the coastal regions of the United States have
experienced approximately a 30.5 cm (12") rise
in sea level in the last century. This rise in
sea level could be responsible for the coastal
erosion problems facing many U.S.
communities. The figure below documents the
SLR in millimeters per year from 1940 to 1980.
in mm/year
Source: National Research Council
Adapted from Stevenson et. al. (1986)
ALAMEDA -0.1 -
Note: One mm = .1 cm = .034"

Library Regioa ?¥
SEA LEVEL RISE	US Eaw«ran«R^s Frotodioii Agascy
II. Projections and Scenarios 2^5 Cosri's2*< Street
	AsSaufca, Georgia 30365	
A. General Range of Projections of Sea
Level Rise
The models that forecast SLR take into
account many variables. Sea level rise
scenarios consider carbon dioxide emissions,
concentrations of other greenhouse gases,
global warming, thermal expansion of ocean
water, snow and ice contribution, and other
geologic factors. Many of these variables have
a range of estimates, which results in ranges of
SLR projections.
The graph below illustrates recent
estimates of SLR by the year 2100. The lower
scenarios are extrapolated from historical
trends of global SLR. The other scenarios take
into account global warming gases,
temperature, thermal expansion of oceans, and
• EPA (1983) High
Titus and Greene, (1989) have estimated that
the current "low-medium-high" scenarios for
SLR by the year 2100 are 50 cm, 100 cm, and
200 cm (17", 34", 68") . However, these
estimates do not take into account local
geological conditions. If local subsidence is
factored into the system, the relative sea level
is expected to be an additional 15-20 cm (6 to
8") over the numbers indicated in the graph.
B. Southeastern United States Case
Charleston, South Carolina has been the
focus of extensive SLR studies. Dreyfoos et al.
(1987) assessed the impacts of accelerated SLR
on shoreline changes, storm surges and
groundwater. The study used a range of SLR
estimates, and also incorporated subsidence
and river sedimentation rates. The study
showed that shorelines and the 100-year flood
zones would change dramatically in many of
the areas around Charleston. The impact of
accelerated SLR on groundwater was found to
be negligible because saltwater intrusion would
not become a factor until long after shallow
coastal aquifers have been abandoned as a
source of drinking water. (It should be noted
that in other regions where groundwater is
used for drinking water, changes in salinity
could be important.)
Another study of Charleston (Kana, Baca,
and Williams, 1988) examined the potential
impacts of SLR on coastal wetlands, specifically
intertidal wetlands that are generally found
between the highest tide and mean sea level.
These wetlands are more likely to experience
the effects of changes in sea level, tidal
inundation and storm surges. Intertidal
wetlands include marshes, tidal flats and
beaches that are vital to estuarine food chains.
IPCC (1990) High
• EPA (1983) Mid-High
WMO (198S) High
EPA (1983) Mlcf Low
Meier (1985)
2000 2050
EPA (1983) Low
•	IPCC(1990) Low
•	WMO (1985) Low
Estimates of
Sea Level Rise
— Scenarios recom-
mended to planners
and engineers by
National Research
Council (1987)

II. Projections and Scenarios
The study estimated shifts in wetland
areas and net loss of marsh acreage under
three SLR scenarios for the year 2075. These
included a current trend scenario of 24 cm (0.8
ft), a low scenario of 87 cm (2.8 ft), and a high
scenario of 159 cm (5.2 ft). Each scenario
assumed a sedimentation rate of 5 mm (.17")
per year. The study revealed that wetlands in
the Charleston area have been able to migrate
landward and keep pace with the current trend
in SLR. Under the current trend scenario,
sedimentation and peat formation may
partially offset the impact of SLR by raising
the land surface. However, modeling results
showed that an accelerated rate in SLR (the
low and high scenarios) would result in a net
loss of wetland acreage. Furthermore, wetland
loss would be even greater in areas where
seawalls or bulkheads are built to protect
existing development. Seawalls and
bulkheads, while protecting developed areas
from becoming flooded, prevent wetland
migration, and accelerate coastal erosion and
beach loss. The following illustration
demonstrates this.
Sedimentation and
Peat Formation
C	Future
Substantial Wetland Loss Where There is Vacant Upland
- Sea Level
D	Future
Complete Wetland Loss Where House is Protected
in Response to Rise in Sea Level
_ Sea Level
Sea Level
Source: Titus, 1986

III. Sea Level Rise Impacts
Library Region IV
US EnvironmsxS&i Protection Armey
345 Ccsr&ajBsS Su'-ssi.	
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
A. Potential Sea Level Rise Impacts
The following outline identifies general examples of potential SLR impacts on natural and
developed areas, and on local economies. The degree and timing of these impacts will depend on both
global mean SLR and existing local conditions.
1. Natural Environment
a.	Coastal wetlands unable to keep pace with rising sea level, resulting in overall loss in
wetland areas, especially in developed areas.
b.	Loss of beaches due to increased rate of erosion and inundation.
c.	Loss of significant habitat in wetlands, estuaries, coral reefs, bays, and wilderness.
d.	Saltwater intrusion into groundwater and upstream movement of the saltline in surface
e.	Increased estuarine salinity reduces circulation and decreases the amount of flushing, thus
2.	Infrastructure (Developed Areas)
a.	Damage or destruction of housing, resorts, and other coastal development.
b.	Flooding of transportation facilities such as bridges, railways, airports and marinas.
c.	Disruption of utilities for electricity, communication, water supply, and sewer systems.
d.	Loss of cultural or historical assets such as national parks, monuments and cemeteries.
3.	Local Economy
a.	Cost of prevention and protection for natural and manmade environments.
b.	Cost of loss and damage to natural and manmade environments due to storm surge,
flooding, erosion, and inundation.
c.	Loss of industry and employment in tourism, local business, factories, shipping, and
resulting in an increase in water pollution.
commercial fisheries.

III. Sea Level Rise Impacts
B. Techniques Used to Predict SLR Impacts
There are a variety of techniques and models used to predict impacts of SLR on specific coastal
resources, such as wetlands. The table below shows data from a study that projected SLR impacts
on wetlands (see Armentano, et al. 1988). The data represent changes in wetland area (in 100
hectares) from 1975 to 2100. The low and high scenarios are the same as the mid-range low (144 cm,
4 ft.) and mid-range high (217 cm, 6 ft.) projections shown in the graph in Section II. These
projections also take into account local sedimentation and subsidence.
Lost Gained
Lost Gained
Roanoke Island, NC
Albemarle, NC
N Charleston, SC
Charleston, SC
Sapelo Sound, GA
Matanzas, FL
Florida Keys, FL
10,000 Islands, FL
Cntrl. Barrier Coast, FL
Source: EPA, (Titus, 1988)	* Change in 100 hectares.
One hectare = 2.47 acres.
Other models have been developed or are being developed to assess areas most at risk from SLR.
For example, scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) have developed a coastal hazards
data base to identify coastal areas most at risk from a rise in sea level. The data base provides
information on coastal variables, including: 1) elevation or relief, 2) bedrock geology, 3) geomorphology
or land forms, 4) vertical movements (relative sea level change), 5) horizontal shoreline movement
including erosion and accretion, 6) tidal ranges, 7) wave heights, and 8) storm frequency. Data for these
variables were compiled and incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIS). ORNL is
currently developing a risk index to identify coastal areas sensitive to SLR.

IV. Planning Approaches
library Region IV
US Eaviroameatfil Protection Agesicy
U-,:KU...c So'CCl

A. General Options
In order to respond to possible accelerated
rates of SLR, planners can choose from two
general approaches: entrenchment and/or retreat.
Entrenchment refers to the building of
protective devices and coastal structures to
literally "hold back the sea." This defensive
approach includes construction of devices such
as groins, bulkheads and sea walls, revetments,
breakwaters, and storm surge barriers. (For
information see National Research Council,
1987). Many coastal communities already use
these devices to deter beach erosion and protect
valuable beach-front property. Beach
nourishment, another commonly used technique,
involves dredging sand from offshore and
pumping it onto the beach to replace sand
washed away by storms or strong currents.
Georgia 303S5
The decision to implement either entrenchment
or retreat measures is one which must be
carefully addressed through public policy
analysis. Careful consideration must be given to
legal, economic, and environmental concerns
prior to deciding on a particular local response to
While technologies exist to construct
protection devices to hold back the sea, their use
may not be economically or environmentally
feasible in every community. In areas where
these approaches are not acceptable, either due to
high cost or potential environmental damage,
planners may choose to retreat or move back
from the sea. Communities that decide to move
landward also have a variety of options. For
example, retreat may be accomplished by
moving existing structures, prohibiting
reconstruction of buildings damaged by storms,
or prohibiting new construction near beaches.
North Carolina, for example, established set back
requirements for new home construction based
on projected erosion rates. Other communities
such as Galveston Island, Texas prohibit the
reconstruction of buildings destroyed or damaged
by storms.
B. Strategic Assessments
Strategic assessment is the process whereby
the local decision-maker faces the fundamental
questions of whether, when, and how to respond
to global climate change. Because SLR is
closely linked to global climate change, the
strategic assessment process can be applied to
SLR planning. Strategic assessments can be
conducted through decision oriented analyses
(i.e., part of a routine evaluation of ongoing
projects) or through special studies specifically
focused on problems or programs.
A decision oriented analysis might involve
the consideration of SLR in Environmental
Impact Statements or similar federal or state
mandated review procedures. States such as

IV. Planning Approaches
Vermont, Oregon, and Florida have adopted
formal review procedures for projects meeting
certain size and scale criteria. One such example
is Florida's Development of Regional Impact or
DRI program, in which projects meeting certain
criteria are subject to a heightened level of
review before being approved.
Program oriented analysis might be
conducted by agencies such as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, whose activities may be
widely impacted by SLR. Problem oriented
analysis, on the other hand, may involve studies
to evaluate issues associated or under the
jurisdiction of several groups, such as the
protection of barrier inlands (i.e., coastal
protection agencies and barrier island
The strategic assessment approach allows
decision makers to objectively identify
implications of SLR and possible responses.
However, the selection of the best response for
a specific area will probably involve subjective
decisions based on a variety of criteria including:
flexibility, urgency, cost, irreversibility,
consistency, economic efficiency, political
feasibility, legal and administrative feasibility,
and equity.
C. Planning Approaches
As noted above, there are two general
responses to SLR, entrenchment and/or retreat.
The community's decision as to what type of
response is more feasible and appropriate can be
approached through a traditional planning
process. This involves setting goals and
objectives, evaluating alternatives, assessing
impacts and selecting an implementation
strategy. One of the most important
responsibilities of planners is to guide local
officials and community members through this
The following paragraphs describe how the
impacts from SLR can be addressed through this
traditional planning approach. This approach can
be used specifically to address SLR or can be
one part of a community's overall comprehensive
Step 1 - Set Goals and Objectives - Identify
probable impacts on the community's resources
and determine the resources of critical concern
through a goal setting process. Local
participation should be encouraged from
residents, business owners, and community
Information should be sought from regional
and state agencies such as coastal commissions
and state environmental agencies. At the federal
level, information is available through agencies
such as the EPA, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
(Information on these and other sources is
included in the reference section of this
brochure.) As a result of this step, a community
may establish one or more goals with respect to
SLR planning. An example may be to limit
negative impacts of SLR on coastal wetlands.

ii&rary Region Fv
l?S SavBYrasMsfetl Protection Agency
SEA LEVEL RISE	'.r .* ... 3^
IV. Planning Approaches &iai^ Gfcaygja 30355	,
Step 2 - Identify High Risk Areas, Resources, or
Facilities - Based on the specific needs and
resources of the area, identify the highest
priorities for responsive planning. This step
should be performed by a qualified
environmental professional using available
technical information on coastal resources. One
source of information is the coastal hazards data
base developed at ORNL. The data package for
the east coast of the United States is available on
a regional scale and provides information and
mapping related to a number of coastal variables
such as elevation, wave heights, and storm
A possible outcome of this step might be
the identification of a specific tidal marsh which
is particularly vulnerable to increases in sea
Step 3 - Develop Alternative Strategies (Strategic
Assessment) - Explore all types of alternatives to
obtain a list of the range of response techniques
available. For example, if wetlands are the
resource most vulnerable to SLR, the range of
options available for consideration may include:
Increase wetlands' ability to keep pace with
Protect coastal barriers,
Create no-development buffers along the
landward edge of wetlands, and
Construct tide protection systems.
Step 4 - Evaluation of Alternatives - Alternatives
should be evaluated based on selected criteria
established by local decision makers. For the
four options noted above, the construction of tide
protection systems are extremely costly and may
be more practical in major urban areas. Creating
no-development buffers may only be
practical in states with legislation allowing this
type of property regulation.
Step 5 - Selection of Recommended Alternative -
After a thorough analysis of the alternatives, a
preferred strategy is recommended. Using the
wetlands protection scenario, assume that the
creation of buffers along the landward edge of
the wetlands is recommended because it can be
implemented through regulatory mechanisms,
and is less expensive than constructing tide
protection systems. The State of Maine proposes
to assess response options by identifying creative
regulatory tools that are uniquely suited to
address priority problems. Their analysis will
consider costs and benefits of alternative actions
under different SLR scenarios.
Step 6 - Implementation Plan - Describe the
steps necessary to implement the recommended
strategy. Using the wetlands example, the
decision to create buffer zones may require a
change to existing zoning codes to restrict
development in a defined area. If it is desirable

IV. Planning Approaches
to totally avoid construction in an area, an
acquisition program to purchase land within the
buffer zone may be necessary in order to protect
it from development. The implementation plan
should define administrative responsibility,
estimated budget, institutional agreements,
specific government action to be taken (i.e.,
ordinances, governing body approval, proper
enabling legislation, etc.) and a schedule of
Step 7 - Evaluation - A mechanism for self-
evaluation and follow-up should be included as
part of your plan. Opportunities to incorporate
new information should be made.
Erosion-based setbacks
Building codes and size restrictions
Development restrictions in flood
hazard areas
D. Examples of Responses to Sea Level Rise
A wide range of programs, ordinances, and
regulations have been adopted at the local, state
and federal level to respond to adverse
environmental impacts, including the potential
impacts from SLR. The summary shown below
and on the following pages illustrates some
examples of SLR planning techniques
implemented throughout the U.S.
S. Carolina Beach Management Act: Establishes setbacks
equal to 40 years of erosion. The baseline for the setback
is reset every 5 to 10 years.
N. Carolina Coastal Area Management Act: Establishes
annual erosion rate setbacks equal to 30 years of erosion
and 60 years of erosion for single and multiple residences.
Maine Sand Dune Law: New development restricted to
2500 sq.ft. and 35 ft. height. Single and multiple residence
buildings must be 1 ft. and 4 ft. above base flood elevation
in low hazard zones.
Maine Sand Dune Law: New development restricted to low
hazard areas not to exceed 40% of undeveloped dune areas,
with 20% being buildings.
Source: Klarin & Hershman, University of Washington, 1990
Florida Construction Control Lines: Establish areas within
which new development must be permitted. No
construction within 30 year erosion zone.

IV. Planning Approaches
library RegSoo IV
US EsvirosBKsSal Protection Agency
S4S Coartland Street
Economic Incentives/Disincentives
Restrict new infrastructure and
flood insurance availability
Incentives to remove or relocate
structures upland
Proposed tax incentives to control
Engineering standards
Remodel or redesign infrastructure
Coastal Barrier Resource Act: No federal subsidies for
infrastructure or flood insurance within coastal barrier
resource system.
Upton-Jones Amendment: Federal flood insurance upland
program pays owners up to 110% to demolish or 40% to
relocate damaged structures in a defined critical erosion zone.
Delaware Beaches 2000 Plan: Proposes favorable
tax assessments to property owners who develop property
for uses compatible with preservation of beaches.
Project Planning
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission: Bay plan requires proposed development to
consider SLR in project engineering plans under the review
Charleston, South Carolina: Designed new flood control
and drainage system to account for SLR and subsidence
over next 50 years.
Prohibit or Restrict Development
Post storm reconstruction restrictions
Land acquisition and conservatory
South Carolina Beach Management Act: Restrictions on
reconstruction of structures destroyed in excess of 66% by
storms within setback zones. Replace all erosion and
protection structures over 30-year period.
Texas Open Beaches Act: Prohibits reconstruction of
damaged buildings and protective devices on property
seaward of the vegetation line that is open to public access.
California Coastal Conservancy: Uses state bond
monies to acquire undeveloped coastal property. Florida:
Buys property for preserving public beaches, public access,
and recreation areas.
Preserve critical habitats and wetlands
Proposed abandonment policy for
coastal areas
Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Act: Establishes
buffer around wetlands and reduces density of adjacent
New York Long Island Regional Planning Board: Proposal
to end long-term leases of state coastal property and buy back
of Barrier Island properties severely damaged by storm

IV. Planning Approaches
Nonstructural Engineering
Resedimentation of river deltas
Beach renourishment, dune and wetlands
revegetation and stabilization programs
Louisiana Coastal Environment Protection Trust Fund and
State/Federal Joint Task Force: Local resedimentation
Florida: Beach management fund authorizes up to
to $35 million annually toward beach erosion, preservation,
restoration projects.
Maryland: $60 million multi-year federal, state, and local
plan to renourish ocean beach shoreline.
South Carolina: Requires property owners to replenish sand
at 150% of annual volume to replace destroyed structural
erosion devices.
Groundwater Protection
Preserve coastal aquifers and
groundwater resources
Maine: Requires review of permit applications by district
water company to determine impact on groundwater recharge.

utu'i ni J	s ->
US Etmro!un«B£al Protsdioa Agancy
SEA LEVEL RISE 345 Comtlasd Sired
V. References	Afea, Georgia 3Q365	
A. Sea Level Rise Background Information
Barth, M.C. and J.G. Titus, (eds) 1984. Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise, New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Bird, E.C., and K. Koike. 1986. Man's Impact on Sea Level Changes: A Review. Journal of Coastal
Resources, (1): 83-88.
Smith, J., and D. Tirpak, eds. 1989. The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United
States. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.
Titus, J.G. 1989. The Causes and Effects of Sea Level Rise. The Challenge of Global Wanning, Dean
Abrahamson, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Titus, J.G. 1986. Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Zone Management. Coastal Zone
Management Journal. 14 (3).
Titus, J.G., C.Y. Kuo, M.J. Gibbs, T.B. LaRoche, M.K. Webb. 1987. Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level
Rise, and Coastal Drainage Systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 113
(2): 216-227.
B. Sea Level Rise Projections and Scenarios
Courtney, W.R., B.C. Haitig, G.R. Marsh, and G. Alex. 1980. Ecological Evaluation of a Beach
Nourishment Project at Hallandale, Florida: Coastal Engineering Research Center.
Hoffman, J.S. 1984. Estimates of Future Sea Level Rise. Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise. A
Challenge for This Generation, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.: 79-103.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1990. Policy Makers Summary of Scientific
Assessment of Climate Change. Report to IPCC from Working Group 1.
National Research Council (NRC). 1983. Probable Future Changes in Sea Level Resulting from Increased
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Changing Climate, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Titus, J.G., ed. 1988. Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, Washington, D.C.:
US Environmental Protection Agency EPA 230-05-86-013.
United States Department of Energy 1985. Glaciers Ice Sheets, and Sea Level Effect of a CO-, - Induced
Climate Change. Report of a workshop held in SeatUe, WA September 13-15, 1984.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 1985. International Assembly of the Role of Carbon
Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Variation and Associated Impacts. Geneva WMO.

V. References
C.	Potential Sea Level Rise Impacts
Armentano, Thomas V. et al. Impacts on Coastal Wetlands throughout the United States. In Greenhouse
Effect Sea Level Rise and Coastal Wetlands. Washington DC. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1988, pp. 87-149.
Cooter, E.J. and W.S. Cooter. 1990. Impacts of Greenhouse Warming on Water Temperature and
Water Quality in the Southern United States. Climate Research. 1: 1-12.
Kana, Timothy W. et al. Charleston Case Study. In Greenhouse Effect Sea Level Rise and Coastal
Wetlands, Washington, DC.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, pp. 37-59.
Titus, J.G., R. Park, S. Leatherman, et al. 1990. Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: the Cost of
Holding Back the Sea. Coastal Management. 15(1).
D.	Planning for Sea Level Rise
Barth, M.C. and Titus, J.G., eds. 1984. Planning for Sea Level Rise Before and After a Coastal
Disaster. In Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for this Generation. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Dreyfoos, W.A. W.K., Prause and M.A. Davidson. Local Responses to Sea Level Rise: Charleston,
South Carolina. Coastal Zone 1989: 1395 - 1406 (reprinted from Proceedings of the Symposium
on Climate Change in the Southern United States: Future Impacts and Present Policy Issues.
University of Oklahoma, May 1987.)
Hekstra, G.P. 1989. Global Warming and Rising Sea Levels: the Policy Implications. The Ecologist,
19 (1): 4-15.
Klarin, P. and M. Hershman. Response of Coastal Zone Management Programs to Sea Level Rise in
the United States. Coastal Zone Management and Sea Level Rise: 143-165.
Klingerman, A.J. 1988. Climate Change and Water Resources Planning, Department of the Army, Board
of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, 27pp.
Meo, M. 1989. Climate Change Impacts on Coastal Environments: Implications for Strategic Planning.
Coastal Zone '89: pp. 1384-1394.
National Research Council. 1987. Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Slay, Hudson. 1992. Sea Level Rise Issues and Potential Management Options for Local Governments.
Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency EPA 171R92008.
Titus, J.G. 1991. Greenhouse Effect and Coastal Wetland Policy: How Americans Could Abandon an
Area the Size of Massachusetts. Environmental Management, 15 (1): 39-58.

V. References
Library Regfoa iy
U^i'.sviroajE£gt&! Protection Agency
J4S CoaiilaB
V. References
Gornitz, V. and P. Kanciruk. 1989. Assessment of Global Coastal Hazards from Sea Level Rise, a Data
Hoffman, J.S., D. Keyes, and J.G. Titus. 1983. Projecting Future Sea Level Rise: Methodology,
Estimates to the Year 2100, and Research Needs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.
James, W.R. 1975. Techniques in Evaluating Suitability of Borrow Material for Beach Nourishment.
U.S. Coastal Engineering Research Center.
Meier, M.F., and 9 others. 1985. Glaciers, Ice Sheets, and Sea Level. Coastal Zone '89. Polar
Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Methta, A.J. and R.M. Cushman, eds. 1989. Workshop on Sea Level Rise and Coastal Processes,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Energy.
Miller D. B. and R. H. Cushman. 1989. Preliminary Development of A Seashore Effects Analysis
System, Oak Ridge, Tennessee: ORNL, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.
Penland, S. and K.E. Ramsey. 1990. Relative Sea-Level Rise in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico:
1908-1988. Journal of Coastal Resources 6(2): 323-342.
Stakhiv, E.Z. 1989. Policy Implications of Climate Change. Report of the First U.S.-Canada
Symposium on Impacts of Climate Change on the Great Lakes Basin, Rockville, MP: Nat'l
Climate Program Office/NOAA: 162-173.
Titus, J.G. 1990. Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Barrier Islands: Case Study of Long Beach
Island, New Jersey. Coastal Management, 18:1.
Topping, John C., ed. 1989. Proceedings of the North American Conference on Preparing for Climate
Change: A Cooperative Approach, Washington: Climate Institute.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Shore Protection Manual, Vicksburg, Miss.: Waterways
Experiment Station.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV and VI, Synopsis of the 1987 NEPA Coastal Issues
Workshop - November 12, 1989 in Pensacola Florida.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Library ^
SEA LEVEL RISE US Ejr&csMass&i Pro&dioa Agency
V. References	345 Gourmand Street
Aiisala, Georgia 30365
EPA Region IV
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-7109
Coastal Programs Office (ADECA)
10936-B U.S. Highway 98
Fairhope, AL 36532
(205) 928-3625
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904) 488-8614
Coastal Resources Division
Department of National Resources
1200 Glynn Avenue
Brunswick, GA 21520
(912) 264-7218
North Carolina:
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-2293
South Carolina:
South Carolina Coastal Council
4130 Faber Place
Charleston, SC 29405
(803) 744-5838
Coastal Planning Unit
Environmental Impact Review
South Alabama Regional Planning
P.O. Box 1665
Mobile, AL 36633-1665
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

V. References
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
U.S. Department of Energy
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
Environmental Sciences Division
P.O. Box 2008
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
(615) 574-0390
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Southeast District Offices
Atlantic Coast and interior bays and sounds of North Carolina
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
Attention: SAWEN-PC
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
(919) 343-4778
Atlantic Coast of South Carolina
U.S. Army Engineer District, Charleston
Attention: SACEN-PS
P.O. Box 919
Charleston, SC 29402
(803) 724-4248
Atlantic Coast of Georgia
U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah
Attention: SASEN-H
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, GA 31402
(912) 944-5502
Atlantic Coast of Florida and Gulf Coast of Florida to St. Marks Rivers
U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville
Attention: SAJEN-PC
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32201
(904) 791-2204
Gulf Coast from St. Marks River, Florida, west to the Mississippi-Louisiana line
U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile
Attention: SAMEN-DN
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, A1 36628
(205) 690-3482