Background

Policymakers are increasingly viewing adaptation as a risk management  strategy to protect vulnerable infrastructure that might be affected by  changes in the climate. While adaptation measures—such as raising river  or coastal dikes to protect infrastructure from sea level rise, building  higher bridges, or increasing the capacity of stormwater systems—may  be costly, there is a growing recognition that the cost of inaction could be  greater. As stated in a 2010 NRC report, even though there are still  uncertainties regarding the exact nature and magnitude of climate change  impacts, mobilizing now to increase the nation’s adaptive capacity can be  viewed as an insurance policy against climate change risks. In this  context, it is important to understand (1) federal infrastructure investment,  (2) the condition of existing infrastructure, (3) climate change adaptation  as a risk management tool, and (4) the limited federal role in planning  infrastructure projects.

		Federal Infrastructure Investment

In total, the United States has about 4 million miles of roads; 30,000  wastewater treatment and collection facilities; and over 800,000 federal  facilities such as military installations that provide for the nation’s defense  and facilities where complex scientific and technological research is  conducted. Collectively, this infrastructure connects communities,  protects public health and the environment, and facilitates trade and  economic growth, among other important functions. The nation’s highway  and wastewater infrastructure is primarily owned and operated by state  and local governments and the private sector. For instance, state and  local governments own about 98 percent of the nation’s bridges.
The federal government spends billions of dollars every year on  transportation and wastewater infrastructure through a variety of funding  mechanisms. According to a 2010 Congressional Budget Office report,  total public spending on transportation and water infrastructure exceeds  $300 billion annually, with roughly 25 percent of this amount coming from  the federal government and the rest coming from state and local  governments. infrastructure investments through federal assistance to states and local  communities. For example, EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund—a  federal program that provides states and local communities with  independent and sustainable sources of financial assistance, such as  low- or no-interest loans to fund water quality projects—received an   From 1956 to  appropriation of just over $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2012.2007, the largest portion of annual public funding for transportation and  water infrastructure was dedicated to highways.
For the most part, the federal government supports these  The federal government also owns and manages certain types of  infrastructure. According to the General Services Administration, the  federal government’s portfolio of building assets totaled approximately  3.35 billion square feet of space and over 800,000 building and structural  assets with a total operating cost of $30.8 billion in 2010. This total includes large federal complexes such as NASA centers where scientists  and engineers conduct research, design new aerospace technologies,  and operate the International Space Station, among other activities.
Congressional Budget Office, Public Spending on Transportation and Water  Infrastructure, Pub. No. 4088 (Washington, D.C.: November 2010).
NASA’s real property holdings include more than 5,000 buildings and  other structures such as wind tunnels, laboratories, launch pads, and test stands, according to a December 2011 NASA Inspector General report.In total, these NASA assets represent more than $32 billion in current  replacement value.

		Condition of Existing Infrastructure

The infrastructure examined for this report—roads, bridges, wastewater  management systems, and NASA centers—was designed to last for  decades. More specifically, according to the American Society of Civil  Engineers, the average bridge in the United States is designed to last 50  years, and EPA data indicate that wastewater treatment plants typically  have an expected useful life of 20 to 50 years before they require  expansion or rehabilitation. Over 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are  more than 40 years old and reaching the end of their designated life  spans.
Our past work and other studies have reported that much of the nation’s  physical infrastructure is in poor condition and in need of repair or  replacement. For example, as we reported in June 2010, many  wastewater management systems were constructed more than 50 years  ago and are reaching the end of their useful lives. Many of these systems do not have the capacity to treat increasing volumes of  wastewater, particularly during periods of wet weather, leading to the  release of untreated wastewater into water bodies. Citing such concerns,  the American Society of Civil Engineers 2009 Report Card for America’s  Infrastructure graded the condition of the nation’s wastewater  infrastructure as “D-,” or between “poor” and “failing” on their rating  scale.a “D-,” and a “C” for “mediocre,” respectively, due to identified structural  deficiencies and other factors.
Roads and bridges fared similarly in the report card, also earning  Estimates to repair, replace, or upgrade aging roads, bridges, wastewater  management systems, and federal facilities are in the hundreds of billions  of dollars, not accounting for any additional costs to be incurred due to a  changing climate, an important consideration for proposed adaptive  measures that may require significant redesign, retrofitting, or  replacement of planned or existing infrastructure in response to a  changing climate. As we reported in May 2008, the current fiscal  environment makes it even more important that federal, state, and local  governments make prudent decisions on how to invest limited available   Yet, in many cases, we  resources as they address infrastructure needs. reported that federal infrastructure investment decisions are still based on  conditions, priorities, and approaches that were established decades ago  and are not well suited to addressing complex, crosscutting, and  emerging challenges like climate change. Our May 2008 report identified  principles that could guide a reexamination of federal infrastructure  programs. These principles include creating well-defined goals based on  identified areas of national interest, establishing and clearly defining the  federal role in achieving each goal, incorporating performance and  accountability into funding decisions, and employing the best tools and  approaches to emphasize return on investment.

		Climate Change Adaptation as a Risk Management Tool

GAO, Physical Infrastructure: Challenges and Investment Options for the Nation's  Infrastructure, GAO-08-763T (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008). See also GAO,  Transportation: Key Issues and Management Challenges, GAO-12-581T (Washington,  D.C.: Mar. 29, 2012). for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse  events. Enhanced resilience results from better planning to reduce  losses, rather than waiting for an event to occur and paying for recovery  afterward.
America’s climate change adaptation choices involve deciding how to cope with  climate changes that we cannot, or do not, avoid so that possible disruptions and  damages to society, economies, and the environment are minimized and—where  possible—so that impacts are converted into opportunities for the country and its  citizens. In some cases, such as in Alaska, the need to adapt has already  become a reality. In most cases, however, adapting today is about reducing  vulnerabilities to emerging or future impacts that could become seriously  disruptive if we do not begin to identify response options now; in other words,  adaptation today is essentially a risk management strategy.
Further, as we reported in 2009, given the complexity and potential  magnitude of climate change and the lead time needed to adapt,  preparing for these impacts now may reduce the need for far more costly  steps in the decades to come. Of particular importance are planning  decisions involving physical infrastructure, which require large capital  investments and which, by virtue of their expected life span, will have to  be resilient to changes in climate for many decades. Substitutes for  infrastructure could also affect adaptation decisions; damages from  disruptions due to climate change would be greater, all else equal, when  fewer alternatives are available. The long lead time and long life of large  infrastructure investments require planning decisions to be made well  before further climate change effects are discernible.
Risk management is not a new concept, and it is used extensively almost  anywhere decision makers are faced with incomplete information or  unpredictable outcomes that may have negative impacts. Broadly  defined, risk management is a strategic process for helping policymakers  make decisions about assessing risk, allocating finite resources, and  taking actions under conditions of uncertainty. Leading risk management  guidance recommends a sequence of activities similar to the one  described in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)  31000:2009 standards on risk management. Specifically, these  standards recommend that organizations such as federal agencies  develop, implement, and continuously improve a framework for  integrating risk management into their overall planning, management,   For risk management to be effective,  reporting processes, and policies. these standards state that an organization should at all levels comply with  the following principles:
Risk management is not a stand-alone activity that is separate from  the main activities and processes of the organization. Risk  management is part of the responsibilities of management and an  integral part of all organizational processes, including strategic  planning and all project and change management processes.
Risk management is part of decision making. Risk management helps  decision makers make informed choices, prioritize actions, and  distinguish among alternatives.
Risk management explicitly addresses uncertainty. Risk management  explicitly takes account of uncertainty, the nature of that uncertainty,  and how it can be addressed.
Risk management is based on the best available information. The  inputs to the process of managing risk are based on information  sources such as historical data, experience, stakeholder feedback,  observation, forecasts, and expert judgment. However, decision  makers should inform themselves of, and should take into account,  any limitations of the data or modeling used or the possibility of  divergence among experts.
Concerning risk management for federal facilities, OMB issues guidance  for agencies on managing non-information technology capital assets that  contains risk management criteria. Under OMB’s guidance, agencies  are to complete a business case for physical infrastructure investment  that includes sections on alternatives analysis and risk management. Risk  must be actively managed throughout the life cycle of the investment, and  a risk management plan must be available to OMB upon request.

		Limited Federal Role in Planning Infrastructure Projects

The federal government has an inherently limited role in the project-level  planning processes central to adapting infrastructure to climate change  because these are typically the responsibility of state and local  governments—except when federal assets are involved. State and local  authorities are primarily responsible for prioritizing and supervising the  implementation of water and highway infrastructure projects; therefore,  the federal role in these processes is limited.
As specified by law, federal programs for funding roads, bridges, and  wastewater infrastructure generally operate as formula grants or similar  mechanisms with few explicit requirements to consider climate change in  infrastructure projects. For example, federal funding for highways is  provided to the states mostly through a series of formula grant programs  collectively known as the federal-aid highway program. As we have reported, the Federal Highway Administration has faced challenges in  ensuring that federal funds are efficiently and effectively used because  the highway program is one in which there is limited federal control—it is  a state-administered, federally assisted program. Funds are largely  apportioned by formula, and the states enjoy broad flexibility in deciding  which projects are supported. Furthermore, for nearly half of federal-aid  highway funds, the Federal Highway Administration’s responsibility to  oversee the design and construction of projects has been assumed by the  states. Similarly, EPA officials told us that their ability to influence states  to adapt to climate change through the Clean Water State Revolving  Fund is limited and that each state is responsible for administering its own  revolving funds.
However, certain federal infrastructure programs may begin to consider  adaptation in their project-level planning activities. For example, the  Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act—which was signed  into law on July 6, 2012, and authorized over $105 billion in  appropriations for surface transportation programs for fiscal years 2013  and 2014—authorizes federal funding to be used for bridge and tunnel  projects that protect against extreme events.
Another example is funding appropriated in the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) for EPA’s Green Project  Reserve under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and EPA’s  Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs. The Recovery Act appropriated $4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and  required that not less than 20 percent of these funds—if there are  sufficient eligible project applications—be used for projects to address  green infrastructure or other environmentally innovative activities.  According to EPA, this requirement, known as the Green Project  Reserve, has funded projects that facilitate adaptation of clean water  facilities to climate change, including green infrastructure and other  climate-related and environmentally innovative activities, such as water  and energy conservation.

	Roads and Bridges, Wastewater Management Systems, and NASA Centers Are Vulnerable to Changes in the Climate

According to NRC and USGCRP assessments, changes in the climate  have been observed in the United States and its coastal waters and are  projected to grow in severity in the future, thereby increasing the  vulnerability of infrastructure such as roads and bridges, wastewater  management systems, and NASA centers. As shown in table 1, changes  in the climate—including warmer temperatures, changes in precipitation  patterns, more frequent and intense storms and extreme weather events,  and sea level rise—affect roads and bridges, wastewater management  systems, and NASA centers in a variety of ways, according to NRC and  USGCRP.
Infrastructure is typically designed to withstand and operate within  historical climate patterns. However, according to NRC, as the climate  changes and historical patterns—in particular, those related to extreme  weather events—no longer provide reliable predictions of the future,  infrastructure designs may underestimate the climate-related impacts to  infrastructure over its design life, which can range as long as 50 to 100  years. These impacts can increase the operating and maintenance  costs of infrastructure or decrease its life span, or both, leading to social,  economic, and environmental impacts.
The vulnerability of infrastructure to changes in the climate varies by  category and location, as illustrated by our seven site visits, examples  from additional interviews we conducted, and assessments we reviewed  focused on three infrastructure categories—roads and bridges,  wastewater infrastructure, and NASA centers.

		Climate Change Impacts on Roads and Bridges

Climate change will have a significant impact on the nation’s roads and  bridges, according to assessments by NRC, USGCRP, and others.  Transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to extremes in precipitation,  temperature, and storm surges, which can damage roads, bridges, and  roadway drainage systems. For example, if soil moisture levels become  too high with increased precipitation, the structural integrity of already  aging roads, bridges, and tunnels could be compromised. In addition,  USGCRP’s 2009 assessment notes that increased precipitation is likely to  increase weather-related accidents, delays, and traffic disruptions in a  transportation network already challenged by increasing congestion.  Evacuation routes are likely to experience increased flooding, and more  precipitation falling as rain rather than snow in winter and spring is likely  to increase the risk of landslides, slope failures, and floods from the  runoff, causing road closures, as well as the need for road and bridge  repair and reconstruction. According to technical comments from EPA,  increased precipitation could also overwhelm roadside stormwater  systems, causing flooding of homes and businesses.
Increases in temperature extremes are projected to generate more  freeze-thaw conditions, creating potholes on road and bridge surfaces  and resulting in load restrictions on certain roads to minimize damage,  according to a 2008 NRC study.heat may compromise pavement integrity by softening asphalt and   In addition, longer periods of extreme  increasing rutting (i.e., sunken tracks or grooves made by the passage of  vehicles).
Storm surge, combined with sea level rise, is projected to generate a wide  range of negative impacts on roads and bridges. For example, according  to the 2008 NRC study, storm surges are projected to increasingly  inundate coastal roads, cause more frequent or severe flooding of low- lying infrastructure, erode road bases, and “scour” bridges by eroding  riverbeds and exposing bridge foundations. From an operational  perspective, increased storm surges are projected to cause more  frequent travel interruptions, especially in low-lying and coastal areas,  and necessitate more frequent evacuations, according to the study. The  following are specific examples of the observed and projected effects of  climate change on roads and bridges from the sites we visited.
Washington state transportation officials told us that they expect that  Washington State Route 522, about 35 miles northeast of Seattle,  Washington, will be vulnerable to hydrologic changes resulting from  changing temperatures and precipitation. More specifically, as the climate  warms and glaciers melt, they expect increased sediment loads in nearby  waterways. In addition, changes in rain and snow patterns are expected  to alter river flows, which have already caused problems at Washington  State Route 522’s Snohomish River Bridge, located in a vulnerable  position downstream of the convergence of the flash flood prone  Skykomish River and the slower-moving Snoqualmie River. Due to flash  flooding in this river system, state transportation officials said that they  have had to repair scour damage at the Snohomish River Bridge. When  designing the new project to replace the bridge and widen this 4-mile  stretch of Washington State Route 522, transportation officials told us that  they anticipated that hydrologic changes would continue to pose scour  risks to the bridge.
The two other road and bridge locations we visited highlight their  vulnerability to storms and relative sea level rise—the combination of  global sea level rise and changes in land surface elevation resulting from  land loss through subsidence, or the sinking of land that can lead to  submergence. Specifically, the Interstate 10 Twin Span Bridge, which  crosses Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans, and the southern portion  of Louisiana State Highway 1 are both located in the low-lying central Gulf  Coast region. This region is already prone to flooding during heavy rainfall  events, hurricanes, and tropical storms, and USGCRP assessments  expect that the region will become increasingly susceptible to inundation  as barrier islands erode and subside into the Gulf of Mexico. In its 2008  study, USGCRP estimated that the region could experience as much as 6  to 7 feet of relative sea level rise in Louisiana and East Texas, an area  home to a dense network of transportation assets. According to this  study, the “middle range” of potential sea level rise (2 to 4 feet) indicates  that a vast portion of the Gulf Coast from Houston to Mobile may be  inundated over the next 50 to 100 years.
The Twin Span Bridge has already been damaged by one extreme  weather event—Hurricane Katrina. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina generated  a large storm surge across Lake Pontchartrain, lifting many of Twin  Span’s 255-ton concrete bridge spans off of their piers, as shown in figure  1.
Some of the spans toppled into the lake while others were seriously  misaligned. The interactive graphic figure 2, below, illustrates how storm  surge combined with wind-driven waves to knock the spans off their piers.  Click here to activate the graphic in a Web browser on your computer,  and then select the “Katrina Flashback” box to access the animation.
The sections of Louisiana State Highway 1 we visited are also in a  particularly vulnerable location near the Gulf of Mexico, according to  locally based federal and state officials. The highway provides the only  road access to Port Fourchon, which services virtually all deep-sea oil  operations in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, the  nation’s only deepwater oil port capable of unloading very large crude  carriers. Collectively, Louisiana State Highway 1 currently supports 18  percent of the nation’s oil supply. Flooding of this road effectively closes  the port. According to NOAA officials, relative sea level rose an average  of about 0.4 inches annually from 1947 to 2006 at a tidal gauge in nearby  Grand Isle, LA. This is equivalent to a change of approximately 3 feet in  100 years, which a NOAA official described as one of the highest rates of  relative sea level rise in the world. Currently, Louisiana State Highway 1  is closed an average of 3.5 days annually due to inundation. However,  within 15 years, NOAA anticipates that the at-grade portions of Louisiana  State Highway 1 will be inundated by tides an average of 30 times  annually even in the absence of extreme weather.
Because of Port Fourchon’s significance to the national, state, and local  oil industry, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in July 2011,  estimated that a closure of 90 days could reduce national gross domestic  product by $7.8 billion. In addition to these anticipated economic  impacts, local officials also said that they are concerned about the safety  of area residents and workers who rely on Louisiana State Highway 1 as  their sole evacuation route during extreme weather events. Workers  travelling between the port and their homes must navigate a low-lying  segment of Louisiana State Highway 1, parts of which were built 4 feet  above sea level in an area where current high tide levels are 2.5 feet  above sea level. Figure 3 shows Louisiana State Highway 1 leading to  Port Fourchon.
Climate change will have a significant impact on the nation’s wastewater  management infrastructure—including treatment plants and wastewater  collection systems, according to studies from wastewater professional  associations and EPA, and an assessment from USGCRP.  Representatives from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies  and EPA officials we interviewed said that the most direct impacts of  climate change involve more frequent flooding and damage to wastewater  infrastructure. Climate changes that alter the local hydrology—such as  sea level rise, especially when combined with higher storm surges,  increased precipitation amounts, or more frequent and intense  downpours—can cause increased flooding and inundation of wastewater  management infrastructure, according to the professional association  study and USGCRP’s 2009 National Climate Assessment. Stronger  storms, which USGCRP projects in some locations, may exacerbate  these impacts. Wastewater infrastructure is particularly vulnerable to  climate change impacts because it is commonly built in low-lying areas  near a body of water and because it is designed for historically observed  hydrologic conditions that may not be as relevant for future scenarios.
Some locations could experience other, less direct, climate change  impacts from higher temperatures or drought conditions that alter the  characteristics of the wastewater flowing into a treatment plant—for  example, by concentrating pollutants or increasing water temperatures— thereby reducing the effectiveness of a system’s treatment processes that  were designed for different characteristics. In addition, treatment plants  may need to adopt alternative strategies to managing discharge of treated  or partially treated effluent if the condition of receiving water is altered by  climate impacts, according to technical comments from EPA. For  example, according to EPA’s comments, the flow of the receiving water  body may be too low to dilute discharge enough to meet water quality  standards. Climate change impacts to wastewater management systems  can increase treatment costs, increase maintenance and replacement  costs, and compromise biological treatment systems resulting in impaired  water quality. In the worst cases, according to EPA officials, climate  change impacts could cause a system to fail, creating risks to public  health.
Potential climate change impacts on wastewater management systems  are not limited to coastal areas, since changes in precipitation and  extreme events could affect wastewater management systems across the  country. According to USGCRP’s 2009 National Climate Assessment, the  amount of rain falling in the heaviest downpours has increased  approximately 20 percent on average in the past century, and this trend is  very likely to continue, with the largest increases in the wettest places.  During the past 50 years, the greatest increases in heavy precipitation  occurred in the Northeast and the Midwest. Besides flooding and related  storm damage at treatment plants, increased precipitation creates  problems for combined and separate sewer systems that collect and carry  sewage to treatment facilities. Specifically, these precipitation changes  can increase the amount of runoff, which by design combines with  sewage in a combined sewer system, and can lead to increased  infiltration and inflow into aging separated systems. These increases can  overwhelm the capacity of sewer systems, causing overflows that bypass  treatment and result in the discharge of untreated wastewater into  receiving water bodies.
Wastewater management systems are typically designed to provide a  specific level of service based on a number of design factors that include  a particular storm frequency, duration, and intensity. For example,  according to one set of commonly used design standards, treatment plant  components are typically designed for 25-, 50-, or 100-year storms.  Changes in characteristics of strong storms—for instance, a storm that  historically occurred once every 100 years may occur every 50 years in  the future—could cause wastewater management systems to be  overwhelmed more frequently. Climate change impacts have added to  existing stresses—including aging infrastructure and urbanization—that  already tax the capacities of many of the country’s wastewater  management systems and challenge communities’ ability to pay for them.  Specific impacts that have been observed in the two locations we visited  are discussed in the following sections.
As EPA states on its combined sewer overflow web page (see here), combined sewer  systems are sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and  industrial wastewater in the same pipe. Most of the time, combined sewer systems  transport all of their wastewater to a sewage treatment plant, where it is treated and then  discharged to a water body. storm events to develop different scenarios of future tide heights. These  tide height scenarios were combined with the elevations of King County’s  system facilities to identify those at risk of onsite flooding. As shown in  figure 4, King County has many facilities—including treatment plants,  regulator stations, pump stations, and other components—in tidally  influenced areas. The lowest of these facilities—Barton Pump Station, 8th  Avenue Regulator Station, Brightwater Flow Meter Vault and Sampling  Facility, and Elliott West Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Plant—lie  less than 15 feet above sea level.
The 2008 vulnerability study concluded that more than 30 major facilities  in King County are at varying levels of risk from sea level rise and storm  surge, depending on the rate at which the rise occurs and the probability  of an extreme storm event. For example, according to the study, the  Barton Pump Station, 8th Avenue Regulator Station, and Brightwater  Flow Meter Vault and Sampling Facility—all of which have an elevation of  13 feet—are projected by be flooded every 2 years by 2050 under a high  sea level rise scenario (approximately 1.8 feet).
Due to past problems with sewer overflows, the Milwaukee Metropolitan  Sewerage District in Wisconsin significantly increased the capacity of its  sewer system. As shown in figure 5, the district completed a $3 billion  dollar project in 1993 that included construction of a “deep tunnel” to add  additional wastewater storage capacity to its combined and separated  sewer systems and decrease the likelihood of combined sewer overflows.  In the past, according to Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District  officials, this project and the district’s other sewer system design  decisions were based on a 64-year historical rainfall record from 1940 to  2004. These officials stated that the Milwaukee region’s robust sewer  infrastructure helps make its system less vulnerable to changes in  precipitation that may result from climate change.
However, during our site visit, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District  officials stated that even this more robust infrastructure is vulnerable to  projected changes in the climate. In recent years, the Milwaukee region  has experienced several extreme precipitation events and, in 2011,  scientists at the University of Wisconsin projected that these types of  storms will become more common in the future. Specifically, the  scientists projected that storm frequency and intensity will increase in  early spring, a time during which the sewers are more vulnerable to  overflows due to frozen ground conditions that limit infiltration and cause  more runoff. Increases in spring precipitation associated with climate  change could exceed the capacity of the system and increase the volume  and frequency of sewer overflows in the Milwaukee region by mid- century, according to the scientists.

		Climate Change Impacts on NASA Centers

As presented in table 2, NASA centers are vulnerable to climate change  in several respects, but potential impacts vary depending upon  geographic location.
NASA’s centers and associated sites each have different missions and  geographic characteristics that affect their vulnerability to climate change.  As shown in figure 6, many of NASA’s field centers and component sites  are near an ocean shoreline. In fact, over two-thirds of NASA’s  constructed real property value (about $20 billion) is within 16 feet of sea  level, according to a 2012 NASA climate change presentation.
NASA is developing the institutional capacity to identify the risks posed to  its centers by climate change through a series of multiday climate risk  workshops, including two we attended in September 2011 and March  2012. The workshops are intended to, among other functions, share  climate information specific to each center with agency officials— including headquarters officials, center leadership, and center managers  responsible for overarching “systems” that support mission and  operations, such as the center’s electrical distribution network—and  community stakeholders such as local planning officials. Through these  workshops, NASA climate scientists and center personnel have  assembled site specific observed and projected changes in the climate for  selected centers, and have begun grappling with potential climate impacts  on these facilities. We describe two centers we visited—Johnson Space  Center and Langley Research Center—in more detail in the following  sections, as well as selected emerging efforts within DOD, which has  several facilities in close proximity to Langley Research Center:  According to NASA documents obtained at the March 2012 workshop,  Johnson Space Center leads NASA’s flight-related scientific and medical  research efforts, and its professionals direct the development, testing,  production, and delivery of U.S. human spacecraft and human spacecraft- related functions, including training space explorers from the United  States and Space Station partner nations, including International Space  Station crews. As shown in figure 7, the center is located on nearly  1,700 acres in Houston, Texas, near Galveston Bay and the Gulf of  Mexico. Ellington Field, part of Johnson Space Center, lies northwest of  the center.
Johnson Space Center’s facilities are conservatively valued at $2.3  billion, and include the following:
163 inhabited structures;
4 million square feet of office space;
3 miles of underground tunnels;
8.3 miles of roadways;
142 labs and simulators; and
2 national historic landmarks, including Apollo Mission Control Center.
Among these facilities, its mission control center is often referred to as the  nerve center for America’s human space program. A specialized pool at  the Sonny Carter Training Center near Ellington Field simulates zero  gravity or weightless conditions experienced by spacecraft and crew  during space flight. In addition, more than $4.0 billion of federal  aerospace contracts are now managed out of Johnson Space Center,  providing a local payroll of more than $1.9 billion annually. More than  15,000 people work within the center, including about 3,300 civil servants.
Climate data collected over the past 100 years in the Houston-Galveston  area show a long-term pattern of relative sea level and temperature rise,  according to NASA climate scientists who presented information at the  March 2012 workshop. Climate models project continued relative sea  level rise and warmer temperatures in the region, according to these  scientists. Because of its location on the Gulf Coast, storm surge and sea  level rise may be the biggest climate threats to Johnson Space Center,  according to documents prepared by NASA climate scientists. Land  subsidence also worsens the impacts of rising seas and storm surge.  NASA climate scientists stated that, while little change is expected in  average annual precipitation, precipitation could come at different  intervals, and individual precipitation events may become stronger,  leading to increased risks of flash flooding. In addition, according to  NASA data, the number of days per year exceeding 90 degrees  Fahrenheit is projected to rise dramatically in the coming century. The  projected changes in the frequency of some extreme events like hot and  cold days shown in table 3 would likely affect energy use and the number  of hours staff can work outside.
According to NASA documents obtained at the September 2011  workshop, Langley Research Center was founded in 1917 as the first civil  aeronautical research lab, and its unique research and testing facilities  make critical contributions to the development of NASA’s next generation  of heavy-lift rockets and capsules for future space exploration.shown in figure 8, Langley Research Center occupies nearly 800 acres in  Hampton, Virginia, near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The Port of  Hampton Roads is the nation’s third largest seaport, and the surrounding  area has a strong federal presence in addition to the center, including  Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard facilities. As shown in  figure 8, Langley Research Center borders the Northwest Branch and  Southwest Branch of the Back River, which flows east to the Chesapeake  Bay. Most of its acreage is located to the west of Langley Air Force Base,  with several small parcels to the east within the base.

	Climate Change Has Not Been Systematically Incorporated in Infrastructure Planning

Decision makers have not systematically incorporated potential climate  change impacts in infrastructure planning for roads, bridges, and  wastewater management systems, according to representatives we  spoke with from professional associations and officials from agencies that  represent or work with these decision makers. Instead, efforts to  incorporate climate change impacts into planning for infrastructure  projects have occurred primarily on a limited, ad hoc basis. The  association representatives and agency officials told us and NRC has  reported that decision makers in the infrastructure categories we  examined have generally not included adaptive measures in their  planning because: (1) they typically focus their attention and resources on  competing, shorter-term priorities; (2) they face challenges identifying and  obtaining available climate change information best suited for their  projects; (3) they often do not know how to access local assistance; or (4)  available climate change information does not fit neatly into their  infrastructure planning processes.

		Attention and Resources Are Focused on Short- Term Priorities

Representatives from professional associations we spoke with said that  nearer-term competing priorities make it difficult for decision makers to  address the impacts of climate change, since many state and local  governments responsible for the infrastructure face immediate funding  and staffing challenges. In many cases, according to these  representatives and reports from the Transportation Research Board  (TRB) of the NRC and National Drinking Water Advisory Council,  adaptation is a relatively low priority compared with more traditional and  immediate concerns such as managing aging infrastructure systems,  sustaining current levels of service, protecting public health and safety  and the environment, and maintaining service affordability.of wastewater infrastructure, for example, available funding is often  inadequate to implement climate adaptation actions on top of more  pressing needs such as meeting permit requirements, upgrading  wastewater treatment plants, and preparing to implement proposed  stormwater rules, according to officials from the National Association of   In the case  Clean Water Agencies and a December 2010 report from the National  Drinking Water Advisory Council.
Due to the immediacy of many competing priorities and current funding  constraints, decision makers tend to delay addressing climate change  adaptation—the benefits of which may not be realized for several  decades into the future. processes and their associated funding cycles occur on time horizons  poorly matched to the longer view sometimes required to discern the  effects of climate change and identify the benefits of adaptation. For  example, as noted in the TRB report, the longest-term planning horizons  for many transportation planners rarely exceed 30 years—20 to 25 years  is the norm. Yet, according to this report, the inherent variability of the  climate makes it difficult to discern climate change trends over periods  less than approximately 25 years. Consequently, many transportation  planners perceive that the impacts of climate change will be experienced  well beyond the time frame of their longest-term plans, not realizing that  climate changes could already be occurring and that investment decisions  made today will affect how well the infrastructure accommodates these  and future changes over its design life.
According to technical comments from CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP, several of the  examples listed in this section (meeting permit requirements, upgrading wastewater  treatment plants, and preparing to implement proposed stormwater rules) are driven by  federal agencies and federal actions, leading to a way federal agencies could incentivize  and encourage more of a focus on this issue.

		Decision Makers Face Challenges Obtaining the Best Available Climate- Related Information for Infrastructure Planning

Decision makers often face challenges obtaining the best available  climate-related information relevant to their decision-making process.
According to NRC studies and decision makers and other infrastructure  stakeholders we interviewed, decision makers are unsure about where to  go for information and what information they should use because (1) vast  amounts of information come from multiple, uncoordinated sources and  (2) the quality of the information varies.
Decision makers often struggle to identify which information among the  vast number of climate change studies available is relevant, according to  NRC studies and our interviews with federal agencies and other  stakeholders. NRC researchers, federal officials, and other stakeholders  reported that a vast amount of climate change information—including  climate modeling results and observational datasets—is available from  the independent efforts of federal and state agencies, universities,  professional associations, and others. However, this information is  typically made available to decision makers through what NRC described  in 2012 as a “loading dock” model, which assumes that simply producing  more scientific findings will improve the quality of decisions. to the NRC study, this information is reported in studies made available  through peer reviewed publications and placed on the public “loading  dock,” where decision makers are expected to retrieve and interpret the  studies for their purposes.
NRC, Committee on a National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling, Board on  Atmospheric Studies and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Sciences, A National  Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling  (Washington, D.C.: 2012).
NRC, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Informing Effective Decisions and Actions  Related to Climate Change, Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change  (Washington, D.C.: 2010). climate change literature, or can spend a great deal of time trying to find  useful information. For example, one decision maker we interviewed  noted that identifying the relevant aspects of the constant stream of  scientific papers he receives is akin to “picking needles out of the hay.”  According to the 2010 NRC report, the end result of this information not  being easily accessible is that people may make decisions—or choose  not to act—without it.
Given the large volume of climate-related information, decision makers  also struggle to identify which information is of the best quality. In many  instances, according to the 2012 NRC report on climate models, decision  makers often do not have sufficient information to appreciate the  strengths and weaknesses of different information because differences  and uncertainties among datasets and their usefulness for different  purposes may not be documented. As a result, decision makers must  assess the quality of information themselves and figure out how to  appropriately and reliably use the results. According to one  representative from the Georgetown Climate Center, decision makers at  the local level may be interested in incorporating climate change into their  planning and design decisions but are nervous to do so because they do  not know how to assess the quality of the information.

		Decision Makers Face Difficulty Accessing Local Assistance

Decision makers face difficulty accessing local assistance as they  consider adaption options. According to a 2010 NRC study, no one-size- fits-all adaptation option exists for a particular climate impact because  climate change vulnerabilities can vary significantly by infrastructure  category, region, community, or institution. In other words, all adaptation  is local.planning, not climate science—need assistance from experts who can  help them translate available climate change information into something  that is locally relevant. However, decision makers face difficulty accessing  such local assistance because (1) individuals qualified to translate  science to decision makers are in short supply and (2) when qualified  translators do exist, decision makers do not know how to find them.
Decision makers—who, in this case, specialize in infrastructure  Climate information translators are in short supply. As NRC reported in  2010, a limited number of people are qualified to communicate science in  ways that are useful to decision makers who are considering options for  climate change adaptation. Decision makers need to work with an  individual who has knowledge of the present state of climate science and  ability to access climate data, interpret them in a local context, and help  them understand the implications of those data and attendant  uncertainties, according to a 2012 NRC study on climate models. As  more and more communities become aware of the potential need for  adaptation, intermediaries who can help bridge the gap between decision  makers who want to use climate change information and the scientists  who produce it are increasingly in demand. However, according to a 2011  NOAA report, meeting this increased demand presents challenges  because academic institutions do not typically recognize “use-inspired”  knowledge developed in collaboration with practitioners and decision  makers as activities meeting academic standards for tenure, which may   In addition,  discourage researchers from developing such expertise.some of the stakeholders we interviewed noted that, while they saw a  local demand for outreach efforts to bridge the communication gap  between decision makers and climate scientists, few federal programs  are designed to support such activities.
Decision makers do not know where to find climate information  translators. Decision makers face a challenge finding experts who can  help them understand and use available climate change information.  Several stakeholders we interviewed told us that federal science agencies  are not in tune with the information needs of different sectors, and the  disparate sources of expertise leave users confused about where to turn  for help. As stated by a May 2012 NOAA-sponsored study, for most  decision makers “it is not obvious who to contact for what they need, be it  data, information, models or technical assistance.”

		Available Climate-Related Information Does Not Fit Neatly within Existing Infrastructure Planning Processes

Even where good scientific information is available, it may not be in the  actionable, practical form needed for decision makers to use in planning  and designing infrastructure. Such decision makers work with traditional  engineering processes, which often require very specific and discrete  information, but scientists commonly produce climate-related information  without these explicit needs in mind. Consequently, according to  professional association representatives, decision makers often do not  have “actionable science” of the type and scale they need to make  infrastructure decisions. Specifically, (1) infrastructure decision makers  need climate information at a regional or local geographic scale, but  climate information has generally been produced at a global or  continental scale; (2) infrastructure design decisions are made using data  on the frequency and severity of extreme events, but climate information  is typically presented as changes in average conditions; and (3)  traditional engineering practices rely on using backward-looking historical  data, whereas climate change projections are inherently forward-looking  and uncertain.
Information mismatch in geographic scale. As reported by NRC in 2009,  the geographic scale at which climate change information is typically  available can present serious challenges for its usefulness to decision   In general, climate change projections have focused on the  makers.global or continental scale, but the vast majority of infrastructure decision  makers require information at the regional or local scale. For example, a  bridge designer may require information about how climate change will  impact the flow of a specific river that a bridge crosses. To generate such  information at the required scale, various “downscaling” methods exist.  However, these methods introduce an additional level of uncertainty, and  “downscaled” information is not available for all locations because of  modeling resource constraints.
Climate averages versus extremes. Climate change projections tend to  focus on average changes in climate variables, such as temperature and  precipitation, and are not sophisticated enough to adequately  characterize extreme events, which drive the design criteria for  infrastructure, according to studies we reviewed and stakeholders we  interviewed. Representatives of the American Society of Civil Engineers  told us that climate and weather modeling indicate that extremes may  become more frequent or severe, but that such modeling does not make  this information sufficiently quantitative to serve as the basis for design,  operation, and maintenance decisions. According to these engineers,  information on future extreme events expected to occur during the service  life of infrastructure is a critical component in designing more resilient  infrastructure. However, according to technical comments from CEQ, the  Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and USGCRP,  although knowing the magnitude of future extremes would be useful, it is  not necessary, for example, to know exactly how extreme precipitation  will be in the future to know that larger culverts need to be used than were  used in past road design.
Forward- versus backward-looking. Climate change projections are  inherently forward-looking and uncertain, but traditional engineering  processes rely on historical information.
In addition, as reported by NRC  in 2012, such climate change projections commonly provide a range of  possible future outcomes. For example, available information may  indicate that, in a particular area, intense downpours will become more  frequent over the coming decades and provide a range of possibilities for  the timing and magnitude of the increase. However, as stated by  representatives of the American Society of Civil Engineers that we  interviewed, existing infrastructure planning processes, and the design  standards they rely on, require climate data with known and static  probability distributions, such as the magnitude of a 100-year storm as  determined by a historical record of precipitation. In fact, engineers use  statistical tables of historical precipitation intensity, duration, and  frequency developed by NOAA that, in some cases, have not been  updated since the 1960s.
In light of these issues, according to the American Society of Civil  Engineer representatives, climate change projections are a long way from  being translatable into engineering standards of practice. As a result,  NRC, in 2010, reported that adapting the nation’s infrastructure to climate  change will require new approaches to engineering analysis, such as  using risk management to take uncertainties into account. In technical comments, CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP noted that this may overstate the  issue because even historical data contain uncertainty in the timing and  intensity of events, and engineering processes already account for other  factors that are projected with uncertainty such as changing development  patterns and population growth.

	Key Factors Enabled Some Decision Makers to Integrate Climate Change into Infrastructure Project Planning

Notwithstanding the challenges that have deterred most decision makers  from integrating climate change considerations into infrastructure  planning processes, we identified and visited several locations where  some decision makers overcame these challenges. Key factors enabled  these decision makers to successfully integrate climate change into their  infrastructure project planning.

		Some Decision Makers Integrated Climate Change into Project Planning

Decision makers at the seven locations we visited were able to integrate  climate-related information into infrastructure project planning to varying  degrees. These locations exhibited considerable diversity in the types of  infrastructure at issue, geographic settings, and other circumstances. The  adaptive measures themselves did not involve major overhauls of project  plans or infrastructure systems but instead provide examples of practical  responses to observed or projected climate-related impacts. Decisions to  adapt infrastructure to climate change may depend on its remaining  useful life, among other factors, because adaptation can be relatively  more expensive when undertaken retroactively than at the design phase  of a project. It is important to note that climate change was not always the  primary reason for changing the infrastructure projects in these examples.  Rather, the examples illustrate a shift in thinking where climate change is  considered one of many hazards accounted for in planning and  implementation.
Interstate-10 Twin Span Bridge  (Louisiana)
As discussed above, the Interstate-10 Twin Span Bridge, which crosses  Lake Pontchartrain outside New Orleans, Louisiana, is vulnerable to  storm surge caused by hurricanes. Following failure of the old bridge  during Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana state transportation officials decided  to raise and strengthen the new Twin Span Bridge to protect against  future storms—specifically to protect the structure against storm surges of  similar strength to Hurricane Katrina, the largest storm surge on record for  Lake Pontchartrain. When deciding how to manage risk over the bridge’s  intended 100-year life span, the Twin Span’s design team considered  many factors, such as durability, cost, and long-term maintenance. The  design team ultimately decided to make a larger initial investment and  build a stronger bridge to minimize future maintenance problems and  expenses. The new bridge cost more than $700 million and was fully  funded by federal emergency relief funds.
Decision makers integrated several adaptive measures into the new  bridge’s design. As shown in figure 9, these measures included the  following:
Opening railings to reduce wave forces on the bridge’s deck.
Raising piers above historic peak wave heights, which involved raising  the new bridge 23 feet above the old bridge elevation.
Lengthening piles, long columns driven deep into the soil to support  the bridge, to accommodate larger anticipated wave loads.
Introducing rigid connections made of formed concrete to prevent the  deck from floating off bridge piers, which occurred during Hurricane  Katrina.
Strengthening bridge-supporting girders with higher density high- performance concrete. This is expected to increase the bridge’s  resilience to saltwater in Lake Pontchartrain, according to Louisiana  state transportation officials.
According to officials from the Louisiana Department of Transportation  and Development, these adaptive measures performed well during  Hurricane Isaac in 2012, the first major storm to hit the new bridge since it  opened to the public. When we visited after Hurricane Isaac, there were  few visible impacts on the bridge structure. Although the storm surge from  Isaac submerged the approaches to the bridge (i.e., the part of the bridge  that carries traffic from land to the main parts of the bridge) and eroded  adjacent land, the storm’s impact on the bridge itself was limited to  damaged signage and electrical components. Louisiana transportation  officials noted that the new Twin Span’s resilience during Isaac highlights  the importance of designing resilient long-lived infrastructure.
Louisiana State Highway 1 is vulnerable to storm surge given sea level  rise, land subsidence, and its close proximity to the open water and the  Gulf of Mexico, as previously explained. A coalition of state and local  officials worked together to obtain funding to raise an 11-mile segment of  the highway by 22.5 feet to protect the road from 100-year flood events.  To further protect the road from storm surge, bridge designers used  restraining devices and anchor bolts to prevent the road deck from  dislodging from the rest of the structure in the event of a large storm  surge. Figure 10 presents a rendering of the new, raised road that was  opened to traffic in 2009 (on the left) in relation to the old, unraised road  (on the right).
The raised segment of Louisiana State Highway 1 was largely unaffected  by Hurricane Isaac—the first major hurricane to hit since the raised  segment was open to the public. Some signs were damaged, but the  raised section’s superstructure, which includes the girders, was  unaffected despite the approximately 6.5-foot storm surge measured at  Port Fourchon, according to local transportation and port officials we  spoke to during an on-site, follow-up visit. In contrast, the unraised  sections of the highway both north and south of the raised road were  damaged. Figure 11 documents Hurricane Isaac-related flooding on the  unraised section of Louisiana State Highway 1 north of the raised road.
Washington State Route 522 and its Snohomish River Bridge are  vulnerable to projected increases in precipitation and flash flooding, which  may lead to increased bridge scour and roadbed damage. In 2008, the  Washington State Department of Transportation completed environmental  reviews for a major construction project along Route 522 to improve  safety and reduce congestion. During the design, state officials integrated  several measures in the project that both reduced the project’s impact on  the environment and increased its resilience to projected climate change  impacts.
Figure 12 illustrates some of the measures integrated into the project  design. Specifically, at the Snohomish River Bridge site, engineers  deepened bridge footings—the enlarged portions of bridge foundations  that rest directly on soil, bedrock, or piles—to protect against the effects  of changes in the flow of the river. Engineers also placed bridge piers at  least 10 feet above documented peak flows and aligned the bridge at the  least vulnerable location along the river. Furthermore, state transportation  officials built five stormwater treatment areas and eight water retention  ponds that will serve the dual purposes of controlling and treating storm  water flows, and plan to increase the size of two drainage culverts, to (1)  mitigate the project’s impact on the surrounding environment by allowing  wildlife to cross between habitat areas and improving fish access; (2)  protect the roadbed by allowing greater amounts of water to flow more  freely, preventing damaging roadbed saturation; and (3) increase the  connectivity of waterways, which preserve natural drainage.
Also shown in figure 12, is the Skykomish Basin wetland mitigation banklocated upstream of the Snohomish River Bridge. For this project,  purchasing credits from the mitigation bank serves the dual purposes of  (1) offsetting the loss of 15.6 acres of wetland and wetland buffer areas  damaged during construction with compensatory flood storage and (2)  reducing the erosive capacity of water on the bridge by slowing the flow of  the Skykomish River.
Facilities managed by the King County Wastewater Treatment Division  are vulnerable to sea level rise, which may increase flooding of  infrastructure and combined sewer overflows. To address this concern,  the Wastewater Treatment Division made minor modifications to new  construction and rehabilitation projects and plans to more formally  incorporate climate change information into its asset management  program. Based on a climate change vulnerability assessment of its  system, engineers adjusted the design of two vulnerable facilities. First,  engineers determined that raising the new Brightwater Flow Meter Vault  and Sampling Facility’s equipment by 5 feet would address these assets’  vulnerabilities to projected sea level rise. Accordingly, these facilities were  designed and built 5 feet higher. Second, at the Barton Pump Station,  which was scheduled for rehabilitation, engineers raised an overflow weir  and installed a flap gate, pictured in figure 13, to prevent saltwater  intrusion.
According to King County Wastewater Treatment Division officials, these  adaptive actions were “low-risk, high-reward” measures, illustrating “no  regrets” solutions that provide benefits regardless of future climate  conditions. For example, the modifications made to the Barton Pump  Station will help protect against current saltwater intrusion problems such  as the event that tripped off a combined sewer overflow alarm in January  2010 during a particularly high tide.
Milwaukee Metropolitan  Sewerage District (Wisconsin)
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District facilities are vulnerable to  projected increases in frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events  due to climate change, potentially resulting in more frequent and larger  combined sewer overflows. As part of broader efforts to meet growing  demand for sewer capacity, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District  officials employed what they called “green infrastructure” programs to  make the district’s sewer system more resilient to climate change by  capturing and holding or slowing the flow of stormwater, and officials plan  to incorporate climate change adaptation into infrastructure planning and  design where it makes sense as their facilities age and are replaced over  time. Three of these programs, shown in figure 14, include (1) bio-swales,  which are depressed catchment areas planted with vegetation to capture  and infiltrate stormwater runoff; (2) green roofs either partially or  completely planted with vegetation to hold rainwater; and (3) the  purchase of undeveloped property to preserve targeted land areas to  store and drain stormwater runoff into the ground naturally.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District officials emphasized the co- benefits of green infrastructure programs, including flood management,  improved air and water quality, increased property values, reduction of  urban heat island effect, and additional recreational amenities.
NASA Johnson Space Center  (Houston, TX) and NASA  Langley Research Center  (Hampton, VA)
Storm surge and relative sea level rise pose significant climate threats to  Johnson Space Center and Langley Research Center. As previously  discussed, these centers hosted adaptation workshops to identify risks to  assets and capabilities from current and future changes in the climate.  We attended these workshops and observed that they involved a broad  range of stakeholders—including NASA climate scientists, headquarters  officials, and center staff; local government and industry officials; and  experts from local academic institutions—in a comprehensive evaluation  of center vulnerability. The workshops are organized to help each center  (1) obtain information on historic, current, and projected climate hazards  specific to the region; (2) characterize the risk of current and future  climate on center systems, assets, and capabilities; (3) start to build  capacity to execute a continuous adaptation process; and (4) begin to  plan for the future and integrate climate considerations into existing  management plans and processes. These workshops were held in late  2011 and 2012, so it is too early to fully evaluate the progress of NASA  centers in incorporating climate change into their planning processes.
NASA officials have begun to conduct follow-up activities and analyze  lessons learned from the workshops. An important outcome of the  workshops has been increasing NASA collaboration and partnership with  surrounding communities, federal neighbors, and academia, according to  NASA officials. Additionally, some centers are supporting local tidal  marsh restoration projects or implementing their own protective measures  of vulnerable mission-critical areas. Low impact development has been  implemented as one way of slowing water runoff and allowing more  infiltration. For example, the Langley Research Center has identified high- priority areas for wetland development to act as buffer zones for future  storm surge events, and it planned to harden or elevate vulnerable  infrastructure elements (heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning, as well  as electrical transformers) as it rehabilitates, repairs, and maintains its  assets over time.

		Key Factors Enabled Decision Makers to Consider Climate Change in Project Planning

The adaptive measures described above did not necessarily require  decision makers to undertake major changes to project plans or  infrastructure systems but often did involve a commitment of financial  resources and, importantly, a change in mind-set toward addressing  longer-term and uncertain risks that many decision makers are not yet in  a position to consider. Key factors that enabled these decision makers to  undertake such measures and overcome the challenges that have  deterred others from integrating climate change into infrastructure  planning were that (1) their local circumstances were conducive to  addressing climate-related risks, (2) they learned to use available climate  information, (3) they had access to local assistance, or (4) they  considered climate impacts within existing planning processes in the  same context as other potential risks.
At the sites we visited, local circumstances were conducive to addressing  climate-related risks because these sites: (1) were in regions that recently  experienced a natural disaster or that had discernible climate-related  impacts, providing a stronger basis for engaging in adaptation efforts; (2)  had strong community leadership to help spur action; and (3) had  executive orders or other formal policy documents to help justify and  encourage taking adaptive actions.
Recent extreme weather events triggered a response. In some cases,  decision makers were compelled to account for future climate conditions  by a triggering event that demanded a response or created a policy  window for action. For example, Hurricane Katrina exacted a heavy toll on  the old Twin Span Bridge, necessitating a rebuild and prioritizing the  construction of a new, more resilient bridge. As noted in the 2009 NRC  report on climate-related decision support, recent firsthand experience  with a natural disaster, such as a heat wave, drought, storm, or flood, can  dramatically increase decision makers’ desire for, and openness to, new  information and action. For example, according to stakeholders from the  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials  (AASHTO), the sense of urgency of climate change adaptation is  generally higher in coastal states and in areas that have experienced  recent events affecting their transportation infrastructure. Similarly, EPA  officials told us that the likelihood that a wastewater utility would consider  climate change in infrastructure planning depends largely on, among  other things, where it was located geographically and, in some cases,  whether it had already experienced a weather event that might increase  with a changing climate. This point was evident during our visit to  Milwaukee, where extreme rainfall events in 2008, 2009, and 2010 each  exceeded the magnitude of a 100-year storm, making the public aware of  the need to prepare for the impacts of climate change. Also, according  to NASA officials, the impact of extreme events on the two NASA centers  we visited helped drive the creation of the adaptation workshops.
NRC, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change,  Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
Director outlining how they will start to incorporate consideration of  climate risks and adaptation strategies into their plans and processes.
Policy documents helped justify action. As shown by our site visits,  executive orders or other formal policy documents can help justify and  encourage adaptive efforts at the state and federal levels. For example,  Washington State Executive Order 07-02, issued in 2007, directed the  development of a climate change initiative to determine the specific steps  that should be taken to prepare for the impact of global warming on  infrastructure, among other things. Since then, state transportation  officials considered climate change adaptation during the environmental  review of Washington State Route 522, and the Washington State  Department of Transportation has directed all project teams to consider  climate change in their national and state environmental review  documents. Similarly, King County’s 2007 Climate Action Plan provided  the impetus to move forward on adaptation activities, according to  Wastewater Treatment Division officials. At the federal level, the October  5, 2009, Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental,  Energy, and Economic Performance directs federal agencies to evaluate  their climate change risks and vulnerabilities and manage the effects of  climate change on the agency’s operations and mission in both the short-  and long-term. NASA officials at the Johnson Space Center and Langley  Research Center workshops cited the executive order as a reason to take  the workshops seriously.
The examples from our site visits show that it is possible to use many  types of climate-related data to make more informed decisions about  climate change in project-level infrastructure planning. Importantly, the  decision makers at the sites we visited did not wait for perfect information  to take action, and they learned to manage the uncertainty associated  with climate-related data. As stated to us by an official from Seattle Public  Utilities, “uncertainty should not be an excuse for inaction on climate  change adaptation. Decision makers have to get smarter and find ways to  incorporate whatever climate information they have.”challenges that decision makers reported in identifying and applying  available information about climate change, decision makers at the sites  we visited learned to use a range of information sources, including (1)  site-specific projections of future climate conditions, (2) qualitative  information based on state or regional scale climate projections, and (3)  observed climate data.
Site-specific projections of future climate conditions. In some cases,  decision makers learned to use site-specific projections of future climate  conditions when determining how to take adaptive measures. For  example, NASA climate scientists prepared downscaled climate variable  projections for the Johnson Space Center and Langley Research Center  workshops. Table 5 shows projected quantitative climate changes for  Johnson Space Center.
Furthermore, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District officials used  site-specific climate change projections prepared by the Wisconsin  Initiative on Climate Change Impacts as a foundation for planning green  infrastructure components that may have a beneficial impact to their  system. More specifically, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District  contracted with researchers at a local academic institution to use these  projections to provide an analysis of how climate change could impact the  sewer system and cause sewer overflows. The King County Wastewater  Treatment Division similarly used sea level rise projections from the  University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group in its facilities  vulnerability study.
Qualitative information. Not all decision makers have access to quantified  site-specific projections of future climate changes. In the absence of such  projections, some infrastructure decision makers from our site visits used  qualitative evaluations of state or regional scale climate projections to  help make more informed decisions. For example, site-specific climate  projection data were not available when Washington State Department of  Transportation officials evaluated adaptation measures for Washington  State Route 522. For this reason, the project team conducted a qualitative  evaluation of climate variability based on available information, such as  information from the region’s transportation planning organization and  studies reflecting how climate change impacts may manifest themselves  within the region. Similarly, when Seattle Public Utilities officials assessed  their adaptation options, site-specific climate change projection data were  not adequate to be useful for planning purposes. As a result, according to  a 2011 EPA report, utility officials used their general understanding of  climate trends to apply a safety factor to new infrastructure construction  so that that new investments would more likely perform their intended  function over their useful lives. This is a practical approach that can be  generalized to a wide range of adaptation situations, according to  technical comments from CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP.
Observed historical climate data. According to a NOAA workshop report  on climate adaptation, observed climate records help to overcome  barriers that may be associated with discussions of climate change.  Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District officials told us they  emphasize data on observed changes when the public inquires about the  district’s climate change adaptation actions. Similarly, officials from the  Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts stated that while it is  difficult to ask a planning board for money to make design changes based  on uncertain projections, observations can show that the climate is  changing and that stakeholders are often more compelled by historical  data than by model projections. As we observed, NASA kicked off each  workshop by presenting observed climate data for the local area and  discussing participants’ personal experiences with weather events to  make the potentially abstract notion of climate vulnerability “real.” Figure  15 shows the observed historical sea level and temperature data that  NASA used in its Langley Research Center workshop.
Some decision makers at the sites we visited said that they used historic  climate data to inform engineering decisions. For example, when  designing the new Twin Span Bridge, Louisiana Department of  Transportation and Development engineers wanted to design the bridge  to resist storm surge and wave action from the worst-case storm  scenario. However, they had no detailed information about Lake  Pontchartrain’s wave characteristics or guidance from the AASHTO on  how to design a bridge to withstand extreme weather events in coastal  areas. To obtain this information, these officials hired experts in the area  of wave mechanics to conduct a storm analysis. The experts used historic  storm surge data to develop hypothetical scenarios regarding wave crest  elevations and hurricane tracks. While reviewing historic data, the experts  discovered that Lake Pontchartrain is very susceptible to storm surge. To  determine the worst-case scenario for the Twin Span Bridge, they  modeled a storm with properties similar to Hurricane Katrina along  different storm tracks. The storm surge and waves created by a Katrina- like hurricane located west of the bridge became the basis of their design.
Access to local assistance was instrumental to decision makers’ ability to  undertake climate adaptation efforts at the sites we visited. Decision  makers used this assistance to (1) translate available climate information  into a meaningful and usable form and (2) help communicate to the local  community the risks associated with climate change and the importance  of taking action.
Translating available information. At most of our site visits, local experts  helped decision makers bridge the gap between the information they  needed and the science that was available. Decision makers at the sites  we visited told us that local experts were instrumental because they  understood the local context. In one example, the Milwaukee Metropolitan  Sewerage District sought the expertise of local scientists and planners  who were familiar with its sewer system and local considerations because  available climate change information could not be used “off the shelf” for  wastewater planning. These experts translated region-specific climate  model data into a form that could be plugged into existing sewer system  models used by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District for system  planning and evaluation. This enabled the district’s decision makers to  understand the projected impacts of climate change on its sewer system  and appropriately tailor their adaptation efforts. In another example,  NASA developed a Climate Adaptation Science Investigator working  group with members at each of its centers to partner NASA climate  scientists with local infrastructure managers, thereby developing local  expertise that decision makers could use to tailor center-specific  adaptation solutions.
Communicating to the public. In addition to helping translate climate  change information, decision makers at our site visits noted the  importance of having local experts to help communicate local climate  change information to the public and help the community understand the  need for adaptation. For example, several decision makers in King  County said that experts from the Climate Impacts Group at the University  of Washington, through outreach programs, were effective in focusing the  community’s attention on climate change issues and the importance of  investing in climate preparedness. According to one of the decision  makers, when King County officials are “able to stand shoulder-to- shoulder” with local scientists known in the community, they do not have  to defend the underlying climate science to customers who could  potentially face increased rates. Similarly, several decision makers in  Milwaukee noted that having local experts helps the agency more  effectively convey to the community the need for and importance of  climate preparation. They noted, “the response you get from people when  talking about climate change often depends on who is delivering the  message.”
Some decision makers stated during our site visits that a key factor in  their success was an ability to consider potential climate change impacts  within their existing infrastructure planning processes so that they were  viewed in the same context with other potential risks. As NRC reported in  2010, incorporating adaptation considerations into existing processes—a  concept known as “mainstreaming”—can reduce costs and provide  incentives to adapt.
The value of mainstreaming adaptation into normal planning processes  was illustrated by several of our site visits. In Milwaukee, for example,  sewerage district officials noted that efforts to consider climate change in  sewer infrastructure planning were successful because climate change  information could be integrated into existing planning processes and  analyses. In one such effort, an engineer at the Milwaukee Metropolitan  Sewerage District told us that the agency builds new water conveyance  structures taller because it “makes sense” given the known vulnerabilities  to increased flooding in the region. Additionally, in the Washington State  Route 522 example, project planners incorporated climate change  considerations during the project’s environmental review process, which  provided the opportunity to explain how the elements of the project  helped to improve climate resiliency and reduce potential for damage  from extreme storm events. According to Washington State Department  of Transportation officials, climate adaptation measures were integrated  with decisions about how to minimize environmental effects and comply  with regulations, permits, and approvals.
Some of the decision makers from our site visits envision more formally  integrating potential climate change impacts into planning processes. For  example, wastewater officials from King County said that they will likely  include climate change risk in a field of the county’s asset management  database that is maintained to track the status and condition of  infrastructure components. Therefore, when a particular component is  due for rehabilitation or replacement, information will be readily available  for planners and designers to make the component more resilient to  climate change as it is being modified anyway. Similarly, NASA’s Climate  Change Adaptation Policy Statement notes that the agency plans to start  building the capacity to execute a continuous adaptation process and will  require that climate considerations be incorporated into existing  management plans and processes. According to NASA officials, such  plans and processes include master planning efforts, construction of  facilities projects, environmental management systems, and permitting.

	Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Meet the Needs of Local Infrastructure Decision Makers

Emerging federal efforts are under way to facilitate and enable more  informed decisions about adaptation, including raising public awareness,  but these efforts could better meet the needs of local decision makers,  according to studies, decision makers from our site visit locations, and  other stakeholders. In some cases, these sources identified opportunities  to better meet the needs of local infrastructure decision makers in the  future by: (1) improving infrastructure decision makers’ access to and use  of available climate-related information, (2) providing increased access to  local assistance, and (3) considering climate change in existing planning  processes.

		Emerging Federal Efforts to Raise Public Awareness of Adaptation

Emerging federal efforts to raise public awareness of climate change  adaptation include (1) the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task  Force, (2) the National Climate Assessment status report on climate  change science and impacts, and (3) vulnerability assessments for  specific infrastructure categories.
Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy,  and Economic Performance called for federal agencies to participate  actively in the already existing Interagency Climate Change Adaptation  Task Force. The task force, which began meeting in Spring 2009, is  cochaired by CEQ, NOAA, and OSTP and includes representatives from  more than 20 federal agencies and executive branch offices. The task  force was formed to develop federal recommendations for adapting to  climate change impacts both domestically and internationally and to  recommend key components to include in a national strategy.
On October 14, 2010, the task force released its interagency report  outlining recommendations to the President for how federal policies and  programs can better prepare the United States to respond to the impacts  of climate change. The report recommended that the federal  government implement actions to expand and strengthen the nation’s  capacity to better understand, prepare for, and respond to climate  change. The 2010 report laid out guiding principles for adaptation for  federal agencies (and that should be considered by others) and policy  goals and recommended actions for the federal government. These  recommended actions include making adaptation a standard part of  agency planning to ensure that resources are invested wisely and  services and operations remain effective in a changing climate.
On October 28, 2011, the task force released Federal Actions for a  Climate Resilient Nation: Progress Report of the Interagency Climate  Change Adaptation Task Force, which outlined federal progress in  expanding and strengthening the nation’s capacity to better understand,  prepare for, and respond to extreme events and other climate change  impacts. The report provides an update on actions in key areas of federal  adaptation, including building resilience in local communities and  providing accessible climate information and tools to help decision  makers manage climate risks.
According to the task force, its work has increased awareness of climate  change across the federal government and generated adaptive actions. In  technical comments, CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP noted that the task force  recommended that each agency “mainstream” adaptation planning into its  missions, operations, and facilities so as to ensure that climate change  impacts are taken into consideration with long-term planning and  reforming building standards. The task force also stated that, as the  federal government further integrates adaptation into its operations,  policies, and programs, it will catalyze additional adaptation planning  across the nation. However, the 2012 NRC report on climate models  describes the task force as having largely been confined to convening  representatives of relevant agencies and programs for dialogue, without  mechanisms for making or enforcing important decisions and priorities.  In technical comments, CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP took issue with  NRC’s description of task force activities, citing the release of agency  adaptation plans (discussed further below) and a variety of other strategic  planning efforts, including the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate  Adaptation Strategy.
The National Climate Assessment, required not less frequently than every  4 years by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and conducted  under the USGCRP, analyzes the effects of global change on the natural  environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water  resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social  systems, and biological diversity, and it analyzes current trends in global  change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for  the subsequent 25 to 100 years. USGCRP intends that this assessment be used by U.S. citizens, communities, and businesses as they create  plans for the nation’s future.
According to USGCRP documents, these assessments serve an  important function in providing the scientific underpinnings of informed  policy and act as status reports about climate change science and  impacts. They can identify advances in the underlying science, provide  critical analysis of issues, and highlight key findings and key unknowns  that can guide decision making. Assessments attempt to identify climate  impacts at the regional level to raise awareness and spur more informed  decision making.
There have been two assessments in the past 20 years, and a draft of a  third assessment report was released for public review on January 11,  2013. The first, in 2000, included a large stakeholder engagement  process and the second, in 2009, was more focused on specific climate  science topics. The third assessment—expected to be finalized in March  2014, according to USGCRP—differs in multiple ways from previous  efforts, according to USGCRP’s strategic plan. Building on the  recommendations of the NRC, it will both implement a long-term,  consistent, and ongoing process for evaluation of climate risks and  opportunities and inform decision making processes within regions and  sectors. An essential component of this ongoing process is to establish a  sustained assessment activity both inside and outside of the federal  government that draws upon the work of stakeholders and scientists  across the country. The third National Climate Assessment report will also  have significant components related to transportation and water  infrastructure, among other sectors, according to USGCRP.
Some federal agencies are also conducting vulnerability assessments for  specific infrastructure categories. For example, the Federal Highway  Administration is developing a vulnerability and risk assessment model for  transportation infrastructure. To test this effort, the Federal Highway  Administration funded pilot studies in Washington State; the San  Francisco Bay Area; Oahu, Hawaii; Hampton Roads, Virginia; and New  Jersey. For these pilots, the Federal Highway Administration developed a risk assessment model to aid state departments of transportation and  metropolitan planning organizations in inventorying assets, gathering  climate information, and assessing the risk to their assets and the  transportation system from climate change.end of 2010 and participating agencies completed their project reports in  late 2011. According to agency officials, the Federal Highway  Administration is initiating a second round of pilots, to be launched in  early 2013, with an expanded focus on extreme weather events and  adaptation options.
The pilots started at the  The Federal Highway Administration has reviewed these reports and  used the feedback from the pilot agencies to refine the vulnerability and  risk assessment framework, according to agency officials. Specifically,  the Federal Highway Administration’s December 2012 Climate Change  and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment Framework draws from  the experiences of these pilot projects to develop a guide for  transportation agencies interested in assessing their vulnerability to  climate change and extreme weather events.  overview of key steps in conducting vulnerability assessments and uses  examples to demonstrate a variety of ways to gather and process climate- related information. Federal Highway Administration officials also noted  that the agency is currently soliciting proposals for additional pilot  agencies to further evaluate the framework.
For more information on the Federal Highway Administration’s December 2012 Climate  Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment Framework, click here.

		Improving Infrastructure Decision Makers’ Access to and Use of Available Information

According to relevant studies, local decision makers from our site visits,  and other stakeholders, future federal efforts to improve access and use  of available climate-related information could better focus on the needs of  local decision makers. These sources identified opportunities for these  efforts to better meet the needs of local infrastructure decision makers in  the future by (1) better coordinating and improving access to the best  available climate-related data and (2) providing technical assistance to  help local decision makers translate available climate-related data into  information useful for decision making.
Emerging federal efforts to coordinate and improve access to the best  available climate-related data for decision making are much needed,  according to studies, local decision makers from our site visits, and other  stakeholders. According to a 2010 NRC study, the federal government  has a critically important role in coordinating available climate-related  data because it provides and supports large infrastructure for data  collection and analysis (e.g., satellites, climate models, and monitoring  systems), and can set standards for information quality. However, as  noted by USGCRP in its April 2012 strategic plan, federal agencies  generally have pursued a distributed data strategy over the last decade,  in which individual agencies have established archives for collecting and  storing data. This means that decisions and actions related to climate  change are currently being informed by a loose confederation of networks  and other institutions, according to the 2010 NRC study.
A range of stakeholders cited the need to improve the coordination of  agency climate data collection and consolidation efforts. For example,  Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District officials told us they believe  the federal government could better focus its initiatives by integrating  climate-related information programs under one umbrella. Echoing this  sentiment, officials from the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change  Impacts stated that the “federal agencies that provide climate change  information need to find a way to coordinate their efforts. Currently, there  is no coherence among such agencies.” In addition, in its December 2010  report, the EPA National Drinking Water Advisory Council noted that there  is a pressing need for a coordinated, collaborative, information strategy  that is supported by the key agencies and organizations and that helps  make the most effective use of limited financial and technical resources  available to address climate change challenges.
USGCRP agencies have been providing global change information that is  essential to many aspects of policy, planning, and decision making. The growing  demands for information by decision makers, however, are highlighting the need  for improved accessibility to more comprehensive, consolidated, and user- relevant global change-related data and information. Global change  observations, monitoring, modeling, predictions, and projections—underpinned  by the best-available natural and social science—can provide the framework of  global change information. No single agency can provide the breadth of  information needed. This provides a unique opportunity for current and potential  USGCRP partners, including the private sector, academia, and other Federal  agencies, to improve the effectiveness of its global change information in ways  that better address the growing public demand for science that can inform  decision making without prescribing outcomes.
USGCRP has established an adaptation science workgroup focused on  coordinating interdisciplinary science in support of national and regional  adaptation decisions, among other activities, and is working with CEQ,  OSTP, and other agencies to improve coordination of the development  and delivery of climate science and services to local decision makers,  according to USGCRP officials.
In our 2011 report on climate change funding, OSTP stated that, while  significant progress is being made in linking the climate science-related  efforts, individual agencies still want to advance initiatives that promote or  serve their agency missions. This, according to OSTP, yields a broader  challenge of tying climate-related efforts together into a coherent  governmentwide strategy since interagency coordinating programs like  USGCRP generally do not have direct control over agency budgets.  According to a 2009 NRC report, the absence of centralized budget  authority limits the ability of the USGCRP to influence the priorities of  participating agencies or implement new research directions that fall  outside or across agency missions.
In technical comments, CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP noted that the  absence of centralized budget authority remains the most important  impediment to USGCRP’s ability to meet its mandate to provide the  information needed to support adaptation planning and implementation.  However, according to the technical comments, agencies’ enabling  legislation and subsequent reauthorizations generally require that they  advance initiatives that promote or serve their agency missions, and the  appropriations process supports and reinforces separate budget  authorities, particularly where agencies are covered by different  Congressional committees. The technical comments also noted the  difficulty in finding mechanisms to facilitate joint federal funding of  projects makes collaboration and implementation of joint priorities more  challenging.
While coordinating available climate-related data is a first step in making  more informed adaptation decisions, another key step is to ensure  decision makers have access to the best available data. According to a  2010 NRC study, an informed and effective national response to climate  change requires that the widest possible range of decisions makers— public and private, national and local—have access to up-to-date and  reliable information about current and future climate change, the impacts  of such changes, the vulnerability to these changes, and the response  strategies for reducing emissions and implementing adaptation. As  stated by AASHTO officials, the most important role that the federal  government could play in the transportation sector with respect to  adaptation would be to provide a central repository for state transportation  officials to go to for data. Similarly, stakeholders at a recent NOAA- sponsored workshop on transportation infrastructure adaptation  highlighted the importance of clear guidance on where to look for  information, including the need for a central clearinghouse for climate and  weather information relevant to transportation officials.
Efforts to provide infrastructure decision makers with access to climate- related information are an emerging priority across the federal  government. For example, on June 6, 2012, both the Acting Director of  OMB and the Director of OSTP signed the Science and Technology  Priorities for the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget memorandum, which states that  agencies should give priority to research and development that  strengthens the scientific basis for decision making. Such research and  development is to include efforts to enhance the accessibility and  usefulness of data and tools for decision support, specifically efforts that  advance the implementation of federal adaptation initiatives. USGCRP’s  April 2012 strategic plan recognizes this high-level priority by identifying  enhanced information management and sharing as a key objective. In  this regard, USGCRP is pursuing the development of a Global Change  Information System to support coordinated use and application of federal  climate science. USGCRP plans to leverage existing tools, services,  and portals from the USGCRP agencies to develop a “one-stop shop” for  accessing global change data and information, according to the strategic  plan.
These efforts, if fully implemented, appear likely to improve access to the  broad range of available climate-related information. However, it remains  unclear how federal efforts will address the challenge of clearly identifying  the best available information to use in local infrastructure planning so  decision makers who may not be familiar with climate science are not left  to sort it out themselves.
Several site visit decision makers, infrastructure stakeholders, and  available studies noted additional infrastructure adaptation information  needs that could be met through future federal research. Better organized  and accessible climate data may meet some of these needs, but a “one- stop-shop” may also highlight gaps in existing data. In other words,  access to existing information may not be enough to meet all the  perceived needs of infrastructure decision makers because some types of  desired information do not yet exist. According to OMB’s and OSTP’s  fiscal year 2014 science and technology priorities memo, specific areas  where progress is needed include: observations to detect trends in  weather extremes; integration of observation into models; simulation and  prediction at spatial and temporal scales conducive to decision making;  and adaptation responses to changing frequency and intensity of extreme  weather events. Regardless, improved coordination and consolidation of  federal climate data will assist in the prioritization of future federal  adaptation science activities and help local and federal officials clarify true  “needs” from “wants.”
Even with coordinated and accessible climate data, local decision makers  will need technical assistance and tools to interpret what the data mean  for infrastructure planning, according to our 2009 report on climate  change adaptation. Center and Langley Research Center, NASA developed handouts that  present facility-relevant climate change information in a user-friendly  format to help decision makers at NASA centers understand what to  expect in the future, so they can plan accordingly. To help nonscientists  use the handout, it provides information on how to interpret local climate  projections, identify specific potential impacts from climate change, and  lays out the key adaptation considerations for local decision makers.
GAO-10-113. stormwater infrastructure. The resources and tools developed under the  Climate Ready Water Utilities initiative are designed for decision makers  with different levels of adaptation experience, according to EPA officials.  Decision makers with little experience can learn about adaptation options  using EPA’s Adaptation Strategies Guide for Water Utilities, while more  advanced decision makers can use EPA planning tools to conduct a  workshop or use EPA’s Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness  Tool, a risk assessment software tool that uses climate information from  USGCRP’s 2009 National Climate Assessment to enable utilities to  evaluate a range of climate change scenarios from 2010 through 2090.  This tool allows decision makers to analyze how various adaptation  strategies may help reduce climate risks, enabling them to prioritize the  implementation of adaptation measures. In the future, according to EPA  officials, the Climate Ready Water Utilities initiative will focus on  developing tools for smaller utilities that have limited resources to engage  technical experts for assistance. According to EPA officials, the agency  has other projects under way focused on providing additional information  and alternative approaches for communities. These projects include work  on a decision-making framework to help decision makers select among  different adaptation approaches, development of case studies to promote  peer-to-peer learning on preparing for impacts, and development of a tool  for users to evaluate options in a range of potential future water quality  scenarios.
The Department of Transportation supports a range of technical  assistance efforts focused on helping road and bridge infrastructure  decision makers incorporate climate change information into planning  processes. First, the department maintains the Transportation and  Climate Change Clearinghouse, which provides access to existing  literature on climate change adaptation and transportation issues, but less  in the way of detailed site-specific information that decision makers need  for infrastructure planning.Highway Administration, completed Phase 1 of the Gulf Coast Study in  March 2008, which analyzed how changes in climate could affect   Second, the department, through its Federal  transportation systems in the gulf coast region over the next 50 to 100  years. A second phase of the Gulf Coast Study, scheduled to be  completed in 2013 according to the Federal Highway Administration, is  focusing on the Mobile, Alabama, region and will build on the information  developed in Phase 1. The Phase 2 study inventoried critical  infrastructure, assembled climate data and projections for the region, and  will assess the vulnerability of the critical infrastructure across modes.  The study will also develop transferrable tools and approaches that  decision makers can use to determine which transportation systems most  need to be protected and to identify and choose suitable adaptation  options.
The technical assistance and tools provided by EPA and the Department  of Transportation hold promise as ways to help decision makers obtain  the best available climate-related information for infrastructure planning.  However, officials from EPA and the Department of Transportation said  that they do not know the extent to which decision makers are using the  tools they developed. EPA officials told us they were not sure about the  extent to which utilities have used the agency’s Climate Resilience  Evaluation and Awareness Tool, and can only estimate the number of  users by the times it has been downloaded and the number of  participants in pilot programs and educational webinars. EPA officials told  us that the agency plans to conduct additional outreach to decision  makers. Likewise, according to Federal Highway Administration officials,  the extent to which states and metropolitan planning organizations have  used some of the agency’s climate adaptation resources remains unclear.  The officials said that the states and metropolitan planning organizations  participating in pilot programs have used the agency’s draft adaptation  framework. In addition, federal officials track and collect feedback from  the state and local agencies that have participated in the workshops and  peer exchanges that the Federal Highway Administration has sponsored,  according to agency officials. Importantly, a 2010 NRC report on  informing decisions in a changing climate found it difficult to identify good  reviews and clear unbiased discussions of the full range of decision  support tools, their appropriate uses and limitations, and concluded that  there could be a stronger role for the federal government to provide  guidance on tools to support climate decisions, perhaps through a climate  tools database, network, and best practice examples.

		Accessing Local Assistance

At the locations we visited, having access to local assistance was a key  variable that enabled decision makers to incorporate climate change into  project level infrastructure planning. The entities coordinating federal  adaptation efforts are beginning to reflect in strategic planning the need to  develop and provide access to local expertise capable of bridging the gap  between decision makers and scientists. For example, USGCRP’s April  2012 strategic plan recognizes the need to improve the federal  government’s ability to translate climate information into what is needed  by decision makers, and adaptation task force reports state that the  federal government should enhance its capacity to translate information  between scientists and decision makers. The National Climate  Assessment also provides an opportunity to engage with stakeholders  and partners and is being structured to provide a continuing mechanism  for engaging communities and networks of stakeholders at the local,  state, tribal, and regional levels.
NRC, Panel on Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support,  Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in a  Changing Climate (Washington, D.C.: 2009). and public policy. RISA teams help build the nation’s capacity to adapt to  climate variability and change by providing information to local decision  makers. For example, Seattle Public Utilities and King County recognized  NOAA’s local RISA program—the University of Washington Climate  Impacts Group—as instrumental in helping to elevate the issue of climate  change in the central Puget Sound region and Washington State. As  noted by CEQ, there are other examples of science-to-user continuums  from which to learn, including U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative  Extension and NOAA Sea Grant Extension, which provide extension  agents of all specializations with training in understanding and  communicating climate change information to support adaptation. needs to be done by qualified people to ensure that users receive the most  accurate and appropriate information. The people currently doing this work come  from a diversity of backgrounds such as weather modeling, engineering, statistics  and environmental science. Currently, no standards exist for helping potential  employers assess whether such people have the necessary skills in the  appropriate use of climate model information to ensure that they can provide the  most accurate and appropriate information to end users. This suggests an unmet  need for training and accreditation programs in this area.
Accordingly, in the report, NRC recommended the development of a  national education and accreditation program for “climate model  interpreters” who can take technical findings and output from climate  models, including quantified uncertainties, and use them in a diverse  range of private- and public-sector applications. It is not clear what role  the federal government could or should play in the development of such a  program.
Whatever the federal role in the future of climate data translation,  research and experience show that such activities are more effective  when well-established organizations build trust among information users  over time, and that, in many instances, formal institutionalization will be   The  critical to longevity, recognition, and success, according to NRC.Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force recognizes this need  and stated, in its 2010 progress report, that to effectively integrate and  implement adaptation responses, the federal government should recruit,  develop, and retain technically capable staff that have the proper  expertise to understand decision maker needs, and to communicate  effectively the range of possible climate change impacts. USGCRP is also  aware of this issue, noting in its April 2012 strategic plan, that USGCRP  agencies will use their relationships with academia to promote the  interdisciplinary education at undergraduate and graduate levels needed  for a professional and technical workforce in areas related to climate  change. These federal goals were developed too recently to evaluate, but  it is unclear how developing a highly qualified workforce of climate  interpreters without a corresponding institutional home would help  infrastructure decision makers understand who they can contact for  assistance.

		Considering Climate Change in Existing Planning Processes

Notwithstanding the limited federal role in planning for transportation and  wastewater infrastructure, several emerging federal adaptation efforts  could help local infrastructure decision makers consider climate change in  existing processes, according to studies, local site visit decision makers,  and other stakeholders. These efforts relate to (1) design standards  specifying how to consider climate change in infrastructure projects; (2)  guidance specifying how certain types of federal infrastructure  investments should account for climate change when meeting the  requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA):  and (3) agency adaptation plans describing, among other things, how  climate change will be considered in federal planning processes that  influence local actions.
Professional associations like AASHTO—not federal agencies—generally  develop the design standards that specify how weather and climate- related data are to be considered in project-level design and planning  processes for roads and bridges, wastewater management systems, and  NASA centers. OMB Circular A-119 directs agencies to use these  voluntary consensus standards in lieu of government-unique standards  except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. According  to Federal Highway Administration officials, for highway infrastructure  these design standards are in turn modified and adopted by state  governments and then approved by the federal government agency, in  this case the Federal Highway Administration, before they can be applied  to federally funded projects. Thus, federal agencies rely on professional  associations to provide initial input to determine how and when climate- related data are included within design standards that specify how  infrastructure is to be built.
Decision makers from the sites we visited, other infrastructure  stakeholders, and relevant studies emphasized the importance of better  employing design standards as a tool for incorporating climate change in  infrastructure planning. For example, experts from the University of  Washington who work with the King County Wastewater Treatment  Division stated that it would be helpful to have (1) protocols for developing  and maintaining design standards that incorporate climate change  projections and (2) established methods for using this information in  actual design processes via well-documented case studies; because,  according to these experts, not having a formal process for incorporating  climate change information in design standards effectively ensures that  most of the design community cannot act without unacceptable  professional risks. Similarly, officials from the American Society of Civil  Engineers with whom we spoke acknowledged that incorporating climate  science in design standards is critical for translating adaptation into  engineering practice. Building on this point, a recent report on adaptation  policy noted that updating design standards can also spur innovation in  materials science, engineering, and construction.
Professional associations are beginning to take interest in climate change  adaptation. For example, AASHTO maintains a web-based  Transportation and Climate Change Resource Center with a climate  adaptation page and a list of educational webinars on topics such as  adapting infrastructure to extreme events. Society of Civil Engineers developed a Committee on Adaptation to  Climate Change to, in part, translate climate science into engineering  practice. In addition, some private infrastructure development and  construction companies are beginning to develop methods to compare  the costs and benefits of engineering alternatives considering different  climate futures. These efforts are just under way, with as yet  undetermined outcomes, but, according to a TRB-commissioned study,  updating standards is a long process, involving many government and   Also, in 2011, the American  nongovernmental standard‐setting organizations.
As a result, there have been calls for a more active federal role in  encouraging professional associations to consider climate change in  design standards. In 2010, NRC identified as a national priority the  revision of engineering standards to reflect current and anticipated future  climate changes, and it recommended that their use be required as a  condition for federal investments in infrastructure.
For more information about AASHTO’s Transportation and Climate Change Resource  Center, see http://climatechange.transportation.org/. far as the NRC recommendation, recent transportation legislation  recognized the significance of design standards. Section 33009 in the  Senate version of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act  would have required the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with  others, to issue guidance and establish design standards for  transportation infrastructure to help states and other entities plan for  natural disasters and a greater frequency of extreme weather events in  the process of planning, siting, designing, and developing transportation  infrastructure by assessing vulnerabilities to a changing climate and the  costs and benefits of adaptation measures. Section 33009 was not,  however, in the version of the bill the conference committee agreed to,  which ultimately passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into  law on July 6, 2012.
Certain types of federal infrastructure investments need to meet the  requirements of NEPA, which requires federal agencies to evaluate the  environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable  alternatives to those actions. Usually federal agencies evaluate the likely  environmental effects of major federal actions using an environmental  assessment, or, if the action likely would significantly affect the  environment, a more detailed environmental impact statement.
On February 18, 2010, CEQ—the entity within the Executive Office of the  President that oversees implementation of NEPA—issued draft guidance  on how federal agencies can consider the effects of climate change in the  NEPA process. As CEQ noted in this guidance, the environmental analysis and documents produced in the NEPA process could consider  the relationship of climate change effects to a proposed action, such as  an infrastructure project that was a major federal action, or alternatives,  including proposal design and adaptation measures.
CEQ’s draft NEPA guidance states that climate change effects should be  considered in the analysis of projects that are designed for long-term  utility and located in areas that are considered vulnerable to specific  effects of climate change (e.g., increasing sea level or ecological change)  within the project’s time frame. For example, a proposal for long-term  development of transportation infrastructure on a coastal barrier island  will likely need to consider whether environmental effects or design  parameters may be changed by the projected increase in the rate of sea  level rise. Given the length of time involved in present sea level  projections, such considerations typically would not be relevant to an  action with only short-term considerations. The guidance further states  that this is not intended as a new component of NEPA analysis but rather  as a potentially important factor to be considered within the existing  NEPA framework.
The draft guidance also noted that, after consideration of public comment,  CEQ intended to expeditiously issue the guidance in final form. CEQ  received public comments on the draft guidance following its release on  February 18, 2010. CEQ has not finalized the guidance or issued  regulations addressing how, if at all, federal agencies are to consider the  effects of climate change in the NEPA process. When asked for an  estimate on when the final guidance would be available, CEQ, in  December 2012, stated that “we are continuing to assess the best  approach moving forward as we work on developing the guidance,” but  did not indicate when the guidance would be finalized. Without finalized  guidance from CEQ, it is unclear how, if at all, agencies are to  consistently consider climate change in the NEPA process, creating the  potential for inconsistent consideration of the effects of climate change in  the NEPA process across the federal government.
As directed by CEQ instructions and guidance implementing Executive  Order 13514, agency adaptation plans for fiscal year 2013 were  submitted to CEQ in June 2012 as part of executive branch agencies’  annual Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans. According to CEQ, the  adaptation plans are to outline the agency’s policy framework, analysis of  climate change risks and opportunities, process for agency adaptation  planning and evaluation, programmatic activities, and actions taken to  better understand and address the vulnerabilities posed by a changing  climate. Agencies are to consider how they will include climate change  within their existing programs and planning processes, some of which can  influence state and local actions on infrastructure investment. For  example, on September 24 2012, the Federal Highway Administration’s  Associate Administrators for Infrastructure; Planning, Environment, and  Realty; and Federal Lands Highway issued a memorandum to Federal  Highway Administration staff clarifying the eligibility of adaptation  activities for federal highway funding. The memo notes that Federal  Highway Administration offices may allow state and local agencies to use  highway funds to consider the potential impacts of climate change and  extreme weather events and apply adaptation strategies, both at the  project and systems levels. The extent to which agency adaptation plans  will address policy specifics such as the Federal Highway Administration  guidance is unclear because draft plans were released on February 7,  2013, and are undergoing public review and comment.

	Conclusions

Physical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, wastewater management  systems, and NASA centers are typically expensive and long-term  federally funded investments. Many are projected to be impacted by  changes in the climate that, according to best available science, are  inevitable in coming decades. As the nation makes these investments, it  faces the choice of paying more now to account for the risk of climate  change, or potentially paying a much larger premium later to repair,  modify, or replace infrastructure ill-suited for future conditions. The choice  raises a basic risk management question that an increasing number of  state and local decision makers are beginning to address, particularly in  the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.
Planning for transportation and wastewater infrastructure in this country  remains largely within the domain of state and local governments, but  emerging federal efforts are under way to facilitate and enable more  informed decisions about adaptation. Moreover, entities coordinating  federal adaptation efforts are beginning to reflect in strategic planning the  need to develop and provide access to local assistance capable of  bridging the gap between decision makers and scientists. Studies, local  decision makers from site visits, and stakeholders suggest ways federal  adaptation efforts could better serve the needs of local infrastructure  decision makers. Specifically:
Federal agencies and academic institutions collect a vast array of  climate-related data, but local infrastructure decision makers face  difficulty identifying, accessing, and using them, because as noted by  a 2010 NRC study, this information exists in an uncoordinated  confederation of networks and institutions. Of particular note, federal  efforts to provide access to site-specific, climate-related information  are an emerging priority, but it remains unclear how these efforts will  address the challenge of identifying the best available information to  use in infrastructure planning. According to the 2010 NRC report, the  end result of this information not being easily accessible is that people  may make decisions—or choose not to act—without it.
At the locations we visited, access to local assistance was a key  variable that enabled decision makers to translate available climate- related data into information useful for project level planning, but it is  unclear how emerging federal efforts will help decision makers in  other locations obtain similar assistance. Without clear sources of  local assistance, infrastructure decision makers—who may not be  familiar with climate science and who have many other responsibilities  of immediate importance—will be left to sort it out themselves, and will  face difficulty justifying investment in adaptation measures, the  benefits of which may not be realized for several decades into the  future.
Notwithstanding the limited role federal agencies play in most project- level planning, certain types of federal infrastructure investments need  to meet the requirements of NEPA. On February 18, 2010, CEQ  issued draft guidance on how federal agencies can consider the  effects of climate change in the NEPA process. However, CEQ has  not finalized the guidance or issued regulations addressing how, if at  all, federal agencies are to consider the effects of climate change in  the NEPA process, and it also has not indicated when or if the  guidance would be finalized. Without finalized guidance from CEQ, it  is unclear how, if at all, agencies are to consistently consider climate  change in the NEPA process.
Professional associations generally develop and maintain design  standards critical for translating adaptation into infrastructure  engineering practice, not relevant federal agencies such as EPA  (which has the lead for federally funded wastewater systems) or the  U.S. Department of Transportation (which has the lead for federally  funded roads and bridges). OMB Circular A-119 directs federal  agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of government- unique standards except where inconsistent with law or otherwise  impractical. Professional associations have started to investigate how  to incorporate climate-related data into design standards, with as yet  undetermined outcomes. Not having a formal process for  incorporating climate change information in design standards  effectively ensures that most of the infrastructure design community  cannot act without unacceptable professional risks, according to  certain local decision makers and stakeholders. As a result, there  have been calls for a more active federal role in encouraging  professional associations to consider climate change in design  standards.

	Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the resilience of the nation’s infrastructure to climate change,  we are making the following four recommendations:  that the Executive Director of the United States Global Change  Research Program or other federal entity designated by the Executive  Office of the President work with relevant agencies to identify for decision makers the “best available” climate-related  information for infrastructure planning and update this information  over time and clarify sources of local assistance for incorporating climate-related  information and analysis into infrastructure planning, and  communicate how such assistance will be provided over time;  that the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality finalize  guidance on how federal agencies can consider the effects of climate  change in their evaluations of proposed federal actions under the  National Environmental Policy Act; and that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the  Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency work with  relevant professional associations to incorporate climate change  information into design standards.

	Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the  Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of EPA, the Chair of CEQ,  the Director of OSTP, and the Executive Director of USGCRP. They did  not provide official written comments but instead provided technical  comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of  Transportation, the Administrator of EPA, the Chair of CEQ, the Director  of OSTP, the Executive Director of USGCRP, the appropriate  congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (212) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report (1) describes what is known about the impacts of climate  change on the nation’s infrastructure, specifically roads and bridges,  wastewater management systems, and National Aeronautics and Space  Administration (NASA) centers; (2) analyzes the extent to which potential  climate change impacts are incorporated into infrastructure planning; (3)  identifies the factors that enabled certain decision makers to integrate  climate change impacts into infrastructure planning; and (4) analyzes  federal efforts to address the adaptation needs of local infrastructure  decision makers and describes potential opportunities for improvement  identified by studies, local decision makers who integrated climate  change into infrastructure planning, and other stakeholders. We selected  the road and bridge and wastewater management system infrastructure  categories because they account for significant federal funding and are  the focus of specific federal adaptation initiatives. We selected NASA  centers because these facilities are large, they manage mission critical  assets that are difficult, if not impossible to move or replace and,  importantly, NASA has an emerging partnership effort focused on  considering climate change information within the planning for its centers.  NASA centers are also instructive examples because they incorporate  roads, bridges, wastewater systems, and other infrastructure in one place  as a system to support a mission.
Before describing in detail the methods we used, it is important to  recognize a few limits of our approach and report. First, it focuses on  planning for new projects or significant rebuilds, and does not focus on  operations and maintenance or wide-scale efforts to assess the  vulnerability of the existing stock of infrastructure. Second, this report  focuses on planning for specific projects, not long-range planning or  strategic prioritization processes. Third, this report describes how  decision makers incorporated climate change adaptation into  infrastructure planning and implementation, but it does not generally  assess the effectiveness of the adaptive actions themselves. The need  for further research in this area is widely acknowledged but is not the  focus of this report.
To explain the potential consequences of climate change on the Nation’s  infrastructure, we reviewed assessments from the National Research  Council, the United States Global Change Research Program, and  relevant federal agencies. We identified these assessments using  government and National Academies websites and prior GAO reports on  climate change. We then evaluated whether the assessments fit within  the scope of work and contributed to the objectives of this report. For  relevant assessments, we used in-house scientific expertise to analyze  the soundness of the methodological approaches they utilized, and we  determined them to be sufficiently sound for our purposes. Relevant  assessments are cited throughout this document.
To identify the extent to which climate change impacts are incorporated  into infrastructure planning, we (1) reviewed laws, regulations, and  planning guidance; (2) analyzed relevant reports on climate change  adaptation; and (3) interviewed knowledgeable infrastructure  stakeholders and officials from professional associations, federal  agencies, and other organizations. To identify relevant reports on climate  change adaptation, we conducted a literature search and review with the  assistance of a technical librarian. We searched various databases, such  as ProQuest, and focused on peer reviewed journals, government  reports, trade and industry articles, and publications from associations,  nonprofits, and think tanks from 2005 to present. We also searched for  reports from the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional  Budget Office, and agency inspectors general. To supplement this review  we analyzed Internet-based adaptation report databases such as the  Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange. Relevant reports are cited in  footnotes throughout this report. To identify knowledgeable stakeholders,  we reviewed our prior climate change work and relevant reports to identify  individuals with specific knowledge of climate change adaptation and  infrastructure. We interviewed professional association stakeholders from  the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,  American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Clean Water  Agencies, and the Water Utility Climate Alliance; federal agency officials  from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Highway  Administration; and other stakeholders familiar with infrastructure  adaptation, including the Georgetown Climate Center and the Center for  Climate and Energy Solutions. We also coordinated with the  Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service.
To examine how climate change has been considered in infrastructure  planning, we visited seven locations where decision makers had done  so—three locations focused on roads and bridges (Washington State  Route 522; Interstate-10 Twin Span Bridge near New Orleans, Louisiana;  and Louisiana State Highway 1) , two locations focused on wastewater  management systems category (King County Wastewater Treatment  Division in Washington and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District  in Wisconsin), and two NASA centers (Langley Research Center in  Hampton, Virginia, and Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas). To  select the transportation and wastewater sites, we reviewed studies;  interviewed federal, state, and local agency officials; and analyzed  Internet-based adaptation case study databases maintained by academic  institutions such as the Georgetown Climate Center to identify examples  where climate change was considered in infrastructure planning. From  this review, we found a universe of about 20 total potential transportation  and wastewater management system examples. Based on follow-up  interviews and additional research, we narrowed the potential list for each  category based on whether the candidates had considered climate  change during both the project planning and implementation phases. We  selected three projects focused on roads and bridges and two locations  focused on wastewater management systems in an attempt to illustrate  different potential climate impacts in different regions of the United States  (the Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes, Gulf Coast, and Mid-Atlantic), but we  were somewhat limited by the small set of potential site visits. NASA  scheduled climate change adaptation workshops at two of its centers  (Langley Research Center and Johnson Space Center) during the time  frame of our work. We attended the workshops and collected information  from a variety of federal and local stakeholders, including government  officials and academic institutions. The sites we selected are not  representative of all infrastructure adaptation efforts taking place;  however, they include a variety of responses to climate change effects  across different infrastructure categories. Findings from these site visits  cannot be generalized to those we did not include in our nonprobability  sample.
We gathered information during and after the site visits through  observation of adaptation efforts, interviews with officials and  stakeholders, and a review of documents provided by these officials. As  part of the site visits, we interviewed academic institutions that provided  climate-related information to decision makers, including the Wisconsin  Initiative on Climate Change Impacts, a collaboration between the  University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Nelson Institute for Environmental  Studies and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; the Climate  Impacts Group, an interdisciplinary research group at the University of  Washington; and the Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program, a  collaborative research program of the University of Oklahoma and  Louisiana State University. We also followed up with officials after our  visits to gather additional information.
To analyze federal efforts to address the adaptation needs of state and  local infrastructure decision makers and to describe opportunities for  improvement, we (1) interviewed federal officials from the Council on  Environmental Quality, Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway  Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and United States  Global Change Research Program and (2) reviewed available studies on  federal adaptation efforts. To monitor federal adaptation-related activities,  we accessed materials stored in www.fedcenter.gov, the federal  government’s home for comprehensive environmental stewardship and  compliance assistance information. We also attended the Adaptation  Futures International Conference on Climate Adaptation in May 2012  cohosted by the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona, and by the  United Nation Environment Programme’s Programme of Research on  Climate Change Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation, to learn about  climate change adaptation research and approaches from around the  world.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to April 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Elstein (Assistant  Director), Kendall Childers, Dr. Dick Frankel, Cindy Gilbert, Anne Hobson,  Richard P. Johnson, Mary Koenen, Sara Lupson, Alison O’Neill, Dan  Royer, Jeanette Soares, Ardith Spence, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and J.D.  Thompson made key contributions to this report.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government invests billions of dollars annually in infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, facing increasing risks from climate change. Adaptation--defined as adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate change-- can help manage these risks by making infrastructure more resilient.
GAO was asked to examine issues related to infrastructure decision making and climate change. This report examines (1) the impacts of climate change on roads and bridges, wastewater systems, and NASA centers; (2) the extent to which climate change is incorporated into infrastructure planning; (3) factors that enabled some decision makers to implement adaptive measures; and (4) federal efforts to address local adaptation needs, as well as potential opportunities for improvement.
GAO reviewed climate change assessments; analyzed relevant reports; interviewed stakeholders from professional associations and federal agencies; and visited infrastructure projects and interviewed local decision makers at seven sites where adaptive measures have been implemented.

What GAO Found

According to the National Research Council (NRC) and others, infrastructure such as roads and bridges, wastewater systems, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) centers are vulnerable to changes in the climate. Changes in precipitation and sea levels, as well as increased intensity and frequency of extreme events, are projected by NRC and others to impact infrastructure in a variety of ways. When the climate changes, infrastructure-- typically designed to operate within past climate conditions--may not operate as well or for as long as planned, leading to economic, environmental, and social impacts. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that, within 15 years, segments of Louisiana State Highway 1-- providing the only road access to a port servicing 18 percent of the nation's oil supply--will be inundated by tides an average of 30 times annually due to relative sea level rise. Flooding of this road effectively closes the port.
Decision makers have not systematically considered climate change in infrastructure planning for various reasons, according to representatives of professional associations and agency officials who work with these decision makers. For example, more immediate priorities--such as managing aging infrastructure--consume time and resources, limiting decision makers' ability to consider and implement climate adaptation measures. Difficulties in obtaining and using information needed to understand vulnerabilities and inform adaptation decisions pose additional challenges.
Key factors enabled some local decision makers to integrate climate change into infrastructure planning. As illustrated by GAO's site visits and relevant studies, these factors included (1) having local circumstances such as weather-related crises that spurred action, (2) learning how to use available information, (3) having access to local expertise, and (4) considering climate impacts within existing planning processes. As one example, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District managed risks associated with more frequent extreme rainfall events by enhancing its natural systems' ability to absorb runoff by, for instance, preserving wetlands. This effort simultaneously expanded the sewer system's capacity while providing other community and environmental benefits. District leaders enabled these changes by prioritizing adaptation, using available locallevel climate projections, and utilizing local experts for assistance.
GAO's report identifies several emerging federal efforts under way to facilitate more informed adaptation decisions, but these efforts could better support the needs of local infrastructure decision makers in the future, according to studies, local decision makers at the sites GAO visited, and other stakeholders. For example, among its key efforts, the federal government plays a critical role in producing the information needed to facilitate more informed local infrastructure adaptation decisions. However, as noted by NRC studies, this information exists in an uncoordinated confederation of networks and institutions, and the end result of it not being easily accessible is that people may make decisions--or choose not to act--without it. Accordingly, a range of studies and local decision makers GAO interviewed cited the need for the federal government to improve local decision makers' access to the best available information to use in infrastructure planning.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that a federal entity designated by the Executive Office of the President (EOP) work with agencies to identify for local infrastructure decision makers the best available climaterelated information for planning, and also to update this information over time. Relevant EOP entities did not provide official comments, but instead provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated, as appropriate.