Based on preliminary observations from our ongoing adaptation work for the Select Committee, certain federal, state, local, and international government authorities are beginning to consider and implement climate change adaptation measures. A range of federal activities are underway, including efforts to provide information and guidance to decision makers. Certain federal programs are already helping officials make decisions in response to a changing climate. For example, two programs managed by the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) help policy makers and managers obtain the information they need to adapt to a changing climate. NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments program supports climate change research to meet the needs of decision makers and policy planners at the regional level. 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 Department of the Interior’s (Interior) U.S. Geological Survey and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—also manage programs to provide climate information to decision makers. Federal resource management agencies are also taking steps to adapt to a changing climate. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service developed a strategic framework for responding to climate change that recognizes the need to enhance the capacity of forests and grasslands to adapt. In written testimony at a March 3, 2009 hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, the Chief of the Forest Service stated that dealing with risks and uncertainties introduced or made worse by climate change will need to be a more prominent part of the Forest Service’s management decision processes. Similarly, Interior recognized a number of adaptation-related policy options for land managers in reports produced for its Climate Change Task Force. For example, the task force recognized the need to revise management plans to reflect the effects of predicted climate conditions. Other federal efforts are also attempting to link climate information with the needs of decision makers. The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)—a multi-agency coordinating group that integrates federal research on climate change—is in the process of developing 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. In addition, a recent CCSP report described adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources on federally owned and managed lands. Another example of federal efforts to link climate information with the needs of decision makers is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Climate Ready Estuaries program to develop and implement adaptation strategies in coastal communities. While adaptation is one of many competing priorities for decision makers, certain state, local, and international governments are nonetheless developing and implementing climate change adaptation plans. For example, we just completed a site visit exploring Maryland’s adaptation initiatives. In August 2008, the state issued a comprehensive strategy for reducing its vulnerability to climate change, focusing on sea level rise and coastal storms. The state has completed an extensive mapping effort to identify coastal vulnerability and has begun educating coastal counties about changes that can be made to local ordinances to reduce coastal erosion and increase resilience. Specifically, it provided guidance to three coastal counties recommending changes to planning documents, buildings codes, and local laws to address the risks resulting from sea level rise. Two recent reports by non-government research groups summarize other state and local adaptation planning efforts. As part of our ongoing work for the Select Committee, we plan to further explore the Maryland example and examine additional international, federal, and local adaptation planning and implementation efforts through four more site visits, including the United Kingdom, a federal land management unit, the City of Chicago, and King County, Washington. These site visits will allow us to identify and document how existing adaptation efforts were developed and implemented. Further, site visits will help us identify the information and other needs of decision-makers, how the federal government is addressing these needs, and how these efforts can be improved. Several of our recent reports on climate change illustrate a number of challenges faced by government officials when adapting to a changing climate. Among them, (1) climate change is one of many competing priorities for government officials, (2) a lack of guidance can constrain the ability of officials to consider climate change in management and planning decisions, (3) insufficient site-specific information can reduce the capability of officials to manage the effects of climate change on the resources they oversee, and (4) officials are struggling to make decisions based on projected future climate scenarios that may not reflect past conditions. Our ongoing work for the Select Committee will continue to explore these and other challenges by obtaining information from a broad range of federal, state, and local officials knowledgeable about climate change adaptation. Competing priorities. Our August 2007 report on climate change on federal lands shows how climate change impacts compete for the attention of decision makers with many more immediate priorities. The federal government manages nearly 30 percent of the land in the United States. Three federal agencies within Interior—the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service—and USDA’s Forest Service administer over 90 percent of these lands. NOAA administers Marine Protected Areas. These agencies manage their resources for a variety of purposes related to preservation; recreation; and in some cases, resource use, yet each agency has distinct responsibilities for the resources it administers. The agencies are generally authorized to plan and manage for changes in resource conditions, regardless of the cause that brings about the change. As such, federal resource management agencies are generally authorized but not specifically required to address changes in resource conditions resulting from climate change in their actions and planning efforts. The same report found that the resource management agencies we reviewed did not at that time make climate change a priority, and that the agencies’ strategic plans did not specifically address climate change. Resource managers explained that they had a wide range of responsibilities and that, because none of the agencies designated climate change as a priority, they focused first on near-term activities that they were specifically required to undertake, leaving less time and resources for longer-term issues such as climate change. Resource managers told us that climate change effects were typically not addressed in agency planning activities. Although resource management agencies are now beginning to consider climate change adaptation in planning decisions, this example illustrates how other issues may overshadow climate change adaptation if it is not explicitly designated as a priority. Lack of guidance. Our August 2007 report also noted that 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 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. While these agencies have started to issue guidance to resource managers, this example shows how a lack of guidance can limit efforts to adapt. Lack of site-specific information. Our report also 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, most of the managers’ options for dealing with climate change were limited to reacting to already-observed effects on their units, making it difficult to plan for future changes. Furthermore, these 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 is difficult to determine whether observed changes are within the normal range of variability. Uncertainties in making decisions based on projected future conditions. A recent report by the National Research Council (NRC) shows how officials are struggling to make decisions based on future climate scenarios instead of past climate conditions. According to the report, requested by EPA and NOAA, government agencies, private organizations, and individuals whose futures will be affected by climate change are unprepared both conceptually and practically for meeting the challenges and opportunities it presents. Many of their 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 the NRC, that assumption, fundamental to the ways people and organizations make their choices, is no longer valid. Climate change will create a novel and dynamic decision environment. Our own 2007 climate change-related report on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, which insures properties against flooding, and USDA’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which insures crops against drought or other weather disasters, reached similar conclusions, highlighting how historical information may no longer be a reliable guide for decision making. Among other things, the report contrasted the experience of public and private insurers. Many major private insurers were incorporating some near-term elements of climate change into their risk management practices. In addition, some private insurers were approaching climate change at a strategic level by publishing reports outlining the potential industry-wide impacts and strategies to proactively address the issue.