CLIMATE CHANGE

Future Federal 

Adaptation Efforts 

Could Better Support 

Local Infrastructure 

Decision Makers

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2013

GAO-13-242

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-242, a report to 

congressional requesters

April 2013

CLIMATE CHANGE

Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better 

Support Local Infrastructure Decision Makers

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 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.

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. 

View GAO-13-242. For more information, 

contact David C. Trimble at (202) 512-3841 or 

trimbled@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Letter 1 

Background 6

Roads and Bridges, Wastewater Management Systems, and NASA 

Centers Are Vulnerable to Changes in the Climate 14

Climate Change Has Not Been Systematically Incorporated in 

Infrastructure Planning 37

Key Factors Enabled Some Decision Makers to Integrate Climate 

Change into Infrastructure Project Planning 45

Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Meet the Needs of 

Local Infrastructure Decision Makers 66

Conclusions 85

Recommendations for Executive Action 87

Agency Comments 88

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 89

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 93

Tables

Table 1: Current and Projected Climate Changes in the United 

States and Impacts to Infrastructure 15

Table 2: Examples of How NASA Centers Are Vulnerable to 

Observed and Projected Climate Change Impacts 28

Table 3: Changes in the Frequency of Hot and Cold Days at 

Johnson Space Center, as Projected by NASA Climate 

Scientists 33

Table 4: Extreme Events at Langley Research Center: 2020-2090 35

Table 5: NASA Model Results of Projected Climate Changes at 

Johnson Space Center 61

Figures

Figure 1: Damaged Segments of the Twin Span Bridge 18

Figure 2: Interactive Graphic Illustrating the Impact of Hurricane 

Katrina Storm Surge and Waves on I-10 Twin Span Bridge 19

Figure 3: Louisiana State Highway 1 Leading to Port Fourchon 21

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 4: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Facilities 

Potentially Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise 25

Figure 5: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’s Sewer 

System Infrastructure 27

Figure 6: NASA Field Centers and Component Sites 29

Figure 7: Location of Johnson Space Center 31

Figure 8: Location of Langley Research Center 34

Figure 9: Adaptive Measures Integrated into New Twin Span Bridge 47

Figure 10: Rendering of Raised Segment of Louisiana State 

Highway 1 49

Figure 11: Flooding of an Unraised Segment of Louisiana State 

Highway 1 Following Hurricane Isaac 50

Figure 12: Adaptive Measures Integrated into Washington State 

Route 522 52

Figure 13: Flap Gate Installed at the Barton Pump Station 54

Figure 14: Examples of Green Infrastructure Projects in Milwaukee 55

Figure 15: NASA Model Results of Observed Climate Changes at 

Langley Research Center 63
Page iii GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway 

Transportation Officials

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

DOD Department of Defense

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ISO International Organization for Standardization

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRC National Research Council

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

RISA Regional Integrated Science and Assessments

TRB Transportation Research Board

USGCRP United States Global Change Research Program

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 12, 2013

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oversight

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Max Baucus

Chairman

Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

Extreme weather events and climate change pose risks to physical 

infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, essential to the economic wellbeing of the United States. As evident from Superstorm Sandy in October 

2012, a single extreme weather event can cause not only extensive loss 

of life, but also tens of billions of dollars in damages to transportation 

systems, utilities (e.g., wastewater treatment and collection facilities), 

buildings, and other critical infrastructure. As noted in a December 7, 

2012, memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate Majority 

Leader requesting funds for Superstorm Sandy recovery efforts,

To build a more resilient Nation prepared to face both current and future 

challenges, including a changing climate, federal agencies in partnership with 

state, local, and tribal officials, and the science community, should inform all 

plans for recovery and rebuilding to address the increased risk and vulnerabilities 

of extreme weather, sea level rise, and coastal flooding.

Typically, climate change is described in terms of average annual 

changes in temperature or precipitation, but it is also associated with 

shifts in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events to which 

physical infrastructure is particularly vulnerable. These vulnerabilities are 

illustrated by the 11 extreme weather events—including Superstorm 

Sandy—that each caused more than $1 billion in damages in 2012, 

according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

(NOAA) National Climatic Data Center.1

As observed by the United States Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP), the impacts and costliness of these disasters—resulting from 

floods, drought, and other events such as tropical cyclones—will increase 

in significance as what are considered “rare” events today become more 

common and intense due to climate change.

In 2011, the United States 

experienced 14 extreme weather and climate events that cost more than 

$1 billion in losses, according to NOAA, including Hurricane Irene, which 

also caused flooding across the Northeast.

2 In addition, USGCRP’s 

2009 National Climate Assessment found that climate-related changes—

such as rising temperature and sea level—will exacerbate the effects of 

other challenges we face as a nation, such as air pollution; population 

growth; urbanization; and other social, economic, and environmental 

stresses.3 According to the National Research Council (NRC), USGCRP, 

and others, greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue 

altering the climate system into the future, regardless of emissions control 

efforts.4

 

1

Additional information on billion dollar weather disasters is available at NOAA’s National 

Climatic Data Center, 

Therefore, climate change adaptation—defined here as 

adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or 

here. 

2 USGCRP coordinates and integrates the activities of 13 federal agencies that conduct 

research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. 

USGCRP began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was codified in the Global Change 

Research Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-606, § 103 (1990)). USGCRP-participating 

agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, 

Health and Human Services, State, and Transportation; the U.S. Agency for International 

Development; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration; the National Science Foundation; and the Smithsonian Institution.

3

Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds. Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009). This 

document, referred to as the 2009 National Climate Assessment, is in the process of 

being updated, as the Global Change Research Act of 1990 requires that a scientific 

assessment be provided to the President and Congress not less frequently than every 4 

years. See information on the 2013 National Climate Assessment here. 

4

NRC is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of 

Engineering. Through its independent, expert reports; workshops; and other scientific 

activities, NRC’s mission is to improve government decision making and public policy, 

increase public understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of 

knowledge in matters involving science, engineering, technology, and health. For more 

information about NRC, click here. 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

expected climate change—is an important part of the response to climate 

change.5

As we reported in October 2009, policymakers are increasingly viewing 

climate change adaptation as a risk management strategy to protect 

vulnerable sectors and communities that might be affected by changes in 

the climate.6 We also reported that federal, state, and local agencies were 

beginning to take action. Since our 2009 report, many agencies within the 

federal government have developed adaptation initiatives, including 

activities focused on infrastructure such as roads and bridges, 

wastewater management systems, and large federal facilities like 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) centers. Further, 

in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of Defense 

(DOD) recognized the national security risk posed by climate change, 

noting that while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act 

as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on 

civilian institutions and militaries around the world.7 The review also 

acknowledged that extreme weather events may lead to increased 

demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian 

assistance or disaster response. The Department of Homeland Security’s 

2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review similarly recognized that 

America’s national interests are threatened by global challenges and 

long-term trends including climate change.8

 

5

There are multiple definitions of climate change adaptation. For example, in USGCRP’s 

2009 assessment, adaptation refers to changes made to better respond to present or 

future climatic and other environmental conditions, thereby reducing harm or taking 

advantage of opportunity. Various federal officials commented that this definition better 

emphasizes that adaptation is meant not just to be an adjustment in response to climate 

change, but a change in the way of thinking so as to reduce harm and take advantage of 

opportunity. 

Because of these and other 

concerns, in February 2013, we added Limiting the Federal Government’s 

6

GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions, GAO-10-113 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009).

7

Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Washington, D.C.: 

February 2010). For more details, click here. 

8

Department of Homeland Security, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report: A 

Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland (Washington, D.C.: February 2010). See 

here for more information. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks to our High 

Risk List.9

In this context, you asked us to review the consequences of climate 

change on U.S. infrastructure. Specifically, this report examines (1) what 

is known about the impacts of climate change on the nation’s 

infrastructure, specifically roads and bridges, wastewater management 

systems, and NASA centers; (2) the extent to which potential climate 

change impacts are incorporated into infrastructure planning; (3) 

examples in which climate change impacts were integrated into 

infrastructure planning; and the factors that enabled some decision 

makers, such as road engineers, to do so; and (4) federal efforts to 

address the adaptation needs of local infrastructure decision makers and 

potential opportunities for improvement.

To examine what is known about the impacts of climate change on the 

nation’s infrastructure, we reviewed assessments from the NRC and 

USGCRP.10 We selected the road and bridge and wastewater 

management system infrastructure categories because they are 

supported by significant federal funding and are the focus of specific 

federal adaptation initiatives.11

 

9

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, 

We selected NASA centers because these 

facilities are large and manage mission critical assets that are difficult, if 

GAO-13-283, February 2013. Every 2 years at the 

start of a new Congress, GAO calls attention to agencies and program areas that are high 

risk due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or are most in 

need of transformation. Click here to access the Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal 

Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks content. 

10According to the NRC’s 2007 Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons 

Learned, scientific assessments are evaluation and consensus building processes for 

establishing an integrated view of recent scientific breakthroughs and providing policyrelevant information to decision makers. An assessment can establish the importance of 

an issue, provide an authoritative resolution of policy-relevant scientific questions, 

demonstrate the benefits of policy options, identify new research directions, and provide 

technical solutions. The assessment process in itself is a key interface between science 

and policy and a crucial mechanism by which science informs policy making. For 

assessments to be effective and credible, the process has to be open and must provide 

accurate, useful, and scientifically tested information. For more information about 

USGCRP assessments, click here. 

11This report focuses on distinct types of infrastructure. We have additional climate 

change adaptation work under way focused on different types of infrastructure. For 

example, we expect to complete work on energy and water infrastructure adaptation and 

how climate change is considered in federal natural resource planning.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

not impossible, to move or replace; also, NASA has an emerging 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. NASA scheduled climate 

change adaptation workshops at two of its centers (Langley Research 

Center and Johnson Space Center) during the time frame of our review. 

We attended the workshops and collected information from a variety of 

federal and local stakeholders, including government officials and 

academic institutions.

To examine the extent to which climate change impacts are incorporated 

into infrastructure planning we (1) reviewed relevant laws, regulations, 

and planning guidance; (2) analyzed relevant studies and government 

reports; and (3) interviewed knowledgeable stakeholders including 

representatives from, for example, professional associations such as the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. To 

identify relevant studies and stakeholders, we reviewed our prior climate 

change work and conducted a literature search and review.

To examine how climate change has been considered in U.S. 

infrastructure planning, we visited a nonprobability sample of seven 

selected locations where decision makers had undertaken such 

planning—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 (King County Wastewater Treatment 

Division in Washington and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 

in Wisconsin), and two NASA centers (Johnson Space Center in Houston, 

Texas, and Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia).12

 

12Because this was a nonprobability sample, the information collected during these site 

visits cannot be generalized to all U.S. infrastructure planning but provides illustrative 

information for locations in which such planning has been undertaken.

To select 

the specific locations, we reviewed studies, interviewed knowledgeable 

agency officials, and analyzed Internet-based adaptation case study 

databases maintained by academic institutions to identify examples 

where climate change was considered in infrastructure planning, taking 

into account geographic and climate-impact diversity.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

To analyze federal efforts to meet the adaptation needs of local 

infrastructure decision makers and to identify opportunities for 

improvement, we (1) interviewed federal officials from the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ), Department of Transportation’s Federal 

Highway Administration, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 

USGCRP and (2) reviewed available studies on federal adaptation efforts. 

Appendix I presents a more detailed description of our scope and 

methodology.

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.

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.13 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.

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 

 

13NRC, America's Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change,

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010). 

Background 

Federal Infrastructure 

Investment
 

Page 7 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.14

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.15 For the most part, the federal government supports these 

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 

appropriation of just over $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2012.16

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.

From 1956 to 

2007, the largest portion of annual public funding for transportation and 

water infrastructure was dedicated to highways.

17

 

14GAO, Physical Infrastructure: Challenges and Investment Options for the Nation's 

Infrastructure, 

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. 

GAO-08-763T (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008). 

15Congressional Budget Office, Public Spending on Transportation and Water 

Infrastructure, Pub. No. 4088 (Washington, D.C.: November 2010).

16For more information on EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving, click here. 

17For more information, see the General Services Administration’s Federal Real Property 

Profile inventory system, here. 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.18

In total, these NASA assets represent more than $32 billion in current 

replacement value.

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.

19 Over 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are 

more than 40 years old and reaching the end of their designated life 

spans.20

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.21

 

18NASA Office of the Inspector General, NASA’S Infrastructure and Facilities: An 

Assessment of the Agency’s Real Property Master Planning. REPORT NO. IG-12-008 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2011). 

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 

19The American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 140,000 members of the 

civil engineering profession worldwide.

20 NASA Office of the Inspector General, NASA’S Infrastructure and Facilities: An 

Assessment of the Agency’s Real Property Master Planning. REPORT NO. IG-12-008 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2011).

21 GAO, Wastewater Infrastructure Financing: Stakeholder Views on a National 

Infrastructure Bank and Public-Private Partnerships, GAO-10-728 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 30, 2010). 

Condition of Existing 

Infrastructure 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

scale.22

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 

resources as they address infrastructure needs.

Roads and bridges fared similarly in the report card, also earning 

a “D-,” and a “C” for “mediocre,” respectively, due to identified structural 

deficiencies and other factors.

23 Yet, in many cases, we 

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 addresses the vulnerability of natural and 

human systems to changes in the climate and focuses on reducing the 

damage resulting from those changes.24

 

22For more information about the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Report Card for 

America’s Infrastructure, click 

One way to reduce the potential 

impacts of climate change is to invest in enhancing resilience. As defined 

by the National Academies, resilience is the ability to prepare and plan 

here. 

23GAO, 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). 

24Daniel F. Morris, Molly K. Macauley, Raymond J. Kopp, and Richard D. Morgenstern, 

Resources for the Future, Reforming Institutions and Managing Extremes: U.S. Policy 

Approaches for Adapting to a Changing Climate (Washington D.C.: 2011).

Climate Change 

Adaptation as a Risk 

Management Tool
 

Page 10 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse 

events.25

Adaptation efforts are meant to reduce the vulnerability of systems that 

have some risk of an extreme event or long-term change in conditions. As 

summarized in the 2010 NRC study,

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.26

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.27

 

25The National Academies, Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and 

Disasters; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Disaster Resilience: A 

National Imperative (Washington, D.C., 2012). 

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.

26NRC, America's Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change,

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010). 

27GAO-10-113. 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.28 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.29 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, 

reporting processes, and policies. 30

• 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.

For risk management to be effective, 

these standards state that an organization should at all levels comply with 

the following principles:

• 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.

 

28Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Extreme Weather & Climate Change: 

Understanding the Link and Managing the Risk (December 2011). 

29ISO is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies. More information about 

these standards is available here. Please also note that under the Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government (GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1) the risk assessment standard 

states that federal agencies are to provide for an assessment of the risks they face from 

both external and internal sources and that because governmental, economic, industry, 

regulatory, and operating conditions continually change, mechanisms should be provided 

to identify and deal with any special risks prompted by such changes.

30ISO 31000:2009 Risk management – Principles and guidelines is available here. 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

• 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.31 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.

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.32

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.33

 

31Office of Management and Budget, Instructions for the Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition 

and Management of Non-IT Capital Assets, fiscal year 2013.

As we have 

32In technical comments, CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP noted that to the extent federal 

funds are involved, federal agencies may have authority to either incentivize or require 

states and local governments to take specific adaptation actions or adopt risk 

management strategies but that more opportunities to incentivize adaptation planning may 

exist and, in some cases, additional statutory authority is necessary to require action.

33GAO, Highway Infrastructure: Federal-State Partnership Produces Benefits and Poses 

Oversight Risks, GAO-12-474 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2012). 

Limited Federal Role in 

Planning Infrastructure 

Projects
 

Page 13 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.34

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.

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.

35

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.36

 

34GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: FHWA Needs a Comprehensive Approach to Improving 

Project Oversight, 

The Recovery Act 

appropriated $4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and 

GAO-05-173 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2005). Specifically, statewide 

and metropolitan planning organizations’ transportation plans and improvement programs 

provide for development and management of transportation systems and facilities.

35Pub. L. No. 112-141 (2012). In technical comments, the Department of Transportation 

noted that it was considering how to ensure that rebuilding efforts reflect sea level rise 

projections and expected flood levels in implementing the Public Transportation 

Emergency Relief Program authorized by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act. In addition, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 appropriated funds 

for highway and transportation projects related to reducing risk of damage from future 

disasters in areas impacted by Hurricane Sandy.

36Pub. L. No. 111-5. 123 Stat. 115. 169 (2009). A similar provision was included in EPA’s 

fiscal year 2010 and 2011 appropriations, and in the agency’s fiscal year 2012 

appropriation, although that law required not less than 10 percent of the appropriation be 

used for such eligible projects. 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.37

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.38

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.

 

37In addition, on January 29, 2013, $500 million was appropriated for the Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund program for eligible projects in EPA Region 2—which includes New 

Jersey and New York—whose purpose is to reduce flood damage risk and vulnerability or 

to enhance resiliency to rapid hydrologic change or a natural disaster at a drinking water 

or wastewater facility. 

38Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District officials we spoke with noted the potential of 

EPA’s green infrastructure activities to encourage adaptive action, particularly a 

rulemaking to strengthen the agency’s stormwater program. According to agency officials, 

EPA intends to propose a rule to strengthen the stormwater program by June 10, 2013, 

and complete a final rule by December 10, 2014 (for more details see here). 

Roads and Bridges, 

Wastewater 

Management Systems, 

and NASA Centers 

Are Vulnerable to 

Changes in the 

Climate
 

Page 15 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Table 1: Current and Projected Climate Changes in the United States and Impacts to Infrastructure

Category Current and projected climate changes

Examples of impacts to 

infrastructure

Temperature • U.S. average annual temperature has risen more than 2 degrees 

Fahrenheit over the past 50 years and is projected to rise more in the 

future—how much depends on the amount of heat-trapping gases 

emitted globally and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions.

Damage to materials such as 

more potholes in roads.

Precipitation • Precipitation has increased an average of about 5 percent over the 

past 50 years. Projections of future precipitation generally indicate that 

northern areas will become wetter and southern areas, particularly in 

the West, will become drier.

• The amount of rain falling in the heaviest downpours has increased 

about 20 percent in the past century, and this trend is very likely to 

continue, with the largest increases in the wettest places.

• In most regions of the country, the fraction of precipitation falling as 

rain as opposed to snow has increased in the last 50 years.

Flooding and direct damage 

resulting in sewer overflows. 

Extreme weather 

events and storms

• Many types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and 

regional droughts, have become more frequent and intense during the 

past 40 to 50 years.

• The destructive energy of Atlantic hurricanes has increased in recent 

decades. The intensity of these storms is likely to increase in this 

century and along with it, associated wind, precipitation, and storm 

surges.

• In the eastern Pacific, the strongest hurricanes have become stronger 

since the 1980s, even while the total number of storms has decreased.

• Cold season storm tracks are shifting northward, and the strongest 

storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent.

Flooding and direct damage 

such as the failure of bridges.

Sea level • Sea level has risen along most of the U.S. coast over the last 50 years 

and will likely rise more in the future.

Coastal flooding and 

inundation. a

Sources: USGCRP’s 2009 National Climate Assessment and NRC’s America’s Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate 

Change, 2010.

a

In December 2012, NOAA released global sea level rise scenarios that helped inform the third

National Climate Assessment. Click here for the updated sea level rise projections.

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.39

 

39See, for example, 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).

These impacts can increase the operating and maintenance 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 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.40

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.

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.

41

 

40Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., Global Climate 

Change Impacts in the United States (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

In addition, longer periods of extreme 

heat may compromise pavement integrity by softening asphalt and 

41NRC, Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation, TRB and Division on 

Earth and Life Studies, Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation 

(Washington, D.C.: 2008). 

Climate Change Impacts 

on Roads and Bridges
 

Page 17 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 lowlying infrastructure, erode road bases, and “scour” bridges by eroding 

riverbeds and exposing bridge foundations.42

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.

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.

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 

 

42In technical comments, EPA noted that flooding, erosion, and scouring are not just 

problems in coastal areas and can also be caused by more intense precipitation combined 

with impervious cover, resulting in higher velocity stream flows.

Washington State Route 522

Interstate 10 Twin Span Bridge 

and Louisiana State Highway 1 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.43

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.

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.

Figure 1: Damaged Segments of the Twin Span Bridge

 

43U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on 

Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. A Report by the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research (Savonis, M. J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter [eds.]). Department of 

Transportation (Washington, D.C.: 2008).
 

Page 19 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.

Figure 2: Interactive Graphic Illustrating the Impact of Hurricane Katrina Storm Surge and Waves on I-10 Twin Span Bridge

The sections of Louisiana State Highway 1 we visited are also in a 

particularly vulnerable location near the Gulf of Mexico, according to 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.44

 

44Department of Homeland Security, National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis 

Center, Risk Development and Modeling Branch, Homeland Infrastructure Threat and 

Risk Analysis Center, Office of Infrastructure Protection, In Collaboration with The 

National Incident Management Systems and Advanced Technologies Institute at The 

University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Louisiana Highway 1/Port Fourchon Study (July 15, 

2011).

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.
 

Page 21 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 3: 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.45

 

45EPA, National Water Program 2012 Strategy: Response to Climate Change (December 

2012); National Association of Clean Water Agencies and Association of Metropolitan 

Water Agencies, Confronting Climate Change: An Early Analysis of Water and 

Wastewater Adaptation Costs (October 2009); Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and 

Thomas C. Peterson, eds., Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (New 

York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

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 

Climate Change Impacts 

on Wastewater 

Management Systems
 

Page 22 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.46

In some cases, flooding and saltwater intrusion already affect wastewater 

management systems. For example, the wastewater infrastructure of King 

County, Washington (which includes metropolitan Seattle) has been 

affected by saltwater intrusion into its combined sewer system.

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.

47

 

46Wastewater Committee of the Great Lakes—Upper Mississippi River Board of State and

Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers. Recommended Standards for 

Wastewater Facilities—2004 Edition (Albany, NY: 2004). According to EPA, many states 

follow this “10-state standard.”

Such 

incidents can compromise the biological treatment system of the 

wastewater treatment plant. Officials from the King County Wastewater 

Treatment Division noted that higher sea level will exacerbate the issue 

and affect the ability of the system to operate as designed and cause 

excessive corrosion to the facilities. To evaluate this possibility, King 

County performed a vulnerability study in 2008 to identify the facilities at 

risk of potential flooding due to sea level rise and storm surges. The study 

used different regional sea level rise scenarios developed by scientists at 

the University of Washington, combined with historical tide heights and 

47As 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. 

King County, Washington, 

Wastewater Treatment Division
 

Page 24 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.
 

Page 25 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 4: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Facilities Potentially Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise
 

Page 26 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.48

 

48 The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District provides wastewater and flood 

management services to about 1.1 million customers in the Milwaukee region in 

Wisconsin.

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.

Milwaukee Metropolitan 

Sewerage District 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 5: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’s Sewer System Infrastructure

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.49

 

49In 2008, 2009, and 2010, the Milwaukee region experienced storms with rainfall totals 

that had less than a 1 percent probability of occurring at that location that year—in other 

words, storms that exceeded the 100-year storm. For example, the July 2010 storm 

exceeded the 700-year storm, which means it had about a 0.14 percent probability of 

occurring at that location. This

Specifically, the 

scientists projected that storm frequency and intensity will increase in 

link provides a graphic depiction of the flooding that 

occurred in Shorewood, WI—an area serviced by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage 

District —as a result of the 2010 storm.
 

Page 28 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 midcentury, according to the scientists.

As presented in table 2, NASA centers are vulnerable to climate change 

in several respects, but potential impacts vary depending upon 

geographic location.

Table 2: Examples of How NASA Centers Are Vulnerable to Observed and Projected 

Climate Change Impacts

Observed or projected 

climate changes Potential climate change impacts on NASA centers

Increased temperatures • Increased cooling costs in the summer, decreased 

heating costs in the winter

• Changes in plant and animal cycles, including pest and 

disease vector species

• Potential for damage to infrastructure materials

• Potential for limiting work and outdoor recreation

• Increased health problems related to heat stress

Sea-level rise • Exacerbated flooding from storm surges

• Reduced emergency response capabilities

• Increased salinity impacts to drinking water resources 

and habitats

Increase in precipitation 

amount and intensity 

• Increased flooding from extreme precipitation events

• Overloading of stormwater management system

• Habitats affected by fluctuating groundwater levels

Increased hurricane 

intensity/storm surge

• Damage to infrastructure

• Changes in shoreline habitats

• Reduced emergency response capabilities

Sources: GAO analysis based on NASA studies and NRC and USGCRP assessments.

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.

Climate Change Impacts 

on NASA Centers
 

Page 29 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 6: NASA Field Centers and Component Sites

Note: According to NASA’s Facility Management Plan, total NASA sites include approximately 63 in 

the continental United States and 26 overseas, including sites where NASA owns facilities but not the 

land. NASA’s workforce, land holdings, and constructed value are virtually all at the sites shown in 

this diagram, according to NASA officials.

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 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 spacecraftrelated functions, including training space explorers from the United 

States and Space Station partner nations, including International Space 

Station crews.50

 

50Unless otherwise noted, the content of the “Johnson Space Center” section of this report 

is based on information presented by NASA officials on March 6-8, 2012, as part of the 

Johnson Space Center resilience and adaptation to climate risks workshop.

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
 

Page 31 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 7: Location of Johnson Space 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.
 

Page 32 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.
 

Page 33 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Table 3: Changes in the Frequency of Hot and Cold Days at Johnson Space Center, as Projected by NASA Climate Scientists

Daily temperatures Baseline 2020s 2050s 2080s

Maximum

At or above 90°F (days) 90 100 to 113 116 to 136 126 to 164

At or above 100°F (days) 0.9 2 to 3 3 to 11 7 to 35

Minimum

At or below 40°F (days) 37 24 to 29 17 to 26 12 to 21

At or below 32°F (days) 9 4 to 6 3 to 5 2 to 4 

Source: NASA.

Note: According to a NASA document for the March 2012 Johnson Space Center workshop, these 

“quantitative climate projections are based on global climate model simulations conducted for the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007) from the World 

Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3 multi-model 

dataset. The simulations provide results from 16 global climate models that were run using three 

emissions scenarios of future greenhouse gas concentrations. The results are statistically 

downscaled to 1/8 degree resolution (~12 km by 12 km) based on results from the bias-corrected (to 

accurately reflect observed climate data) and spatially-disaggregated climate projections derived from 

World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3 data. Results 

provide a more refined projection for a smaller geographic area.” This information is maintained at: 

http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip3_projections and described by Maurer, E.P., L. Brekke, T. 

Pruitt, and P.B. Duffy (2007), ‘Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change 

impact studies’, Eos Trans. AGU, 88(47), 504.

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.51 As 

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.

 

51Unless otherwise noted, the content of the “Langley Research Center” section of this 

report is based on information presented by NASA officials on September 27-29, 2011, as 

part of the Langley Research Center resilience and adaptation to climate risks workshop.

Langley Research Center
 

Page 34 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 8: Location of Langley Research Center

Receiving about $927 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2012, 

Langley Research Center is an important part of the local economy. The 

center employs about 3,800 people, roughly evenly divided between civil 

service employees and contractors. Its 180 buildings and other facilities 

are valued at approximately $3.3 billion and include laboratories, aircraft 

simulators, and wind tunnels such as the world-unique Transonic 

Dynamics Tunnel used to study the effects of wind gusts on fixed-wing 

and rotary-wing aircraft.
 

Page 35 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

According to NASA climate scientists, storm surge and relative sea level 

rise may be the biggest climate threats to the center. The area has 

always been subject to nor’easters and hurricanes, and the associated 

high winds and flooding. Data collected over the past 80 to 100 years in 

the Hampton Roads area clearly show a long-term pattern of sea level 

and temperature rises, accompanied by periods of shorter term variability. 

Climate models project continued sea level rise and warmer temperatures 

in the Hampton Roads region. The combination of rising sea level and 

severe storms could produce catastrophic impacts on the center and the 

surrounding assets and natural resources. Furthermore, as in the case of 

the Johnson Space Center, land subsidence in the area worsens the 

impacts of rising seas and storm surges. At the Langley Research Center 

workshop in September 2011, NASA climate scientists provided center 

staff and other local stakeholders, such as the Hampton Roads Planning 

District Commission, with projections of future changes in the frequency 

of some extreme events, such as intense precipitation, presented in table 

4.

Table 4: Extreme Events at Langley Research Center: 2020-2090

Event Direction of change Likelihood

Heat stress ↑ Very likely

Intense precipitation events ↑ Likely

River flooding ↑ Likely

Drought ↑ More likely than not

Intense winds ↑ More likely than not

Source: NASA.

Note: This information provided by NASA is based on global climate model simulations, published 

literature, and expert judgment of NASA climate scientists.

The climate-related challenges faced by these NASA centers are not 

unique to NASA and can be instructive for other types of large federal 

facilities. For example, while NASA facilities located on the east side of 

Langley Research Center are particularly vulnerable to flooding, given 

their low-lying coastal location, so is the adjacent Langley Air Force Base 

and the nearby Naval Station Norfolk, the largest naval complex in the 

world. The Naval Station Norfolk is home to five aircraft carriers, 70 ships, 

and 150 aircraft, all housed within about 7 miles of vulnerable piers and 

wharves located along the waterfront, according to a study under way at 

the U.S. Naval Academy. The relative sea level rise rate at Naval Station 

Norfolk is 0.2 inches per year, and the majority of the land there is less 

than 10 feet above mean sea level, according to this study.

DOD Facilities in Close 

Proximity to Langley 

Research Center 
 

Page 36 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

The vulnerability of these nearby defense facilities can serve as a proxy 

for other low-lying bases worldwide and may explain DOD’s focus on 

climate change issues. For example, DOD’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review states that climate change and energy will play significant roles in 

the future security environment and that

climate change will affect DOD in two broad ways. First, climate change will 

shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we 

undertake...Second, DOD will need to adjust to the impacts of climate change on 

our facilities and military capabilities... Although the United States has significant 

capacity to adapt to climate change, it will pose challenges for civil society and 

DOD alike, particularly in light of the nation’s extensive coastal infrastructure. In 

2008, the National Intelligence Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military 

installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels. 

DOD’s operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea 

training and test space. Consequently, the Department must complete a 

comprehensive assessment of all installations to assess the potential impacts of 

climate change on its missions and adapt as required.

DOD’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program is 

conducting a risk quantification study on coastal military installation 

assets and mission capabilities.52

 

52According to its website, the Strategic Environmental Research and Development 

Program is DOD’s environmental science and technology program, executed in 

partnership with the Department of Energy and EPA. The program invests in basic and 

applied research and advanced development. For more information on the Risk 

Quantification for Sustaining Coastal Military Assets and Mission Capabilities study, 

please click 

Focused on the Hampton Roads area, 

the objective of this study is to develop and demonstrate a multi-hazard 

risk assessment framework that will be suitable for evaluating changes in 

risks to coastal military installation assets and mission capabilities, 

according to DOD documents describing the study. As part of this study, 

DOD is developing a comprehensive inventory of assets and mission 

capabilities for Hampton Roads military installations, and long-term 

effects of increasing rates of sea level rise on the sites will be simulated 

over a 100-year period to estimate impacts on military installations. This 

information should be useful for informing NASA on the Langley 

Research Center and other DOD facilities.

here. For a related study, see also NRC, Naval Studies Board, Committee on 

National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces; National Security 

Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces (Washington, D.C.: 2011). 
 

Page 37 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.

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.53 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.54

 

53We also reported on this challenge in 

In the case 

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 

GAO-10-113. 

54NRC, Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation, TRB and Division on 

Earth and Life Studies, Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation 

(Washington, D.C.: 2008). National Drinking Water Advisory Council, Climate Ready 

Water Utilities Final Report (Dec. 9, 2010). 

Climate Change Has 

Not Been 

Systematically 

Incorporated in 

Infrastructure 

Planning 

Attention and Resources 

Are Focused on ShortTerm Priorities
 

Page 38 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Clean Water Agencies and a December 2010 report from the National 

Drinking Water Advisory Council.55

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.56 As TRB reported, most infrastructure planning 

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.57 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.58

 

55 EPA is taking steps in preparation for proposing a rule to establish a program to reduce 

stormwater discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites and make other 

regulatory improvements to strengthen its stormwater program. According to EPA 

officials, the agency will propose the rule by June 10, 2013. National Drinking Water 

Advisory Council, Climate Ready Water Utilities Final Report (Dec. 9, 2010).

56According 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.

57NRC, Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation, TRB and Division on 

Earth and Life Studies, Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation

(Washington, D.C.: 2008). 

58In technical comments, CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP noted that this paragraph is a great 

illustration of the misperception that all climate change impacts will occur gradually. 

Evidence is mounting rapidly that extreme events associated with climate change are 

already occurring and that the costs are increasing.
 

Page 39 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Decision makers often face challenges obtaining the best available 

climate-related information relevant to their decision-making process.59

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.

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.

60

However, because the producers of these studies do not coordinate their 

efforts, the information they contain is not synthesized in ways useful to 

infrastructure decision makers, according to a 2010 NRC report.

According 

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.

61

 

59NASA officials commented that the statement “decision makers face challenges 

obtaining the best available climate-related information for infrastructure planning” does 

not apply to decision makers at its facilities. NASA’s efforts to share climate-related 

information with decision makers at its centers are described in more detail later in this 

report.

As a 

result, decision makers can become overwhelmed as they attempt to 

piece together the information they need from the complex body of 

60NRC, 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). 

61NRC, 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).

Decision Makers Face 

Challenges Obtaining the 

Best Available ClimateRelated Information for 

Infrastructure Planning

Vast Amounts of Information
 

Page 40 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.62 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.63 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 as they 

consider adaption options. According to a 2010 NRC study, no one-sizefits-all adaptation option exists for a particular climate impact because 

climate change vulnerabilities can vary significantly by infrastructure 

category, region, community, or institution.64

 

62According to CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP technical comments, the issue often is figuring 

out which information is relevant to a particular decision context, not so much the quality 

of the information itself.

In other words, all adaptation 

63In technical comments, the Department of Transportation noted that climate impacts are 

not equally relevant to all projects and not all climate impacts are sufficiently predictable at 

a local scale to meaningfully analyze. Sea level rise, for instance, is relatively 

straightforward, while predicting fresh-water flooding in a particular watershed due to 

changes in precipitation may be very challenging.

64NRC, 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).

Varied Information Quality

Decision Makers Face 

Difficulty Accessing

Local Assistance
 

Page 41 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

is local.65

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—who, in this case, specialize in infrastructure 

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.

66 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.67 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 

discourage researchers from developing such expertise.68

 

65This statement is not intended to suggest that regional coordinated adaptation actions 

are not necessary or useful, but instead to emphasize the importance of locally relevant 

information for decision making. 

In addition, 

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.

66NRC, 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).

67NRC, 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). 

68NOAA Climate Program Office, RISA Workshop Report: Looking ahead at climate 

service, assessment, and adaptation (Silver Spring, MD: 2011).
 

Page 42 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.”69

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 

makers.70

 

69Environmental and Energy Study institute and the Center for Clean Air Policy, Climate 

Adaptation & Transportation: Identifying Information and Assistance Needs, Prepared for 

the NOAA Sector Applications and Research Program (May 2012). The report went on to 

describe the challenge more succinctly, “As Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd put it: Who Ya 

Gonna Call?”

In general, climate change projections have focused on the 

70NRC, 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).

Available Climate-Related 

Information Does Not Fit 

Neatly within Existing 

Infrastructure Planning 

Processes
 

Page 43 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.71

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.72

 

71In technical comments, CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP emphasized that although 

downscaled information would be useful, lack of such information should not be a barrier 

for adaptation. Decision makers can still move forward without downscaled models or 

science. In addition, uncertainty is not a reason to do nothing because planners make 

decisions under all kinds of other uncertainties, including development patterns and 

demographics, according to the technical comments.

In addition, as reported by NRC 

72CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP commented that engineering processes are designed to 

handle a predictable amount of variability. Climate change projections pose complications 

to this existing process of accounting for variability, as climate change exacerbates the 

extremes of what has been accounted for historically. 
 

Page 44 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

in 2012, such climate change projections commonly provide a range of 

possible future outcomes.73 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.74 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.75

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.

 

76

 

73NRC, 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). 

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. 

74 Design standards define how a product is to be designed and built by providing 

technical guidelines that promote the safety, reliability, productivity, and efficiency of 

infrastructure. Design standards for each infrastructure category are typically developed 

by relevant professional associations. 

75These statistical tables are known as “Atlas 14.” According to NOAA’s documentation, 

NOAA Atlas 14 contains precipitation frequency estimates with associated confidence 

limits for the United States and is accompanied by additional information such as temporal 

distributions and seasonality. The Atlas is divided into volumes based on geographic 

sections of the country. The Atlas is intended as the official documentation of precipitation 

frequency estimates and associated information for the United States. It includes 

discussion of the development methodology and intermediate results. 

76NRC, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, 

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
 

Page 45 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.

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.

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 

Key Factors Enabled 

Some Decision 

Makers to Integrate 

Climate Change into 

Infrastructure 

Project Planning

Some Decision Makers 

Integrated Climate Change

into Project Planning

Interstate-10 Twin Span Bridge 

(Louisiana)
 

Page 46 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

expenses. The new bridge cost more than $700 million and was fully 

funded by federal emergency relief funds.77

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 highperformance concrete. This is expected to increase the bridge’s 

resilience to saltwater in Lake Pontchartrain, according to Louisiana 

state transportation officials.

 

77The project was fully funded by the Department of Transportation’s Emergency Relief 

Program. 
 

Page 47 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 9: Adaptive Measures Integrated into New Twin Span Bridge
 

Page 48 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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).

Louisiana State Highway 1 
 

Page 49 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 10: Rendering of Raised Segment of Louisiana State Highway 1

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.78 Figure 11 documents Hurricane Isaac-related flooding on the 

unraised section of Louisiana State Highway 1 north of the raised road.79

 

78Efforts to raise the northern section, which connects residents of the levee district with 

their work sites at Port Fourchon or offshore, are currently unfunded.

79In technical comments, CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP noted that the Louisiana State 

Highway 1 example demonstrates in near-real time the benefits of specific adaptations in 

design. Having the old road adjacent to the new one and documenting the impacts to

both is a great start in moving towards understanding the benefits of investments in 

adaptation as opposed to investing in disaster recovery, according to the comments.
 

Page 50 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 11: Flooding of an Unraised Segment of Louisiana State Highway 1 

Following Hurricane Isaac

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 

Washington State Route 522 
 

Page 51 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.
 

Page 52 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 12: Adaptive Measures Integrated into Washington State Route 522
 

Page 53 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Also shown in figure 12, is the Skykomish Basin wetland mitigation bank80

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.

located 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.

81

 

80Mitigation banking is wetland restoration, creation, enhancement, or in certain 

circumstances, preservation undertaken for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable 

wetland losses. 

81The Barton Pump Station overflow weir controls flows by setting the height at which 

incoming combined sewage can collect in a well when its flow exceeds the capacity of the 

pumping station. Once that height is exceeded, combined sewage overtops the weir, and 

excess flows are discharged to Puget Sound. Flap gates help prevent backflow into 

pumping stations.

King County, Washington, 

Wastewater Treatment Division
 

Page 54 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 13: Flap Gate Installed at the Barton Pump Station

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 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 

Milwaukee Metropolitan 

Sewerage District (Wisconsin) 
 

Page 55 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.82

Figure 14: Examples of Green Infrastructure Projects in Milwaukee

 

82The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District purchases property as a part of its 

Greenseams® Program.
 

Page 56 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District officials emphasized the cobenefits 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.

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 highpriority 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.

NASA Johnson Space Center 

(Houston, TX) and NASA 

Langley Research Center 

(Hampton, VA)
 

Page 57 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.83

 

83According to technical comments from CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP, a question now on 

the table is whether the experience of Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Katrina is now 

allowing people across the country to experience these disasters indirectly and transfer 

knowledge to their own cases rather than having to personally experience disasters in 

order to be motivated. It appears that interest in adaptation is increasing rapidly in the 

post-Sandy world.

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 

Key Factors Enabled 

Decision Makers to 

Consider Climate Change 

in Project Planning

Local Circumstances Were 

Conducive to Addressing 

Climate-Related Risks 
 

Page 58 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.84

Strong leadership spurred action. In other cases, strong leadership 

compelled decision makers to account for future climate conditions. A 

2010 NRC report notes that the engagement of and direct input from a 

chief executive is typically required to make the case that adapting to 

anticipated climate change is important.

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.

85 Further, according to a 2009 

NRC report, the leadership of top-level individuals is often necessary to 

overcome deeply engrained barriers.86

 

84A 100-year storm means that the storm had less than a one percent probability of 

occurring at that location that year.

According to officials from the 

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, the district’s Executive 

Director championed climate change adaptation, and his efforts, along 

with support from the district’s commission, have been critical to the 

district’s success in upgrading its sewer system. In addition, senior 

leadership at NASA headquarters and the two NASA centers we visited 

clearly called for the consideration of climate risks and adaptation 

strategies in infrastructure plans and processes enabling some NASA 

centers, including Johnson Space Center and Langley Research Center, 

to begin to do so. At the Langley Research Center workshop in 

September 2011, the Director of Center Operations notified his 

supervisory staff that they would have to schedule a briefing with the 

85NRC, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, 

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

86NRC, 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).
 

Page 59 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.87

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 

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 shortand 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.

 

87According to technical comments from CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP, policy documents 

are important because they institutionalize priorities and action.

Decision Makers Learned to 

Use Available Information 
 

Page 60 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

incorporate whatever climate information they have.”88

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.

Despite the 

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.

 

88Uncertainty is an important consideration in discussions about how to address climate 

change. Take, for example, the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit on EPA’s rules regarding regulation of greenhouse gases 

under the Clean Air Act, including the finding that greenhouse gas emissions from motor 

vehicles is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. The decision 

notes that the “existence of some uncertainty does not, without more, warrant invalidation 

of an endangerment finding. If a statute is precautionary in nature and designed to protect 

the public health, and the relevant evidence is difficult to come by, uncertain, or conflicting 

because it is on the frontiers of scientific knowledge, EPA need not provide rigorous stepby-step proof of cause and effect to support an endangerment finding. As we have stated 

before, [a]waiting certainty will often allow for only reactive, not preventive, regulation.” 

Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 121 (D.C. Cir. 2012) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted).
 

Page 61 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Table 5: NASA Model Results of Projected Climate Changes at Johnson Space Center

Variable Baseline 2020s 2050s 2080s

Average temperature 70.5°F +1.5 to 2.5°F +2.5 to 4.5°F +3.5 to 7°F

Annual precipitation 54 inches -5 to +5 % -15 to +5 % -15 to +5 %

Sea level rise Not applicable +2 to 3 inches + 5 to 9 inches +11 to 20 inches

Source: NASA.

Notes:

According to NASA’s workshop materials for Johnson Space Center, temperature and precipitation 

projections reflect a 30-year average centered on the specified decade; sea levels are averages for 

the specific decade. The baseline for temperature and precipitation is the most complete 30-year data 

period centered around the 1980s; the baseline for sea level is 2000-2004. Temperature and 

precipitation data are for Houston, TX (Hobby Airport), and sea level data are for Galveston, TX. 

Temperatures are rounded to the nearest half degree, precipitation projections to the nearest 5 

percent, and sea level rise to the nearest inch. Shown is the central range (middle 67 percent of 

values from model-based probabilities) across the general circulation models and greenhouse gas 

emissions scenarios. Data are from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center.

According to NASA’s workshop materials for Johnson Space Center, these quantitative climate 

projections are based on global climate model simulations conducted for the IPCC Fourth 

Assessment Report (2007) from the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model 

Intercomparison Project Phase 3 multi-model dataset. The simulations provide results from 16 global 

climate models that were run using three emissions scenarios of future greenhouse gas 

concentrations. The results are statistically downscaled to 1/8 degree resolution (~12 km by 12 km) 

based on results from the bias-corrected (to accurately reflect observed climate data) and spatiallydisaggregated climate projections derived from World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled 

Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3 data. Results provide a more refined projection for a smaller 

geographic area. This information is maintained at: http://gdodcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip3_projections and described by Maurer, E.P., L. Brekke, T. Pruitt, and 

P.B. Duffy (2007), ‘Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact 

studies’, Eos Trans. AGU, 88(47), 504.

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 
 

Page 62 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.89

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.

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.

 

89EPA Office of Research Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 

Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: Four 

Case Studies of Water Utility Practices (Washington, D.C.: 2011).
 

Page 63 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 15: NASA Model Results of Observed Climate Changes at Langley Research 

Center

Note: NOAA’s weather forecast offices maintain a network of thousands of weather-monitoring 

stations throughout the United States, some with temperature records stretching back well over a 

century. These weather-monitoring stations are equipped to measure meteorological conditions at 

ground level—usually the daily maximum and minimum temperatures and 24-hour precipitation 

totals—to support weather forecasts and for the study of climate.

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 Katrinalike hurricane located west of the bridge became the basis of their design.
 

Page 64 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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-toshoulder” 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 

Decision Makers Had Access to 

Local Assistance 
 

Page 65 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.90

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 

 

90NRC, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change,

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

Decision Makers Considered 

Climate Impacts within 

Existing Planning Processes 
 

Page 66 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.91

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 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.92 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.93

 

91For more information about NASA’s Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement, click 

The task 

here. 

92Additional information on the October 5, 2009, Executive Order 13514 on Federal 

Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance is available here. For 

more information about the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, see here. 

93OSTP was established by statute in 1976 to serve as a source of scientific and 

technology analysis judgment.

Future Federal 

Adaptation Efforts 

Could Better Meet the 

Needs of Local 

Infrastructure 

Decision Makers

Emerging Federal Efforts 

to Raise Public Awareness 

of Adaptation 

Interagency Climate Change 

Adaptation Task Force
 

Page 67 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.94

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. 

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.

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 

 

94This is not a comprehensive description of the activities of the Interagency Climate 

Change Adaptation Task Force. Task force activities relevant to adapting infrastructure to 

a changing climate—such as agency adaptation plans—are discussed in more detail in 

different sections of this report.
 

Page 68 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.95

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.

96

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.97

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.

USGCRP intends that this assessment 

be used by U.S. citizens, communities, and businesses as they create 

plans for the nation’s future.

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, 

 

95NRC, 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). 

96For more information on the National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation 

Strategy and other strategic adaptation planning efforts, click here. 

97Pub. L. No. 101-606, § 106 (1990).

National Climate Assessment
 

Page 69 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

2013.

98 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.99 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.100

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.101

 

98In 2007, a federal district court held that the failure to complete an assessment at least 

every 4 years violated the Global Change Research Act. Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Brennan, 571 F.Supp.2d 1105, 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

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 

99For more information on the third National Climate Assessment, click here. 

100In technical comments, CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP noted that the third National 

Climate Assessment also includes an assessment of the state of adaptation and the state 

of decision support in the United States. 

101Additional information on FHWA’s climate change vulnerability assessment pilots can 

be found here. 

Vulnerability Assessments
 

Page 70 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

transportation system from climate change.102

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. 

The pilots started at the 

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.

103 The framework gives an 

overview of key steps in conducting vulnerability assessments and uses 

examples to demonstrate a variety of ways to gather and process climaterelated information. Federal Highway Administration officials also noted 

that the agency is currently soliciting proposals for additional pilot 

agencies to further evaluate the framework.104

 

102Written comments from the Department of Transportation stated that the department 

has sought to develop vulnerability assessment tools, as well as risk assessment tools to 

help state and local agencies identify critical assets that are potentially vulnerable to 

climate change. These comments also noted that the Department of Transportation has 

developed and deployed a climate information resource to help state and local agencies 

better frame their potential risks.

103For more information on the Federal Highway Administration’s December 2012 Climate 

Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment Framework, click here. 

104In written comments, the Department of Transportation stated that the Federal Highway 

Administration has been leading and advocating for awareness and advancement of 

adaptation issues. The Department of Transportation has developed a Framework and 

Strategic Vision to aide in the development of plans, stewardship, and oversight between 

it and the various state transportation agencies and has also convened several national 

and regional workshops and peer-exchanges with interested parties to begin and advance 

the dialog. Further, according to these comments, there is increasing recognition of 

climate change adaptation at least in part to the Federal Highway Administration’s 

outreach efforts with states.
 

Page 71 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.105 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.106

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 

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.

 

105NRC, 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).

106USGCRP, National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021: A Strategic Plan for the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program (Washington D.C.: April 2012).

Improving Infrastructure 

Decision Makers’ Access 

to and Use of Available 

Information 

Coordinating and Improving 

Access to the Best Available 

Climate-Related Data 
 

Page 72 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.107

Federal entities are beginning to respond to the need for improved 

coordination of agency activities to organize available climate data. For 

example, USGCRP’s April 2012 strategic plan recognizes that for the past 

two decades:

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 userrelevant 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.108

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 

 

107National Drinking Water Advisory Council, Climate Ready Water Utilities Final Report

(Dec. 9, 2010).

108USGCRP, National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021: A Strategic Plan for the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program (Washington, D.C.: April 2012).
 

Page 73 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

serve their agency missions.109 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.110

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.111

 

109GAO, Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better 

Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions, 

As 

GAO-11-317 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 

2011). 

110NRC, Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate 

Change (Washington, D.C.: 2009). 

111NRC, 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).
 

Page 74 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 NOAAsponsored 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 climaterelated 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.112 In 

this regard, USGCRP is pursuing the development of a Global Change 

Information System to support coordinated use and application of federal 

climate science.113

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.

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. 

 

112USGCRP, National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021: A Strategic Plan for the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program (Washington, D.C.: April 2012).

113According to technical comments from CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP, the Global Change 

Information System will include an adaptation clearinghouse if all goes as planned. Stage 

one of the Global Change Information System is deployment of the data supporting the 

third National Climate Assessment.
 

Page 75 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 “onestop-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.”114

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.115

EPA and the Department of Transportation have also developed climate 

data translation resources for the road and bridge, and wastewater 

management system infrastructure categories, respectively, and support 

technical assistance efforts designed to help decision makers use these 

resources. EPA’s Climate Ready Water Utilities initiative focuses on 

taking existing climate change science information and determining how it 

can be incorporated into planning for drinking water, wastewater, and 

For example, for its workshops at Johnson Space 

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.

 

114Determining how to prioritize these activities is beyond the scope of this report.

115GAO-10-113. 

Providing Technical Assistance 

to Help Interpret ClimateRelated Data 
 

Page 76 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 2090.116

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.

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.

117

 

116For more information on EPA’s Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool, 

please click 

Second, the department, through its Federal 

Highway Administration, completed Phase 1 of the Gulf Coast Study in 

March 2008, which analyzed how changes in climate could affect 

here. 

117The Department of Transportation’s transportation and climate change clearinghouse is 

available here. In technical comments, the Department of Transportation noted that its 

staff is currently working to overhaul the Climate Clearinghouse to better serve the needs 

of decision makers who frequent the site. 
 

Page 77 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

transportation systems in the gulf coast region over the next 50 to 100 

years.118 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.119

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 

 

118U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on 

Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. A Report by the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research (Savonis, M. J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter [eds.]). Department of 

Transportation (Washington, D.C.: 2008). 

119For more information on Phase 2 of the Gulf Coast Study, click here. 
 

Page 78 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.

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.120

In addition to these initiatives, several federally sponsored “boundary 

organizations” have already attempted to fill the climate data translation 

gap between decision makers and scientists, albeit in a limited manner. 

These specialized organizations have, in some cases, proved 

instrumental in enabling scientists and users of scientific information to 

work productively together by improving communication, translation, and 

mediation between the two communities, according to a 2009 NRC report 

on informing decisions in a changing climate.

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.

121

 

120USGCRP, National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021: A Strategic Plan for the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program (Washington, D.C.: April 2012).

NOAA’s Regional 

Integrated Science and Assessments (RISA) centers are examples of 

climate change boundary organizations, and they support research teams 

based in academic institutions that conduct interdisciplinary and 

regionally relevant research to inform resource management, planning, 

121NRC, 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).

Accessing Local 

Assistance 
 

Page 79 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.122

However, according to several studies, future federal efforts could better 

focus on local climate change assistance. As stated in a 2011 NOAA 

RISA workshop report, effectively managing the interface between 

scientists and decision makers may require establishing a new field of 

science or career path either within the academic community or the 

federal government. Importantly, a 2012 NRC report on climate models 

notes that climate data translation

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.

 

122The University of Washington Climate Impacts Group is no longer funded as a NOAA 

RISA project. NOAA’s RISA for the Pacific Northwest is now the Climate Impacts 

Research Consortium, a consortium of three multiuniversity organizations.
 

Page 80 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 

critical to longevity, recognition, and success, according to NRC.123 The 

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.

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):124

 

123NRC, 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).

124Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 (2011). 

Under NEPA, federal agencies must assess the effects of major federal actions—those 

they propose to carry out or to permit—that significantly affect the environment. NEPA has 

two principal purposes: (1) to ensure that an agency carefully considers detailed 

information concerning significant environmental impacts and (2) to ensure that this 

information will be made available to the public.

Considering Climate 

Change in Existing 

Planning Processes
 

Page 81 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 climaterelated data are to be considered in project-level design and planning 

processes for roads and bridges, wastewater management systems, and 

NASA centers.125 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.126

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 

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 climaterelated data are included within design standards that specify how 

infrastructure is to be built.

 

125In technical comments, the Department of Transportation noted that it is probably more 

accurate to say that federal agencies rely on professional associations in adopting design 

standards rather than saying that federal agencies do not develop design standards. The 

point, according to the department’s technical comments, is that professional associations 

develop the design standards in general that are required to be used in their programs, 

not just design standards for climate change.

126According to EPA officials, EPA programs generally specify performance standards—

rather than design standards—for infrastructure to protect water quality. This, in turn, 

drives engineers’ selection of infrastructure design based on a variety of factors. 

Design Standards
 

Page 82 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.127

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.128

As a result, there have been calls for a more active federal role in 

encouraging professional associations to consider climate change in 

design standards.

Also, in 2011, the American 

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 

nongovernmental standard‐setting organizations.

129 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.130

 

127Resources for the Future, Summary Report. Reforming Institutions and Managing 

Extremes: U.S. Policy Approaches for Adapting to a Changing Climate (Washington D.C.: 

2011).

While not going as 

128For more information about AASHTO’s Transportation and Climate Change Resource 

Center, see http://climatechange.transportation.org/. 

129In technical comments, CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP noted that in at least some cases, 

a more active federal role in considering climate change information in design standards 

would require statutory authorization or executive action. 

130NRC, America's Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate 

Change, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010). 
 

Page 83 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.131

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.

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.

132

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.133

 

131S. 1813, 112th Cong. (2011).

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.

132If, however, the agency determines that activities of a proposed project fall within a 

category of activities the agency has already determined has no significant environmental 

impact—called a categorical exclusion—then the agency generally need not prepare an 

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

133CEQ coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and 

other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives. 

CEQ was established within the Executive Office of the President by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and its role was expanded by the Environmental Quality 

Improvement Act of 1970.

NEPA Guidance
 

Page 84 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.134

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 

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.

 

134According to technical comments from CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP submitted to GAO 

on March 22, 2013, CEQ is still in the process of developing NEPA guidance on 

greenhouse gases and climate change. 

Agency Adaptation Plans
 

Page 85 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.135

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.

 

135For more information about agency adaptation plans, click here. According to technical 

comments from the Department of Transportation, the department’s adaptation plan, 

among other things, notes that the Federal Highway Administration will develop in fiscal 

years 2012 and 2013 draft guidance documenting procedures and methodologies for 

incorporating climate change considerations into planning and design analyses for 

highway projects in the coastal environment. More specifically, the plan states that the 

Federal Highway Administration will provide information on the state of the practice for 

addressing climate change in analyses related to sea level rise, storm surge, and wave 

action and that the results will be used to support transportation decision making. 

According to these technical comments, subsequent updates to the Department of 

Transportation’s adaptation plan will reflect consideration of any comments received on 

the first plan that was released in February 2013.

Conclusions 
 

Page 86 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 climaterelated 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 projectlevel 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 
 

Page 87 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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 governmentunique 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.

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

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 88 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

• 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.

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. 

David C. Trimble

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 89 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.1

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.

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.

 

1

We have additional climate change adaptation work under way. For example, we expect 

to release a report on climate change adaptation and natural resource planning in mid2013. We also expect to complete work on energy and water infrastructure adaptation 

later in 2013.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 90 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.2

 

2

For more information about the Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange, click 

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 

here. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 91 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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.3

 

3

For more information about the Georgetown Climate Center, click 

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.

here. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 92 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

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

Page 93 GAO-13-242 Infrastructure Adaptation

David C. Trimble, (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov 

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.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361339)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.