SEAFARE

SEAFARE (Supporting Equitable Access to Funding for Adaptation Resources) envisions a future Maryland where historically underserved and overburdened coastal communities stand resilient in the face of adverse impacts of climate change and have access to the funding and technical resources they need for building and sustaining vibrant communities where people and nature thrive.

SEAFARE’s mission is to contribute to the advancement of the movement for equity within decision making and resource allocation processes in the state of Maryland, with the recognition that equitable access to climate adaption resources for coastal communities is a small piece within the much larger movement for environmental justice.  

Explore the storymap below to dive deeper into historic barriers that coastal communities face, and the SEAFARE framework for change to address these barriers. In addition to this storymap, we have created multiple products to communicate the key learnings from this effort. Access the full SEAFARE Report  here , and a SEAFARE Factsheet  here .

The meandering coastline of Maryland touches the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean and spans over  7000 miles . This vibrant coastline is linked to the lives and livelihoods of Marylanders and is home to 70 percent of the state’s residents (about 4.3 million people based on  2020 census data ) who live in 16 coastal counties and the City of Baltimore. In addition to being tied to a rich cultural history, the productive estuarine ecosystems of the  Chesapeake Bay and adjoining tidal wetlands  are vital habitats for thousands of species of plants and birds combined.

The state of Maryland, particularly its coastal residents, are vulnerable to impacts of global climate change caused by factors often outside of the state’s direct control. While Maryland invests in and explores measures for decarbonization and a clean energy economy, investments in climate adaptation measures are critical to protect Maryland’s communities and natural resources.

The vibrant coastline of Maryland is  already experiencing  impacts of climate change in the form of increased flooding events, storm surge, erosion, loss of forest and wetlands, and drinking water and agricultural land being compromised by salt water.

Rising sea levels contribute to increased flood events even in the absence of storms. Maryland’s low-lying coastal areas are particularly vulnerable to  high tide flooding events  that can range in severity from minor (disruptive or nuisance flooding leading to road closures and disrupting access to certain parts of town), moderate (damaging), or major (destructive) for communities, residences, and infrastructure.

The  2023 Maryland Sea Level Rise Projections , prepared by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences, finds that by 2050, Maryland will experience one to one and half feet of sea level rise measured from a 2000 baseline. This is twice the amount of sea level rise experienced in the previous century. By 2100, the state is expected to experience three feet of sea level rise.

The  2022 NOAA Sea Level Rise Technical Report  provides updated projections through 2150 for all U.S. coastal waters. The report finds that sea level rise will exacerbate coastal flooding over the next 30 years by increasing tide and storm surge heights and causing them to reach further inland. Moderate (damaging) flooding is expected to occur, on average, more than ten times as often as it does today by 2050.

If the world continues to fail to curb its carbon emissions, Maryland will experience even higher rates of sea level rise. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report ( Assessment Report 6 ) highlights that the world is not on track to meet the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2.8°F.

The  2023 Maryland Sea Level Rise Projections  Report recommends that, “Sea-level rise projections should be incorporated broadly into planning, regulatory, and site-specific projects, and into community planning. This should consider a wide range of impacts on the communities and seek to incorporate diverse and representative stakeholder perspectives when planning for these impacts”.

The burdens of climate change and historical pollution are not equitably distributed among all Marylanders. Often the communities most at risk from impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather events, flooding, heatwaves, and droughts, are the communities that have faced systemic barriers to accessing funding sources.

Climate adaptation laws and policies do not yet center climate justice goals. Legislative frameworks, solicitation language and funding criteria are restricting community access to nature-based climate adaptation funding. These aspects of federal and state funding systems manifest in climate adaptation programs that perpetuate and even exacerbate systemic inequities.

We must advance environmental justice for all by implementing and enforcing the Nation’s environmental and civil rights laws, preventing pollution, addressing climate change and its effects, and working to clean up legacy pollution that is harming human health and the environment…Pursuing these and other objectives integral to advancing environmental justice can successfully occur only through meaningful engagement and collaboration with underserved and overburdened communities to address the adverse conditions they experience and ensure they do not face additional disproportionate burdens or underinvestment.

For the first time in our history, the U.S. Federal Government has acknowledged the impact of centuries of racism and marginalization that have led to inequitable distribution of resources. Through the  Justice40 Initiative , the U.S. Federal Government has made it a goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are underserved, and overburdened.

This is an important first step toward redistributing resources more equitably to communities that are most impacted by systemic inequality and therefore most vulnerable to climate change. The  Executive Order 13985  of February 16, 2023, charged the Federal Government with advancing racial equity and providing support to the communities in the United States that have been underserved, discriminated against, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. To fulfill this federal mandate, we need to prioritize the needs of historically underserved and overburdened communities to advance equity and justice for them. 

As these advancements are being made at the federal level, it is critical to integrate key equity principles into state-level funding decisions and to determine if the commitments are achieving their intended community climate equity goals. 

Environmental justice and equity are frequently acknowledged as important considerations for allocation of climate adaptation resources. However, equity-based criteria are inconsistently applied across federal and state grant programs, which do not meet the urgent and unique needs of communities facing the first and most extreme impacts of climate change. 

In order to take advantage of the historic Justice40 funding opportunities, TNC embarked on the Supporting Equitable Access to Funding for Adaptation Resources (SEAFARE) project. The objective of SEAFARE is to identify ways to more equitably and justly allocate coastal climate adaptation funding to historically underserved and overburdened communities. 

Through SEAFARE, we convened an advisory committee of community leaders, environmental justice advocates, policy professionals, and government officials in Maryland to collaboratively identify and address inequities in federal and state funding systems.

Throughout 2023, the advisory committee members met and discussed the multi-layered barriers across the funding pipeline that coastal communities in Maryland face in trying to access funds for climate adaptation. Through our work, a toolkit emerged with guidance for decision makers on how to center equity in funding decisions. While this project was convened with a focus on Maryland, we believe the guidance included within this resource is widely applicable to decision-makers across the country.

Within the climate adaptation funding system, a wide variety of barriers prevent funds from reaching historically underserved and overburdened communities. Some barriers are deep and systemic while others are superficial and technical; some may have emerged recently while others have developed over hundreds of years. Below are some of the main barriers coastal communities face and how they manifest themselves.

Trusting relationships make systems function more efficiently and effectively. The absence of trust slows a system down—potentially even bringing it to a halt. A higher level of trust within the climate adaptation funding system will benefit all involved.

• Communication breakdowns: Views of historically underserved and overburdened communities are not solicited or their voices are not heard within the climate adaptation funding system; potential grant seekers may not even hear about funding opportunities; and there is an inability to disclose problems or have candid conversations. The current system rewards good planning, pilot projects, and established priorities while less money is available for the thinking, figuring out, and planning stages.
• Chilling effects: Grant seekers who have been rejected multiple times without adequate explanation stop applying for grants. Without believing they have allies or an “inside” person “in their corner,” historically underserved and overburdened communities may refrain from attempting to engage with funders.
• Inabilities to solve problems and make improvements: The parties cannot engage in joint problem solving when problems arise. There is no co-creation of improved programs or innovation that a trusting environment helps facilitate. From this, barriers are not eliminated.

Climate adaptation programs can fail historically underserved and overburdened communities strategically (what is getting funded?) and tactically (how is funding being deployed procedurally?). Both failures occur when the needs of historically underserved and overburdened communities are not placed at the forefront. The latter failure is addressed in greater detail further below.

• There’s no holistic approach: Funding isn’t adequately available for climate adaptation projects that cut across issues and prioritize community resilience; there is no cross-issue collaboration, access to healthcare, economic development, safe living spaces, education, etc. Funding programs rely on proof of concept, but each community is affected by climate change differently since one proof does not necessarily apply to another community.
• People become secondary: Ecosystem benefits are often prioritized over community benefits. Financial and scientific considerations outweigh social considerations.
• Tools do not reflect or help communities in need: Screening and tracking tools used to identify historically underserved and overburdened communities and determining how benefits flow to those communities are often inadequate and inconsistently used. Tools become a burden for proving how “disadvantaged” you are to qualify and can be a way to further exacerbate inequity.

Even if climate adaptation funds are available, current funding policies, procedures, and processes keep those funds from being deployed to historically underserved and overburdened communities.

• Inadequate qualification approaches: Inconsistent terminology is often used across and within states, causing confusion, and frameworks are ineffective for identifying the most impacted and climate vulnerable communities. Screening and tracking tools used to identify historically underserved and overburdened communities and determine how benefits flow to those communities are often inadequate and inconsistently applied.
• Burdensome Request for Proposal (RFP) processes: From beginning to end, the RFP and solicitation process can be too costly and burdensome for many historically underserved and overburdened communities, and requirements like matching often disqualify grant seekers from the outset. The current system rewards established priorities while limiting the space available for planning stages. RFP requirements (evaluation criteria and make up of review panels) may not consider realities on the ground.
• Burdensome grant administration processes: The administration of climate adaptation funds can also be too costly and burdensome. Reporting, auditing, and other such requirements often do not consider the realities faced by communities bearing the brunt of climate change.

There is a need for additional capacity across all levels of the funding system.

• Funders are under-resourced and overwhelmed: Federal and State Agencies must get funds out the door, and the process is often so fast it doesn’t leave enough time for meaningful cross-agency collaborations to tackle multi-faceted climate change issues.  
• Historically underserved and overburdened communities are also under-resourced and overwhelmed: Communities are often unable to access funding meant for them due to lack of staff capacity and/or lack of access to the technical knowledge. support needed to put together an adequate proposal.
• Technical expertise is in short supply: It's not enough to just make funding available—decision-makers also need to make guidance available. Communities often don’t know who to turn to for help, and all parties involved need assistance in interpreting and applying multiple screening tools. Unclear  or excess guidance can create an overwhelming amount of complexity that often leads to inaction.

Within an environmental context, Equity is defined as removing the historical, systemic, and in many cases, government erected, barriers to prevent communities from access to a clean and safe environment. Equity is also about creating opportunities for citizen participation in the decision-making about policies, priorities and investment that will directly impact these communities.

Through a series of community discussions occurring in coastal Maryland in 2023, we have identified seven equity principles that when applied across funding systems can help break down the barriers to accessing climate adaptation funding that coastal communities in Maryland face. We begin by offering an explanation and additional learning resources for each equity principle before presenting recommendations for their practical application in order to create a more just climate adaptation funding system.

Listed below are the equity principles and some questions funders, decision-makers, climate practitioners and supporting organizations can ask themselves as they work to serve communities vulnerable to impacts of climate change.

Below are a few questions to consider in applying this equity principle while designing climate adaptation funding programs:

• Have we made efforts to understand the processes, policies, and decision-making that have historically stereotyped, disenfranchised, and overburdened communities with an overabundance of climate change driven hazards?
• Have we done the work to understand the inequitable political, social and economic contexts within which we are currently operating? 
• Have we done the work to understand who are the people that have lived in and have had a relationship with the land in the past, present, and future?
• Have we done the work to understand how systems, structures, and ultimately people, have positioned these communities as “other” and have failed in their charge to protect them?
• Are we opening up inclusive and equitable processes to ensure community leaders and residents are involved with and/or co-designing funding programs?
• Are processes and methods intentionally designed to correct, not reinforce, historical patterns of discriminatory practices that resulted in inequity and exclusion?

Below are key questions to consider when applying this equity principle in the design of climate adaptation funding programs:

• Have we taken steps to visit the communities we serve, organize events where people can get to know one another, and provide input on the decision making that will impact them?

• Have we built project values (i.e., transparency, reciprocity, accountability, tending to intent and impact, etc.) that allow all to participate openly, fully and equitably?

• Have we taken steps to build the conditions for psychological safety, deep dialogue and difficult conversations? Do we go straight to a task, or do we tend to the relationships in a group that is coming together to complete a task? 

• Have we done the work to understand how bias gets in the way of equity, reciprocity and justice and build skills to mitigate its effects? Do we see the other as equally capable and equally deserving?

• Have we created spaces at the table for and enabled the participation of all members of the community to contribute and bring their expertise, traditional knowledge, and leadership to influence the decisions that impact their localities?

By failures we mean the inequity and injustice caused by historical government-sanctioned discrimination and racism that built barriers to access, participation and opportunities, created detrimental policies, and supported intentional underinvestment in historically underserved and overburdened communities.

Seeing and respecting local leaders, understanding that they know best what they need in order for the community to thrive. This means inviting and enabling their equal participation at all steps of the decision making process.

Below are a few questions to consider in applying this equity principle while designing climate adaptation funding programs:

• Do we assume we know more than the communities experiencing the brunt of climate change on the ground?
• Do we value experiential knowledge and lived experiences as much as we value our institutional or scientific knowledge?
• Have we designed processes and methods that remove barriers to participation?
• How are we reaching out to include trusted leaders, bridge-builders, and cultural translators and communicating the value they bring to our projects?  
• How are we uplifting and growing sustainable community leadership, as opposed to positioning ourselves as being the leaders?

Below are a few questions to consider in applying this equity principle while designing climate adaptation funding programs:

• Have we done the work to reach out to community members? Have strategies, actions, and success been co-created and collectively defined through open lines of communication?

• Do all interested parties see and value each other as equals? 

• Is the language being used a shared language? Do interested parties agree on definitions for standard terms such as equity, justice, and belonging?

• Do we know our common purpose and have we taken the time to understand where we disagree?

• Do we include a diversity of voices to understand the complexity of the issues? What are the consequences–intended and unintended- of our actions?

• Can we all assume the role of teachers and learners, and establish a two-way knowledge sharing system?

Below are a few questions to consider in applying this equity principle while designing climate adaptation funding programs:

• Are the assumptions you bring into the project embedded in a worldview that reflects the impacts of historical and structural factors that created the current conditions being experienced?
• Are the assumptions you bring into the project embedded in a worldview that is appreciated or resented by other interested parties? 
• Does the strategy and accompanying work promote equity, justice, and the well-being of the communities impacted?
• Do the goals and outcomes of funding programs prioritize the stated needs and desires of the impacted communities?
• Do we know what outcomes for the community would make this project worthwhile?

Below are a few questions to consider in applying this equity principle while designing climate adaptation funding programs:

• How are we prioritizing the well-being of communities and people who have been historically underserved and overburdened and who hold less resources, privilege and power?
• How are we defining “benefits” and does the community agree with that definition?
•  Does the community agree that the potential benefits to their well-being outweigh the potential risk?
• Are historically underserved and overburdened communities satisfied with the way we have distributed resources, benefits, risks?

Power differentials are linked to identities. Societies historically have valued some identities more than others and confer more power and influence to people who hold membership in those identity groups. Think, for example, of how societies compensate men at higher rates than they compensate women for the same work; or how particular group identities are uplifted by society through legislation while other identities constructed as inferior have to struggle to achieve equal status (ie. marriage equality). Now, consider intersectionality. How might a woman who identifies as a member of the LGBTQ+ community or a person of color experience the world differently than a man who identifies as heterosexual and/or white?

Below are a few questions to consider in applying this equity principle while designing climate adaptation funding programs:

• Do we understand how power is distributed and acknowledge how it is always present in interactions and relationships?
• Are we aware of and taking steps to address unhelpful dynamics that are the result of unconscious power?
• Are we considering intersectionality in the decision making process—that is, how power is experienced differently at the intersection of different identities?
• Have we done the work to understand the implications of intersectionality on equity and justice? 
• Are we skilled at negotiating challenging interactions across power differentials?

To understand more about power you can begin here:  Understand Power and how to use it  or here:  Difference, Identity and Power .

The SEAFARE Committee formulated five recommendations for decision makers that reflect the barriers experienced by coastal Maryland communities and the seven equity principles.

• Take on the issue of trust and risk directly at the outset. Ensure that relationships are built on trust, reciprocity, and transparency. Convene all stakeholders and address any lack of trust that may exist.
• Address the definition and idea of “risk” and seek a shared approach to risk that accommodates the interest of stakeholders. Guided by Equity Principle 2, bring the trust and risk issues to light, understand them and own them. Remove related misconceptions about risk and trust from the context.
• Consider adopting a shared definition of trust and a charter to guide behaviors of all parties. Be clear about what we mean by trust, and what the parties can expect from each other moving forward. Agree on practical ways we can create and maintain trust. See  SEAFARE Report  (pages 29 and 30) for a list of best practices for setting norms and building strong teams
• Hold the expertise and lived experiences of historically underserved and overburdened communities on par with other types of expertise and experience.
• Consider supporting, creating, or to the extent appropriate, joining, “resiliency hubs” like those of the  City of Baltimore Community Resiliency Hub Program.  Community Resiliency Hubs are trusted, service-based non-profit community organizations with strong leadership located in under-resourced neighborhoods.
• Do what you say you will do. An example would be, Governor Moore visits Crisfield and, while walking through water, says, “ We’re going to take care of this. ” Unless he means to fix it and does so, it will hurt trust.

• A compelling vision acts as a “North Star” towards which, guided by our equity principles, we can aspire and navigate. The vision can describe our desired end-state and help to align all of our activities to a final point. A compelling vision can be invaluable in times of confusion and conflict.
• The SEAFARE Vision & Mission set out in the opening of this toolkit was created by the SEAFARE advisory committee. It focuses primarily on the funding barriers faced by communities living in coastal Maryland. However, those funding barriers are just a few of countless obstacles keeping us apart from achieving environmental justice. A more holistic vision of environmental justice in Maryland is needed.
• Accordingly, we recommend that the audience of this toolkit embrace a single, holistic, shared vision for environmental justice for Maryland. If such a vision exists now, join it. If not, come together with your stakeholders and co-create the larger vision. Consider convening a visioning process involving a wide range of perspectives and voices. Use the  SEAFARE vision  as a “first draft” in such a co-creation process.

• Understand the risk and vulnerability to climate hazards primarily from the perspective of historically underserved and overburdened communities.
• Develop an overarching funding strategy focused first on serving the needs of historically underserved and overburdened communities—both long-term and short-term. Use consistent terminology and definitions for target communities.
• Design and adopt more inclusive frameworks for identifying the most impacted and climate-vulnerable communities. Create screening and tracking tools that are responsive to and reflective of the climate adaptation goals identified by historically underserved and overburdened community leaders and use these tools in the communities.
• Adopt program evaluation criteria that includes impact on people as well as scientific and financial criteria. For example: Weigh the criteria for social benefit and public support categories equally or with more points than inequitable criteria such as program readiness, expertise and match funds available.
• Provide all parties with training and technical expertise on how to use these frameworks and tools to provide and receive funding. Consider and reach out to agencies to pool resources and allocate funding in ways that tackle the cumulative impacts of climate change.
• Communicate EJ priorities to foundations when they receive U.S. federal funds for grantmaking and improve oversight.
• Recognize that climate adaptation problems are often cutting across multiple issues. Ensure funding is available for climate adaptation projects that cut across issues and prioritize historically underserved and overburdened community resilience.

• Design the RFP process from beginning to end with criteria that prioritize the needs of historically underserved and overburdened communities. Together with community representatives, conduct a review of the current funding life cycle using the Equity Principles as a lens and adopt improvements.
• Review and revise the technical requirements of applications to make sure the process can be navigated with ease. Review and remove matching criteria and requirements that are not necessary.
• Create a model for funding evaluation panels that will assure community members have a voice in funding decisions. Pay local organizations that are part of the work for their efforts on the same terms that we pay consultants and other experts.
• Standardize solicitation language to facilitate consistency and clarity. Remove bias in the proposal selection criteria and ensure reviewers are clear about the criteria and their implications.
• Bundle small grants to alleviate administrative burdens on both funders and fund-seekers who might not otherwise make or receive funding in a small amount. See  SEAFARE Report  (Pages 31 amd 32) for examples of various bundling approached.
• Improve communication between all parties about funding opportunities. Ensure that solicitations are widely shared across platforms and agencies. If available, use a shared grant portal to release funding solicitations and award notices
• Designate individuals to serve as allies and advocates for historically underserved and overburdened communities within funding organizations. Communities desire to have an “inside” person “in their corners” to help navigate the process. Doing so will help build trust. Have a funding liaison available to hold office hours or answer questions

• Increase the capacities of both funders and historically underserved and overburdened communities to successfully undertake Justice40 projects. Review whether funders have sufficient skills and resources for community engagement as well as grant management capacity. Review whether community members and leaders have sufficient staff, expertise, and knowledge to apply for and administer funding pools. Deploy available resources to close gaps in capacity.
• Address the rushed U.S. federal mandate for IRA and IIJA: above inequalities were exacerbated with the influx of IRA and IIJA money that agencies administer. Support with funding, mentorship, training and other such means the development of community leaders with the knowledge, skills and experience they need to be even more effective.
• Consider creating new leadership development programs or opportunities, and financial investments to fund full-time community leadership positions.
• To the extent possible, address the rushed U.S. federal mandate to get IRA and IIJA funds our the door. Seek to increase collaboration across agencies. Take available advocacy opportunities to help slow any rush to disburse funds that might be keeping those funds from reaching historically underserved and overburdened communities.
• Take available advocacy opportunities to ensure collaborations across agencies to increase awareness of funding opportunities and priorities to reduce overlap and burden on applicants.
• Support advocacy efforts aimed at defining and tracking Justice40 Benefits. Include Justice40 benefits in grant solicitations and encourage quarterly reporting to include updates on progress and lessons learned.

Crisfield is a small community of 2,400 located in south eastern Maryland.

The town is home to a vibrant crabbing and fishing tradition. Rising tides mean that flooding  increasingly impacts  the daily lives of Crisfielders and the City’s ability to support a thriving community. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and several partner organizations are working with community leaders in Crisfield, Maryland to assess flood adaptation strategies and recommend adaptation pathways that are economically sound and aligned with community-defined resilience goals.

Learn more about what sea-level rise looks like in this community by exploring the web map below, and see this  Crisfield Storymap  to learn more about our collaborative process.

We know that Sea-level rise and other impacts of climate change disproportionately impact coastal communities, especially communities that have been historically underserved and overburdened.  Maryland is already experiencing impacts of climate change, these challenges include flooding caused by sea level rise, increased precipitation, and extreme weather events, prevalence of invasive species, ocean acidification and increased likelihood of marine heatwaves, land heatwaves, and drought conditions among others. The impacts of climate change harm the health of both people and nature in Maryland. 

The SEAFARE Advisory committee’s work helped highlight that there are barriers across all stages of federal and state funding systems that restrict coastal communities’ access to climate adaptation funds and technical expertise. The findings of this report are part of a larger climate resilience strategy in Maryland, this strategy aims to connect and weave these challenge points together to craft short term and long-term solutions that are in service of both people and nature.

The SEAFARE recommendations and deliverables were finalized in March 2024. TNC Maryland/DC’s Government Relations and Resilient Coasts team have begun sharing the recommendations  with their partner networks in the state. Parallel to the SEAFARE work, TNC Maryland/DC has also been convening another advisory committee to create a community informed and community led climate adaptation policy vision for a resilient Maryland, this effort is called Community Outreach and Engagement Forums (COEF). 

Through COEF, TNC and our facilitating partner  Equnival  have established a collaborative network to bring together community leaders to collectively identify and champion climate adaptation policy priorities that directly address the resilience needs of Maryland’s coastal communities. SEAFARE recommendations are incorporated within the discussions of this group and products from both projects are informing a strategy to educate policymakers and decisionmakers to be advocates for change. The goal of this effort is to better connect decision-makers at state and federal levels to local needs along Maryland’s coastline, especially in underserved and overburdened communities. 

The participating partners in COEF are: City of Crisfield, Somerset County, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Town of North Brentwood, Blacks of the Chesapeake Bay, Envision the Choptank, Dundalk Renaissance, Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, Deal Island Peninsula Partnership,  Stormwater Infrastructure Resilience and Justice (SIRJ) Lab at University of Maryland, US Army Corp of Engineers, Union of Concerned Scientists, Baltimore Resilience Hub, Baltimore Office of Sustainability, B and D Environmental Consulting, Greater Baybrook Alliance, CASA, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, Charles County Resilience Authority, NAACP Maryland State Conference – and growing. 

The team anticipates bringing the toolkit’s recommendations for improving funding systems, alongside supporting climate resilience legislation to policymakers during the 2025 Maryland legislative session. TNC Maryland/DC staff and members of SEAFARE will also be sharing recommendations from their work at the annual National Adaptation Forum in St. Paul Minnesota in May 2024, and at future environmental, conservation, climate adaptation, and climate justice gatherings.

SEAFARE is a collaborative project, and we want to sincerely thank all who participated. Access the full SEAFARE Report  here , and a SEAFARE Factsheet  here. 

Bruna Attila Principal, B&D Environmental Consulting

Jo Birch Floodplain Manager, Baltimore Office of Sustainability

Astrid Caldas Senior Climate Scientist for Community Resilience, Union of Concerned Scientists and Coordination Committee Member, Deal Island Peninsula Partnership

Amber Doherty Conservation Community Engagement Department, National Aquarium

Maria Payan Senior Regional Representative, Socially Responsible Agriculture Project

Walkiria Pool President  & Founder, Centro de Apoyo Familiar

Thom Stroschein Coordination Committee Member, Deal Island Peninsula Partnership

Shannon Sprague Deputy Director (acting), NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Fred Tutman Riverkeeper & CEO, Patuxent River Keeper

Kate Vogel Coastal Resilience Planner, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Humna Sharif Climate Adaptation Manager, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC SEAFARE Project Manager

Jackie Specht Resilient Systems Officer at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Former Resilient Coasts Program Director, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC 

Kelly Leo Climate Adaptation Specialist focused on Environmental Justice and Sovereignty Former Senior Conservation Projects Director, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC 

Dr. Maria Estrada

Courtney Ball

Joe Iarocci

Adele Birkenes Geography Graduate Student

Joey Enriquez Adjunct Professor, Corcoran School of the Arts & Design Professorial Lecturer of Sculpture and Foundations, Corcoran School of the Arts and Design

John Lesko Geography Graduate Student

Samuel Parnis Public Health Graduate Student, Milken Institute School of Public Health

Bob Allen Deputy Executive Director,  The Nature Conservancy, Maryland/DC 

Sabine Bailey Digital Coast Fellow, The Nature Conservancy, Maryland/DC 

Seth Blitch Coastal and Marine Conservation Director, The Nature Conservancy Louisiana

Alison Branco Climate Adaptation Director, The Nature Conservancy New York 

Michelle Canick Conservation & GIS Project Manager, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC

Michelle Dietz Director of Government Relations, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC

Andrea Fritsch Participatory Funding Specialist, The Nature Conservancy

Joe Galarraga Coastal Resilience Project Manager, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC 

Emma Gildesgame Climate Adaptation Scientist, The Nature Conservancy Massachusetts 

Isaac Hametz Baltimore Program Director, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC 

Caitlin Kerr Conservation & Climate Policy Analyst, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC 

Hannah Kett Cities Program Manager, The Nature Conservancy Washington 

Daniel Sweeney Agriculture Program Director, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC 

Elizabeth Van Dolah Environmental Anthropologist, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC  

Andrea Van Wyk Baltimore Community Project Manager, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC 

Nathan Woiwode Climate Adaptation Strategy Lead, The Nature Conservancy