Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions
Published: 2009-10-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Changes in the climate attributable to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases may have significant impacts in the United States and the world. For example, climate change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels. Greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue altering the climate system into the future, regardless of emissions control efforts. Therefore, adaptation--defined as adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate change--is an important part of the response to climate change. GAO was asked to examine (1) what actions federal, state, local, and international authorities are taking to adapt to a changing climate; (2) the challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in their efforts to adapt; and (3) actions that Congress and federal agencies could take to help address these challenges. We also discuss our prior work on similarly complex, interdisciplinary issues. This report is based on analysis of studies, site visits to areas pursuing adaptation efforts, and responses to a Web-based questionnaire sent to federal, state, and local officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While available information indicates that many governments have not yet begun to adapt to climate change, some federal, state, local, and international authorities have started to act. For example, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments program supports research to meet the adaptation-related information needs of local decision makers. In another example, the state of Maryland's strategy for reducing vulnerability to climate change focuses on protecting habitat and infrastructure from future risks associated with sea level rise and coastal storms. Other GAO discussions with officials from New York City; King County, Washington; and the United Kingdom show how some governments have started to adapt to current and projected impacts in their jurisdictions. The challenges faced by federal, state, and local officials in their efforts to adapt fell into three categories, based on GAO's analysis of questionnaire results, site visits, and available studies. First, competing priorities make it difficult to pursue adaptation efforts when there may be more immediate needs for attention and resources. For example, about 71 percent (128 of 180) of the officials who responded to our questionnaire rated "non-adaptation activities are higher priorities" as very or extremely challenging. Second, a lack of site-specific data, such as local projections of expected changes, can reduce the ability of officials to manage the effects of climate change. For example, King County officials noted that they are not sure how to translate climate data into effects on salmon recovery. Third, adaptation efforts are constrained by a lack of clear roles and responsibilities among federal, state, and local agencies. Of particular note, about 70 percent (124 of 178) of the respondents rated the "lack of clear roles and responsibilities for addressing adaptation across all levels of government" as very or extremely challenging. GAO's analysis also found that potential federal actions for addressing challenges to adaptation efforts fell into three areas. First, training and education efforts could increase awareness among government officials and the public about the impacts of climate change and available adaptation strategies. Second, actions to provide and interpret site-specific information would help officials understand the impacts of climate change at a scale that would enable them to respond. For instance, about 80 percent (147 of 183) of the respondents rated the "development of state and local climate change impact and vulnerability assessments" as very or extremely useful. Third, Congress and federal agencies could encourage adaptation by clarifying roles and responsibilities. About 71 percent (129 of 181) of the respondents rated the development of a national adaptation strategy as very or extremely useful. Climate change is a complex, interdisciplinary issue with the potential to affect every sector and level of government operations. Our past work on crosscutting issues suggests that governmentwide strategic planning--with the commitment of top leaders--can integrate activities that span a wide array of federal, state, and local entities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Changes in the earth’s climate attributable to increased concentrations of  greenhouse gases may have significant environmental and economic  impacts in the United States and internationally. Among other potential  impacts, climate change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels,  alter agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity and frequency of  floods and tropical storms. Federal, state, and local agencies are tasked  with a wide array of responsibilities, such as managing natural resources,  that will be affected by a changing climate. Furthermore, climate change  has implications for the fiscal health of the federal government, affecting  federal crop and flood insurance programs, and placing new stresses on  infrastructure. The effects of increases in atmospheric concentrations of  greenhouse gases and temperature on ecosystems are expected to vary  across regions (see table 1).
U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years and is  projected to rise more in the future—how much more depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping  gases emitted globally and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions.
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 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.
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.
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.
Sea level has risen along most of the U.S. coast over the last 50 years and will likely rise more in the future.
Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly and this decline is very likely to continue.
Proposed responses to climate change include reducing greenhouse gas  emissions through regulation, promoting low-emissions technologies, and  adapting to the possible impacts by planning and improving protective  infrastructure. Thus far, federal government attention and resources have  been focused on emissions reduction options, climate science research,  and technology investment. In recent years, however, climate change  adaptation—adjustments to natural or human systems in response to  actual or expected climate change—has begun to receive more attention  because the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere are expected to  continue altering the climate system into the future, regardless of efforts  to control emissions.
Policymakers are increasingly viewing adaptation as a risk-management  strategy to protect vulnerable sectors and communities that might be  affected by changes in the climate. As the Director of the Office of Science  and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President stated in a  2009 testimony, we can invest in countless ways to reduce our  vulnerability to the changes in climate that we do not succeed in avoiding,  for example by breeding heat- and drought-resistant crop strains,  bolstering our defenses against tropical diseases, improving the efficiency  of our water use, and starting to manage our coastal zones with sea level  rise in mind. Furthermore, certain natural resource adaptation activities— such as efforts to build large, connected landscapes—will become more  important as native species attempt to migrate or otherwise adapt to  climate change. While it may be costly to raise river or coastal dikes to  protect communities and resources from sea level rise, build higher  bridges, or improve storm water systems, there is a growing recognition, in  the United States and elsewhere, that the cost of inaction could be greater.
According to a recent report by the National Research Council (NRC),  however, individuals and institutions whose futures will be affected by  climate change are unprepared both conceptually and practically for  meeting the challenges and opportunities it presents. Many usual practices  and decision rules (for building bridges, implementing zoning rules, using  private motor vehicles, and so on) assume a stationary climate—a  continuation of past climate conditions, including similar patterns of  variation and the same probabilities of extreme events. According to NRC,  that assumption, fundamental to the ways people and organizations make  their choices, is no longer valid.
Adapting to climate change requires making policy and management  decisions that cut across traditional economic sectors, agencies,  jurisdictional boundaries, and levels of government. The authorities and  expertise necessary to facilitate adaptation activities are spread among  many agencies. Recent proposed legislation considers governmentwide  adaptation strategies, including the development of a National Climate  Service to inform the public through the sustained production and delivery  of authoritative, timely, and useful information about the impacts of  climate change on local, state, regional, tribal, national, and global scales.  For example, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which  passed the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, contains provisions  related to climate change adaptation, including the development of federal  and state natural resource agency adaptation plans and the establishment  of a natural resources climate change adaptation fund.
In this context, our review (1) determines what actions, if any, federal,  state, local, and international authorities are taking to adapt to a changing  climate; (2) identifies the challenges, if any, that federal, state, and local  officials reported facing in their efforts to adapt; and (3) identifies actions  that Congress and federal agencies could take to help address these  challenges. We also provide information about our prior work on similarly  complex, interdisciplinary issues.
To determine the actions federal, state, local, and international authorities  are taking to adapt to a changing climate, we obtained summaries of  adaptation-related efforts from a broad range of federal agencies and  visited four sites where government officials are taking actions to adapt.  We chose these sites because they were frequently mentioned in the  background literature and scoping interviews as examples of locations  that are implementing climate change adaptation and which may offer  particularly useful insights into the types of actions governments can take  to plan for climate change impacts. The four sites were New York City;  King County, Washington; the state of Maryland; and the United Kingdom.  Our selected sites are not representative of all adaptation efforts taking  place; however, they include a variety of responses to climate change  effects across different levels of government. We included an international  site visit to examine how other countries are also starting to adapt. We  gathered information during and after site visits through observation of  adaptation efforts, interviews with officials and stakeholders, and a review  of documents provided by these officials.
To describe challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in their  efforts to adapt and the actions that Congress and federal agencies could  take to help address these challenges, we reviewed available studies and  asked knowledgeable stakeholders about challenges that federal, state,  and local officials may face in adaptation efforts. Using this information,  we compiled lists of potential challenges and potential actions the federal  government could take to address them and developed a Web-based  questionnaire to gather officials’ views on these challenges and actions.  We designed the questionnaire to collect aggregate information through a  range of closed-ended questions, as well as illustrative examples through  open-ended responses. Within the questionnaire, we organized questions  about challenges and actions into groups related to the following: (1)  awareness and priorities, (2) information, and (3) the structure and  operation of the federal government. We worked with organizations that  represent federal, state, and local officials to select a nonprobability  sample of 274 officials knowledgeable about adaptation, of which 187  completed the questionnaire, for a response rate of approximately 68  percent. The federal, state, and local officials who responded represent a  diverse array of disciplines, including planners, scientists, and public  health professionals. A more detailed description of our scope and  methodology is available in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to October  2009 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.
subsections: section_title: Federal, State, Local, and International Efforts to Adapt to Climate Change
paragraphs: While federal agencies are beginning to recognize the need to adapt to  climate change, there is a general lack of strategic coordination across  agencies, and most efforts to adapt to potential climate change impacts are  preliminary. However, some states and localities have begun to make  progress on adaptation independently and through partnerships with other  entities, such as academic institutions. The subjects of our site visits in the  United States—New York City; King County, Washington; and Maryland— have all taken steps to plan for climate change and have begun to  implement adaptive measures in sectors such as natural resource  management and infrastructure. Their on-the-ground experiences can help  inform the federal approach to adaptation, which is now primarily focused  on assessing projected climate impacts and exploring adaptation options.  In addition, certain nations have taken action to adapt to climate change.  Our detailed examination of the United Kingdom provides an example of a  country where central and local government entities are working together  to address climate change impacts.
subsections: section_title: Many Federal Agencies Are Beginning to Take Steps to Adapt to Climate Change
paragraphs: Although there is no coordinated national approach to adaptation, several  federal agencies report that they have begun to take action with current  and planned adaptation activities. These activities are largely ad hoc and  fall into several categories, including (1) information for decision making,  (2) federal land and natural resource management, (3) infrastructure  design and operation, (4) public health research, (5) national security  preparation, (6) international assistance to developing countries, and (7)  governmentwide adaptation strategies. We provide information on  selected federal efforts to adapt to climate change, submitted to us by  federal agencies, in a supplement to this report (see GAO-10-114SP).
Information for decision making: A range of preliminary adaptation- related activities are reported to be under way at different agencies,  including efforts to provide relevant climate information to help decision  makers plan for future climate impacts. For example, two programs  managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA) help policymakers and managers obtain the information they  need to adapt to a changing climate. NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences  and Assessments (RISA) program supports climate change research to  meet the needs of decision makers and policy planners at the national,  regional, and local levels. Similarly, NOAA’s Sectoral Applications  Research Program is designed to help decision makers in different sectors,  such as coastal resource managers, use climate information to respond to  and plan for climate variability and change, among other goals.
Other agencies—including the National Science Foundation, the  Department of the Interior (Interior), the Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  (NASA), and the Department of Energy—also manage programs to provide  climate information to decision makers. For example, the National Science  Foundation supports the scientific research needed to help authorities and  the public plan adaptation activities and address any challenges that arise.  Similarly, Interior’s newly formed Energy and Climate Change Task Force  is working to ensure that climate change impact data collection and  analysis are better integrated and disseminated, that data gaps are  identified and filled, and that the translation of science into adaptive  management techniques is geared to the needs of land, water, and wildlife  managers as they develop adaptation strategies in response to climate  change-induced impacts on landscapes. Another example of information  sharing is EPA’s Climate Ready Estuaries program, which provides a  toolkit to coastal communities and participants in its National Estuary  Program on how to monitor climate change and where to find data. In  addition, NASA’s Applied Sciences Program is working in 31 states and  with a number of federal agencies to help officials use NASA’s climate data  to make adaptation decisions. For example, NASA forecasts stream  temperatures for NOAA managers responsible for managing chinook  salmon populations in the Sacramento River and predicts water flow  regimes and subsequent fire risk in Yosemite National Park. DOE’s  Integrated Assessment Research Program supports research on models  and tools for integrated analysis of both the drivers and consequences of  climate change. DOE’s supercomputing resources provide the capability to  assess impacts and vulnerabilities to temperature change, anticipate  extreme events, and predict risk from climate change effects (e.g., water  availability) on a regional and local basis to better inform decision makers.
Federal land and natural resource management: Several federal agencies  have reported beginning to consider measures that would strengthen the  resilience of natural resources in the face of climate change. For example,  on September 14, 2009, Interior issued an order designed to address the  impacts of climate change on the nation’s water, land, and other natural  and cultural resources. The Interior order, among other things, designated  eight regional Climate Change Response Centers. According to Interior,  these centers will synthesize existing climate change impact data and  management strategies, help resource managers put them into action on  the ground, and engage the public through education initiatives. Similarly,  several federal agencies recently released draft reports required by  Presidential Executive Order that describe strategies for protecting and  restoring the Chesapeake Bay, including addressing the impacts of climate  change on the bay. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service reported that it  devotes about $9 million to adaptation research and has developed a  strategic framework that recognizes the need to enhance the capacity of  forests and grasslands to adapt. The Chief of the Forest Service recently  testified that dealing with climate change risks and uncertainties will need  to be a more prominent part of the Forest Service’s management decision  processes.
Certain agencies have also identified specific adaptation strategies and  tools for natural resource managers. For example, Interior provided a  number of adaptation-related policy options for land managers in reports  produced for its Climate Change Task Force, a past effort that has since  been expanded upon to reflect new priorities. Similarly, a recent U.S.  Climate Change Science Program report provided a preliminary review of  adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources on  federally owned and managed lands. In addition, the Department of  Defense’s Legacy Resource Management Program is working with other  agencies to develop a guidance manual that will summarize available  natural resource vulnerability assessment tools.
In some instances, federal agencies have begun to help implement  adaptation actions. A recent Congressional Research Service presentation  highlighted two case studies on federal lands in which federal agencies  assisted with adaptation efforts. The first is a habitat restoration project  supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to adapt to sea level  rise in the Albemarle Peninsula, North Carolina. The second focuses on  increasing landscape diversity and managing biodiversity in Washington’s  Olympic National Forest, the site of a Forest Service Pacific Northwest  Research Station. The project involved work with the Federal Highway  Administration to protect watersheds and roads. In addition, the  Department of Energy reported that it has assessed major water  availability issues related to energy production and use, such as electrical  generation and fuels production, and identified approaches that could  reduce freshwater use in the energy sector, and opportunities for further  research and development to address questions that decision makers will  need to resolve to effectively manage the energy and water availability  issues.
Infrastructure design and operation: A number of federal agencies are  beginning to recognize that they must account for climate change impacts  when building and repairing man-made infrastructure, since such impacts  have implications beyond the natural environment. Many adaptation  efforts related to infrastructure are at the planning stages to date. For  example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ adaptation initiatives include  leading a team of water managers to evaluate how climate change  considerations can be incorporated into activities related to water  resources. These managers are also participating in an interagency group  (Climate Change and Water Working Group) which held workshops in  California in spring 2007. At these workshops, water managers from  federal (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA),  state, local, and private agencies and organizations recommended more  flexible reservoir operations, better use of forecasts, and more monitoring  of real-time conditions in the watersheds. A draft report of long-term  needs identified by the team was undergoing agency review in August and  September 2009. In addition, EPA recently issued a guide entitled Smart  Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities to help communities  address challenges such as potential sea level rise and other climate- related hazards.
Within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway  Administration also formed a multidisciplinary internal working group to  coordinate infrastructure policy and program activities, specifically to  address climate change effects on transportation. Both the U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers and DOT are reviewing the impacts of sea level rise on  infrastructure. DOT found that a 2-foot sea level rise would affect 64  percent of the Gulf Coast’s port facilities, while a 4-foot rise would affect  nearly three-quarters of port facilities. In addition, the Federal  Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of the U.S. Department of  Homeland Security, is currently conducting a study on the impact of  climate change on the National Flood Insurance Program, as we  recommended in a 2007 GAO report. The Department of Energy is also  working to protect critical infrastructure—such as the national  laboratories and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve—by using climate  impact assessments and developing guidance for management decisions  that account for climate change.
Public health research: Federal agencies responsible for public health  matters are starting to support modeling and research efforts to assess  climate change impacts on their programs and issue areas. Currently, the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Climate Change  program is engaged in a number of adaptation initiatives that address  various populations’ vulnerability to the adverse health effects of heat  waves. For example, CDC helped develop a Web-based modeling tool to  assist local and regional governments to prepare for heat waves and an  extreme heat media toolkit for cities.
In addition, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed a working  group on Climate Change and Health, which aims to identify research  needs and priorities and involve the biomedical research community in  discussions of the health effects of climate change. Recently, NIH  developed an initiative called the NIH Challenge Grants in Health and  Science Research, which supports research on predictive climate change  models and facilitates public health planning. Of particular interest to NIH  are studies that quantify the current impacts of climate on a variety of  communicable or noncommunicable diseases or studies that project the  impacts of different climate and socioeconomic scenarios on health.
EPA is also taking steps to ensure that public health needs are met in the  context of climate change. For example, EPA helped produce an analysis  that examined potential impacts of climate change on human society,  opportunities for adaptation, and associated recommendations for  addressing data gaps and research goals. In addition, EPA is working  with agencies such as CDC, NIH, and NOAA to support the public health  communities’ efforts to develop strategies for adapting to climate change.
National security preparation: Federal agencies are beginning to study  the potential consequences of climate change on national security. For  example, the Department of Defense’s ongoing Quadrennial Defense  Review is examining the capabilities of the armed forces to respond to the  consequences of climate change—in particular, preparedness for natural  disasters from extreme weather events, as is required by Section 951 of the  National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. This act also  requires the department to develop guidance for military planners to  assess the risk of projected climate change, update defense plans based on  these assessments, and develop the capabilities needed to reduce future  impacts. In October 2008, the Air Force participated in a Colloquium on  National Security Implications of Climate Change sponsored by the U.S.  Joint Forces Command. In addition, the Navy recently sponsored a Naval  Studies Board study on the National Security Implications of Climate  Change on U.S. Naval forces (Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard), to be  completed in late 2010. This study is intended to help the Navy develop  future robust climate change adaptation strategies.
International assistance to developing countries: Some federal agencies  are supporting preliminary adaptation planning efforts internationally. For  example, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds  climate change activities related to agriculture, water, forest, and coastal  zone management in partner developing countries. To inform such  activities, USAID produced two documents, an adaptation guidance  manual and a coastal zone adaptation manual, which provide climate  change tools and other information to planners in the developing world.  In addition, USAID works with NASA to provide developing countries with  climate change data to help support adaptation activities. For example, the  two agencies use SERVIR, a high-tech regional satellite visualization and  monitoring system for Central America, to provide a climate change  scenario database, climate change maps indicating impacts on Central  America’s biodiversity, a fire and smoke mapping and warning system, red  tide alerts, and weather alerts. The U.S. Department of State’s and NOAA’s  climate efforts also sustain adaptation initiatives worldwide. NOAA is  supporting USAID programs in Asia, Latin America, and Africa by using a  science-based approach to enhance governments’ abilities to understand,  anticipate, and manage climate risk. In addition, Interior’s International  Technical Assistance Program, funded through interagency agreements  with USAID and the U.S. Department of State, provides training and  technical assistance to developing countries.
Governmentwide adaptation strategies: Currently, no single entity is  coordinating climate change adaptation efforts across the federal  government and there is a general lack of strategic coordination. However,  several federal entities are beginning to develop governmentwide  strategies to adapt to climate change. For example, the President’s Council  on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is leading a new initiative to coordinate  the federal response to climate change in conjunction with the Office of  Science and Technology Policy, NOAA, and other agencies. Similarly, the  U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which coordinates and  integrates federal research on climate change, has developed a series of  “building blocks” that outline options for future climate change work,  including science to inform adaptation. The adaptation building block  includes support and guidance for federal, regional, and local efforts to  prepare for and respond to climate change, including characterizing the  need for adaptation and developing, implementing, and evaluating  adaptation approaches.
section_title: Certain State and Local Governments Are Developing and Implementing Climate Change Adaptation Measures
paragraphs: Many government authorities at the state and local levels have not yet  begun to adapt to climate change. According to a recent NRC report, the  response of governments at all levels, businesses and industries, and civil  society is only starting, and much is still to be learned about the  institutional, technological, and economic shifts that have begun. Some  states have not yet started to consider mitigation or adaptation; others  have developed plans but have not yet begun to implement them.  However, certain governments are beginning to plan for the effects of  climate change and to implement climate change adaptation measures. For  example, California recently issued a draft climate adaptation strategy,  which directs the state government to prepare for rising sea levels,  increased wildfires, and other expected changes. A general review of  state and local government adaptation planning efforts is available in two  recent reports issued by nongovernment research groups.
We visited three U.S. sites—New York City; King County, Washington; and  the state of Maryland—where government officials have begun to plan for  and respond to climate change impacts. The three locations are all  addressing climate change adaptation to various extents. New York City is  in the planning phases for its citywide efforts, although individual  departments have begun to implement specific actions, such as purchasing  land in New York City’s watershed to improve the quality of its water  supply. King County, Washington has, among other things, completed and  begun to implement a comprehensive climate change plan, which includes  an adaptation component. Maryland has released the first phase of its  adaptation strategy, which is focused on sea level rise and coastal storms,  reflecting sectors of immediate concern.
Our analysis of these sites suggests three major factors have led these  governments to act. First, natural disasters such as floods, heat waves,  droughts, or hurricanes raised public awareness of the costs of potential  climate change impacts. Second, leaders in all three sites used legislation,  executive orders, local ordinances, or action plans to focus attention and  resources on climate change adaptation. Finally, each of the governments  had access to relevant site-specific information to provide a basis for  planning and management efforts. This site-specific information arose  from partnerships that decision makers at all three sites formed with local  universities and other government and nongovernment entities.
The following summaries describe the key factors that motivated these  governments to act, the policies and laws that guide adaptation activities  at each location, the programs and initiatives that are in place to address  climate effects, the sources of site-specific information, and any  partnerships that have assisted with adaptation activities.
subsections: section_title: New York City, New York
paragraphs: New York City’s adaptation efforts stemmed from a growing recognition of  the vulnerability of the city’s infrastructure to natural disasters, such as  the severe flooding in 2007 that led to widespread subway closures. The  development of PlaNYC—a plan to accommodate a projected population  growth of 1 million people, reduce citywide carbon emissions by 30  percent, and make New York City a greener, more sustainable city by  2030—also pushed city officials to think about the future, including the  need for climate change adaptation. New York City’s extensive coastline  and dense urban infrastructure makes it vulnerable to sea level rise;  flooding; and other extreme weather, including heatwaves, which could  become more common as a result of climate change.
City officials took several steps to formalize a response to climate change.  In 2008, the Mayor convened the New York City Panel on Climate Change  (NPCC) to provide localized climate change projections and decision  tools. The Mayor also invited public agencies and private companies to be  part of the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, a  public-private group charged with assessing climate effects on critical  infrastructure and developing adaptation strategies to reduce these risks.  The Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, established by a  local law in 2008, provides oversight of the city’s adaptation efforts, which  are part of PlaNYC. In addition to citywide efforts, a number of municipal  and regional agencies have begun to address climate change adaptation in  their operations.
To date, New York City’s adaptation efforts typically have been  implemented as facilities are upgraded or as funding becomes available.  For example, the city’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),  which manages water and wastewater infrastructure, has begun to address  flood risks to its wastewater treatment facilities. These and other efforts  are described in DEP’s 2008 Climate Change Program Assessment and  Action Plan. Many of New York City’s wastewater treatment plants, such  as Tallman Island (see fig. 1) are vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding  from storm surges because they are located in the floodplain next to the  waterbodies into which they discharge. In response to this threat, DEP is,  in the course of scheduled renovations, raising sensitive electrical  equipment, such as pumps and motors, to higher levels to protect them  from flood damage.
Other municipal departments are implementing climate change adaptation  measures as well. For example, the Department of Parks and Recreation  launched a pilot project in its Five Borough Technical Services Facility to  experiment with different types of green roofs—vegetated plots on  rooftops that absorb rainwater and moderate the effects of heatwaves (see  fig. 2). According to an official at the Department of Parks and Recreation,  the department plans to install green roofs in some of its recreation  facilities in the next few years, since these facilities will be replacing their  roofs. Green roofs are part of a suite of measures the city is exploring to  control stormwater at the source (the location where the rain falls), rather  than pipe it elsewhere. This can help reduce the need for more  infrastructure investments in preparation for more intense rainstorms— investments that can be very costly and that are not always feasible in the  space available under the city streets.
New York City’s adaptation efforts have benefited from officials’ access to  site-specific information, starting with the publication of a 2001 report for  USGCRP, which provided a scientific assessment of climate change effects  in the New York City metropolitan region. More recently, the city,  through the financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation, created  NPCC. According to its co-chairs, NPCC is charged with completing  several decision-support documents, which will provide decision makers  with information about local climate effects. In addition, the Mayor  convened the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force to  prepare a risk-based assessment of how climate change would affect the  communication, energy, water and waste, transportation, and policy  sectors, as well as the urban ecosystem and parks, and prioritize potential  response strategies. Members of the task force, several of whom represent  private industries, explained that they agreed to participate in the task  force because the Mayor made this issue a priority. They noted that events  such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005; the power outage in August 2003, which  affected New York City as well as other locations in the United States and  Canada; and the 2007 subway flooding raised their awareness about the  effects of climate change on their operations.
New York City partners with other state and local governments to share  knowledge and implement climate change adaptation efforts. It is a  charter member of the C40, a coalition of large cities around the world  committed to addressing climate change. City agencies also share  information with counterparts in other locations about specific concerns.  For example, DEP shares information about addressing water-related  climate change effects with the state of California and the Water Utility  Climate Alliance, a national coalition of water and wastewater utilities.  DEP coordinates with other state and local governments to address  climate change effects on its watershed, which is located outside of city  limits. Similarly, transportation agencies that serve New York City, such as  the Metropolitan Transit Authority and New Jersey Transit, cross local and  state boundaries and require coordination on a regional scale, which New  York City addresses through its multijurisdictional task force. City officials  and members of NPCC stated that a coherent federal response would  further facilitate the development of common objectives across local and  state jurisdictions.
section_title: King County, Washington
paragraphs: According to officials from the King County Department of Natural  Resources and Parks (DNRP), the county took steps to adapt to climate  change because its leadership was highly aware of climate impacts on the  county and championed the need to take action. The county  commissioned an internal study in 2005 that included each department’s  projection of its operations in 2050, which focused attention on the need  to prepare for future climate changes. The county also sponsored a  conference in 2005 that brought together scientists, local and state  officials, the private sector, and the public to discuss the impacts of  climate change. This conference served to educate the public and  officials and spur action.
Officials from DNRP noted that recent weather events increased the  urgency of certain adaptive actions. For example, in November 2006, the  county experienced severe winter storms that caused a series of levees to  crack. The levees had long needed repair, but the storm damage helped  increase support for the establishment of a countywide flood control zone  district, funded by a dedicated property tax. The flood control zone  district will use the funds, in part, to upgrade flood protection facilities,  which will increase the county’s resilience to future flooding. In addition  to more severe winter storms, the county expects that climate change will  lead to sea level rise; reduced snowpack; and summertime extreme  weather such as heat waves and drought, which can lead to power  shortages because hydropower is an important source of power in the  region.
The county’s first formal step toward adaptation was a climate change  plan developed in 2007. The county executive also issued several  executive orders that call for, among other things, the evaluation of  climate impacts in the State Environmental Policy Act reviews conducted  by county departments and the consideration of global warming  adaptation in county operations, such as transportation, waste and  wastewater infrastructure, and land use planning. For example, King  County officials told us that during the construction of the Brightwater  wastewater treatment plant, DNRP’s Wastewater Treatment Division  added a pipeline that could convey approximately 7 million gallons per day  of reclaimed water to industrial and agricultural users upon completion in  2011. They also said that additional reclaimed water could be made  available in the future as the need arises. The division is also addressing  the effects of sea level rise by, for example, increasing the elevation of  vulnerable facilities during design and installing flaps to prevent backflow  into its pipelines. Additionally, in 2008, the county incorporated  consideration of climate change into the revision of its Comprehensive  Plan, which guides land use decisions throughout the county.
King County officials told us that each county department convened  internal teams that identify climate change initiatives and report to the  King County Executive Action Group on Climate Change on their progress.  For example, the county’s Department of Transportation Road Services  Division started a Climate Change Team in 2008, which identified several  initiatives in response to projections for more intense storms, including  investigating new approaches to stormwater treatment. Specifically, the  Road Services Division is piloting a roadside rain garden, which captures  and filters rainwater using vegetation and certain types of soil, to  determine whether more of such installations could improve the onsite  management of stormwater runoff, as compared to a traditional  engineering approach, which would pipe the water to a pond or holding  vault and then discharge it to an offsite waterbody (see fig. 3). Alongside  the rain garden, a permeable concrete sidewalk will absorb additional rain  that would normally flow off a traditional impervious sidewalk into  adjacent property. The rain garden and permeable sidewalk are  considered examples of “low-impact development,” which are expected to  help the county adapt to increased rainfall by reducing peak surface water  flows from road surfaces by about 33 percent. The Road Services Division  is also implementing other measures that could improve its response to  storms, such as installing larger culverts, improving its ability to detect  hazardous road conditions (for example, due to flooding), and  communicating those conditions to maintenance staff and the general  public.
County officials receive information on climate change effects from a  number of sources. The University of Washington Climate Impacts Group  (CIG), funded by NOAA’s RISA program, has had a long-standing  relationship with county officials and works closely with them to provide  regionally specific climate change data and modeling, such as a 2009  assessment of climate impacts in Washington, as well as decision-making  tools. For example, the CIG Web site provides a Climate Change  Streamflow Scenario Tool, which allows water planners in the Columbia  River basin to compare historical records with climate change scenarios.  Similarly, according to its faculty, the Washington State University  Extension Office works with the county and CIG to provide climate  change information to the agricultural and forestry sectors, both of which  will be increasingly affected by insect infestation due to increases in  temperatures. The university’s Extension Office also provides direct  technical assistance to landowners affected by these impacts. King County  officials, according to the director of DNRP, also share information about  climate change adaptation with other localities through several  partnership efforts, including the Center for Clean Air Policy Urban  Leaders Adaptation Initiative.
section_title: Maryland
paragraphs: The Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR)  told us that Maryland began to work on climate change adaptation  because of the state’s vulnerability to coastal flooding due to sea level rise  and severe storms. The Maryland coastline is particularly vulnerable due  to a combination of global sea level rise and local land subsidence, or  sinking, among other factors. It has already experienced a sea level rise of  about 1 foot in the last 100 years, which led to the disappearance of 13  Chesapeake Bay islands. According to a recent state report, a 2- to 3-foot  sea level rise could submerge thousands of acres of tidal wetlands; low- lying lands; and Smith Island in the Chesapeake Bay. These ongoing  concerns, along with widespread flooding caused by Hurricane Isabel in  2003, have increased awareness of climate change effects in the state.
Maryland officials have taken a number of steps to formalize their  response to climate change effects. An executive order in 2007 established  the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, which released the  Maryland Climate Action Plan in 2008. As part of this effort, DNR chaired  an Adaptation and Response Working Group, which issued a report on sea  level rise and coastal storms. The 2008 Maryland Climate Action Plan  calls for future adaptation strategy development to cover other sectors  such as agriculture and human health.
Maryland also enacted several legislative measures that address coastal  concerns, including the Living Shoreline Protection Act of 2008, which  generally requires the use of nonstructural shoreline stabilization  measures instead of “hard” structures such as bulkheads and retaining  walls (see fig. 4). According to a Maryland official, as sea level rises there  will be a greater need for shore protection. Living shorelines provide such  protection, while also maintaining coastal processes and providing aquatic  habitat. The Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area  Protection law was also amended to, among other things, require the state  to update the maps used to determine the boundary of the critical areas at  least once every 12 years. Previously, the critical areas were based on a  map drawn in 1972 that did not reflect changes caused by sea level rise or  other coastal erosion processes.
According to officials from DNR, the department is modifying several  existing programs to ensure that the state is taking the effects of climate  change into account. For example, an official from DNR told us that it is  incorporating climate change into its ranking criteria for state land  conservation. Specifically, this official said that DNR plans to prioritize  coastal habitat for potential acquisition according to its suitability for  marsh migration, among other factors. Additionally, Maryland is providing  guidance to coastal counties to assist them with incorporating the effects  of climate change into their planning documents. For example, DNR  funded guidance documents to three coastal counties, Dorchester,  Somerset, and Worcester Counties, on how to address sea level rise and  other coastal hazards in their local ordinances and planning efforts.  Furthermore, in spring 2009, DNR officials participated in a public  Somerset County sea level rise workshop designed to raise the awareness  of county residents. Officials discussed what sea level rise projections  could mean to the county, including the inundation of some of its coastal  infrastructure and salt marsh habitat (see fig. 5), and described some of  the state initiatives to address these effects. Finally, officials with the DNR  Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division told us they are  considering expanding their monitoring of sentinel sites—pristine streams  where changing conditions can help detect localized impacts of climate  change.
Maryland draws on local universities, federal agencies, and others to  access information relevant to climate change. For example, in 2008,  scientists from the University of Maryland chaired and participated in the  Scientific and Technical Working Group of the Maryland Commission on  Climate Change. Faculty from the University of Maryland also provide  technical information to the state government and legislature on an  ongoing basis. Maryland receives grants and additional technical  assistance from the federal government and collaborates with federal  agencies and local universities to collect and disseminate data relevant to  climate change adaptation. Specifically, Maryland used local, state, and  federal resources to map its coastline using Light Detection and Ranging  technology and has made this information, as well as a number of tools  that can be used by the public and decision makers, readily available in the  Maryland Shorelines Online Web site. For example, an interactive  mapping application called Shoreline Changes Online allows users to  access historic shoreline data to determine erosion trends.
section_title: Some Countries Have Begun to Adapt to Climate Change
paragraphs: Limited adaptation efforts are also taking root in other countries around  the world. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s  Fourth Assessment Report found that some adaptation measures are being  implemented in both developing and developed countries, but that many  of these measures are in the preliminary stages. As in the case of the state  and local efforts described earlier, some of these adaptation efforts have  been triggered by the recognition that current weather extremes and  seasonal changes will become more frequent in the future. For example,  recognizing the hazards of rising temperatures, efforts are under way in  Nepal to drain the expanding Tsho Rolpa glacial lake to reduce flood risk.  Similarly, in response to reduced snow cover and glacial retreat, the  winter tourism industry in the European Alpine region has implemented a  number of measures, such as building reservoirs to support artificial  snowmaking.
A number of countries have begun to assess their vulnerability to climate  change impacts and formulate national responses. For example, Canada  issued a report in 2008 that discusses the current and future risks and  opportunities that climate change presents, primarily from a regional  perspective. Australia recently issued guidance to local governments  about expected climate change projections, impacts, and potential  responses. In addition, under the United Nations Framework Convention  on Climate Change, least-developed countries can receive funding to  develop National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA)—38 NAPAs  had been completed as of October 2008. The NAPAs communicate the  country’s priority activities addressing the urgent and immediate needs  and concerns relating to adaptation to the adverse effects of climate  change.
In order to provide an in-depth example of a climate change adaptation  effort outside of the United States, we selected the United Kingdom as a  case study to better understand some of the actions that government  officials can take to adapt to climate change. We selected the United  Kingdom because it has initiated a coordinated climate change adaptation  response at the national, regional, and local levels.
Over the past decade, the issuance of prominent reports and the fallout  from major weather events created awareness among government officials  of the need for the United Kingdom to adapt to inevitable changes to the  nation’s climate. For example, in 2002, the London Climate Change  Partnership, a stakeholder-led group coordinated by the Greater London  Authority, issued a report called London’s Warming, which detailed the  expected impacts of climate change and the key challenges to addressing  it. In addition, the 2006 Stern Review of the economics of climate change  helped accelerate the national government’s efforts to adapt. These and  other reports show that the United Kingdom could experience a variety of  climate change effects in the future, including dry summers, wet winters,  coastal erosion, and sea level rise.
In fact, the United Kingdom is already experiencing severe weather events.  For example, in 2006, a dry period brought about water restrictions in  London. The following year, large-scale flooding in the United Kingdom  highlighted the need to respond to climate change and led to the Pitt  Review, which examined resilience to flooding in the United Kingdom. In  addition, the nation’s insurance sector, which currently offers  comprehensive flood insurance coverage, has raised concerns about the  growing flood risk and asked for government action.
In response to these concerns, the United Kingdom enacted national  climate change legislation in 2008. The law requires the British Secretary  of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to report periodically to  Parliament with a risk assessment of the current and predicted impacts of  climate change and to propose programs and policies for climate change  adaptation. The law also authorizes the national government to require  certain public authorities, such as water companies, to report on their  assessment of the current and predicted impact of climate change in  relation to the authority’s functions as well as their proposals and policies  for adapting to climate change. According to Department for Environment,  Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) officials, the government department  responsible for leading action on adaptation, an independent expert  subcommittee of the Committee on Climate Change is to provide technical  advice and oversee these efforts. The United Kingdom is also working with  the European Union to incorporate climate change into its decisions and  policies.
In the United Kingdom, different levels of government report working  together to ensure that climate change considerations are incorporated  into decision making. For example, the Government Office for London  chairs the national government’s Local and Regional Adaptation  Partnership Board, which aims to facilitate climate change adaptation at  local and regional levels by highlighting best practices and encouraging  information sharing among local and regional officials. According to  DEFRA officials, the primary role of the national government is to provide  information, raise awareness, and encourage others to take action, not  dictate how to adapt. In response to the United Kingdom’s 2008 Climate  Change Act, DEFRA officials said they are preparing a national risk  assessment and conducting economic analyses to quantify the costs and  benefits of adaptive actions. DEFRA officials said that these steps are to  assist adaptation efforts undertaken by the national government, local  government officials, and the private sector.
Adaptation activities are driven in part by the use of national performance  measures, which affect local funding, and national government programs,  according to DEFRA officials. The national government recently  introduced a national adaptation indicator, which measures how well local  governments are adapting to climate change risk. Performance measured  by this and other indicators is the basis for national grants to local  governments. Individual government agencies are also developing and  implementing their own plans to address climate change effects. For  example, the Environment Agency, which is responsible for environmental  protection in England and Wales, as well as flood defense and water  resource management, has initiatives in place to reduce water use to  increase resilience to drought. It is also addressing flood risk, most  notably with the Thames Barrier, a series of flood gates that protect  London from North Sea storms (see fig. 6).
The United Kingdom’s climate change initiatives are built around locally  relevant information generated centrally by two primary sources. The  United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP), a primarily  publicly funded program housed in Oxford University, generates  stakeholder-centered climate change decision-making tools and facilitates  responses to climate change. UKCIP works with national, regional, and  local users of climate data to increase awareness and encourage actions.  For example, Hampshire County, in southern England, used climate  scenarios generated by UKCIP to complete a test of the county’s  sensitivity to weather and other emergency scenarios. The Met Office  Hadley Centre, a government-funded climate research center, generates  climate science information and develops models. According to a United  Kingdom official, the Met Office Hadley Centre generated the bulk of the  science for the UK Climate Projections 2009, while UKCIP, among others,  provided user guidance and training to facilitate the use of these data.
Regional and international partnerships have also played a significant role  in providing guidance to further climate change adaptation efforts in the  United Kingdom. For example, Government Office for London officials  told us that the Three Regions Climate Change Group (which includes the  East of England, South East of England, and London) has set up a group to  promote retrofitting of existing homes. The group produced a report,  which provided a checklist for developers, case studies, a good practices  guide, and a breakdown of the costs involved. On an international scale,  Greater London Authority officials stated that they are working with cities  such as Tokyo, Toronto, and New York City to share knowledge about  climate change adaptation. In addition, a Hampshire County Council  official told us about the county’s participation in the European Spatial  Planning—Adapting to Climate Events project, which provided policy  guidance and decision-making tools to governments from several  countries on incorporating adaptation into planning decisions.
section_title: Federal, State, and Local Officials Face Numerous Challenges When Considering Climate Change Adaptation Efforts
paragraphs: The challenges faced by federal, state, and local officials in their efforts to  adapt fell into three categories, based on our analysis of questionnaire  results, site visits, and available studies. First, available attention and  resources are focused on more immediate needs, making it difficult for  adaptation efforts to compete for limited funds. Second, insufficient site- specific data, such as local projections of expected changes, makes it hard  to predict the impacts of climate change, and thus hard for officials to  justify the current costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less certain  future benefits. Third, adaptation efforts are constrained by a lack of clear  roles and responsibilities among federal, state, and local agencies.
subsections: section_title: Competing Priorities Make It Difficult to Use Limited Funds on Adaptation Efforts
paragraphs: Competing priorities limit the ability of officials to respond to the impacts  of climate change, based on our analysis of Web-based questionnaire  results, site visits, and available studies. We asked federal, state, and local  officials to rate specific challenges related to awareness and priorities as  part of our questionnaire. Table 2 presents the percentage of federal, state,  and local respondents who rated these challenges as very or extremely  challenging in our questionnaire. Appendix III includes a more detailed  summary of federal, state, and local officials’ responses to the  questionnaire.
The highest rated challenge identified by respondents was an overall lack  of funding for adaptation efforts. This problem is coupled with the  competing priorities of more immediate concerns.
Lack of funding: The government officials who responded to our  questionnaire identified the lack of funding for adaptation efforts as both  the top challenge related to awareness and priorities and the top overall  challenge explored in our questionnaire. Several respondents wrote that  lack of funding limited their ability to identify and respond to the impacts  of climate change, with one noting, for example, that “we have the tools,  but we just need the funding and leadership to act.” A state official  similarly said that “we need a large and dedicated funding source for  adaptation. It’s going to take 5 to 10 years of funding to get a body of  information that will help planning in the long run. We need to start doing  that planning and research now.” Several studies also suggested that it will  be difficult, if not impossible, for any agency to approach the tasks  associated with adaptation without permanent, dedicated funding. For  example, a recent federal report on adaptation options for climate- sensitive ecosystems and resources stated that a lack of sufficient  resources may pose a significant barrier to adaptation efforts.
Officials also cited lack of funding as a challenge during our site visits. For  example, King County officials said that they do not have resources  budgeted directly for addressing climate change. Instead, the county tries  to meet its adaptation goals by shifting staff and reprioritizing goals. The  county officials said it was difficult to take action without dedicated  funding because some adaptation options are perceived to be very  expensive, and that if available funding cannot support the consideration  of adaptation options then the old ways of doing business would remain  the norm.
Competing priorities: Respondents’ concerns over an overall lack of  funding for adaptation efforts was further substantiated, and perhaps  explained, by their ratings of challenges related to the priority of  adaptation relative to other concerns. Specifically, about 71 percent (128  of 180) of the respondents rated the challenge “non-adaptation activities  are higher priorities” as very or extremely challenging. The responses of  federal, state, and local respondents differed for this challenge.  Specifically, about 79 percent (37 of 47) of state officials and nearly 76  percent (44 of 58) of local officials who responded to the question rated  “non-adaptation activities are higher priorities” as very or extremely  challenging, compared with about 61 percent (44 of 72) of the responding  federal officials.
Several federal, state, and local officials noted in their narrative comments  in our questionnaire how difficult it is to convince managers of the need to  plan for long-term adaptation when they are responsible for more urgent  concerns that have short-term decision-making time frames. One federal  official explained that “it all comes down to resource prioritization.  Election and budget cycles complicate long-term planning such as  adaptation will require. Without clear top-down leadership setting this as a  priority, projects with benefits beyond the budget cycle tend to get raided  to pay current-year bills to deliver results in this political cycle.” Several  other officials who responded to our questionnaire expressed similar  sentiments. A recent NRC report similarly concluded that, in some cases,  decision makers do not prioritize adaptation because they do not  recognize the link to climate change in the day-to-day decisions that they  make.
Our August 2007 report on climate change on federal lands shows how  climate change impacts compete for the attention of decision makers with  more immediate priorities. This report found that resource management  agencies did not, at that time, make climate change a priority, nor did their  agencies’ strategic plans specifically address climate change. Resource  managers explained that they had a wide range of responsibilities and that  without their management designating climate change as a priority, they  focused first on near-term priorities.
Our questionnaire results and site visits demonstrate that public  awareness can play an important role in the prioritization of adaptation  efforts. About 61 percent (113 of 184) of the officials who responded to  our questionnaire rated “lack of public awareness or knowledge of  adaptation” as either very or extremely challenging. The need to adapt to  climate change is a complicated issue to communicate with the public  because the impacts vary by location and may occur well into the future.  For example, officials in Maryland told us that, while the public may be  aware that climate change will affect the polar ice cap, people do not  realize that it will also affect Maryland. New York City officials said that it  is easier to engage the public once climate change effects are translated  into specific concerns, such as subway flooding. They said the term  climate change adaptation can seem too abstract to the public.
section_title: Lack of Site-Specific Information Limits Adaptation Efforts
paragraphs: As summarized in table 3 and corroborated by our site visits and available  studies, a lack of site-specific information—including information about  the future benefits of adaptation activities—limits the ability of officials to  respond to the impacts of climate change. See appendix III for a more  detailed summary of federal, state, and local officials’ responses to our  Web-based questionnaire.
These challenges generally fit into two main categories: (1) the difficulty in  justifying the current costs of adaptation with limited information about  future benefits and (2) translating climate data—such as projected  temperature and precipitation changes—into information that officials  need to make decisions.
Justifying current costs with limited information about future benefits:  Respondents rated “justifying the current costs of adaptation efforts for  potentially less certain future benefits” as the greatest challenge related to  information and as the second greatest of all the challenges we asked  about. They rated the “size and complexity of future climate change  impacts” as the second greatest challenge related to information. These  concerns are not new. In fact, a 1993 report on climate change adaptation  by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment posed the  following question within its overall discussion of the issue: “why adopt a  policy today to adapt to a climate change effect that may not occur, for  which there is significant uncertainty about impacts, and for which  benefits of the anticipatory measure may not be seen for decades?”  Several officials shared similar reactions in written responses to our  questionnaire. For example, one local official asked, “How do we justify  added expenses in a period of limited resources when the benefits are not  clear?”
While the costs of policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change may be  considerable, it is difficult to estimate the costs of inaction—costs which  could be much greater, according to a recent NRC report. This report  cites the long time horizon associated with climate change, coupled with  deep uncertainties associated with forecasts and projections, among other  issues, as aspects of climate change that are challenging for decision  making. Several officials who responded to our questionnaire noted  similar concerns. For example, one federal official stated that decision  makers needed to confront “the reality that the future will not echo the  past and that we will forever be managing under future uncertainty.”
Of particular importance in adaptation are planning decisions involving  physical infrastructure projects, which require large capital investments  and which, by virtue of their anticipated lifespan, will have to be resilient  to changes in climate for many decades. The long lead time and long life  of large infrastructure investments require such decisions to be made well  before climate change effects are discernable. For example, the United  Kingdom Environment Agency’s Thames 2100 Plan, which was released  for consultation in April 2009, maps out necessary maintenance and  operations needs for the Thames Barrier until 2070, at which point major  changes will be required. Since constructing flood gates is a long-term  process (the current barrier was finished 30 years after officials first  identified a need for it), officials said they need the information now, even  if the threat will not materialize until later.
Translating climate data into site-specific information: The process of  providing useful information to officials making decisions about  adaptation can be summarized in several steps.
First, data from global-scale models must be “downscaled” to provide  climate information at a geographic scale relevant to decision makers.  About 74 percent (133 of 179) of the officials who responded to our  questionnaire rated “availability of climate information at relevant scale  (i.e., downscaled regional and local information)” as very or extremely  challenging. In addition, according to one federal respondent, “until we  better understand what the impacts of climate change will be at spatial  (and temporal) scales below what the General Circulation Models predict  for the global scale, it will be difficult to identify specific adaptation  strategies that respond to specific impacts.”
Our August 2007 report on climate change on federal lands demonstrated  that resource managers did not have sufficient site-specific information to  plan for and manage the effects of climate change on the federal resources  they oversee. In particular, the managers lacked computational models  for local projections of expected changes. For example, at that time,  officials at the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary said that they  lacked adequate modeling and scientific information to enable managers  to predict change on a small scale, such as that occurring within the  sanctuary. Without such models, the managers’ options were limited to  reacting to already-observed effects.
Second, climate information must be translated into impacts at the local  level, such as increased stream flow. About 75 percent (136 of 182) of the  respondents rated “translating available climate information (e.g.,  projected temperature, precipitation) into impacts at the local level (e.g.,  increased stream flow)” as very or extremely challenging. Some  respondents and officials interviewed during our site visits said that it is  challenging to link predicted temperature and precipitation changes to  specific impacts. For example, one federal respondent said that “we often  lack fundamental information on how ecological systems/species respond  to non-climate change related anthropogenic stresses, let alone how they  will respond to climate change.” Such predictions may not easily or  directly match the information needs that could inform management  decisions. For example, Maryland officials told us they do not have  information linking climate model information, such as temperature and  precipitation changes, to biological impacts, such as changes to tidal  marshes. Similarly, King County officials said they are not sure how to  translate climate change information into effects on salmon recovery  efforts. Specifically, they said that there is incomplete information about  how climate change may affect stream temperatures, stream flows, and  other factors important to salmon recovery.
However, multiple respondents said that it was not necessary to have  specific, detailed, downscaled modeling to manage for adaptation in the  short term. For example, one federal respondent said that although  modeling projections will get better over time, there will always be  elements of uncertainty in how systems and species will react to climate  change. Interestingly, federal, state, and local respondents perceived the  challenges posed by site-specific information needs differently. About 85  percent (60 of 71) of the federal officials that responded to the question  rated “translating available climate information into impacts at the local  level” as very or extremely challenging, compared to around 75 percent  (35 of 47) of the state officials and around 66 percent (40 of 59) of the local  officials who responded.
Third, local impacts must be translated into costs and benefits, since this  information is required for many decision-making processes. Almost 70  percent (126 of 180) of the respondents to our questionnaire rated  “understanding the costs and benefits of adaptation efforts” as very or  extremely challenging. As noted by one local government respondent, it is  important to understand the costs and benefits of adaptation efforts so  they can be evaluated relative to other priorities. In addition, a federal  respondent said that tradeoffs between costs and benefits are an  important component to making decisions under uncertainty.
Fourth, decision makers need baseline monitoring data to evaluate  adaptation actions over time. Nearly 62 percent (113 of 181) of the  respondents to our questionnaire rated the “lack of baseline monitoring  data to enable evaluation of adaptation actions (i.e., inability to detect  change)” as very or extremely challenging, one of the lower ratings for this  category of challenges. As summarized by a recent NRC report, officials  will need site-specific and relevant baselines of environmental, social, and  economic information against which past and current decisions can be  monitored, assessed, and changed. Future decision-making success will  be judged on how quickly and effectively numerous ongoing decisions can  be adjusted to changing circumstances. For example, according to  Maryland officials, the state lacks baseline data on certain key Chesapeake  Bay species such as blue crab and striped bass, so it will be difficult to  determine how climate change will affect them or if proposed adaptation  measures were successful. Similarly, our August 2007 report on climate  change on federal lands showed that resource managers generally lacked  detailed inventories and monitoring systems to provide them with an  adequate baseline understanding of the plant and animal species that  existed on the resources they manage. Without such information, it was  difficult for managers to determine whether observed changes were within  the normal range of variability.
section_title: Adaptation Efforts Are Constrained by a Lack of Clear Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: A lack of clear roles and responsibilities for addressing adaptation across  all levels of government limits adaptation efforts, based on our analysis of  federal, state, and local officials’ responses to our Web-based  questionnaire, site visits, and relevant studies. Table 4 presents  respondents’ views on how challenging different aspects of the structure  and operation of the federal government are to adaptation efforts. See  appendix III for a more detailed summary of federal, state, and local  officials’ responses to our Web-based questionnaire.
These challenges are summarized in two general categories: (1) lack of  clear roles and responsibilities and (2) federal activities that constrain  adaptation efforts.
Lack of clear roles and responsibilities: “A lack of clear roles and  responsibilities for addressing adaptation across all levels of government  (i.e., adaptation is everyone’s problem but nobody’s direct responsibility)”  was identified by respondents as the greatest challenge related to the  structure and operation of the federal government. Several respondents  elaborated on their rating. For example, according to one state official,  “there is a power struggle between agencies and levels of government  rather than a lack of clear roles. Everyone wants to take the lead rather  than working together in a collaborative and cohesive way.” One local  official said he “can’t emphasize enough how the lack of coordination  between agencies at the federal (and state) level severely complicates our  abilities at the local level.” Several respondents also noted that there is no  element within the federal government charged with facilitating a  collaborative response. Our questionnaire results show that local and state  respondents consider the lack of clear roles and responsibilities to be a  greater challenge than do federal respondents. Specifically, about 80  percent (48 of 60) of local officials and about 67 percent (31 of 46) of state  officials who responded to the question rated the lack of clear roles and  responsibilities as either very or extremely challenging, compared with  about 61 percent (42 of 69) of the responding federal officials.
This lack of coordination and “institutional fragmentation” are serious  challenges to adaptation efforts because clear roles are necessary for a  large-scale response to climate change. As stated by one local government  respondent, agencies “have numerous, overlapping jurisdictions and  authorities, many of which have different (sometimes competing)  mandates. If left to plan independently, they’ll either do no adaptation  planning or, if they do, likely come up with very different (and potentially  conflicting) adaptation priorities.” A recent NRC report comes to similar  conclusions, noting that collaboration among agencies can be impeded by  different enabling laws, opposing missions, or incompatible budgetary  rules. Such barriers—whether formalized or implicit—can lead to  disconnects, conflicts, and turf battles rather than productive cooperation,  according to this report.
About 52 percent (92 of 176) of the respondents to our questionnaire rated  the “lack of federal guidance or policies on how to make decisions related  to adaptation” as very or extremely challenging. Their views echo our  August 2007 report, which noted that federal resource managers were  constrained by limited guidance about whether or how to address climate  change and, therefore, were uncertain about what actions, if any, they  should take. In general, resource managers from all of the agencies we  reviewed for that report said that they needed specific guidance to  incorporate climate change into their management actions and planning  efforts. For example, officials from several federal land and water  resource management agencies said that guidance would help resolve  differences in their agencies about how to interpret broad resource  management authorities with respect to climate change and give them an  imperative to take action.
A recent federal report on adaptation options for climate-sensitive  ecosystems and resources reinforced these points. It noted that, as  resource managers become aware of climate change and the challenges it  poses, a major limitation is lack of guidance on what steps to take,  especially guidance that is commensurate with agency cultures and the  practical experiences that managers have accumulated from years of  dealing with other stresses, such as droughts and fires.
Our questionnaire results indicate that local government respondents  consider the lack of federal guidance to be a greater challenge than state  or federal respondents. Specifically, about 65 percent (39 of 60) of local  officials who responded to the question rated the “lack of federal guidance  or policies on how to make decisions related to adaptation” as either very  or extremely challenging, compared to about 41 percent (19 of 46) of state  officials and nearly 49 percent (33 of 67) of the federal officials that  responded.
Federal activities that constrain adaptation efforts: Another challenge  related to the structure and operation of the federal government is the  existence of federal policies, programs, or practices that hinder adaptation  efforts. While not the top challenge in the category, “existing federal  policies, programs, or practices that hinder adaptation efforts”—which  was rated as very or extremely challenging by about 43 percent (64 of 150)  of the officials who responded to our questionnaire—is an important issue,  as indicated by a wealth of related written comments submitted by  respondents, comments from officials at our site visits, and a number of  related studies.
Our work shows how, at least in some instances, federal programs may  limit adaptation efforts. Our 2007 climate change-related report on FEMA’s  National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Department of  Agriculture’s (USDA) Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which insures  crops against drought or other weather disasters, contrasted the  experience of public and private insurers. We found that many major  private insurers were incorporating some near-term elements of climate  change into their risk management practices. In addition, we found that  some private insurers were approaching climate change at a strategic level  by publishing reports outlining the potential industrywide impacts and  strategies to proactively address the issue. In contrast, our report noted  that the agencies responsible for the nation’s key federal insurance  programs had done little to develop the kind of information needed to  understand their programs’ long-term exposure to climate change for a  variety of reasons. As a FEMA official explained in that report, the  National Flood Insurance Program is designed to assess and insure against  current—not future—risks. Unlike the private sector, neither this program  nor the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation had analyzed the potential  impacts of an increase in the frequency or severity of weather-related  events on their operations. At our site visit, Maryland officials told us that  FEMA’s outdated delineation of floodplains, as well as its failure to  consider changes in floodplain boundaries due to sea level rise, is allowing  development in areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise in Maryland  because local governments rely on its maps for planning purposes. Both  FEMA and USDA have taken recent steps to address these concerns and  have committed to study these issues further and report to Congress, with  USDA estimating completion by December 31, 2009.
Officials who responded to our questionnaire also identified several  federal laws that hinder climate change efforts. A state official noted that  many federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water  Act, and the Clean Air Act were passed before recognition of the effects of  climate change. A federal official stated that federal environmental laws  may need to be amended to provide greater authority for agencies to  practice adaptive management. The official noted that federal laws  promoting development may also warrant re-examination to the extent  they provide incentives that run counter to prudent land and resource  planning in the climate change context.
One federal respondent stated that federal laws, regulations, and policies  assume that long-term climate is stable and that species, ecosystems, and  water resources can be managed to maintain the status quo or to restore  them to prior conditions. This official observed that these objectives may  no longer be achievable as climate change intensifies in the coming  decades. A state official similarly noted that because of the effects of  climate change, maintenance of the resource management status quo in  any given area may no longer be possible. Part of the problem may lie in  the inherent tension between the order of legal frameworks and the  relative chaos of natural systems, which one legal commentator explained  as follows: “Lawyers like rules. We like enforceable rules. We want our  rules to be optimal, tidy, and timeless…. Collaborative ecosystem  management, by contrast, is often messy, elaborate, cumbersome, ad hoc,  and defiantly unconventional.” Several officials who responded to our  questionnaire expressed similar concerns related to climate change  adaptation. For example, one federal official stated that existing laws  “were built for the status quo, but we now must re-engineer the entire legal  framework to deal with the ongoing, perpetual, and rapid change. A  systems view is essential in order to manage change optimally.”
section_title: Federal Efforts to Increase Awareness, Provide Relevant Information, and Define Responsibilities Could Help Government Officials Make Decisions about Adaptation
paragraphs: Potential federal actions for addressing challenges to adaptation efforts  fall into three areas, based on our analysis of questionnaire results, site  visits, and available studies: (1) federal training and education initiatives  that could increase awareness among government officials and the public  about the impacts of climate change and available adaptation strategies;  (2) actions to provide and interpret site-specific information that could  help officials understand the impacts of climate change at a scale that  would enable them to respond; and (3) steps Congress and federal  agencies could take to encourage adaptation by setting priorities and re- evaluating programs that hinder adaptation efforts.
subsections: section_title: Federal Training and Education Initiatives Would Assist Adaptation Efforts
paragraphs: Federal training and education initiatives would assist adaptation efforts,  based on our analysis of our Web-based questionnaire, site visits, and  relevant studies. Table 5 presents potential federal government actions  related to awareness and priorities as rated by federal, state, and local  officials who responded to our questionnaire. See appendix III for a more  detailed summary of federal, state, and local officials’ responses to our  Web-based questionnaire.
We present these potential federal actions in three general categories:   (1) training programs that could help government officials to develop  more effective and better coordinated adaptation programs; (2)  development of specific policy options for government officials; and   (3) public education efforts to increase the public’s understanding of  climate change issues and the need to begin investing in preparatory  measures.
Training for government officials: Training efforts could help officials  collaborate and share insights for developing and implementing adaptation  initiatives. Respondents rated the “development of regional or local  educational workshops for relevant officials that are tailored to their  responsibilities” as the most useful potential federal government action  related to awareness and priorities. According to one federal official, “it is  clear that training and communication may be the two biggest hurdles we  face. We have the capabilities to adapt and to forecast scenarios of change  and potential impacts of alternative adaptation options. We lack the will to  exercise this capacity. The lack of that will is traceable to ignorance,  sometimes willfully maintained.” This respondent calls for “a massive  educational process…designed and implemented all the way from the top- end strategic thinkers down to the ranks of tactical implementers of  change and adaptation options.” Training on how to make decisions with  uncertainty would be particularly useful for frontline actors, such as city  and county governments. For example, Maryland held an interactive  summit on building “coast-smart communities,” which brought together  federal, state, and local officials involved with planning decisions in  coastal areas. The summit employed role-playing to introduce participants  to critical issues faced by coastal communities as a result of climate  change. In addition, New York City DEP officials noted that their  membership in the Water Utility Climate Alliance provided them with an  important way to exchange information with water managers from across  the nation.
Several respondents said that the federal government could play an  important role in training officials at all levels of government. For  example, one state official said that “because so many of us are only in the  early stages of becoming aware of this issue, I think that a well organized  training where many people would be learning the same thing and in the  same way is important.” However, a different state official questioned  whether federal training would be effective for state and local officials,  explaining that federal officials may not have enough knowledge about  specific state and local challenges. The official thought that a better option  may be to hold regional conferences with diverse groups of federal, state,  and local officials so that those who are not up to speed can observe and  learn from those who are. Interestingly, about 84 percent (38 of 45) of the  state officials and nearly 75 percent (53 of 71) of the federal officials who  responded to the question rated the “development of regional or local  educational workshops for relevant officials that are tailored to their  responsibilities” as very or extremely useful, compared to about 67  percent (42 of 63) of the local officials that responded.
Development of lists of policy options for government officials: The  development of lists of “no regrets” actions—actions in which the benefits  exceed the costs under all future climate scenarios—and other potential  adaptation policy options could inform officials about efforts that make  sense to pursue today and are “worth doing anyway.” The  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines a “no regrets” policy  as one that would generate net social and economic benefits irrespective  of whether or not anthropogenic climate change occurs. Such policies  could include energy conservation and efficiency programs or the  construction of green roofs in urban areas to absorb rainwater and  moderate the effects of heat waves.
About 73 percent (133 of 181) of the officials who responded to our  questionnaire rated the “development of lists of ‘no regrets’ actions (i.e.,  actions in which the benefits exceed the costs under all future climate  scenarios)” as either very or extremely useful. The costs of no regrets  strategies may be easier to defend, and proposing such strategies could be  a way to initiate discussions of additional adaptation efforts. Likewise,  about 71 percent (129 of 181) of respondents rated the “development of a  list of potential climate change adaptation policy options” as either very or  extremely useful.
However, several respondents questioned whether national lists of  adaptation options would be useful, noting that adaptation is inherently  local or regional in nature. For example, one federal official said that “it is  unclear that it would be possible to develop a list of actions that truly is no  regrets for all scenarios, all places, and all interested parties.” This view  suggests that adaptation options—“no regrets” or otherwise—may vary  based on the climate impacts observed or projected for different  geographic areas. As stated by one local official, “a national list would  need to collect options from all regions across many sectors to be useful.”
Regarding the prioritization of potential adaptation policy options, about  62 percent (113 of 183) of the respondents rated the “prioritization of  potential climate change adaptation options” as very or extremely useful,  the lowest-rated potential action related to awareness and priorities.  Several respondents were adamant that prioritization should occur at the  local level because of the variability of local impacts, and others said that  federal agencies should assist such efforts, but not direct them. According  to one state official respondent, federal efforts “should recognize and meet  the needs of states and local governments. They should not…dictate  policy.” Interestingly, local officials who responded to our questionnaire  rated prioritization of policy options as more useful than federal or state  officials. Specifically, about 75 percent (47 of 63) of the local officials who  responded to the question said that federal prioritization of potential  climate change adaptation options would be very or extremely useful,  compared to nearly 57 percent (40 of 70) and about 51 percent (24 of 47)  of federal and state officials, respectively.
Public education: About 70 percent (129 of 184) of the respondents rated  the “creation of a campaign to educate the public about climate change  adaptation” as very or extremely useful. A variety of federal, state, and  local programs are trying to fill this void, at least in areas of the country  that are actively addressing adaptation issues. For example, the  Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (partially funded by  NOAA) provides education and training on climate change to the public  and local officials in Maryland. Maryland state officials recently provided  local officials and the public in Somerset County information on the  effects of sea level rise during a workshop. The workshop highlighted the  need to incorporate information about sea level rise in the county’s land  use plans, given that it is expected to inundate a significant part of the  county. In addition, the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group  (CIG)—a program funded under NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and  Assessment program—has been interacting with the public about climate  change issues, including adaptation, for over 10 years, according to  officials we interviewed as part of our site visit to King County,  Washington. Considerable local media coverage of environmental issues  has also assisted with public awareness in King County.
section_title: Federal Actions to Provide and Interpret Site-Specific Information Would Help Officials Implement Adaptation Efforts
paragraphs: Federal actions to provide and interpret site-specific information would  help address challenges associated with adaptation efforts, based on our  analysis of our Web-based questionnaire, site visits, and relevant studies.  Table 6 presents potential federal government actions related to  information as rated by federal, state, and local officials who responded to  our questionnaire. See appendix III for a more detailed summary of  federal, state, and local officials’ responses to our Web-based  questionnaire.
We discuss these potential federal actions below in three general  categories: (1) the development of regional, state, and local climate change  impact and vulnerability assessments; (2) the development of processes  and tools to access, interpret, and apply climate information; and (3) the  creation of a federal service to consolidate and deliver climate information  to decision makers to inform adaptation efforts.
Developing impact and vulnerability assessments: Respondents rated the  “development of state and local climate change impact and vulnerability  assessments” as the most useful action the federal government could take  related to information. The development of regional assessments was also  rated as similarly useful by respondents. Such assessments allow officials  to build adaptation strategies based on the best available knowledge about  regional or local changes and how those changes may affect natural and  human systems. Nearly 94 percent (43 of 46) of the state officials and  about 83 percent (52 of 63) of the local officials who responded to the  question rated the development of state and local climate change impact  and vulnerability assessments as either very or extremely useful,  compared to about 69 percent (49 of 71) of federal officials.
Officials at all of the sites we visited reported relying on impact and  vulnerability assessments to drive policy development and focus on the  most urgent adaptation needs. For example, King County officials told us  that regional climate modeling information provided by CIG was used to  conduct a vulnerability assessment of wastewater treatment facilities in  the county. In addition, Maryland officials said that the state’s coastal  adaptation initiative relied on localized impact and vulnerability  information provided by the Maryland Commission on Climate Change’s  Scientific and Technical Working Group, a stakeholder working group  consisting of scientists and other relevant stakeholders.
Development of processes and tools to help officials use information:  About 80 percent (148 of 185) of respondents rated the “development of  processes and tools to help access, interpret, and apply available climate  information” as very or extremely useful. Even with available regional and  local climate data, officials will need tools to interpret what the data mean  for decision making. For example, CIG told us of the strong need for Web- based decision-making tools to translate climate impacts into information  relevant for decision makers. King County’s Department of Natural  Resources and Parks has developed a tool that uses data generated by CIG  to help wastewater facilities model flooding due to sea level rise and  storms. United Kingdom officials noted that the Climate Impacts  Programme provides similar tools to assist decision makers in the United  Kingdom.
The identification and sharing of best practices from other jurisdictions  could also help meet the information needs of decision makers. Around 80  percent (126 of 157) of respondents rated the “identification and sharing of  best practices” as very or extremely important. Best practices refer to the  processes, practices, and systems identified in organizations that  performed exceptionally well and are widely recognized as improving  performance and efficiency in specific areas. Based on a range of our prior  work, we have found that successfully identifying and applying best  practices can reduce expenses and improve organizational efficiency.  Several officials who responded to our questionnaire said that learning the  best practices of others could be useful in efforts to develop adaptation  programs.
Federal climate service: About 61 percent (107 of 176) of respondents  rated the “creation of a federal service to consolidate and deliver climate  information to decision makers to inform adaptation efforts” as very or  extremely useful. According to two pending bills in Congress that would  establish a National Climate Service within NOAA, its purpose would be to  advance understanding of climate variability and change at the global,  national, and regional levels and support the development of adaptation  and response plans by federal agencies and state, local, and tribal  governments.
Respondents offered a range of potential strengths and weaknesses for  such a service. Several said that a National Climate Service would help  consolidate information and provide a single-information resource for  local officials, and others said that it would be an improvement over the  current ad hoc system. A climate service would avoid duplication and  establish an agreed set of climate information with uniform  methodologies, benchmarks, and metrics for decision making, according  to some officials. According to one federal official, consolidating  scientific, modeling, and analytical expertise and capacity could increase  efficiency. Some officials similarly noted that with such consolidation of  information, individual agencies, states, and local governments would not  have to spend money obtaining climate data for their adaptation efforts.  Others said that it would be advantageous to work from one source of  information instead of different sources of varying quality. Importantly,  some officials said that a National Climate Service would demonstrate a  federal commitment to adaptation and provide a credible voice and  guidance to decision makers.
Other respondents, however, were less enthusiastic. Some voiced  skepticism about whether it was feasible to consolidate climate  information, and others said that such a system would be too rigid and  may get bogged down in lengthy review processes. Furthermore, certain  officials said building such capacity may not be the most effective place to  focus federal efforts because the information needs of decision makers  vary so much by jurisdiction. Several officials noted that climate change is  an issue that requires a multidisciplinary response and a single federal  service may not be able to supply all of the necessary expertise. For  example, one federal official stated that the information needs of Bureau  of Reclamation water managers are quite different from the needs of  Bureau of Land Management rangeland managers, which are different  from the needs of all other resource management agencies and programs.  The official said that it seems highly unlikely that a single federal service  could effectively identify and address the diverse needs of multiple  agencies. Several respondents also said that having one preeminent source  for climate change information and modeling could stifle contrary ideas  and alternative viewpoints. Finally, several officials who responded to our  questionnaire were concerned that a National Climate Service could divert  attention and resources from current adaptation efforts by reinventing  duplicative processes without making use of existing structures.
A recent NRC report recommends that the federal government’s  adaptation efforts should be undertaken through a new integrated  interagency initiative with both service and research elements, but that  such an initiative should not be centralized in a single agency. Doing so,  according to this report, would disrupt existing relationships between  agencies and their constituencies and formalize a separation between the  emerging science of climate response and fundamental research on  climate and the associated biological, social, and economic phenomena.  Furthermore, the report states that a National Climate Service located in a  single agency and modeled on the weather service would by itself be less  than fully effective for meeting the national needs for climate-related  decision support. The NRC report also notes that such a climate service  would not be user-driven and so would likely fall short in providing  needed information, identifying and meeting critical needs for research for  and on decision support, and adapting adequately to changing information  needs.
section_title: Congress and Federal Agencies Could Encourage Adaptation Efforts by Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: Federal actions to clarify the roles and responsibilities for government  agencies could encourage adaptation efforts, based on our analysis of  questionnaire results, site visits, and available studies. Table 7 presents  potential federal actions related to the structure and operation of the  federal government, as rated by the federal, state, and local officials who  responded to our Web-based questionnaire. See appendix III for a more  detailed summary of federal, state, and local officials’ responses to our  Web-based questionnaire.
As discussed below, these potential federal actions can be grouped into  three areas: (1) new national adaptation initiatives, (2) review of programs  that hinder adaptation efforts, and (3) guidance for how to incorporate  adaptation into existing decision-making processes.
New national adaptation initiatives: Our questionnaire results identified  the “development of a national adaptation fund to provide a consistent  funding stream for adaptation activities” as the most useful federal action  related to the structure and operation of the federal government. This  result is not surprising, given that lack of funding was identified as the  greatest challenge to adaptation efforts. One local official said that  “funding for local governments is absolutely required. Local budgets are  tight and require external stimulus for any hope of adaptation strategies to  be implemented.” Several state respondents noted that none of the other  potential policy options are maximally useful unless there is also  consistent funding available to implement them. Overall, about 98 percent  (45 of 46) of state officials and nearly 88 percent (56 of 64) of the local  officials who responded to the question rated the development of a  national adaptation fund to provide a consistent funding stream for  adaptation activities as very or extremely useful, compared to about 71  percent (47 of 66) of federal officials.
About 71 percent (129 of 181) of the officials who responded to our  questionnaire rated the “development of a national adaptation strategy  that defines federal government priorities and responsibilities” as very or  extremely useful. As noted by a federal official who responded to our  questionnaire, the cost of responding to a changing climate will be paid  one way or another—either through ad hoc responses to emergencies or  through a coordinated effort at the federal level guided by the best  foresight and planning afforded by the current science. According to this  official, a strategic approach may cost less than reactive policies in the  long term and could be more effective. Officials we spoke with at our site  visits and officials who responded to our questionnaire said that a  coordinated federal response would also demonstrate a federal  commitment to adaptation.
About 59 percent (107 of 181) of respondents rated the “development of a  climate change extension service to help share and explain available  information” as very or extremely useful. A climate change extension  service could operate in the same way as USDA’s Cooperative State  Research, Education, and Extension Service, with land grant universities  and networks of local or regional offices staffed by experts providing  useful, practical, and research-based information to agricultural  producers, among others. Such a service could be responsible for  educating private citizens, city planners, and others at the local level  whose responsibilities are climate sensitive. For example, Maryland Forest  Service officials noted that the Maryland Cooperative Extension Service  provides training and information on the significance of climate change.  Several respondents cautioned that whatever is done at the federal level  should be consistently and adequately funded.
About 54 percent (89 of 166) of respondents rated as very or extremely  useful the “creation of a centralized government structure to coordinate  adaptation funding.” While some cautioned that such a structure could  limit the flexibility of existing federal, state, and local programs, others  said that there was a need for more coordinated funding. Support for the  idea, however, varied by level of government. Specifically, about 73  percent of the local (41 of 56) and almost 55 percent of the state (23 of 42)  officials that responded to this question rated the “creation of a centralized  federal government structure to coordinate adaptation funding” as either  very or extremely useful, compared to only about 35 percent of the federal  (23 of 65) respondents.
Reviewing programs that hinder adaptation: About 68 percent (122 of  180) of the respondents said it would be very or extremely useful to  systematically review the kind of programs, policies, and practices  discussed earlier in this report that may hinder adaptation efforts. Nearly  75 percent (46 of 61) of the local officials and about 70 percent (32 of 46)  of the state officials who responded to the question rated the “review of  existing programs to identify and modify policies and practices that hinder  adaptation efforts” as very or extremely useful, compared to about 59  percent (41 of 70) of federal officials. One state official urged a review of  both programs and laws, stating that “entrenched practices must be  adapted to new realities.” Our May 2008 report on the economics of  climate change also identified actions that could assist officials in their  efforts to adapt to climate change. Some of the economists surveyed for  that report suggested reforming insurance subsidy programs in areas  vulnerable to natural disasters like hurricanes or flooding. Several noted  that a clear federal role exists for certain sectors, such as water resource  management, which could require additional resources for infrastructure  development, research, and managing federal lands.
Federal, state, and local respondents also pointed to a number of federal  laws as assisting adaptation efforts. For example, multiple officials cited  the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which established a federal  interagency research program to assist the United States and the world to  understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural  processes of global change. Officials from the New York City Panel on  Climate Change credited the 2001 Metro East Coast report issued for  USGCRP with increasing awareness of regional climate change effects,  which led to local government response. Multiple officials also said that  the National Environmental Policy Act could assist adaptation efforts by  incorporating climate change adaptation into the assessment process.  According to CEQ officials, the federal government could provide  adaptation information under the National Environmental Policy Act  provision that directs all federal agencies to make available to states,  counties, municipalities, and others advice and information useful in  restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment.  According to certain officials, the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is  administered by NOAA, could encourage adaptation to climate change at  the state and local levels by allowing states and territories to develop  specific coastal climate change plans or strategies. The state of Maryland  is already using Coastal Zone Management Act programs to assess and  respond to the risk of sea level rise and coastal hazards.
Guidance on how to consider adaptation in existing processes: Nearly 66  percent (118 of 180) of respondents rated the “issuance of guidance,  policies, or procedures on how to incorporate adaptation into existing  policy and management processes” as very or extremely useful. A federal  respondent added that adapting to climate change means integrating  adaptation strategies into the programs that are already ongoing and will  rely upon the networks and institutions that already exist. These  sentiments were echoed in a recent report, which suggested that the  experience of deliberately incorporating climate adaptation into projects  can be very helpful in developing a more systematic approach to  adaptation planning and can serve as a kind of project-based policy  development. Furthermore, this report notes that leading programs  integrate climate change adaptation into overarching policy documents  such as official plans or policies. In the same vein, King County officials  told us they work to “routinize” climate change into planning decisions  and have incorporated climate change into the county’s comprehensive  plan. This plan, among other things, states that “King County should  consider projected impacts of climate change, including more severe  winter flooding, when updating disaster preparedness, levee investment,  and land use plans, as well as development regulations.” Several  respondents cautioned that federal guidance related to adaptation should  be flexible enough to allow state and local governments to adapt their own  approaches.
section_title: Governmentwide Planning and Collaboration Could Assist Adaptation Efforts
paragraphs: Climate change is a complex, interdisciplinary issue with the potential to  affect every sector and level of government operations. Strategic planning  is a way to respond to this governmentwide problem on a governmentwide  scale. Our past work on crosscutting issues suggests that governmentwide  strategic planning can integrate activities that span a wide array of federal,  state, and local entities. Strategic planning can also provide a  comprehensive framework for considering organizational changes, making  resource decisions, and holding officials accountable for achieving real  and sustainable results.
As this report and others demonstrate, some communities and federal  lands are already seeing the effects of climate change, and governments  are beginning to respond. However, as this report also illustrates, the  federal government’s emerging adaptation activities are carried out in an  ad hoc manner and are not well coordinated across federal agencies, let  alone state and local governments. Officials who responded to our  questionnaire at all levels of government said that they face a range of  challenges when considering adaptation efforts, including competing  priorities, lack of site-specific data, and lack of clear roles and  responsibilities. These officials also identified a number of potential  federal actions that they thought could help address these challenges.
Multiple federal agencies, as well as state and local governments, will have  to work together to address these challenges and implement new  initiatives. Yet, our past work on collaboration among federal agencies  suggests that they will face a range of barriers in doing so. Agency  missions may not be mutually reinforcing or may even conflict with each  other, making consensus on strategies and priorities difficult.  Incompatible procedures, processes, data, and computer systems also  hinder collaboration. The resulting patchwork of programs and actions  can waste scarce funds and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal  effort. In addition, many federal programs were designed decades ago to  address earlier challenges, informed by the conditions, technologies,  management models, and organizational structures of past eras. Based on  our prior work, key practices that can help agencies enhance and sustain  their collaborative efforts include   defining and articulating a common outcome;    agreeing on roles and responsibilities;    establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate  identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources; and   developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results.
As we have previously reported, perhaps the single most important  element of successful management improvement initiatives is the  demonstrated commitment of top leaders to change. Top leadership  involvement and clear lines of accountability are critical to overcoming  natural resistance to change, marshalling needed resources, and building  and maintaining the commitment to new ways of doing business.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: A key question for decision makers in both Congress and the  administration is whether to start adapting now or to wait until the effects  of climate change are more obvious and widespread. 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.
Adaptation, however, will require making policy and management  decisions that cut across traditional sectors, issues, and jurisdictional  boundaries. It will mean developing new approaches to match new  realities. Old ways of doing business—such as making decisions based on  the assumed continuation of past climate conditions—will not work in a  world affected by climate change.
Certain state and local authorities on the “front lines” of early adaptation  efforts understand this new reality and are beginning to take action. Our  analysis of these efforts, responses to our questionnaire, and available  studies revealed that federal, state, and local officials face numerous  challenges when considering adaptation efforts. To be effective, federal  efforts to address these challenges must be coordinated and directed  toward a common goal.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of  the President, such as the Council on Environmental Quality and the  Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with relevant  federal agencies, state and local governments, and key congressional  committees of jurisdiction, develop a national strategic plan that will guide  the nation’s efforts to adapt to a changing climate. The plan should, among  other things, (1) define federal priorities related to adaptation; (2) clarify  roles, responsibilities, and working relationships among federal, state, and  local governments; (3) identify mechanisms to increase the capacity of  federal, state, and local agencies to incorporate information about current  and potential climate change impacts into government decision making;  (4) address how resources will be made available to implement the plan;  and (5) build on and integrate ongoing federal planning efforts related to  adaptation.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Council on Environmental Quality  (CEQ), within the Executive Office of the President, for review and  comment. CEQ circulated the report to the climate change adaptation  interagency committee—including representatives from more than 12  agencies—for review and comment. In written comments, CEQ’s Deputy  Associate Director for Climate Change Adaptation generally agreed with  the recommendations of the report, noting that leadership and  coordination is necessary within the federal government to ensure an  effective and appropriate adaptation response and that such coordination  would help to catalyze regional, state, and local activities. These  comments are reproduced in appendix IV. CEQ also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
With regard to the report’s findings, the Deputy Associate Director stated  that CEQ had three main areas of concern. First, CEQ expressed concern  that the relative inexperience of the federal government on adaptation  combined with the methodology used in this report may produce  misleading results. Specifically, the Deputy Associate Director stated that  the report documents the relatively low level of activity within the federal  government on adaptation, suggesting that most federal government  respondents must be relatively inexperienced with adaptation issues. The  Deputy Associate Director further stated that this relative federal  inexperience may call some of our findings into question, citing as an  example that the variability and local nature of adaptation makes a  federally produced list of “no regrets” actions very difficult and possibly of  limited utility. CEQ noted that, while the questionnaire results are an  accurate reflection of the respondents’ thinking, they do not necessarily  paint the best roadmap for federal government action.
We do not agree with the characterization of federal officials as less  experienced with adaptation issues than their state and local counterparts.  As noted in the report scope and methodology (see app. I), we  administered a Web-based questionnaire to a nonprobability sample of 274  federal, state, and local officials who were identified by their organizations  to be knowledgeable about climate change adaptation. The officials who  responded represent a diverse array of disciplines, including planners,  scientists, and public health professionals. In general, the information we  collected with the questionnaire suggests that the federal, state, and local  officials who responded spend similar amounts of time on adaptation- related issues. We found that, in several instances, the state and local  officials who were knowledgeable about adaptation worked very closely  with their federal counterparts. Furthermore, regarding CEQ’s specific  example of federally produced “no regrets” lists, as we point out in this  report, we agree that adaptation actions need to reflect local realities.  However, questionnaire results were never intended to provide a roadmap  specifically for federal activities but instead to describe the views of  federal, state, and local officials on the potential federal actions  (previously cited in available literature) that would be most useful to  them. This information could be helpful when developing a strategy, but  was not intended to be the strategy. We acknowledge that efforts to  pursue these actions would often be collaborative, involving state and  local entities.
Second, CEQ expressed concern that the report confuses the issue of cost- benefit analysis and scientific uncertainty, noting that the report identifies  “justifying current costs with limited information about future benefits” as  a challenge to adaptation policy, although the discussion of this challenge  focuses on the scientific uncertainty inherent in climate projections as the  main stumbling block for cost-benefit analysis. The Deputy Associate  Director also noted that this section of the report did not include other  challenges identified in the questionnaire, such as “understanding costs  and benefits” of adaptive actions, or the challenge of prioritizing  adaptation against other near-term actions and that cost-benefit analysis is  a separate concern to scientific uncertainty.
Although we recognize CEQ’s concern about this section of the report, we  note that the report describes the link between scientific uncertainty and  cost-benefit analysis and that the report describes many challenges other  than scientific uncertainty. Uncertainty, scientific or otherwise, is  generally incorporated into cost-benefit analysis as a best practice. We  also note that the challenges and potential federal actions described in this  report are closely related. As described in the subsequent section, for  example, local impacts must be translated into costs and benefits, since  this information is required for many decision-making processes. Almost  70 percent (126 of 180) of the respondents to our questionnaire rated  “understanding the costs and benefits of adaptation efforts” as very or  extremely challenging.
Finally, CEQ expressed concern that the report does not focus enough on  implementation challenges, stating that the report does not analyze the  primary barriers or challenges to implementation, or make any  recommendations on implementing adaptation. The Deputy Associate  Director acknowledged that planning is critical, but that it does not  guarantee implementation and that implementation challenges are neither  discussed nor developed in the report.
We agree that planning does not guarantee implementation and note that  many of the challenges explored in this report relate to implementation.  However, wide-scale implementation of adaptive actions before deriving a  reasoned plan strikes us as “putting the cart before the horse.” Without  adequate planning at the federal level to chart a roadmap that, among  other things, defines a common outcome and sets roles and  responsibilities, it will be more difficult for multiple federal agencies, as  well as state and local governments to work together to devise, much less  execute, an implementation strategy.
As agreed with your office, 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 Chair of the Council  on Environmental Quality and other interested parties. The report also will  be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@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 major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our review (1) determines what actions, if any, federal, state, local, and  international authorities are taking to adapt to a changing climate; (2)  identifies the challenges, if any, that federal, state, and local officials  reported facing in their efforts to adapt; and (3) identifies actions that  Congress and federal agencies could take to help address these challenges.  We also provide information about our prior work on responding to  similarly complex, interdisciplinary issues.
To determine the actions federal authorities are taking to adapt to climate  change, we obtained summaries of current and planned adaptation-related  efforts from a broad range of federal agencies. Full summaries from  federal agencies are provided in a supplement to this report (see  GAO-10-114SP). We obtained these summaries from the federal agencies  with assistance from the U.S. Global Change Research Program  (USGCRP), formerly the United States Climate Change Science Program.  USGCRP coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the  global environment and their implications for society. USGCRP collected  submissions from 12 of the 13 departments and agencies that participate in  its program (see app. II for more details).
We also obtained a summary of adaptation-related efforts from the Federal  Emergency Management Agency, part of the U.S. Department of Homeland  Security, as a follow up to prior GAO work on climate change and the  Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance  Program. Because the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is not part of  USGCRP, we solicited its submission directly.
Because we wanted to include current federal activities that the agencies  themselves consider to be related to adaptation, we did not modify the  content of these summaries, except to remove references to specific  individuals. We also did not independently confirm the information in the  summaries. In addition, because the request for summaries was made to a  select group of federal agencies, the activities compiled in this report  should not be considered a comprehensive list of all recent and ongoing  climate change adaptation efforts across the federal government.
In addition to gathering summaries, we also conducted an Internet search  to identify other federal, state, or local organizations that are taking action  to adapt to a changing climate. This search also helped to identify  challenges agencies face in their efforts to adapt, as well as actions the  federal government could take, which are relevant to our second and third  objectives. We searched the Web sites of relevant organizations and  agencies, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the  Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the Coastal States Organization,  and federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We also conducted  Internet searches using relevant key words, such as “climate change” and  “climate change adaptation.” We reviewed publicly available English- language documents related to adaptation efforts in the United States and  other countries that we identified through our search.
To address our three objectives, we also conducted 13 open-ended  interviews with a select group of organizations and agencies that are  engaged in climate change adaptation activities. We selected them based  on their level of involvement in the issue of climate change adaptation, as  determined by (1) previous GAO work; (2) scoping interviews (a  “snowball” technique); and (3) our search of the background literature. We  attempted to speak with organizations that are working on climate change  adaptation, as well as those that represent sectors affected by it. We  generally focused on organizations and sectors that are working on this  issue on a national level (rather than just in one city or region) and that  have also worked closely with state and local officials. The organizations  included the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the H. John  Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, ICLEI— Local Governments for Sustainability, and the Nature Conservancy, among  others. In addition, we spoke with two academics who had a long-standing  involvement with climate change issues at the national and international  levels to gather additional background information on the issue. Because  we spoke with a select group of organizations and individuals, we cannot  generalize our results to those we did not interview.
In addition to asking our interviewees about the actions they are taking to  address adaptation, we also asked them to identify other relevant reports  or studies we should include in our work and other agencies or  organizations that are engaged in adaptation activities (part of our  “snowball” technique). We also asked what actions they thought the  federal government and Congress could take to help in their efforts.
To determine the actions federal, state, local, and international authorities  are taking to adapt to a changing climate, we also visited four sites where  government officials are taking actions to adapt. We chose these sites  because they were frequently mentioned in the background literature and  scoping interviews as examples of locations that are implementing climate  change adaptation and which may offer particularly useful insights into  the types of actions governments can take to plan for climate change  impacts. These sites are neither comprehensive nor representative of all  state and local climate change adaptation efforts. They include New York  City; King County, Washington; the state of Maryland; and the United  Kingdom, focusing on the London region. We included an international site  visit to examine how other countries are starting to adapt, and we  specifically selected the United Kingdom because its climate change  adaptation efforts were mentioned frequently in the background literature  and scoping interviews and because it had already begun to implement  these efforts at the national, regional, and local levels. During our site  visits, we gathered information through interviews with officials and  stakeholders, observation of adaptation efforts, and reviewed related  documents. We also followed up with officials after our visits to gather  additional information.
To describe the challenges that federal, state, and local officials face in  their efforts to adapt and the potential actions that Congress and federal  agencies could take to help address these challenges, we administered a  Web-based questionnaire to a nonprobability sample of 274 federal, state,  and local officials who were identified by their organizations to be  knowledgeable about adaptation. To identify relevant potential  respondents, we worked with organizations that represent federal, state,  and local officials. Specifically, we worked with organizations such as  USGCRP (federal), National Association of Clean Air Agencies (state), and  Conference of Mayors (local), among others, and asked them to identify  officials who are knowledgeable about climate change adaptation. These  officials were generally identified through their involvement in climate  change working groups within these organizations, which indicated a level  of interest and knowledge of the issue. The officials were then contacted  by their organization to describe the purpose of our questionnaire and to  ask if they would participate. The names and e-mail addresses of those  who agreed were then provided to GAO. The federal, state, and local  officials who responded represent a diverse array of disciplines, including  planners, scientists, and public health professionals; however, their  responses cannot be generalized to officials who did not complete our  questionnaire.
To develop the questionnaire, information was compiled from background  literature and interviews we conducted with relevant organizations and  officials. Using this information, we developed lists of challenges and  potential actions the federal government could take to address them.
Using closed-ended questions, respondents were asked to rate several  challenges and actions on 5 point Likert scales (the closed-ended  questions are reproduced in app. III). We also included open-ended  questions to give respondents an opportunity to tell us about challenges  and potential federal actions that we did not ask about. Lastly, we  included additional open-ended questions to gather opinions on a small  number of related topics.
Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. However,  the practical difficulties of conducting any questionnaire may introduce  errors, commonly known as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties  in interpreting a particular question, sources of information available to  respondents, or analyzing data can introduce unwanted variability in the  results. We took steps to minimize such nonsampling errors.
For example, social science survey specialists designed the questionnaire  in collaboration with GAO staff who had subject matter expertise. Then,  we sent a draft of the questionnaire to several federal, state, and local  organizations for comment. In addition, we pretested it with local, state,  and federal officials to check that (1) the questions were clear and  unambiguous, (2) terminology was used correctly, (3) the questionnaire  did not place an undue burden on agency officials, and (4) the  questionnaire was comprehensive and unbiased. Based on these steps, we  made necessary corrections and edits before it was administered. When  we analyzed the data, an independent analyst checked all computer  programs. Since this was a Web-based instrument, respondents entered  their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, eliminating the  need to key data into a database, minimizing error.
We developed and administered a Web-based questionnaire accessible  through a secure server. When we completed the final questionnaire,  including content and form, we sent an e-mail announcement of the  questionnaire to our nonprobability sample of 274 federal, state, and local  officials on May 13, 2009. They were notified that the questionnaire was  available online and were given unique passwords and usernames on May  28, 2009. We sent follow-up e-mail messages on June 4, June 8, and June  12, 2009, to those who had not yet responded. Then we contacted the  remaining nonrespondents by telephone to encourage them to complete  the questionnaire online, starting on June 24, 2009. The questionnaire was  available online until July 10, 2009. Questionnaires were completed by 187  officials, for a response rate of about 68 percent. The response rate by  level of government is about 82 percent for federal officials (72 out of 88),  about 90 percent for state officials (47 out of 52), and about 50 percent (65  out of 131) for local officials.
We presented our questionnaire results in six tables in our report, which  show the relative rankings of the challenges and potential actions listed in  our questionnaire based on the percentage of respondents that rated them  very or extremely challenging (for challenges) or very or extremely useful  (for potential actions). Both the challenges and potential actions are  organized into groups related to the following: (1) awareness and  priorities, (2) information, and (3) the structure and operation of the  federal government. Tables showing more detailed summaries of federal,  state, and local officials’ responses to the questionnaire are included in  appendix III.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to October  2009 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Information on Selected Federal Efforts to Adapt to a Changing Climate
paragraphs: We obtained information from 13 selected federal departments and  agencies on their current and planned climate change adaptation efforts.  We present this information in a supplement to this report to provide a  more complete picture of the activities that federal agencies consider to be  related to climate change adaptation than has been available publicly (see  GAO-10-114SP). We obtained this information directly from the agencies  participating in the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Importantly, we did not modify the content of the agency submissions  (except to remove references to named individuals) or assess its validity.  In addition, because this information represents the efforts of a selected  group of federal agencies, the agency activities compiled in the  supplement should not be considered a comprehensive list of all recent  and ongoing climate change adaptation efforts across the federal  government. Any questions about the information presented in the  supplement should be directed to the agencies themselves.
section_title: Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and Local Officials’ Responses to Web-Based Questionnaire
paragraphs: Appendix III: Summary of Federal, State, and  Local Officials’ Responses to Web-Based  Questionnaire (3)
How challenging are each of the following for officials when considering climate change adaptation efforts?
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Steve Elstein (Assistant Director),  Charles Bausell, Keya Chateauneuf, Cindy Gilbert, William Jenkins,  Richard Johnson, Kirsten Lauber, Ty Mitchell, Benjamin Shouse, Jeanette  Soares, Ruth Solomon, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Joseph Thompson made  key contributions to this report. Camille Adebayo, Holly Dye, Anne  Johnson, Carol Kolarik, Jessica Lemke, Micah McMillan, Leah Probst, Jena  Sinkfield, and Cynthia Taylor also made important contributions.